Online subscriber? Please Log In
  

Need Help? | Forgot Your Password?

'Should marijuana be legalized?'

Mar 8, 2013 | 19 Comments


Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .

Would you like to comment on this article?

Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please

Note: Some articles do not accept comments at all.

Comments

08:27 am - Fri, March 8 2013
Don Dix said:
Phyllice says legalization will save the government money -- Jack says legalization will cost the government money.

Both cannot be correct, so which one is it?
07:53 pm - Fri, March 8 2013
Michael Tubbs Sr said:
"Both cannot be correct, so which one is it?"

Neither is, in that context, Don. The only way marijuana would cost the government money, is, if the government were to subsidize the market to a tune that is less than the return in revenue generated from it.

The government doesn't save money, never has and never will, because that is not what the government does. Government takes money, then decides how to spend it. .ie $600 for toilet seats and $400 on hammers, ect. ect. ect....
08:00 pm - Fri, March 8 2013
Michael Tubbs Sr said:
The above comment should read--->, if the government were to subsidize the market to a tune that is more than the return in revenue generated from it.
01:26 pm - Sun, March 10 2013
David Bates said:
It seems to me that the vast majority of problems that we associate with marijuana stem almost entirely from its illegality, which is a social construct, and not from the actual use of marijuana. If what illegality ultimately boils down to is, "It's bad for you," then anyone opposing legalization ought to be prepared to also argue that we ban alcohol and tobacco, not to mention the poisonous crap that ends up in a lot of processed foods. I know of no one who is prepared to do that, and anyone could tell you what would happen if we did.
01:52 pm - Sun, March 10 2013
David Bates said:
It seems to me that the vast majority of problems that we associate with marijuana stem almost entirely from its illegality, which is a social construct, and not from the actual use of marijuana. If what illegality ultimately boils down to is, "It's bad for you," then anyone opposing legalization ought to be prepared to also argue that we ban alcohol and tobacco, not to mention the poisonous crap that ends up in a lot of processed foods. I know of no one who is prepared to do that, and anyone could tell you what would happen if we did.
05:41 pm - Sun, March 10 2013
troy prouty said:
I don't know about pot causing depression or suicide. I think a lot of people have underline issues already and use drugs and alcohol to deal with them. Many of these people might be suicidal to begin with?

Troy*
07:36 am - Mon, March 11 2013
Don Dix said:
See, that's my complaint. It's very similar to the political double-speak we have endured for years. Both sides make the claim, but neither backs it up with fact, just points fingers at the other. It's just thrown out out there to see if it sticks.

It would be nice to know the actual truth, wouldn't you say?
08:57 am - Mon, March 11 2013
Sal Peralta said:
Don - Yes, it is very difficult to get accurate data in an adversarial debate such as this one. Both sides tend to misrepresent their actual numbers.
In Colorado, they are estimating that pot legalization will generate between $60 and $100 million per year in revenue. Their medical dispensary program, which appears much more open than Oregon's, generated $22 million last year.
However, in order to determine whether there is a positive or negative cash flow, you would need to know whether any additional societal costs imposed by pot legalization that government needs to handle.
For example, tax revenue from cigarettes is pretty substantial, but since a relatively high number of smokers are poor enough to be on medicare, there is also a substantial cost imposed through health care costs that are not handled through insurance.
I would imagine that the smoking-related risks of marijuana are similar to that for other forms of tobacco, so I imagine that there would be some costs there. However, I am skeptical about the Sheriff's claim that we would see increased incarceration rates as a result of decriminalizing pot. My guess would be that initial incarceration rates would drop as a result of fewer prosecutions of marijuana possession, and that we might also see a drop in people currently incarcerated on marijuana-related charges.
09:09 am - Mon, March 11 2013
Michael Tubbs Sr said:
I can't help but to wonder just how much grief their would actually be if marijuana was granted the same status as the dandelion. Crime associated with it would go... 'poof' ... as well as the blackmarket profiteering currently enjoyed by the drug cartels.

