I don't see why not. It is no more harmful than alcohol. But I believe the same consequences should occur for those who overindulge, just as there are with alcohol.

I used to be against it, but now I'm in favor of legalization - for much the same reason as I came around to being in favor of us "going over the fiscal cliff":

Sometimes the only way a problem is fixed is for the people to learn its consequences THE HARD WAY.

Those of us who are parents know all about it. We try to spare our children the pain/suffering/aggravation of making the same mistakes we did and learning things the hard way. Some times - and some of them - just won't do it our way. So they have to get burned to know that the stove is actually hot.

So I say legalize it; tax the manure out of it; and let society experience - for better or worse - its effects. The endless debate and vascillation has solved nothing. "Just Say No" has solved nothing. Criminal prosecution has solved nothing. People are doing it anyway. I say let a generation or two experience its effects legally, and then we'll find out whether it leads to a big increase in hard drug abuse or causes cancer like tobacco products do.

If we end up with a nation of paranoid, cancer-ridden, "happy" people who giggle a lot and continuously have the munchies - we can deal with it then. (But we might discover that we've increased the obesity rate in this country by about 50%.)

If they did legalize it, I think it would hurt the drug cartel. I don't see any harm it that!

I too think it would hurt the drug cartel.

That in my opinion is one of the main reasons for legalization.

The pot farms in Mexico would cease to be profitable.

Mexican authorities could then better direct their efforts at stopping the traffic of cocaine into their borders from South America.

The money generated from the manufacture and sale of pot would become part of the GNP (nowadays GDP) and the potential tax revenue would be huge.

We could stop spending the huge sums on enforcement and punishment.

Let the medical community have a greater hand in the consideration of the use of it.

Puff, Puff, Give...

How much have we spent on the War on Drugs, which includes marijuana? Yes, I'm of the generation that consumed/smoked its way through university. The university I attended in Canada was the source of the largest study of "educated" drug users at the time The Ladaine Commission (1972)...

I cannot disagree with a single thing that is said above, it's time to take the profit from the criminals and give it to the tax digest and along the way create jobs because there is more to the growing of marijuana than getting a high. Hemp is a very valuable commodity.

"Don't Bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me. You've been handing on to it, and I sure would like a hit."

Leglalize it, educate about it, and tax the hell out of it.

TOT, I have to disagree. I have seen no evidence that the market for marijuana would impact the GDP. And even if did, why on earth would you consider transferring more wealth from the private sector to govt. So they can take money to educate us? Please God, spare me from that boring nonsense. Don't legalize, decriminalize.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TlBTP...

Enjoyed listening to Tom Petty once again.

Hud, The market is there now only it is not properly reflected in the GDP because it is underground.

If it were legal and taxed I believe it could in fact become more affordable even if it was taxed as much as fifty percent of the purchase price.

And it would create many jobs.

And from my perspective it would make the underworld less powerful therefore making it easier to rid this country of the trafficking of the supply of cocaine.

As Graeme pointed out hemp is a very valuable commodity.

For many other uses than smoking.

Nationally it could become a huge payroll and give gainful employment to many of our unemployed.

I too find the thought of transferring more wealth from the private sector to the government to be distasteful.

But that's a bitter pill that I think we need to swallow as a nation.

So that we can move on to a better tomorrow.

Gotta tell ya it is interesting when you compare Alchohol to Hemp. Wacky weed has proven medicinal qualites as well as industrial. Booze has one purpose, drink, drank, drunk. Alchohol related deaths, violence, injuries are astronomical. Yet we find this to be a lesser evil. Furthermore, booze is just as much if not more of a gateway drug. we need to get over ourselves and give something else a try.

The moral of the story?

"...I'm a picker, I'm a grinner
I'm a lover and I'm a sinner
I play my music in the sun

I'm a joker, I'm a smoker
I'm a midnight toker
I sure don't want to hurt no one

People keep talking about me, baby
They say I'm doin' you wrong
Well, don't you worry, don't worry
No, don't worry, mama, 'cause I'm right here at home"

Two states have voted to legalize. Several have recognized medical use. The Oboma justice dept. will still kick your door down over a joint. Can't a brother get a break.

We need to convey our thoughts discretely to our local elected officials.

I've been told that the North Carolina State Department of Agriculture is gradually preparing to legalize the cultivation of marijuana for export to states where is is legal for medical purposes.

The great agricultural state of Georgia needs to prepare for something similar.

Let's all start to encourage our elected members of the Legislature to at least give this some consideration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/p...

After a little thought, I am not sure it needs to become a new bumber crop. Reason being it will encourage higher(no pun intended) use. I say decriminalize and go from there to see if a significant demand follows

I think marijuana is safer than some of the meds doctor's is prescribing like Oxycontin and so forth.

That is right Sheran. And...Oxy can KILL you. I have never heard of anyone dying form ODing on mary jane.

Check this out! Sounds as if the drug cartel is getting worried...

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news...

