6 month madaTORY for 1 plant

[Wild Bill]

Per capita use in Amsterdam and San Francisco can not be directly compared. Different cultures, different norms and different historical usage. One study does not end the matter.

Did booze consumption go up when prohibition ended? Human nature being what it is, what makes you think pot use won't go up. It'll also get cheaper. Any first year economics student can tell you what that will do to demand.

And any first year economics student should be able to tell YOU the difference between price and profit!

Yes, the resale price will plummet. That's a good reason for the criminal element to bail out! Did the criminals rejoice when Prohibition ended? Did the bootleggers continue to be millionaires?

Growing pot is so simple that almost anyone can do it. Tobacco farmers could do it in bulk quantities. The guys who set up grow ops are the guys who would not bother. Right now the profit margin is HUGE! If pot was legal the profit margin would be only a pittance of what it is now.

Criminals love scenarios where something in high demand can be procured cheaply and sold for a high profit margin. This is not the same at all as a high resale price! That's why they bootlegged booze and later pot and other drugs. They love to be involved in prostitution, for the same reasons. On a smaller scale, they love operations like coin vending machines, illegal betting and car washes. Lots of money running through but very difficult to accurately audit. Makes for an easy way to launder money.

If you were right in your arguments Al Capone would have stayed in power.

[sharkman]

Bill,

Regarding bootleggers, the Kennedys seemed to make out all right.

Production going up would offset a smaller margin. Again, a criminal element is not going to simply fold their tents when the market expands due to more demand. It could well lead to increased gang turf wars.

You have no idea what the new going rate would be on the street, and neither do I, other than saying it would go down. Watering down the product has been done before, no doubt it would increase profits. There are already hemp stores in Vancouver, no doubt gangs would open more and sell all kinds of products, making a killing.

Edited April 30, 2010 by sharkman

[sharkman]

The two situations aren't even faintly related...because alcohol was legal before it was illegal. It was perfectly common and part of the cultural habit.

A proper analogy would be to think of a substance that was always (or at least for generations) illegal..and then became legal.

Are the citizens of Amsterdam not human?

It's not that complicated. When a product is restricted it's consumption is less than when a product is freely distributed.

Are you really going to say that Amsterdam's citizens are the same as Americans?

[bloodyminded]

Are you really going to say that Amsterdam's citizens are the same as Americans?

Fundamentally they are, yes, of course. By the standard you raised, which was "human nature," they are virtually identical. Small cultural differences can't amount to much in such a paradigm as you've put forth.

Because your answer to me was "it's human nature." So why wouldn't it apply to the Dutch?

[sharkman]

Fundamentally they are, yes, of course. By the standard you raised, which was "human nature," they are virtually identical. Small cultural differences can't amount to much in such a paradigm as you've put forth.

Because your answer to me was "it's human nature." So why wouldn't it apply to the Dutch?

What makes you think it doesn't apply to the Dutch? Of course it does, but there are factors which make a European different from an American. I'm sure you know that Americans sometime pass themselves off as Canadians while traveling in Europe because of these differences.

It's also a known fact that Americans are more violent than other cultures, Canadians for instance. Murder and crime rates are much higher. So human nature is somewhat affected by cultural norms, among other things. Why else is human nature more violent in the US than here?

So if one were to compare the drug use do you actually think that usage in SanFran would not go up if it became legal? Your study seems to support my position. Per capita in the 2 cities is about the same. One is legal, one is not, so anyone can tell you that it will not remain the same if both become legal.

[bloodyminded]

What makes you think it doesn't apply to the Dutch? Of course it does, but there are factors which make a European different from an American. I'm sure you know that Americans sometime pass themselves off as Canadians while traveling in Europe because of these differences.

It's also a known fact that Americans are more violent than other cultures, Canadians for instance. Murder and crime rates are much higher. So human nature is somewhat affected by cultural norms, among other things. Why else is human nature more violent in the US than here?

So if one were to compare the drug use do you actually think that usage in SanFran would not go up if it became legal? Your study seems to support my position. Per capita in the 2 cities is about the same. One is legal, one is not, so anyone can tell you that it will not remain the same if both become legal.

A few points:

1. Most important to our discussion, I am not insisting that you're wrong about drug use. I'm really not. I'm only saying that I"m not sure you're right.

2. Is that "Americans passing themselves off as Canadians" bit really true? I've heard this, of course, but I"m not convinced it isn't just a little piece of smug Canadiana.

3. I think the idea that Americans are more violent is not really true. I know, evidence seems to suggest it, but it might be misleading. Their murder rate is high, yes...off the charts when it comes to wealthy, developed nations. But person for person, is there somehting about the American people that makes them more prone to violence? I find it difficult to swallow; I think it's something more complicated.

But as for crime rates in general--including non-fatal violent crime--my understanding is that Canada is about in the same boat on this. I could be wrong, I haven't looked into it; but I've heard this on more than one occasion. I've heard that our sex crime rate, for example, is quite high, but I don't know.

Edited April 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[segnosaur]

I've linked two....here's more...

The study conducted at the University of Melbourne took MRI pictures of the brains of 15 men who had smoked more than five joints daily for more than 10 years.

It found the parts of their brains that regulate memory and emotion, the hippocampus and the amygdala, were significantly smaller than those of non-users.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/04/2264668.htm

Which is sufficient I believe to curtail nonsense such as this...

Studies show that there is NO brain damage from smoking pot.

This is the exact reason why I find it impossible to take DrGreenthumb (actually a lot of people on the pro-pot side) seriously...

I think there are valid reasons for the decriminalization/legalization of marijuana, but many of the arguments put forward by supporters are based on falsehoods and idiotic statements. But when you have people like DrGreenthumb spouting such nonsense, it makes it impossible to engage in any sort of logical and reasonable debate.

Frankly, I think people like him are actually doing more harm to his position than good.

edited to add: Unfortunately, I don't think its really sufficient to curtail such nonsense. After all, I've pointed out similar facts to DrGreenthumb before. (Might even have pointed out similar studies showing brain damage after long term use, but I'd have to check to make sure). It hasn't stopped him from repeating the same sort of nonsense.

Edited April 30, 2010 by segnosaur

[Wild Bill]

Bill,

Regarding bootleggers, the Kennedys seemed to make out all right.

Production going up would offset a smaller margin. Again, a criminal element is not going to simply fold their tents when the market expands due to more demand. It could well lead to increased gang turf wars.

You have no idea what the new going rate would be on the street, and neither do I, other than saying it would go down. Watering down the product has been done before, no doubt it would increase profits. There are already hemp stores in Vancouver, no doubt gangs would open more and sell all kinds of products, making a killing.

The Kennedys went into another line of business - armaments! Though distasteful, it was legal. My point still stands. If there is little or no profit in drugs why on earth would crime remain in that area? Makes much more sense to find another area. If you see the end of Prohibition coming soon enough you can "switch your investments", as it were, into other areas. Anyone smart enough to become an organized, high level drug dealer in Miami, with literally hundreds of millions of dollars flowing through their fingers, could simply buy Baskin & Robbins and go legit! Why not? The Moonies of the Unification Church did, back in the 70's!

Or, they could find other areas of criminal activity that HAVE a high profit margin. Lord knows there are enough of them.

As for legalizing pot increasing consumption, that's only a worry if you believe it to be harmful AND you wish to tell your fellow man how to live his life. We've already established that I don't and you do! There's no point in arguing it further.

[sharkman]

Well maybe it's best i not arguing it further, because I will insist on telling my fellow man that certain things are bad for him. As long as the government is doing the same people will always be safer.

[Wild Bill]

Well maybe it's best i not arguing it further, because I will insist on telling my fellow man that certain things are bad for him. As long as the government is doing the same people will always be safer.

Tell him all you want. He can choose to listen, ignore you or punch you in the nose if you are too obnoxious about it.

Supporting a law to FORCE him is a rather different aspect of character!

[BubberMiley]

Well maybe it's best i not arguing it further,

I agere. Because given your track record on this topic, you just make yourself look foolish.

[DrGreenthumb]

This is the exact reason why I find it impossible to take DrGreenthumb (actually a lot of people on the pro-pot side) seriously...

I think there are valid reasons for the decriminalization/legalization of marijuana, but many of the arguments put forward by supporters are based on falsehoods and idiotic statements. But when you have people like DrGreenthumb spouting such nonsense, it makes it impossible to engage in any sort of logical and reasonable debate.

Frankly, I think people like him are actually doing more harm to his position than good.

edited to add: Unfortunately, I don't think its really sufficient to curtail such nonsense. After all, I've pointed out similar facts to DrGreenthumb before. (Might even have pointed out similar studies showing brain damage after long term use, but I'd have to check to make sure). It hasn't stopped him from repeating the same sort of nonsense.

http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.

"We were somewhat surprised by our finding, especially since there's been a controversy for some years on whether long-term cannabis use causes brain damage," says lead researcher and psychiatrist Igor Grant, MD.

"I suppose we expected to see some differences in people who were heavy users, but in fact the differences were very minimal."

The marijuana users in those 15 studies -- which lasted between three months to more than 13 years -- had smoked marijuana several times a week or month or daily. Still, researchers say impairments were less than what is typically found from using alcohol or other drugs.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain

You know I really shouldn't have to go and dig up these links all the time, they are gathered on several weblink pages and are only a quick google search away.

[maple_leafs182]

Because your answer to me was "it's human nature." So why wouldn't it apply to the Dutch?

Everyone knows that when you are talking about human nature you automatically exclude the Dutch.

There is less pot use in the Netherlands then in any of its neighboring countries.

There is no evidence that if pot was legal, use would increase.

Honestly, lets say use did go up, I fail to see that as a problem.

What is the reason we keep weed illegal, what is the argument for the anti-pot side.

Edit:

Legalization would see a flurry of gangs starting businesses(they already have legitimate businesses so they certainly have the know how). They would already have the grow-op infrastructure; buildings housing grow-ops, dealer network and people skilled in the various areas needed. You think that if they legalize pot the gangs would just go, "Oh well, it was good while it lasted!"? Come on. They would fight to keep that revenue stream, and probably fight dirty. And since it would be legal, of course consumption would go up creating more demand.

Gangs would lose a lot of revenue. If the government taxes it too high, which they probably will at first and people continue to buy off gangs, then they will have to lower the price. Taking the money out of the hands of the gangs is the only way to get rid of them. If they go legitimate, let them go legitimate.

We've had prohibition of drugs for how long? has it stopped use, no, has it stopped gang violence, no. What more do you need to know, continuing to do the same thing won't solve the problem, we need a new approach.

Edited May 2, 2010 by maple_leafs182