There will be loads of tax revenue trust me. Growing decent pot takes time space and upfront money that many just won't bother with. And it is not so easy as people talk it to be. i seen lots of humble to plantation style operations over the years. Helped with many. Outdoor Humboldt and Mendocino, and indoor here and there. Most folk aren't going to do it. Many folk don't have social circles to buy it from home growers. Mass pot would be sold in store.

Then there are all the edibles. Huge legal market this already is at the medical marijuana dispensaries. There will be favorites who rise to popularity. People will buy cuz they can't achieve the same results themselves.

And then there is the industrial hemp which would bring in many millions of revenue just in my state alone. And of course there is the huge savings of not imprisoning marijuana smokers. More time for police to do community policing. The prison industrial complex will take a big hit, but then that is part of the point of legalizing marijuana.. to end the profit scheme (at taxpayer expense) of imprisoning people for money.

This is a fascinating and long-overdue growth of our country's character. Arguments against legal weed have been—and continue to be—facile and cowardly at best.

Misinformed people, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, greed, and the urge to selectively enforce patently liberty-hating laws upon whomever are all that's been holding marijuana prohibition (and drug prohibition-at-large) up for this long.

I congratulate Washingtonians and Coloradans on their landmark victory, and I wish them the strength and resolve to never let slip even one finger from their stones fresh in freedom's heretofore-still pond.

I agree, I think we'd be much better off if people would worry less about what other people are or are not doing and focus more on their own choices.

agreed. Most of the problems with politics involve disagreements over people who want to police other people's lives, or their money. We don't need either group.

As I understand it, the Republican party used to consist primarily of fiscal conservatives, but over time formed a "Big Tent" that included social conservatives. The problem with this is that one isn't like the other, which pretty much means a schism would happen at some point.

Wrong.

Social conservatives were absorbed into the Republican party during the 1960s through 1970s due to one very specific political strategy of Richard Nixon (the worst President in US history) in the late 1960s:

Southern Strategy (link to the Wikipedia entry)

Before the Southern Strategy was implemented, the Republican party was actually the socially liberal and progressive party. It was the party that freed the slaves. It was the party that consistently won all the "blue states" back in the days. Back then, Democrats were the Southern and racist party. Democrats ruled "red states". All the Southern racists and bigots voted Democrats. The KKK were Democrats.

Then, in a series of sudden turns of events, (one thing led to another kinda way in an unstoppable tide of history,) Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Right Act of 1964 and Voting Act of 1965 into laws. The Southern racists and bigots, who supported the Democrats, felt betrayed by the President Johnson and his party. Richard Nixon saw an opening. He saw the opportunity, and he came up with the "Southern Strategy" to appeal to the Southern racists and bigots, to convert the disillusioned Southern Democrats into Republicans. The strategy worked. Too well.

Over time, Republicans and Democrats swapped their constituents and states. They completely swapped their social positions. All the progressive politicians gradually abandoned the Republican party and became Democrats, while all the Democrat conservatives (racists and bigots) went over to the other side. Republican became the socially conservative party, and Democrat became the liberal progressive party.

That's the history. Check out the Wikipedia entry for more details of this interesting -- but little known -- pivotal event in US history.

I was aware of that history but still agree with what Sabin_Stargem is saying. The Republican party wasn't always (as in, in the last 50 years) as fractured as it has become, and that's because of the extreme social conservative movement that's come up in the party over the last 10 years or so. The Republican Party is pretty much a trainwreck right now. I'm neither or a Rep or Dem, but if it weren't for idiot bags like Akin, Murdoch, and Broun, the Tea Party (Bachmann and Palin both are a waste of human flesh), etc., I'd probably be more inclined to label myself a Rep more than a Democrat. Instead, I stay as far away from that party as possible because the issues I do disagree with them on (such as abortion and religion) far outweigh the issues I do agree with them on.

Luckily, some of those bad republicans were voted out of office, and Romney didn't win (which would have given the ultra conservative movement more power, even though Romney himself wasn't exactly an ultra conservative -- he flipped flopped between that and being a moderate republican so I'm not really sure which he truly was, but many ultra conservatives backed him nonetheless). I'm not saying I wanted Obama to win, but I know I didn't want that ultra conservative movement to gain any more ground than it already had.

Well you got part of it right.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not the first civil rights legislation that went before the legislature. But it was the first time that Republicans had enough support to break the Democrat filibuster. Like the previous acts this one too was written by the Republicans. The act also got a boost from President Lyndon Johnson who publicly endorsed it by saying it was what Kennedy would have wanted. Shortly after the act passed he privately said " I’ll have those n----s voting Democrat for 200 years" aboard Air Force One.