Nice article. I still say: LEGALIZE THEM ALL, EDUCATE-TREAT, AND TAX THEM TO HIGH HEAVEN.

Truth be known, I could leave my house right now and be back within 20 minutes with several rocks of crack. That is considerable quicker and many times lest costlier than waiting in line for legit drugs and paying for them.

THE WAR AGAINST DRUGS IS OVER. DRUGS WON.

You say the war against drugs is over, yet you insist on running back into the fray with a drug education battle plan. Half the war on drugs is already education. It's a tremendous budget and a colossal failure (although the meth billboards are pretty cool).

I am in favor of the legalization of and regulation of marijuana.

The effects of using pot can replace numerous legal and more costly drugs.

It can be produced here and could give gainful employment to gardeners and farmers.

The regulation and taxation could generate a substantial revenue stream.

What legal drug could crack possibly replace?

Hudat1: not sure what you mean bout declaring the war on drugs is over but running back into the fray with a drug education battle?

Listen, people smoke tobacco, drink alcohol and sometimes drive and indulge in various other endeavors. We warn them about the dangers of doing all those things yet they still do it even after being educated about the consequences.

I say give the farmers another cash crop to grow and sell, put some folks back to work, start some factories to roll the joints thus decreasing some unemployment and then tax the living hell out of the finished product.

Prohibition failed. The war on Drugs failed. Finished. Over. Game Set Match.

P.S. The Meth Boards are cool in a Jerry Springer kind of way, BUT the labs are still making the stuff and by all accounts it too is spreading.

Lets take this 'negative' and turn it into a positive.

I'm not sure you want to legalize ALL drugs and do it like Ron Paul says and "put WHATEVER you want in your body." Human beings are reckless by nature and more often than not have to learn things THE HARD WAY. There has to be some common sense to inhibit the self-destructive nature of our children and the intellectually challenged, doesn't there?

I agree with Jimmy Mack 99.9% on his last post. If drugs are legalized the Feds could bring in more revenue. Legalizing drugs will also lower crime and save children lives by keeping them off the streets by selling the drugs illegally. For example here is an article from the Daily Sundial on 11/09/09 explaining in detail how California is already earning 14B a year from marijuana and could receive around 1.5-4B more revenue by taxing it. The Sundial also said the country spends around 68B a year on prisoners and 1/6th of those charged are Marijuana related which would save the taxpayer another 11B. The additional revenue could be used to treat the abusers and with drugs legalized the government can enforce the same laws as DWI and DUI and the acronyms would be Driving While Drugged (DWD) and Driving under Drugs (DUD). We would receive the same warnings on our products like they do on cigarettes and alcohol; BTW I’m having a screwdriver and Miller High Life Beer “Old Original as I type this comment.” I believe most people are responsible enough to manage their own lives and of course we should support a safety net for those who don’t or cannot. Here is Chris Tucker and Ice Cube in a scene from Friday and a song featuring James Ambrose Johnson Jr. (AKA) Rick James called Mary Jane an all-time weed song favorite from 1978:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0dG3V...

And here’s Rick James himself in a music video, may he rest in peace Sunrise February 1, 1948 to Sunset August 6, 2004. I just graduated high school on June 10, 1978 and was a 17 year old pot smoking knucklehead back in the day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JKOO...

I’m in love with Mary Jane, she’s my main thing
She makes me feel alright, she makes my heart sing
And when I’m feeling low, she comes as no surprise
Turns me on with her love, takes me to paradise
Do you love me Mary Jane, yeah
Oh ,oh, oh, do you ,do you, do you, do you, do you, do you
Now do you think you love me Mary Jane
Don’t you play no games

'potential tax revenue would be huge' (
TOT), 'tax the manure out of it' (seb), tax the hell out of it' (JimmyMack). Why? Can any one of you tax and spend liberals describe a government program that needs this revenue bonanza you all discovered.

Our deficit needs to be reduced by whatever means are out there.

I don't think there will be many other opportunities to find a revenue stream with the potential that home grown American marijuana could quickly generate.

The consumer could enjoy the Liberty of worry free purchase and even if the government taxed it at a rate of fifty per cent the cost would be no more than the price demanded by the underworld currently.

I could (if it were legal) grow it for less than ten per cent of the street level price today.

I'd be happy to do so and give the stuff away for free.

Hud any government program needs to be paid for.

We are presently paying for about half of our expenditures with borrowed funds.

Let's suppose our new marijuana profits for the first year come in. 1 billion, 2 billion, a trillion? What do you honestly think our government would do with the money.

HuDhat1 commented on Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 at 23:31 PM
'potential tax revenue would be huge' (
TOT), 'tax the manure out of it' (seb), tax the hell out of it' (JimmyMack). Why? Can any one of you tax and spend liberals describe a government program that needs this revenue bonanza you all discovered.

HuDhat1 commented on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 at 07:43 AM
Let's suppose our new marijuana profits for the first year come in. 1 billion, 2 billion, a trillion? What do you honestly think our government would do with the money.

