Legalize marijuana---Pay For Stuff....

Right now, everyone gets a cut, except the goverment

Published on March 16, 2004 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Politics

People have been debating the re-legalization of marijuana since the criminilizing of the very substance some of our most historical documents were written on, like the Declaration of Independence.

Now we face record deficits and a lack of funding for just about everything we need. The war(s) we are fighting, health care, education and just about anything else you can think of. Unless you want a piece of blatant pork, spent in a republican congressman's district, there probably is a shortfall of funding.

But what about marijuana? Could this, already used recreational substance give a much needed cash infusion to our system? Before jumping to "moral" conclusions on why the goverment shouldn't "endorse" pot smoking....what about the children?....and all that.....keep this in mind....

America repealed the 18th ammendment to re-legalize booze to help out with the depression and help pay for some of FDR's big programs. Taxing cigarettes is a big income source to every state in the union even as our goverment effectively preaches the dangers of smoking. So why not pot?

It is estimated that about 20 million americans smoke marijuana in much of the same way that millions of good americans drink. They do it responsibly, they do it prudentlyy and they do it relatively safely. Indeed, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose and people who are high on pot aren't exactly known for doing anything worse than eating all the doritos.

If we are to equate 20 million smokers with say a joint a day (an average only), with each joint carrying a 1 dollar tax, we can figure out how much money legalization could raise.

The math is simple. We have 365 days a year. So 20 million times 365 would equal about 7.3 billion dollars. No, that won't cover the war, but that isn't the only part of the equation.

We spend about 20 billion annually on the drug war. Well over 1/2 of that involves marijuana alone. Indeed, marijuana has been the soap box for law enforcement as it is the bulkiest, smelliest and often least profitable of all the drugs that they "fight."
So, now we are up about 18 billion when you figure in money not wasted on chaising ones own tail, which is what marijuana enforcement has long been. This would have covered the entire "reconstruction" budget for Iraq. This amount alone would justify the legalization. But wait, there's more!.......

Also contributing to the income stream will be the new businesses and employees all paying taxes and contributing to the general welfare. The goverment will get to issue a new kind of "business license" which will bring in revenue. Plus, i'm sure they can come up with other little fees and such to boost our numbers even higher. The goverment is always good for that.

Of course, I know that this little article doesn't cover all the issues. But at the end of the day, keeping marijuana illegal and jipping the goverment out of it's fair share while a 70 year old "war" against it has been less than fruitless, seems rather stupid.

By the way, if you enjoyed this...check out my other articles on the subject...some are true stories like " Can You Buy Pot On the Internet?" and "Smuggling Pot from Jamaica- A True Story" both of which can be found on this very blog site. Just check out the articles list at the top or click the links below to be instantly transported.

Link

Link

Comments (Page 1)

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 16, 2004

one more quick point,,,,the tax is suggested at 1 dollar,,,making the tax 2 or 3 dollars would of course double, or triple the numbers.

vincible

on Mar 16, 2004

Keep in mind that demand would probably go way up, if it was legal--prices would fall and there'd be no fear of the law. So we'd have a lot more than 20 million smokers and therefore a lot more money than you suggest. (Though of course some of this increased demand would come from people giving up substitute goods which are taxed (ie tobacco, alcohol) so it's not pure profit.)

Dynosoar

on Mar 16, 2004

It's a great debate topic, but you exclude the only real reason behind the ban, it is a moral and ethical issue.
It introduces the slippery slope of where to go from there.
Cocaine ? Legalize that and nearly half in prison would have their convictions vacated.
Heroin ? The perfect cash crop to lift Afganistan from economic devastation.

Sin taxes are always levied on the poor, why do you think North Carolina still has no lottery ? It would help the schools they say, but it would overtax the poor.( large Baptist constituancy screams everytime lotto gets mentioned )

The tax I pay for my cigarrettes has risen from .32 cents to well over $1.20 per pack in the last 2 yrs, and I have seen no great increase in public service, or decrease in my tax liability.

Given more funds, our beauracrats will just find more places to spend it........

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 16, 2004

I don't buy the "demand would go up" arguement. Prohibition caused the demand of more potent potables during it's reign of terror. Back then, the most popular beverages were the strongest, the highest proof. When prohibition ended, lighter mixed drinks and beer went up in popularity. These days, wine, wine coolers and light beers are the most popular alchoholic beverages purcchased and consumed.

