• 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!

Booker introduces bill to legalize marijuana nationwide

Thoreau72 said:
It's hard to understand why you post about the subject if you don't care about the subject....

If you are curious about the dynamics of prohibition and black markets, you should consider reading some material about it. An excellent book to start with is "The Economics of Prohibition" by Mark Thornton. It was published in 1991 by the University of Utah Press.

Also, noted economists like Milton Friedman and Gary Becker have written about it.

In the case of marijuana, things are a bit different because it is merely a weed that anybody can grow practically anywhere.
Click to expand...

I don't care if people want to get loaded. That is what I mean.

It would be helpful to your argument if you could stick to the issue, and stop with the prohibition strawman. There is no comparison between weed legalization today, and prohibition.

The fact is, there will be a black market in pot, which will cater to those who don't have a place to grow their own, and who don't have the money for the designer bud being sold in the legal outlets.

Ignoring this fact is really telling to me.
 
ocean515 said:
I don't care if people want to get loaded. That is what I mean.

It would be helpful to your argument if you could stick to the issue, and stop with the prohibition strawman. There is no comparison between weed legalization today, and prohibition.

The fact is, there will be a black market in pot, which will cater to those who don't have a place to grow their own, and who don't have the money for the designer bud being sold in the legal outlets.

Ignoring this fact is really telling to me.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of the dynamics of prohibition, both from the historical record with the Volstead Act in this country, and from the economics point of view as explained by Becker, Friedman, Thornton and many others is very telling to me. Your arrogance while swimming in that ignorance is even more telling to me, but oh so typical of so many americans.

Lesson learned Surfer Dude. :2wave:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Your ignorance of the dynamics of prohibition, both from the historical record with the Volstead Act in this country, and from the economics point of view as explained by Becker, Friedman, Thornton and many others is very telling to me. Your arrogance while swimming in that ignorance is even more telling to me, but oh so typical of so many americans.

Lesson learned Surfer Dude. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Why are you so desperate to discuss prohibition, which has nothing to do with legalizing weed?

You might want to ***t can the snarky blather while embarking on a quest to prove you can't argue a point.
 
ocean515 said:
Why are you so desperate to discuss prohibition, which has nothing to do with legalizing weed?

You might want to ***t can the snarky blather while embarking on a quest to prove you can't argue a point.
Click to expand...

If you are so ignorant as to not understand that weed would not be illegal if a prohibition did not exist, there is no chance at all of rational public dialogue with you. :peace
 
Thoreau72 said:
If you are so ignorant as to not understand that weed would not be illegal if a prohibition did not exist, there is no chance at all of rational public dialogue with you. :peace
Click to expand...

One thing is certain, if you think the history surrounding alcohol prohibition is similar to week legalization, rational public dialogue never stood a chance. :peace
 
ocean515 said:
One thing is certain, if you think the history surrounding alcohol prohibition is similar to week legalization, rational public dialogue never stood a chance. :peace
Click to expand...

What's the difference? In both cases the substance is banned and people do it anyway. Where is this rational public dialogue on the legalization of pot?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What's the difference? In both cases the substance is banned and people do it anyway. Where is this rational public dialogue on the legalization of pot?
Click to expand...

Great question. A rational discussion certainly is difficult to find among the "don't touch my weed, dude" set.

I simply mentioned a black market will exist with the legalization of pot. Look at the reaction to that fact.

As to your question of differences, the chasm between the two issues couldn't be greater. Prohibition took a product that was legal, and via an absurd push by the "Progressives" of the day, turned it into an illegal product. Failure was assured.

Legalization of weed is going the opposite direction.

The two issues couldn't be farther apart.
 
ocean515 said:
Great question. A rational discussion certainly is difficult to find among the "don't touch my weed, dude" set.

I simply mentioned a black market will exist with the legalization of pot. Look at the reaction to that fact.

As to your question of differences, the chasm between the two issues couldn't be greater. Prohibition took a product that was legal, and via an absurd push by the "Progressives" of the day, turned it into an illegal product. Failure was assured.

Legalization of weed is going the opposite direction.

The two issues couldn't be farther apart.
Click to expand...

Marijuana used to be legal and became illegal through prohibition, just like alcohol, and around the same time in history. Yes, the alcohol black market still exists despite alcohol legalization, but it is a tiny fraction of what it was and could be today if prohibition had continued. I'm not sure what your argument even is. Of course the black market for marijuana will still exist, just like alcohol, but it will be dramatically less. Do you think thugs are making big profits off alcohol and tobacco? Fully legal marijuana with industrial processes would be just as cheap to produce as tobacco. Who buys tobacco on the black market?

Also, for the moral side of the issue. What right does the government have to tell us what plants we can and can't consume in the privacy of our own homes?
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
Marijuana used to be legal and became illegal through prohibition, just like alcohol, and around the same time in history. Yes, the alcohol black market still exists despite alcohol legalization, but it is a tiny fraction of what it was and could be today if prohibition had continued. I'm not sure what your argument even is. Of course the black market for marijuana will still exist, just like alcohol, but it will be dramatically less. Do you think thugs are making big profits off alcohol and tobacco? Fully legal marijuana with industrial processes would be just as cheap to produce as tobacco. Who buys tobacco on the black market?

Also, for the moral side of the issue. What right does the government have to tell us what plants we can and can't consume in the privacy of our own homes?
Click to expand...

And once again, where is the rational discussion?

Pot smoking before becoming illegal was used by a tiny fraction of a percent of the population. Alcohol consumption was wide spread. There is no comparison.

Both alcohol and tobacco production are complex compared to growing pot.

With legalization of pot, taxes and regulation will require a significant infrastructure of people and places to insure the government gets it's due. That opens the door to people seeking to exploit that.