HuDhat1, the Congress needs to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would ensure transparency and prevent the Feds from wasting our hard earned money. The focus of this blog is whether or not legalizing pot or even drugs entirely would be good or bad; most of us agree that the Feds spend too much already.
What say you?

Most of us apparently don't agree the govt. spends too much money because we are hijacking a civil liberties issue and salivating at the amount of money we can derive from it. I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of said substance.

Most of us on this blog do;sometimes our meanings are not conveyed properly. That's why I asked "What say you" for clarification.

Hudat1: "What do you do with the money...?" Well we could start with paying down the deficit. Creating jobs by growing it, selling it, and packaging it. Funding Education. Disaster recoveries, etc. etc.

...and up grading our infrastructure, railroads, buy us some more satellites, study Cancer and other diseases. Heck man. We could do a lot with all that money.

To create a brand new source of production and employment is more important than the bitterness of sholdering the load of the tax burden to the producer.

Every time a brand new source of production is created in this country are we to tax it at confiscatory rates.

Ever since they started trying to impose a tax on Henry Ford that seems to have been our government's reaction.

I've heard that Mr Ford resisted for a time.

Don't know if that is in fact true.

I too resent the imposition of another tax, however there will be few opportunities with the potential benefits of this particular issue.

And now the money is being extracted from the country and because it is illegal it is being directed to the underworld and doesn't reflect in the GDP

That same money could become part of the GDP.

.

I think it could be grown and processed within our border and even with a heavy tax burden it could become available without the fear of prosecution.

The cost to the consumer would certainly be no more than it is presently and might even be less.

Even with the tax on it.

Therefore I see it as a good thing.

"'potential tax revenue would be huge' (
TOT), 'tax the manure out of it' (seb), tax the hell out of it' (JimmyMack). Why? Can any one of you tax and spend liberals describe a government program that needs this revenue bonanza you all discovered."

Anyone who calls me a "tax and spend liberal" hasn't been reading my posts. I know they are often sanctimonious, pontificating fluff which go on and on and on and on, I don't think there's anything IN FAVOR of "tax and spend" in any of them.

In this case - I AM all in favor of the TAX part. But I'd use the money to balance the budget and pay down the federal debt. I wouldn't use a penny for new programs or to subsidize any part of the welfare state. I am not aware of a single government program that needs ANY revenue bonanza. I am on record here as recommending that they ALL BE CUT - defense, social security, welfare, etc., - CUT THEM ALL. And not just a cut in the "growth increase." I'm in favor of real, base-line cuts. And I'd use the base-line for each program for about 10 years ago. I wouldn't even increase for inflation going forward - UNTIL the budget is balanced and we are on a definite downward path to federal deficit elimination.

First Hudat1, Funk ain't no liberal like me. He is a level headed small L libertarian type who put people like me in their place from time to time.

I understand you possibly think that just having some cannibis and maybe growing some for your self or sell to friends is maybe where you are coming from without government involvment. However, Marijuana is consumed on a much larger scale and has the potential to monetarily enhance an economy. By confiscatory you mean seize control and turn it over to the public treasury you are correct to a point. Mary Jane is an intoxicant and would need FDA involvement regarding quality and distributiion issues. That part is true. But the rest of the story would lead to dollars for the unwashed masses that are not there and are presently in the hands of narco-terrorists whom we would take the money away from.

In short: We would need government regulation and yes that would involve to a degree confiscatory... TAXATION but not total ELIMINATION.

Taxes are a bitch but this bitch needs to be rode by the Feds. And like the cartels now running the show, the Feds would get their cut of the action. Not all of it like the drug runners presently do.

By confiscatory I mean taxing that exceeds the burden a product imposes on the market or society. An exponential sin tax if you will. I support marijuana 'coming in from the cold' and realize the benefits of a legal marketplace. The largest impact on our economy, I beleive will come from downsizing our bloated drug/law enforcment/prison jobs program. And I am happy to settle for that.

Yes, yes and yes.

Thank you all very much.

I left out Bro Sebe 'being a tax and spend liberal...'

He, like Funk and Up2, make up those that are in the SANE camp. I don't think they are in the liberal camp, per se. I ain't saying that I'm really insane. At least I don't think so right now. But I do know what I am.

I am sometimes an out of control, psychotropicly medicated idiotic fool that on occasion gets kicked out of places like this and also fired as an op-ed writer for the Courier for literary malfeaseance.

Go read my profile. I can literally ring the death knell to pleasant gatherings just by showing up. Some folks that I have known in the past have cancelled their get togethers when word got out that I would be in attendence. I'm not lying. I usually get the same trite excuses like..."well Jimmy we decided to put everything off for a while" or "my grandmother just died...." even tho I know she passed away years before.

Besides that, I'm really a pretty nice guy that is tolerated by a select few.

Un, huh you are.

Maybe it,s uh huh anyway it,s positive.

Let's move on to other matters for now.

But lets continue to try to get our officials to assist legalization.

Thank you one and all for your participation in this discussion.

TOT