Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:11 pm
So I have a drug policy question. Some of you have more knowledge on the subject of legalization than I (turquoise70)...
It's obvious that the US government has taken some major steps toward what appears to be a more tolerant marijuana policy (not fed dispensary raids, AMA suggesting removal from sched 1 list, more MMJ in Colorado, etc).
I guess my question is why are they doing that? Don't they have more to lose by legalizing? The private prison owners make billions off of imprisoning non-violent marijuana law offenders just to name one reason. I come from the position that they (government) makes more money with enforcement of the 'drug war' (and trafficking it themselves) than they would manufacturing/regulating/taxing a legal supply for the public. Is that accurate more or less?
I have heard from several people in Humboldt and around that legalization would be the WORST thing that could happen to their business. That makes sense, of course. They couldn't compete with government supply most likely. Wouldn't it make sense that if you were a large illegal grower, you would invest a large chunk of your income on stopping legalization and lobbying for harder drug laws?
Is it all down to money and who has more of it? Does my phrasing even make sense? I've seen all the popular legalization movies and heard most of the arguments, but something isn't clicking with my thought process. Help a brother out mang.
It's obvious that the US government has taken some major steps toward what appears to be a more tolerant marijuana policy (not fed dispensary raids, AMA suggesting removal from sched 1 list, more MMJ in Colorado, etc).
I guess my question is why are they doing that? Don't they have more to lose by legalizing? The private prison owners make billions off of imprisoning non-violent marijuana law offenders just to name one reason. I come from the position that they (government) makes more money with enforcement of the 'drug war' (and trafficking it themselves) than they would manufacturing/regulating/taxing a legal supply for the public. Is that accurate more or less?
I have heard from several people in Humboldt and around that legalization would be the WORST thing that could happen to their business. That makes sense, of course. They couldn't compete with government supply most likely. Wouldn't it make sense that if you were a large illegal grower, you would invest a large chunk of your income on stopping legalization and lobbying for harder drug laws?
Is it all down to money and who has more of it? Does my phrasing even make sense? I've seen all the popular legalization movies and heard most of the arguments, but something isn't clicking with my thought process. Help a brother out mang.
