Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Advertising Facebook The Almighty Buck United States Your Rights Online Politics

Facebook Billionaire Gives Money To Legalize Marijuana 527

Aldenissin writes "Dustin Moskovitz confirmed that he has recently given (an additional) $50,000 in support of Proposition 19, which is seeking to legalize marijuana in California this November. He had previously donated $20,000 to supporters of the act, which would allow people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate or transport cannabis for personal use and would permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of the substance. Asked for a comment as to why he's backing the legalization of marijuana, Moskovitz just sent this statement: 'More than any other initiative out there, Prop 19 will stabilize our national security and bolster our state economy. It will alleviate unnecessary overcrowding of non-violent offenders in our state jails, which in turn will help California residents.' An irony here is that about a month ago, Facebook refused to take FireDogLake's 'Just Say Now' pro-cannabis law reform ads."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Billionaire Gives Money To Legalize Marijuana

Comments Filter:
  • by Jedi Alec ( 258881 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @08:38AM (#33844538)

    1. Rip off you friends
    2. Make massive piles of cash (that would be profit!)
    3. Buy legislation
    3. Woaahhh, dude, munchies!

    • 1. Rip off you friends
      2. Make massive piles of cash (that would be profit!)
      3. Buy legislation
      3. Woaahhh, dude, munchies!

      4. Remember that you were thinking about buying legislation
      4. Duuude look at that squirrel... Playing with his nuts, hahahaha... LETS GO HOME AND EAT PEANUT BUTTER STRAIGHT OUT OF THE JAR!!!

    • 3. Buy legislation

      Exactly. I can barely believe we allow systems like this to exist, much less to be the systems that govern our society. Also, I'm not in favor of promoting marijuana use, but legalising its use is a very different thing, so I don't care too much, and think it might be slightly better than criminalising it.

      The one good thing I can see in this is that the guy chose this route, rather than:

      1.Rip off you friends
      2. Make massive piles of cash (that would be profit!)
      3. Do drugs, living above th

      • by skids ( 119237 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:24AM (#33845018) Homepage

        Well, I'd submit an admittedly naive idea:

        If everyone voted in 100% of elections, cared enough to research every candidate and initiative, had access to solid information on the issues and candidates, and was educated enough to navigate through FUD when finding that information, then it would not be possible to "buy" a seat or referendum, because any money used creating FUD would just be poured down a hole and any money spent on GOTV would be useless.

        In other words, the only reason we have a system where you can buy victory at the polls is because the citizenry is some combination of uncaring/too-busy-to-deal-with-it and there's little money in honest journalism anymore.

        We need smarter, more dedicated voters and objectively assembled, well reported journalism.

        Sure, there's a cost for signature gathering to qualify something or someone for the ballot, but that is chump change compared to what is dumped into emotional manipulation and outright deception of voters

        There should be campaign finance laws, of course, but the law is a blunt instrument. The problem has to be attacked at its root. Not all is lost -- even with our current electorate and media, FUD creation is a very inefficient prospect. The less efficient it gets, the less influence money has over politics. I worry about the demise of high school civics classes, though.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:56AM (#33845210)

          if this were the case, everyone would spend 100% of their time looking at politics. Even politics junkies can't keep up with the amount of shit that flows every day from lobbying groups and other well funded think tanks, how can a regular person separate the wheat from the chaff?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by HungryHobo ( 1314109 )

          And strip voting rights at age 75 or so.
          Not giving 17 year olds the right to vote even if the individual is fully capable is justified on the basis that too many 17 year olds are too inept to vote.
          Well too many elderly are even more incompetent.

          The elderly vote in droves yet nobody falls for FUD like the elderly.

          I've know some over 75 individuals with sharp minds who don't fall for FUD but the vast majority, the VAST VAST majority of people seem to get rapidly stupid once in their 70's and become afraid of

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 09, 2010 @06:31PM (#33847960)

            Sorry, but you're wrong on several accounts.
            Firstly, under 18's aren't allowed to vote not because they're inept or stupid, but because, theoretically, their minds are still developing, they're succeptible to manipulation and they are not responsible for their actions. That's why we don't let young people drink or stand trial. I don't fully agree with this (eg. gangs of 14 year olds who get away with rape and murder, even though they know full well what they're doing), but that's the way it is.

