Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

New revenue streams

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New revenue streams

    Some news out about the new legalized, taxed, and regulated marijuana trade.
    Keep in mind this is only for 20 states plus DC, where medical marjuana is legal and/or marijuana is taxed like alcohol.


    Pump billions into the economy, away from black marketeers, put less people in jail therefore losing less revenue both on expenditures (33k/yr/prisoner) and collections (prisoners don't hold jobs and don't pay taxes)? Yes please!

    "The report predicts that 14 more states will legalize marijuana for recreational adult use in the next five years, creating a potential $10.2 billion cannabis market by 2018"

    That is still not all 50 states. It makes a compelling argument simply from an economic standpoint, to say nothing of the constitutional liberties involved, don't you think?

    Marijuana Market Poised To Grow Faster Than Smartphones

  • #2
    Re: New revenue streams

    No.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: New revenue streams

      Originally posted by Good1 View Post
      No.
      Care to explain?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: New revenue streams

        Here, I'll head off your "social ills" argument at the pass!

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/op...ohol.html?_r=0

        But they'll be high all the time + they'll be high driving + they'll just use all drugs more all wrapped into one nifty link.

        Mark Anderson of Montana State University and Daniel Rees of the University of Colorado at Denver — report that legalization of marijuana for medical purposes has been associated with reductions in heavy drinking, especially among 18- to 29-year-olds, and with an almost 5 percent decrease in beer sales. In addition, the increase in the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 seems to encourage greater marijuana use among people under 21, usage that drops sharply when they reach the legal drinking age.

        If marijuana is widely legalized for recreational purposes (only Washington State and Colorado have taken that step), the consequences are far from clear. But assuming the argument that alcohol and marijuana are “substitutes” bears out, that could be good news, especially for road safety. Of the two substances, alcohol is far more hazardous.

        For the most part, marijuana-intoxicated drivers show only modest impairments on road tests. Several studies have suggested that drivers under the influence of marijuana actually overestimate their impairment. They slow down and increase their following distance. The opposite is true of drivers under the influence of alcohol.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: New revenue streams

          Good to hear. We need is a few more examples of a decreasing "war on drugs" cost, decreasing incarceration costs, decreasing Police State mentality for this to take. Eventually replaced with decreasing crime rates and revenues for the States.

          It will take time but it will be a huge economic and social benefit to not lead the world in incarceration rates per capita over this useless war.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: New revenue streams

            Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
            Good to hear. We need is a few more examples of a decreasing "war on drugs" cost, decreasing incarceration costs, decreasing Police State mentality for this to take. Eventually replaced with decreasing crime rates and revenues for the States.

            It will take time but it will be a huge economic and social benefit to not lead the world in incarceration rates per capita over this useless war.
            When you imprison more of your own populace than communist china, or russia under PUTIN etc. THAT'S when you know you're doin something wrong.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: New revenue streams

              Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
              Good to hear. We need is a few more examples of a decreasing "war on drugs" cost, decreasing incarceration costs, decreasing Police State mentality for this to take. Eventually replaced with decreasing crime rates and revenues for the States.

              It will take time but it will be a huge economic and social benefit to not lead the world in incarceration rates per capita over this useless war.
              I'm no accountant or I'd try to parse the figures myself.
              This is a site put up by a harvard professor of economics. He did an indepth report. It is quite long and involved. There are links a plenty to various sources. Its a long document so I'll hit some of the highlights, including a summary at the end. He includes in his discussion how he arrives at all his figures. I encourage you to examine that yourself. Realize that these numbers are predicated on some assumptions in demand staying the same after legalization (portugal's and amsterdam's exp would be that USE rates go DOWN so pad accordingly) as well as figures from the early 2000's on both use, price, etc. This is pre-state full legalization. Numbers are quite similar though.
              The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition | Cost of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis

              Highlights:

              The budgetary implications of legalization exceed those of decriminalization for three reasons.[1] First, legalization eliminates arrests for trafficking in addition to eliminating arrests for possession. Second, legalization saves prosecutorial, judicial, and incarceration expenses; these savings are minimal in the case of decriminalization. Third, legalization allows taxation of marijuana production and sale. - See more at: The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition | Cost of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis

              This report concludes that marijuana legalization would reduce government expenditure by $7.7 billion annually. Marijuana legalization would also generate tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco - See more at: The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition | Cost of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis

              .
              This implies a net savings of criminal justice resources from marijuana legalization of $5.0 billion in 2000. Adjusting for inflation implies savings of $5.3 billion in 2003.[13] [14] [15] - See more at: The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition | Cost of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis
              Adjusting for inflation implies federal expenditure for enforcement of marijuana prohibition of $2.4 billion in 2003.[21] - See more at: The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition | Cost of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis
              A more modest excise tax, such as one that raises the price 50%, would produce revenue on legalized marijuana of $6.2 billion per year. - See more at: The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition | Cost of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis



              V. Summary

              This report has estimated the budgetary implications of legalizing marijuana and taxing and regulating it like other goods. According to the calculations here, legalization would reduce government expenditure by $5.3 billion at the state and local level and by $2.4 billion at the federal level. In addition, marijuana legalization would generate tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.

              - See more at: The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition | Cost of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: New revenue streams

                Originally posted by reality View Post
                Care to explain?
                No explanation really needed: You asked a question ("It makes a compelling argument simply from an economic standpoint, to say nothing of the constitutional liberties involved, don't you think?)

                To which I responded "no."

                However, I suppose you're asking why I don't think it makes a compelling argument simply from an economic standpoint to say nothing of the Constitutional Liberties involved. SO, in answer to that question, No, I do not think it makes a compelling argument because the economies involved are not the only argument and, so, it cannot possibly be that simple.

                The Constitutional Liberties argument: There is nothing in the Constitution that stipulates a person has any right to consume drugs listed by the U.S. Government as a controlled substance. Now, if the U.S. declassified Cannibis from their controlled substances, THEN, you might have an argument that someone's liberty is being violated if they are barred from such consumption. But that argument is premature until such declassification occurs.

                The Economic argument: As stated above, this argument is mostly accurate, however, part of the above includes "...Pump billions into the economy, away from black marketeers." I do not believe the underground marijuana economy has in any way been stifled, even (or especially) in those states currently allowing the medicinal (or recreational) use of the herb. As long as you want to charge a tax on the sales of marijuana (which is a foundational component of this economic argument), there will be an underground distribution network because, regardless of how low the price of legal marijuana can go, the underground can always undersell them because 1) they have 100% control over their price and 2) they will not be charging tax on their sales... UNLESS you can show that in states like California, underground sales of marijuana has diminished significantly as legal sales have increased.

                The Health argument:
                1. Regular cannabis use that starts in adolescence strips away IQ, a NIDA-supported 25-year study of 1,000 individuals suggests.


                2. Short-term effects of marijuana use include a euphoric high, increased heart rate, impaired motor skills/coordination, impaired concentration, disorientation, increased appetite, and difficulty in thinking and problem solving. Long-term effects of marijuana use include some of the respiratory problems that are usually experienced by those individuals who smoke tobacco, such as emphysema. Marijuana may contain up to 50 percent more carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) than are found in tobacco smoke. Some of the adverse effects of marijuana use include lung infections, greater risk of obstructed airways, and more frequent acute chest illnesses.

                3. That's why marijuana can have wide-ranging effects, including:
                Impaired short-term memory. Marijuana use can make it hard to learn and retain information, particularly complex tasks.
                Slowed reaction time and impaired motor coordination. It can throw off athletic performance, impair driving skills and increase risk of injuries.
                Altered judgment and decision making. Experts say this can contribute to high-risk sexual behaviors that could lead to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
                Increased heart rate. It can jump by 20% to 100%, which may increase the risk of heart attack, especially in otherwise vulnerable individuals.
                Altered mood. In some, marijuana can induce euphoria or calmness; in high doses it can cause anxiety and paranoid
                4. Marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing substances, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Some research shows that marijuana smoke has up to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke, it says.

                So, again, "no," I do not think it presents a compelling argument at all.
                Last edited by DavidSF; 11-04-2013, 11:40 AM.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: New revenue streams

                  But what happens to the prison free market?
                  There will be collateral damage.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: New revenue streams

                    No where in any of that is a prediction of lost productivity and economic activity.

                    Also missing is the tax revenue increase semi promised by the thread title.

                    Also missing is any reference to increased 'hard drug' use... mostly because against all rational thought those pushing pot insist that it is not a gateway drug when most of the rest of the world knows that it tends to be.

