• 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!

Does pot legalization stop the war on drugs?

Felis Leo said:
Well, Mr Person, yes, I am certainly supportive though not a drum-pounding advocate of Prohibition, certainly. I think the consumption of alcohol causes so many negative externalities that I believe it would be proper to make it illegal for regular consumption in large quantities for anything except a cooking additive.
Click to expand...

I could care less about the negative effects of alcohol on a personal level or society at large, it boils down to a personal freedom issue IMHO, the government whether local state or federal has absolutely no business telling you what you may imbibe in any shape form or fashion. Laws which restrict things, encourage more nanny state-ism which we certainly need less of and more people taking care of their own business.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I do not know about the US, but any adult in Canada can make their own wine and or beer at home. Kits for them are sold at stores, and it is from what I understand a fairly easy process

As for pot

The taxes are too high, and the legal product has not been registered and tracked as well as it should be. The illegal stores should be easy to identify and then shut down. Then the majority of casual users will go to the legal stores and purchase legal product rather than work to find dealers at their homes or from the street.

Heck legalization of alcohol did not stop the production of illegal alcohol for a long time, as seen by Nascar arising from moonshine runners in the south east US




How Prohibition Gave Birth to NASCAR - HISTORY
Click to expand...

Sure. Home brew beer and wine is definitely legal in the US. It is not, however, anywhere near as easy as growing pot. It requires certain equipment and storage facilities. Like I said in another post, you can make an alcoholic beverage in a baggie in your jail cell but it isn't necessarily something you WANT to drink. Home brewers and home vintners can produce very good product but doing so requires time, equipment and knowledge that simply isn't required to get a decent and sustainable crop of pot.
 
Lutherf said:
Sure. Home brew beer and wine is definitely legal in the US. It is not, however, anywhere near as easy as growing pot. It requires certain equipment and storage facilities. Like I said in another post, you can make an alcoholic beverage in a baggie in your jail cell but it isn't necessarily something you WANT to drink. Home brewers and home vintners can produce very good product but doing so requires time, equipment and knowledge that simply isn't required to get a decent and sustainable crop of pot.
Click to expand...

The kits include all a person needs, and would just need a corner of the basement.

Canada also has legalized a person to grow their own pot, I believe up to 4 plants
 
Lutherf said:
They did. My great grandparents had a wine press in the basement and my grandparents had all kinds of stories. There was also quite the market for "medicine" and other DIY alcohol products. The problem was that a lot of the stuff was really awful and some of it was deadly. Guys make "pruno" in prison cells but the only reason anyone drinks it is because there aren't any other options.

Getting a crop of decent weed going is a whole lot easier than cooking up a batch of bathtub gin or basement wine.
Click to expand...

You know this because _________?




If you want 'decent weed', you need to check it every day (or other day, really depends on temp and relative humidity) for signs of various pests and fungi, ie, the baby centipedes that will eat a hole in the stem, and then the 'bud rot' spores that will get into the plant that way, possibly wiping the entire thing out in a week if you ignore it. You've got to manage soil or water ph. You've got to rotate fertilizers. Etc. It's actually a lot of work to do well.

I know because I'm now on my third year, having started when MA allowed it.




Sure, you can plant some in a clearing and come back a few months, but chances are most of it will have been destroyed and any that survived will be pretty crappy.
 
Last edited:
Rexedgar said:
I don’t know; I think the still produces before the seeds sprout.....
Click to expand...

You can get white dog after a week or so so yes, that happens faster than sprouting seeds but once you get your plant rotation set up it isn't even a race any more.
 
Thanks to legalization in some places, people everywhere can vape concentrate instead of smoking. That counts.
 
Lutherf said:
The loans aren't such a big deal for pot because the capital requirements are minimal.
Click to expand...

It's agriculture, certainly more specialized than growing corn or soybeans, and yet farmers need access to capital, loans, to make those businesses work. And people opening up retail shops need capital for the building, inventory, etc. and that doesn't change because the product is pot versus shoes or shirts.

And I can't believe that when pot is legal nationwide that you won't eventually get the big producers come in with the same economies of scale as any other agriculture producer has over little competitors, and when it's legal, pot growers, and the people who process that raw material into various products, and distributors and sellers won't command a risk premium for doing something illegal that at the top can result in a decade or more in prison.
 
Lutherf said:
Well...

California seizes $30 million in black market cannabis from illegal pot shops - Los Angeles Times



So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...

Hmm, maybe legalization hasn't really fixed anything. Maybe all it did was cut the state government in on the trade.
Click to expand...

