“While proponents of legalization see enhanced revenues for the state through a new taxable marijuana industry,” Bishops Vetter and Warfel said, “we are more concerned with consequences ranging from increased teenage use, harmful effects on developing brains, addiction, increased impairment-related transportation accidents and deaths, and other potential public health and safety issues.”
The bulk of pro-legalization is backlash over the War on Drugs. Yes, marijuana has its dangers, but as several communities have seen over the years, the law enforcement tactics have been much more harmful.
It doesn’t hurt that the human kind of been using marijuana for literally thousands of years and only banned it in the last 100.
They legalized marijuana in Illinois this year. The argument for the legalization was: Oh…all the revenue from pot sales will bring us out of debt and fund education and healthcare! All the drug dealers will go out of business since people can get pot legally! It’ll solve all the problems in society!! Well…guess what? No. On all counts. That revenue was supposed to fund healthcare and education but now they want a ‘fair tax act’ to fund those things so who knows where the pot revenue is going. Drug dealers are still in business because it’s cheaper to buy pot on the streets and society is just as screwed up as before. I’m not a fan of legalizing pot so I hope the people in Montana have more sense than the people in Illinois.
I’m very suspicious of any politician who wants to make pot legal.
What’s in it for them to keep me dull and sluggish?
Hard to tax something that most people can produce. I think these places got greedy with the taxes though.
Also, the fed prohibition causes problems. Such places can’t have bank accounts, so you and up with widely known locations full of cash, existing in a legal grey area.
Their constituents want it? The War on Drugs is more harmful than a lot of the drugs it is warring against.
I hear what you’re saying, but it sounds a lot like Bread and Circuses.
And pot is a gateway drug.
Having relatives who spent years trying to break free of serious addictions, this just doesn’t sound like a great idea…
I can’t buy into the gateway concept. Ran into quite a few people with normal jobs (and one without) that just stick to weed and alcohol. You could argue alcohol is a gateway too.
A parent may spank a child about to run into traffic or who reaches for a hot stove cause those are much more harmful. DUIs result in heavy fines and/or jail due to the high chances of injury to others. Thus far, the same rarely applies to weed (outside of DUI issues).
So once again why ruin people with criminal penalties that far eclipse whatever their habit was doing to them and their family?
What actually turned me against it was this: There’s evidence that legalising it increases OTHER crimes. (This was, at least for a while, the case in Colorado, don’t know about now).
Why legalize? Why not decriminalise?
The words’ differences are subtle but the consequences aren’t. The former is about making money, helping ailing tobacco investors and allowing ads that “accidentally” get shown to young people with developing brains. The latter is a lack of enforcement.
And this is why the Liberal Party in Canada went for legalization, confused legalisation with decriminalization and deliberately lied by comparing it to Portugal when it’s nothing like it. There are issues with Portugal’s model but my point is the lobbyists and party donors are greedy, corrupt profiteers.
Oh, that’s true too—that not everybody falls down the rabbit hole of addiction.
I’ve just seen it enough times that it makes me uneasy.
The reason they started putting so many restrictions around drugs was the addiction problem.
In Victorian day’s when you could buy heroin from the Sears catalog (along with syringe and tourniquet), and opium over the counter at any pharmacy, there was a huge problem of people wrecking their lives with addictions.
What’s in it for them to keep me dull and sluggish?
This is a very silly idea of the effect that any drug would have on someone, honestly. If there’s anything to worry about it’s psychosis, but the idea that smoking weed would make you more susceptible to the lies of politicians is so fanciful.
And likewise I know a few ppl who never drink because of a family history with alcohol abuse. But most don’t make a big deal of others drinking.
I never said that.
I think the effect would be so the populace doesnt care
If alcohol is legal, pot should be legal. (I haven’t ever tried pot and don’t plan on doing so.)
Agree, it’s not worth the prohibition efforts to ban it entirely (and frankly, they’re not effective). Its use as a recreational substance has adverse effects on developing brains, of course, but so does alcohol.
I would hope that pot is legalised in TX the day the sun turns to chicken soup.
I was a teen during the 70’s. I smoked a lot of pot.
Marijuana has been engineered quite a bit since then. It is not the same product that we bought for $15.00/oz. It’s far more potent and varieties produce different types of highs.
Given the evolution that has taken place, how do we know that the drug legalized today will be anything like the marijuana of the future?