Drug Legalization

[mattblancarte]

I just don't see how you can say this. Prohibition in the US was identical, in concept.

Prohibition included cocaine, meth, heroine, crack, etc? I thought it was just one product and during a time when there were no such thing as "hard drugs" and people didn't know who junkies were?

I see a difference between alcohol use and hard drugs. I can go into a bar and drink a beer with no ill effects. Can I say the same if I walked into a bar and shot up with heroine?

See bolded text for reference.

Heroin and cocaine did exist, although they were more thought of as remedies to illness at the time.

So you're saying that because one dose of heroin is stronger than one beer, that is enough to make it illegal? I haven't heard you propose some kind of limit to the number of beers you can buy in one sitting at a bar, yet. How about one beer is legal, but if two beers we throw you and the bar owner in jail for 3 years?

Or, how about regardless of the drug you choose to imbibe, insufflate, or inject (be it alcohol or heroin) you are held to the same standards or social responsibility.

If your goal is to stop people from doing dangerous things, we should disallow any dangerous recreational activity.

Dare I say... no more auto-racing?!

[themadscientist]

treat pot like alcohol. Possession and use is fine, but cause some sort of trouble under the influence and you will be prosecuted like a DWI.

No, treat pot like cigarettes.

Barring dropping it in your lap, smoking a cigarette does not impair your ability to drive, pot does. It needs to be categorized as the performance debilitator it is.

[audtatious]

Prohibition included cocaine, meth, heroine, crack, etc? I thought it was just one product and during a time when there were no such thing as "hard drugs" and people didn't know who junkies were?

I see a difference between alcohol use and hard drugs. I can go into a bar and drink a beer with no ill effects. Can I say the same if I walked into a bar and shot up with heroine?

See bolded text for reference.

Heroin and cocaine did exist, although they were more thought of as remedies to illness at the time.

So you're saying that because one dose of heroin is stronger than one beer, that is enough to make it illegal? I haven't heard you propose some kind of limit to the number of beers you can buy in one sitting at a bar, yet. How about one beer is legal, but if two beers we throw you and the bar owner in jail for 3 years?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that as one dose of heroin is stronger than one beer (and HIGHLY more "addictive" than beer) that there is more risk involved which can lead to more expense on "me". I'm also saying go ahead and make it legal but if you choose to partake and it can be proven then any associated bills is on you and you alone. If you can't afford to pay then you don't get treatment. You seem to be against that idea.

Or, how about regardless of the drug you choose to imbibe, insufflate, or inject (be it alcohol or heroin) you are held to the same standards or social responsibility.

If your goal is to stop people from doing dangerous things, we should disallow any dangerous recreational activity.

Dare I say... no more auto-racing?!

You seem to think my goal is to protect people when in fact my goal is to protect myself from the idiots out there.

Is it "fair" that alcohol is "legal" (regulated) whereas others are not? To those wanting free access to heavy drugs I would say no. Guess what? That's not my point. My whole issue is with the added expense that society will have to pay by allowing virtually unhindered "legal" access to those heavier drugs. You seem ok with that and I'm not ok without additional protections being implemented.

[audtatious]

Barring dropping it in your lap, smoking a cigarette does not impair your ability to drive, pot does. It needs to be categorized as the performance debilitator it is.

Then it should be in a new category that straddles the two, correct?

Personally, I'll drive after 1-2 beers (depending) but I won't drive at all if I smoke pot...not saying I do, mind you.

[AZhitman]

Not a good example.

I found out in college that I'm unaffected by THC. Completely. That made for some pissed-off roommates, as I burned through a fairly large quantity of what they called "good s***" with no effect (other than a nasty cough and nausea from the stench).

There's no way in hell I could drive after 2 drinks in rapid succession.

BTW, smoking definitely DOES impair driving ability in many cases. It's one more distraction. Ever see a driver with a cig in one hand and a cell phone in another? Morons.

[IBCoupe]

Tangent:

Old people make me sad when they drive. I was on the way to school and there was a lady who was swerving so badly she was blind, drunk, suffering a stroke, or some combination of the three. When I thought it was a college kid, I was pissed off. When I saw it was an old lady, I felt bad for her. Like the feeling you have when you know it's time to put down the family pet.