The improvement is where enforcement resources that aren't tangled up in chasing potheads down the street and through the courthouse. Now it's a civil fine/seizure situation instead of prison time.

California certainly made a mess of the new laws, but slaying the golden goose is their specialty. By placing high taxes on the trade and then abjectly failing to enforce or even competently administer their licensing scheme, they guaranteed the current situation.

It's simultaneously cutting into their new tax revenue, and encouraging scofflaws.

I suppose pot smokers get the best of both worlds, as there's shops all over, and you can go to an "illegal" shop for the lower prices, or the licensed shop for the higher quality/product consistency.
 
Felis Leo said:
"Legalize it so that it can be taxed and regulated" we were told. Well what if people do not want to pay more for those taxes and regulations in order to have their highs? Back to square one, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Same with alcohol.....Time to rethink prohibition repeal.

Smuggled liquor has cost New York around $1 billion in lost tax revenue in the past 15 years, the New York business magazine Crain’s estimates in a story about illegal booze and cigarettes.
Click to expand...

New York is the Bootlegging Capital of the U.S. | VinePair
 
trixare4kids said:
Maybe eventually CA will be reaping in the revenues but they are not getting the billions originally forcast. Future projections have been downgraded to millions.
People do not want to pay more for anything and until the state gets the black marketeers/unlicensed vendors under control, yes, we are back to square one.
Click to expand...

Except for that whole thing about jailing people... Seems significant to me.
 
JasperL said:
Except for that whole thing about jailing people... Seems significant to me.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the state shouldn't go after illegal sellers? How would that be fair to the legal dispensaries?
 
Lutherf said:
Sure. Home brew beer and wine is definitely legal in the US. It is not, however, anywhere near as easy as growing pot. It requires certain equipment and storage facilities. Like I said in another post, you can make an alcoholic beverage in a baggie in your jail cell but it isn't necessarily something you WANT to drink. Home brewers and home vintners can produce very good product but doing so requires time, equipment and knowledge that simply isn't required to get a decent and sustainable crop of pot.
Click to expand...

Making beer is actually very easy, can be done with maybe $100 in equipment, and you can get really decent if not really good beer in about 2 weeks or so, ready to drink. I made it for years with nothing but a big stainless steel pot for boiling, a propane boiler, a 5 gallon glass carboy, plastic bucket with spigot for dispensing the product into bottles and some hoses and what not. We ended up buying several carboys when we had a big 'home brew' party, but they're cheap and last forever. It was quite easy to make several batches per day.
 
Felis Leo said:
Realizing that I am in the most minute minority, I will state that I think Prohibition was overall a good policy, but was improperly implemented. First, it should not have been made a Constitutional Amendment. Second, it should have had more agents as we had barely enough agents to stop the sale and distribution. Third, rather than criminalizing the demand, we criminalized supply when it should have been the reverse. If prohibition was to work, the possession of alcoholic beverages should have been criminalized, not the production, sale and distribution. We do not for example simply jail gun runners but let the people try to buy guns on the black market go free. We do just jail people who produce child pornography, but let the people trying to purchase the child pornography off the hook. So too must people who try to purchase drugs be criminally prosecuted, not just the people making, distributing and selling the drugs. That is why drug prohibition works in countries like Japan and Korea and their rates of drug addiction are through the floor compared to us; because they go after the people who purchase illegal drugs, not just the people selling the drugs.
Click to expand...

This is criminalizing behavior that doesn't necessarily create a victim. It is possible to consume both alcohol and marijuana without hurting yourself or anyone else. It is a slippery slope once we allow the government to start forbidding otherwise law-abiding adults from engaging in inherently victimless behaviors solely because we don't trust them not to abuse them and thereby create victims. Where does this end, and why should it end there?
 
trixare4kids said:
Are you saying the state shouldn't go after illegal sellers? How would that be fair to the legal dispensaries?
Click to expand...

Yes, the same way they go after restaurants who don't get a license, or fail a health inspection, which is they shut them down, maybe fine them, but don't charge them with trafficking that comes with a 10 year prison sentence or whatever.

There's a huge difference between an array of possible civil penalties versus the harsh criminal penalties associated with drug trafficking.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, the same way they go after restaurants who don't get a license, or fail a health inspection, which is they shut them down, maybe fine them, but don't charge them with trafficking that comes with a 10 year prison sentence or whatever.

There's a huge difference between an array of possible civil penalties versus the harsh criminal penalties associated with drug trafficking.
Click to expand...

