- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Yeah, I forget. The posting form here has a problem with extra-long links. I've been using TinyURL to get around this, I just forgot when posting this link.
Anyway, the full quote, apparently, is: "Hemp is of first necessity to the commerce and marine, in other words, to the wealth and protection of the Country."
Although I can't find a cited source for this quote. It is widely repeated throughout the internet, but without a source, it's probably best to regard this as spurious. While it's typical of his views, it may be misattributed (or a complete fabrication).
I'm guessing it may be in one of his Farm Journals.
Best plan yet. I've been telling people this since they started discussing the economy bullshit almost a year ago. And others have been saying it way longer than that. Way back to, like, the founding of the country.
"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."
- Thomas Jefferson
You fail to show what marijuana supposedly "does to people". There are few ill effects, even among the heaviest long-term smokers. But heavy, long-term repetition of most activities will have negative results (running, for example).
You also appear to be claiming that marijuana use is somehow a threat to domestic peace. You also seem to think it will magically develop addictive properties once its legal.
You fail to show why the law should be invasive enough to regulate what you put in your own body, or why the law should be used to legislate away things you don't like. Governments allow industry to put all kinds of toxins and waste into our food, air, and water, and the government gets paid to allow it, and all the citizens are forced to ingest it. No reason we shouldn't all have the right to knowingly poison ourselves.
Also, your argument seems to assume that many people would suddenly begin using marijuana who are not already, and there's no data to prove this. People are already spending their pot budgets, nothing would change there (except maybe they could grow it and save).
Your entire view of government is rather disturbing. "The people within the government agree to be controlled for peace." Citizen-control is not a constitutional principle, in fact our rights insulate us from overt control by the government.
that's cool, except the tax part. Why is government owed a tax for the growth or sale of this particular plant? We don't have special taxes for coffee, which is about the equivalent in overall social effect and harm-potential (that is, almost zero).
There's nothing that justifies that marijuana be subjected to anything other than standard sales taxes.