Spekkio wants his weed...

[A4sForever]

Tax it??? TAX IT ???

What makes ANY of you think that drug dealers are gonna' pay "taxes" .... ???

How about castrating them, instead ??? (just a figure of speech, of course)

However, I love your commitment to your naivete ...

 

[Clux4]

Offcourse they will not want to pay taxes and we will go after them like the Mafia. (read: offshore accounts). Take everything they have. It is probably easier to focus on money laundry activities as oppose to fighting drugs and money laundry.
I really do not see things changing for the better. For one, you are only taking Marijuna off the least. Coke, Meth, "E" and the rest are still available.
It is a real WAR and I am not sure we know what to do.

 

[A4sForever]

Offcourse they will not want to pay taxes and we will go after them like the Mafia. (read: offshore accounts). Take everything they have ....

Last time I checked, the drug dealers/cartels (whatever their national origin) were alive & well and probably "street-smarter" at working their 'OPs' than the gov't. ... or at least more "efficient". Or at least more "ruthless".

This CERTAINLY applies to the Mexican drug cartels ...

But I still like their Margaritas.

 

[BullGator]

To defend Swanee and Clux4, the government could tax drugs and save money down the line. Make the penalties for possession very extreme by fines; enforced primarily by traffic stops and other low expense ways. If the person cannot pay the fine you take their car or their credit, ect. These fines would make money for law enforcement and cut the waste of spending for prison sentences. Of course that is optimistic and there would be drawbacks like increased robbery, in which case we lock them up or loosen the laws for property owners to shoot them. J/k, (I believe this is already in affect in FL and TX, on a case by case basis -At least if the criminole has a weapon).

In the case of legalizing Marijuana only, the government could become the drug dealer and grow it: straight profit. And then do the above to other types of drug offenders. Right now we have drug dealers that pay a lot of taxes... Pharmicotical companies. The government could also hire a company to make the pot, and since it is a plant and there is basically no research, tax them like you never taxed before.

This is an idea I just came up with that is idealistic/optomistic and will probably NEVER happen, but I like to see how we can all save money. To be honest, drugs are too big of a problem yet the war on drugs is not working and is costing a lot. Something should change, but I don't think it will happen in the next 8 years. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Flash]

And don't give me the argument that the general public ends up paying for these idiots welfare and healthcare. If they are dumb enough to not wear a helmet then they don't get insurance. They made a choice, they must be accountable for their decisions and their actions.

It is very nice to say that but how would you put it in practice? Medical professionals and facilities are required by law and ethics to treat the injured no matter how they got it or whether or not they have insurance. If the people treated cannot pay for their care who do you suggest pay for it? And don't say make them because some modern emergency medical care can run into the millions for a single patient, especially for trauma care.

So while it is all well and good to say that we should just let the bums suffer it is simply just disconnected from reality. We are not going to let people die by the side of the road just because they were stupid and don't have insurance. Get over it.

To defend Swanee and Clux4, the government could tax drugs and save money down the line.......In the case of legalizing Marijuana only, the government could become the drug dealer and grow it: straight profit.

Again, it sounds so simple but it gets a lot more complicated when you get in the weeds, so to speak. If you legalize it what is to stop people from growing it on their own and not paying anything? How are going to tell the difference between an FDA approved joint and a homegrown one? And then there are other practical questions, like how do you easily test if someone is under the influence? You can easily do so for alcohol, how about marijuana? And what constitutes 'under the influence' for it, just a straight positive or a failing test? And then what about the military, I don't want anyone smoking pot handling my aircraft but if it is legal how do you stop someone from lighting up a joint in the smoke pit off-hours?

It is a lot harder when such wistful thinking runs into reality.

 

[Spekkio]

Again, it sounds so simple but it gets a lot more complicated when you get in the weeds, so to speak. If you legalize it what is to stop people from growing it on their own and not paying anything?

Absolutely nothing, unless the stuff you buy in the store is superior in quality. I would say there's nothing wrong with this, either. Free markets work wonders.

How are going to tell the difference between an FDA approved joint and a homegrown one?

Who cares? Does the FDA come knocking on your door if you decide to brew beer at home?

But if you did actually care about FDA approval, it's quite easy to make commercial stores sell "approved" marijuana (even though I would not agree with such a restriction, but simply labelling the difference). If the consumer chooses to bypass that and buy it on the street, then that's his own perogative.