Do you think the government isn't going to step in at some point and start placing FDA like regulations on type, strength, and growing processes? If you don't think that will a happen, then such an effort would be the first time that has happened, as far as I know.

I don't smoke pot. Left that behind decades ago because I didn't like what it did to my ambition. Lots of talk, little action. But that is just me. I really don't care either way.

There is no moral side to the issue as far as I am concerned. I do tend to agree with you on the "what right does the government have" argument. The challenge with that is that the government usually has to pick up the pieces when people privacy spills over into the public domain.
 
faithful_servant said:
Keep in mind that this will also drive up the cost of pot. My dad's girlfriend uses it for pain relief (in her words: "It doesn't really stop the pain, it just makes me care less about it.") and when she had to buy it from illegal sources, it was a lot cheaper. Now if we legalize it, some of the people who are using it for pain management won't be able to afford it. Nasty little Catch 22...
Click to expand...

In massecuchess, the law is you can grow up to 12 plants for your own personal use. Now, each plant potentally can be a pound.

That would certainly be able to cover her requirements.
 
ocean515 said:
And once again, where is the rational discussion?

Pot smoking before becoming illegal was used by a tiny fraction of a percent of the population. Alcohol consumption was wide spread. There is no comparison.

Both alcohol and tobacco production are complex compared to growing pot.

With legalization of pot, taxes and regulation will require a significant infrastructure of people and places to insure the government gets it's due. That opens the door to people seeking to exploit that.

Do you think the government isn't going to step in at some point and start placing FDA like regulations on type, strength, and growing processes? If you don't think that will a happen, then such an effort would be the first time that has happened, as far as I know.

I don't smoke pot. Left that behind decades ago because I didn't like what it did to my ambition. Lots of talk, little action. But that is just me. I really don't care either way.

There is no moral side to the issue as far as I am concerned. I do tend to agree with you on the "what right does the government have" argument. The challenge with that is that the government usually has to pick up the pieces when people privacy spills over into the public domain.
Click to expand...

With all due respect sir, claiming that black markets exist (or will exist in the future) for legal products is not a rational statement. That is, it is not an informed statement.

Basically, black markets will arise from 2 possible causes. The most common is outright prohibition by statute, and the second, which some areas see today with untaxed cigarettes, is when the tax schedule is unrealistically high. That is, with $10 a pack cigarettes in high tax districts like New York, untaxed cigarettes become very valuable to consumers.

So when individuals who are ignorant of basic black market economics make statements based upon that ignorance, and do so in a most arrogant fashion, no rational public dialogue is not possible.
 
Thoreau72 said:
With all due respect sir, claiming that black markets exist (or will exist in the future) for legal products is not a rational statement. That is, it is not an informed statement.

Basically, black markets will arise from 2 possible causes. The most common is outright prohibition by statute, and the second, which some areas see today with untaxed cigarettes, is when the tax schedule is unrealistically high. That is, with $10 a pack cigarettes in high tax districts like New York, untaxed cigarettes become very valuable to consumers.

So when individuals who are ignorant of basic black market economics make statements based upon that ignorance, and do so in a most arrogant fashion, no rational public dialogue is not possible.
Click to expand...

Then you are dismissed on this topic. Your claims have no basis in reality, and are not backed by the documented evidence.

Don't worry, I'm not after your weed, dude.
 
Thoreau72 said:
With all due respect sir, claiming that black markets exist (or will exist in the future) for legal products is not a rational statement. That is, it is not an informed statement.

Basically, black markets will arise from 2 possible causes. The most common is outright prohibition by statute, and the second, which some areas see today with untaxed cigarettes, is when the tax schedule is unrealistically high. That is, with $10 a pack cigarettes in high tax districts like New York, untaxed cigarettes become very valuable to consumers.

So when individuals who are ignorant of basic black market economics make statements based upon that ignorance, and do so in a most arrogant fashion, no rational public dialogue is not possible.
Click to expand...

You've never heard of any black market for legal substances? Really? Have you NEVER heard of controlled substances? The black market on oxycontin? Selling looseys?

Your dismissive attitude belongs on /r/iamverysmart
 
Spartacus FPV said:
You've never heard of any black market for legal substances? Really? Have you NEVER heard of controlled substances? The black market on oxycontin? Selling looseys?

Your dismissive attitude belongs on /r/iamverysmart
Click to expand...

Prescription drugs are legal, but only under certain rules, namely the prescription of a doctor. In case you didn't know that. That means that they are effectively UNAVAILABLE to that segment of the population unable to visit a doctor or unable to get a Rx for the medication.

Do you understand the difference between de jure and de facto? By law they are legal, but by fact they are illegal, unavailable. Get caught with some of those "legal" pills without a Rx in your name and see what happens.

The result is a black market, consisting of those unable to acquire the pills through legal means.

I am no economist, but I've read enough about it to understand how black markets are created and what harm they do. They are created by poor public policy, either outright prohibitions, effective prohibitions (in the case of Rx pills), or excessive tax schemes (cigarettes).
 
ocean515 said:
Then you are dismissed on this topic. Your claims have no basis in reality, and are not backed by the documented evidence.

Don't worry, I'm not after your weed, dude.
Click to expand...

I don't have any weed Surfer Dude. I am able to discuss these matters of economics. I've mentioned at least one book to you on the subject. I am honored to be in the presence of one like yourself who don't need no stinkin' books. :doh
 
Thoreau72 said:
I don't have any weed Surfer Dude. I am able to discuss these matters of economics. I've mentioned at least one book to you on the subject. I am honored to be in the presence of one like yourself who don't need no stinkin' books. :doh
Click to expand...

There are black markets in designer goods.

Your rejection of facts, and the real time evidence I have provided, suggests you are having a problem with objectivity.

The fact you are now suggesting I don't need books proves such a deficit exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom