Imagine the Tax Potential
Who would have guessed that marijuana plants constitute the No. 8 agricultural commodity of Washington state? And that's based only on the amount of plants that are seized, imagine the potential if all plants were included. Is it just me or is the state missing out on a potentially enormous revenue stream by not legalizing, regulating, and taxing such an abundant cash crop? Imagine how much more could be produced in conventional fields rather than small plots hidden in the wilderness. I really have no interest in the drug, I'm just bothered by how inefficient and wasteful the current practice seems to be considering how relatively innocuous the product is.
All right, I really have disagree with your use of the term innocuous.
Marijuana grown in the sixties and seventies truly was innocuous. In 1974, average THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) content was 1%. By 1994, it had reached 4.5%, and in Sinsemilla (from the Spanish "without seeds"), made from just the buds and flowering tops of female plants, THC content averages 7.5% and ranges as high as 24%. As for hashish, a resin made from flowers of the female plant, THC levels may be five to ten times higher than crude marijuana’s.
Now, I'm quoting from the American Council for Drug Education here, but there has been a lot of press from some very credible scientists about this, I'm just too lazy to check BBC archives for it right now.
So, not only have we upped the ante on the kind of trip you get with marijuana, we've upped the addictive power, and, more importantly, the carcinogenicity of the plant. It's about triple what it was 30 years ago.
Now, if you're a chemo patient and you want to smoke a little pot to help your nausea, I see no problems with that. Oxycodone is powerfully addictive and we prescribe that nasty opiate all the time for pain relief. If you like your little highs and are willing to pay the cancer treatment bills later (please don't ask me to, since you knew what you were getting yourself into), be my guest.
Let's regulate it, educate about it, and of course, make money off it, but let's not call it innocuous.
Posted by
Xenopuslady |
1:09 PM
Hm.... sounds a lot like RJ Reynolds and their genetically modified "fumo loco" tobacco plants from South America that were manipulated to produce a more highly addictive product when blended with other varieties. Some reports said the plants were so toxic that the workers who harvested them would swoon and pass out from time to time.
How about we call it a commonplace product instead of innocuous?
Posted by
John |
3:32 PM