On marijuana: What Clinton, Sanders would do

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
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.

Which big business are keeping it illegal?

Already have told you who benefits, people in government with bribes and such...

Are you claiming that there are tens of billion in bribes every year? That would be a hell of a claim as drug enforcement as practiced internally in the United States goes for the money which is very hard to hide.

...increase in government jobs fighting it...

Are those jobs being paid for with drug money? No? Then it is not making anything.

...private prisons...

Again with this? Private prisons account for less than 1/10th of the overall prison population. It is the distinct minority.

...public prisons as drug people increase population meaning more jobs.

Those jobs paid for with drug money? See above.

...manufacturers benefit as they make guns...

The vast majority of firearms sold in the United States go to private citizens, not the war on drugs.

...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.

Minimal as compared to the financial outlay from the war on drugs.

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

Your entire premise is flawed because you are missing the big picture. Let me help you:

The 19th Amendment.

If keeping things illegal generated so much income why did we not keep alcohol illegal? The answer, IT WAS NOT PROFITABLE and people were doing it anyway. Just like drugs.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Do you have a point to your arguments?

Could you sum it up for me?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Exactly! "Land of the free" but we'll imprison for you jaywalking. "Home of the brave" yet we're scared of everything that's different from what our narrow minds accept.

The policies don't even make sense economically. In 2010, it was found that the average cost of incarcerating one inmate in America was $31,307 per year. And in 2012, New York City taxpayers paid $167,731 to feed, house and guard each inmate. That simply doesn't make sense.

It would literally be cheaper to issue community service, a small fine, and mandate a taxpayer paid course at a community college than to imprison them. The average cost to imprison an inmate is actually higher than the yearly tuition for most colleges & universities. Fiscal conservatives should be all on this issue. Why should taxpayers pay that much money to imprison someone who had a few hundred dollars worth of drugs?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Really Alcohol?

That is not why they ended the ban on booze or even why it started.

Prohibition ended cause the moran behind it was out of office and too many people voiced out for it.

It was a political issue and not much to do with money.

Get over it the war on drugs is profitable.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
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.

Which big business are keeping it illegal?

Already have told you who benefits, people in government with bribes and such...

Are you claiming that there are tens of billion in bribes every year? That would be a hell of a claim as drug enforcement as practiced internally in the United States goes for the money which is very hard to hide.

...increase in government jobs fighting it...

Are those jobs being paid for with drug money? No? Then it is not making anything.

...private prisons...

Again with this? Private prisons account for less than 1/10th of the overall prison population. It is the distinct minority.

...public prisons as drug people increase population meaning more jobs.

Those jobs paid for with drug money? See above.

...manufacturers benefit as they make guns...

The vast majority of firearms sold in the United States go to private citizens, not the war on drugs.

...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.

Minimal as compared to the financial outlay from the war on drugs.

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

Your entire premise is flawed because you are missing the big picture. Let me help you:

The 19th Amendment.

If keeping things illegal generated so much income why did we not keep alcohol illegal? The answer, IT WAS NOT PROFITABLE and people were doing it anyway. Just like drugs.

I didn't say big businesses are keeping it illegal. I said they are benefitting from it being illegal and the fact I had to repeat it three times is annoying. If you don't have basic reading or comprehension skills this will go nowhere.

Doesn't matter if those jobs are being financed by drug money, the jobs exist because drugs are illegal. That is a benefit. And many jobs are financed by drug money as well. That's fact.

It doesn't matter what percent of private prisons account for, they still benefit from drugs being illegal which is my point. Many benefits to keeping drugs illegal.

Again you are the one missing the point. It doesn't matter how much someone or a business benefits compared to the costs to fight. Those people aren't covering the cost of fighting it and worried about making more than that. It is big business period. Nothing you can say changes that.

As far as why alcohol prohibition ended in 33, everyone has an opinion but I would suggest that there might have been something else going on during that time that devastated the tax base and killed the global economy and the government saw a large influx of revenue by doing that, which outweighed anything else going on. Same reason not only are drugs going to be legal in the next couple decades but why democrats and republicans will both support it. Wonder what could have been going on during the early 30s that would require a need for new tax revenue.

So since sanders is for it but not at all likely to win office and cliton stayed away from the subject then what can dems infer from this? vote for rand? it does not look any better if biden is in

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
I didn't say big businesses are keeping it illegal.

Yea, you did, so cut the crap and stop the goalpost shifting:

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
It is big business keeping it illegal...

