What's your take on legalizing pot?

[santo=dorf]

Let me start off by saying, I am not a regular pot smoker, but I was thinking of why our government can't legalize and control this stuff. The government had a medical program for pot (which 7 people are still getting grass from the gov) but shut it down right around the "Just say 'NO'" campaign.

 

Is it possible for the government to allow manufacturers to grow pot and sell it like cigarettes along with taxes on the back of the pack? To my understanding Canada allows people to smoke, but they are really hard on growers and people possesing too much. If people are growing their own stuff, they can avoid the taxes and the government can't collect on either the product or the seller.

 

In my ideal situation I would legalize the stuff with the only people being allow to purchase it being 21 year olds, and having to register on an annual basis for a pot smoker card (and charge a $50 or $100 fee. I'm sure that's a small price for pot smokers to pay.) Get really, really tough on people growing their own, and prosecute those who are caught in possesion or smoking it without their registration card. There should also be strict law with smoking and driving, but right now there is no testing in place for DUI's. You give a sample of your blood after being pulled over, it gets tested, 10 days later it comes back, and if you have any pot in your system, you get a DUI. Of course that doesn't prove that the driver was high while driving, so there has to be some new testing in place before trying to legal the stuff. (Ask the driver if he wants some White Castle? )

 

How much money could the government make off of the taxes and how much of the profit of the huge drug dealers could the government cut into?

[Soxy]

I voted yes to legalization, but I think decriminalization is a better option. I think that is the option where the gov't can tax and regulate it. Not sure though. . .

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Soxy @ May 29, 2006 -> 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I voted yes to legalization, but I think decriminalization is a better option. I think that is the option where the gov't can tax and regulate it. Not sure though. . .

Well that's what meant. You can only posses government produced pot. You can't grow your own stuff to smoke or sell.

[EvilMonkey]

I wouldn't have aproblem with it as long as the rules that would be put in place are followed hashly. Underage and caught withpot? Busted, big time. Not the 'free pass' that 16 year old smokers get nowadays. Driving while high/ Busted. Show up to work high? You bet your ass you should be fired. I have never smoked pot, and don't care if you do, as long as it doesn't effect my safety, or that of anyone other than yourself. Maybe White Castle should hire a lobbyist to fight for this?

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ May 29, 2006 -> 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Show up to work high? You bet your ass you should be fired.

Is there currently a law that punishes people by showing up to work drunk (as long as you're of legal drinking age?) I'm not supporting that people whould go to work high or drunk, but that an internal affair that should be handled by employer, not the government.

[EvilMonkey]

Is there currently a law that punishes people by showing up to work drunk (as long as you're of legal drinking age?) I'm not supporting that people whould go to work high or drunk, but that an internal affair that should be handled by employer, not the government.

You are right, that is usually handled by the employer. But in granting it 'legal status', it also need to have an illegal status, such as the 'while impared' laws. That gives employers the ability to let someone go who is impared and have leverage on their side should the employee decide to fight it for some reason.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't understand, if our government is so concerned with protecting other people's money, why don't they let the tobacco companies grow marijuana and sell it? It protects the profit, which seems to be our main governmental motivator lately, allows the government to strictly regulate its content, and gives us the ability to not make every Joe Potsmoker have a criminal record unless they do something stupid like DWI on weed.

[southsideirish71]

Laws would have to change as far as testing if a driver is impaired. Currently if a driver is considered under the influence, the officer performs a field sobriety test. If the driver fails that test, the person has to submit to a breathalizer. If they refuse they get nailed usually in court and on their driver privileges. Now after a person fails a sobriety test, how do you mandate that the person gives a urine sample or blood test. Every lawyer in the ACLU will throw a s*** fit if you do that.

[Rex Kickass]

They do that now in a lot of states. In New Jersey, you are given the option of breathalyzer or a blood test and there is no problem with it. If you refuse the breathalyzer, you're given a blood test.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I voted yes to legalization, but I think decriminalization is a better option. I think that is the option where the gov't can tax and regulate it. Not sure though. . .

 

 

Mari-jim-wana's baaaaaaaaaaad mmmmmkay!!!

 

 

Seriously though, Im in favor of community service and levying fines on recreational users who get busted. It's just too petty an offense in my eye to warrant jail time.

[Mplssoxfan]

I partake about once a year, if that. I think the Gov't wastes too much time and money dealing with pot smokers. Obviously, you shouldn't drive while stoned, but if you're sitting at home enjoying the evening, who are you hurting?

 

I honestly wonder how many of the men and women who serve in Congress have smoked pot. I'd be willing to bet some of them have more recently than I have.