|
echinopsis posted:I oppose cannabis use from a long term health perspective, but it's not too bad in the short term and yeah people shouldn't be punished for it. But who pays for the ambulance when johnny 16 eats too many cannabis cookies and gets scared? We live in a social society and this drug use is going to have a cost. It might be small. It's likely smaller than the cost of prohibition and/or the cost of alcohol to society. Doesn't mean it's "all good" Literally can't tell if you're trolling or not, and if not I'm sincerely struggling to see your point. Everything under the sun causes harm. Television, video games, driving, riding bikes, breathing, sex, whatever, these are all activities that harm some amount of people. What happens when people call 911 because they fell off a bike that they didn't need to be riding, or got a completely unnecessary sex toy stuck inside them, or get in a car wreck when they were making a non-essential trip to the video store? This is called life, many countries deal with it by offering medical care to everyone but unfortunately America is not so enlightened. I suppose we could tax bikes and set up a bike fund for people who are injured on bikes, and tax televisions for TV-related injuries (acute and long-term), and tax weed for weed-related psychosis and such and so forth but also that makes no god damned sense. As far as I can tell you're arguing for universal health care? Awesome, that's a perfect solution to all of these problems. Kudos.
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
Well I live in a country with UHC and the problem I see is that currently the harm caused by cannabis comes out of the general health dollar. Until we regulate and tax this won't change. I'm not making an argument for or against doing this with other things because this is about cannabis and not about mountain biking or fetish related fractures
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Yes, but why is cannabis suddenly singled out for harm-related taxes above any of the other thousands of voluntary and harmful things that humans can do?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Well I live in a country with UHC and the problem I see is that currently the harm caused by cannabis comes out of the general health dollar. Until we regulate and tax this won't change. I'm not making an argument for or against doing this with other things because this is about cannabis and not about mountain biking or fetish related fractures I don't think you're going to listen to me due to my avatar but in the US the costs of marijuana prohibition are pretty much always going to be much higher than drug counseling for people who feel they have an issue with it, or needless ER visits. And if we had both legal cannabis and UHC, it most certainly would cost us far less than it does now. It's such a wide margin that I'm inclined to say that since you don't live in the country, you might not understand exactly how much prohibition effects the US at large?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Not as a rebuttal, but can you elaborate on the dangers of acetaminophen? I sell/dispense it to people every day and I want to know what I should be warning them about Tylenol/acetaminophen/paracetamol can be really dangerous if you overdose. If you take 30 regular tylenols at once, your liver just loving dies. Then you die slowly and painfully. You just cannot do that by smoking marijuana, period.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:Yes, but why is cannabis suddenly singled out for harm-related taxes above any of the other thousands of voluntary and harmful things that humans can do? Well this is the marijuana thread so...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Having a sin tax on certain things isn't exactly unheard of.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Not as a rebuttal, but can you elaborate on the dangers of acetaminophen? I sell/dispense it to people every day and I want to know what I should be warning them about If you take a very large amount at once, or less large but still well over recommended dosage continuously, you get organ damage. Also if you drink alcohol a lot while doing either. Muck and Mire posted:Yes, but why is cannabis suddenly singled out for harm-related taxes above any of the other thousands of voluntary and harmful things that humans can do? Who said it was? It's a marijuana thread.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Right, I can think of tobacco and alcohol off the top of my head and it's almost certain that weed will be pretty heavily taxed to begin with. His point is that "the cause of the cost should pay for the cost" which is definitely not something we do for tobacco or alcohol or gambling or any of the other vices that are actually very detrimental. The societal costs of those things are far greater than the tax money we make from them. So why single out weed? Surely some of the relatively high taxes proposed on legal marijuana will go towards the relatively minimal (compared to, say, any other activity) social costs that legal weed will incur.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
I'm just ignoring echinopsis, I'm pretty sure he's kicking the hornet's nest on purpose; whether to troll outright or play devil's advocate I neither know nor care. Keep in mind he strolled into page 56 this thread complaining about the official state requirements for proper labeling because of "lol stoners" (which doesn't even make sense?).echinopsis posted:I'm all for legalization and decriminalization but not so that people have better access to cannabis and want to use cannabis is a way of life, or an indentification Which is in reply to this: TACD posted:I thought it would be another 20 years before we saw things like this. This is amazing. Which is in reply to this: Red_Mage posted:Washington's Liquor Control Board just released their draft rules for Licensing and restrictions. It is full of lots of requirements and doubtless some people are going to find reasons to be mad about it. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
