2006-12-27 08:50:15 · 16 answers · asked by Bistro 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
correction: marijuana, not a proper noun
anyway, I think its a great step in the war on drugs. 21 and over in the privacy of their own home. I think it should be legal.
2006-12-27 08:56:15 · update #1
interesting blapath, so they basically move to selling cocaine and meth then. Legalization of marijuana, the gateway for drug dealers to sell harder drugs.
2006-12-27 08:57:41 · update #2
PISCES what you said makes a little sense, but think about it, you would have to have a BUYER. many people that smoke pot only smoke pot so you are saying that these people would move on to something illegal when they could do their drug of choice legally?
2006-12-27 09:12:13 · update #3
nonalcoholic2: think about that. If it was legal then they would PASS the drug test!
2006-12-27 09:18:55 · update #4
Who is going to hire all the potheads? Insurance companies give discounts for having random drug testing at work. It provides a safer work environment and protects the employer from law suits!
2006-12-27 08:59:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually I know pleanty of dealers that like it illegal. If it were legalized, not long after the prices would drop since it does not cost as much to produce the plant as the blackmarket price demands.
In the end, we'll all buy a pack of filterless Marlboro "Greens" and not your freindly local dealer's stash.
2006-12-27 08:57:04 · answer #2 · answered by arch_uriel 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I even have never smoked marijuana in my existence, and that i think of it would be criminal. I basically think of it somewhat is logical. Is it to any extent further risky than alcohol? No, that is in all threat much less risky. So, if alcohol is criminal, marijuana could be too. Plus, i be attentive to a brilliant form of people who smoke marijuana. i think of approximately them, and that i ask myself: is this individual a offender? Does this individual need to be dealt with like a offender? My answer is often no. as a result i think of it would be criminal. So there is two motives, for you! the difficulty with your argument is appropriate on the beginning up: "because all non-human beings who smoke are against it and hate people who smoke it..." That assertion isn't authentic in any respect.
2016-10-28 12:07:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Full legalization would mean that the free market (i.e. corporations) would be able to sink its claws in it which would result in big alcohol-type corporations springing up; meaning mass-production, advertisements, and stock options. The neighborhood dealer would be totally cut out. So yeah I guess dealers would be pissed if they cared about profits more than the buds, but hey that means better nugs and cheaper prices for the rest of us!
2006-12-27 18:08:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would definitely be upset since it would remove the large profits associated with illegal dealings. But then, they would just move on to other drugs that have not been legalized.
2006-12-27 08:58:53 · answer #5 · answered by romvsinparadise 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it should be legal too.
Some of the small-time dealers will be mad, but there's lots of other illegal drugs for them to get by on.
2006-12-27 08:57:30 · answer #6 · answered by willow oak 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, absolutely, their other sales would plummet! Those that sold Cannabis would be out of business too. It really is a win win situation except for the increased road fatalities from driving high.
2006-12-27 10:01:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, being that it is a 35 billion dollar industry they would certainly be taking a profit hit. Not to mention, many of them would be out of work since there would be no more need to sling weed.
2006-12-27 08:53:16 · answer #8 · answered by Rawrrrr 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. In Holland it is legalized, but still drug dealers flourish
2006-12-27 08:55:49 · answer #9 · answered by blapath 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. They would lose their profits. Pot costs as much as it does because of the risks involved in transport.
2006-12-27 08:57:11 · answer #10 · answered by only p 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