COLORADO GOVERNOR: LEGALIZING POT WAS BAD IDEA

[Symmetry]

Taxing it based on the idea that it's a luxury good makes sense to me. It would put it in the same category as cigarettes and alcohol. It would normalise it.

[thegreekdog]

I give up. If you don't think dope is a demerit good then there's no point in us having a discussion.

@ _sab: I presume you are concerned about government cronyism? I agree that regulatory authorities have a tradition of that kind of thing, but ideally it would be absent.

In the interest of full disclosure, there plenty of things that are subject to sales or excise taxes that are "demerit goods."

[_sabotage_]

Loot,

Yesterday's globe and mail story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e22661003/

The joys of regulation.

[thegreekdog]

Other than taxation, what kind of regulation are we talking about here? FDA? Whatever the Colorado equivalent of the FDA?

[mrswdk]

I give up. If you don't think dope is a demerit good then there's no point in us having a discussion.

I already addressed what should be done if it turns out that weed has negative side effects: I said the cost of those side effects should be left to the user to deal with as and when they occur.

Our difference is that you want the government to do the bailing out whereas I don't.

[Symmetry]

I give up. If you don't think dope is a demerit good then there's no point in us having a discussion.

I already addressed what should be done if it turns out that weed has negative side effects: I said the cost of those side effects should be left to the user to deal with as and when they occur.

Our difference is that you want the government to do the bailing out whereas I don't.

Side effects are shackled to their opposite though. The positive effect you want from using a drug is a potential negative effect in other circumstances.

[spurgistan]

Two aspects:
- Long term effects (example is smoking in the 50's before people realized the dangers) - things like cancer or other diseases that's are known/obvious (lung cancer from smoking) and unknown/less understood (potential increase in brain disorders from extended use?)
- Short term effects - operation of stuff while under the influence

I don't really want to debate it as I don't care enough, but you have to admit there is some non-zero consequence of taking what is fundamentally a (mild) mind altering drug. I have no problem with the government taking a slice of the proceeds to set aside for direct, indirect and unknown-right-now consequences.

Just to add to this, the reason we don't really know for sure how bad weed is for you is because it's still a Schedule 1 controlled substance given its "high capability for abuse" which makes it practically impossible to study. Formal studies on what weed does to you won't happen until we finally stop Reagan's (losing) War on Drugs and at least bump weed down to below heroin's drug class, for frak's sake.

Also, good to see Scotty still cherrypicking quotes like ever. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

On another note, there's a fun argument to be had on whether small pot producers (basically Humboldt County) should be carved out from regulations. I think this makes sense, if only because the paradigm of traditional pot growers being one of the primary antagonists to legalization is just too mind-hurty.