Would this law concering marijuana work?

Question

I was thinking about a law legalizing marijuana, the law would consist of three licenses a growers, dealers, and possessors. Each would entail a fee along with mandatory drug awareness courses. The growers license would only be available to individual farmers preferably those would are receiving heavy subsidies from the federal government, and those who do not have a criminal record concerning other substances, tax evasion, or violent crime. Presumably this would take money from the underground economy as well as adding to the coffers of both the state and federal government.

The structure would be as such:
Possessors 8 hour course (topics such as harmful effects, DWI with marijuana, and proper handling procedures: marijuana in vehicle has to be in original packaging, no dirty paraphenalia)
approx $100-150 fee
Dealers: 24 hour course 3 days (all topics of possessors plus criminal violations for minors and sale to non-possessors, a valid tobacco license is required and must be renewed on a yearly basis, although course is required only once every five years) Fee of approx $400
Growers: 40 hour course (all possessor topics plus serial regulation and required packaging instructions, also USDA guildlines for acceptable cultivation procedures) fee of $2,000 dollars on a yearly basis.

No subsidies given to these farmers, the revenue that they make from the marijuana which sells for a thousand times more than corn would eliminate their need for subsidies, they get those already for other agricultural products so if we can eliminate them, we save a lot of money and self respecting farmers no longer have to rely on government handouts, but I like the idea of not having a possessors license.

Answer 1

It would probably work but it's unlikely that would be the way they would do it. The easiest way is to treat it just like alcohol and cigarettes since the framework is already in place. Set an age, probably 21, and require ID. For an easy example just make it equal to alcohol. You need a license to sell alcohol. You can make your own at home, but cannot sell it, easy jump to the same for marijuana. To seel alcohol you need a license as well, just change liquor licenses to include marijuana, or more likely make a nearly identical one specifically for marijuana. Having a license for use though is unweildy, like having a license to use alcohol. Instead there would probably be an age limit and you'd have to verify your age. If there was a specific license you would only really need it if questioned by police and even then only if you had some on you. Consider how rampant underage drinking is and it's pretty obvious a marijuana use license would be somewhat silly.

On a side note I don't think the growers would get subsidies. Marijuana is actually very easy to grow and it would upset people who are against any vice. It would roughly be like giving alcohol companies subsidies. Now if the grower provided strictly for medical use they could probably get some subsidies, but again it's an easy cash crop. As for the requirements to get the growers license it's a good idea, but would probably be left out, or the limitation would be to prevent anyone that was convicted of non-marijuana drug trafficking. Even then you're working on the assumption of guilt, which can cause a lot of trouble. Since it would be legal the criminal aspect would nearly dissapear since the main reason for the income from illicit drugs is that the dealer can charge a lot because they are illegal. Now making it so anyone with a license that is involved in other drug running loses their license and cannot get a new one would probably work well.

Even so, the problem with legalization is not figuring out how to control it. The hard part is to undo the decades of disinformation and sway the opinion of the fencesitters. A majority of Americans have tried marijuana and over 80% supporting legalization for medical purposes. What really needs to be done to legalize it is to convince the minority and get those who support it to be vocal.

Answer 2

I agree that it would give the farmers something to do, beside giving them a subsidy check, but I think it should be taxed and sold like cigarettes. The DWI laws should stay the same. Whatever drug you are on, it is still Driving While Impaired. I don't agree with taking courses, how many people have had to take a course in selling or using alcohol, or taking OTC meds? Legalizing marijiuana will also free up prison space for the ones that really need to be in there.

Answer 3

Good points. Bit I fear governments from local to federal make so much money now that a change is impossible. As to subsidies, what do tobacco and peanuts have in common? To legally sell them on the open market in America the farmer must PAY the government for the "base" and the product is taxed from there.

Answer 4

I really don't care how and why people want to damage themselves. However there are two points I would add to this system you describe to make it acceptable to someone such as myself.

1. NO GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES. It is bad enough that the government still pays tabacco farmers. No tax dollar to grow pot.

2. Drug use, including marijuana, should still be a valid discrminiating factor for employers.

Answer 5

No. each and every State makes and enforces their very very own guy or woman drug rules. the federal government has their very very own drug rules. while you're arrested by a State or community regulation enforcement officer/detective you would be prosecuted below their rules. while you're arrested by a fed, say DEA, you would be prosecuted below federal regulation. If the feds ever pass a regulation that marijuana could be utilized for medical applications, that isn't take place except Hillary wins, you've a good protection below any State prosecution. So, go illuminate and tell bill. hi. howdy, Michael S. i'm a die no longer undemanding Republican. one element maximum of Republicans have faith in is that the Fed government could be smaller and go away it as much as the State and local govts to regulate their human beings and turf. If the State desires to legalize marijuana for medical motives and that's a honest and merely regulation maximum human beings does no longer have a undertaking. If the State regulation is handed to easily enable idiots get stoned than the Feds could rightfully step in.

Answer 6

not a bad concept.....what would you require to have a possessors lic. if it was costly or time consuming im sure a user would be just as happy to obtain their drug of choice as they currently are....

Answer 7

it would be bad and good, many people that smoke would not have to hide all the time, many people than dont smoke they`ll get addicted