            Secondly, the fact that old people become "stupid" or ignorant of the changing society is irrelevent. Particularly in the US but prevalent in all western democracies, all citizens have the right to vote, whether they're black, female, immigrants, disabled or just stupid. Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if stupid people weren't allowed to vote. Or even better, wouldn't it be nice if people could only vote if they agreed with [my opinion], because [I] couldn't possible be wrong. That kind of thinking is the reason democracies let everyone vote. Yeah, the elderly are racist, ignorant, and always falling for scams and FUD. Right, because the super-smart people of slashdot would never fall for FUD like, say, the thousands of baseless anti-Microsoft articles and comments.

            Thirdly, your major failure is assuming that only under 18s and over 70s contain vast, vast majorities of stupidity. In my experience, stupidity knows no bounds.

        • by Surt ( 22457 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @11:27AM (#33845396) Homepage Journal

          We need smarter, more dedicated voters and objectively assembled, well reported journalism.

          And since that's not going to happen no matter how much money you invest in that goal, what would you like to do instead?

          (Seriously, unless you're prepared to suspend freedom of religion in this country, sufficiently smart voters won't happen even if you invest 100% of our state and federal dollars in education).

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by value_added ( 719364 )

          If everyone voted in 100% of elections, cared enough to research every candidate and initiative, had access to solid information on the issues and candidates, and was educated enough to navigate through FUD when finding that information, then it would not be possible to "buy" a seat or referendum, because any money used creating FUD would just be poured down a hole and any money spent on GOTV would be useless.

          That's one approach, but solid information? The only information out there (short of first-hand kn

        • People are uninformed about issues and candidates, because that is the smart thing to do. The fundamental problem is that the cost in time and effort of me learning is spent by me, while the benefit is shared equally be the whole electorate. So with a million voters I only get one millionth of the benefit of my labor. Few people want to work hard under those conditions.

          This is a well researched phenomenon known as "Rational ignorance". Google it to learn more.

          Like any vision dependent on a fundamental chang

      • by Rip Dick ( 1207150 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:42AM (#33845110)
        I don't understand. Are you outraged that this guy spent $50,000 to support Prop 19? Do you realize alcohol and tobacco companies spend millions every year, funding anti-marijuana commercials? Why do you think that is? They don't want competition from another legal intoxicant. Despite the fact that alcohol is proven to cause brain damage (Korsakov's Syndrome etc.) and cigarettes kill thousands of people every year. Tobacco companies tried to do the same thing with clove cigarettes; they actually succeeded in several states. Or consider the hundreds of millions spent annually by the DEA and local law enforcement agencies to fight this "killer weed". Are these tax payer dollar's really being well spent? I can understand that you have an issue with people buying legislation, but this guy's $50,000 splurge is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions spent by corporations every year to lobby for legislation that they stand to benefit from. One example is private prisons. They spend millions lobbying for stricter drug laws. Why? To increase their business. Does it seem right that a private corporation can buy legislation that puts thousands of non-violent offenders behind bars, just so they can increase profits? We have definitely lost control of our country, but it isn't to the potheads.
        • by Curtman ( 556920 ) * on Saturday October 09, 2010 @02:16PM (#33846484)

          I don't understand. Are you outraged that this guy spent $50,000 to support Prop 19?

          Actually, This guy spent $20 000, and then another $50 000, and another Facebook co-founder spent $100 000. For a total of $170 000 [].

          Marijuana legalization isn't just for the potheads, they already have easy access to pot. It's for the rest of us who are sick and tired of paying billions of dollars to tell people what to do with their own bodies, and are sick of the violence that comes from the black market which prohibition encourages.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Surt ( 22457 )

        Our whole capitalistic society is founded on the notion that people with assets are the ones most qualified to make decisions for the rest of us. So what's the problem with buying legislation?