It is pretty funny to watch people take their inherent dislike of "stoner culture" and let it color their arguments about marijuana legalization. Ugh, the leaf of the marijuana plant is being displayed on the regulatory material that deals with said plant? How gauche.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
I'm all for legalizing pot so long as no one uses it and there is some sort of punishment for using it *sells a lethal dose of acetaminophen to a 12 year old*
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:It is pretty funny to watch people take their inherent dislike of "stoner culture" and let it color their arguments about marijuana legalization. I mean really, look at what those goddamn hippies in Kansas cooked up:  loving potheads in the Kansas state legislature had the audacity to label the marihuana tax stamp with a picture of an actual marihuana leaf. EDIT: VVV Heh. quote:Not as a rebuttal, but can you elaborate on the dangers of acetaminophen? I sell/dispense it to people every day and I want to know what I should be warning them about Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 22:23 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
I'm shocked that anyone is seriously arguing with a troll that's claiming the healthcare costs from kids eating pot brownies and freaking out are so problematic that reform shouldn't happen, while the current prohibition system is putting huge numbers of people in prison and destroying lives every single day.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:I'm shocked that anyone is seriously arguing with a troll that's claiming the healthcare costs from kids eating pot brownies and freaking out are so problematic that reform shouldn't happen, while the current prohibition system is putting huge numbers of people in prison and destroying lives every single day. I think we have to treat it seriously. You also make a mistake, he is not opposed to reform. A guy who thinks like this (excessive worry, bordering on pathological, about the costs of ending prohibition) is currently in charge of making recommendations to the government about cannabis regulation in Washington state: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/opinion/keller-how-to-legalize-pot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=opinion His blog: http://www.samefacts.com/2013/04/drug-policy/shorter-steven-duke/ KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:43 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:Right, I can think of tobacco and alcohol off the top of my head and it's almost certain that weed will be pretty heavily taxed to begin with. His point is that "the cause of the cost should pay for the cost" which is definitely not something we do for tobacco or alcohol or gambling or any of the other vices that are actually very detrimental. The societal costs of those things are far greater than the tax money we make from them. So why single out weed? Surely some of the relatively high taxes proposed on legal marijuana will go towards the relatively minimal (compared to, say, any other activity) social costs that legal weed will incur. This thread is about cannabis but yeah, it's hosed up that your alcohol and cigarette taxes don't cover the costs. I'm not singling it out specifically but it is the topic and presumably it's the one where new laws are being drawn up so the one that is most relevant
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I'm all for legalizing pot so long as no one uses it and there is some sort of punishment for using it Nice paraphrasing rear end in a top hat. Lol if you think taxes are punishment  Muck and Mire posted:It is pretty funny to watch people take their inherent dislike of "stoner culture" and let it color their arguments about marijuana legalization. If you think that's what I'm doing then I must be doing a poo poo job of conveying my message Or perhaps no one can comprehend that someone might be for regulation but also takes a realistic approach and understanding that smoking weed every day isn't a positive life ambition Install Gentoo posted:If you take a very large amount at once, or less large but still well over recommended dosage continuously, you get organ damage. Also if you drink alcohol a lot while doing either.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Or perhaps no one can comprehend that someone might be for regulation but also takes a realistic approach and understanding that smoking weed every day isn't a positive life ambition Of course, nobody can understand that not only do I wring my hands about aspects of marijuana that nobody outside of a DEA office thinks are valid, I also look down on people who smoke weed Here, friend, why don't you hit this bong and mellow out a bit? 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:I'm shocked that anyone is seriously arguing with a troll that's claiming the healthcare costs from kids eating pot brownies and freaking out are so problematic that reform shouldn't happen, while the current prohibition system is putting huge numbers of people in prison and destroying lives every single day. I'm starting to become convince some of you people can't read. As soon as I mention a negative or a cost regarding cannabis use you think Im against reform??? A proper all encompassing reform shouldn't just tackle the harms from prohibition but should accept the objective reality that cannabis use isn't benign and if we are going to do it properly [and why wouldn't you?] we should address all the issues at once instead of violently moving from life destroying prohibition to unregulated orgies of sticky icky icky