And then there are other practical questions, like how do you easily test if someone is under the influence?

This is actually a tough one, and obviously has mostly to do with driving.

And what constitutes 'under the influence' for it, just a straight positive or a failing test?

Well, some nerdy scientists sat there and quantified the impairing effects of alcohol, I'm sure they can do it with marijuana or any other drug.

And then what about the military, I don't want anyone smoking pot handling my aircraft but if it is legal how do you stop someone from lighting up a joint in the smoke pit off-hours?

The military can have its own restrictions as it sees fit. It can continue to have a ban on drugs altogether, or it can instititute similar rules that it does with alcohol that you cannot use it 8 hours prior to working.

It is a lot harder when such wistful thinking runs into reality.

Not really. The only tough issue is how to quantitatively test if people are driving under the influence of marijuana, and determining how much is too much. But I would argue that even that wouldn't be a very difficult issue to solve if it was a priority to do so.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

The military can have its own restrictions as it sees fit. It can continue to have a ban on drugs altogether, or it can instititute similar rules that it does with alcohol that you cannot use it 8 hours prior to working.

That's not going to work. Marijuana's effects can last days and as said earlier are much more difficult to detect. Even if you kept it banned, having it legalized will make it that much more tempting to do.

 

[Redux]

The impairment to driving felt by smoking a joint is less than having 2-3 beers. Additionally, the two drugs aren't even in the same category; alcohol is a depressant which slows motor skills, while marijuana is a very mild halucinagenic. I'll say it again: weed is a very mild drug.

Smoking a joint would not constitute abuse in my mind (unless you're calling it so simply because it's illegal). Abuse would be smoking a joint 3-4x a day multiple times a week.

Smoking one joint of say......shit from Thailand would certainly be considered abuse and there is NO WAY Id want to share the same road. One cannot compare a singular beer to smoking a single joint of "super shit". Some shit of origin is much more then "mildly" hallucinogenic.

Alcohol is easily detectable on field sobriety test, drugs for the most part are not.

 

[Slammer2]

Lets just start knocking off drug dealers. Make your billions, we'll kill you and take it.

Merry Christmas

 

[Gatordev]

Offcourse they will not want to pay taxes and we will go after them like the Mafia. (read: offshore accounts). Take everything they have. It is probably easier to focus on money laundry activities as oppose to fighting drugs and money laundry.

What do you think they're doing now? Writing angry letters to the drug dealers? If you are trying to find accounts/money, you need HUMINT. If you have HUMINT, you'll pretty much be doing what they do now.

I agree there's no simple answer, but legalizing it, as Flash said, doesn't seem all that easy either. It does bring up the question as to what happens if we just stopped interdicting. I'm sure there's some study some where that looked at that.

 

[Spekkio]

That's not going to work. Marijuana's effects can last days

Bullshit. It'll only last days if you're the world's biggest pothead, in which case you'd have to be high at work to accomplish that. The effects of marijuana wear off way before the effects of alcohol if used with similar frequency.

and as said earlier are much more difficult to detect. Even if you kept it banned, having it legalized will make it that much more tempting to do.

If it stays banned in the military, a simple drug test will detect it just fine.

Smoking one joint of say......shit from Thailand would certainly be considered abuse and there is NO WAY Id want to share the same road. One cannot compare a singular beer to smoking a single joint of "super shit". Some shit of origin is much more then "mildly" hallucinogenic.

Apples to oranges. You can't compare a superjoint to a beer anymore than you can compare a beer to a shot of grain alcohol.

 

[zab1001]

Lets just start knocking off drug dealers. Make your billions, we'll kill you and take it.

Yeah, that worked well in the early 90's with the Medellin and Cali cartels. Massive bilateral effort that created a power vacuum which was filled by the FARC and AUC. "Oh but the FARC is almost defeated." Yeah right. Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) programs are ineffective. Interdiction barely makes any impact. Eradication (whether voluntary or forced) leaves the people in source nations with no viable source of economic means. As long as there is demand, there will be a supply. Look at the way Colombians have outsourced their distro networks to Mexican "contractors."

Direct action by security forces, whether military or police is still warranted, but there is no viable way to cover and control that much territory, with borders that porous, and so many means of transport, without a total war type of effort, which no nation is prepared to do.