[mattblancarte]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that as one dose of heroin is stronger than one beer (and HIGHLY more "addictive" than beer) that there is more risk involved which can lead to more expense on "me". I'm also saying go ahead and make it legal but if you choose to partake and it can be proven then any associated bills is on you and you alone. If you can't afford to pay then you don't get treatment.

Agreed. Beer is not as strong or addictive (in very small doses/frequency of use) as heroin.

Double-agree on bolded text.

TRIPLE-agree on last sentence!

I think we are getting closer to being on the same page. If you look back through my responses, you'll see that this is about where I stand on the issue.

You seem to think my goal is to protect people when in fact my goal is to protect myself from the idiots out there.

Is it "fair" that alcohol is "legal" (regulated) whereas others are not? To those wanting free access to heavy drugs I would say no. Guess what? That's not my point. My whole issue is with the added expense that society will have to pay by allowing virtually unhindered "legal" access to those heavier drugs. You seem ok with that and I'm not ok without additional protections being implemented.

I guess I see protecting people as a means to the end of protecting yourself... Regardless, that is a notable distinction.

No, it is not fair or ethical IMHO.

You claim added expense to society, but I see a lack of proof for that. Again, I look back to Prohibition in the US as evidence to the contrary.

Once booze was legalized:

- Organized crime took a HUGE financial hit, but moved from alcohol into newly illegal drugs. Thus, expanding their runway.

- In replacement of mobsters, legitimate tax-paying companies began to flourish.

- Violence related to alcohol went way down.

There's more, but I need to get back to coding.

[audtatious]

I understand your point about prohibition. Those involved in prohibition (or some at least) went into politics (Kennedy family) while real gangsters died off or used their money within other legal businesses. When prohibition ended there were plenty of places for these "criminals" to turn and invest their money or create new businesses, etc. They didn't simply go away, and neither will the Cartels. Difference? Where do the cartel people have to go in Mexico? Probably nowhere.

IMO, they will do what they can to undercut US cost as a means to push more product for "equal" profits (or as close as they can) to what they have today. Let's look at pot and compare that to what the Gov has done for Cigs. You will get a set amount of pot and then the gov will add 2x that amount as taxes. So P = A + (A x 2). "P" is the cost of some set quantity of pot. Now, let's say P=$100. If Sam, the fry cook at McDonald's, is offered the Gov product at "P" or has the opportunity of purchasing a black market version at 1/2 the gov price, which one will he purchase? Of course, he will purchase the black market version and save 50-bux. He's happy, the cartels are happy and the Gov gets crap. Change pot to heroine where the Gov will add, say 6x to the cost because it's a more potent product, the cartels again can win out.

I don't think the cartels are simply going to close shop and let this go when there will still be plenty of profit to be made.

[AppleBonker]

But pot shouldn't be that expensive. It's a plant and can be fairly readily grown in many climates in the US. I would expect the cost to drop substantially (not to mention many people choosing to grow their own for monetary reasons), so even if the gov taxed it heavily it would still be BELOW current market value. Plus, it would likely be of higher quality. I don't think cartels would be able to compete when it comes to marijuana. And I would hope that most people would appreciate the regulation and take that chance to buy better product. I'm sure I could probably go get some cheap steak off of some farmer somewhere, but it wouldn't be as good as hitting the butcher. As US citizens, we already pay more for quality on everything else. What makes this different?

[stebo0728]

But pot shouldn't be that expensive. It's a plant and can be fairly readily grown in many climates in the US. I would expect the cost to drop substantially (not to mention many people choosing to grow their own for monetary reasons), so even if the gov taxed it heavily it would still be BELOW current market value. Plus, it would likely be of higher quality. I don't think cartels would be able to compete when it comes to marijuana. And I would hope that most people would appreciate the regulation and take that chance to buy better product. I'm sure I could probably go get some cheap steak off of some farmer somewhere, but it wouldn't be as good as hitting the butcher. As US citizens, we already pay more for quality on everything else. What makes this different?

Ah so now youve gone and done it, you opened a whole new can of worms concerning the self grown market. How would that work exactly, and dont take my tone as critical, im truely curious. Would it be as loose as growing your own tomatoes? Or would seeds (or whatever the hell pot uses to spread) be just available with the petunias at walmart? Ok so lets say your allowed to grow your own, would you be allowed to sell it? How then could it be a regulated substance? I really dont see self grown pot fitting the legalization model, but I would love to be proved wrong, and shown how it could effectively work.

[AppleBonker]

Well, even if you were to only decriminalize it, that would make possession acceptable. So I would think growing would be fine. And selling might still be illegal, but they'd have to catch you in the actual act. No more of this stupid you've got more than X grams so you must be selling bull. And most countries have laws that make it perfectly legal to purchase marijuana seeds (and there is a booming seeds-by-mail industry). The US is one of the very few that wont even allow the import of seeds.

Can't people sell their home-brewed beer legally? Would this have to be something similar? Again, if the cost drops (as I imagine it would) there wouldn't be much profit in selling. So I doubt it would be very widespread. Plus, market forces would kill off that value quickly. Make it completely legal to sell and everyone will try until they realize it isn't profitable. Then everything will settle in.

[audtatious]

Home grown will not be acceptable as the Gov can't regulate nor tax it. Sure, conceivably people could grow their own tobacco for cigs (some do) but the majority do not have the time nor space to cultivate it, thus the cig market is pretty locked in. Pot is not that way thus the Gov would simply not going to allow it.

You are expecting it to be below current market value, which still would not stop the cartels from undercutting. Is the pot sold in stores in Cali dirt cheap? From what I see online it's $500-650 an oz or $5500-6500 a lb. That seems much higher than "street prices".

[audtatious]

Can't people sell their home-brewed beer legally?

Nope. ATF will cuff-ya and stuff-ya.

[stebo0728]

Actually you are only allowed to brew a certain amount per year, enough for you and some close friends maybe, and thats it. And it cant be moved across state lines either. To brew and sell you have to get licensed which means government oversight, fees, inspections and what not, to regulate what is consumable by the general public.

[themadscientist]

Damned revenuers! I bet you didn't know the Skyline was for runnin shine!

[mattblancarte]

Perhaps medical marijuana pricing has to do with the limited supply, and operating expenses of little boutique shops that sell it? Not sure about the economics of that market, to be honest.

I looked through that gallery and some of the prices where almost half of your estimates... However, some were more expensive.

I wouldn't be surprised if marijuana joints were priced and packaged similarly to cigarettes if legalized. Look at how fine-tuned the alcohol and tobacco industries are.

In terms of the home production of marijuana, I'd like to think it would be along the lines of tobacco if legalized. Drugs that emit dangerous fumes (e.g., methamphetamine) should obviously not be legal for home production.

Overall, I think people will do the legal thing and buy drugs from legal places given the chance. You may have some idiots left over, but the easy route will be too appealing for most.

[audtatious]

MoD has already said that pot is not like cigarettes so my assumption would be "no home grown" allowed. Plus, imagine all the electric power needed for everyone to have their own little greenhouse at home

[stebo0728]

MoD has already said that pot is not like cigarettes so my assumption would be "no home grown" allowed. Plus, imagine all the electric power needed for everyone to have their own little greenhouse at home

Pot will grow naturally here, the problem is its not allowed so you cant have a patch next to your banana peppers. Growers have to use hydroponics which saps alot more energy. Still I really dont see home grown working. Perhaps allowing only a certain amount, I mean there isnt much to need to regulate about pot anyway, blow or meth or crank has alot of variables chemically and if those drugs were allowed I dont think home labs would work at all, too risky, but just growing pot is a bit hard to mess up.

[AppleBonker]

Aud, IMO the price of medicinal marijuana is driven by the legal difficulty of cultivating and the market price of illegal marijuana. If medicinal marijuana was $20/pound, I promise there would be plenty of people reselling it to make a buck. If you actually calculate the cost of growing a decent number of plants (say 50-100), you'd find the final cost per pound to be insanely cheap. That would also generate a LARGE amount of pot that one person wouldn't be able to smoke. If people had the real estate, I would think it would be easy for a group of friends to go into growing for themselves and result in a far cheaper habit than cigarettes.

