Government Protection and the War on Drugs

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I believe that all drugs should be legal, taxed, and easily accessible to adults.

As far as I am aware, the main issues with drugs are twofold-there's the fact that it is dangerous (and probably addicting) to the person using it, and then there's the whole gang violence/smuggling/etc. issues.

By legalizing drugs, several things happen. First of all, you completely remove the issue of gang violence. The whole issue of having to import them out of war-torn regions run by gang warfare? Also gone. A lot of the side-issues that come to mind with drugs disappear, and it becomes much easier to regulate the contents, removing pig in the poke scams and preventing people from accidentally taking pills with the wrong contents (or too much of a certain drug).

The government gains a lot of money by doing so. The war on drugs is immensely costly, and with products like drugs, you can imagine taxes of 10-20 times the actual value of the product (the value would also sink, now that it isn't ridiculously hard to get and can be grown by the country itself). A lot of tax revenue starts going in, a lot of tax revenue stops going out.

Finally, another law that focuses on removing personal responsibility from adults disappears. It's one thing to protect a child from himself (much more susceptible to things like peer pressure, immune system and brain system not fully built up, et cetera), or to protect an adult from outside circumstances outside of his control, but to stop an adult from doing something to himself because it's dangerous for him/her, even when they are fully aware of the danger, seems wrong.

Discuss?

 

[Sieguest]

I agree and yet at the same time disagree with you. I've always had mixed opinions on drugs.

As far as I am aware, the main issues with drugs are twofold-there's the fact that it is dangerous (and probably addicting) to the person using it, and then there's the whole gang violence/smuggling/etc. issues.

There are socioeconomic issues too.

By legalizing drugs, several things happen. First of all, you completely remove the issue of gang violence. The whole issue of having to import them out of war-torn regions run by gang warfare? Also gone. A lot of the side-issues that come to mind with drugs disappear, and it becomes much easier to regulate the contents, removing pig in the poke scams and preventing people from accidentally taking pills with the wrong contents (or too much of a certain drug).

Not really, you've made a possible corridor to reduce gang violence, but drugs are not the only things that facilitate gang violence. Things like revenge a member killed or just pure hostility towards another gang lead to violent acts as well. Also consider that making drugs legal would hurt the money the gangs make by making what they used to sell illegally much cheaper. This could actually lead to gangs becoming more aggressive in robbing stores and trying to take out other competition in order to keep their cash flow. And one of the key factors in inducing gang violence found by this study is a low income.

The government gains a lot of money by doing so. The war on drugs is immensely costly, and with products like drugs, you can imagine taxes of 10-20 times the actual value of the product (the value would also sink, now that it isn't ridiculously hard to get and can be grown by the country itself). A lot of tax revenue starts going in, a lot of tax revenue stops going out.

This is true.

Finally, another law that focuses on removing personal responsibility from adults disappears. It's one thing to protect a child from himself (much more susceptible to things like peer pressure, immune system and brain system not fully built up, et cetera), or to protect an adult from outside circumstances outside of his control, but to stop an adult from doing something to himself because it's dangerous for him/her, even when they are fully aware of the danger, seems wrong.

But it is also a law that could be protecting our economy right now. Most people know the health effects of drugs and know that outside of specific organ deficiencies there are also global effects on the body. By making drugs freely available is opening the corridor a lot of the working world getting exposed to these drugs. This could lead to a dramatic drop in the productivity of workers and negatively effect the economy in that way.

Like I said, I've really been on the fence about this for some time. Just throwing some stuff out there.

 

[Lore]

I can agree with you about weed, but I don't think that meth and cocaine should ever be legal.

Meth and cocaine are highly addictive drugs with potentially life threating consequences. They ruin lives, and they're banned for your health's sake, much like how any dangerous prescription, food, or drink can be banned.

Weed is still dangerous, but it definitely isn't as addicting and abusable as the other drugs. In fact, cigarrettes are more addicting than marijuana is (source later).

Guest basically said what I was going to say about the rest.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I agree and yet at the same time disagree with you. I've always had mixed opinions on drugs.



There are socioeconomic issues too.

Understandably.

Not really, you've made a possible corridor to reduce gang violence, but drugs are not the only things that facilitate gang violence. Things like revenge a member killed or just pure hostility towards another gang lead to violent acts as well. Also consider that making drugs legal would hurt the money the gangs make by making what they used to sell illegally much cheaper. This could actually lead to gangs becoming more aggressive in robbing stores and trying to take out other competition in order to keep their cash flow. And one of the key factors in inducing gang violence found by this study is a low income.