        • by JesseMcDonald ( 536341 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:45PM (#33845806) Homepage

          Our whole capitalistic society is founded on the notion that people with assets are the ones most qualified to make decisions for the rest of us.

          Wrong. Capitalism is founded on the notion that people with assets are the ones most qualified to make decisions regarding themselves and their own assets. Not other people or their assets. That's the meaning of "private ownership".

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by drsquare ( 530038 )

            Capitalism is the notion that a few individuals should be allowed to accumulate large quantities of limited resources which in effect means they get to dictate to the society that needs those resources. The Golden Rule, as it were.

  • by petrus4 ( 213815 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @08:44AM (#33844570) Homepage Journal pot legalisation could stabilise national security, as TFA claimed; but then it came to me.

    Get all the terrorists stoned, and they'll most likely be far too demotivated and/or tranquilised to carry out terrorist acts. It's actually brilliant. If someone from the Pentagon is reading this, I trust that it will be implemented immediately.

    • by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @09:11AM (#33844664)
      Making goods or services illegal generally doesn't make it stop happening. It creates a black market that is unregulated and spurs of whole economy of crime. That is what happened with prohibition. That is what happened when abortions were illegal. That's what is happening now that marijuana is illegal. It's also happening with prostitution. Legalize it and regulate it, and you've actually cut crime.
      • by Ozlanthos ( 1172125 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @09:52AM (#33844832)
        Yeah it's just too bad hardly anyone knows that the real reason for making it illegal did'nt have any6thing trying to stop people from smoking it...

      • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:25AM (#33845022)

        When you make something illegal that isn't a real crime, you still create criminals and everything that comes with that. Now what I mean by "not a real crime," is something that doesn't cause harm to others. Nobody in their right mind is going to say murder shouldn't be a crime. By its very nature it is a crime, because it hurts someone. However other things, like drugs, are not. There is on inherent harm to anyone other than the user.

        Now this doesn't mean that you should never make anything illegal that doesn't cause direct harm. There can be good reasons. An example might be excessive speeding. In and of itself it causes no harm, however it greatly increases the chances of harm being caused by a mistake, and the magnitude of that harm being rather large. Hence there is a reason to make it illegal. Likewise some drugs are just too dangerous to use safely. Crystal meth is a good example. There isn't a safe way to use meth, so it probably isn't a good idea to allow it to be distributed legally.

        However you have to weigh the reasons against the negative impact on society. As with any choice, there is ALWAYS a downside. When you make something illegal the downsides are that you create criminals, and thus have to spend time and resources dealing with that, and you provide a potential source of profit for illegal enterprise. So you have to weigh that against the good you believe it will do.

        In the case of marijuana, things are very firmly slanted to the bad side with it being illegal. The drug itself is very mild. There is no near term toxicity and its long term effects are no worse than alcohol or cigarettes (it can cause lung cancer, like any inhaled smoke, and it seems to have a negative impact on higher reasoning skills when used heavily for a long term). So it is not very harmful. However it being illegal has put a ton of people in jail, which costs money, and provided a nice profit source for illegal enterprise.

        Things like this need to be weighed. Sure, if marijuana was legal it would lead to some problems. People would get stoned and operate a car (that would need to be covered under DUI laws). People would abuse it and spend their life doing little else other than getting stoned. However those problems are far less than the current problems, and are ones much easier to mitigate.

        Whenever you talk laws like this, it always needs to be a cost/benefit analysis. You have to work out what is the best for society over all, and not let knee jerk politics get in the way.

        • by Forty Two Tenfold ( 1134125 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:08PM (#33845584)

          it can cause lung cancer, like any inhaled smoke

          No, it does not. []

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Stellar post, with just one flaw:

          it can cause lung cancer, like any inhaled smoke

          Maybe [] not. []

          From the pulmonologist who completed the 2,000+ subject study mentioned above:

          "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

    • by boommboomm ( 1918538 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @09:22AM (#33844700)
      Pot generates more than 60% of cartel profits. Legalization takes that money from the cartels and puts it in the hands of governments and legitimate businesses. That in of itself is a boost to national security
      • by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:04AM (#33844898)

        Prohibition made the Mob massive amounts of money.

