Economic implications of legalizing cannabis?
What would be the affect on the UK economy if they legalised recreatsional cannabis?
Answer:
there was one answer here with a report on how legalizing narcotics would ultimatel;y destroy society, however, in all her examples, none of which mentioned cannabis. my personal opinion is that Yes, there will be massive dissent on both sides of the issue, until weed ultimately gets Boring.
example: In Germany, the legal age for drinking is 16, yet there aren't gangs of sloshed-out teenagers runnig around the streets of every town, it's a regular everyday thing that hasn't been demonized or turned into some taboo coming-of-age thing, and it it treated as such.
In Holland, the use of marijuana is tempered by an unspoken social code whereas it is treated on par with tobacco cigarrettes, a regular, everyday thing.
the rest of the world , though would not have it's head on straight until they let marijuana sink into the background.
yes, there will be a bit of chaos, but that comes with all change.
It would generate tax revenue and free up law enforcement resources for more important issues
Considering the medical community generally believes that it
has less profound effects than alchohol, other than the protests
here and there, it would have about the same effect as the
introduction of a new over-the-counter medicine.
That is, existing suppliers would go out of business slowly as the
more traditional places of commerce figured out how to package
and sell it.
However, I don't think the protesting should be taken too lightly.
Consider that in the US we've had constitutional ammendments
come (and go) over alchohol.
Expect the first Mom-and-Pop store that tries to sell it to have
lines of protesters five people deep swearing that it will be the
end of the world and we're all going to hell.
Economically devastating.
The tired, old whining of legalizing drugs to collect the tax revenue is one of the biggest myths out there. Here is a copy of a letter that I wrote for the Mensa Bulletin in 2003 dealing with this subject. WARNING: this is a fact containing letter. Those of you who argue with emotional rants can stop reading now.
For those of you ignorant enough to believe that narcotic drugs should
be legal, let's examine some of the FACTS that so conveniently get left
out of Libertarian whining:
1. Illness, death, and hospitalization due to the effects of the illegal
drugs themselves, not including crime related health care expenditures,
cost $40 billion annually as of 1998. According to the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) drug use in the work place costs
American Companies $100+ billion in lost profit each year, a figure that
is equal to 20 % of the combined GROSS (not net) profit of all fortune
500 companies added together.
2. In New York City, it is estimated that
9 out of 10 heterosexual HIV cases are due to sex with an IV drug user,
and 9 out of 10 prostitutes are HIV positive with 80 % of those cases
coming from using a dirty needle. Passing out condoms and clean needles
do not work. If the drug addicts were that responsible in the first
place, they wouldn't be using IV drugs, and 92 % of IV drug users admit
to sharing needles.
3. Just because something is illegal does not mean
it is cheap. The average cigarette smoker spends $2000-$3000 per year
on their habit. Crack cocaine users have been known to spend that much
in ONE DAY. Make crack cheaper and the addict will smoke more until
they are broke. Eventually they will resort to crime to satisfy their
habit just like the person who steals beer from the convenience store
two minutes after buying time ends.
4. As for the Libertarians' rant
that any narcotic drugs a person puts into their body is not regulated
by the Constitution, one need only read Article VI, Clause 2: "This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Bottom line: Congress has the authority to pass whatever laws that they
need to govern this country.
I could go on pointing out other fallacies to this lunacy of legalizing
drugs, but let me ask Mr. [name removed] and others a question: if you
found out today that your son or daughter was being invited to a drug
orgy with crack, heroin, Ecstasy, and you-name-it on the day that they
turned 18 (or 21), would you encourage them to go participate?
I've asked this question hundreds of times, yet no one
has ever said "yes", but we don't mind letting someone else's high
school or college aged kid join in, right? Don't worry, he'll be just fine to drive home.
As Mr. [x] so rightfully put it "Laws don't stop crime." There of
course would need to be laws to regulate the use of legalized drugs,
just as there are laws to regulate the use of alcohol. Take a look at
the number of airline pilots that have been caught (a small fraction of
those who break the law) attempting to fly under the influence of
alcohol and tell me that NONE of them would fly stoned. Or maybe its
your son or daughter's school bus driver, or one of the health care
providers in the ER who, after a few hits off the crack pipe, has the
task of trying to save their life.
I am yet to meet one person who told me that recreational use of
narcotics made their life better, but I've met thousands who told me
that ending their drug use was one of the best decisions they ever made.
the king pins - the big dope dealers like lily and the others would lose some profit and be after the government to ban pot so they can sell their dope to the consumers
More Questions and Answers:
More Questions and Answers:
What motivates politicians to impose tariffs, quotas,and other trade restrictions?
In the world economy , what is rank of the philippines?
A monopolist tends to charge _____ , and offer ______ for sale.?
does the world go around money?
Is the demand slope is in positive slope?
how many out of 10 people experience poverty in the Philipines?
. As social institutions, what are the economy and the political system supposed to do?
Do politicians really have an immediate effect on the economy?
What are the good and bad effects of Marketing in Pakistan?
Answer:
there was one answer here with a report on how legalizing narcotics would ultimatel;y destroy society, however, in all her examples, none of which mentioned cannabis. my personal opinion is that Yes, there will be massive dissent on both sides of the issue, until weed ultimately gets Boring.
example: In Germany, the legal age for drinking is 16, yet there aren't gangs of sloshed-out teenagers runnig around the streets of every town, it's a regular everyday thing that hasn't been demonized or turned into some taboo coming-of-age thing, and it it treated as such.
In Holland, the use of marijuana is tempered by an unspoken social code whereas it is treated on par with tobacco cigarrettes, a regular, everyday thing.
the rest of the world , though would not have it's head on straight until they let marijuana sink into the background.
yes, there will be a bit of chaos, but that comes with all change.
It would generate tax revenue and free up law enforcement resources for more important issues
Considering the medical community generally believes that it
has less profound effects than alchohol, other than the protests
here and there, it would have about the same effect as the
introduction of a new over-the-counter medicine.
That is, existing suppliers would go out of business slowly as the
more traditional places of commerce figured out how to package
and sell it.
However, I don't think the protesting should be taken too lightly.
Consider that in the US we've had constitutional ammendments
come (and go) over alchohol.
Expect the first Mom-and-Pop store that tries to sell it to have
lines of protesters five people deep swearing that it will be the
end of the world and we're all going to hell.
Economically devastating.
The tired, old whining of legalizing drugs to collect the tax revenue is one of the biggest myths out there. Here is a copy of a letter that I wrote for the Mensa Bulletin in 2003 dealing with this subject. WARNING: this is a fact containing letter. Those of you who argue with emotional rants can stop reading now.
For those of you ignorant enough to believe that narcotic drugs should
be legal, let's examine some of the FACTS that so conveniently get left
out of Libertarian whining:
1. Illness, death, and hospitalization due to the effects of the illegal
drugs themselves, not including crime related health care expenditures,
cost $40 billion annually as of 1998. According to the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) drug use in the work place costs
American Companies $100+ billion in lost profit each year, a figure that
is equal to 20 % of the combined GROSS (not net) profit of all fortune
500 companies added together.
2. In New York City, it is estimated that
9 out of 10 heterosexual HIV cases are due to sex with an IV drug user,
and 9 out of 10 prostitutes are HIV positive with 80 % of those cases
coming from using a dirty needle. Passing out condoms and clean needles
do not work. If the drug addicts were that responsible in the first
place, they wouldn't be using IV drugs, and 92 % of IV drug users admit
to sharing needles.
3. Just because something is illegal does not mean
it is cheap. The average cigarette smoker spends $2000-$3000 per year
on their habit. Crack cocaine users have been known to spend that much
in ONE DAY. Make crack cheaper and the addict will smoke more until
they are broke. Eventually they will resort to crime to satisfy their
habit just like the person who steals beer from the convenience store
two minutes after buying time ends.
4. As for the Libertarians' rant
that any narcotic drugs a person puts into their body is not regulated
by the Constitution, one need only read Article VI, Clause 2: "This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Bottom line: Congress has the authority to pass whatever laws that they
need to govern this country.
I could go on pointing out other fallacies to this lunacy of legalizing
drugs, but let me ask Mr. [name removed] and others a question: if you
found out today that your son or daughter was being invited to a drug
orgy with crack, heroin, Ecstasy, and you-name-it on the day that they
turned 18 (or 21), would you encourage them to go participate?
I've asked this question hundreds of times, yet no one
has ever said "yes", but we don't mind letting someone else's high
school or college aged kid join in, right? Don't worry, he'll be just fine to drive home.
As Mr. [x] so rightfully put it "Laws don't stop crime." There of
course would need to be laws to regulate the use of legalized drugs,
just as there are laws to regulate the use of alcohol. Take a look at
the number of airline pilots that have been caught (a small fraction of
those who break the law) attempting to fly under the influence of
alcohol and tell me that NONE of them would fly stoned. Or maybe its
your son or daughter's school bus driver, or one of the health care
providers in the ER who, after a few hits off the crack pipe, has the
task of trying to save their life.
I am yet to meet one person who told me that recreational use of
narcotics made their life better, but I've met thousands who told me
that ending their drug use was one of the best decisions they ever made.
the king pins - the big dope dealers like lily and the others would lose some profit and be after the government to ban pot so they can sell their dope to the consumers
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers:
More Questions and Answers: