Need to generate new tax streams?? - legalise Cannabis

Macsimus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I see none in yours. No wonder we disagree so.

You see no common sense in the idea that if the drug is already widely available and financing criminals and murderers - that we may as well regulate and tax it - seeing as its already there anyway????

I would imagine that says more about you than me muchacho

thecornerboy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Are you talking to me?

I could swear you are talking to someone else. I haven't a clue what you are talking about there. Not a clue.

You seem confused.

You're the one who is confused. You're lumping weed in with all illegal drugs, street crawling crack addicts, prostitution and Amsterdam.
Very silly. This is an adult debate. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Flamed Diving

sink wrote: »

Very mature :rolleyes:

Just being honest. He seems to be taking every word I say and pushing it to its most extreme context. I'm growing weary of it, so why should I bother with lengthy responses?

Flamed Diving

thecornerboy wrote: »

You're the one who is confused. You're lumping weed in with all illegal drugs, street crawling crack addicts, prostitution and Amsterdam.
Very silly. This is an adult debate. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Sure I am.

Good lad.

Flamed Diving

Macsimus wrote: »

You see no common sense in the idea that if the drug is already widely available and financing criminals and murderers - that we may as well regulate and tax it - seeing as its already there anyway????

I would imagine that says more about you than me muchacho

Just like ecstasy and coke. Yet you don't want to legalise these, I suppose.

No common sense in that.

thecornerboy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Just being honest. He seems to be taking every word I say and pushing it to its most extreme context. I'm growing weary of it, so why should I bother with lengthy responses?

That's because you're associating the most extreme example with what most sane people propose in relation to marijuana. You're associating what you've seen in Amsterdam with what is proposed; a legal distribution program for marijuana that is highly regulated and taxed. One that would not allow smoking in public, cafes, prostitution, homeless crack addicts running free in the streets or Amsterdam to develop here. Simple.

Flamed Diving

*ding*

That's the sound of my patience alarm going off.

I'm outty.

thecornerboy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Just like ecstasy and coke. Yet you don't want to legalise these, I suppose.

No common sense in that.

Are you going to engage in debate or just insult people?

Ecstasy and cocaine should be legal too eventually in my opinion. But society isn't ready for it. That's a long way down the road. 1 step at a time. You need to build up a mature and responsible to attitude to drugs in society. It doesn't exist currently, look at alcohol consumption. But marijuana is the very least of the drugs problem. People will scoff at us for our ignorance in relation to it in the future, I hope I'm around long enough to witness it. Alcohol is the number 1 public health enemy. If you're worried about health and illegal behaviour in the same way you oppose marijuana legalisation then you're a teetotaller too I presume?

thecornerboy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

*ding*

That's the sound of my patience alarm going off.

I'm outty.

That's sound of you being destroyed by logic and common sense, more like.

Macsimus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Just like ecstasy and coke. Yet you don't want to legalise these, I suppose.

No common sense in that.

of course there is - Coke has much more profound health implications and is a highly physically addictive drug - Ecstacy would warrant its own debate

sink

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Just like ecstasy and coke. Yet you don't want to legalise these, I suppose.

No common sense in that.

Actually I would be for ending prohibition on everything but would want to see cannabis before all others. Consumption of drugs in public places should be illegal and hard drugs should only be available through prescription and consumed in special clinics with nurses and security staff.

The idea is that people who are addicted to hard drugs can access them legally by getting a prescription from a doctor. Thus you cut off illegal dealers main source of funds and remove the incentive to get people addicted to their product in the first place. This will cut the number of illegal dealers and therefore decrease the availability of hard drugs to new users decreasing the number of new addicts. The consumption of hard drugs should only take place in special clinics with nursing and security staff to tightly regulate the quantity and to eliminate the possibility of the drugs ending up in the hands of new users. This clinics should also be actively trying to rehabilitate habitual drug users by decreasing their addiction and helping them find a steady job. This approach also has the added benefit of stigmatising hard drugs in the eyes of youths decreasing their attractiveness in the first place.

Such an approach has already found great success in Switzerland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7755664.stm

gamblor1975

1. It would take millions of euro out of the hands of the criminals/murderers.

2. It would free up the Gaurds to deal with important matters.

3. It could be taxed.

4. No need to set up cafes etc. Just allow people to buy a license to grow no more than 6 plants. Anyone with more than that could be prosecuted or penalised etc. That should take care of the crims.

5. Anything that stems the amount of binge drinking in this country is a positive. Less anti-social behavior/Vandalism etc.


Reasons it won't happen:
It needs political will and no Irish Govt. would have the cahones to do it because of the grey vote and their views/misunderstanding of the issue.

We can only hope!

big b

guys, no matter how informed, adult,well- presented the argument for legalisation is:

can any one of you genuinely see a day when an Irish government will go against the grain & legalise hash?

Too many fuddy-duddy doomsayers in our own population for one thing, and a country too afraid of an international backlash for another.

Won't happen here.

Time Magazine

thecornerboy wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't know "members" of the economics forum were being forced to read every post at knifepoint. That must be hell. It has nothing to do with politics either, so we'll move to humanities, then to emergency services, back to economics, then to after hours as the subject is developed and expanded upon and other issues relating to it are discussed.

You seem to posses such intimate knowledge of how this site should be run but yet you still discuss moderation on-thread.

Tell ya what. Moderate discussion forums for as long as the mods here have and if you're still not happy with the way this site is run, you will still be more than welcome to piss off somewhere else.

Beyond that, use the standard mechanisms on this site for feedback. You may not get the response you like, but I don't claim to have the ability to tell experienced hotel managers what would make their hotel a better place.

cavedave

big b

guys, no matter how informed, adult,well- presented the argument for legalisation is:

can any one of you genuinely see a day when an Irish government will go against the grain & legalise hash?

Too many fuddy-duddy doomsayers in our own population for one thing, and a country too afraid of an international backlash for another.

the great depression ended prohibition because a fall in income tax meant a new income stream had to be found. Something similar could happen during this depression.

250-500 million euro a year might not have been worth looking like a hippy for a few years ago but when cervical cancer jabs and special needs teachers are getting axed the cost benefit analysis can change rapidly.

big b

The Economist wrote: »

You seem to posses such intimate knowledge of how this site should be run but yet you still discuss moderation on-thread.

Tell ya what. Moderate discussion forums for as long as the mods here have and if you're still not happy with the way this site is run, you will still be more than welcome to piss off somewhere else.

Beyond that, use the standard mechanisms on this site for feedback. You may not get the response you like, but I don't claim to have the ability to tell experienced hotel managers what would make their hotel a better place.

It'd be a pretty poor hotel manager that wasn't willing to listen to customer critique though.

(I wouldn't normally bother getting involved in this, but somehow I expected more from you than the standard childish, defensive "if ya don't like it, feck off" response that is much more prevalent in, and suited to, AH)

deadhead13

I am trying to remember a TV documentary, maybe Channel 4, on this very subject a few years back - the conclusion was, it wouldn't be financially viable to legally manufacture ready made prepackaged joints for sale.

big b

cavedave wrote: »

the great depression ended prohibition because a fall in income tax meant a new income stream had to be found. Something similar could happen during this depression.

250-500 million euro a year might not have been worth looking like a hippy for a few years ago but when cervical cancer jabs and special needs teachers are getting axed the cost benefit analysis can change rapidly.

Dave,
I share your ideals, but can't match your optimism!
Why?
1. The backward thinking hordes who think a joint is much the same as smack
2.The afraid to offend Government
3. The all too influential licensed trade, who'd see it as a threat
4. The gov. already know how easily they can raise another 500m without being seen to "condone drug use"
to name but a few.

I've spent most of my working life abroad, and thought, (from a distance I suppose) that a young, progressive nation like ours may indeed be one that would view this topic openly. What I've seen in the last few years has made me downgrade my expectations massively. Nanny state-ism abounds, PC is god, the rush to be the same as everywhere else is overwhelming. I wish I could see a day where freedom of choice was available, but today, that day seems a long way off.
I'd be delighted to see something that would make me feel otherwise. (in fairness, my back hurts & I'm kinda doomed up today anyway!)

Daithinski

Macsimus wrote: »

By keeping it illegal we put the money straight into the hands of the Crime lords and murderers who do a very effective job of ensuring the supply is plentiful enough for all that want it...

By making it legal you would probably be making the murdering crime lords into legitimate businessmen.

They would probably fit in quite nicely with the bunch of gangsters who are running the country at the moment.

Time Magazine

big b wrote: »

It'd be a pretty poor hotel manager that wasn't willing to listen to customer critique though.

I do listen to critiques. In fact I even request them. And the critiques from the Economics forum overwhelmingly suggested they wanted the forum moderated more strictly, see this post for example, and look at the results of the poll.

However when someone who's been on Boards twenty minutes bursts through the doors and says "You guys moderate too heavily", you have to weigh that opinion against the existing evidence and make a judgement call. People assume that we moderate too heavily, but all too often that do that without the several years' experience we have. Ultimately, as I say, it's a judgement call. We will never be able to please everyone, so it's not that we're refusing to listen to critiques, it's that sometimes you have to just ask the noisey guests to leave, especially if they're unhappy with the service.

K4t

I'd be in favour of legalising it.

However, it would have to have an age limit of 21 years and students would have to be educated concerning everything to do with cannabis as soon as they enter secondary school. Compulsory. Like what should be done with alcohol and cigarettes.

SeanW

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that legalising a drug and taxing it, drives it out of the hands of dealers?

What if the legal version of the drug is more expensive than the 'illegal' version?

Would people not go for the better price?

Yes there is. Look at the American "prohibition" of alcohol in the early 1930s. It caused a massive spiral in mafia crime, including the infamous Al Capone gang. I believe this gangland crime reduced after that, as the bootleggers market was destroyed. Government finally realised that they, not the drinkers, were the problem.

Fortunately it took the U.S. government less than a decade to decide 'ok, enough is enough, we're not going to sacrifice everything at the altar of this insane policy.' Even though there probably were some ultra-Authroitarian KKK religious nutcases pressuring them to keep up the good work.

We now have what I consider to be an almost identical situation with marijuana, but unfortunately this time we seem much slower to come to our senses.
:mad:

Our economy is on its knees and our government could rase several hundred million €€€ with a regime of taxed weed - in addition to cost savings associated with less need for guards and prisons, or better, redirecting the guards and prisons to dealing with the real criminals like that scum down in Limerick. There would also be the medicinal benefits for people with long term illnesses like MS and advanced cancers being able to pursue other treatments for their symptons.

The U.S. is now faced with a near war situation on its Southern border with Mexico potentially about to become a failed narco-state, with over 2.5 million of its own citizens in jail many for just smoking weed, destroying lives and draining the U.S. Treasury.

Like the U.S. congress in the 1930s, we now must ask whether we are prepared to sacrifice everything at the altar of a failed policy that serves no useful function whatsoever, and has backfired to the point of threatening civilisation itself.

turgon

K4t wrote: »

However, it would have to have an age limit of 21 years

Why?

I think it should be legalized, but maybe within a tightly controlled environment. Only available at some retailers, ideally independent shops dedicated to selling these kind of "remedies", but it might not be financially viable.

Consumption then in private premises only I would like. I dont think loads of people getting high in the smoking room of pubs wouldnt be conductive to everyone having a good time, what with with secondary smoke etc.

cavedave

Just to put some figures on what was originally an economics argument.
in 2006 the amount seized was valued at

Cannabis resin valued at €48.7m was seized...cannabis herb worth €580,000

according to here

I believe international standards say about 5% of drugs will be seized. So the total value of cannabis in ireland in 2006 was 1 billion euro.

How much profit was in this? This table says the price here was 3.7 dollars a gram. whereas many countries it is around .5 dollars a gram. (Kyrgyzstan 0.05dpg). So each gram sold could easily be taxed at 50%. Alcohol is taxed at about 30% in the pub and illegal supply is fairly rare. So at current prices at current consumption levels that would be about 500 million in tax.

I have no practical experience of this area so if my figures are wrong please correct me.

thecornerboy

A large scale operation could be taxed at 75% and still undercut
Illegal supplies And be profitable.

eamonnm79

thecornerboy wrote: »

A large scale operation could be taxed at 75% and still undercut
Illegal supplies And be profitable.

I think 75% is a very very conservitive estimate.
An afgan opiate farmer gets $100 for a block of herion.
The same block would be valued as having a "street value" of about €300,000 in Ireland

This should have been left in Economics, it is an economic and social issue.

turgon

If the company involved was growing it in ireland using artificial light technologies it would bypass needing any supplier country legalizing production, while also taking the supply out of the hands of drug lords.

The economic benefits of this - €500 million in tax - cannot be ignored by any rational person.

philologos

Macsimus wrote: »

because like it or not - it is already there for anyone who wants it - legalising it is unlikely to dramatically increase usage but would take the money out of the hands of criminals and murderers and give it to the Gov to spend in the public interest

Just because something is there doesn't mean it's worth exploring. It's entirely fallacious reasoning.

Should we legalise assassination? Theft? They both exist, but we decided that it wasn't socially desirable to do so.

Likewise, sometimes ethics come above finances. I couldn't care how much cannabis could earn for the Government, it really wouldn't sway me to legalise it due to the medical facts on the matter.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because something is there doesn't mean it's worth exploring. It's entirely fallacious reasoning.

Whether or not it's worth exploring should be decided based on the exploration itself.

The 60s proved drugs were worth exploring.

philologos

Sean_K wrote: »

Whether or not it's worth exploring should be decided based on the exploration itself.

The 60s proved drugs were worth exploring.

Likewise if you look at the vast bulk of medical journals and medical news concerning cannabis, it clearly isn't.

Sometimes potential harm outweighs potential profit, infact most of the time I believe anyway.