Paul13
Chronic Pothead
Joined: Nov 16, 2005
Posts: 464
Location: New Zealand
|
 Some logic from the U$A Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:31 pm |
 |
|
From cannabisnews.com
Prohibition Failing: Legalizing Could Be Tax Boon
Posted by CN Staff on January 06, 2008 at 13:13:22 PT
By Dan Linn, Special To The Register Star
Source: Rockford Register Star
Illinois -- Are people really afraid of legalizing marijuana? I cannot understand why it is such a crazy idea to let people consume cannabis. People can get drunk all they want, and humanity keeps moving right along. Of course, there was a time when the country outlawed alcohol consumption, and that failed miserably. Sure Al Capone enjoyed the lucrative aspect of alcohol prohibition, but that prohibition failed and cannabis prohibition has failed for the same reasons.
Abuse of cannabis is detrimental, but there is a difference between use and abuse.
Most people who use cannabis are responsible and have a job, just like those who use alcohol. If cannabis were regulated like alcohol, there would still be cannabis abuse like there is alcohol abuse, but how bad could cannabis abuse really be for society?
I doubt that fast-food chains and pantry stores would be getting held up for munchies or that youngsters would pawn their iPods for water bongs, but are those images what is so frightening about legalizing it?
The biggest concern about a taxed and regulated market for cannabis is how to enforce driving sobriety issues. People should not drive impaired by any substance. If they do they are endangering others, thereby breaking the law, and should be punished accordingly.
For most teenagers it is easier to get cannabis than alcohol because dealers don’t card, so making the cannabis market a taxable legal market would actually prevent access to cannabis by children. Plus, why is the government concerned about “sending the right message to children”? Shouldn’t that be the parents’ duty and responsibility? Adult cannabis use should not be illegal in an effort to “send the right message,” and a legal cannabis market would have age restrictions and penalties for those who supply children with cannabis.
Maintaining cannabis prohibition because of its addictive qualities is a flawed argument as well. Cannabis has been shown to be less addictive than alcohol and nicotine in a study done for the NIDA in 1994 by Jack E. Henningfield.
The study noted the dependence, tolerance and withdrawal levels of cannabis were lower than those of alcohol and nicotine.
Prohibitionists face the problem that cannabis use is not as bad as they have been portraying, and more and more studies are being released documenting the medical benefits of cannabis. Any concerns about “smoking” medicine can quickly be dismissed by the use of vaporizers and ingesting cannabis. Plus, if smoking cannabis is so harmful, then why aren’t there widespread cases of lung cancer among cannabis users?
Cannabis has not one documented fatal overdose, which cannot be said about many over-the-counter drugs found in most homes.
Cannabis use is still common despite being against the law, and more than 97 million Americans admit to having tried it, according to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. This is proof that cannabis prohibition is not working, and regulating and taxing cannabis is a better option. Cannabis users are probably the only segment of the population that actually wants higher taxes!
These cannabis consumers would rather pay a tax on their habit and purchase it legally than risk arrest, and with government budgets stretched thin, how can we afford to keep losing this potential source of tax revenue? A recent study by Jon Gettman, Ph.D., “Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws,” estimates that marijuana in the U.S. is a $113 billion industry annually and that American taxpayers are losing a total of $41 billion toward enforcement of marijuana laws and lost potential tax revenue.
Alcohol prohibition did not work, and cannabis prohibition is not working either.
Are we really afraid of the hippies, stoners and potheads of the world? If not, then we should stop locking them up and wasting tax dollars and police officers’ time. After all, it’s supposed to be a free country, right?
Dan Linn of Sycamore is executive director of Illinois NORML.
Complete Title: Marijuana: Prohibition Failing; Legalizing Could Be Tax Boon
Source: Rockford Register Star (IL)
Author: Dan Linn, Special To The Register Star
Published: January 6, 2008
Copyright: 2008 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Website: http://www.rrstar.com/
Contact: http://www.rrstar.com/contact
Illinois NORML
http://www.illinoisnorml.org/
CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #11 posted by Celaya on January 07, 2008 at 00:22:57 PT
From The Sublime To The Monstrous
It's great to see journalists stating the truth we have been sending out for years.
Chomsky is a brilliant intellectual, and can be hard to follow. Try reading him in small doses, and Google references you may not have heard of before. Some works are easier than others. Try one of his short books on line at this great website: http://www.chomsky.info/books.htm
For something really scary, check out "Thinking For Yourself Is Now A Crime" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19002.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by Dankhank on January 06, 2008 at 21:57:13 PT
something different ...
Glen Beck seems to have had a life-changing episode in the bowels of the American Medical Establishment.
