NY Times article 'How to legalize pot'

[Gunky]

www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/opinion/keller-how-to-legalize-pot.html?ref=opinion

I reject the government paternalism implicit in a lot of the arguments in this article. The government doesn't make policy about homing in on the proper price point for liquor so as to discourage excess consumption, that I know of, anyway. Why should it do that for cannabis?

 

[goatgobaahh]

Glad thats a opinion piece.

I should write a opinion piece too. Like why our PRESIDENT has ADMITTED TO BEING A POTHEAD.

Said he doesnt give two shits about personal recreational use. Yet, its still a schedule 1 drug and illegal almost everywhere.

 

[Tweek]

Glad thats a opinion piece.

I should write a opinion piece too. Like why our PRESIDENT has ADMITTED TO BEING A POTHEAD.

Said he doesnt give two shits about personal recreational use. Yet, its still a schedule 1 drug and illegal almost everywhere.

That's because the president has a whole whack of other rich and powerful people to appease.

 

[way2]

You read my mind Tweak! It's all about the almighty dollar!!

 

[satyrday]

That's because the president has a whole whack of other rich and powerful people to appease.

He's going to be poor little boy without a soul if he doesn't stick his head up above his handlers.

 

[djonkoman]

The government doesn't make policy about homing in on the proper price point for liquor so as to discourage excess consumption, that I know of, anyway.

really? here in the netherlands we have extra-high taxes on stuff like alcohol, called accijns, meant to discourage drinking. I don't really know how high those taxes are for alcohol, but I read somewhere that for cigarettes about 65% of the price is accijns(maybe higher now, I think tobaccotaxes have gone up this year, I don't smoke tobacco so I don't really keep track of it)
and there's also accijns on gasoline(another thing I never buy)

it's still possible to buy cheap beer for 40-50 cents or so for a half-litre can though, so I doubt that it really discourages alcohol abuse

I think the main result of such taxes on weed would be that already expensive weed will get even more expensive, and that some big commercial farms will appear that produce big quantities of low quality to fill the mainstream market, so instead of the price going up the quality just will go down(except on the high end, wich will likely be a smaller specialist market)

 

[satyrday]

really? here in the netherlands we have extra-high taxes on stuff like alcohol, called accijns, meant to discourage drinking. I don't really know how high those taxes are for alcohol, but I read somewhere that for cigarettes about 65% of the price is accijns(maybe higher now, I think tobaccotaxes have gone up this year, I don't smoke tobacco so I don't really keep track of it)
and there's also accijns on gasoline(another thing I never buy)

it's still possible to buy cheap beer for 40-50 cents or so for a half-litre can though, so I doubt that it really discourages alcohol abuse

I think the main result of such taxes on weed would be that already expensive weed will get even more expensive, and that some big commercial farms will appear that produce big quantities of low quality to fill the mainstream market, so instead of the price going up the quality just will go down(except on the high end, wich will likely be a smaller specialist market)

Here in the U.S. too. Called a "sin tax". Or "tax on the poor" in many cases.

 

[max]

He's going to be poor little boy without a soul if he doesn't stick his head up above his handlers.

If he was concerned about that he wouldn't have gone into politics. If you're a politician and want to change anything, you have to play the game. Those who refuse to play according to 'the rules' don't get the ball passed to them. I've been working amongst 'the clowns' for 20 years. The system stays the same.

 

[pakalolo]

Or "tax on the poor" in many cases.

Those cases would be wrong. Rich and poor alike pay those taxes. The proper term is "regressive", i.e. they impose a greater burden on the poor.

 

[satyrday]

Those cases would be wrong. Rich and poor alike pay those taxes. The proper term is "regressive", i.e. they impose a greater burden on the poor.

The rich are technically taxed, but for them it is not a tax that really taxes (their pocketbook, i.e. they hardly feel it). So yes, a greater burden on the poor.

 

[satyrday]

If he was concerned about that he wouldn't have gone into politics. If you're a politician and want to change anything, you have to play the game. Those who refuse to play according to 'the rules' don't get the ball passed to them. I've been working amongst 'the clowns' for 20 years. The system stays the same.

I keep hoping for a leader who tells the truth and acts with pure integrity, but then I wouldn't call him a politician, because for one thing he probably wouldn't be considered "polite"! You're right, this government has been the wrong place to look for that.

 

[max]

The system has evolved into a complicated machine, and the entrenched power players want to keep it that way.

Legalization on a national level is complicated too, and people are afraid to open Pandora's Box. It'll happen eventually though. You can see increased acceptance of cannabis use pretty much everywhere.

 

[Gunky]

I really cannot understand the Holder justice dept. First they say they won't go after individual consumers. So tacit acceptance that consumption is here to stay. But then they start busting the dispensaries supplying those individual consumers like the billy-o! Under 100 plants and they wink a jaundiced eye, but more than that and you are making too much money out of this so off to jail? It doesn't even make sense except as half-assed rationalizations for continuing a war on drugs because some interests find that lucrative.

 

[satyrday]

I really cannot understand the Holder justice dept. First they say they won't go after individual consumers. So tacit acceptance that consumption is here to stay. But then they start busting the dispensaries supplying those individual consumers like the billy-o! Under 100 plants and they wink a jaundiced eye, but more than that and you are making too much money out of this so off to jail? It doesn't even make sense except as half-assed rationalizations for continuing a war on drugs because some interests find that lucrative.

The federal justice department's job is to uphold federal laws. They don't like state or local laws that make a mockery of federal laws, and some of these dispensaries may be a little too flamboyant? Or more conservative local governments (like OC) side more with the feds than the state on this issue, so welcome in the federal storm troopers? The politics get complicated, and campaign promises are as good as campaign promises.