Skip to main content

View Diary: An Important Piece Missing from Pro-Legalization of Marijuana Policies (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what i'd really like to see is... (7+ / 0-)

    ... the taxation applied on the basis of strength.

    This will avoid the temptation to grow ever-stronger strains to minimize "tax per high", that results in pot that's practically unsmokable by occasional users.  

    When I was a kid, five tokes to get high was the standard for strong pot.  Nowadays I can walk into a room where people are smoking the new super-strong stuff and practically get buzzed from just being in the room.  People should have a choice of weaker strains if they choose.  

    Also the leaves, which used to be the main component of "commercial" pot but are not used nowadays, should be available as a distinct product (which will also be suitably weaker) for use as a spice in food, for blending with tobacco, and so on.  (Pipe tobacco with a hint of pot in it might open up a whole new range of blending possibilities, simply for taste regardless of any psychological effects.)

    We got the future back.

    by G2geek on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:35:51 AM PST

    •  For COMMERCIAL growers, I agree; however... (0+ / 0-)

      the core of successful legalization * from ground-level * must be the right to grow "personal quantities" for personal consumption and small-scale non-commercial distribution (ie gifting), WITHOUT a tax liability, full-stop.

      Given that, I would certainly encourage the imposition of a commercial-product tax ('value-added', fer sure) proportional to the strength.  First problem I see, though, is punitive use of tax-rates...which is kinda how the trouble w/ pot began, and it's the most likely thing to go tits-up spontaneously;  the net effect could be as simple as depressing the market for excessively high-octane smoke, or as complex as the deterioration of support infrastructure for home growers (in effect, a stealth suppression of strength, character, complexity, etc).

      Fortunately, none of that is likely, as long as we make sure personal-growing rights and immunities are included in legislation.   Unfortunately, IIRC, the WA effort seems to have left this bit out; so while it's about to be legal there to have it and smoke it, it will still not be legal to 'produce or provide'.  

      Personal-growing rights are crucial: without them, 'legalization' is no such thing.  Not that decrim is bad, but it in NO WAY LOOKS OUT FOR THE CONSUMER;  it just decrees a different target.

      "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

      by chmood on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:00:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site