Legalized
- Thread starter camily
- Start date
Dougstermd
ORGASM DONOR
Why do you think they call it the Mile High City?camily said:
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
I'm a conservative, if you couldn't tell 
, and I would have voted for it. I would rather legalize it and tax the hell out of it than spend all the wasted dollars trying to fight it. This applies to marijuana, which is less dangerous IMHO than alcohol, and does not apply to harder, deadly drugs.
Heck, I bet we could get a couple billion in taxes, at least. Probably more. Let says 10% of the population or less smokes it (26 million to be conservative). Lets say we tax a unit (we will say an average weeks supply equals a unit) at $5. That would be $260/yr times 26 million which makes $6.75 billion approximately. Now, I imagine the reduced cost for a unit being produced by industry would be cheaper than a unit now by up to 40% -- so you could probably be taxing $20-$30 a unit and they aren't going to give a crap because they can wander to the store and pick it up without worry now. I also imagine that the use rate is probably higher than that (no s***, eh?). So, we could be talking $50-100 billion a year in income plus billions saved on prosecuting them. Besides, we could more easily identify who we don't want to hire or keep around because they will be more open with it.
Now to translate for the other audience:
Stoner 1: "Dude!"
Stoner 2: "Awesome, DUDE!"
Stoner 1: "Duuuudddee! Ganj all day!"
Stoner 2: "I know, Dude!"
Stoner 1: "Sweeeeeet!"
, and I would have voted for it. I would rather legalize it and tax the hell out of it than spend all the wasted dollars trying to fight it. This applies to marijuana, which is less dangerous IMHO than alcohol, and does not apply to harder, deadly drugs. Heck, I bet we could get a couple billion in taxes, at least. Probably more. Let says 10% of the population or less smokes it (26 million to be conservative). Lets say we tax a unit (we will say an average weeks supply equals a unit) at $5. That would be $260/yr times 26 million which makes $6.75 billion approximately. Now, I imagine the reduced cost for a unit being produced by industry would be cheaper than a unit now by up to 40% -- so you could probably be taxing $20-$30 a unit and they aren't going to give a crap because they can wander to the store and pick it up without worry now. I also imagine that the use rate is probably higher than that (no s***, eh?). So, we could be talking $50-100 billion a year in income plus billions saved on prosecuting them. Besides, we could more easily identify who we don't want to hire or keep around because they will be more open with it.
Now to translate for the other audience:
Stoner 1: "Dude!"
Stoner 2: "Awesome, DUDE!"
Stoner 1: "Duuuudddee! Ganj all day!"
Stoner 2: "I know, Dude!"
Stoner 1: "Sweeeeeet!"
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
camily said:I completely agree (). Just for weed though. It would be great if you could go to 7-11 and get a pack of Doobie Light 100's! Tax the hell out of it and watch the money roll in.
You can smoke it, I don't need it. However, I would love to move some of the tax burden from us more productive members of society to the less productive. You can't argue its regressive because its a sin tax. You only pay if you use.
thakidistight
Wanker
ylexot said:Also, the snack food industry in CO is going to skyrocket! Buy stock in Dominos!
From Half Baked
Brian: "Get some sour cream and onion chips, and some dip man, and some beef jerky, and some peanut butter. Get some Haggen Daz ice cream bars, a whole lot of Ha..., make sure chocolate, gotta have chocolate man, some popcorn,pink popcorn, graham crackers, graham crackers with marshmallows, the little marshmallows, the little chocolate bars. We'll make some smores man."
Scarface: "Yeah, that's what I'm saying yo!"
Brian: "Also celery, grape jelly, uh Captain Crunch with the little crunch berries, pizzas. We need two big pizzas man, with everything on them, with water, a whole lot of water, and funions, yeah."
Kenny: "Is that all?"
Brian: "Yeah."
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
camily said:
Yes, less productive.
camily said:
No.
camily said:
1) That is unproven
2) We are talking pot... if you want to argue for coke use, you go right ahead. Be a winner!
3) If it did happen, it was history. It is not happening now. We are talking about those using, not those that have used.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
camily said:
First, you used Bush and coke as an example. Therefore, you were bringing coke in as if people who use coke are just as productive. Now...
So, you want to argue that you take a representative sample of pot smokers and another representative non-pot smokers and the pot smokers are going to be just as productive? No. Just because you think you are just as productive, doesn't make it so.
I can show you pre-teens that are more productive than many of us on here. However, that doesn't mean preteens are more productive as a rule. It just means there are some who are. I can also show you non-pot smokers who haven't been productive a day in their life, but that does not mean non-pot smokers are less productive as a rule. Don't let an outlier here and there fool you into thinking you can make a misguided argument like pot smokers are just as productive.
P.S. Bush also doesn't drink anymore. Again, your argument is flawed by not talking about productivity with a current user.