[audtatious]

You guys amaze me. "No need to regulate pot"? What about the Gov getting their tax money on it?...THAT's the only reason that a lot of people are even considering legalization is for the additional tax revenue. "cheaper habit than cigarettes"? Wait, aren't cigarette smokers being targeted and aren't people actively pushing to crush people abilities to smoke in public, and in the case of living in apartments/condo's the ability to even smoke at all? Yet pot is now supposed to be the cheaper habit and publicly acceptable? I don't know how many heavy pot smokers I have heard who complain about cigarette smokers and want laws for them to be barred from public smoking yet they would be the first ones to light a bowl up in public because it's something they support. Hypocrite much?

Yeah, come back with arguments attacking my comments when I actually support legalization of pot and other substances. Ignore reality and the way things would really work out in the real world and dream of that nirvana where pot is free and snorting coke or shooting heroine won't screw s*** up.

Any further comments are a waste of my time.

[Crazyirish]

Audtatious made me think of this and its slightly off topic but only slightly. Big Tobacco business has significantly changed "what" is smoked when you light up a cigarette. My Grandfather was a tobacco farmer that sold primarily to Reynolds way back when. He says that the crap they put in cigarettes now would have been laughed off the yard by Reynolds Buyers Fifty years ago. He claims that cigarettes back then didn't smell nearly as offensive to "second handers" as they do now. Obviously this is merely anecdotal evidence from a man about to turn 90, but it makes you wonder. If pot is legalized will it even be recognizable 50 years from now?

[AppleBonker]

Aud, sorry if you felt I was attacking your opinion. I don't know how home-growing would work, or the ideal solution for implementing it so that the government can tax it. I was just speaking hypothetically I guess. Maybe require people to purchase permits to grow for personal use? Also, remember the savings that would be provided from reducing law enforcement requirements for busting marijuana traffickers etc. I don't know the figures off-hand, but the "war on drugs" is outrageously expensive, IMO.

And as far as smoking in public goes, I agree with you. I don't want any product being smoked in public buildings. Marijuana has a pretty potent odor, and I certainly don't want it smoked inside establishments I frequent. I'm much more concerned with allowing people to do what they want in the privacy of their own residence. I'm much happier when people aren't imposing their lifestyle on me, and I'm not imposing mine on them. Just my two cents.

[audtatious]

I don't feel attacked I feel people are not being honest with themselves. I've said my say and there is really nothing more to go into. Time will tell what happens and what's allowed.

[stebo0728]

Ok first off, I am only postulating possibilities regarding home grown pot. I dont see it being a working model but am open to reasons why it could be.

Secondly, when people say pot, smoking is the first thing to mind, and admittedly its probably the most widespread method of administration, but its not the only one. I dont consume pot right now becasue it is illegal, but if it wasnt I might, but I surely wouldnt smoke it. Perhaps a nice brownie or whatever.

As far as smoking goes, I am a bit different than most there. I believe its should be up to the owner of the establishment whether any kind of legal smoking or drinking occurs. If someone owns a bar and grill, and want to allow smoking, you dont have to eat there if you dont like it. The most restriction I agree with is any restaurant or establishment that is specifically positioned as a family establishment, where kids will be present, then Im happy with banning smoking there, because the kids cant necessarily get up and go somewhere else. But in an adult establishement, you CAN go elsewhere, and should exercise that right if you dont like the smoke. I dont like smoke, and I would not frequent places that allowed it, but thats my choice, and whether smoking is allowed at an adult place is the owners choice.

[audtatious]

Interesting article in the "news": http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/13/speak ... ana-raids/

"Despite campaign promises to the contrary, the Department of Justice under President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder hasn’t stopped raiding marijuana dispensaries operating in states where sale of the drug is legal for medical purposes. But the DOJ has demonstrated one marked change now that it’s under Democratic control: The department has stopped publicizing medical marijuana raids, both by requesting that more cases be sealed under court order and by refusing to distribute press releases.

Late last week, DEA and FBI agents raided five medical marijuana dispensaries in Nevada. In July, DEA agents raided the home of 65-year-old Mendocino County, California, grower Joy Greenfield and confiscated plants, money, and her computer. Also in July, DEA agents raided the home of a couple in Michigan who were licensed by the state to use marijuana, as well as three medical marijuana dispensaries in San Diego. In January and February of this year, the DEA raided two medical marijuana research labs in Colorado......."

More at the link