On marijuana: What Clinton, Sanders would do

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Unless you can say what I listed doesn't happen and we don't have cases frequently, not anecdotal by any means.

It sure as hell is. You need to back up your claim that the amount of bribes people take and the small percentage of private prisons that derive revenue from incarcerating drug offenders outweighs the amount of money we spend on the War on Drugs.

It costs the United States a fortune to keep drugs illegal and the resultant graft that some drug money is used to support is minor compared to the billions we have spent on this war.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
I take that as a yes.

What? The reading comprehension piece?

Of coarse any black projects funded secretly would benefit from illegal gains of transactions involving money and mj.

At the same time the tax payers would be paying for salaries of the gov. employees involved in seizure then said seized funds would go into secret programs. That is just one avenue and others are not as pretty.

How does the government paying salaries equate to the government making money? Which black projects are being funded by drug money? Do you always just make random things up when you are spiraling down the toilet in an argument?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Unless you can say what I listed doesn't happen and we don't have cases frequently, not anecdotal by any means.

It sure as hell is. You need to back up your claim that the amount of bribes people take and the small percentage of private prisons that derive revenue from incarcerating drug offenders outweighs the amount of money we spend on the War on Drugs.

It costs the United States a fortune to keep drugs illegal and the resultant graft that some drug money is used to support is minor compared to the billions we have spent on this war.

So you want me to document the total amount of bribery involved with illegal drugs. And until I do that then there is not people in government and other areas benefitting from keeping drugs illegal?


It's not big business both legal and illegal????

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

So you want me to document the total amount of bribery involved with illegal drugs. And until I do that then there is not people in government and other areas benefitting from keeping drugs illegal?

Are you claiming that the amount of bribes to keep drugs illegal outweighs the amount of money spent by the United States to enforce drugs laws, prosecute criminals and operate in our country and foreign nations in the war on drugs?


If your answer is 'no', then my point stands, there is no fiduciary benefit to keeping drugs illegal. There is a huge gain to be made, both directly and with indirect spend, on making the legal.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

So you want me to document the total amount of bribery involved with illegal drugs. And until I do that then there is not people in government and other areas benefitting from keeping drugs illegal?

Are you claiming that the amount of bribes to keep drugs illegal outweighs the amount of money spent by the United States to enforce drugs laws, prosecute criminals and operate in our country and foreign nations in the war on drugs?


If your answer is 'no', then my point stands, there is no fiduciary benefit to keeping drugs illegal. There is a huge gain to be made, both directly and with indirect spend, on making the legal.

I'm saying that many people benefit from keeping drugs illegal and many in government and gave examples of how money is made. And if I am on the take for even say 100,000 a year, or my company gets billions from the government because of illegal drugs do I care how much taxpayers spend fighting it? It is big business keeping drugs illegal. Private prisons, bribes, jobs, campaign contributions, etc. The last numbers I saw was we spend like 51 billion a year fighting it but spend 320 billion consuming. So looking at that the value of the market far outweighs what we spend fighting, but not really fighting it. How much of that is kick backs, bribes etc??? How many legal things like campaign contributions, etc are a result of it. Don't know.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
I'm saying that many people benefit from keeping drugs illegal and many in government and gave examples of how money is made.

I do not care about the examples unless you can demonstrate that they generate more money then the government spends on the issue.

And if I am on the take for even say 100,000 a year...

You would need to multiply that fictitious and arbitrary number by a vast amount of people to equal the expenditure for the war on drugs.

...or my company gets billions from the government because of illegal drugs...

Which companies make 'billions' from the illegal drug trade?

It is big business keeping drugs illegal. Private prisons...

Private prisons account for a single-digit amount of the overall prisons and even if I allowed you that all of the prisoners incarcerated in them were there on drug charges it would not equal what we spent.

....bribes, jobs, campaign contributions, etc.

Minimal next to the overall cost.

The last numbers I saw was we spend like 51 billion a year fighting it but spend 320 billion consuming. So looking at that the value of the market far outweighs what we spend fighting, but not really fighting it. How much of that is kick backs, bribes etc??? How many legal things like campaign contributions, etc are a result of it. Don't know.

What you should be asking is how much of that alleged 320 goes into the hands of cartels and gangs? The citizen sees no benefit to any of that income so to claim that we make money keeping them illegal is so erroneous in its premise it is laughable.

If your statements were accurate why is political sentiment shifting towards legalization? Why, if you were correct, would the government pass on gaining the tax benefits that places like Colorado are garnering?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I can't fault Obama though. Obama did more to further marijuana causes than any President before him. Though most of that support came after he saw that it was politically ok to take that position.

True. Though I still scrutinize them closely. I've seen too many people's lives be ruined because of this crap.