                    Lastly... and this is a classic liberal mistake... there is no mention of what all the newly 'unemployed' pot dealers are going to do, including the criminal gangs that bring it in. Not wanting to peaceably go out of business, they will find something else to push... likely harder drugs. Thus again, we'd see an increase in hard drug usage.

                    Of course just what we need... more unintended consequences!

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: New revenue streams

                      I could easily go for legalizing drugs if I didn't have to pay for their healthcare when they OD, hurt someone else, or become lazy and dependant on the rest of us.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: New revenue streams

                        Originally posted by Texan View Post
                        I could easily go for legalizing drugs if I didn't have to pay for their healthcare when they OD, hurt someone else, or become lazy and dependant on the rest of us.
                        Alcohol can be just as bad if not worse.

                        Back to Good1

                        Other than the respiration problems that are associated most if not all that you stated under the health issue happens with alcohol.

                        NOW

                        How Hemp Oil Cures Cancer And Why No One Knows | Alternative

                        Hemp which is marijuana can cure cancer. They have had many documented cases.

                        Here is a big pro/con page for both sides of the brain on marijuana argument.

                        From a logical standpoint, I cannot understand how anyone could go from mild, relaxed happy feeling to say Cocaine. They are polar opposites in regards to what they do to you.

                        If you like to drive Sunday sedate on the road, you are not about to put the pedal to the metal except in rare instances. I have also in over 3 decades of being aware and around pot smokers to find someone who takes a few hits getting upset and angry enough to actually want to fight. Now Alcohol many people will have no problem getting a gun and blowing your face off for singing off key to Karaoke.

                        Tax the shot out of pot cigarettes no problem. It will bring in cash.

                        BTW just to make it clear.

                        HEMP is MARIJUANA. Just two names for the same plant and we know there are tons of products from hemp including a fast reproducing effective source of burnable materials to produce electricity.

                        The Fairwater Hemp Company producing electricity with hemp, prior to 1920 | Jay Selthofner

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: New revenue streams

                          Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                          No explanation really needed: You asked a question ("It makes a compelling argument simply from an economic standpoint, to say nothing of the constitutional liberties involved, don't you think?)

                          To which I responded "no."

                          However, I suppose you're asking why I don't think it makes a compelling argument simply from an economic standpoint to say nothing of the Constitutional Liberties involved. SO, in answer to that question, No, I do not think it makes a compelling argument because the economies involved are not the only argument and, so, it cannot possibly be that simple.

                          The Constitutional Liberties argument: There is nothing in the Constitution that stipulates a person has any right to consume drugs listed by the U.S. Government as a controlled substance. Now, if the U.S. declassified Cannibis from their controlled substances, THEN, you might have an argument that someone's liberty is being violated if they are barred from such consumption. But that argument is premature until such declassification occurs.

                          The Economic argument: As stated above, this argument is mostly accurate, however, part of the above includes "...Pump billions into the economy, away from black marketeers." I do not believe the underground marijuana economy has in any way been stifled, even (or especially) in those states currently allowing the medicinal (or recreational) use of the herb. As long as you want to charge a tax on the sales of marijuana (which is a foundational component of this economic argument), there will be an underground distribution network because, regardless of how low the price of legal marijuana can go, the underground can always undersell them because 1) they have 100% control over their price and 2) they will not be charging tax on their sales... UNLESS you can show that in states like California, underground sales of marijuana has diminished significantly as legal sales have increased.

                          The Health argument:
                          1. Regular cannabis use that starts in adolescence strips away IQ, a NIDA-supported 25-year study of 1,000 individuals suggests.


                          2. Short-term effects of marijuana use include a euphoric high, increased heart rate, impaired motor skills/coordination, impaired concentration, disorientation, increased appetite, and difficulty in thinking and problem solving. Long-term effects of marijuana use include some of the respiratory problems that are usually experienced by those individuals who smoke tobacco, such as emphysema. Marijuana may contain up to 50 percent more carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) than are found in tobacco smoke. Some of the adverse effects of marijuana use include lung infections, greater risk of obstructed airways, and more frequent acute chest illnesses.

                          3. That's why marijuana can have wide-ranging effects, including:
                          Impaired short-term memory. Marijuana use can make it hard to learn and retain information, particularly complex tasks.
                          Slowed reaction time and impaired motor coordination. It can throw off athletic performance, impair driving skills and increase risk of injuries.
                          Altered judgment and decision making. Experts say this can contribute to high-risk sexual behaviors that could lead to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
                          Increased heart rate. It can jump by 20% to 100%, which may increase the risk of heart attack, especially in otherwise vulnerable individuals.
                          Altered mood. In some, marijuana can induce euphoria or calmness; in high doses it can cause anxiety and paranoid
                          4. Marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing substances, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Some research shows that marijuana smoke has up to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke, it says.

                          So, again, "no," I do not think it presents a compelling argument at all.
                          Seeing as how this is a discussion forum, I did not think it necessary to ask you for your specific thoughts on the matter. I shall henceforth be more proper in all my discussions with you, as you apparently need to be led about by the hand like a small child.

                          Civil Liberty: I have a right to privacy. Part of that right being that I have a natural sovereignty over my own body so long as I am harming no others with a compelling interest on my body. You have NO compelling interest in keeping me from using pot. How can I say this? Because you have no compelling interest in keeping me from using alcohol or tobacco or fast food either. So no, I don't have to wait on the government to repeal an unconstitutional law and GIVE me the right, when I've already GOT it and THEY are the ones abusing their authority.

                          Economic argument: Read the link I put up. The one to the harvard economist. If you HAD read it you would've caught the bit about the price in places like amsterdam DECLINING because a legal market with competition in it produces things more cheaply and distributes them more efficiently with no risk of incarceration, thus driving the cost DOWN even WITH the tax, even one as high as tobacco's or alcohol's. Capitalism, gotta love it
                          Why do you think the mooshiner market is so small? Yes it exists, but there is very little in the way of profit vs risk to attract the droves and droves that run wholly illegal black markets rather than tax evasive grey markets. A simple history lesson on alcohol prohibition would've taught you that.

                          Health: 1st link: Adolescence being defined in that study as UNDER 18. No one here has advocated that people under 18 be allowed to smoke pot or that people that sell to minors should not be prosecuted. Just like when they sell cigarettes or alcohol to them. Or cough syrup for that matter. More than that: From your own link "In fact, whereas individuals who were dependent on cannabis before age 18 and in a total of 3 or more assessments lost 8 IQ points, on average, individuals who developed dependence as adults did not exhibit IQ declines in relation to their cannabis dependence.""
                          Ruh roh your link doesn't support your theory You should read it before you post it Not only that but fluoride in your water drops your IQ a few points. I don't hear you campaigning against that

                          Link 2: Lung Cancer not only debunked, but THC KILLS cancer cells. Not just debunked but dead wrong, as usual.
                          "Our pooled results showed no significant association between the intensity, duration, or cumulative consumption of cannabis smoke and the risk of lung cancer overall or in never smokers. "
                          OASIS
                          Article: Cannabis can CURE CANCER - cheaply and without getting you high
                          With the full text of the study cited in said article : Enhancing the Activity of Cannabidiol and Other Cannabinoids In Vitro Through Modifications to Drug Combinations and Treatment Schedules All you have to do is register to the site so they can send you ads.
                          If you don't feel like doing that, here is another study: Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows



                          Link 3:From your link: "And, yes, marijuana is addictive, adds Baler. According to the NIDA, about nine percent of people who use marijuana become dependent on it. The number increases to about 1 in 6 among those who start using it at a young age, and to 25% to 50% among daily users." Holy shit. Some form of psychoactive you use daily could be *gasps* addictive!?!?!?!?!??! You mean like alcohol nicotine or caffeine? DUM DUM DUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
                          OMG! It also leads to risky sexual behaviors!!!? You mean.... LIKE ALCOHOL?
                          OMG! It leads to impaired motor skills!?!?!?!?!??! You mean.... LIKE ALCOHOL?
                          OMG! It leads to an impaired memory while intoxicated? You mean like....... ALCOHOL?!?!!
                          OMG! It has associated health risks!!! You mean like........ ALCOHOL or TOBACCO or CAFFEINE!?!?!?!


                          Link 4: See link 2 where I completely eviscerate your ridiculously ignorant position. And that IS what the hold up is here: You are ignorant of the facts. Glad I could help you learn!



