Trust me, you don’t want to get behind the unicorn. Those bubbles might look pretty, but goddamn.
And the bubbles make them sticky as well as stinky.
While we’re dreaming dreams, I’d love to see weed treated like pipe tobacco or cigars - sprayed or dipped in Port, Cognac, Whisky, brooked with aromatic substances; ratings in terms of strength like booze has proof or per cent alcohol.
I don’t have a problem with similar same restrictions as booze, including age restrictions, DUI, selling out of liquor stores. Up here in Canada, we came so close to de-criminalization until the change of government. Do you folks really think it’s that far off in the US? Certainly many Americans I’ve worked with have been amazed at how prevalent and unremarked the dope use is here.
A number of states have loosened legal restrictions, and a number of others will probably soon do so. But the federal government has not, and personally I think it never will (as in never ever).
Yeah, I think treating it like booze is reasonable. Over 21 (although I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18), have to show ID, only available at retail outlets with a specific license for it, etc.
I’d also like to see a rating system. Ditchweed would be 10 proof; sinsemilla would be 80 proof, Maui Wowie would be 140 proof, etc.
I think the only way the government will ever legalize marijuana is if it sees an advantage for itself. The only advantage the government will ever see would be taxation. If it is ever legalized I see it being heavily taxed. Because their is no current precedent, you would see it taxed higher that any other sin taxed item. You would see federal, state, county and local taxes. Instead of getting cheaper it would probably be really expensive.
Not going to happen. Since anyone can easily grow more than a personal quantity in their backyard, tax collection would be minimal. Collecting taxes on pot would require a tax collection authority so heavy-handed that it would essentially look like criminalization. From the government’s point of view, it’s easier to keep it illegal and thus retain a veneer of credibility for the extortionary fines and avalanche of government jobs involved in enforcement.
Yes but, anyone can easily grow more tomatoes than they could possibly eat in their backyard - but few of us actually do. Anyone could easily cook a cheap hamburger in their kitchen, but McDonald’s isn’t suffering for business.
I would make the rules similar to those for homebrewers, who are allowed to brew up to 200 gallons a year (IIRC). The difference is that I’d allow the growers to sell the surplus privately.
I don’t want the government to tax it, because I don’t want them in a position to encourage pot use. (I don’t think they should discourage it, either, at least not for consenting adults, but the government shouldn’t profit from it.) I also don’t want corporate America involved, not least because it would lead to a whole lot of really, really shitty weed. (Look at what they’ve done to beer or to the hamburger.)
Yes, but tomatoes are a pain in the ass. Even crops that don’t need tied up and such need weeding and watering, and sometimes fertilizing. But marijuana you just shove the seed in the ground and watch it go. It’s about as hard as raising clover.
:dubious: Tomatoes *are *practically weeds. Substitute “mint” or “rhubarb” if you’re really that inept in the garden.
I’ve heard it said that this is one of the stumbling blocks to the traditional legalization concept, it’s impossible to actually regulate how much THC is in each plant, so there’s no classification system that would work, and that poses an issue to the sale of such.
As easy as it might be to grow, you still have to cultivate and dry it. I bet a lot of people wouldn’t bother and would pay for it regardless of the price. That’s where the taxes come in play. If anyone thinks the government wouldn’t impose a tax, they are already high, and don’t need to worry about the issue at all.
What’s the federal excise tax on tomatoes again? I forget.
Why is that relevant again? I forget.
Your assertion, unless I read you wrong, was that no one would bother buying pot from a government sanctioned dealer collecting a tax because they can grow it themselves. I don’t understand that logic, because people could do all sorts of things themselves that they’d rather pay someone else to do, and lots of those things involve paying taxes.
I don’t know about you, but I couldn’t tell you which of my sales (and sin) taxes are federal and which are state or city, nor do I care. Is there something more complicated about the theoretical pot tax, or could it just work like liquor and sales tax does now, from the point of view of the consumer?
I still wouldn’t want to grow it myself. I suspect I’m far from alone. There would be a market. Probably a big one (compared to those growing their own).
This rumor has been around during much of the 20th century, especially during the 1960’s, much as wishful thinking. I remember hearing (back around 1969) that Phillip Morris decided to be proactive and trademark “Tiajuana Gold” for their potential product.
Phil
I’d never get any work done. As it stands now I’m occasionally productive.
It all comes down to the tax level. At low levels of taxation, it’s probably not so bad, but the dominant meme inevitably seems to be “just legalize it and tax the shit out of it”. (As if it’s somehow expected that we have to bribe the federal government to enjoy our civil liberties, but that’s another discussion).
You’ve probably heard of violent confrontations between moonshiners and “revenuers” in days past, or between the BATF and people dealing guns illegally in modern days. It bears mentioning that smokable pot is easier to produce in bulk than whiskey, tobacco, or tomatoes. At any non-trivial level of taxation, it makes good economic sense for consumers to dodge them, and good economic sense for the government to exercise its force monopoly to collect. The higher the taxes, the less the conflict looks like BATF busting grandpa’s whisky still and more like the existing war on users/growers.
So I guess what I’m saying, in my rambling way, is that enforcement of the high pot taxes that many people seem to expect would be difficult to distinguish from current prohibitionary violence. Lower taxation levels, maybe not so much.
Ahh…I see. No one mentioned the tax level yet, so I was confuddled. But now that you brought it up, I think when you take into account the actual production costs, you *could *“tax the shit out of it” and leave prices basically where they are today. The tax could (I’m not saying will, but could) replace the higher cost of doing illegal business and leave the price undisturbed.
Come with me to Hypothetical Land! An ounce of weed costs less than a dollar to grow if you’ve got any sort of scale at all. (Cost estimate based on my summer selling various not-marijuana plants at the Saturday farmer’s market. If what I’ve read is accurate, basil grows slightly more quickly and takes more water than marijuana; IANAMarijuana grower, but assume I’m off by up to a factor of 10 and my point still stands). It costs less than another dollar to package. That leaves ~$290 to get you to the street rate around here for a mid-grade bud. Sure, some for infrastructure, some for storage, some for employees…that’s still a hell of a mark up!
People used to paying $75 for a quarter won’t blink at paying $80 for a quarter that won’t get you busted, and easily $40 or more of that could be taxes while still returning a decent (although not as good as illegal, but also not as risky) profit for the seller. Certainly a higher percentage profit than most herbal products* while carrying a hypothetical 50% tax.
*Standard for the retail herbal and supplement industry is to double your cost to get the sale price. An herb I buy for $1 an ounce, I sell for $2 an ounce. A bottle of pills I pay $9 on gets priced at $18.
here in Holland, were, as you may know, pot is semi-legal, it is in fact forbidden to be driving under the influence of marijuana, even though cops have no way of testing you for it like they do with alcohol. It’s probably forbidden for a reason. I’m not a pothead but I can’t imagine that smoking up before going on your daily commute or something isn’t going to negatively affect your reaction time.