http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson...lization-122308

 

 

I don't know how I feel about this... personally I'd rather see the legalization, regulation and taxation of prostitution, on-line gambling, sports gambling and here in Illinois firework sales, before marijuana.

 

Imagine if the US government, similar to the Casino licenses here in Illinois, put up to auction 3-4 on-line gambling licenses. How many hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars would be spent to get those licenses and in addition, at a 40% tax rate (which I believe is the gambling operator profit tax rate) how much revenue that would generate and how many new "high-tech" jobs it would create.

This is all I have to add to this discussion.

 

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

A Colbert Christmas: Willie Nelson Sings

Colbert at Christmas

Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen

Bill O'Reilly Interview

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson...lization-122308

 

 

I don't know how I feel about this... personally I'd rather see the legalization, regulation and taxation of prostitution, on-line gambling, sports gambling and here in Illinois firework sales, before marijuana.

 

Imagine if the US government, similar to the Casino licenses here in Illinois, put up to auction 3-4 on-line gambling licenses. How many hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars would be spent to get those licenses and in addition, at a 40% tax rate (which I believe is the gambling operator profit tax rate) how much revenue that would generate and how many new "high-tech" jobs it would create.

Too many scams for on-line gambling. I watched some expose on current on line gambling and people are getting played.

Too many scams for on-line gambling. I watched some expose on current on line gambling and people are getting played.

Just because things aren't being done correctly/legally in our current system doesn't mean that it's impossible for things to work correctly/legally in a totally different system.

 

Part of the reason why these online gaming things are loaded with scams right now is the fact that they're forced to go to great lengths (run outside the country, etc) just to exist. There is therefore little regulation of the fairness of those games, because they've already ducked out of the country to places that aren't going to regulate their right to exist.

Legalization of marijuana is just so logical it's out of control. Don't even get me started.

I just saw something a few days ago on the history channel I believe about the drug wars they are fighting in Kentucky of all places.

 

I guess there are people that plant crops of marijuana in the wooded hills and when harvest time rolls around, the police lfly around in a helicopter to try and find the crops. Then they radio down to a ground team that goes in and confinscates it all.

 

I can't imagine the cost of all the hours and man-power involved in something like that...

I can't imagine the cost of all the hours and man-power involved in something like that...

Exactly... now have those people become regulators, and start collecting taxes, you start saving and making money, you can use the tax revenue on something else.

Just because things aren't being done correctly/legally in our current system doesn't mean that it's impossible for things to work correctly/legally in a totally different system.

 

Part of the reason why these online gaming things are loaded with scams right now is the fact that they're forced to go to great lengths (run outside the country, etc) just to exist. There is therefore little regulation of the fairness of those games, because they've already ducked out of the country to places that aren't going to regulate their right to exist.

It wasn't the site that was doing the scamming, it was numbers of guys working together to snag money. You could be at one of those poker tables with 4 other players who may be on the phone with each other. Its pretty hard to win money that way and all their money is basically pooled. One of the guys accused is a former WSOP champion, but because of it being international, they can't really do much to him but they estimated he and his group have basically stolen 10's of millions of dollars from gambling addicts.

Not to mention that the arguments originally given for making marijuana illegal were ridiculously racist.

I'm all for making Marijuana legal, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

But alas, the answer from Camp Obama was -- as it has been for years -- a flat one-liner: "President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana." And at least two of Obama's top people are drug-war supporters: Rahm Emanuel has been a long-time enemy of reform, and Joe Biden is a drug-war mainstay who helped create the position of "drug czar."

The alcohol lobby will never allow marijuana. There are already smoking bans in almost every public place, I'm not certain if that helps or hurts the efforts.

 

The on-line gambling seems much more doable. But I do not see multi-player games. It will be more along the lines of video poker, slots, etc. I doubt sports book would happen right away, the pro leagues are generally against it.

 

Unleashing a few more vices is also problematic for me. I've always felt we will fail from within.

Unleashing a few more vices is also problematic for me. I've always felt we will fail from within.

Question is... at what level is it government's job to make sure we can't make a mistake by banning things, rather than taking steps to give people a chance to do what they want to do? (perhaps while also providing ways to fix things if people do make mistakes)

I don't smoke pot and never have. I do have some reservations about legalization, as eventually big corporations would become the dealers. I also have some reservations about health and other side effects.

 

However, with over-crowded prisons and the gangster bloodbath in Juarez, legalizing marijuana seems like an overwhelmingly positive idea.

Question is... at what level is it government's job to make sure we can't make a mistake by banning things, rather than taking steps to give people a chance to do what they want to do? (perhaps while also providing ways to fix things if people do make mistakes)

 

Such as polluting and freedom with their money? Nope, sorry, the government makes morality judgements all of the time that take away from what peopel really want to do.

I'm all for making Marijuana legal, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Me too, I'm willing to settle for decriminalization/deprioritization which isn't ideal but at least we don't waste a bunch of man-hours and tax money chasing our tails. I know a few cops, the consensus seems to be "do one or the other, either keep it all the way illegal or make it legal" because right now the way the laws are, it's illegal but it ends up wasting the cop's time to do anything about it because it doesn't go anywhere in court unless it's a large amount.

I do not use marijuana, but I believe it should be legalized. Afterall, a joint is no more deleterious than a cigarette or the Hardee's Thickburger.

Question is... at what level is it government's job to make sure we can't make a mistake by banning things, rather than taking steps to give people a chance to do what they want to do? (perhaps while also providing ways to fix things if people do make mistakes)

 

In a broad sense we are the government and decide what we want to do. It seems we have tasked the government with assuring our collective futures and perhaps with helping US business and their employees with being successful on a world scale. So we ask for security, in terms of physical threats, and some form of financial security. Then we ask them to stop others from infringing on what we consider to be our rights. I believe that victimiless crimes may fall under keeping us secure and law and order. When a reasonable claim can be made that by allowing X we are creating a nuisance that infringes on our Y, we ask the government to intervene.