Might be interesting to catch his show tomorrow ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX1rLv_hNeI&eurl=http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/beck_surgery_goes_horribly_awry_74231.asp
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by rchandar on January 06, 2008 at 20:12:36 PT:
Yanxor
Irritatingly enough, there isn't. What that means is that the vast majority of proles in today's society take the "War on Drugs" to be the "truth," to be uniformly "acceptable," and somehow "unquestionable." The groundwork was laid in the Reagan years: the notion that cannabis was "bad," "destructive", "harmful" was established in film, in social conversations, in analogies as to what "reefer" was like or what it "did" to you.
Yes, you will be able to find, past NIDA and other anti-drug sites, thousands of pages devoted to research, case studies, rationalizations, and summaries of MJ's "psychoactive" effects and to local communities, manufacturing and distribution, and even assessments of those who would legalize MJ. 100% of them are predicated on the belief (not the "truth") that "drugs" are "bad", that they "destroy lives and families," and that "drug users" "don't care" about their families, their friends, their community. We are, rhetorically speaking, completely deprived of a voice in expressing the good things and the policy value of a liberalized marijuana policy. The music of today is far less aggressive in attacking the "War on Drugs" than it was 25 years ago, or even 10 or 15 years ago: hip-hop, metal, and even rock n' roll have backed away from moral interrogations of policy: where they were critical of everything in the Reaganite view a few years ago, most people on the street today "admit" that "drugs are bullshit". The pop music industry churns out artist after artist who do not really vindicate youth, sexuality, freedom: they present a transitory world that ends in, "see, I told you so."
There was a groundswell in the 90s, for example: Jay-Z, Cypress Hill, Sean Combs, Alice In Chains, Pantera, really the list went on and on. But today's versions of both hip-hop and grunge repeat dealer-user exploitations, objectify women, and assemble almost no political critique worthy of "fighting" anything. The 80s was pretty remarkable too: Talking Heads, Prince, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Sting, Grandmaster Flash. These were people who attacked the cultural purifications of the Drug War.
The Bush years, to quote an old friend of mine from then, "ain't even cool, guy."
rchandar
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by FoM on January 06, 2008 at 17:58:27 PT
runruff
The love of money can be a very bad thing. It creates what we have now. Money isn't the problem but the obsession with it and not sharing at all with those who help make a company or individual wealthy. No person can become rich without people working for them and we shouldn't ever forget these people if we become wealthy. I never became wealthy but when I had employees they were paid very well.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by runruff on January 06, 2008 at 17:46:14 PT:
Understanding Noam?
FoM,
Noam is a high-ranking respected member of the 200 club. His IQ is reputed to be over 200. I don't claim to know everything he's talking about either. Sometimes I just get the gist of it and feeling lucky at that. He Is a very bright man and has a lot of understanding.
I think what he meant by saying," there is no need to tell our readers the truth they already know the truth."
He means that on issues that may necessarily benefit society as a whole may not necessarily benefit those who have investments otherwise. Current laws in place. that if they were removed, might threaten their status quo. So he's saying that these leaders, people in politics,law enforcement, religious leaders, even the moguls of industry, while they may know the truth they will argue against the truth, stand against the truth, even manipulate the truth, to keep change from happening. These are people who are quite comfortable, even dependent upon the status quo.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by FoM on January 06, 2008 at 17:27:45 PT
runruff
I looked up Noam Chomsky and I didn't understand what he was trying to say. I tried to figure him out a number of years ago but I didn't understand back then either. I am watching the Republican debate and I don't understand it either. I see good ideas with Democrats and Republicans but neither Party fits me so that is why I am an Independent. I guess I will be a Democrat after I vote in my states Primary but I can re-register as an Independent after the election in November is over. I think serious change is the only way to save our country because we are turing into a Fascist nation and I don't use that word lightly.
http://crosbycpr.com/content/TOURS/2004/news_text/austinSermon.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by runruff on January 06, 2008 at 16:48:36 PT:
Noam Chomsky
"There is no need to tell our leaders the truth, they already know the truth."
I know I've said it before many times but look, we know why a certin powerful segment in our society holds on to these draconian prohibition laws.
They hear the truth many ways, many times, from many sources. It is my feeling that they just scoff at us. We can bitch, moan, suffer in our collective pain. All the while we are forced to foot the bill through our other draconian system [taxes] to pay for our own demise.
Which brings me to one of my other favorite slogans: who pays the piper call the tune.
We need change. If we don't get change we will become no better off under an oligarchy than the Soviets were under Stalin.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by Richard Zuckerman on January 06, 2008 at 16:40:30 PT:
RON PAUL'S LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN IDEOLOGY
Have you people watched the Presidential Debates on Channel 7? Ron Paul argued for spending cuts and for restrictions on making currency out of thin air for more borrowing.
