Yeah, and I'll bet that is one of the considerations, too. Tobacco needs
prcoessing for use, as does alcohol. Pot needs drying, period. Hard to stop
private growth if it's legal.
"Brevity is the soul of lingerie." Dorothy Parker
Moreover, consider all of the money/spending that occurs around the drug
trade presently. Yeah, a good chunk of it prolly goes outside our borders,
but a bunch of it stays here (speaking from a USA standpoint). That that
goes outside our borders is prolly used to buy weapons from the U.S.
Legalize dope and you'll see fewer Escalades and Uzis in the 'hoods... that
part of the economy will tank, along with jobs used to create those
Escalades and Uzis, etc. So now we are talking gov't. subsidies to the
economy to offset loss of drug money. Will it balance?
Alcohol doesn't need much processing, my friend. I've been making wine at home
for years, and it ain't that hard. Making _good_ wine can be a bit tricky at
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
firstname.lastname@example.org (Charlie Self) wrote in message
Tobacco only needs more processing than pot if you want a good cigar,
good pipe tobacco or a standardized cigarette. Lots of folks in the
more rural past grew tobacco and used it, but we want something better
than that big leaf we grew out back. Same with alcohol. It's not that
hard to make (see Luigi's post abot 50 gallon of homemade wine) and
yet we do not have a nation of brewers and distillers. (I believe it
is just as legal to make moonshine for your own consumption as it is
beer and wine). I see no reason to believe that after the novelty wore
off that people would be out growing their own and they certainly
wouldn't be planting a lot of backyard coca trees.
You're right. But it used to be. Many decades ago (1955?), I sent off
for a booklet from, IIRC, the department of agriculture. It showed how
to build your own still. In the back was a registration form you were
supposed to fill out and send to the revenuers.
But then somebody decided to "protect" us :-).
No, when taxation on any item becomes sufficiently oppressive,
enterprising folks will find a way around that tax -- i.e. bootleg
cigarettes or alcohol. When the taxation rate reaches sufficient
levels, the profit motive / risk margin in bootlegging becomes
sufficiently large that the shadier elements of society view it as a
reasonable endeavor and the formerly law abiding tolerate those shady
elements to get what they want at less confiscatory prices. There is a
law of unintended consequences to the ever-persistent "solution" of
"just tax it until it's too painful to do". The flip side of this is
that to provide sufficient level of enforcement to break the bootlegging
business, the civil liberties of the entire society are sacrificed --
look at the various loss of privacy and liberty already resulting from
the war on drugs.
That's worked well with all items on the black market, hasn't it?
Nobody uses that expensive heroin, cocaine, crack, etc. do they?
What taxes do is reinforce overexpenditure by the gov't.
As to smoking, subsidizing tobacco and then taxing it to the hilt
doesn't make sense. It's hurting the people (us) in multiple ways.
Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications
Agreed. And that's something that needs absolutely NO reinforcement.
Presumably, there is no subsidy on tobacco. What it is is an allotment system
that keeps anyone from growing extra tobacco, except for personal use.
"Brevity is the soul of lingerie." Dorothy Parker
It's pretty damn easy to grow pot, too. The gov't goes to some pretty extreme
levels to try to catch people growing a little pot in the house. They go so far
as to use thermal scanners to look for grow lights or check your utility
company for excessive electricity usage. So if they ever again criminalize
booze, nothing as meaningless as the Constitution will keep them out of your
house if the dogs smell the still or you buy too many grapes.
On 03 Jan 2004 10:00:33 GMT, email@example.com (Charlie Self)
It seems that the further north one goes, the worse the alcohol
problems become and the larger the social problem caused by it. Think
Scandinavian countries, Russia, Canada, UK, Ireland. I think all these
countries have worse alcohol problems than the US.
Canada and the Scandinavian countries are really tough on drunk
driving and tax the hell out of alcohol. In Canada, drunk driving has
been a criminal offense for a long time, and the penalties are tougher
than in most US states. Here in the Yukon, we have a serious Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome problem, with kids whose mother drank are born with
different levels of mental retardation. We also have the highest per
capita alcohol consumption of any jurisdiction in Canada.
Not that any of this is going to stop me from making my 50 gallons of
wine a year, which I drink in moderation. Well, maybe except for New
Replace "no" with "yk" for real email address
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.