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I'm starting to become convince some of you people can't read. As soon as I mention a negative or a cost regarding cannabis use you think Im against reform??? Can you again explain the connection between formal labeling requirements, which include dosage to help reduce harms and aid in helping people make informed decisions, and how that leads to something negative called 'indentification'? I am seriously trying to read but I'm not sure if I can follow what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:Of course, nobody can understand that not only do I wring my hands about aspects of marijuana that nobody outside of a DEA office thinks are valid, I also look down on people who smoke weed Muck and Mire posted:Of course, nobody can understand that not only do I wring my hands about aspects of marijuana that nobody outside of a DEA office thinks are valid, I also look down on people who smoke weed Exactly what part of my arguments so you disagree with or do you just dislike my attitude? Or do you think the new laws should emulate the half-rear end approach current alcohol and cigarette laws?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I'm starting to become convince some of you people can't read. As soon as I mention a negative or a cost regarding cannabis use you think Im against reform??? The reality is that whatever harms you think marijuana smoking may cause are so ludicrously trivial compared to the harms happening every single day due to prohibition that it's impossible to read your words and believe they're sincere. Reform isn't a sweeping do it all at once and that's it sort of thing, it's a process. Starting the process by stopping the greatest harms seems like a solid step, and if you truly believed in reducing harm as you keep going on about, then you'd probably not be throwing out false roadblocks with every post. Edit: Muck and Mire posted:Of course, nobody can understand that not only do I wring my hands about aspects of marijuana that nobody outside of a DEA office thinks are valid, I also look down on people who smoke weed This sums things up pretty well. litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 00:22 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Can you again explain the connection between formal labeling requirements, which include dosage to help reduce harms and aid in helping people make informed decisions, and how that leads to something negative called 'indentification'? I am seriously trying to read but I'm not sure if I can follow what you're talking about. I didn't even know that was a regulation sticker I thought it was something people were promoting as a new state flag. It's irrelevant to my argument anyway it was just an entry point and a side opinion about tastefulness
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Exactly what part of my arguments so you disagree with or do you just dislike my attitude? Or do you think the new laws should emulate the half-rear end approach current alcohol and cigarette laws? Sin tax (and all specific sales taxes) are highly regressive. Ultimately addicts aren't stopped, and casual users are hurt. For cigarettes, the sin tax represents a serious amount of money taken from the poorest people in our nation.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:The reality is that whatever harms you think marijuana smoking may cause are so ludicrously trivial compared to the harms happening every single day due to prohibition that it's impossible to read your words and believe they're sincere. Maybe but I don't know why you think Im at all against the reform or anything. I'm basically saying "if you're going to do it, you might as well do it right" and it seems to me you're taking that as some kind I opposition quote:Reform isn't a sweeping do it all at once and that's it sort of thing, it's a process. Starting the process by stopping the greatest harms seems like a solid step, and if you truly believed in reducing harm as you keep going on about, then you'd probably not be throwing out false roadblocks with every post. It's not like me posting in D&D is getting in the way of reform, but is what I'm talking about not worth talking about?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Your definition of "doing it right" seems to be setting up a fund, paid for by taxing marijuana, for the relatively inconsequential amount of people who will get too stoned and call 911? Why don't you go back in the thread, see the proposed regulations from both CO and WA and our subsequent commentary on it, and comment on that? Aside from a few nitpicks most of the posters here are down with the proposed regulatory framework.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I didn't even know And I keep bringing it up because you sound like an ignorant fellow. When I saw those pictures, I clicked the associated link, read a good portion of it (as much as I could spare time for) and then read a few summaries the next day. The summaries were a good idea, because there were a lot of details I missed glancing through it. That, and a summary from the Seattle Times and the Stranger were different as they are fundamentally interested in different aspects. You, on the other hand, talked about stoner culture. Which, while I personally find it disgusting, isn't really pertinent is it? mugrim posted:Sin tax (and all specific sales taxes) are highly regressive. Ultimately addicts aren't stopped, and casual users are hurt. For cigarettes, the sin tax represents a serious amount of money taken from the poorest people in our nation. You are correct, but cannabis sin taxes have the benefit of competition. The current black market prices are apparently sustainable, and the taxes can't bring the prices too high or else tax evasion becomes the new possession-with-intent. It looks like the taxes end up coming out of the difference between the current prices and the 'real' cost of production, so the consumer won't notice much price difference. At least, that's how its looking to me, but it's also what I'm hoping will happen so take it with a grain of salt. Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 00:32 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Sin tax (and all specific sales taxes) are highly regressive. Ultimately addicts aren't stopped, and casual users are hurt. For cigarettes, the sin tax represents a serious amount of money taken from the poorest people in our nation. I understand the sympathy but why should everyone pay for those costs? I don't have a better solution and your argument is decent but what's a better alternative? [honest enquiry]