        It also taught total disrespect for the law because the Volstead Act was unworthy of a free people. The laws against and campaign against marijuana are similarly the product of Puritanical nonsense and worthy of even more contempt since cannabis is vastly less socially toxic than alcohol.
        (Booze-related domestic violence is common, while weed-related violence is quite rare even with tens of millions of smokers in the US alone.)

    • it free up cops / courts / the prison system for real crime and not tieing them up with your dime bag buyer. Also thing of the tax money from pot as well.

    • by Kozz ( 7764 )

      Get all the terrorists stoned, and they'll most likely be far too demotivated and/or tranquilised to carry out terrorist acts.

      That's right. They may not carry out terrorist acts, but they'll think about it a lot.

    • Prohibition - ever heard of it? It was the great idea of making something illegal that could be made in your bathtub. -Pot, making something illegal that grows in your backyard, your basement, your National Forest - easy to grow, easy to sell. Millions and billions in Court costs, incarceration costs, police costs and power to criminals - all for something you can't stop and is no worse than booze. So simple, so hard for people to understand.
  • This is good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lanteran ( 1883836 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @08:51AM (#33844588) Homepage Journal
    We need to drop this 'war on drugs' mentality that's cost us so many billions and given us one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. Marijuana is less addictive and damaging than both alcohol and tobacco, and actually has plenty of acceptable medical uses. Its also rather interesting that a state is testing its powers against the federal government by downright defying a federal law, I wonder how that's going to turn out.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      So assuming we don't blow ourselves up, us Californians just have to worry about California breaking off from the US. To go hang with Hawaii. Alaska can come too. THE END!
      • Yep, I thought of that clip too immediately. Oh, how I long for the internets of old, such simpler times...
    • Re:This is good (Score:4, Informative)

      by rawket.scientist ( 812855 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @09:08AM (#33844644)
      California already does defy federal law by allowing medical marijuana by prescription. Technically, all the producers and consumers could be busted on federal charges, state legal or no. But as a practical matter, the Feds rarely if ever prosecute "legal" users.

      * IAN Your Lawyer. Do not take legal advice from strangers on the Internet.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Surt ( 22457 )

        It's actually official DOJ policy not to pursue legal users. Of course, that comes with the caveat of 'for now'.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 )

      Americans are not good at self control. That is why we have problems with Alcohol and Tobacco, but it is too difficult to stop those, Alcohol proven by prohibition. But opening the door to
      Marijuana is actually quite stupid. We want to improve citizens productivity and their willingness to work. The debates go back and forth giving hypnotically advantage and disadvantages to prove each side.

      The real question is if Marijuana was legal what will be the increase in use... Now how will that effect the producti

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by David Jao ( 2759 )
      Unfortunately, the implementation of Prop. 19 is seriously flawed, even for those of us who generally support marijuana legalization.

      Prop. 19 creates a new protected class of worker (Article 5, 11304(c)). It explicitly forbids discrimination on the basis of marijuana use unless the employer can prove that the usage affects job performance. This is a very high standard of proof, and more than we currently require for alcohol and tobacco.

      This blatant overreach is why I voted against Prop. 19, even though

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BasilBrush ( 643681 )

        That section actually says: "Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected"

        Nothing about levels of proof required. In fact the wording is "existing right of the employer... shall not be affected" So your statement is categorically wrong.

        I'd say the provision is there to stop a marijuana based apartheid appearing, where jobs are advertised or offered on the basis of "no potheads", just as they used to

  • BBC is reporting this and also that Sean Parker has donated $100,000 to support prop 19 [].