Perhaps gang violence is a bad term to use. "Gang Involvement" seems better. Think of it this way-what's the best way to get drugs now if none of your friends do them? Go find a gang and ask them about it. It's illegal contraband. By legalizing it, the gangs lose their monopoly, and normal people lose a reason to go to said gangs.
Then again, with your study... I dunno.

But it is also a law that could be protecting our economy right now. Most people know the health effects of drugs and know that outside of specific organ deficiencies there are also global effects on the body. By making drugs freely available is opening the corridor a lot of the working world getting exposed to these drugs. This could lead to a dramatic drop in the productivity of workers and negatively effect the economy in that way.

Like I said, I've really been on the fence about this for some time. Just throwing some stuff out there.

I'm not 100% sure about this. A big part of it is personal responsibility-will people have the sanity to not all go and become drug-crazed loonies? If the populace is that weak-minded, then why protect them?

I can agree with you about weed, but I don't think that meth and cocaine should ever be legal.

Meth and cocaine are highly addictive drugs with potentially life threating consequences. They ruin lives, and they're banned for your health's sake, much like how any dangerous prescription, food, or drink can be banned.

Weed is still dangerous, but it definitely isn't as addicting and abusable as the other drugs. In fact, cigarrettes are more addicting than marijuana is (source later).

Guest basically said what I was going to say about the rest.

Perhaps there are some drugs that should be ignored for society's sake. Cocain, Crack, Heroin, several others... But lesser drugs, especially psychoactives like shrooms, LSD, and Pot are not cripplingly harmful unless you are a junkie. So why protect the populace from themselves in that manner? We're talking the kind of problems you get from Alcohol or Nicotine.

 

[Lore]

Perhaps there are some drugs that should be ignored for society's sake. Cocain, Crack, Heroin, several others... But lesser drugs, especially psychoactives like shrooms, LSD, and Pot are not cripplingly harmful unless you are a junkie. So why protect the populace from themselves in that manner? We're talking the kind of problems you get from Alcohol or Nicotine.

That's pretty much what I said. I said that pot should be allowed, but highly addictive and abusable drugs(like cocaine, heroin, meth, etc) should never be legal.

Here's an interesting chart about drug withdrawals, tolerance levels, reinforcement, etc.

 

[Sieguest]

Perhaps gang violence is a bad term to use. "Gang Involvement" seems better. Think of it this way-what's the best way to get drugs now if none of your friends do them? Go find a gang and ask them about it. It's illegal contraband. By legalizing it, the gangs lose their monopoly, and normal people lose a reason to go to said gangs.
Then again, with your study... I dunno.

Using the term "gang involvement" would be better. Then we're not necessarily worrying about other things outside of drugs.

Even so, the legalizing of drugs could still incite gang involvement, because that would be a strike at their income. Inclining them to take out competition just for the sake of money. I'll admit it would definitely be riskier for those gangs to do so, but what have they to lose then?

I'm not 100% sure about this. A big part of it is personal responsibility-will people have the sanity to not all go and become drug-crazed loonies? If the populace is that weak-minded, then why protect them?

This is true, and here's where I'm on the fence. The person has full control over what they do with themselves, it's their body, and if they choose to ruin themselves, that's their problem. The problem here is that populace is who is circulating money through economies. They make their economy work. IF the populace loses productivity, the economy suffers, and if the economy suffers, a country suffers. And then with how the worlds countries being so intricately tied with each other, if one country suffers, so do the others.

Perhaps there are some drugs that should be ignored for society's sake. Cocain, Crack, Heroin, several others... But lesser drugs, especially psychoactives like shrooms, LSD, and Pot are not cripplingly harmful unless you are a junkie. So why protect the populace from themselves in that manner? We're talking the kind of problems you get from Alcohol or Nicotine.

But even psychoactives start to eventually take their toll, each drug individually have their effects, some milder than others. But all drugs have similar global effects on the body as shown in my last source. Those effects can also pose problems.

 

[Dre89]

I think though the reason why softer drugs like marijuana might be banned is because it doesn't stimulate the economy.

There are certain practices attached to alcohol. Virtually the entire clubbing industry is attached to alcohol. Drinking alcohol makes you wan to go out, buy more alcohol, buy food etc.

Legalising weed may stop people from contributing to the economy like alcohol does.

Just a thought.

