• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul, Barney Frank team up to legalize marijuana

You might as well quit since I doubt you have the capacity to teach me anything about economics.



You apparently don't even understand how or why free markets work.

A ton of money is being spent on evading and fighting police and the competition. Black markets do not lead to growth or prosperity because too many resources are spent on violence and resiting violence. There is no respect for life or property in a black market and so it leads to death and destruction, not wealth. A market needs to be free of force for it to grow.



You are clearly an idiot. If the illegal drug trade is actually effective in creating wealth then why aren't those areas where the trade is high prosperous centers of trade?


haha. worse reply ever.


look kid. you claim a bubble will form, when the fact is a bubble exists because of the black market. decriminalization will burst the bubble, not create one.

everything you wrote is wrong. take this:

A ton of money is being spent on evading and fighting police and the competition.

no ****. we go into debt spending money we don't have on this. that is part of the bubble genius. all kinds of bubbles exist - in this case we artificially raise the cost of law enforcement, creating a bubble there. a bubble exists in the cost of growing weed. a bubble exists in the cost of transporting it. most of the trucking world bases costs on weight, shelf life, etc, but in this case we have a transportation bubble because of the high risk of getting caught

go crack a book, I say that in the most polite manner possible.
 
haha. worse reply ever.


look kid. you claim a bubble will form, when the fact is a bubble exists because of the black market. decriminalization will burst the bubble, not create one.

everything you wrote is wrong. take this:

More condescension will not cover the fact that you are clueless. If it were legal you, I and everyone else could easily invest in that market and expect a profit. Investment in the black market is limited and unstable because it is illegal. Duhhhhh. There is no bubble in the black market moron.


no ****. we go into debt spending money we don't have on this. that is part of the bubble genius. all kinds of bubbles exist - in this case we artificially raise the cost of law enforcement, creating a bubble there. a bubble exists in the cost of growing weed. a bubble exists in the cost of transporting it. most of the trucking world bases costs on weight, shelf life, etc, but in this case we have a transportation bubble because of the high risk of getting caught

go crack a book, I say that in the most polite manner possible.

LOL... You have no clue what you are talking about.
 
AReallyConfused,

Did you hear, the Mexican cartel is doing an IPO?

Who do you think has the better house, Richard Lee or your run of the mill black market dealer?
 
What area do you think looks more prosperous, Oaksterdam or the neighborhood of the typical drug market?
 
Last edited:
More condescension will not cover the fact that you are clueless. If it were legal you, I and everyone else could easily invest in that market and expect a profit. Investment in the black market is limited and unstable because it is illegal. Duhhhhh. There is no bubble in the black market moron.




LOL... You have no clue what you are talking about.

At this point you are clearly so angry and entrenched that you aren't really offering anything substantial to reply to.


so I'll simply state some basic things we can expect:


drug producers would not see the profits they currently see today. on the positive side for them, they could stop worrying about the fortunes they do aquire from being wiped out, but how often do you hear about farmers making fortunes?

every part of the supply chain will make less money. those who transport it, those who peddle it, those who store it. The sacrifice in earnings will be countered by an increase in stability by again, falling within the law.

Money spent on law enforcement could go down, but history shows that unlike private sector, government doesn't spend less money simply because they can, so I would asterisk this one.

Given the above, the end user can expect to spend less money on it, giving them more disposable income. I'm going to throw out the stereo type that pot users on the whole are at the low end of the wage scale, so I see this as a net boon to consumer spending patterns

As for how to eventually add up all the above, and claim a bubble will form from pot usage is something you have not articulated at all.
 
At this point you are clearly so angry and entrenched that you aren't really offering anything substantial to reply to.


Angry? I am in stitches. I am not laughing with you.

so I'll simply state some basic things we can expect:


drug producers would not see the profits they currently see today. on the positive side for them, they could stop worrying about the fortunes they do aquire from being wiped out, but how often do you hear about farmers making fortunes?

every part of the supply chain will make less money. those who transport it, those who peddle it, those who store it. The sacrifice in earnings will be countered by an increase in stability by again, falling within the law.

Money spent on law enforcement could go down, but history shows that unlike private sector, government doesn't spend less money simply because they can, so I would asterisk this one.

Given the above, the end user can expect to spend less money on it, giving them more disposable income. I'm going to throw out the stereo type that pot users on the whole are at the low end of the wage scale, so I see this as a net boon to consumer spending patterns

As for how to eventually add up all the above, and claim a bubble will form from pot usage is something you have not articulated at all.

You are clueless. The premium price in a black market does not go toward wealth or growth. It covers the cost of loss due to arrest or being shot by police and the theft and risks of being killed by rival criminals. If black markets produced wealth then the people of the USSR would have been well off.

You don't understand markets and can't possibly be an advocate of a free market as you are apparently to stupid to understand that it is preferable to a black market.

And I most certainly did explain how a bubble might emerge. A legal market is open to investment and it would attract quite a bit. The black market is not open to investment. Do I need to cover something even more basic for you?
 
Angry? I am in stitches. I am not laughing with you.

I advice you get your anger in check if you plan on remaining in this thread.

You are clueless. The premium price in a black market does not go toward wealth or growth. It covers the cost of loss due to arrest or being shot by police and the theft and risks of being killed by rival criminals. If black markets produced wealth then the people of the USSR would have been well off.

prices don't cover the loss created by illegal activity. you can't compare how prices are derived in a free market with an illegal market.

And I assure you black markets do produce wealth. how much wealth is not easy to gauge since they have to remain hidden.



You don't understand markets and can't possibly be an advocate of a free market as you are apparently to stupid to understand that it is preferable to a black market.

And I most certainly did explain how a bubble might emerge. A legal market is open to investment and it would attract quite a bit. The black market is not open to investment. Do I need to cover something even more basic for you?

I am not arguing for drug laws, I am questioning your "bubble" from removing drug laws.
 
Last edited:
Driving stoned on pot is probably more safe than driving sober. Marijuana enhances the senses, meaning you can see a little bit more clearly and hear things you typically wouldn't of heard. With my eight years dealing with drug addiction, not once was I in an accident, and I drove stoned pretty much on the regular. Honestly, people that are sleep deprived are probably more dangerous than people who are stoned. Cops aren't pulling over people for being tired are they?

There is absolutely no argument you can put forth defending the illegalization of marijuana and not deal with the current legal substances of alcohol and tobacco. None.

this is the kind of reasoning which allows those who oppose the decriminalization of marijuana to feel justified in their views

yes, driving drunk or sleep deprived is usually more dangerous than driving while baked. but that does not make driving while stoned safer than driving sober
once the pot prohibition is ended, enforcement of driving while impaired laws will still be necessary in the interest of public safety
yes, i am an old fart, but an old fart who smoked every day for 37 years. and i drove while stoned, just like i foolishly drove while drunk. got lucky and avoided arrest all those years. but had i been popped for DWI, even tho i would not have liked it, i would have known i brought it on myself
so, do be a strong advocate for decriminalization. but do not undermine those efforts by conflating the ability to legally BE stoned with the ability to legally DRIVE while stoned. you will only serve the opposition by your efforts
 
Last edited:
By that same logic, we wouldn't have to spend so much on imprisoning murder, if murder was legal.
Is $100 a good price?
Can't really say until you know what you'r buying, can you? It's a great price for an acre if it isn't steep as a cow's face. But, it's a rotten price for a stick of gum.
When we compare the costs of enforcing marijuana laws with the costs of enforcing murder laws, we also need to compare what benefits we acquire when we spend the money too. If we don't look at what we're purchasing, we can't really decide if the price's a good bargain or not.

I doubt it's necessary to list the benefits of enforcing our laws against murder. They're needless to say.

But the benefits of arresting people who're just smoking pot are harder to articulate in a convincing way. Sure someone who get intoxicated and then does something dangerous, like drive a motor vehicle, should face penalties for being intoxicated behind the wheel. But the pot smoker who uses responsibly, unlike the drinker who drinks responsibly, faces a prosecution that doesn't seem to serve society very well.

My entire point, is that legalization of pot isn't going to make the whole enforcement issue go away.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps there will be some enforcement issues still somewhat associated with pot. But I doubt that the enforcement of tax laws at the local farmer's market will really be on the same scale as the current War on Drugs and require the creation of its own federal agency.
Out of curiosity, apdst, do you happen to know how much we currently spend enforcing marijuana laws?
 
Driving stoned on pot is probably more safe than driving sober.
I have reasonable doubts about this. I'd have to see some very convincing evidence.