  • Good for him (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @08:56AM (#33844612) Journal
    However, America needs to
    1. LEGALIZE all drugs for use at your own private RESIDENCE. i.e. no private business and no parties. If caught outside of RESIDENCE under influence then some minimum
    2. for 15 years, Allow private business to provide medical mmj (they must grow it and sell it at one location; no buying from elsewhere). In addition, allow farmers to grow mmj, but only sell to gov.\.
    3. for 15 years, the feds provide all recreational drugs, available ONLY at a gov. control stores similar to what Utah has for liquor.
    4. NO exporting OR importing of recreational drugs. Steep penalties (first time offender has free housing for 5 years; second time 20 years; and 3'rd, for life).
    5. provide increased money to police gangs and treat addicts.

    Absolutely, do NOT decriminalize the drugs. Legalize them. And do not allow production to every go into gang hands or to be imported/exported. THis is purely about getting control of our borders and ending drug use. Gangs push more drugs than anything else because it is HIGHLY profitable. Stop the profit incentive and you kill the gangs and imported drugs from Mexico and China.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      provide increased money to police gangs

      Why would you fund police gangs? Isn't there enough police brutality already?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jez9999 ( 618189 )

      I agree with most of your points, but why would you make it illegal for use in private businesses premises, which were correctly licenced? Many soft drugs are used in a social recreational way, and it's not a major problem for people to take them responsibly even outside their own residences. I think that's too strong a restriction. Do you limit alcohol consumption to private residences only?

  • Marijuana/cannabis (Score:5, Informative)

    by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @09:00AM (#33844624) Journal

    According to an extensive research article published in The Lancet (highest impact factor medical journal), cannabis is both less damaging AND less addictive than either tobacco or alcohol.

  • But seriously, legalizing pot might actually have a better effect on the country than implementing teacher pay based on student test scores like Zuckerburg's trying to do with his Newark donation. Test scores have much, much more to do with with the quality of home life than the quality of teaching.
  • People claim that legalizing pot will bring gazillions of dollars into the government coffers by taxing the product.

    However they don't explain why we should believe that current dealers would be willing to start collecting and submitting taxes to the government. They already have a product that they are selling tax-free, what is the incentive for the dealers to start charging more for the same product?
    • by oiron ( 697563 )

      Oh, I don't know... The possibility of no jail time might mean something - if not to the suppliers, maybe to the buyers.

      Same as with alcohol after prohibition was lifted, really...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by vadim_t ( 324782 )

      The current dealers will just go out of business.

      If legalized it can be easily grown locally in mass commercial negotiations, packaged and distributed like any other product. Without losses due to law enforcement, the need to spend large amounts of money on keeping it hidden and so on, it will be much cheaper.

      And who is going to buy from some shady dealer when you can just walk into a shop and get it much easier, cheaper, of a probably better quality, and guaranteed that it's not mixed with anything funny?


    • by Arthur Grumbine ( 1086397 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @09:50AM (#33844824) Journal

      From Slashdot, circa 1932:
      People claim that legalizing alcohol will bring gazillions of dollars into the government coffers by taxing the product. However they don't explain why we should believe that current bootleggers would be willing to start collecting and submitting taxes to the government. They already have a product that they are selling tax-free, what is the incentive for the dealers to start charging more for the same product?

    • by kaptink ( 699820 )

      It wouldnt be sold by dealers if it were legal (I assume this is part of the point). It would be sold just like any other product of this nature such as alcohol and tobacco. How many black market booze dealers do you know? The point is that it would no longer be sold by underground groups (or rather it would no longer be proffitable) therefor cutting off the cash flow to the bad guys connected with the harder drugs such as crack, ice and heroin. One of the problems with the way things are currently is that

    • First, make for step prison time for selling or buying illegal drugs.
      Second, make the price for legal stuff LOW at first.
      If buyers can get it cheaper and safer from the gov, than buying it from drug dealers, AND they know that they will go to prison IF they buy from a deal, then dealers will quit.
    • by Trerro ( 711448 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @10:47AM (#33845144)

      While the extra tax revenue doesn't hurt, that isn't where most of the money is gained on this.

      Consider the ridiculously huge number of people in prison for a harmless crime, and the fact that many of them get longer sentences than rapists. Now figure out what it costs to incarcerate them at taxpayer expense. (Hint: we have 106% of Canada's crime per capita, but 616% of their prison population per capita.*) Now calculate the lost labor from having them rot in prison instead of doing something productive. Now add in the cost of paying all of those cops who do pretty much nothing but go after potheads. Now add in the huge amount of Mexican border security needed vs. drug gangs with the power of small armies, which get all their money from... yep, pot. This goes way, way, into the billions. Not throwing all that money away would make a huge difference. Any tax revenue gained from selling it legally is just a bonus.

      * - Here's my sources on those 2 statistics I quoted: [] []

      As for the dealers selling it tax free? The dealers are out of the picture. They can't keep up with the prices a large-scale commercial operation is going to be able to sell it at. When's the last time you purchased alcohol from a dealer on the street, vs. one of the 97 gazillion liquor stores? If you're most people, the answer is "never." Now sure, some set up their own mini-distillery (or get some from a neighbor who does), and they obviously aren't paying tax on it, but that's such a ridiculously small minority that it's statistically insignificant - and even most of the ones who do that don't use it as their sole supply due to the sheer impracticality of producing large amounts of beer with something you made in your basement.

      Last but not least, in additional to the many billions we wouldn't be throwing away, we'd be some lives by weakening the gangs up here, and a LOT of lives in Mexico, where the drug lords pretty much own the country thanks to the virtually limitless income they're making from US pot users.

      I don't smoke pot... it simply doesn't appeal to me. However, it's actually *less* harmful than alcohol, in that it's quite possible to OD on alcohol (although you generally have to be pretty stupid to manage that), while it's physically impossible to OD on pot. As for the short-term impairment of being under the influence of either, I don't really see one being significantly worse than the other. The only issue I'd have is people driving while high, and we already have DUI laws to cover that. Just add an "or pot" everywhere those laws mention alcohol.

  • I always wondered what will happen when marijuana becomes legalized and the likes of Altria née Phillip Morris and Monsanto eventually get into it - New Marlboro White Widow! Roundup-Ready PPP! What's keeping them from (albeit quietly and behind the scenes) promoting legalization and creating new markets for themselves?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jaysyn ( 203771 )

      I realize you are trying to somehow demonize pot further by tying it to those companies but seriously, who cares? Under the bill as it stands you'll still be able to grow your own if you want.

      BTW, I dare you to thoroughly check out the mutual funds in your retirement investments. I'm betting you already support those two "evil" companies & don't even realize it.

  • He just wants to be able to set this status and not get arrested.

  • by Socguy ( 933973 ) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @01:46PM (#33846228)
    1. If alcohol is legal pot should be too. The former has far more potential for harm than the latter.
    2. Half the population feels or has felt the law is contemptible and contemptible laws breed contempt for the law.
    3. Pot should be regulated much the same as alcohol and cigarettes, in your home or licensed establishment. Obviously, one should not drive or engage in other potentially harmful activities when stoned. Common sense must prevail.
    4. If governments wish, the level of THC in the product could be regulated in order to prevent ever more potent strains from being engineered.
    5. Don't expect a huge tax windfall from legalizing pot, the stuff is dirt cheap to produce because it grows like a weed. Pun intended. Once the risk is removed, absent government mandated pricing competition will drive prices through the floor just like the rest of agriculture.
    6. Stop putting people in jail for smoking pot. It makes no sense when places like California have such huge budgetary issues. A ballot initiative should be put to the people, de-criminalize or tax increase proportional to the cost of keeping all those locked up for the offense in jail. Halting the lock ups is really the only area you will see savings from legalization.
    7. If Pot is legalized, then discourage smoking as a delivery method... Smoking is still harmful to your health.
    8. At some point, it will happen so why not be ahead of the curve? The benefit is generally the greatest for the early adopter of these sorts of things.
    9. No system is perfect. The best we can do is always try to make things better!

The possession of a book becomes a substitute for reading it. -- Anthony Burgess