Six months in jail for repeat offenders and a thousand dollar fine is what they are currently doing in my state.
I have no objection to it primarily because these people hurt legal dispensaries from maximizing their profits.
 
WillyPete said:
The improvement is where enforcement resources that aren't tangled up in chasing potheads down the street and through the courthouse. Now it's a civil fine/seizure situation instead of prison time.

California certainly made a mess of the new laws, but slaying the golden goose is their specialty. By placing high taxes on the trade and then abjectly failing to enforce or even competently administer their licensing scheme, they guaranteed the current situation.

It's simultaneously cutting into their new tax revenue, and encouraging scofflaws.

I suppose pot smokers get the best of both worlds, as there's shops all over, and you can go to an "illegal" shop for the lower prices, or the licensed shop for the higher quality/product consistency.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the failure in CA is more of a story about bureaucratic incompetence at every step than anything else. Apparently there's even an app for that - something that tells buyers where all the shops are, legal and illegal. When the state can't find them and shut them down when the free market literally tells them the exact address of nearly every illegal shop, that's an impressive level of failure!
 
lwf said:
This is criminalizing behavior that doesn't necessarily create a victim. It is possible to consume both alcohol and marijuana without hurting yourself or anyone else. It is a slippery slope once we allow the government to start forbidding otherwise law-abiding adults from engaging in inherently victimless behaviors solely because we don't trust them not to abuse them and create victims. Where does this end, and why should it end there?
Click to expand...

I disagree, lwf. I think personal overindulgence in vice creates victims all the time. You can "victimize" others without killing or injuring them. Ask anyone who has lost a friend or loved one to alcoholism, even cases in which they did not get killed in a drunk driving accident or the like; or who has had to go through the emotional torment of taking care of them in their final days as their body began shutting down. Society has to pay a high financial price for taking care of people who have engaged in personal dissipation, and their families and friends often end up paying a high and hard financial, emotional and psychological cost. None of us are islands unto ourselves standing apart from the main. When we damage ourselves for our own momentary pleasure or escapism, we end up damaging those to whom we are connected and are loved by.

And where love, dignity and self-regard have no purchase upon the conscience, the law must intervene.
 
Last edited:
the full legalization of pot needs to be federal.
 
trixare4kids said:
Six months in jail for repeat offenders and a thousand dollar fine is what they are currently doing in my state.
I have no objection to it primarily because these people hurt legal dispensaries from maximizing their profits.
Click to expand...

OK that's fine. But it's still a MAJOR retreat from the long prison sentences associated with drug trafficking.
 
Felis Leo said:
I disagree, lwf. I think personal overindulgence in vice creates victims all the time. You can "victimize" others without killing or injuring them. Ask anyone who has lost a friend or loved one to alcoholism, even cases in which they did not get killed in a drunk driving accident or the like; or who has had to go through the emotional torment of taking care of them in their final days as their body began shutting down. Society has to pay a high financial price for taking care of people who have engaged in personal dissipation, as do their families and friends a high and hard financial, emotional and psychological cost. None of us are islands standing apart from the main. When we damage ourselves for our own momentary pleasure or escapism, we end up damaging those to whom we are connected and are loved by.
Click to expand...

It can create victims when overindulged. It doesn't inherently create victims when used in moderation. Orders of magnitude more people indulge in moderation without victimizing anyone than overindulge.
 
I don't know how I missed this but...


Felis Leo said:
Realizing that I am in the most minute minority, I will state that I think Prohibition was overall a good policy, but was improperly implemented. First, it should not have been made a Constitutional Amendment. Second, it should have had more agents as we had barely enough agents to stop the sale and distribution. Third, rather than criminalizing the demand, we criminalized supply when it should have been the reverse. If prohibition was to work, the possession of alcoholic beverages should have been criminalized, not the production, sale and distribution.



We do not for example simply jail gun runners but let the people try to buy guns on the black market go free.
Click to expand...

No, we jail people who unlawfully possess firearms. We do not let them go free.


Felis Leo said:
We do just jail people who produce child pornography, but let the people trying to purchase the child pornography off the hook.
Click to expand...

No, we jail people who possess child pornography. We do not let them go free.


Felis Leo said:
So too must people who try to purchase drugs be criminally prosecuted, not just the people making, distributing and selling the drugs. That is why drug prohibition works in countries like Japan and Korea and their rates of drug addiction are through the floor compared to us; because they go after the people who purchase illegal drugs, not just the people selling the drugs.
Click to expand...

No, we jail people who possess illegal drugs. We do not let them go free.






Felis Leo said:
That is why drug prohibition works in countries like Japan and Korea and their rates of drug addiction are through the floor compared to us; because they go after the people who purchase illegal drugs, not just the people selling the drugs.
Click to expand...

South Korea drug use: Crime in South Korea - Wikipedia

Apparently meth is the favorite over there.



There is also drug use in Japan. They're just very strict about it. Prohibition never "works" and never has worked. The stricter prohibition, the more socio-economic damage you do to your society, but you do not stamp out drug use.

Why Japan Is So Strict About Drugs

Of course, one might also point out the resulting rampant culture of very heavy drinking in Japan businesses. Push down on one substance, others pop up.





But whatever. If you think we do not jail people with drugs or child porn, but only go after producers, and you actually think alcohol prohibition could somehow work and was a good policy....this is not going anywhere. That's simply crazy, and unless I've hit my head thus misreading your 'facts', your 'facts' are simply false. We jail people for possessing drugs and child porn. I don't know where you get the idea that we don't.
 
Felis Leo said:
I disagree, lwf. I think personal overindulgence in vice creates victims all the time. You can "victimize" others without killing or injuring them. Ask anyone who has lost a friend or loved one to alcoholism, even cases in which they did not get killed in a drunk driving accident or the like; or who has had to go through the emotional torment of taking care of them in their final days as their body began shutting down. Society has to pay a high financial price for taking care of people who have engaged in personal dissipation, as do their families and friends a high and hard financial, emotional and psychological cost. None of us are islands standing apart from the main. When we damage ourselves for our own momentary pleasure or escapism, we end up damaging those to whom we are connected and are loved by.
Click to expand...

That's true, and I've inflicted my share of the damages you speak of, and I've watched people effectively kill themselves using alcohol, and heard of hundreds of stories of the high price of addiction. I still don't favor prohibition because ultimately those were my failures, and not society's failure for allowing me to do it. The vast, vast majority of alcohol users do so without creating victims, and drinking alcohol in some small or large ways makes their life better, which is why it's been a part of civilization across countries and cultures for something like 5,000 years.
 
Nevermind that "you could possibly hurt others" doubles as a reason to ban all sorts of other things I'm sure conservatives don't want to ban.

Constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd and make guns illegal? Just for starters...





If the line between legality and illegality is defined by the possibility of hurting someone else via use or misuse of a thing, we'll have to ban just about everything. Which, in turn, is why that kind of stance is most often not so much rooted in potential harm but rather a moral judgement - almost never argued out - about it somehow being inherently wrong to enjoy the alteration of brain chemistry via chemical means. I've certainly heard a lot of people say it's immoral but I don't think I've heard an argument, only judgments (usually rooted in religious views at that; if not that, personal tragedy).
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
I disagree, lwf. I think personal overindulgence in vice creates victims all the time. You can "victimize" others without killing or injuring them. Ask anyone who has lost a friend or loved one to alcoholism, even cases in which they did not get killed in a drunk driving accident or the like; or who has had to go through the emotional torment of taking care of them in their final days as their body began shutting down. Society has to pay a high financial price for taking care of people who have engaged in personal dissipation, and their families and friends often end up paying a high and hard financial, emotional and psychological cost. None of us are islands unto ourselves standing apart from the main. When we damage ourselves for our own momentary pleasure or escapism, we end up damaging those to whom we are connected and are loved by.

And where love, dignity and self-regard have no purchase upon the conscience, the law must intervene.
Click to expand...
And so your solution to preventing drugs from ruining lives is to ruin peoples lives with criminal prosecution before the drugs can?

Being sad that a loved one died because of drug use doesn't entitle you to make laws to change their morality. That kind of reasoning can swing both ways and people can apply it to personal choices you make for yourself, for which you feel strongly you should have the freedom to make on your own.
 
Mr Person said:
Nevermind that "you could possibly hurt others" doubles as a reason to ban all sorts of other things I'm sure conservatives don't want to ban.

Constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd and make guns illegal? Just for starters...





If the line between legality and illegality is defined by the possibility of hurting someone else via use or misuse of a thing, we'll have to ban just about everything. Which, in turn, is why that kind of stance is most often not so much rooted in potential harm but rather a moral judgement - almost never argued out - about it somehow being inherently wrong to enjoy the alteration of brain chemistry via chemical means. I've certainly heard a lot of people say it's immoral but I don't think I've heard an argument, only judgments (usually rooted in religious views at that; if not that, personal tragedy).
Click to expand...
Guns can possibly hurt people, religion can possibly hurt people, hedge funds can possibly hurt people, and so forth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom