Negative externalities post, which was not very aesthetic when quoted
But that argument assumes that drugs/prostitution/gambling have a negative effect on society, something that isn't guaranteed. The argument for socially negative effects is obviously subjective (although I would have thought we had similar views on that one before your post ) but the economically negative effects are something we can look at a bit more.
And all the evidence I've seen suggests that loosening restrictions leads to lower use (and abuse). There's examples like Portugal which decriminalized all possession of all drugs about 10 years ago, and has since had plummeting drug use (and no effects on productivity). Or that European countries with lower or non existent drinking ages have much less cases of alcohol abuse.
Also keep in mind that there are many ways to consume marijuana without smoking. In fact, one large reason smoking it is so popular is because of the restrictions on marijuana and related paraphernalia. Papers are just a hell of a lot easier to obtain than a vaporizer, and much easier to hide. And both marijuana and alcohol, when used in moderation, have positive health effects. But there's no way to discourage heavy use through taxes without also discouraging that moderate use.
08-25-2010 at 04:51 PM
#137
kanthamd
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 55
Thanked:
5 Times
Liked:
8 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahratta
Scientific evidence for what? I don't think I'll be able to find articles titled "cannabis does not fry brains"
(this is supposed to be a joke on the anti-legalization arguer, if you read back a bit =))
__________________
08-25-2010 at 09:23 PM
#141
zombiejesus
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 130
Thanked:
9 Times
Liked:
80 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by gOOCHTOPHER
08-25-2010 at 09:37 PM
#142
J-Met
Elite Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 444
Thanked:
62 Times
Liked:
135 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlowe
But that argument assumes that drugs/prostitution/gambling have a negative effect on society, something that isn't guaranteed. The argument for socially negative effects is obviously subjective (although I would have thought we had similar views on that one before your post ) but the economically negative effects are something we can look at a bit more.
And all the evidence I've seen suggests that loosening restrictions leads to lower use (and abuse). There's examples like Portugal which decriminalized all possession of all drugs about 10 years ago, and has since had plummeting drug use (and no effects on productivity). Or that European countries with lower or non existent drinking ages have much less cases of alcohol abuse.
Also keep in mind that there are many ways to consume marijuana without smoking. In fact, one large reason smoking it is so popular is because of the restrictions on marijuana and related paraphernalia. Papers are just a hell of a lot easier to obtain than a vaporizer, and much easier to hide. And both marijuana and alcohol, when used in moderation, have positive health effects. But there's no way to discourage heavy use through taxes without also discouraging that moderate use.
Good points. I suppose being pretty straight edge has made me automatically assume more people doing these types of substances is automatically socially detrimental. Others might see them as having positive social effects, ei people being more relaxed, less caught up in the rat race, reduction in overall stress, less violence, which I could totally see if a society is more open to recreational substances.
And your right; if legalization does lead to lower usage, a discouragement tax would seem redundant (though I still don't buy that legalization would decrease usage, as it would go against everything Ive learned about supply and demand lol). However, despite the presence or lack of negative externalities, I still think that consumption tax is better than income tax, so I'd support taxing weed for no other reason than to cut income taxes.
Btw I saw your brother at Cedar Park today! He seems well... following in your footsteps to nursing I see! I was glad to hear that...I think both you and him will be good at it.
08-25-2010 at 09:46 PM
#143
zombiejesus
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 130
Thanked:
9 Times
Liked:
80 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Met
And your right; if legalization does lead to lower usage, a discouragement tax would seem redundant (though I still don't buy that legalization would decrease usage, as it would go against everything Ive learned about supply and demand lol). However, despite the presence or lack of negative externalities, I still think that consumption tax is better than income tax, so I'd support taxing weed for no other reason than to cut income taxes.
I can buy weed any hour of the day, it's usually closer than the LCBO, and I can get it on holidays. How is legalizing it going to increase supply? We're a net exporter of weed; we don't have a problem with supply. Also, simple possession charges are a joke, so I don't know anyone who won't smoke weed simply because its illegal.
Ready to rage kiddos? "Drugged driving" is a load of crap. I'd rather have baked motorists out there than all the morons on their cell phones or idiots weaving through traffic on their ricers. They'd drive slower and pay more attention to the road.
Last edited by zombiejesus : 08-25-2010 at 09:49 PM.
Ready to rage kiddos? "Drugged driving" is a load of crap. I'd rather have baked motorists out there than all the morons on their cell phones or idiots weaving through traffic on their ricers. They'd drive slower and pay more attention to the road.
People are aware of their intoxication and adjust their attention to compensate. Obviously you can be too baked to drive; but you can also be too tired to drive without being aware of how handicapped you are and I don't see a Conservative Party blitz on tired drivers.