 

[Lore]

I think though the reason why softer drugs like marijuana might be banned is because it doesn't stimulate the economy.

There are certain practices attached to alcohol. Virtually the entire clubbing industry is attached to alcohol. Drinking alcohol makes you wan to go out, buy more alcohol, buy food etc.

Legalising weed may stop people from contributing to the economy like alcohol does.

Just a thought.

Huh, I never knew that being able to tax something that used to be nontaxable and bringing something that will be highly used into the mainstream market would not help the economy.

Find me a source that shows that legal marijuana doesn't help in other countries, and I'll believe you.

The alcohol industry doesn't exist only for clubbing, by the way. That's just one of the many ways that alcohol is sold, and you should know that.

 

[Dre89]

Obviously I know that.

I just have a friend who used to do weed and he said that doing weed makes you not want to go out etc. whereas alcohol obviously makes you go out and spend more.

I never really had any conviction behind the argument, it was just something to throw into the mix.

 

[Lore]

Obviously I know that.

I just have a friend who used to do weed and he said that doing weed makes you not want to go out etc. whereas alcohol obviously makes you go out and spend more.

I never really had any conviction behind the argument, it was just something to throw into the mix.

Weed does decrease your drive to do things while smoking it, but it is only long-term when you really abuse it.

Weed is decently expensive too. Since it costs more than Alcohol, quantity doesn't matter as much.

(I'm friends with potheads too, lol. I don't do it myself, but they're decently cool people to hang out with.)

 

[Dre89]

But surely it only costs more because it is currently illegal.

Perhaps with its hypothetical legalisation, this long term usage will become more abundant, supressing the economic stimulation alluded to previously.

 

[Lore]

But surely it only costs more because it is currently illegal.

Perhaps with its hypothetical legalisation, this long term usage will become more abundant, supressing the economic stimulation alluded to previously.

Maybe, but once again, there isn't really a way to know that for sure until it's legalized.

The long term effects can be compared to overdrinking alcohol, which people do every day.

Can you find something about the results in other countries for me? I'm on my iPod, and that makes it harder to find stuff, lol.

 

[Dre89]

What should I look up? I don't really know where to look for these sorts of things, they're not really of immense interest to me, hence why I noramlly steer clear of these issues.

With regards to overdrinking alcohol, I never defended alcohol. Because it stimulates the economy, it obviously generates so much profit for the government that it's still worth the legalisation despite how much money goes into anti-alcohol abuse campaigns.

 

[Lore]

What should I look up? I don't really know where to look for these sorts of things, they're not really of immense interest to me, hence why I noramlly steer clear of these issues.

With regards to overdrinking alcohol, I never defended alcohol. Because it stimulates the economy, it obviously generates so much profit for the government that it's still worth the legalisation despite how much money goes into anti-alcohol abuse campaigns.

Something about the results of legalizing weed in other countries would be nice. Try google.

I know. I was simply comparing the inevitable abuse of weed to overdrinking alcohol, which is a common occurence. Good point, though.

 

[Sieguest]

I'm not sure whether this would answer your question werekill, but I actually found it a little shocking.

 

[Lore]

I'm not sure whether this would answer your question werekill, but I actually found it a little shocking.

That's really interesting. Thanks or finding it!

However, I'm really looking for something that says what kind of economic impact it has in countries that allow it.

 

[Cyn]

In my younger days I smoked a lot and dabbled in a few of the other drugs mentioned here, namely hallucenogens. Yes, there is money to be made from legalization, but it would be hard to manage since the growing and overall cultivation process is rather simple compared to the process of making and distilling alcohols. Anyone could do it and bypass paying a tax on it. Besides, some places have wild cannabis growing. Same goes for things like mushrooms since they grow wild. It would be too hard to control.

On the subject of moral and personal issues, every drug has a consequence. I have known many, MANY potheads and druggies.Most of their lives revolve around their drug of choice and MOST of them are lazy and give nothing to society. I should know. Marijuana does have side effects. Namely, its effects on short term memory. It has had this effect on myself. Luckily, I've been able to gain this back. More than likely if I still smoked I'd still be forgetful. Does society need a bunch of people that have forgotten what they said or did 30 minutes ago? Or forgotten what they just learned on the job or at school? Taken from Buzzed: The Straight Facts About the Most Used and Abused Drugs from Alcohol to Ectasy: "The hippocampus is critically involved in the formation of new memories, and has a high concentration of cannabinoid receptors. Not suprisingly, the inhibition of memory formation by marijuana is is its most well-established negative effect on mental function.""In animal studies, when rats are given THC they show significant deficits in memory formation - not the ability to recall previously learned information, but the ability to store new memories. In fact, an animal treated with THC performs a memory task as poorly as an animal with a damaged hippocampus." We are supposed to be a learned society, we need to be able to continue to learn and futher ourselves as individuals to contribute to society.

A test was given to college students. Two groups were tested; light users(smoked once in a 30 day period, and heavy users (smoked often and had THC present in their blood at time of testing) they were each given a battery of mental tests. Two important findings were revealed:

• Heavy users showed much less mental flexability in problem solving than light users making the same mistakes over and over again; indicating that they tended to become locked into a particular problem solving strategy and had a hard time generating a new ones even when the current one no longer worked for them.
• Male users did not perform as well as light users at recalling figures they were shown and then asked to draw from memory. Heavy users also had significantly more trouble learning lists of words over time.

Futhermore, marijuana negatively affects your immune system, the heart, the lungs, and to some degree the reproductive system.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for medical use. Cancer patients deserve to feel better and regain their appetite. Glaucoma patients deserve to have the pressure relieved, but complete legalization would have a negative impact on our society.

As far as hallucenogens go, flashbacks.....that should say it all.

 

[Reaver197]

Saw this clip of a news report, figured I would post it here, hopefully spur some activity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7FshBjkS6U

Break down of the clip, if you can't watch it for some reason. Portugal legalizes the use of all drugs, many politicians predict rise of drug use and for Portugal to become a haven for drug users, instead, drug use and drug-related deaths fall.

 

[Lore]

Yes, there is money to be made from legalization, but it would be hard to manage since the growing and overall cultivation process is rather simple compared to the process of making and distilling alcohols. Anyone could do it and bypass paying a tax on it. Besides, some places have wild cannabis growing. Same goes for things like mushrooms since they grow wild. It would be too hard to control.

So people can make their own version of the product as well? Wow, I didn't know that!

I'll be right back, I'm eating a burger that was cooked at my house and beyond the FDA's control, and then I'll go pick an apple from the tree that's in my back yard.

On the subject of moral and personal issues, every drug has a consequence. I have known many, MANY potheads and druggies.Most of their lives revolve around their drug of choice and MOST of them are lazy and give nothing to society. I should know. Marijuana does have side effects. Namely, its effects on short term memory. It has had this effect on myself. Luckily, I've been able to gain this back. More than likely if I still smoked I'd still be forgetful. Does society need a bunch of people that have forgotten what they said or did 30 minutes ago? Or forgotten what they just learned on the job or at school? Taken from Buzzed: The Straight Facts About the Most Used and Abused Drugs from Alcohol to Ectasy: "The hippocampus is critically involved in the formation of new memories, and has a high concentration of cannabinoid receptors. Not suprisingly, the inhibition of memory formation by marijuana is is its most well-established negative effect on mental function.""In animal studies, when rats are given THC they show significant deficits in memory formation - not the ability to recall previously learned information, but the ability to store new memories. In fact, an animal treated with THC performs a memory task as poorly as an animal with a damaged hippocampus." We are supposed to be a learned society, we need to be able to continue to learn and futher ourselves as individuals to contribute to society.

On the subject of moral and personal issues, every drug has a consequence. I have known many, MANY alcoholics. Most of their lives revolve around their drink of choice and MOST of them are lazy and give nothing to society. I should know. Alcohol does have side effects. Namely, its effects on short term memory. It has had this effect on myself. Luckily, I've been able to gain this back. More than likely if I still drank I'd still be forgetful. Does society need a bunch of people that have forgotten what they said or did 30 minutes ago? Or forgotten what they just learned on the job or at school? We are supposed to be a learned society, we need to be able to continue to learn and futher ourselves as individuals to contribute to society.

That argument, other than specific sources, can be used for arguing against the legalization of alcohol as well, and look at how much that is used heavily.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for medical use. Cancer patients deserve to feel better and regain their appetite. Glaucoma patients deserve to have the pressure relieved.

I agree.

Saw this clip of a news report, figured I would post it here, hopefully spur some activity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7FshBjkS6U

Break down of the clip, if you can't watch it for some reason. Portugal legalizes the use of all drugs, many politicians predict rise of drug use and for Portugal to become a haven for drug users, instead, drug use and drug-related deaths fall.

Nice! Thanks for finding this.

 

[Cyn]

So people can make their own version of the product as well? Wow, I didn't know that!

I'll be right back, I'm eating a burger that was cooked at my house and beyond the FDA's control, and then I'll go pick an apple from the tree that's in my back yard.

Last time I checked it wasn't illegal to prepare burgers. It might be illegal to prepare pot burgers however. The difference is that you must put money into buying the meat for those burgers. Growing your own "product" would be self sustaining, you could keep growing it over and over again, and sell it tax free.

That argument, other than specific sources, can be used for arguing against the legalization of alcohol as well, and look at how much that is used heavily.

You are right and I would argue alcohol exactly the same. If it was up to me it would be illegal as well. Alcohol is infinitely more worse than marijuana or any other psychoactive drug imo. More people die from it than any other drug, legal or not.

 

[Deleted member]

Coming from holland where weed already is legal (ok technically it isn't since there are some rules regarding having it in stock and actually growing weed plants), I can say that there really is no reason not to legalise them.

-there are a lot of so called drug-tourists, which is basically the group of people that would just like to try it once or twice (generally coming from England, Germany and the US), and this is a very profitable market.
*it most be noted that this market will of course shrink if other countries legalise it as well.
-You can't overdose on weed. this makes it arguably safer than alcohol. It also is completely out of your system in less than a couple hours. It is quite dangerous to mix it with alcohol but so is alcohol in general.
-when you legalise it you will have administration and such of the usage and quality. When you are able to buy weed at a licensed store you know you won't get bad quality stuff and the goverment will be able to shut down stores that would break rules about it.

In short, weed legalisation wouldn't have a bad effect on the economy, and it will make using it safer (though the health risks are already low).

 

[Lore]

Last time I checked it wasn't illegal to prepare burgers. It might be illegal to prepare pot burgers however. The difference is that you must put money into buying the meat for those burgers. Growing your own "product" would be self sustaining, you could keep growing it over and over again, and sell it tax free.

Ok then, I'll just replace that with tomatoes, onions, or carrots. Or better, what if I made it from a deer that I personally killed (deer burgers are great, btw)?

The point was that most (mostly consummable products) products can be produced beyond the government's control, but it isn't competition to people who sell the product in stores.

Why make it when you can get it at Wal-Mart faster?

You are right and I would argue alcohol exactly the same. If it was up to me it would be illegal as well. Alcohol is infinitely more worse than marijuana or any other psychoactive drug imo. More people die from it than any other drug, legal or not.

True.

Alcohol is more dangerous, but it is generally accepted more than weed. The point was that if alcohol has the same (and worse) side effects and is legal, why isn't weed legal?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Circumventing tax revenue by making it yourself is a little bit of a silly argument IMO. If you are willing to put in the time and energy to grow weed for yourself, then fine. If you go selling it to your friends and neighbors, sooner or later someone's gonna catch wind. It won't break the system.

What could (and will with insufficient regulation) break the system is the "cigarettization" of drugs like pot or LSD-package it together with a bunch of addictive additives and you have a real problem on your hands. I mean, in my (10th-grade) class we already have around half the class that absolutely has to go out during each recess and smoke or they're tense and uptight the next few periods. That's the effect cigarettes have on them. Now throw weed into that mix and you are SERIOUSLY ****ed. Easily prevented through good regulation, but still...

Also, that portugal example appears quite interesting. It clearly can work, and it brings me back to the key point of this whole argument-how much should the government protect us from ourselves? I think they should only do so to the extent that is truly necessary to keep society intact. If it's reasonably expected that society would work without a law that is only to protect the human from himself, not from his neighbors or otherwise, then it should not exist.

 

[Cyn]

Ok then, I'll just replace that with tomatoes, onions, or carrots. Or better, what if I made it from a deer that I personally killed (deer burgers are great, btw)?

The point was that most (mostly consummable products) products can be produced beyond the government's control, but it isn't competition to people who sell the product in stores.

Why make it when you can get it at Wal-Mart faster?

Cost difference, major cost difference, and as I said a person could sell it cheaper and make a huge profit. Why go to wal-mart when I can buy it from someone next door and it be better quality? It would be too hard to regulate. And deer meat is delicious.

Alcohol is more dangerous, but it is generally accepted more than weed. The point was that if alcohol has the same (and worse) side effects and is legal, why isn't weed legal?

That's a good question. It's harder to spot someone high compared to a drunkard I suppose, and as I stated above weed is harder to regulate. It's easy to hide a grow room, or an outside crop compared to a distillery. Where I used to live, pot growers (I'm talking about home operations) would have million dollar years. A home distillery couldn't compare to that. In order to have a million dollar year with a distillery larger equipment and a lot of room is needed. It would get noticed. Pot on the other hand is easier to hide. That is what the government doesn't like. Uncle Sam likes to get his "fair" piece of the pie.

 

[Deleted member]

You need a license to commercially sell alcohol (at least here you do), the same would apply to pot and the likes.

It's harder to spot someone high compared to a drunkard I suppose

That differs from person to person, much like alcohol.

I would also like to note that growing weed crops in the Netherlands is illegal (that's part of the strange ruling we currently have), and people that do get caught, a lot.

 

[Cyn]

I would also like to note that growing weed crops in the Netherlands is illegal (that's part of the strange ruling we currently have), and people that do get caught, a lot.

There are a lot that get caught where I used to live. A LOT. But there were many many more that didn't. I knew people that quit jobs because they didn't come close to making what they could with an organized grow.

 

[Deleted member]

But if it was to be legalised, they will face a heavy price drop and not to mention massive concurrence. there more than likely will be companies like the large beer and tobacco brands.

 

[Cyn]

But if it was to be legalised, they will face a heavy price drop and not to mention massive concurrence. there more than likely will be companies like the large beer and tobacco brands.

It is likely that taxes on marijuana would exceed the high taxes imposed on cigarettes in order to generate revenue and to discourage its use.

In Arizona should pot be legalized (for medical), there will be a $20 luxury tax tacked onto it.

A bill by San Francisco representative Tom Ammiano, would legalise the cultivation, possession and sale of marijuana by people 21 and older. It would charge growers and wholesalers a $5,000 initial franchise fee and a $2,500 annual renewal fee, and would levy a $50 per ounce fee on retailers. These fees are enough to make anyone want to grow illegally. If it is legal to possess marijuana then the illegal growers will be able to sell it for cheaper since there won't be the risk in carrying it around anymore.

 

[Deleted member]

By estimation, how much would a gram of legal weed cost?

The point is that even though there are (high) taxes tucked on it, A large company would be able to sell for very low prices.

 

[Cyn]

By estimation, how much would a gram of legal weed cost?

The point is that even though there are (high) taxes tucked on it, A large company would be able to sell for very low prices.

I don't know what it goes for anymore, and that has always been dependant on the grade of the stuff. A large company could easily sell it at a low cost sure, but my point is any mom and pop start up could match price or better and provide higher quality product while still making a profit.

 

[Deleted member]

I don't know what it goes for anymore, and that has always been dependant on the grade of the stuff. A large company could easily sell it at a low cost sure, but my point is any mom and pop start up could match price or better and provide higher quality product while still making a profit.

I really doubt the underlined part will work that way.

and if every random person would be able to do this AND will do so, market price will plummet even further, to a point where it isn't profitable anymore if you're not the big organisation.

A nice example would be the (probably unknown over there) airline Transavia. It was (and is) a sub company of KLM-Air France (biggest airline in Europe), as a cheap alternative to their regular flights. because they were able to put their prices at a point where they weren't very profitable for them, they essentially pushed every other cheap airline minus Ryanair out of business.

 

[Cyn]

I really doubt the underlined part will work that way.

And why not? All that is involved is mixing different strains to get the result you want. Futhermore, start up, once started is the most expensive part of the process. After that it can be grown relatively cheap. Also, what's to stop someone from growing for themselves? Once they get started all they need is one plant or seed. One seed can keep them growing for a life time. One plant, plus rooting hormone can multiply one's crop 100 fold. If you already have 10 plants plus a rooting hormone, well I trust you can do the math. What I'm tring to say is why buy it when you can just put a plant in your house or outside and never have to buy it again? It's to risky a business for any company to get into.

As for your example with the airline, it doesn't really apply since not everyone can buy their own plane to travel, but anyone can buy a few plants and forget about them in the yard.

I hope I'm not coming off as stubborn on the point but being an ex pothead, I've thought long on this issue and I think it's better off staying an illegal drug (except for cancer, glaucoma, and other medical patients who benefit from its effects).

What I'd really like to see happen is have marijuana downgraded from a schedule 1 narcotic to something less severe. That would cut down on jailing costs and make money on fines.

 

[Deleted member]

All that is involved is mixing different strains to get the result you want.

Then why would the big company not do this?

It's to risky a business for any company to get into.

what exactly is?

 

[Cyn]

Then why would the big company not do this?

Aha, you are bringing me back to my original point. To do this would require a lot of additional hands, and that would drive the price up. Actually, even with seed started plants it would require many hands. When plants are grown from seeds they need to be what is termed "sexed". This means that all the plants would need to be visually inspected before pollination or all the female plants would start to produce seeds which are unsmokable (they taste gross) and would produce lower quality product. That would require a lot of visual inspection. All of this equals money, which would have to be passed on to the consumer.

Another problem they could also unwillingly create is provide consumers with seeds accidentally giving them the means to grow on their own and lose said customer.

If all this didn't matter. Marijuana is a lot more potent fresh. People would want fresh product opposed to dried product like tobacco that can tend to sit on the shelf for a long period of time.

 

[Lore]

That's a good question. It's harder to spot someone high compared to a drunkard I suppose, and as I stated above weed is harder to regulate. It's easy to hide a grow room, or an outside crop compared to a distillery. Where I used to live, pot growers (I'm talking about home operations) would have million dollar years. A home distillery couldn't compare to that. In order to have a million dollar year with a distillery larger equipment and a lot of room is needed. It would get noticed. Pot on the other hand is easier to hide. That is what the government doesn't like. Uncle Sam likes to get his "fair" piece of the pie.

Vi Veri covered this with the "Big corporations will grow it" argument.

It is likely that taxes on marijuana would exceed the high taxes imposed on cigarettes in order to generate revenue and to discourage its use.

In Arizona should pot be legalized (for medical), there will be a $20 luxury tax tacked onto it.

A bill by San Francisco representative Tom Ammiano, would legalise the cultivation, possession and sale of marijuana by people 21 and older. It would charge growers and wholesalers a $5,000 initial franchise fee and a $2,500 annual renewal fee, and would levy a $50 per ounce fee on retailers. These fees are enough to make anyone want to grow illegally. If it is legal to possess marijuana then the illegal growers will be able to sell it for cheaper since there won't be the risk in carrying it around anymore.

Arizona is an individual state and not an example of what the entire nation would do.

That is a proposed bill. Proposed bills aren't even really considered yet, and when they are considered, they usually change a lot.

Aha, you are bringing me back to my original point. To do this would require a lot of additional hands, and that would drive the price up. Actually, even with seed started plants it would require many hands. When plants are grown from seeds they need to be what is termed "sexed". This means that all the plants would need to be visually inspected before pollination or all the female plants would start to produce seeds which are unsmokable (they taste gross) and would produce lower quality product. That would require a lot of visual inspection. All of this equals money, which would have to be passed on to the consumer.

Another problem they could also unwillingly create is provide consumers with seeds accidentally giving them the means to grow on their own and lose said customer.

If all this didn't matter. Marijuana is a lot more potent fresh. People would want fresh product opposed to dried product like tobacco that can tend to sit on the shelf for a long period of time.

Large corporations can probably afford this. It sounds a lot like normal product inspection that happens in any factory.

That may happen to a few people, but the majority won't start growing their own stuff the instant they see a seed.

Expiration dates, etc etc. Besides that, not everyone will care how old the weed is.

 

[Cyn]

Large corporations can probably afford this. It sounds a lot like normal product inspection that happens in any factory.

That may happen to a few people, but the majority won't start growing their own stuff the instant they see a seed.

Expiration dates, etc etc. Besides that, not everyone will care how old the weed is.

Of course they will be able to afford it, my point was it will take many people to inspect it and that will drive up the costs. It will cost the same if not more than illegal pot.

Besides, it isn't as easy to grow as tobacco. Tobacco for the most part is a natural pest repellant and can be grown in just about any climate. You smoke the leaves of the tobacco plant which makes about the whole plant smokable. When smoking marijuana, Only the flower is the smokable part. If it gets too wet from dew, the flower will mold making it unsmokable. Deer feed on it, rats feed on it, mites feed on it. It is a fickle plant that only grows well in certain climates. It would take alot of care and a lot of oversight for the amount of product that would be needed to supply the whole of the U.S.

Medical costs are just as expensive as street costs in California. I was just doing some reasearch and I found that medical costs are the same, if not a bit more by weight in California right now.

We are also neglecting the fact that if it were to be made legal, a lot of underage kids would have easy (easier) access to it via parents or 18 year olds at school. Overall its just a bad idea. A childs brain is still developing, and if he or she smokes pot when they are like 12 it will hinder their ability to learn.

Like I proposed. Why not downgrade it from schedule 1 narcotic, to just a fineable offense?

 

[Lore]

Of course they will be able to afford it, my point was it will take many people to inspect it and that will drive up the costs. It will cost the same if not more than illegal pot.

Besides, it isn't as easy to grow as tobacco. Tobacco for the most part is a natural pest repellant and can be grown in just about any climate. You smoke the leaves of the tobacco plant which makes about the whole plant smokable. When smoking marijuana, Only the flower is the smokable part. If it gets too wet from dew, the flower will mold making it unsmokable. Deer feed on it, rats feed on it, mites feed on it. It is a fickle plant that only grows well in certain climates. It would take alot of care and a lot of oversight for the amount of product that would be needed to supply the whole of the U.S.

Most edible plants are only growable in certain climates anyway, and farmers have to regularly spray pesticides to keep things from eating them.

Who says that they have to supply the whole US? Plantations around here (Georgia, btw) only supply places around the state, and some of them are owned by large corporations, which allows them to sell their product easier and have larger plantations.

Medical costs are just as expensive as street costs in California. I was just doing some reasearch and I found that medical costs are the same, if not a bit more by weight in California right now.

Source?

We are also neglecting the fact that if it were to be made legal, a lot of underage kids would have easy (easier) access to it via parents or 18 year olds at school. Overall its just a bad idea. A childs brain is still developing, and if he or she smokes pot when they are like 12 it will hinder their ability to learn.

Anyone who wants marijuana can easily get it now; why not try to regulate the trade of it and make it safer? I know several dealers who mix other stuff into the weed to make it more "potent," and that's definitely more dangerous than legal weed would be.

Like I proposed. Why not downgrade it from schedule 1 narcotic, to just a fineable offense?

Why WOULD you downgrade it? The only thing that you've done is give reasons for not legalizing it.

 

[Cyn]

Most edible plants are only growable in certain climates anyway, and farmers have to regularly spray pesticides to keep things from eating them.

Smoking pesitcides can be harmful, and you can't wash marijuana of pesticides like you can with vegitables and other edible product.

Who says that they have to supply the whole US? Plantations around here (Georgia, btw) only supply places around the state, and some of them are owned by large corporations, which allows them to sell their product easier and have larger plantations.

They don't. But either way, that would be a huge undertaking that would require a lot of man power and oversite.

Source?

Taken from the Wall Street Journal website, medical marijuana in california goes for $10-$25 a gram. A pound in the street in california goes anywhere from 3000-6000 dollars on the street which breaks down to 10-15 dollars a gram on the street.

Anyone who wants marijuana can easily get it now; why not try to regulate the trade of it and make it safer? I know several dealers who mix other stuff into the weed to make it more "potent," and that's definitely more dangerous than legal weed would be.

I've never known any dealers to do that. But I am aware that it happens. But why make it even easier to find? When I was 12 years old I wouldn't have had any idea where to find it. Its much harder to ask a stranger for that type of thing compared to stealing it from mom or dad. Sidenote: If they needed to add stuff to make it more potent then it must have been terrible stuff.

Why WOULD you downgrade it? The only thing that you've done is give reasons for not legalizing it.

I'd downgrade it because it isn't as dangerous as the other drugs on schedule 1. Scedule 1 includes: MDA or the love drug, MDMA or ectasy, PCP, Methamphetamines, heroine, morphine, LSD, Mescaline (peyote), and many others. Marijuana is definitely not as dangerous as ANY of these drugs. If anything it SHOULD be a schedule III or IV drug where painkillers like hydrocodone and xanax are listed. Here is the drug schedule if interested: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

 

[Deleted member]

Let me get this straight,
you want to put weed in a category where it is basically legal to buy or very close to it, only keeping the crop growth illegal, while people will grow it illegally anyway.

This would result in an increase in growth, while the is no registration of the growth.

I really don't see the benefit over making it legal.

 

[Cyn]

Let me get this straight,
you want to put weed in a category where it is basically legal to buy or very close to it, only keeping the crop growth illegal, while people will grow it illegally anyway.

This would result in an increase in growth, while the is no registration of the growth.

I really don't see the benefit over making it legal.

You misunderstand me, I want to put it in a category where it would be legal to prescribe it to patients that have a real need for it versus legalizing it for recreational use. Lets face it, it does have medical properties, there shouldn't be a taboo associated with prescribing it for people who need it. It's obvious it isn't as dangerous as the other drugs mentioned nor as physically addictive.