There wasn't too much party switching after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Senator Robert Byrd, who was once a high leader in the KKK, remained a Democrat for the rest of his life. In fact he was continually re-elected each term since the CRA1964 and after he died his constituency elected another Democrat. All the southern state senators who voted against the act were Democrats and with the exception of Strom Thurmond, all remained Democrats. I believe it was Al Gore Sr who was the first to be replaced by a Republican in 1971. The rest of the states kept electing Democrats, some went Republican in the 80's and some waited until the 00's.

In presidential elections the southern states quit being solid blue in 1948, although they came pretty close for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Also Let's not for get that Governor George "Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever" Wallace actually took 5 states as an Independent in 1968; Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. They went solid Red once for Nixon, once for Reagan (the second time) and twice for Bush Jr.

The idea that the parties switched sides due to civil rights is completely false. Are there racists who vote Republican? Yes. Are there racists who vote Democrat? Yes. Does this mean that everyone who votes these ways are racist? No.

Yup, I've got problems with all three! They're all addictive substances that are mildly toxic, have long-term negative effects on people, and cause problems in communities where they're common.

It's hard to separate out the criminal-related problems with marijuana-specific problems at the moment, but it's also got negative heath effects that we'll doubtless get to see a lot more of now.

Also - I know this makes me a modern-day heretic and y'all will try to lynch me - I think coffee/caffeine is starting to be a problem. It's a lot more mild than the others, but the energy drink market is getting to kind of scary level of caffeine, particularly the way they're targeting kids, and the way coffee has an actual physical impact is kind of curious.

EDIT: Yeah, the social conservatives hijacked the Republican party, to its detriment.

Social conservatives are also likely to be fiscally conservative, so the fiscally-conservative Republican party attracted them in droves once the Democrats proved to be in favor of expanded government. The Tea Party is trying to get the Reps back to fiscal conservativism, in an angry, not-very-polished way.

Palin is very good at somethings - and fits right in in Alaska - but not at being on national TV. Can't blame her for that. She wasn't on national TV until she got announced as VP choice. She got put in a horrible spot she wasn't ready for, and the McCain campaign should have known that.

The fact that there are much less people smocking weed than drinking alcohol kind of help. Then you don't know what tobacco is. Tobacco is a relaxant, and a stimulant, which cause the body to produce a small quantity of adrenaline. That's your "added benefit". The medical benefits are only of use for those who actually need it. There's no need to allow it for everyone if the point is to help people with chronic pain.
In moderation, weed provoke anti-social behavior, by frying the consumer memory, and making him paranoid.
Alcohol and tobacco only do it in case of abuse. Anyway, 3 wrongs don't make a right: there are a lot of good reason to support (or not) a legalization, but alcohol and tobacco aren't. The federal government work for the greater notion of the nation. That's the only reason they have to exist, especially in the US where it is the States wish and purpose is to take care of the people.

If you aren't aware of the gigantic difference between pure tobacco and what the cigarette companies put out, then you probably shouldn't bother posting in this thread. They are vastly different from another. Cigarettes are highly toxic.

This is extraordinarily false. I have never in my entire life met an anti-social, paranoid weed smoker. I've had many friends who were very heavy weed smokers, who made straight A's in school, went on to get degrees and start great careers, and were extremely social and never once displayed symptoms of paranoia while high or not high.

It seems as though you aren't particularly familiar with the US government, heh (or any government, for that matter). They work for their own good; not the good of the people.

Yeah, clearly you aren't aware of how popular congress is among the people
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155720/Congress-Approval-Remains-Historically-Low.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

HGiles,I think junk food is more dangerous to communities than marijuana. So, since I am sure you'd have no problem with this, I am going to need you to clean up your diet, as we can't affordable the health care costs your inability to live as a responsible citizen are racking up.

It's the same thing. Oh, and you are 15 pounds overweight, you are going to have to get a gym membership or see your taxes go up.

Never mind I don't want to get into this

Doesn't change a thing, your point was that cigarette don't have any "benefit", so only "dumb" smoke tobacco... I'm no sure where you're trying to go. The effect on memory and mental health are proven. Most smokers I ever met have no problem admitting it.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cannabis+mental+health They work for the good of the lobbies, which fit in their vision of the nation safety and global standing. When they try to do something for the people, the people reaction is that it's not the job of the federal government. And the people voted for more of the same: same president, same congress division.