posted at 11/20/2008 1:50 PM EST
[Quote]Currenteventsenthusiast -- not to pick on a high school kid but I started to read your piece and gave up after the second paragraph. Your argument is built on false premise after false premise.
"marijuana, the entire demand side of the market would become legal, which would probably raise demand." Wrong.. You noted nary a paragraph before that it would be a civil infraction with a $100 fine.
"Some proponents claim legalization would reduce its use, but evidence
from states such as California suggests otherwise." Are we opening pot dispensaries in MA? Legalizing for cancer patients? did you read Prop 2?
"[The fine is] essentially a weird tax on marijuana that is only collected occasionally." No, it's a fine. Are fines for littering a "weird tax" on littering? Fines discourage behavior.
At this point I stopped reading your argument..[/Quote]
It's absolutely ridiculous for you to think you are smarter because you are no longer in high school. Don't even try to assert that.
I said, in context, that decriminalizing marijuana legitimizes the demand side of the market. Of course it's a civil infraction, but that's way less of a penalty than criminal charge.
Regarding California, if you read the entire NYTimes piece and the accompanying video on the results in California, they actually discuss how use has risen, NOT including pot dispensaries.
And yes, thanks, I did read Question 2, but thanks for your concern anyway.
There's an oft-quoted saying, "If you want to stop a behavior, tax it." Taxes are often seen (correctly) as a subcategory of fines in many areas. That's why I called it a tax. The "weird" part referred to the idea that it was only collected occasionally.
Next time, finish reading the argument. You actually would have found that some of your criticisms of my argument were brought up later.
But you clearly feel too superior for that.