After prohibition, after a short lived party, demand never spiked for alchohol. When prostitution was legalized in nevada, the numbers of john's looking for them didn't spike. History has shown that prohibition generally doesn't keep demand down, and the lack of prohibition doesn't cause people to go nuts.

fact is, people smoke pot without fear of the law already.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 16, 2004

thank you for your thoughts...i disagree with most of your premises, but i do appreciate the viewpoint.

harder drugs present different challenges and i don't necessarily endorse legalizing everything as you would suggest. whatever someone personally chooses to do for themselves is their own moral decision, not the goverment's decision. if the goverment kept everything that was immoral in someone's eyes illegal then alchohol, tobacco and gambling wouldn't be the only things to be banned...some folks find some religion's to be morally bankrupt and unethical as well. if our goverment was truly concerned with ethics, then they wouldn't be consulting with enron on energy policy.

crazy lady

on Mar 16, 2004

I agree with you 100%.
I have smoked occasionally for years.....until hubby went in to the military. I have to be a little more careful now!
There is a bigger picture, what about saving trees? Or money for our farmers. It's easy to grow.....weed. It makes great
paper products, clothing, rope, even shampoos and conditioners! It has a plethera of uses or government could put
to OUR advantage.
A couple of comments were made about legalizing the harsher man made drugs, but that wasn't mentioned in the article.
We don't need to legalize the others just because we legalize marijuana.
My opinion, the only reason people look at it like they do, is because of the rep the government has given it. Most people who smoke are good people. Drinking alcohol is more dangerous than smoking marijuana.
Yes, there are people that abuse it or will abuse it, but it is no different than alcohol abuse....except the fact you can't die from liver failure...or other alcohol related problems.

mikimouse

on Mar 16, 2004

There are some dependability issues with pot. It's psychologically addictive.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 16, 2004

thanks for your comments...i din't get into the other uses, but you are right. the medicinal value scares the hell out of the pharmacutical industry...and it's fuel potential (hemp seed oil can power cars as well as gas 16 times more efficiently than gas can) is enourmous...but of course the oil lobby doesn't like the idea of their industry being made obsolete.

but those sources would indeed increase revenues even higher.

thanks again:)

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 16, 2004

dude,,,everything is psycologically addictive...that has more to do with us than it does the good or service one is addicted to. the goverment endorses both alchohol and cigarettes which are physically addictive.

vincible

on Mar 16, 2004

don't buy the "demand would go up" arguement

I thought your other blog on the subject, about how your friend couldn't find a source for pot, and resorted to buying it online and was scared to death afterward, was a perfect illustration of why the quantity consumed would go up if it was legalized.

on Mar 16, 2004

There are some dependability issues with pot. It's psychologically addictive.

So are smoking and beer and its kin.

I am very anti-drug, but being illegal does make pot attain 'coolness' and something to do to rebel against 'big brother'.

I agree, hemp is very strong mineral. It will make for a great ropes, clothes that last much longer, and strong papers for books that last many times longer. As usual there is users and there is abusers.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 16, 2004

actually,,,he has since gone to exclusively buying online,,,no hassles, great quality.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 16, 2004

thanks for the comments,,,the fuel things is probably the biggest scam going on...back in the 80's, a candidate for gov. had a car converted to run on hemp seed oil (this isn't new technology, this was about 20 years ago) and drove it all over the state getting 50 miles to the PINT....also way cleaner and much more renewable as growing hemp is about as easy as it gets for a farmer.

BriRyJor

on Mar 16, 2004

I agree with Dynosoar with his slippery slope argument. How do you distinguish Marijuana from Cocaine? A lot more people do it? But that doesn't make it right. It isn't as harmful? You can't justify legalizing this by saying it isn't as harmful as something else.

Then people will say, hey what about tobacco related deaths per year? Nobody dies from pot! Well nobody dies from tobacco either. They die from lung cancer caused by smoke in your lungs. When you smoke pot you're putting smoke in your lungs. Well, shouldn't we legalize pot then, because it's just the same or safer than cigarrettes in terms of health? No, because that's going to add fuel to the fire. We will see adverse health effects from pot in a more flagrant fashion than we do now and thus will be in the same situation with pot as we are with tobacco.

Also insurance companies would probably be forced to cover health cases that are a result of chronic pot smoking. Jacking the price up for the rest of us.

There aren't any adverse health problems that come with pot smoking? Just look at Ozzy Osbourne.

BriRyJor

on Mar 16, 2004

I forgot to add the issue of driving. How will that be handled. Driving after smoking is not safe. It has been shown to be just as dangerous as drinking and driving in some cases. Do we have the technology for police to use that can detect if people have been smoking. This issue needs to be closely examined before we take any steps at legalizing pot.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!