There are bright spots, Uribe has done a decent job in Colombia and the people are behind him (for the most part). Programs like "Mi Pueblo" (training local citizens as regular Colombian Army and stationing them in their hometown) and greater transparency in the criminal justice system (law enforcement and prosecution) are making an impact. But again, its a matter of resources. If there is a demand, there will be a supply.

If anyone is as bored as I am on this rainy Xmas, here's a good reading list:

Joao Roberto Martins Filho (translated by Daniel Zirker), “The Brazilian Armed Forces and Plan Colombia,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology Vol. 33, No. 1 (Summer 2005).

Coletta A. Youngers, “Collateral Damage: The U.S. “War on Drugs” and Its Impact on Democracy in the Andes,” in Politics in the Andes, eds. Jo-Marie Burt and Philip Mauceri (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2004).

Peter DeShazo, Tanya Primani and Phillip McLean, “Back From the Brink: Evaluating Progress in Colombia: 1999-2007,” Report for the Center for Strategic Studies (November 2007).

Mark Peceny and Michael Durnan, “The FARC’s Best Friend: U.S. Antidrug Policies and the Deepening of Colombia’s Civil War in the 1990s,” Latin American Politics and Society Vol. 48, No. 2 (Summer 2006).

Kent Eaton, “The Downside of Decentralization: Armed Clientelism in Colombia,” Security Studies Vol. 15, No. 4 (October-December 2006).

Myles R.R. Frechette, “Colombia and the United States--The Partnership: But What Is the Endgame?” The Letort Papers (12 March 2007).

International Crisis Group, “Colombia’s Borders: The Weak Link in Uribe’s Security Policy,” Latin American Report No. 9 (23 September 2004).

Alexandra Guáqueta, “Political and Economic Dimensions of the Colombian Conflict,” in K. Ballentine and J. Sherman eds., The Political Economy of Armed Conflict: Beyond Greed and Grievance (Boulder: Lynner Rienner, 2003).

 

[Redux]

Apples to oranges. You can't compare a superjoint to a beer anymore than you can compare a beer to a shot of grain alcohol.

How do you know what you're getting? In SE Asia you got two different grades, High Test and High Test one or both of which may or may not have been laced with high grade opiates.

You're saying that the THC content will be controlled like 3.2 beer?

 

[phrogpilot73]

Who cares? Does the FDA come knocking on your door if you decide to brew beer at home?

Nope, because homebrewers fall under the auspices of the BATF, who WILL come knocking at your door if you decide to distill spirits (which is illegal to do in the United States, so that might be a better comparison).

 

[Spekkio]

How do you know what you're getting? In SE Asia you got two different grades, High Test and High Test one or both of which may or may not have been laced with high grade opiates.

Why do you keep bringing up purchasing things in foreign countries, as if that's relevant to what happens in the U.S.?

How do you know what you're getting? I suppose one never knows what they're really getting in a product. Do you really know everything that was put into your chicken breast before it got into the shelf (it'll surprise you). All you do know is that stores are in business to make money, and this desire with competition will keep products at an acceptable quality level. If many people get sick from the chicken at one supermarket, you most likely won't shop there anymore. Furthermore, stores are going to want to make more money off of the "strong" stuff, so it's likely they'll mark it and charge more for it. They also won't want to lose their license to sell said product, so it's unlikely they'll do something stupid like lace it with opiates, which are still illegal in this hypothetical scenario. You don't see alcohol being laced with other drugs, now do you?

So in summary, normal commercial regulations that apply to all products (ie, truthful labelling and such), in addition to normal free market and competition forces, would take care of all your concerns in this regard.

If you choose to buy the product off the street by a private home grower, then you really don't know what you're getting. But that's a risk that the buyer accepts when he chooses to circumvent commercial businesses. You can also enact laws that prevent sale of marijuana without a proper license, in which case you can only legally home-grow your marijuana for personal use.

Nope, because homebrewers fall under the auspices of the BATF, who WILL come knocking at your door if you decide to distill spirits (which is illegal to do in the United States, so that might be a better comparison).

I don't think liquor should be illegal to distill, either, but it at least there is a tiny bit of merit to argue that it should simply because it is so concentrated. Marijuana on the other hand doesn't have that type of strength on its own.