Also, I have a close family member with multiple sclerosis whose treatments are something like $10,000 or more per month. Her insurance pays for most of it, but she's still getting hit hard from it financially. She's in a state that doesn't even allow medical marijuana, and she's deathly afraid of breaking any laws. She's incredible with gardening, so I've tried to convince her to move to Colorado or another state like that so she can just grow her own medication.

But if you've ever dealt with multiple sclerosis, you'll know that the mood swings can be aggressive & intense, and sometimes it's hard to reason with the person. We're literally watching her health deteriorate, which makes the issue that much more personal. And I'm sure there are other people out there who have it much worse than her.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Again yes

Accounting can be funny.

Are you saying that the gov. has no secret programs?

Are you claiming that drug money does not get put back into the gov. system.

You are not real clear as to what your point is other than being against anything said.

How many law enforcement jobs would we lose if mj was legal? Yet we include all those jobs when accounting for the dollar amount of the war on drugs.

Keeping drugs illegal is profitable for the gov. That is what we have to deal with.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
I'm saying that many people benefit from keeping drugs illegal and many in government and gave examples of how money is made.

I do not care about the examples unless you can demonstrate that they generate more money then the government spends on the issue.

And if I am on the take for even say 100,000 a year...

You would need to multiply that fictitious and arbitrary number by a vast amount of people to equal the expenditure for the war on drugs.

...or my company gets billions from the government because of illegal drugs...

Which companies make 'billions' from the illegal drug trade?

It is big business keeping drugs illegal. Private prisons...

Private prisons account for a single-digit amount of the overall prisons and even if I allowed you that all of the prisoners incarcerated in them were there on drug charges it would not equal what we spent.

....bribes, jobs, campaign contributions, etc.

Minimal next to the overall cost.

The last numbers I saw was we spend like 51 billion a year fighting it but spend 320 billion consuming. So looking at that the value of the market far outweighs what we spend fighting, but not really fighting it. How much of that is kick backs, bribes etc??? How many legal things like campaign contributions, etc are a result of it. Don't know.

What you should be asking is how much of that alleged 320 goes into the hands of cartels and gangs? The citizen sees no benefit to any of that income so to claim that we make money keeping them illegal is so erroneous in its premise it is laughable.

If your statements were accurate why is political sentiment shifting towards legalization? Why, if you were correct, would the government pass on gaining the tax benefits that places like Colorado are garnering?

Never said citizens benefit from keeping it illegal. I said government which I changed to people in government along with many other legal businesses do benefit. Again you are asking me to tell you how much money is the total value of bribes,etc when if we had a total value we woulfld know who was taking and how much. Little odd, but ok.

It is big business keeping it illegal, that's fact, the market the last number I saw is about 6 times more valuable than what we spend fighting it, that does not include legal businesses benefitting from illegal drugs.

I guess what exactly are you getting at? Corruption is small and doesn't matter, we spend more fighting than we do partaking? What exactly are you disagreeing with?

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Never said citizens benefit from keeping it illegal. I said government which I changed to people in government along with many other legal businesses do benefit.

Huh? The people are the government and businesses.

It is big business keeping it illegal, that's fact, the market the last number I saw is about 6 times more valuable than what we spend fighting it, that does not include legal businesses benefitting from illegal drugs.

Which 'big businesses' are keeping it illegal and how are they accomplishing this?

I guess what exactly are you getting at? Corruption is small and doesn't matter, we spend more fighting than we do partaking? What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Corruption, compared to financial outlay, is not comparable. There is no net gain.

And yes, we do spend much more fighting drugs than what we take in when they are illegal.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Never said citizens benefit from keeping it illegal. I said government which I changed to people in government along with many other legal businesses do benefit.

Huh? The people are the government and businesses.

It is big business keeping it illegal, that's fact, the market the last number I saw is about 6 times more valuable than what we spend fighting it, that does not include legal businesses benefitting from illegal drugs.

Which 'big businesses' are keeping it illegal and how are they accomplishing this?

I guess what exactly are you getting at? Corruption is small and doesn't matter, we spend more fighting than we do partaking? What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Corruption, compared to financial outlay, is not comparable. There is no net gain.

And yes, we do spend much more fighting drugs than what we take in when they are illegal.

Once again what I write and what you address don't match. Simple you show me where I said businesses are keeping it illegal. I'll wait because it's not what I said. I said it's big business keeping it illegal and even legal businesses benefit from it being illegal. This is twice with you saying something I never said. Are we going to keep it like this?


Considering its illegal and the consumption market is bigger than the fighting it market that would mean that businesses be it legal or illegal or even cartels benefit financially more than what we spend fighting it.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Well there IS a thread on the debate as a whole already. I just made this thread to talk about marijuana.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Once again what I write and what you address don't match. Simple you show me where I said businesses are keeping it illegal.

Really? Who said this:

It is big business keeping it illegal, that's fact..

Being that it is a 'fact' please tell me which ones.

I'll wait because it's not what I said. I said it's big business keeping it illegal and even legal businesses benefit from it being illegal. This is twice with you saying something I never said. Are we going to keep it like this?

I guess we will have to since you seem to have personal definitions of 'business' and 'big business' that the majority of the population do not employ. Business is business, whether it is small, medium or large. Now tell us which ones are keeping it illegal and how they accomplish this objective.

Considering its illegal and the consumption market is bigger than the fighting it market that would mean that businesses be it legal or illegal or even cartels benefit financially more than what we spend fighting it.

We are not talking about whether it benefits cartels or not, we already know the answer, you tried to make the premise that there is more legal money to be made by keeping it illegal. Whatever that means.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Are you saying that the gov. has no secret programs?

Are you saying those secret programs are not funded by taxpayers but instead by the illegal drug trade and that funding is somehow outweighs the amount we spend on the war on drugs?

Are you claiming that drug money does not get put back into the gov. system.

I am certain to a degree it does make it back but it does not amount to what we spend.

You are not real clear as to what your point is other than being against anything said.

Because you are never clear when you interject yourself into a topic. You asked a question, I answered it.

How many law enforcement jobs would we lose if mj was legal? Yet we include all those jobs when accounting for the dollar amount of the war on drugs.

Other than the DEA having to find other things to do, I would say not many.

Keeping drugs illegal is profitable for the gov. That is what we have to deal with.

Show me the financial breakdown then.

a reply to: tinymind

I don't believe the "can't get money out of it" excuse anymore. Colorado, Washington, and all the other states that have legalized it have figured out how to do it. Plus if you put your mind to it, it's possible. We ARE after all talking about the government figuring out a way to make money on something. If there is SOMETHING the government knows how to do, it's how to tax something.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Exactly. See my post above this one.

Yeah, she is just blowing marijuana smoke up everyone's asses.

well, that is an awkward way of getting high......better to just be satisfied with getting s**tfaced on alcohol.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Dude, I'm with you. I'm tired of seeing lives ruined by it AND by people getting prescribed some opiate painkiller when marijuana would have sufficed. Marijuana being illegal and the war on Drugs should be at the forefront of everyone's mind. THAT is the real cause of "America's decline". How can you honestly call your country the "land of the free" and also have the highest incarceration rate in the world? The inconsistency is troubling.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deadeyedick

Well there IS a thread on the debate as a whole already. I just made this thread to talk about marijuana.

not much to talk about cause no dem will be in office in the next few yrs unless something happens to bama and biden takes the role.

I wish there was a candidate that was for medical mj and not for the trillions of handouts that come along in voting for one of these clowns running now.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Once again what I write and what you address don't match. Simple you show me where I said businesses are keeping it illegal.

Really? Who said this:

It is big business keeping it illegal, that's fact..

Being that it is a 'fact' please tell me which ones.

I'll wait because it's not what I said. I said it's big business keeping it illegal and even legal businesses benefit from it being illegal. This is twice with you saying something I never said. Are we going to keep it like this?

I guess we will have to since you seem to have personal definitions of 'business' and 'big business' that the majority of the population do not employ. Business is business, whether it is small, medium or large. Now tell us which ones are keeping it illegal and how they accomplish this objective.

Considering its illegal and the consumption market is bigger than the fighting it market that would mean that businesses be it legal or illegal or even cartels benefit financially more than what we spend fighting it.

We are not talking about whether it benefits cartels or not, we already know the answer, you tried to make the premise that there is more legal money to be made by keeping it illegal. Whatever that means.

It is big business keeping it illegal, I didn't say those businesses were keeping it illegal, but they benefit and that shows in campaign contributions and the like.

Already have told you who benefits, people in government with bribes and such, increase in government jobs fighting it, private prisons, public prisons as drug people increase population meaning more jobs. manufacturers benefit as they make guns, equipment used in fighting, drug screening companies benefit looking for illegal drug use, many companies have sprung up to offer products to beat drug tests,polticians get a campaign issue. Foreign countries benefit in the form of money and other resources we hand out to help them fight it. A ton of benefits for a wide range of people and businesses.

And yes there is a lot of money to be made by keeping it illegal for many businesses and people, who wouldn't if it were legal, taxed, and regulated. You disagree with that? Have at it

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deadeyedick

Well there IS a thread on the debate as a whole already. I just made this thread to talk about marijuana.

not much to talk about cause no dem will be in office in the next few yrs unless something happens to bama and biden takes the role.

That's a pretty bold statement considering that the election is a year away. I have my doubts that a Republican is even electable in this political climate, but hey I'm not going to be definitive about it.

I wish there was a candidate that was for medical mj and not for the trillions of handouts that come along in voting for one of these clowns running now.

Rand Paul may be up your alley. Though he has next to no chance of being elected.