It would impact it greatly. If it was treated the same as alcholol and tobacco... with the same rules and taxes. The country would make a killing on the taxing of it.. not the mention how much of the country/states money goes to taking care of inmates that are in jail strickly for marijuana. It would be a win win situation for EVERYONE except the dealers.
2006-12-23 06:33:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by girlgriffin711 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
No and Yes. No because the U.S. has spent billions of dollars in the War on Drugs, and are continuing to spend money against the trafficking of drugs.
Yes because the legalization of the drug would create employment from various sectors and like someone said generate revenue. But the problem here is that the commercialization of a drug would also create social problems: What ages is legal to consume marijuana?? How do you buy it? What are the penalities for someone buying for a minor??
I like the idea
2006-12-23 07:43:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Kenaldinho 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Of course it would.
But it might also reduce the size of the government, so it will never happen.
We Americans need to figure it out, the government will never do anything that will result in a smaller government. Ever.
So, the tax system will never be simplified, even though it sucks the life out of our economy and drugs will never be decriminalized, even though other major countries have done it with no dire effects and the net effect of less crime. It ain't gonna happen here.
2006-12-23 06:32:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Gem 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No.
Think of the drain on our economy the use and abuse of alcohol and cigarettes have been.
It's an expense to "fight" marijuana. But it costs us less than the cost would be if it were legalized.
Alcohol and tobacco cannot be made illegal now, because they are so much an ingrained part of our society. However, if either was "invented" today, they would not be made legal.
2006-12-23 09:27:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by teran_realtor 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Your paper is wrongly worded, i ought to easily make it with the help of a few sentences. i will say this: declaring that there are worse issues available that are criminal isn't a compelling argument to legalize weed. Argue for: personal selection/loose will, non-detrimental nature of weed (compared to alcohol), economic reward which includes hemp fiber production, the fee of the conflict on weed, the glaring failure of prohibition, drug lord sales, and so on.
2016-12-01 03:01:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since the user, as I understand it, from periodicals researched, can suffer hallucinations for the rest of their lives, we'd be in a worse "state" than ever. Who wants a bunch of people who can't think straight because they enjoy a drug?
2006-12-23 06:35:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends on what form of legalisation you are talking about. If the chosen form of legalisation increased pot consumption it would probably be bad for the economy. Pot makes you lazy and stupid. It can also trigger mental illness. However, if legalisation is done right it could reduce pot consumption. sORRY I don,t haVE TIME TO EXPALIN THIS NOW.
2006-12-23 06:29:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
True that. Billions in tax revenue. I think, my opinon, that religion plays a big part in the laws against it. Why? Because altered states of conciousness exclude God in the thinking of the people who support the prohibition. If you are stoned you are not meditating on God. That is what I think their reasoning is.
2006-12-23 06:28:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
good question. I learned the answer like last month, but I forgot.
2006-12-23 14:23:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
no
2006-12-23 06:30:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by BRAINY SKEETA ® 6
·
0⤊
0⤋