Legalize, Decriminalize, don't tax, don't regulate

Discussion in 'Politics' started by devinpetroff, Oct 26, 2012.

  1. devinpetroff

    devinpetroff New Member

    Isn't the hemp tax stamp what started all this trouble?

    Any libertarians agree with me?

    Don't tax it
    Don't regulate it
    Don't use it to expand the scope of the State!
  2. Pro Kush

    Pro Kush New Member

    Make it legal to grow for your own consumption!
  3. friedfever

    friedfever New Member

    Why not tax it? I don't see anything wrong with taxing it. Everything else gets taxed, why not weed.
    And they can regulate it as well, just as long as I have access.
    Here's my problem with people like you. Nothing gets accomplished when people like you make all these ridiculous demands that won't work in the real world. So keep muddying the waters and make sure nothing gets accomplished OR STFU and let those with legitimate and acceptable ideas plead their case.
  4. Buzzby

    Buzzby Buddhist Curmudgeon

    Marijuana will never be legalized if it's not regulated. There are far too many parents out there who don't want their kids buying weed over the counter at 7-11.

    The best approach is to treat it exactly as we do alcohol. It's a tried-and-true system that has held up well over many decades.
    2 people like this.
  5. devinpetroff

    devinpetroff New Member

    Q: Why not tax it?
    A: How efficient has the government been? Didn't the whole problem start with a hemp stamp tax?

    No regulation is a problem?

    Please tell me more about how we would all keel over and die unless the government regulates a plant that grows out of God's green earth.

  6. Buzzby

    Buzzby Buddhist Curmudgeon

    No one has suggested that we'd all keel over and die. It's a matter of practicality. If we ever want to see legalization, it will have to come with regulation because that's the only way the public and the lawmakers will allow it to happen. Every other commodity is regulated. Why should cannabis be the exception?

    You can hold out until you get exactly what you want (never) or you can compromise and actually get something in the near future.

    Cannabis is the doorway to Doritos!
    2 people like this.
  7. devinpetroff

    devinpetroff New Member


    Of course legalization/taxation/regulation is preferable to all-out prohibition. Regarding regulation this is a complex issue, for example 'rules' vs. federal regulation is a perfectly valid argument. For example, the company you work for has rules, but does not demand tax money by force.

    Regarding stopping 10 year old's from consuming it, there are parents, rules that store owners could adopt since they want the business of their parents/community - lots of options that don't involve forced regulation from the state. This is a broad issue, perhaps outside the scope of this discussion, but not invalid.

    In any case it is a political debate, I would appreciate it if you not make personal remarks about my signature - that's just plain rude and not very mature.

  8. Buzzby

    Buzzby Buddhist Curmudgeon

    The point which you've failed to address is that the voters and the representatives would never pass a legalization bill that did not include safeguards in the form of regulations.

    Cannabis is the Devil's Weed! (It must be true. I saw it in a movie. ;) )
  9. friedfever

    friedfever New Member

    Did you listen to your parents?

    The doorway to nothing.
  10. Yana Usdi

    Yana Usdi Dogs best friend

    In short, no. A more complete look at the history of not just marijuana prohibition but drug prohibition in the US in general can be found at The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States but in short the tax stamp was nothing more than a ploy and was never intended to allow possession, or to bring in tax revenues.

    In the debates over alcohol it was found that to make it illegal required a Constitutional amendment which was passed leading to prohibition. That was a spectacular fail as we all know. It was generally held at the time that the same held true for pot or others of the sort, you couldn't just make the illegal without an amendment and nobody wanted to try that again after prohibition. But they could tax it. So what they did was to create a stamp. It was illegal to possess pot without the stamp but to get the stamp you already had to possess the amount of pot you wanted the stamp for. A catch-22, no reasonable legal way to possess it at all. Over the decades we got used to it and eventually decided that we could just make it illegal after all. Which is why I tend to fight ANY exceptions to rights or protections under the law, I've seen it too many times.

    Once you accept an exception, even for a "good cause", it becomes easier to expand that exception for less worthy causes, or to forget about the prohibition against doing something totally. Police dogs should not be allowed to search the inside of a car from the outside, as technology advances other means of looking (or listening) from the outside become more effective and we've already got a precedent. Either a citizen has rights or they don't, once you allow for indefinite detention, torture, or other violations in the name of a war on terror it becomes easier to deprive us of other rights for other reasons, and we damned well shouldn't torture. Anyone, ever. Go along with it against a group or a cause you don't like and you'll find it used against something you do like eventually as well. The police state we see today, the fact that we're the most imprisoned nation in the world both per capita and in raw terms, the invasive domestic security, is a DIRECT result of the fact that we were willing to allow for drug war exceptions decades ago. Once we stop protecting a right for everyone, it's secure for no one.

    If pot is ever going to be legal it will have to be regulated in a similar way as we regulate alcohol and others today. The so called 'tax stamp' is no argument against that, it was never an honest effort at taxing or regulating to start with. A better comparison (for all drugs) might be alcohol. During prohibition alcohol financed Al Capone, after it financed the Budweiser frogs and sponsored sporting events. How to regulate will take some work and some drugs need to be regulated more like prescription drugs (tightly controlled) rather than like alcohol or pot, but regulation is the only real way out of the war on drugs.
  11. Buzzby

    Buzzby Buddhist Curmudgeon

    The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 law was found to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme court in Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. (1969) because it violated Fifth Amendment guarantees against self-incrimiination. As Yana Usdi stated, you had to have the weed (which was illegal without the stamp) in order to get the stamp. For a short time, until implementation of the Controlled Substances Act in '70, there was no federal law against possession of marijuana. Of course, state laws still applied.
  12. cabriosnap

    cabriosnap Not Man, Merely a Machine

    Point and Match to Buzzby....

    No but really OP....Do you're research and broaden you're view to the true America when You're trying to debate on a subject such as this. There are quite a few key factors on the subject that you have yet to address. there are a lot of these types on forum debates if you dig. Most are very informative.

    Big Brother has to have a hand in everything
  13. Justsumguy

    Justsumguy Member

    I would say regulate it like alcohol not like tobacco. In the last 2 decades they have been making tobacco more and more illegal.

Share This Page