Honestly, people that are sleep deprived are probably more dangerous than people who are stoned. Cops aren't pulling over people for being tired are they?
Not exactly. They pull people over for driving poorly. But yes, they can and do pull you over for driving poorly even if the reason is that you're too tired to be on the road.
Ask danarhea.
 
I advice you get your anger in check if you plan on remaining in this thread.

Still just laughing at your empty pretense and condescension. I don't need your advice on anything. Keep your two cents, they are overvalued.


prices don't cover the loss created by illegal activity. you can't compare how prices are derived in a free market with an illegal market.

Prices don't cover the losses created by the illegal market.

And I assure you black markets do produce wealth. how much wealth is not easy to gauge since they have to remain hidden.

The wealth is not hidden. It is being destroyed by the violent nature of the black market. A high income does not lead to wealth without a protection of property rights and life.

Do you honestly believe that black markets create as much wealth as a free market?
 
so I'll simply state some basic things we can expect:

drug producers would not see the profits they currently see today. on the positive side for them, they could stop worrying about the fortunes they do aquire from being wiped out, but how often do you hear about farmers making fortunes?

every part of the supply chain will make less money. those who transport it, those who peddle it, those who store it. The sacrifice in earnings will be countered by an increase in stability by again, falling within the law.

Money spent on law enforcement could go down, but history shows that unlike private sector, government doesn't spend less money simply because they can, so I would asterisk this one.

Given the above, the end user can expect to spend less money on it, giving them more disposable income. I'm going to throw out the stereo type that pot users on the whole are at the low end of the wage scale, so I see this as a net boon to consumer spending patterns

As for how to eventually add up all the above, and claim a bubble will form from pot usage is something you have not articulated at all.
Also, I have never read anything that leads me to believe that growing a weed is difficult. I suspect that many smokers would simply cultivate their own little patch. I bet a couple dozen plants, maybe a 50 - 100 sq ft plot, would keep the average smoker good til the next season. [If you're like me and can't tell, I pulled those numbers out of nowhere.] If you have better data feel free to share.

But, just as I frequent the farmers market and rarely grow my own fruit and vegetables, I suspect that many people would still pay someone to grow it for them.
With more competition on the supply side, the prices and profit margins should fall. Of course the loss of the huge govt subsidy we give to the trafickers of illicit drugs would be gone too. But that goes w/o saying.
 
Also, I have never read anything that leads me to believe that growing a weed is difficult. I suspect that many smokers would simply cultivate their own little patch. I bet a couple dozen plants, maybe a 50 - 100 sq ft plot, would keep the average smoker good til the next season. [If you're like me and can't tell, I pulled those numbers out of nowhere.] If you have better data feel free to share.

But, just as I frequent the farmers market and rarely grow my own fruit and vegetables, I suspect that many people would still pay someone to grow it for them.
With more competition on the supply side, the prices and profit margins should fall. Of course the loss of the huge govt subsidy we give to the trafickers of illicit drugs would be gone too. But that goes w/o saying.

Growing tobacco is pretty easy too. Growing good tobacco, curing and preparing it for smoking properly is not all that easy. You can grow smokable pot pretty easily. To grow something of high quality that tastes good and does not require smoking lots of extra plant matter is a little more difficult on a small scale and you would not be able to do it very affordably. There would certainly be some hobbyists, though.
 
Still just laughing at your empty pretense and condescension. I don't need your advice on anything. Keep your two cents, they are overvalued.

suit yourself.

Prices don't cover the losses created by the illegal market.

losses aren't a guarantee, so it doesn't matter in the aggregate.

The wealth is not hidden.

The reason it is called black market is that it operates in the dark.

It is being destroyed by the violent nature of the black market.

If this were actually true, people wouldn't take the risk. some people do profit heavily, which is the primary motivation that causes the drug war to not prevail.


Do you honestly believe that black markets create as much wealth as a free market?

Depends on the market dynamics. you keep saying free market, but tobacco and alcohol are hardly a free market.

you think heroin would be introduced freely into the market?


I think the funny thing though, is you aren't talking about a market bubble specific to the topic at hand.

Yes, the FED as a whole creates bubbles by manipulating interest rates. Whether pot is legal or not, that is something the Fed is going to continue to do. Why that even factors into concerns about drug policy is beyond me.

I assumed you were actually talking about something relevant to this issue and the artificial bubbles created by government intervention in the market.
 
Also, I have never read anything that leads me to believe that growing a weed is difficult. I suspect that many smokers would simply cultivate their own little patch. I bet a couple dozen plants, maybe a 50 - 100 sq ft plot, would keep the average smoker good til the next season. [If you're like me and can't tell, I pulled those numbers out of nowhere.] If you have better data feel free to share.

I imagine costs would go down so far that most people would continue to be consumers just because they would find it cheaper and easier to acquire then they have today.
 
Growing tobacco is pretty easy too.
Out of curiosity, how many tobacco plants would one need to grow to support a pack a day habit? Do you know? I have no idea.
The impression that I have, erroneous though it may be, is that tobacco is used in a larger quantity per user than pot is.
How many plants/how large of a plot does a "average" pot smoker need to meet their own needs? Just asking in case you know.

You can grow smokable pot pretty easily. To grow something of high quality that tastes good and does not require smoking lots of extra plant matter is a little more difficult on a small scale and you would not be able to do it very affordably.
About the bolded part, do they do that to pot? Smoke it that way like teas and whatnot?
 
I imagine costs would go down so far that most people would continue to be consumers just because they would find it cheaper and easier to acquire then they have today.
I have never grown an orchard myself. We do grow some tomatoes, squash, etc sometimes. But mostly I buy produce from someone else who grew it.
We are big on growing our own herbs though. It's great to have basil and mint leaves that were on the plant 5 minutes ago. Very aromatic.
 
I have never grown an orchard myself. We do grow some tomatoes, squash, etc sometimes. But mostly I buy produce from someone else who grew it.
We are big on growing our own herbs though. It's great to have basil and mint leaves that were on the plant 5 minutes ago. Very aromatic.

tomatoes don't count. I don't know what those things in the store are, but they aren't tomatoes!
 
suit yourself.

losses aren't a guarantee, so it doesn't matter in the aggregate.

The reason it is called black market is that it operates in the dark.

and other pointless statements...

If this were actually true, people wouldn't take the risk. some people do profit heavily, which is the primary motivation that causes the drug war to not prevail.

Do you not even know the difference between micro and macro level economics? The fact that one person can make money does not indicate that it is a sustainable or profitable market at the macro level.

Depends on the market dynamics. you keep saying free market, but tobacco and alcohol are hardly a free market.

The difference in those free markets and black markets are clear. If you rob a cigarette dealer he will call the cops on you. A black market dealer does not have that luxury and that costs him greatly. He also has to worry about avoiding the police where a cigarrette dealer can carry a sign around and let everybody know that he has goods for sale.

you think heroin would be introduced freely into the market?

It has been introduced freely into the market. What are you talking about?

I think the funny thing though, is you aren't talking about a market bubble specific to the topic at hand.

Yes, the FED as a whole creates bubbles by manipulating interest rates. Whether pot is legal or not, that is something the Fed is going to continue to do. Why that even factors into concerns about drug policy is beyond me.

I assumed you were actually talking about something relevant to this issue and the artificial bubbles created by government intervention in the market.

I made a comment about what I believe the biggest negative of legalization might be. I clearly stated that I am all for legalization. In response you pretended to be able to school me on economics and ended up making a complete ... of yourself by displaying your vast ignorance. Is there anything else I can help you to understand?
 
Do you not even know the difference between micro and macro level economics? The fact that one person can make money does not indicate that it is a sustainable or profitable market at the macro level.

I know enough about history, to know that organized mobs made a ton of money on illicit trade.

It's late, and I have grown tired of your antics. I ultimately see your original point - you used this thread as a precursor for a general rant about the fed.

I may or may not see the point tomorrow to actually bother looking at the remainder of your "contributions"
 
About the bolded part, do they do that to pot? Smoke it that way like teas and whatnot?

I don't know what you are referring to with the teas. What I was referring to was that what gets you high in marijuana are those areas saturated with trichomes and resins. The rest is just plant matter. If you are smoking high quality weed you don't have to smoke much plant matter. It's just way more enjoyable to smoke a little sweet bud than have to puff away on some mid or low grade weed. It is easy to grow mid an low grade weed, but the higher quality weed requires a bit of work and investment. With an econmy of any sort of scale though the costs is still very small. So, it probably will not pay to grow your own. There could be a lot of microgrowers, though.
 
I like how people that don't smoke pot, or haven't even dealt with what they are talking about, think they know what they are talking about. First off, most of the pot in the US isn't from Mexico. The pot would be in such poor quality, only an idiot would buy it. Most of the pot comes from California. My dealer would get his pot by mail. If pot were to be legalized, it would be taxed just like anything else, and we wouldn't have to spend the resources to enforce it anymore. That means we as a society and tax payer will not only save money but make it as well. All the other arguments about....I don't even know what, are just blind attempts to prove the other side is wrong. I can't even follow the logic it is so bad.

Why do you automatically assume that when someone is under the influence of marijuana, they are automatically at fault for an accident? Have you smoked pot? Have you driven stoned? I'm telling everyone this straight up. If you gave me a bag of weed and then told me to drive, I will never get into an accident. NEVER. Even if I were to encounter a drunk driver (as I have in the past while stoned) I would just ease on the brakes and let the idiot drive on by.

Now my stance is on legalizing marijuana, but that doesn't not mean it isn't a drug. I essentially wasted eight years of my life smoking pot. I learned a lot, and a lot of it I learned the hard way, but it was lessons that needed to be learned. Because pot is a weak drug, is probably why I think it might be one of the most dangerous. If you go into a rehabilitation center, and you talk to every coke, crack, heroin, opium, meth, and pill popper, they will all say they started on weed and booze. This is why the whole Gateway Drug phenomenon was started by the government, because they noticed that occurring. Unfortunately, I feel the gateway drug concept only applies to a certain population of people, the people with very heavy addictive personalities.

Everybody's brain is different. Some people when they smoke pot, get the munchies. Some, don't. Some do, but it might be a couple of weeks till they experience it. Some will be auditory stoners (me) and some would be visual. Some would be taste, and some would be touch. Some brains are way more addictive than others. Some brains, the moment they get that first high or those first couple of blunts, they are off to the races on getting high as much as they can as frequently as they can. Then, eventually pot won't really cut it anymore, and they graduate to a more potent high.

Some brains, as I know one personally, smoke pot their entire lives. THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is a weak acid. That basically means there is small disassociation when the THC reacts with the neurons. This is another reason why pot is dangerous as this man is a testimony to. He smoke pot daily since the 60's, and I can tell you personally he is a burn out now. He can barely keep a conversation. That is because even though THC reacts just a little tiny bit with the neurons, there is still a reaction. So over the years, his neurons has steadily deteriorated.

So I have said in the past, based on our current laws in place, there is no reason why marijuana should remain illegal. Alcohol is way more toxic than weed, as well as tobacco. With that said, marijuana is still a drug and there are dire consequences if a person decides to go that route in life. This is why drugs are a public health issue, not a legal or domestic one. Sending a pot head into jail isn't helping him. What would help him would be to send him into a rehabilitation center where addiction is best understood. Yes, there will be addicts who will not benefit from rehabilitation, and they will probably eventually die. However, it is worth to have these rehabilitation centers for the minority few that are able to benefit from it, like myself. Going to drug rehabilitation was one of the best things that has ever happened to me, and I learned the most in rehab at one time than at any point in my life.

I hope this post gives you a more accurate perception of drugs and its effects on society. Cops should pull people over for being tired if they are pulling people over for driving and being stoned. It really is that simple. That is why when you see a police officer arrest someone for possession of marijuana, you should point and laugh at him, because he thinks he is helping society, but really he is just making life harder for the stoner. He isn't helping anyone.
 
I know enough about history, to know that organized mobs made a ton of money on illicit trade.

But rarely established wealth unless they graduated into legal markets.

It's late, and I have grown tired of your antics. I ultimately see your original point - you used this thread as a precursor for a general rant about the fed.

I may or may not see the point tomorrow to actually bother looking at the remainder of your "contributions"

My point was always clear. Legalization will lead to lots of money being made in a booming and emerging market and the only real concern is that it might become a bubble.
 
I know enough about history, to know that organized mobs made a ton of money on illicit trade.

Just to make the point that you continue to evade. Who is wealthier, the Busch (substitute Coors or any of the dozens of others) family or the Capone's? You don't seem to be able to understand that income does not equal wealth.
 
Some brains, as I know one personally, smoke pot their entire lives. THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is a weak acid. That basically means there is small disassociation when the THC reacts with the neurons.
So thc directly crosses the blood brain barrier is what you're saying?
 
Back
Top Bottom