 

We don't want hookers walking the streets in front of our homes. We do not want 20 year olds drinking alcohol. We have found that certain drugs eventually create a cost to us when people become addicted. We find a sociatal cost to gambling. When health care costs become an issue we look for ways to lower costs as a society, so we require safer cars, seatbelt usage, lower speed limits, restrict teen driving, etc. It benefits the greater good.

In a broad sense we are the government and decide what we want to do. It seems we have tasked the government with assuring our collective futures and perhaps with helping US business and their employees with being successful on a world scale. So we ask for security, in terms of physical threats, and some form of financial security. Then we ask them to stop others from infringing on what we consider to be our rights. I believe that victimiless crimes may fall under keeping us secure and law and order. When a reasonable claim can be made that by allowing X we are creating a nuisance that infringes on our Y, we ask the government to intervene.

 

We don't want hookers walking the streets in front of our homes. We do not want 20 year olds drinking alcohol. We have found that certain drugs eventually create a cost to us when people become addicted. We find a sociatal cost to gambling. When health care costs become an issue we look for ways to lower costs as a society, so we require safer cars, seatbelt usage, lower speed limits, restrict teen driving, etc. It benefits the greater good.

 

very well written and explained.

 

so the next link in discussion though is the hypocracy associated with some decisions rather than others. Government has decided that it is ok for me to poision my body with fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, own a gun but i can't shoot a firework off, put $5 on the Bulls to win tonight, hear a swear word on TV, or enjoy in adult activities with another consenting individual.

 

Here in Illinois, I can...

 

* Own a firearm, but not a roman candle

* Bet on an animal, but not on an individual

* If under 18, can eat 15 Big Mac's a day, but not smoke a cigarette

* If 19, go fight in a war, or even be drafted, but not drink a beer.

* If 16, drive an automobile as fast as 65MPH, legally, but not buy a Playboy.

 

it seems that I have the right to engage in very serious activities, (firearms, wars, driving, etc) while not the right to engage in less serious ones. (smoking, drinking, etc)

Edited December 26, 200817 yr by jasonxctf

It's easy enough to find and smoke bud. For the user, what are the advantages of legalizing it?

 

Do you think you'd pay less for it? With the gov in control of it, I doubt that.

You want the freedom to walk down the street smoking it? Do you walk down the street with open alcohol in your hands? Public intox will still get you arrested. If I was a pot smoker and pot was legalized, I think I'd still be discrete about it.

 

very well written and explained.

 

so the next link in discussion though is the hypocracy associated with some decisions rather than others. Government has decided that it is ok for me to poision my body with fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, own a gun but i can't shoot a firework off, put $5 on the Bulls to win tonight, hear a swear word on TV, or enjoy in adult activities with another consenting individual.

 

Here in Illinois, I can...

 

* Own a firearm, but not a roman candle

* Bet on an animal, but not on an individual

* If under 18, can eat 15 Big Mac's a day, but not smoke a cigarette

* If 19, go fight in a war, or even be drafted, but not drink a beer.

* If 16, drive an automobile as fast as 65MPH, legally, but not buy a Playboy.

 

it seems that I have the right to engage in very serious activities, (firearms, wars, driving, etc) while not the right to engage in less serious ones. (smoking, drinking, etc)

 

Comments on your examples...

 

* Own a firearm, but not a roman candle

 

There is no constitutional right to own a roman candle or any other firework. Not comparable.

 

* Bet on an animal, but not on an individual

 

This one I sort of agree on its silliness, though there is the fact that humans can corrupt other humans, not animals. Sports gambling can effect those sports in a very negative way.

 

* If under 18, can eat 15 Big Mac's a day, but not smoke a cigarette

 

And so it should be. Cigarettes are far more dangerous than Big Macs.

 

* If 19, go fight in a war, or even be drafted, but not drink a beer.

 

100% agree with you here.

 

* If 16, drive an automobile as fast as 65MPH, legally, but not buy a Playboy.

 

Really? You can't buy a Playboy before 18? I didn't know that. But frankly, I think the driving age should be raised to 18 anyway.

 

----

 

MJ should be legalized. It just makes so much sense on so many levels.

 

And so it should be. Cigarettes are far more dangerous than Big Macs.

 

Obesity is real bad, people that are really fat are pretty much doomed to bad health and early death.

Obesity is real bad, people that are really fat are pretty much doomed to bad health and early death.

2000 Big Macs is real bad. A few Big Macs isn't.

 

With cigarettes, most people have a few, and are hooked. So just a few cigarettes ends up being bad for a large percentage of people.

 

So I don't put them in nearly the same category of how "bad" they are.

 

The legal age to purchase or even view pornography is 18. Playboy is still considered pornography I believe.

Obesity is real bad, people that are really fat are pretty much doomed to bad health and early death.

 

exactly

 

2000 Big Macs is real bad. A few Big Macs isn't.

 

With cigarettes, most people have a few, and are hooked. So just a few cigarettes ends up being bad for a large percentage of people.

 

So I don't put them in nearly the same category of how "bad" they are.

 

that's a good point.

 

i've seen some recent studies that suggest high sugar and high fat foods are super addictive, but in a few weeks i'll probably see a study that says big macs cure cancer.

 

i guess my overall point of view on this kind of stuff is that people are responsible for their own health (within reason of course) and they have the right to do stuff that is bad for them.