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I understand the sympathy but why should everyone pay for those costs? I don't have a better solution and your argument is decent but what's a better alternative? [honest enquiry] Why should I pay for roads I don't use, or recreation areas I don't visit, or any other single thing from which I don't receive direct and acute benefits? Because that's what living in a society is like.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:It's not like me posting in D&D is getting in the way of reform, but is what I'm talking about not worth talking about? Frankly, no. What you're talking about is ridiculous, and looks to me like a thinly veiled excuse to trash talk people that smoke marijuana because you have some personal dislike toward it. Nobody is ever going to take your blather about costs seriously when the costs you're talking about are pretty much the tiniest drop in the bucket, if they even exist, compared to the reality of what's happening.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I understand the sympathy but why should everyone pay for those costs? I don't have a better solution and your argument is decent but what's a better alternative? [honest enquiry] This, this is you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhekpgTNZ0Y EDIT: To be specific, you are separating out "marijuana-related costs" from "costs" for a reason you are not articulating well. I'm sure people who don't live near volcanos want to spent money monitoring someone else's problem but so what? I don't drive or even spend time in cars regularly, but I'm still in a insurance pool with people who do and shoulder the burden of the risk of the lifestyle choice they made (replace "insurance pool" with "UHC-funding taxes" or whatever you goddamn commies call it). This is what happens when you pool resources, but the theory goes you're still better off than you would be without the pooling. Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 00:40 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:Why should I pay for roads I don't use, or recreation areas I don't visit, or any other single thing from which I don't receive direct and acute benefits? Because that's what living in a society is like. Listen buddy, I don't use parks and I think park users are scum. gently caress park culture. Also, I'm all for beautifying parks and building new parks, but who's going to pay to clean up the dogshit on the ground from all the people bringing their dogs to the nice new parks? Isn't this worth talking about? Why are you all against me? Edit: Sorry, this isn't accurate at all. Cleaning up dogshit actually is probably a non-trivial cost, while kids eating too many pot brownies and ending up in the emergency room sounds like the setup for a bad joke. litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 00:41 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I understand the sympathy but why should everyone pay for those costs? I don't have a better solution and your argument is decent but what's a better alternative? [honest enquiry] Progressive income taxes and universal health care. Pot related issues medically speaking are negligible and in an Obese nation eating itself to death there are many easier ways to lower healthcare costs on a much larger scale.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Progressive income taxes and universal health care. Pot related issues medically speaking are negligible and in an Obese nation eating itself to death there are many easier ways to lower healthcare costs on a much larger scale. I'm trying to think up a good reason to separate pot related issues in the first place beyond to trying appease people who are worried about the downfall of western civilization and/or having to pay for someone's medical care (which they do, already). If you think kids who eat too many pot brownies are expensive to treat, you should see how expensive your average old (or fat, or god help you, fat AND old) person is. Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 00:45 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Nice paraphrasing rear end in a top hat. Lol if you think taxes are punishment Well then, slap a don't use more than once a week label on weed; bam, no tax needed! People seriously harm themselves with acetaminophen all the time, that doesn't happen with weed. You don't get to dismiss the fatal overdoses of one drug while sensationalising the nearly immeasurable harms of another.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Sorry bro, weed should definitely be taxed, and it's ok for a pittance of that revenue to be spent on the needed services, which I doubt would cost much at all! Maybe a few mil a year, when weed taxes would probably bring in way way more?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
There is already a weed tax and you pay it with weed. To me. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
katlington posted:There is already a weed tax and you pay it with weed. To me. Someone even wrote a song about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Exactly what part of my arguments so you disagree with or do you just dislike my attitude? You are catastrophising when the current policy is already a catastrophe. We have created what amounts to gulags for people who have a drug preference that differs from the preference of the majority. There is nothing worse or more costly than the system currently in place. Yes, there are costs associated with marijuana use but there are also costs involved with credit card use, spending too much time in the sun and listening to loud iPods. We don't really disagree on this point, we just don't get the hand wringing.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
KingEup posted:You are catastrophising when the current policy is already a catastrophe. Would you mind showing where he's doing that? Because from where I'm standing none of his posts have anything like that going on, only other people blowing his opinions way out of proportion.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 03:42
|
|