Have you people ever questioned why it is so difficult for Americans to finance secondary education, while the financing of secondary education in other countries is paid for by their government? Does it surprise you people why Americans are being sold out by the people of those countries whose government pays for their secondary education? Don't the people of this country DESERVE to be sold out by those other countries because the voters in this country CONTINUE to vote for the same parties who have sunk this country into near bankrupcy??? And the voter apathy continues!! One would expect voter behaviors to change after having noticed that after voting for 30 years we have not progressed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ron Paul is my choice! But, as President Richard Nixon once said during a telephone conversation in the Oval Office: "The Cattle will never know." You watch as the Cattle flock to the election polls and vote for the Bilderbergs, e.g., U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine; Council On Foreign Relations members John Edwards, the wife of U.S. Senator Obama, Congressman David Dreier [who stated around 2002 that he wants to break the back of the pot decriminalization movement using "Gestapo tactics"), Congressman Donald Payne (of New Jersey); Trilateralists U.S. Senator John "Jay" Rockefeller, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. THE CATTLE WILL VOTE FOR MEMEBERS OF THESE SECRET ORGANIZATIONS AND PROBABLY NOT INFORM THEIR CHILDREN ABOUT THE TREASONOUS ORGANIZATIONS. RON PAUL DOES NOT BELONG TO ANY OF THESE SECRET ORGANIZATIONS! HIS VOTING RECORD THRU TEN TERMS IN CONGRESS SPEAKS OF HIS CONCERN FOR AMERICAN IDEALS. www.RONPAUL2008.COM. THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS IS STILL EVIL!
The spirit of www.prohibitioncosts.org will not be realized while people vote for the police state. Police are an unconstitutional standing army, as described on the web article entitled "ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?", which you can download easily by typing "ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?" into any major search engine. As long as you people vote for more police, more laws, more spending, we will continue to be bankrupted for a United Nations takeover and radical restriction on our individual freedoms!!
The U.S. Supreme Court told me via telephone this past Friday that the oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court on the District Of Columbia v. Heller, on the scope of the U.S. Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, will not be scheduled until after around January 15, 2008. I WANT TO PERSONALLY ATTEND AND CLOSELY WATCH THIS PARTICULAR U.S. SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENT! I CONSIDER THIS APPEAL TO BE CRUCIAL IN OUR LIFETIME! AN EDITORIAL WRITTEN WITHIN THE PAST THREE WEEKS IN THE NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL NEWSPAPER CONCLUDES THE PRESENT HISTORY DOES NOT WARRANT A FINDING OF AN INDIVIDUAL SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, PERHAPS THE OLD EVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT INTERPRETATION. An article in www.amren.com describes threatening graffiti desecration of Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Connecticut by illegal alien gang known as MS 13 containing the words "Kill Whites". Considering the number of murders of Americans by illegal aliens, www.operationbodycount.com, considering the high crime rate in big cities, there is indeed an evolving need to find an individual Right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution!!! www.jpfo.org; www.gunowners.org. You can best believe the United Nations wants to take away your Right to keep and bear arms!
AFTER THIS APPEAL, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI TO DECIDE WHETHER TO OVERRULE SPARF AND HANSEN V. UNITED STATES, A CASE FROM 1895, THE LAST TIME THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TOOK A CASE ON WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IS REQUIRED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT THEY MAY CONSIDER THE LAW AS WELL AS THE FACTS IN DETERMINING THEIR VERDICT. The New Jersey Supreme Court case of State v. Ragland, 105 N.J. (1985) made a comment that they know so little about the jury nullification power that they are unable to discern it to the fullest extent; But since State v. Ragland, literature has come out concluding most juries are not aware of their power to decide the law as well as the facts and that the judges SHOULD instruct the jury of their law-finding function! One such law review authority was written by U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein, (E.D. N.Y.). Another one, perhaps the most interesting, was written by David N. Dorfman, Assistant Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law, White Plains, New York.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by OverwhelmSam on January 06, 2008 at 14:54:41 PT
Yanxor
The prohibitionists are passionate enough to become District Attorneys, Elected Officials, and Law Enforcement Officials so that they can ensure prohibition against the will of the people. I would feel a lot better about it if they just did their job and got out of activism against marijuana legalization. As it is, we are forced in the political arena to ensure that these hard core hate mongers don't get re-elected. Even now, people are questioning the hell out of the Presidential Candidates.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 06, 2008 at 14:21:47 PT
Yanxor
I really don't know but maybe someone does.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by Yanxor on January 06, 2008 at 14:16:52 PT
wow
Well argued
Know what, I wonder if there is an "anticannabisnews.com" or something where prohibitionists have forums discussing the news relating to cannabis (wonder how they would trash the above article) - probably not, prohibitionists arent as passionate I suppose.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment
Name: Password:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL:
Link Title:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Main Menu
So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!
This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on January 06, 2008 at 13:13:22 |
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
