War on drugs.

As another member has already stated, and I have in other related threads, the War on Drugs has only one winner: the criminal justice-prison industrial complex. There are many losers, not only among our citizens but our civil rights.

The war has done almost nothing when it comes to reducing imports/home production, sales, use, and addiction. What it has done is generate billions in enforcement costs, and clogged up both the courts and prisons with people who should be in treatment programs or hospitals. It has also increased the number of citizens with criminal records which reduces their chances of employment, and also denies them educational advancement opportunities (ex. no access to government grants or loans; college applications denied).

Meanwhile, citizens are forced to deal with more and more levels of all types of crime thanks to the growing black market value of illicit drugs. In addition, users face the dangers caused by impure dosages, which can lead to disability or death.

All of this would be alleviated by legalization of all drugs. Yes, there would be an initial increase in use, just like after the end of Prohibition. This will inevitably level off over time due to honest education, advertising, treatment, and counseling programs; not to mention FDA monitoring of doses for legal sale.

One other problem people seem to forget? Many of our precious civil and Constitutional rights have been curtailed as a direct result of the War on Drugs. We have asset forfeiture, roadblocks, stop & frisk, drug dog probable cause searches, drone overflights, and all sorts of other Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. Legalization will stop these and maybe allow us to roll some back as no longer necessary law enforcement tools.

So I voted legalize all. The benefits outweight the costs.

Northern Light said:

Portugal and Spain have proven that decriminalizing small amounts of all drugs and implementing a harm reduction model not only restores lives, it saves the government major money and increases over all freedom of the people.

Even with addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine, the crime rate is the result of withdrawls and lack of access. If many addicts had easier access to their drug of choice, they would be better able to seek rehab with a rational mind. And if they don't want rehab, then that's their choice, but they will still be held accountable for their actions by the law, their communities and their families.

The DEA has too many over-reaching powers. They are the trojan horse that permits government to trample on our rights. There is no evidence that Reagan's war on drugs has meaningfully impacted drug use. All it has done is increased our prison population to the worst in the western world, and given the government too many opportunities to abuse power.

Click to expand...

Care to post any links to your claims? I'm finding a mixed bag including what NPR reported a year and a half ago. Certainly not a bastion of right winged agenda.

When Portugal decriminalized all illegal drugs in 2000, officials hoped to reduce addiction rates and drug-related violence. Today, more users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse.

Click to expand...

Mixed Results For Portugal's Great Drug Experiment : NPR

sbrettt said:

Do you have facts backing your claims up or are you basing your claims on personal experience?

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that personal experiences can't be factual?

Grendel said:

Not so much "legalize it all", but at least "decriminalize it all". Drug addiction is a public health issue, not a law enforcement issue. There should be legal and safe means of acquiring hard narcotic drugs, even if they're tied to treatment.

The "War on Drugs" is highly profitable, so that's not going to happen, but it's what ought to happen.

Click to expand...

Did it ever cross your mind how profitable it would be to the federal government and big business to decriminalize all drugs while addicting them to the substances knowing that they would certainly be return customers?

Painter said:

I'm sorry but you just have no idea of what you are talking about. No idea what so ever.

You should watch Dr. Sanjay Gupta's special on CNN. He is a person that was just as ignorant on the subject as you are but then he decided to truly investigate.
Everyone that either knows a heavy pot smoker or has been one, all will tell you that the impairing effect for them is essentially zero.
The driving test on Dr. Gupta's investigative show also proved this.
Heavy smokers driving ability was hardly affected. Whereas the moderate or light smoker's driving ability was clearly affected.
He reached the conclusion that heavy medical marijuana users might should be exempted for laws concerning operating a vehicle while under the effects of marijuana.

I can tell you for an absolute fact, that I would hire a heavy smoker over a drinker any day. And I would not hesitate to send them up a 40 foot ladder.
If I even so much as suspect they have had 1 drink, I will send them home or keep them on the ground.
The pot smokers come to work and stay at work. They stay focused.
The alcoholics miss work, want to leave early, and wander off.
When I find a painter hiding in a closet taking a nap, it is almost always a drinker.

The impairment effect on someone that is a casual smoker is noticeable though. And could be a really big problem on dangerous job sites.
This is also why people such as you, that have tried it once or twice, end up thinking it is an impairing drug. Logic would indicate that the more you smoke, the more impaired the person would be. And so your mind becomes set and hardened and you think you are right.
But you are not right. You are very wrong.
Finally a respectable Dr. such as Gupta has proven this as a fact.

Click to expand...

Actually Oftencold in more spot on then you are on this issue. He/she has made a valid attempt to show the adverse affects of marijuana and other drugs on society as a whole.

In another thread on drugs I posted the following information

Now about this whole argument about medical marijuana look no further than Ed Rosenthal and Richard Cowan to see how disingenuous arguments are used to advance a broader agenda.

Rosenthal (former editor of High Times Magazine) and Cowan (former Director of NORML — the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) realized a long time ago that in order to achieve full legalization of marijuana throughout the United States, they would have to invent a “scam” (their words not mine) to get people to see marijuana in a whole new light. That “scam” was the passage of “medical marijuana” laws in as many states as possible. Don’t believe me? Then watch this video where they say exactly that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ccjLM4-4U2k

Yep the whole medical marijuana scenario is a scam just like the people pushing its legalization proclaim. And boy people sure hate it when they find out they've been lied to.

Click to expand...

The kitty is out of the bag. People are learning the truth about the whole medical marijuana "scam" is just that a scam. So while those who have been working tirelessly to shove legalization of 'medical marijuana' through a few states. It ain't going to be so easy the rest of the way because once people find out they have been used and lied to , it ain't going to fly.

Oh and another thing, those who have passed laws for medical marijuana are finding an increase in the number of teenagers using the drug due to the dispersment stations close to schools. In their studies they also have found those kids who use it regularly are piss poor students. In just another couple of years, I'm sure we will start to see the adverse affects when the dropout rates rise in states like Colorado and Washington. Cheers!

Oftencold said:

When I want to know about the latest advances in the war on toenail fungus, I'll see if Dr. Gupta has something to say, that is, after I've exhausted legitimate sources.

I've been an EMT for decades now, and I'm quite confident that I know whereof I speak.

Click to expand...

Are you serious?
What in God's name do you think being an EMT has to do with marijuana?
You were speaking in the context of being valuable employees. And there is no connection between being a heavy pot smoker and being an EMT.
I suppose that next your going to tell me that you have treated a person for smoking too much marijuana? B S

Oftencold said:

I ask you to reconsider, but this time, consider the effect not so much on the user, but the larger community he operates in.

Click to expand...

It's kind of funny that you're the conservative and I'm the liberal, but you're the one talking about social engineering for the greater good of society and I'm the one talking about individual liberty.

Anyway, speaking of cost, there's always this:

CDC: Alcohol Abuse Costs U.S. $224 Billion a Year

People who drink too much cost the U.S. economy $223.5 billion a year, and governments pay more than 60 percent of their health care costs, federal health experts reported on Monday.
Alcohol abuse kills 79,000 people a year, the report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

[ . . . ]

They found most of the costs—72 percent—came from lost workplace productivity. Another 11 percent came from direct health costs, 9 percent could be attributed to law enforcement expenses, and 6 percent to costs from motor vehicle accidents.

Click to expand...

CDC: Alcohol Abuse Costs U.S. $224 Billion a Year - NationalJournal.com

I'm not saying that lazy people on the job don't cost -- whether they're high or not -- I'm saying that you are grossly underestimating the destructive nature of alcohol addiction. It's an extremely destructive drug once it gets past recreational use.

vesper said:

Actually Oftencold in more spot on then you are on this issue. He/she has made a valid attempt to show the adverse affects of marijuana and other drugs on society as a whole.

In another thread on drugs I posted the following information



The kitty is out of the bag. People are learning the truth about the whole medical marijuana "scam" is just that a scam. So while those who have been working tirelessly to shove legalization of 'medical marijuana' through a few states. It ain't going to be so easy the rest of the way because once people find out they have been used and lied to , it ain't going to fly.

Oh and another thing, those who have passed laws for medical marijuana are finding an increase in the number of teenagers using the drug due to the dispersment stations close to schools. In their studies they also have found those kids who use it regularly are piss poor students. In just another couple of years, I'm sure we will start to see the adverse affects when the dropout rates rise in states like Colorado and Washington. Cheers!

Click to expand...

To be completely honest with you, I really could not care less about medical marijuana.
I do agree with you on 1 thing. It is bad for youth to smoke marijuana before their brains are developed. This has been proven by real science, not quackery.

I am for marijuana because quite frankly, there is nothing to it. There is no more reason for an adult to not smoke marijuana than cigarettes.
And there is no reason to refrain from hiring someone that smokes marijuana.

Grendel said:

It's kind of funny that you're the conservative and I'm the liberal, but you're the one talking about social engineering for the greater good of society and I'm the one talking about individual liberty.

Anyway, speaking of cost, there's always this:



CDC: Alcohol Abuse Costs U.S. $224 Billion a Year - NationalJournal.com

I'm not saying that lazy people on the job don't cost -- whether they're high or not -- I'm saying that you are grossly underestimating the destructive nature of alcohol addiction. It's an extremely destructive drug once it gets past recreational use.

Click to expand...

If we were allowed to permit drug abusers to simply die, I'd be all for legalization. but since we're foolish enough to grant them care, food, and shelter, I must advocate for reasonable accommodation.

Oftencold said:

If we were allowed to permit drug abusers to simply die, I'd be all for legalization. but since we're foolish enough to grant them care, food, and shelter, I must advocate for reasonable accommodation.

Click to expand...

How many people die from marijuana smoking in a year? We know it's 79,000 for alcohol.

Painter said:

Are you serious?
What in God's name do you think being an EMT has to do with marijuana?

Click to expand...

Are you serious? Being an EMT is very often about cleaing up the messes people make wile drunk or stoned. Try it sometime.

Painter said:

I suppose that next your going to tell me that you have treated a person for smoking too much marijuana? B S

Click to expand...

No. We typically treat them for the things they let go from minor issues to major ones while they were chemically detached. And then we all pay for their care. Drunks are typically expected to pay their bills in my experience, while stoners often aren't.

Painter said:

To be completely honest with you, I really could not care less about medical marijuana.
I do agree with you on 1 thing. It is bad for youth to smoke marijuana before their brains are developed. This has been proven by real science, not quackery.

I am for marijuana because quite frankly, there is nothing to it. There is no more reason for an adult to not smoke marijuana than cigarettes.
And there is no reason to refrain from hiring someone that smokes marijuana.

Click to expand...

Cigarettes are not a mind altering drug but having said that......
Then I can assume you have no problem with the federal government if ever it should be legalized to tax and tax and tax again the substance just like it does cigarettes and alcohol making it very expensive to purchase. Do I have that right? And that you do realize the whole legalization of the drug is not going to stop any black market of the drug because once the federal government and let us not forget state governments taxation on top will eventually make it more advantageous for those who seek the weed to look to black market sources because they would always offer it for a much lower rate than the pushers in the federal government. Correct? So stopping illegal drugs into this country will not stop because there will still be a market for them. Correct? And I assume the same leftist groups that have gone after cigarette smoking for its adverse affects on health and the health of others, that you are willing to see that the same laws be applied to marijuana smokers in public places as those being applied to cigarette smokers? Yes? Because data proves that marijuana smokers share the same pulmonary problems as cigarette smokers. Correct? Which means under Obamacare the doobie smoker is going to face the same discrimination as the smoker. Correct? And the second hand smoke is just as lethal as that from a doobie. Correct? Which means regarding to your geographic location it would be against the law to smoke a doobie in the car with children. Correct? In some towns where they have outlawed smoking in apartment buildings, you realize that smoking a doobie would fall under the same rules... correct? And those who ban smoking 20 feet from any building would include someone smoking a doobie or pipe. Correct? And those who have children who smoke cigarettes around their children in their own homes being accused of child abuse, you do realize smoking doobies/pipes applies equally. Correct?

Oftencold said:

Are you serious? Being an EMT is very often about cleaing up the messes people make wile drunk or stoned. Try it sometime.

Click to expand...

Ok there are several problems with this statement.
1- Almost all of these "messes" are a result of alcohol.
2- Nobody is saying to you that it should be fine for casual marijuana smokers to operate a vehicle.
3- The impairment level for any type of marijuana or any type of marijuana smoker is trivial in comparison to only a small amount of alcohol.

The problem is that someone comes in and you blood test them and find marijuana, and you reach to make a connection between the reason for their admittance and the marijuana in their system.
To make the problem worse, it stays in their system for weeks after usage but only impairs the casual user for a couple of hours. The result of this is that an accurate judgement is scientifically impossible. Yet you and those that you listen to try to anyhow.

The fact of the matter is, if you tested every person for broccoli consumption over their last 3 weeks, your test group would score about the same.
Yet broccoli would also not be the reason for their admittance.
Just because a person gets hurt or even wrecks a car and has pot in their system, it does not mean the 2 events are connected.
Unlike alcohol where people become completely impaired.

Oftencold said:

No. We typically treat them for the things they let go from minor issues to major ones while they were chemically detached. And then we all pay for their care. Drunks are typically expected to pay their bills in my experience, while stoners often aren't.

Click to expand...

This is totally false.
The marijuana addiction rate is no where close to coffee and not even a fraction as severe as cigarettes.
It can be slightly addictive though, and about 9% of users experience this problem.
But if anyone needs an actual rehab to stop, the problem is not the marijuana. The problem is that they need to get away from the people that surround them.
There are not significant "issues" from the withdrawal process. Even the Anti-Marijuana papers that are mostly BS will admit to this.
Irritability, constipation, and anxiety for a week or so.

vesper said:

Cigarettes are not a mind altering drug but having said that......
Then I can assume you have no problem with the federal government if ever it should be legalized to tax and tax and tax again the substance just like it does cigarettes and alcohol making it very expensive to purchase. Do I have that right? And that you do realize the whole legalization of the drug is not going to stop any black market of the drug because once the federal government and let us not forget state governments taxation on top will eventually make it more advantageous for those who seek the weed to look to black market sources because they would always offer it for a much lower rate than the pushers in the federal government. Correct? So stopping illegal drugs into this country will not stop because there will still be a market for them. Correct? And I assume the same leftist groups that have gone after cigarette smoking for its adverse affects on health and the health of others, that you are willing to see that the same laws be applied to marijuana smokers in public places as those being applied to cigarette smokers? Yes? Because data proves that marijuana smokers share the same pulmonary problems as cigarette smokers. Correct? Which means under Obamacare the doobie smoker is going to face the same discrimination as the smoker. Correct? And the second hand smoke is just as lethal as that from a doobie. Correct? Which means regarding to your geographic location it would be against the law to smoke a doobie in the car with children. Correct? In some towns where they have outlawed smoking in apartment buildings, you realize that smoking a doobie would fall under the same rules... correct? And those who ban smoking 20 feet from any building would include someone smoking a doobie or pipe. Correct? And those who have children who smoke cigarettes around their children in their own homes being accused of child abuse, you do realize smoking doobies/pipes applies equally. Correct?

Click to expand...

While your paragraph might be grammatically correct and mine might even be incorrect... I swear to you, if you'd hit return every now and then, it would be so much easier to read.

Anyhow, the term mind altering is very deceptive. On a technical level, you are mistaken. Cigarettes are a mind altering drug. Nicotine causes a multitude of chemical reactions in the brain. Several of which help relax a person, just as marijuana does.
On a practical level, neither drug truly "alters" your mind.

With that being said, from what I see, I would have to respond "correct" to most of your post.
Let them tax the hell out of it. It would still be so cheap in comparison that it would put the drug dealers out of business.

The irony in all of this is that there only only 3 types that want marijuana to stay illegal.

-Drug Dealers
-People who make money off its illegality
-And people who lack knowledge or understanding

Oftencold said:

And then we all pay for their care. Drunks are typically expected to pay their bills in my experience, while stoners often aren't.

Click to expand...

OK this is also ridiculous on so many levels.
In what way are you qualified to make such a statement?
I thought you were an EMT?

First of all, an EMT does not have access to a patient's financial records.
Second, it would require a really involved study with a large study group of many patient's financial records to even begin to have that type of knowledge.
Third, if you do have this type of information as an EMT, your hospital needs to be taken to court.
Fourth, it just does not make any logical sense.

And what does any of this have to do with your original statement that heavy pot smokers are lazy or don't come to work or whatever it was you said?

vesper said:

Cigarettes are not a mind altering drug but having said that......
Then I can assume you have no problem with the federal government if ever it should be legalized to tax and tax and tax again the substance just like it does cigarettes and alcohol making it very expensive to purchase. Do I have that right?

Click to expand...

No, what you are talking about is a "punishment tax," at least in regards to cigarettes. That is because cigarettes are a proven carcinogen and the government is trying to prevent their use. Marijuana, on the other hand, does exactly the opposite...it helps with cancer treatment among other things. There is no need for a "punishment tax" on it, just normal taxes with a bump for drug treatment and education programs. It would still remain cheaper than steet dealing once legalized. Hell, people could grow it themselves if nothing else.

vesper said:

And that you do realize the whole legalization of the drug is not going to stop any black market of the drug because once the federal government and let us not forget state governments taxation on top will eventually make it more advantageous for those who seek the weed to look to black market sources because they would always offer it for a much lower rate than the pushers in the federal government. Correct?

Click to expand...

Again, incorrect. Due to illegality all drugs are highly expensive in relationship to their availability. When you legalize any drug, especially a drug like Marijuana which can be home-grown, the price would drop drastically. Sold in packages even with taxes it would be cheaper than going to a current street dealer.

vesper said:

So stopping illegal drugs into this country will not stop because there will still be a market for them. Correct?

Click to expand...

Again incorrect, because legalization of drugs will change the market dynamic. They will become like any other product. If it can be made in the USA it will be. If it needs to be imported it will be. In either case, the price will be based on normal supply and demand. This undercuts black market profits because legal things can be sold cheaply and openly.

vesper said:

And I assume the same leftist groups that have gone after cigarette smoking for its adverse affects on health and the health of others, that you are willing to see that the same laws be applied to marijuana smokers in public places as those being applied to cigarette smokers? Yes?

Click to expand...

Perhaps. After all a person's right to get "high" does not include giving people who DON'T want to get high a contact high. As with cigarettes, I'm sure there will be designated smoking areas with filtration systems, or open air locations clearly marked and away from general traffic, etc. Big deal.

vesper said:

Because data proves that marijuana smokers share the same pulmonary problems as cigarette smokers. Correct?

Click to expand...

I don't think this is correct but would be willing to examine this data you speak of. Cite please?

vesper said:

Which means under Obamacare the doobie smoker is going to face the same discrimination as the smoker. Correct?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You seem to be grasping at straws in this "logical chain of supposed ills" argument you are trying.

vesper said:

And the second hand smoke is just as lethal as that from a doobie. Correct?

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe this is incorrect too. From what I gather marijuana smoke does not have the same deliterious effects as cigarette smoke. Aside from the possibility of giving someone who inhales enough a contact high.

vesper said:

Which means regarding to your geographic location it would be against the law to smoke a doobie in the car with children. Correct?

Click to expand...

No, but who would smoke in the car with their children? Maybe the same a-hole parents who would smoke cigarettes in a car with their kids. But unlike cigarettes, I'd think most marijuana smokers who had kids would avoid doing it where the kids could get a contact high since they know it occurs.

vesper said:

In some towns where they have outlawed smoking in apartment buildings, you realize that smoking a doobie would fall under the same rules... correct?

Click to expand...

So what? Like anyone else find a place where smoking is allowed and rent there. Again, you are really going off the deep end with this trail of supposed ills.

vesper said:

And those who ban smoking 20 feet from any building would include someone smoking a doobie or pipe. Correct? And those who have children who smoke cigarettes around their children in their own homes being accused of child abuse, you do realize smoking doobies/pipes applies equally. Correct?

Click to expand...

Let the accusations fly, big deal.

Nothing you've stated has any merit in an arguement against legalization of marijuana. I don't know why you think it does. Are you that unaware of this particular drug and it's effects?

Painter said:

OK this is also ridiculous on so many levels.
In what way are you qualified to make such a statement?
I thought you were an EMT?

First of all, an EMT does not have access to a patient's financial records.
Second, it would require a really involved study with a large study group of many patient's financial records to even begin to have that type of knowledge.
Third, if you do have this type of information as an EMT, your hospital needs to be taken to court.
Fourth, it just does not make any logical sense.

And what does any of this have to do with your original statement that heavy pot smokers are lazy or don't come to work or whatever it was you said?

Click to expand...

Child, calm yourself lest in your over emotive state you do yourself an injury.

First, there is no hospital here. There is none for hundreds of miles, and no road to reach one anyway.

Second, you assume that people who get their bills paid by others don't brag about it and then whine publicly and frequently that they should receive more of the fruits of other people's labors. The nature of life in a small remote village is most instructive.

Third, heavy pot smokers are heavy pot smokers largely because they are lazy. Building a real life with real accomplishments and producing actual value to one's fellows is a bother that can be washed a way in resinous smoke. Unless you like so many Leftists believe that things occur for no reason?

Painter said:

Ok there are several problems with this statement.
1- Almost all of these "messes" are a result of alcohol.
2- Nobody is saying to you that it should be fine for casual marijuana smokers to operate a vehicle.
3- The impairment level for any type of marijuana or any type of marijuana smoker is trivial in comparison to only a small amount of alcohol.

The problem is that someone comes in and you blood test them and find marijuana, and you reach to make a connection between the reason for their admittance and the marijuana in their system.
To make the problem worse, it stays in their system for weeks after usage but only impairs the casual user for a couple of hours. The result of this is that an accurate judgement is scientifically impossible. Yet you and those that you listen to try to anyhow.

The fact of the matter is, if you tested every person for broccoli consumption over their last 3 weeks, your test group would score about the same.
Yet broccoli would also not be the reason for their admittance.
Just because a person gets hurt or even wrecks a car and has pot in their system, it does not mean the 2 events are connected.
Unlike alcohol where people become completely impaired.


This is totally false.
The marijuana addiction rate is no where close to coffee and not even a fraction as severe as cigarettes.
It can be slightly addictive though, and about 9% of users experience this problem.
But if anyone needs an actual rehab to stop, the problem is not the marijuana. The problem is that they need to get away from the people that surround them.
There are not significant "issues" from the withdrawal process. Even the Anti-Marijuana papers that are mostly BS will admit to this.
Irritability, constipation, and anxiety for a week or so.

Click to expand...

As always, it is fascinating to observe the leftist capacity to dismiss the experiences of others.

I'm not concerned with addiction rates, nor withdrawal issues just now. I'm concerned with the notion or thoughtless concept that people whom we're expected to support and nurture at the expense of the Productive should be given further license to exist by choice as mentally defective parasites.

You might also consider the nature of those who sell legally or illegally chemical happiness, and their glorious contributions to society and the employment of dieners.

Captain Adverse said:

Nothing you've stated has any merit in an arguement against legalization of marijuana. I don't know why you think it does. Are you that unaware of this particular drug and it's effects?

Click to expand...

When it comes to you nothing I state regardless of topic has merit but that certainly doesn't make it so.

vesper said:

Then I can assume you have no problem with the federal government if ever it should be legalized to tax and tax and tax again the substance just like it does cigarettes and alcohol

Click to expand...

Taxation would be one of the many benefits of legalization. It costs about 6 cents to produce a cigarette, and marijuana is a more robust plant, so I think we can assume similar production costs for industrial marijuana. But people currently pay 10 to 15 dollars for a cigarette's worth of weed. The room for taxation is enormous. Plus, it would bring production into the United States, so American farmers could get the profit for the raw material rather than South America drug lords; and this may be enough extra profit to end, or at least reduce, farm subsidies. Third, all the money that law enforcement currently spends fighting marijuana could be put to more meaningful use; such as treatment for narcotics addicts or even toward law enforcement against more serious drugs.

vesper said:

tax and tax and tax again the substance just like it does cigarettes and alcohol making it very expensive to purchase. Do I have that right? And that you do realize the whole legalization of the drug is not going to stop any black market of the drug because once the federal government and let us not forget state governments taxation on top will eventually make it more advantageous for those who seek the weed to look to black market sources because they would always offer it for a much lower rate than the pushers in the federal government.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Is Bugzy Malone's gang still running moonshine? No, as soon as alcohol became legal, the alcohol gangs disappeared. No one would continue to pay 12$ for a cigarette when they could get a 1 ounce pack for fifty bucks. The drug gangs couldn't compete with industrial farms using legitimate shipping channels to existing retail infrastructure, and no one would buy unbranded pot of unknown quality and origin over a good brand name who's flavor and quality they know. I'm sure there would be a lot of homegrown homeuse, but there would be no market imperative for continued black-market supply of mary jane that couldn't be produced at the same low-cost as wholesale industrial production.

Look at Amsterdam. No one buys black market weed there. They can go to a coffee shop and buy a variety of name brand, high quality stuff for far less than it costs to smuggle illegal crap into the country.

vesper said:

So stopping illegal drugs into this country will not stop because there will still be a market for them. Correct?

Click to expand...

No. There's nothing to suggest that would be the case. History, current and past, shows that the black market gangs disappear as soon as there's a white market choice. Do you buy your whisky from shady dealers getting it out of home made stills? Of course not. Because you don't have to. Same with pot smokers in Holland.

So why would it be any different? Why would people still choose the more expensive black market product of unreliable quality?

vesper said:

And I assume the same leftist groups that have gone after cigarette smoking for its adverse affects on health and the health of others, that you are willing to see that the same laws be applied to marijuana smokers in public places as those being applied to cigarette smokers? Yes? Because data proves that marijuana smokers share the same pulmonary problems as cigarette smokers. Correct? Which means under Obamacare the doobie smoker is going to face the same discrimination as the smoker. Correct? And the second hand smoke is just as lethal as that from a doobie. Correct? Which means regarding to your geographic location it would be against the law to smoke a doobie in the car with children. Correct? In some towns where they have outlawed smoking in apartment buildings, you realize that smoking a doobie would fall under the same rules... correct? And those who ban smoking 20 feet from any building would include someone smoking a doobie or pipe. Correct? And those who have children who smoke cigarettes around their children in their own homes being accused of child abuse, you do realize smoking doobies/pipes applies equally. Correct?

Click to expand...

I'm sure. I would expect laws regulating where marijuana can be smoked. Just like you can't drink and drive, or drink in public, I would expect the same laws for reefer.


There's no rational reason to expect any of what you fear. It would keep the money in the US economy instead of sending it out of country, it would employ Americans instead of Mexican drug mules, it would provide a tax revenue base that could be used for fighting more serious crime, it would employ more American farmers, truckers, and retailers, and it would effectively end the black-market drug trade for marijuana.

So why is that a bad idea?

Grendel said:

Taxation would be one of the many benefits of legalization. It costs about 6 cents to produce a cigarette, and marijuana is a more robust plant, so I think we can assume similar production costs for industrial marijuana. But people currently pay 10 to 15 dollars for a cigarette's worth of weed. The room for taxation is enormous. Plus, it would bring production into the United States, so American farmers could get the profit for the raw material rather than South America drug lords; and this may be enough extra profit to end, or at least reduce, farm subsidies. Third, all the money that law enforcement currently spends fighting marijuana could be put to more meaningful use; such as treatment for narcotics addicts or even toward law enforcement against more serious drugs.



Nonsense. Is Bugzy Malone's gang still running moonshine? No, as soon as alcohol became legal, the alcohol gangs disappeared. No one would continue to pay 12$ for a cigarette when they could get a 1 ounce pack for fifty bucks. The drug gangs couldn't compete with industrial farms using legitimate shipping channels to existing retail infrastructure, and no one would buy unbranded pot of unknown quality and origin over a good brand name who's flavor and quality they know. I'm sure there would be a lot of homegrown homeuse, but there would be no market imperative for continued black-market supply of mary jane that couldn't be produced at the same low-cost as wholesale industrial production.

Look at Amsterdam. No one buys black market weed there. They can go to a coffee shop and buy a variety of name brand, high quality stuff for far less than it costs to smuggle illegal crap into the country.



No. There's nothing to suggest that would be the case. History, current and past, shows that the black market gangs disappear as soon as there's a white market choice. Do you buy your whisky from shady dealers getting it out of home made stills? Of course not. Because you don't have to. Same with pot smokers in Holland.

So why would it be any different? Why would people still choose the more expensive black market product of unreliable quality?



I'm sure. I would expect laws regulating where marijuana can be smoked. Just like you can't drink and drive, or drink in public, I would expect the same laws for reefer.


There's no rational reason to expect any of what you fear. It would keep the money in the US economy instead of sending it out of country, it would employ Americans instead of Mexican drug mules, it would provide a tax revenue base that could be used for fighting more serious crime, it would employ more American farmers, truckers, and retailers, and it would effectively end the black-market drug trade for marijuana.

So why is that a bad idea?

Click to expand...

The government will never allow people to grow their own marijuana because it would be too big a loss in revenue.
The black market is alive and well in the cigarette industry a legal substance.
People are still making illegal moonshine and there is a real market for it.
People will still grow marijuana illegally and sell it on the street at a lower price then what the government regulates.

vesper said:

The government will never allow people to grow their own marijuana because it would be too big a loss in revenue.
The black market is alive and well in the cigarette industry a legal substance.
People are still making illegal moonshine and there is a real market for it.
People will still grow marijuana illegally and sell it on the street at a lower price then what the government regulates.

Click to expand...

Really?

state of Oregon medical marijuana limits, marijuana Portland, Dr Camacho

Drug policy of Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://medmj-wa.com/grow.html

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/mmp/Pages/default.aspx

vesper said:

The black market is alive and well in the cigarette industry a legal substance.
People are still making illegal moonshine and there is a real market for it.

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of a meaningful market in either moonshine or home-grown tobacco?

vesper said:

People will still grow marijuana illegally and sell it on the street at a lower price then what the government regulates.

Click to expand...

They can't currently grow and sell it for lower than what could be done legally, so why do you think that will change? It currently costs about $12 retail for what could be sent to market for 6 cents plus tax. Where is it that you think this cost reduction for black market supply will happen?

ttwtt78640 said:

Really?

state of Oregon medical marijuana limits, marijuana Portland, Dr Camacho

Drug policy of Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medical Marijuana in Washington | Growing Med MJ in WA

MedicalMarijuanaProgram

Click to expand...

I was speaking in the terms of federal government. For that is the goal of those who wish to have medical marijuana reclassified. Once they do that opens the door for the feds to regulate it.

I'm not surprised to read about Portland. That city has real problems with drug use. In 2006 the increase in heroine rose 600%. The problem with drug rehabilitation has cost the people in Oregon a real chunk of change.

Portland, Oregon Substance Abuse Treatment | Drug Abuse Treatment in Portland, OR

Grendel said:

Do you have any evidence of a meaningful market in either moonshine or home-grown tobacco?



They can't currently grow and sell it for lower than what could be done legally, so why do you think that will change? It currently costs about $12 retail for what could be sent to market for 6 cents plus tax. Where is it that you think this cost reduction for black market supply will happen?

Click to expand...

Trade In Black-Market Cigarettes: Hot, Dangerous : NPR


There were too many links associated with illegal moonshine so here is the link to the Google search, there you can take your pick. there you will find links reporting government still shutting down illegal stills and making arrests.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS469US469&q=moonshine+alive+and+well