Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Legalized and not taxed , yes the price would drop. Legalized and taxed? The sky is the limit.
Then you are talking about decriminalization, not legalization. Legalization would bring the government into the picture and they would collect as much tax as they can. The pro-narcotic people argue that legalization is a good idea, because it would provide revenue to the government. If you remove the revenue, you remove the only pro-pot argument the non-users might agree with.
Then you are talking about decriminalization, not legalization. Legalization would bring the government into the picture and they would collect as much tax as they can. The pro-narcotic people argue that legalization is a good idea, because it would provide revenue to the government. If you remove the revenue, you remove their only pro-pot argument the non-users might agree with.
There are also other reasons some legislaters are opposed to it and it has nothing to do with weed.
Or just continue to buy it thru the cottage industry already in place.
If people continue to buy it illegally, then what is the point of legalization? Smuggling and black market will continue, and become even more profitable for the organized crime.
I would assume Congressmen are more interestred in the monney-flow than the product itself. It's just the nature of the beast.
Actualy I was talking on a state level. I have had conversations with GOP state reps who came right out and said they dont have a problem with weed, they just dont want to make NH apear dem friendly.
If people continue to buy it illegally, then what is the point of legalization? Smuggling and black market will continue, and become even more profitable for the organized crime.
Depends where one resides. Northern New England dosnt see much organized crime with the exception of bikers running crank, coke and guns.
Reefer is grown by hippies in VT and distributed thru working folks who also have day jobs. I cant say about other parts of the country as I dont know and dont care.
For example, a school bus driver rear-ends the vehicle in front of them and several children on the bus have minor injuries. The uninjured driver of the school bus is immediately sent to be drug tested. If the drug test results in a negative, the school bus company's insurance pays for the hospital bills and the damage of the vehicle that was hit, and the school bus driver may or may not lose his job (depending on the police report), and that is the end of it.
If the drug test results in a positive result, now the driver and the school bus company are being sued by the parents of the children that were hurt, and by the driver that was hit. Even though the school bus driver smoked a joint on Saturday, and was not high at the time of the accident on Monday, they will most likely still test positive. That is why I think it would be smart not to use any kind of "recreational" drug, or any drug that was not sanctioned by the company.
Pure conjecture. You would have to convince a jury that the drugs caused impairment. And in that case, any drug or other substance could create liability.
Thats exactly what happened when Portugal decriminalized all drugs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
