Some interesting points so far and I'm glad it is civil. If I could just go through some of them:
I have two concerns, although I applaud the writer of this bill for thinking everything through.
There were three of us, we all chipped in to try and see all the mistakes and close any loop hole or error we found. Thanks though
.
1) Drug Tourism. Marijuana is not legal in many western countries, or countries peirod for that matter. If we makeit legal, we're going to see an influx of tourists coming here for the cheap thrill of getting stoned. We'll also see folks buying here, and trying to trasnport back. I'm not sure that we want to include our country in that sector of the economy.
We did realise this was a problem, which is why it is included in the bill. Although, I would say it is harder for tourists to bring cannabis back from a nation where there is no road access (unlike tourists in Europe who go to the Netherlands or Americans who travel to Latin America). Secondly, we are responsible for ourselves and the welfare of our citizens and for their liberty. Although we may wish to look good in the eyes of other nations (a good analogy would be Japan and Norway concerning whaling), I believe individual liberty comes above what others think of us. If the fact that we are freer than many other nations causes us to be disliked a small bit more, then so be it. Thirdly, am wondering what your opinion on the growth of hemp for industrial purposes is,such as hemp paper, which is far easier to produce and causes less wastage than paper made from trees, as well as being a good environmental solution to deforestation. If we were to become a world leader in such a market we may actually get a positive reputation for the improvements to the environment. We may even see other nations follow our example (perhaps not legalising cannabis, but at least hemp production). Fourthly, you mention tourism and that is something I should have mentioned in my second posts. Increased tourism would be one of the benefits of cannabis legalisation. Finally, it is true that the Netherlands has come under pressure in the past to impose harder penalties on cannabis use by foreigners. This is because they were actually members of alliances and treaties concerning drugs - which we are not yet a member of (such as the EU).
2) Marijuana isn't exactlly difficult to grow and produce on your own. We may go ahead and tax it (and if we're using the same rate that we tax cigs, its going to be fairly high). But with the ease of producing the drug, not to mention years of practice, since its been illegal, we're still going to see a black market for pot. We see this already in the States withs cigs, and pot is even easier to self-produce.
You will actually find quality is important and this has been seen in the USA. In the past it was the case that the vast majority of cannabis came from Latin America, especially Mexico. Now, however, 40% of America's cannabis is grown within the country and much of it comes from Canada. the reasons for this is that the cannabis grown in the USA and Canada is of a much higher quality than that of Mexico. With competing companies, competing in a free market, quality would be important - a company doesn't wish to lose its customers through poor quality goods. We have a black market if cannabis is illegal and we will have it if it is not. Either way we are going to have a black market. The question is, do we want the vast majority of our cannabis to come from a clean, safe source, or do we still wish for most of it to come from homes in the South of the country (I'm assuming this is where it would be grown)? We are also going to punish those who participate in a black market whether cannabis is legal or illegal, which hikes up the price in the black market because it is more risky. This will end up making the black market only a tiny fraction of the actual market (which is also true with your cigarettes example). Also, your cigarettes example would be a better analogy if we were arguing to keep cigarettes illegal, but since they are legal it seems that we would have no more trouble than we do now.
I just don't think we should be punishing perfectly productive members of our society when we could be saving the economy millions ever year from judicial costs, to prison costs and to costs to business and the economy. Not only could we be saving money, but we will probably actually earn some (as is the case with alcohol and tobacco).
Marijuana should be illegal to grow on private property. Growing marijuana requires lots of moisture, and the moisture causes mold and rots the wood. Growing marijuana is responsible for degredation and destruction of many houses, as well as causing illness from the mold. If it is legal to grow in a house (STRONGLY AGAINST) it must be a) regulated, and b) told to all potential buyers of said home.
By property, I meant your greenhouse or your fields. There will be very few people growing cannabis inside if they are freely able to grow it in their greenhouses or fields.
P.S. Just a point of information, I have never myself used cannabis (in case you all think that I am a pothead for making this my first bill
), I just don't want to prevent others from doing it.