Would there be people that don't seem to have better things to do than smoke pot, sure. Will more young people take up the habit of getting high than might not, if it was granted the same status as a dandelion?

Hard to say, I smoked my first joint with the son of our Scoutmaster , Troop 87, during a week long trip to Mexicali, Mexico, back in 1966. That's how i'd first gotten introduced to it, and didn't like it, and that was that, no problem there, and never have had a problem with just saying no to future offers of it, inside or outside of Scouting.
02:35 pm - Mon, March 11 2013
David Bates said:
I can't speak knowledgeably about the health effects of tobacco v. marijuana, but I think Sheriff Crabtree makes an excellent point - one that, in fact, I believe negates his own argument for further prohibition of the latter. Enormous advances have been made in the "war on tobacco" in this country. Everyone knows it's bad for you, fewer people are doing it, and it has become socially unacceptable. How did that happen?

Hint: Prohibition had nothing to do with it.

04:00 pm - Mon, March 11 2013
Lulu said:
Didn't some of our beloved FFs grow it?
04:20 pm - Mon, March 11 2013
Michael Tubbs Sr said:
I agree, David.
09:39 pm - Mon, March 11 2013
kona said:
In Vietnam marijuana was such a negative that we got rid (sent them to rear area and turned the legal people on them) of anyone using in our unit. The detrimental effects were very obvious. Does this translate to our society? Workplace? Schools?

At what age should it be legal? Should children be around users? How about in a car (or like the U of O football players, "we smoked all of it")?

Do we legalize Meth? Or, does prohibition work for meth, but not for marijuana? Do we legalize heroin, or do we prohibit it? Or, if the state can make money selling heroin should we sell it?
06:39 am - Tue, March 12 2013
Michael Tubbs Sr said:
I'd be interested to know what the percentage of people is in Beaverton that use marijuana in relation to the number that don't.use it.

Anyone know the answer, and if so, what is the demographic breakdown on users and non-users in the city of Beaverton?
07:10 am - Tue, March 12 2013
Don Dix said:
It's evident that both sides of this issue cannot be truthful. There seems to be a sense that as long as the fib works to your particular favor, then any statement that supports your theory is fair game.

Under this premise, at which point can voters feel secure they have the correct numbers and facts?

The Feds have been demonizing marijuana so long that they may not be able to turn around their attitude (enforcement is a cash cow). And the Feds have produced propaganda that wouldn't fool a 10 year old, as if voters are stupid and believe everything the government says. It may have been that way 80 years ago, but not today.

Alcohol is the largest dose of prohibition ever stuffed down the throats of the people, and that didn't work out at all. Alcohol was available during 'prohibition', just as marijuana is today. So the government relented and became a player in the money train that was alcohol.

If the government can figure out how to tax, license, add fees, or any other form of revenue to the coffers, then the odds favor decriminalization -- 'cause it's always about the money'!
04:53 am - Wed, March 13 2013
troy prouty said:
You also run into the problem of how companies address people using, at what level of "in our system" allows worker comp? Then you have the driving aspect and testing there. The problem isn't about making it legal or not, the problem is the consequences of all the other things that will need answered surrounding it, and how we deal with them in conjunction with the law.
10:38 am - Wed, March 13 2013
Ebbie said:
Two thoughts: If marijuana use had been considered before alcohol became popular there is little doubt that weed would have become legal before alcohol. Marijuana smokers are not going home to beat their wives and children while alcohol is responsible for many societal ills.

Secondly: Legalizing hemp (very low grade plants) should be a priority. Fast-growing, prolific, strong and suitable for many uses, hemp utilization would take the place of many a product.
12:58 pm - Wed, March 13 2013
Michael Tubbs Sr said:
Thirdly: Let's not forget the songbirds, and just how much happier they would be.
10:18 am - Sat, March 16 2013
troy prouty said:
People that use pot a lot seem to get very grouchy without it. I believe there are better therapies in life than smoking weed. Even for medical use, I have seen things like diet and meditation doing a better job..

Troy*
© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Web design & powered by LVSYS