                          FACT: Portugal legalized and their use rates went DOWN by HALF. 50%. They legalized ALL drugs. ALL OF THEM. And their USE rates went DOWN by HALF! No other nation can claim that no matter how much money or what totalitarian laws were in place. Not only that but drug dealers don't ask for ID. Want to help choke off the supply that would go to illegal users (underage etc)? LEGALIZE so they have to be CARDED in most places that will sell it (because as alcohol prohibition taught us, most people WOULD rather do it legally and that INCLUDES PRODUCERS) and you can use this remaining apparatus of enforcement to crack down on the people that evade taxation and sell to minors. You know...... like the ATF does with the remaining moonshine business.


                          I eagerly await your response.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: New revenue streams

                            Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                            No where in any of that is a prediction of lost productivity and economic activity.

                            Also missing is the tax revenue increase semi promised by the thread title.

                            Also missing is any reference to increased 'hard drug' use... mostly because against all rational thought those pushing pot insist that it is not a gateway drug when most of the rest of the world knows that it tends to be.

                            Lastly... and this is a classic liberal mistake... there is no mention of what all the newly 'unemployed' pot dealers are going to do, including the criminal gangs that bring it in. Not wanting to peaceably go out of business, they will find something else to push... likely harder drugs. Thus again, we'd see an increase in hard drug usage.

                            Of course just what we need... more unintended consequences!
                            You think that supposed "loss of productivity" would equal half our prison pop being drug related and all the lost revenue we waste on enforcement spending that doesn't solve the problem or even curtail it?


                            Ahh you missed it! This is why you should READ
                            Post #7 this thread, my post.
                            The relevant portion: "legalization would reduce government expenditure by $5.3 billion at the state and local level and by $2.4 billion at the federal level. In addition, marijuana legalization would generate tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.
                            "

                            6.2 billion at tobacco/alcohol rate + 5.3bil saved state/local + 2.4 bil saved at fed level = 13.9bil total new funds/saved old funds
                            Say you keep the same apparatus at the same level to deal with the remaining black marketeers that's still 6.2billion that WAS LEAVING the country that is now STAYING in the country AND going to honest tax paying citizens. Farmers have a new cash crop. Small business investors have a new tact.
                            Hard drug use: If portugal is any indication FULLY legalizing ALL drugs = drop in use rates by 50%. Which is better than the war on drugs EVER could boast. Food for thought.
                            What are all these unemployed pot dealers gonna go do? well they're going to get themselves a big crack rock and a pistol and start selling that. Couldn't be that they might open their own pot growing/dealing business could it!? I mean look at what all those speakeasy owners did after alcohol prohibition ended!!! They started selling crack to unwed teenage mothers while kicking puppies and riding behind time travelled nazi zombies on skeletal dinosaurs through streets that had suddenly become filled with lava and widows and orphans!!!!

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: New revenue streams

                              Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                              Good to hear. We need is a few more examples of a decreasing "war on drugs" cost, decreasing incarceration costs, decreasing Police State mentality for this to take. Eventually replaced with decreasing crime rates and revenues for the States.

                              It will take time but it will be a huge economic and social benefit to not lead the world in incarceration rates per capita over this useless war.
                              You got that right!

                              The most unintelligent thing ever done by this gov't was declaring a war on the American people, called the war on drugs.

                              But boy are you gonna have police departments and all of those that profit from drugs being a crime raise hell! Of course they are simply looking out for their own self interest, as they make their living from pot being illegal.

                              And of course you have those people who insist on telling others what they can and cannot consume, and there are still plenty of them around to raise cane. These people don't believe in each of us owning our own bodies. They insist that they, or they State has ownership.

                              Personally, if my own grown kids wanted to get high, I would rather they consume some pot instead of alcohol. No one has ever died from an overdose of pot. It is the only mind altering substance that is this safe to use. I hear in Colorado you can even buy a pot vaporizer, like these new electronic cigarettes so you don't have to inhale smoke. I bet that really upsets the people who are against it because it is traditionally smoked, like tobacco.

                              It is way past the time to develop some intelligence on this emotional issue. And the anti pot people remind me of the college town in which I attended college. You could not buy beer, it was illegal for stores to sell it. Each time the vote would come up to legalize it, all of these churches would band together to keep it illegal. One of their arguments was they did not want to go grocery shopping and have to step over drunks, passed out in the aisle. LOL. Well, they finally did legalize it, and these people didn't have to worry about their unfounded fears. Lots of unfounded fears in regards to pot from this same class of people.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X