Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-08-15 17:33:11)
I'm assuming the taxes would be enough on the basis that for a government to overturn and age old, semi controversial law and adopt a new policy to drugs they'd only do so for a good amount of revenue.Macbeth wrote:
Did the government announce what they would tax marijuana farms if it was ever legalized or are you just assuming the taxes would be enough to even things out?jord wrote:
Yes. The money saved from cultivating thousands of plants on a large scale will just even out with taxes.
I'm not too fussed either way but its pretty idiotic for a government to not salvage what money they can in a recession.And buying pot at a higher price from someone who grows it in their basement makes more sense then buying some cheaply from the local store?jord wrote:
Its not that simple anyway, many cultivators just do it on the side for extra money.
The money saved from not fighting the war on drugs is incentive enough not to hit pot with super heavy taxes. And even if the taxes were high, like tobacco, a person growing it in their basement still could not compete.jord wrote:
I'm assuming the taxes would be enough on the basis that for a government to overturn and age old, semi controversial law and adopt a new policy to drugs they'd only do so for a good amount of revenue.Macbeth wrote:
Did the government announce what they would tax marijuana farms if it was ever legalized or are you just assuming the taxes would be enough to even things out?jord wrote:
Yes. The money saved from cultivating thousands of plants on a large scale will just even out with taxes.
I'm not too fussed either way but its pretty idiotic for a government to not salvage what money they can in a recession.And buying pot at a higher price from someone who grows it in their basement makes more sense then buying some cheaply from the local store?jord wrote:
Its not that simple anyway, many cultivators just do it on the side for extra money.
Regarding your last statement, no it wouldn't. Obviously the illegal growers would reduce their price and thus their profits, but they could still turn a half decent profit on the side I bet.
Sounds as crazed as spouting off about the illuminati.11 Bravo wrote:
you guys are way off. here in the US there are like two companies that grow your produce and two that make your meat, eggs, and chicken. local farms struggle which is why they are subsidised. pot would be the same thing. only a couple would control it. and if you think that is a good thing well then you dont know too much about our quality of food.
ATG it is true dude. there are very few private farms out there that feed the masses. the numbers dont lie.ATG wrote:
Sounds as crazed as spouting off about the illuminati.11 Bravo wrote:
you guys are way off. here in the US there are like two companies that grow your produce and two that make your meat, eggs, and chicken. local farms struggle which is why they are subsidised. pot would be the same thing. only a couple would control it. and if you think that is a good thing well then you dont know too much about our quality of food.
My uncle has a 100 head of cattle producing feed calfs outside kodachrome. He sells to independent feed lots and private ranchers.
I know Sir.11 Bravo wrote:
ATG it is true dude. there are very few private farms out there that feed the masses. the numbers dont lie.ATG wrote:
Sounds as crazed as spouting off about the illuminati.11 Bravo wrote:
you guys are way off. here in the US there are like two companies that grow your produce and two that make your meat, eggs, and chicken. local farms struggle which is why they are subsidised. pot would be the same thing. only a couple would control it. and if you think that is a good thing well then you dont know too much about our quality of food.
My uncle has a 100 head of cattle producing feed calfs outside kodachrome. He sells to independent feed lots and private ranchers.
It's all about production costs Vs market value.11 Bravo wrote:
you guys are way off. here in the US there are like two companies that grow your produce and two that make your meat, eggs, and chicken. local farms struggle which is why they are subsidised. pot would be the same thing. only a couple would control it. and if you think that is a good thing well then you dont know too much about our quality of food.
Why should it?11 Bravo wrote:
its worth more cuz it is illegal. i think price would drop big time.
booze cost less once it was made legal again. how many people go out and buy homegrown moonshine?Bertster7 wrote:
Why should it?11 Bravo wrote:
its worth more cuz it is illegal. i think price would drop big time.
It's about the same price elsewhere where it is legal - like Amsterdam. What do you base this assumption on?
Market value is about what people are prepared to pay for things. That's what they're worth.
Yet we don't see this borne out in any of the many countries where it is legal.11 Bravo wrote:
booze cost less once it was made legal again. how many people go out and buy homegrown moonshine?Bertster7 wrote:
Why should it?11 Bravo wrote:
its worth more cuz it is illegal. i think price would drop big time.
It's about the same price elsewhere where it is legal - like Amsterdam. What do you base this assumption on?
Market value is about what people are prepared to pay for things. That's what they're worth.
Did the mafia and other gangsters go legit and disappear when alcohol was legalised?Bertster7 wrote:
Yet we don't see this borne out in any of the many countries where it is legal.
The price of alcohol went up during prohibition in a way that was artificially out of line with global markets. Market forcing pushed it back down when it was able to - the price of alcohol elsewhere in the world did not change and the price in the US fell back in line with this.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-15 19:13:35)
Last edited by Airwolf (2010-08-16 19:06:13)
Which have extensive knock-on social consequences.Uzique wrote:
i think a lot of drugs should be decriminalized, from a legal-theoretical and moral point of view.
classing and treating individuals as criminals and malignant influences within 'society', because they make a highly-personal and entirely individual choice to take a certain substance or recreationally enjoy an arbitrarily-classified, politically-motivated 'restricted' substance...
It can always be moved back any time, but so far I'm not seeing much of an outcry. Maybe EE will expand the thread's population.jsnipy wrote:
edit: I say that after seeing that the last few posts are actually on point Oh well, serious talk is not a crime in EE.
keywords here are 'private' and 'recreational'.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which have extensive knock-on social consequences.Uzique wrote:
i think a lot of drugs should be decriminalized, from a legal-theoretical and moral point of view.
classing and treating individuals as criminals and malignant influences within 'society', because they make a highly-personal and entirely individual choice to take a certain substance or recreationally enjoy an arbitrarily-classified, politically-motivated 'restricted' substance...
So long as our favorite stoner androoz doesn't return.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It can always be moved back any time, but so far I'm not seeing much of an outcry. Maybe EE will expand the thread's population.jsnipy wrote:
edit: I say that after seeing that the last few posts are actually on point Oh well, serious talk is not a crime in EE.
You can't apparently use responsibly, how do you suppose the average prole will get along?Uzique wrote:
keywords here are 'private' and 'recreational'.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which have extensive knock-on social consequences.Uzique wrote:
i think a lot of drugs should be decriminalized, from a legal-theoretical and moral point of view.
classing and treating individuals as criminals and malignant influences within 'society', because they make a highly-personal and entirely individual choice to take a certain substance or recreationally enjoy an arbitrarily-classified, politically-motivated 'restricted' substance...
the only knock-on social consequences are a fucking good time and a great experience to have with friends.
used responsibly and privately, of course. in any other circumstances you can-- and should-- substitute 'alcohol' as an equal evil.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-17 00:18:46)
Where did anyone say that?CapnNismo wrote:
Alcohol has no long-term consequences?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-17 01:09:22)
Dilbert_X wrote:
Alcohol does have social problems, but not the same long-term psychiatric issues as many illegal drugs including cannabis,
