I read the news story “Legal marijuana an economic boon, advocates claim” with great interest. The legalization of pot would provide a new revenue stream for state governments and reduce working families' tax burden, freeing up ever-popular “disposable income” to spur the economy.
Marijuana use, like tobacco and alcohol, is voluntary. You want to use the product, pay the tax.
One problem is the overreaching federal government. Possession, distribution and use of pot are illegal under federal law.
One could argue that legalization would cut into the federal government's profits and hurt the “war on drugs,” which is nothing more than a front to confiscate property and take our rights away. How long will the feds keep their “hands off” approach?
Naysayers will argue that legalization will lead to the end of America as we know it. Others will argue how marijuana usage is a health issue, adding to health-care costs.
The reality is this: We are in trouble because parents have abdicated their responsibilities. They are not involved in their children's education, preferring to let video games and the media raise their kids.
If the government were serious about health, alcohol and tobacco would be illegal. We know both are bad for the body, but government is addicted to the money.
I say smoke 'em if you got ‘em, have a drink on me, and don't bogart that joint, my friend. Personal freedom and responsibility should always trump government control of our lives.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.