As far as why alcohol prohibition ended in 33, everyone has an opinion but I would suggest that there might have been something else going on during that time that devastated the tax base and killed the global economy and the government saw a large influx of revenue by doing that, which outweighed anything else going on. Same reason not only are drugs going to be legal in the next couple decades but why democrats and republicans will both support it. Wonder what could have been going on during the early 30s that would require a need for new tax revenue.

The main issue was enforcement, the cost it entailed and the glaring fact that everyone was flouting the law. Public sentiment, not government, was clearly against the Volstead Act and was the main reason for repeal:

Prohibition lost advocates as ignoring the law gained increasing social acceptance and as organized crime violence increased. By 1933, public opposition to prohibition had become overwhelming. Source

originally posted by: deadeyedick
So since sanders is for it but not at all likely to win office and cliton stayed away from the subject then what can dems infer from this? vote for rand? it does not look any better if biden is in

Or Democratic voters can pick Sanders in the upcoming Democratic primaries & work to get him elected as President? Why would they jump to Rand when Rand is against most of the other policies the left wing supports?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
I didn't say big businesses are keeping it illegal.

Yea, you did, so cut the crap and stop the goalpost shifting:

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
It is big business keeping it illegal...

As far as why alcohol prohibition ended in 33, everyone has an opinion but I would suggest that there might have been something else going on during that time that devastated the tax base and killed the global economy and the government saw a large influx of revenue by doing that, which outweighed anything else going on. Same reason not only are drugs going to be legal in the next couple decades but why democrats and republicans will both support it. Wonder what could have been going on during the early 30s that would require a need for new tax revenue.

The main issue was enforcement, the cost it entailed and the glaring fact that everyone was flouting the law. Public sentiment, not government, was clearly against the Volstead Act and was the main reason for repeal:

Prohibition lost advocates as ignoring the law gained increasing social acceptance and as organized crime violence increased. By 1933, public opposition to prohibition had become overwhelming. Source

No I didn't and I dare you to show me where I said big businesses are keeping it illegal. Lying isn't helping so please stop.

Just like people think Lincoln mainly wanted to end slavery people feel enforcement and sentiment were the reason to end prohibition. Think what you want. It pretty much mirrors drugs today especially pot but it's still illegal. They needed a new tax source. Great depression on going, bad finances, maybe enforcement costs weighed more considering. My belief it was a decision made for tax revenue. But whatever you want to believe is fine. As our economic troubles continue history will repeat

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
No I didn't and I dare you to show me where I said big businesses are keeping it illegal.

Yeah, you did, I just showed you. Here is your quote:

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
It is big business keeping it illegal, that's fact...

Here is the reply where you made that statement:

a reply to: Reallyfolks

You can apologize for calling me a liar now.

Just like people think Lincoln mainly wanted to end slavery people feel enforcement and sentiment were the reason to end prohibition.

Slavery and Prohibition are too incredibly different things. The only people who did not want Prohibition to end were bootleggers, slavery had half a country in favor of the practice. Now you are grasping at straws.

They needed a new tax source. Great depression on going, bad finances, maybe enforcement costs weighed more considering. My belief it was a decision made for tax revenue. But whatever you want to believe is fine. As our economic troubles continue history will repeat

What I 'believe' is the evidence and contemporary statements, not invented anecdotes like you, the populace wanted Prohibition over, for the government the windfall was incidental.

Illegal drugs do not net the government a profit, just as Prohibition did not.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

To me, I see that prison does more to encourage bad behavior than it does to deter it. The common trope among anyone discussing prison is that prison is basically college for criminals. Go to jail for a minor offensive and get a full blown degree on how to commit major crimes. Then for the nice icing on the cake, if you've been to jail then it severely decreases your chances of finding honest work. So this turns around and forces the person back to a life of crime. The whole system needs to be restructured.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

To me, I see that prison does more to encourage bad behavior than it does to deter it. The common trope among anyone discussing prison is that prison is basically college for criminals. Go to jail for a minor offensive and get a full blown degree on how to commit major crimes. Then for the nice icing on the cake, if you've been to jail then it severely decreases your chances of finding honest work. So this turns around and forces the person back to a life of crime. The whole system needs to be restructured.

I agree. And the fact that our society rejects rehabilitation in favor of punishment makes it even worse. Many people don't even want convicts to be rehabilitated, much less released back into the public or given a chance to improve their conditions. I think that's the real reason the "tough on crime" people don't mind spending so much money imprisoning people.

Another take is that a lot of people are sadists. By definition, they enjoy the pain of others. You can see it quite clearly when people talk about a person suspected of a horrible crime. They use that as an excuse to wish extreme pain on the person, and some even basically say they hope the person gets raped in prison. Not rehabilitated but punished & possibly raped.

They even defend harsh treatments in prisons & jails because the person "deserves" it. And they're even worse when it comes to accepted enemies. How many people have you ever heard say they want to rehabilitate ISIS sympathizers? I honestly think a lot of "civilized" people are just as bad as ISIS & are simply waiting for a publicly accepted excuse to imprison, beat, torture, prison rape, or kill people. The only difference is ISIS has been given "permission" & cover by their backers to do that stuff.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
No I didn't and I dare you to show me where I said big businesses are keeping it illegal.

Yeah, you did, I just showed you. Here is your quote:

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
It is big business keeping it illegal, that's fact...

Here is the reply where you made that statement:

a reply to: Reallyfolks

You can apologize for calling me a liar now.

Just like people think Lincoln mainly wanted to end slavery people feel enforcement and sentiment were the reason to end prohibition.

Slavery and Prohibition are too incredibly different things. The only people who did not want Prohibition to end were bootleggers, slavery had half a country in favor of the practice. Now you are grasping at straws.

They needed a new tax source. Great depression on going, bad finances, maybe enforcement costs weighed more considering. My belief it was a decision made for tax revenue. But whatever you want to believe is fine. As our economic troubles continue history will repeat

What I 'believe' is the evidence and contemporary statements, not invented anecdotes like you, the populace wanted Prohibition over, for the government the windfall was incidental.

Illegal drugs do not net the government a profit, just as Prohibition did not.

Its big business keeping it illegal as in money to be made , not big bussinesses are Keeping illegal. As I said.......comprehension. that was the quote you posted and what I said....no apology needed for lack of comprehension or assumptions on your part.


Again believe they ended prohibition for any reason you want. I made the Lincoln showing how many people think Lincoln cared about slavery. No different from your belief in why they ended prohibition.


There is big money in keeping it illegal. If prohibition ended due to enforcement or public opinion pot would be legal. Argue all you want.

I think Trump has a favorable position or he did. Im pretty sure it was legalizing and the government selling it. I like Sanders better than the other dems , that's for sure.

She lied so a pedophile client of hers could get off the charges against him.

She's simply a proven liar and an ethical and moral basket case of backwards waffling, flip flopping stupidity coupled with a narcissistic approach to problems, which means she covers her own ass first, then throws the remaining scraps at all the beggars she serves.
Not a good choice for a representative of any kind. Look at her train wrecks wherever she serves. She doesn't just wreck all the trains, she ruins the trains, the train companies, the train tracks, burns all the bridges, doesn't clean up any of the messes or the chemical spills, then acts like none of that matters.
She couldn't be trusted to wash a dinner plate or bake a tray of cookies. She uses government power to serve herself only.

Have you ever heard how she speaks to those who serve her? With a foul mouth and a contemptuous air. Being around her would be a curse upon anyone. She is just as dangerous as Obama, and twice as mean. Look at all the dead bodies around the witch. She is the hag that some people see when they have sleep paralysis.

"Oh, but if she supports weed she's got my vote" Really?? Some would do that. That says a lot about the state of our union. I'm not saying anyone here would, just saying that people's priorities in politician's policies could use some work.

I can tell you what is going on in Colorado...

The economy? Booming. Construction everywhere, new homes, new businesses, new restaurants, new shops.

Tons of improvements to the roads/infrastructure. New school busses, new schools, new and/or rehabbed everything.

Tons of FREE grant money for the average Joe. Need help with your house down payment?? There's a grant for that...

What I don't see? There's no one out on the streets all strung out, red eyed, etc., smoking blunts or pipes. Seems the people actually know when they have a great thing and actually follow the rec laws, for the most part.

It's an eye opener, for sure, and if MORE states would follow Colorado's fine example, there would be no reason NOT to legalize for rec use. They are stupid not to, IMHO.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Its big business keeping it illegal as in money to be made , not big bussinesses are Keeping illegal.

That pretty much looks synonymous to me.

Again believe they ended prohibition for any reason you want.

My reasons are the historic ones laid out in the link I provided, not invented points like you are throwing out.

There is big money in keeping it illegal. If prohibition ended due to enforcement or public opinion pot would be legal. Argue all you want.

If there is such big money in keeping it illegal you should be able to provide evidence of this. Instead you keeping saying pointless things like, 'Its big business keeping it illegal as in money to be made , not big bussinesses are Keeping illegal'.