08-25-2010 at 10:05 PM
#146
J-Met
Elite Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 444
Thanked:
62 Times
Liked:
135 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombiejesus
I can buy weed any hour of the day, it's usually closer than the LCBO, and I can get it on holidays. How is legalizing it going to increase supply? We're a net exporter of weed; we don't have a problem with supply. Also, simple possession charges are a joke, so I don't know anyone who won't smoke weed simply because its illegal.
If you make something thats illegal to produce legal to produce you are going to increase the quantity supplied. I don't know how you can argue against that. Police still do grow-op busts and they result in serious consequences for the offender, and I guarantee you that fear prevents a lot of people who would otherwise grow their own weed from doing it. Legalizing marijuana will increase supply, and if left untaxed, will lower the price.
Also, there are a lot of people who obey the law simply to obey the law. If I were to smoke I would feel incredibly paranoid about being caught. I may be part of a minority, but I am part of a minority that would smoke more weed if it were legal.
The major disincentives for smoking right now are price and illegality. If you lower the price and remove any punishment for doing it, I simply don't understand how you think more people, if even by a small amount, wont start smoking.
08-25-2010 at 10:09 PM
#147
rangwaz
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 19
Thanked:
0 Times
Liked:
0 Times
Is Canada considering this?
08-25-2010 at 10:24 PM
#148
zombiejesus
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 130
Thanked:
9 Times
Liked:
80 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Met
If you make something thats illegal to produce legal to produce you are going to increase the quantity supplied. I don't know how you can argue against that. Police still do grow-op busts and they result in serious consequences for the offender, and I guarantee you that fear prevents a lot of people who would otherwise grow their own weed from doing it. Legalizing marijuana will increase supply, and if left untaxed, will lower the price.
Also, there are a lot of people who obey the law simply to obey the law. If I were to smoke I would feel incredibly paranoid about being caught. I may be part of a minority, but I am part of a minority that would smoke more weed if it were legal.
The major disincentives for smoking right now are price and illegality. If you lower the price and remove any punishment for doing it, I simply don't understand how you think more people, if even by a small amount, wont start smoking.
I don't know if you are friends with anyone who sell weed, but if you are, ask them about their business sometime. You'll find that many markets are saturated with pot and it is sometimes difficult to unload weed... especially because you can freeze it for when demand picks up again. No one lowers prices because the profit margin is too small for the guys at the end of the chain. There are certainly barriers to trade, but it is not an issue of not having enough product.
I agree with you that prices will drop following legalization, but I disagree that it would increase use. People who consume pot will conceivably use more, but I doubt it would create more users. Keep in mind that pot is a very cheap drug. Inebriation with cannabis is on par with alcohol in the dollars spent for the effect produced. I'm sure that there would be a slight increase from all the squares worried about the baconators busting down their front door to arrest them for the gram they picked up down the street, but it would be statistically insignificant. Even if I'm wrong and there suddenly was a spike in users: we'd all be saving tax dollars from less liver transplants, drunk driving fatalities, and violent crime; just from less alcohol consumption alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangwaz
Is Canada considering this?
We were about to a few years ago before some guy from Alberta decided to take us back to the stone age.
Last edited by zombiejesus : 08-25-2010 at 10:27 PM.
We were about to a few years ago before some guy from Alberta decided to take us back to the stone age.
No, the Liberals were in favour of decriminalizing pot, not legalizing it. Legalization would make growing and distribution ok, not just possession. All that was crushed by Bush. Don't go blaming Harper for it, though I do admit, he's not helping the situation any with these new laws/propositions.
Canada will never legalize pot as long as we share a border with the US, when the US is as anti-any-non-pharmaceutical-drug as it is.
__________________
Mark Reeves
Humanities I Victory Lap!
No, the Liberals were in favour of decriminalizing pot, not legalizing it. Legalization would make growing and distribution ok, not just possession. All that was crushed by Bush. Don't go blaming Harper for it, though I do admit, he's not helping the situation any with these new laws/propositions.
Canada will never legalize pot as long as we share a border with the US, when the US is as anti-any-non-pharmaceutical-drug as it is.
The reality is that legalization would take decades to pass, so a decriminalization move would have set a precedent and a direction to head towards. I'm still going to blame Harper for Bill C-15/S-10: Mandatory Minimums for Cannabis and for using his position to shove his morality down our throats on every issue.
Is it just me or is it the primary job of McMaster police to bust 1st years for a little joint? Aren't there more important duties they should be doing like stopping arson?
McMaster University News and Information, Student-run Community, with topics ranging from Student Life, Advice, News, Events, and General Help.
Notice: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the student(s) who authored the content. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by McMaster University or the MSU (McMaster Students Union). Being a student-run community, all articles and discussion posts on MacInsiders are unofficial and it is therefore always recommended that you visit the official McMaster website for the most accurate up-to-date information.
) but the economically negative effects are something we can look at a bit more.
?
