Why isnt it legal??
- Thread starter carskeys
- Start date
primeralives
Well-Known Member
because it cant be taxed, its way to easy to grow, unlike cigs and alchohol, if it was leagal everyone would grow their own and the govt wouldnt make any money
rsupload
Well-Known Member
exactly ...actually had a DEA agent tell me that
the widowman
Well-Known Member
because its a intoxicating substance
primeralives
Well-Known Member
............. then why isnt alchohol illigal?
rsupload
Well-Known Member
uhhhh
tobacco is legal but you have to get a license to grow it. I think it is illegal because it makes people see through alot of bullshit in society.
rsupload
Well-Known Member
really? I didn't know that
green_is_good
Well-Known Member
by filling prisons, court costs, etc....
I think a big part of it is because legal change has to happen through the process of politics. Think of all the dirty mud slinging political ads from the last election and then imagine this add:
*Big unflattering black and white picture of Candidate so-and-so* A commanding deep voice sais, "Liberal Politician so-and-so wants to let hundreds of thousands of dangerous drug dealers and addicts out of prison and onto our streets...how many of them will move into YOUR neighborhood?" *Scene changes to several dangerous looking thugs handing a lit joint to a sad confused looking 8 year old girl in a nice suburban neighborhood* "Candidate so-and-so: SOFT ON CRIME - BAD FOR AMERICA!" blah blah blah...
Yea it's bullshit, but that's how politics work. Because very few voters actually care about marijuana being legal and quite a lot of conservatives and religious fundamentalists oppose decriminalization, supporting this cause generally loses a politician significantly more votes from the conservative voting base than they could ever hope to gain from the few people who would like to see it happen...
In politics nobody cares about what is "right" - they only care about what will get them the most votes and financial donations to fatten their war chests for the next election...and quite frankly, most pot-smokers don't provide many donations or votes to politicians even if they do support legalization - especially compared to what more organized special interest groups are willing to donate to support THEIR causes. =(
*Big unflattering black and white picture of Candidate so-and-so* A commanding deep voice sais, "Liberal Politician so-and-so wants to let hundreds of thousands of dangerous drug dealers and addicts out of prison and onto our streets...how many of them will move into YOUR neighborhood?" *Scene changes to several dangerous looking thugs handing a lit joint to a sad confused looking 8 year old girl in a nice suburban neighborhood* "Candidate so-and-so: SOFT ON CRIME - BAD FOR AMERICA!" blah blah blah...
Yea it's bullshit, but that's how politics work. Because very few voters actually care about marijuana being legal and quite a lot of conservatives and religious fundamentalists oppose decriminalization, supporting this cause generally loses a politician significantly more votes from the conservative voting base than they could ever hope to gain from the few people who would like to see it happen...
In politics nobody cares about what is "right" - they only care about what will get them the most votes and financial donations to fatten their war chests for the next election...and quite frankly, most pot-smokers don't provide many donations or votes to politicians even if they do support legalization - especially compared to what more organized special interest groups are willing to donate to support THEIR causes. =(
this man right here hit it right on the button.
midgradeindasouth
Well-Known Member
That is certainly a way to look at it.
They could probably care less if it was legal.
It all boils down to money in the end.
They could probably care less if it was legal.
It all boils down to money in the end.
Money is not the reason: governments actually could make a LOT of money off the hemp and marijuana industries. Holland taxes sales of marijuana. The hemp market would be mostly industrial and could easily be taxed. If they ever legalized the possession of marijuana that does not necessarily mean they would legalize unlicensed cultivation. If legal cultivation required a license, that production could very easily be taxed. Most people would not risk going to jail for illegal cultivation if they could simply go somewhere and legally buy marijuana for $10 a gram or something like that (a few would of course). Also, relatively few people want to take the time and effort to learn how to grow marijuana. For example: even though it is legal to brew your own beer or make your own wine, how many people prefer to just go out and buy it for highly inflated prices?
Furthermore, attempting to enforce prohibition of marijuana currently costs governments many BILLIONS of dollars. The law enforcement man hours, court costs, paying for building and operating prisons, the lost tax dollars of people imprisoned for marijuana "crimes" that would otherwise be earning productive wages in society that could be taxed, etc.
The possible financial benefits to governments for decriminalizing MJ is actually one of the most powerful supporting arguments for legalization. It is not money that is the problem here - it is mostly politics and the fact that the cannabis cause is simply not currently popular with enough people (particularly the most influential people) to drive political and legal change.
Furthermore, attempting to enforce prohibition of marijuana currently costs governments many BILLIONS of dollars. The law enforcement man hours, court costs, paying for building and operating prisons, the lost tax dollars of people imprisoned for marijuana "crimes" that would otherwise be earning productive wages in society that could be taxed, etc.
The possible financial benefits to governments for decriminalizing MJ is actually one of the most powerful supporting arguments for legalization. It is not money that is the problem here - it is mostly politics and the fact that the cannabis cause is simply not currently popular with enough people (particularly the most influential people) to drive political and legal change.
kerrie4eva
Well-Known Member
its because it gives the president a headach lol
NORML has a feature on their web site that allows you to contact all your local and federal politicians and tell them your feelings about marijuana laws. A couple weeks ago, I used that site to send the following letter to all the politicians that supposedly represent me:
[recipient address was inserted here]
Dear [recipient name was inserted here],
Hello,
Criminalizing people who use soft drugs that are no more dangerous than
other legal drugs like alcohol or nicotine helps absolutely nobody and
destroys many otherwise productive lives unnecessarily. When throwing
somebody in jail clearly causes significantly more harm to a person and
his entire family than the use of that drug itself ever could have caused,
it is clearly wrong to imprison them in some sort of attempt to "save them
from themselves".
This is especially important when the use of these substances (just like
with alcohol or tobacco) does not directly hurt anybody else. Why should
there be a "crime" (or a punishment) when there is no VICTIM?
It's a well researched fact that marijuana is less dangerous in every
conceivable way compared to more destructive drugs like alcohol or
tobacco. Nobody has EVER died from a marijuana or mushroom overdose for
example. Any OBJECTIVE evaluation of the research will confirm this.
If MILLIONS of people's lives being ruined by unnecessary imprisonment are
not reason enough to re-evaluate these laws, then the amount of money
wasted trying to enforce them is - especially in light of the fact that
other countries and even US states that have already successfully
decriminalized marijuana have the same (or even lower) quantities of users
compared to states that imprison thousands of people annually in a
supposed attempt to discourage the use of this drug. If all that wasted
money and the destroyed lives are not enough reason to re-evaluate these
laws, then maybe the possible lost tax money that the hemp industry could
potentially generate is? The alcohol and tobacco industries are HUGE
sources of tax revenue, and the hemp industry could be as well.
Finally, prohibition only feeds the criminal element - just like it did
when alcohol was illegal. Decriminalizing soft drugs would also help keep
some distance between soft drug users and more dangerous and addictive
drugs.
Marijuana prohibition, just like alcohol prohibition, is a totally losing
proposition for everybody. Literally NOTHING positive is gained by it,
and much is clearly lost or destroyed. Let's spend that money more
constructively on drug education and rehabilitation, and just leave the
responsible users of soft drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) alone?
Sincerely,
<My name here>
I strongly encourage everybody who desires change to write your own letters to make your voices heard. There is no guarantee they will listen, but if we don't at least TRY we have nobody to blame but ourselves when these unfair laws do not change themselves. Using the NORML site allows you to write to all your local or federal political representatives with one letter, and without having to look up all their e-mail addresses individually.
[recipient address was inserted here]
Dear [recipient name was inserted here],
Hello,
Criminalizing people who use soft drugs that are no more dangerous than
other legal drugs like alcohol or nicotine helps absolutely nobody and
destroys many otherwise productive lives unnecessarily. When throwing
somebody in jail clearly causes significantly more harm to a person and
his entire family than the use of that drug itself ever could have caused,
it is clearly wrong to imprison them in some sort of attempt to "save them
from themselves".
This is especially important when the use of these substances (just like
with alcohol or tobacco) does not directly hurt anybody else. Why should
there be a "crime" (or a punishment) when there is no VICTIM?
It's a well researched fact that marijuana is less dangerous in every
conceivable way compared to more destructive drugs like alcohol or
tobacco. Nobody has EVER died from a marijuana or mushroom overdose for
example. Any OBJECTIVE evaluation of the research will confirm this.
If MILLIONS of people's lives being ruined by unnecessary imprisonment are
not reason enough to re-evaluate these laws, then the amount of money
wasted trying to enforce them is - especially in light of the fact that
other countries and even US states that have already successfully
decriminalized marijuana have the same (or even lower) quantities of users
compared to states that imprison thousands of people annually in a
supposed attempt to discourage the use of this drug. If all that wasted
money and the destroyed lives are not enough reason to re-evaluate these
laws, then maybe the possible lost tax money that the hemp industry could
potentially generate is? The alcohol and tobacco industries are HUGE
sources of tax revenue, and the hemp industry could be as well.
Finally, prohibition only feeds the criminal element - just like it did
when alcohol was illegal. Decriminalizing soft drugs would also help keep
some distance between soft drug users and more dangerous and addictive
drugs.
Marijuana prohibition, just like alcohol prohibition, is a totally losing
proposition for everybody. Literally NOTHING positive is gained by it,
and much is clearly lost or destroyed. Let's spend that money more
constructively on drug education and rehabilitation, and just leave the
responsible users of soft drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) alone?
Sincerely,
<My name here>
I strongly encourage everybody who desires change to write your own letters to make your voices heard. There is no guarantee they will listen, but if we don't at least TRY we have nobody to blame but ourselves when these unfair laws do not change themselves. Using the NORML site allows you to write to all your local or federal political representatives with one letter, and without having to look up all their e-mail addresses individually.