The war on drugs is a net drain on the American economy, there is no money to be made by prosecuting it further. This scenario is identical to Prohibition.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Its big business keeping it illegal as in money to be made , not big bussinesses are Keeping illegal.

That pretty much looks synonymous to me.

Again believe they ended prohibition for any reason you want.

My reasons are the historic ones laid out in the link I provided, not invented points like you are throwing out.

There is big money in keeping it illegal. If prohibition ended due to enforcement or public opinion pot would be legal. Argue all you want.

If there is such big money in keeping illegal you should be able to provide evidence of this. Instead you keeping saying pointless things like, 'Its big business keeping it illegal as in money to be made , not big bussinesses are Keeping illegal'.

The war on drugs is a net drain on the American economy, there is no money to be made by prosecuting it further. This scenario is identical to Prohibition.

I can give links to saying jobs nd revenue ended it

www.history.com...


So what??

Tell you what take into account all businesses like quest diagnostics who do drug testing. Take into account industries like Ipassedmydrugtest.com, take into account private and public prisons. Take into account companies providing equipement to fight drugs. Seperate out pot specifically for a general number. Then take a guess on corruption and bribe money, then account for things like guns sales related to illegal drugs, money laundering, banks who may or may not knowingly be holding drug funds then use that deposit along with fractional reserve banking that is then loaned and so on. It is big business. There are many others that must be accounted for if you need help ask. So you can stick your head in the sand if you want.

But your point is invalid because the big money made with drugs illegal has nothing to do with what we spend fighting it. It doesn't matter if everything I listed accounted for 20 billion and we spend 51 billion fighting it. That money spent to fight it is not paid by the people benefitting from it. Doesn't matter if it is a drain to taxpayers as taxpayers arent seeing all the money being made from it. It's two different areas. Basically if I am head of security making 1 million a year I don't care what it costs to fight it. Not like it costs me 51 billion to fight it and I have to make more than that to benefit.

Politicians benefit as well. Even if not corruption they will get donations from companies who make money because of drugs being illegal. Even from big pharmaceutical companies who don't want pot competeting with marinol drugs and so on. All that money would dry up.

Ignore it, deny it, and ask for evidence all you want. Rather ridiculous because if we could track it all we could know who to prosecute. We can keep going all day if you want.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

I can give links to saying jobs nd revenue ended it

www.history.com...

You can? Your source said this:

The increase of the illegal production and sale of liquor (known as “bootlegging”), the proliferation of speakeasies (illegal drinking spots) and the accompanying rise in gang violence and other crimes led to waning support for Prohibition by the end of the 1920s.

Pretty much word for word what I cited earlier. Thanks for verifying for me.

It doesn't matter if everything I listed accounted for 20 billion and we spend 51 billion fighting it.

Now you are getting it!!!! See how there is no net gain? The war on drugs is a money loser of monstrous proportions.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

I can give links to saying jobs nd revenue ended it

www.history.com...

You can? Your source said this:

The increase of the illegal production and sale of liquor (known as “bootlegging”), the proliferation of speakeasies (illegal drinking spots) and the accompanying rise in gang violence and other crimes led to waning support for Prohibition by the end of the 1920s.

Pretty much word for word what I cited earlier. Thanks for verifying for me.

It doesn't matter if everything I listed accounted for 20 billion and we spend 51 billion fighting it.

Now you are getting it!!!! See how there is no net gain? The war on drugs is a money loser of monstrous proportions.

Keep reading sport.


"With the country mired in the Great Depression by 1932, creating jobs and revenue by legalizing the liquor industry had an undeniable appeal. "


You aren't getting it. The big money that people who benefit from drugs being illegal aren't the ones shelling out the 51 billion to fight it. So unless you own one of the companies I mentioned. Are one of the people I mentioned. Or a politician getting contributions for voting for anti drug laws under the line they are bad and we must fight them for the children. Then you see a net loss. We simply aren't connected enough to benefit. But there is a lot of money involved in it being illegal. And be it those benefitting themselves via campaign contributions or the the same type of misguided people who think more laws will help with guns, the drug problem is here to stay.

Might as well legalize, tax, and regulate , rehab and education. Paid for via the tax on recreational drugs. Enforce quality, standards, age restrictions. No reason to keep fighting in a manner we can't win. Turn it into a tax revenue stream, and after rehab and education expenses. Our lovely politicians can argue over who can blow the rest the quickest and in the most wasteful possible way.