Prince of Pot extradited

wyly · May 26, 2010

So do you think it should be legal or illegal.

legal

wyly · May 26, 2010

If you start with 100 places and then have 80 go under, it's not surprising that the 20 that are left can be busier than before.

My point? Your one local pub is not an entire industry. Neither is one nightclub frequented by your kids.

well that didn't happen, I don't know of any bars that went under because of the ban, all the pubs that I know of my part of the city before the ban are still here...and my kids have that at all the clubs they frequent...no different than in my day when smoking was allowed...our local "Red Mile" if anything has more clubs and pubs than before the ban...

Tell it to the former manager of Lulu's, a club that boasted the biggest bar in the world! It was in the Kitchener/Waterloo region and used to have VERY big name acts and was a very active bar for years. The K/W area was one of the first targets of the anti-tobacco movement. Lulu's was one of the first casualties. The owner made no secret that the anti-smoking laws made it impossible for him to attract enough customers to make a profit. That was when I first heard the claim that eliminating smoking would INCREASE business!
Incidently, there is still no equivalent to Lulu's in business today. Clubs are far smaller, trying to get by with drinking, a bit of dancing, some pool tables and moving a lot of pub food. This is a much smaller venue than before. We used to see several hundred people in dance clubs. Now we are lucky to find a place that can hold 40-50 and its rarely full. That level of patronage can't possibly sell enough beer to pay for a decent band.

I know of clubs where that happened before the ban...trends change, clubs lose popularity and if the kids decide a new club is the place to go the other will close regardless of how popular it was...I've saw it happen many times in my day and it wasn't because of smoking, clubs need to stay current or they die...

very few clubs can afford decent live entertainment anymore that's gone to casino's the trend away from live muscic started 40 years ago decades before the smoking bans, smoking had little to do with it, live music started to disappear with recorded music and DJ's, recorded music was far cheaper and consistently better, a crappy band would clearout any club for the duration of their stay...the 70's went from smoke filled clubs with live entertaiment to smoke filled clubs with recorded music and glitter balls...no one I knew ever went to a cafe, pub or nightclub to smoke, we went to eat, drink, dance and socialize...and that hasn't changed...

then there is the demograhic change, smoking has declined substantially among young Canadians 82% of young Canadians have never smoked they don't care about any ban they go to the cafe's pubs and clubs for the same reason the older generations did, eat drink, dance and socialize...and an older generation that smoked has stopped going to clubs...

Usually, the ones who claim it didn't hurt financially have had little or no long term experience with clubs and music so they were and are pulling stats out of their butts! This is the part that rattled their credibility with me. What else might they lie about? Obviously, the anti-smoking movement is largely madeup of people who believe that "the ends justify the means". On any issue, such people have always frightened me!

I think you're using stats to meet your POV without looking at the bigger picture and long term trends....

smoking in Canada has declined from 1966 when 41% of Canadians smoked to 21% in 2002

Edited May 26, 2010 by wyly

bush_cheney2004 · May 26, 2010

Yeah, I'm sure that the price will crash on Nov 2 globally, should they actually go ahead with legalization.

Even if they don't go ahead with it - there will be a glut of California weed that the farmers will technically have to destroy (to adhere to the law) but as always, it never happens (like farmers that get govt cheques for crops they attempt to grow)

That $2.5 Billion guessestimate does factor in a 3x drop in price.

The $2.5 billion guess is not credible....look at current sin tax revenue levels in California:

http://2007-08.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/REV/26640038.html

ZenOps · May 26, 2010

The $2.5 billion guess is not credible....look at current sin tax revenue levels in California:

http://2007-08.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/REV/26640038.html

That does sound about right.

http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/cashcrops.html

Assuming that Marijuana is 25x the average cash crop of tobacco (not counting street price of course). Its pretty much spot on how I got $2.5 Billion.

Wild Bill · May 26, 2010

well that didn't happen, I don't know of any bars that went under because of the ban, all the pubs that I know of my part of the city before the ban are still here...and my kids have that at all the clubs they frequent...no different than in my day when smoking was allowed...our local "Red Mile" if anything has more clubs and pubs than before the ban...

I know of clubs where that happened before the ban...trends change, clubs lose popularity and if the kids decide a new club is the place to go the other will close regardless of how popular it was...I've saw it happen many times in my day and it wasn't because of smoking, clubs need to stay current or they die...

very few clubs can afford decent live entertainment anymore that's gone to casino's the trend away from live muscic started 40 years ago decades before the smoking bans, smoking had little to do with it, live music started to disappear with recorded music and DJ's, recorded music was far cheaper and consistently better, a crappy band would clearout any club for the duration of their stay...the 70's went from smoke filled clubs with live entertaiment to smoke filled clubs with recorded music and glitter balls...no one I knew ever went to a cafe, pub or nightclub to smoke, we went to eat, drink, dance and socialize...and that hasn't changed...

then there is the demograhic change, smoking has declined substantially among young Canadians 82% of young Canadians have never smoked they don't care about any ban they go to the cafe's pubs and clubs for the same reason the older generations did, eat drink, dance and socialize...and an older generation that smoked has stopped going to clubs...

I think you're using stats to meet your POV without looking at the bigger picture and long term trends....

smoking in Canada has declined from 1966 when 41% of Canadians smoked to 21% in 2002

Well, I'm not looking at stats, I will admit. My business is building and servicing equipment like guitar amps for the entertainment industry. I have hundreds of musician customers and see at least 3-4 of them every day.

Perhaps your town is different but your comments are 100% at variance with what my customers tell me and what I've seen for myself around town. We didn't see the rise of DJs 'cuz they provided better music. Rather, as the industry got poorer some venues went to DJs, 'cuz they were cheaper! A good live band was always a better show. Anybody's kid brother could spin a record! No talent involved there.

We still have a lot of live music here in Hamilton. It's just that the musicians don't get paid very well for it! A typical rate for one night is $200. That's for a single act or a 6 piece band. Once you split the take it's far less than minimum wage. The musicians are doing it for love, exposure or in the case of the older players, inertia!

The better money is in concert venues, corporate gigs and ocean cruises. It's just that the entry path formerly offered by playing clubs has been mostly closed off.

Oh well, things keep sliding down. The centre cannot hold. One generation fought to keep us free and then put men on the Moon. Now, we have hiphop and reality TV shows.

We really, really need a "B" Ark!

bush_cheney2004 · May 26, 2010

That does sound about right.

http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/cashcrops.html

Assuming that Marijuana is 25x the average cash crop of tobacco (not counting street price of course). Its pretty much spot on how I got $2.5 Billion.

Are you assuming the same sales volume as tobacco? Same distribution channels? Same (now limited) advertising?

Let's ask the dopers....how many packs of joints would you smoke per day? Every day? Every week? Every month?

Wild Bill · May 26, 2010

Are you assuming the same sales volume as tobacco? Same distribution channels? Same (now limited) advertising?

Let's ask the dopers....how many packs of joints would you smoke per day? Every day? Every week? Every month?

Well, I haven't partaken in decades so I'm not sure if I'd bother getting back into the habit but I suppose I might do 3-4 joints over a weekend. I really can't imagine doing any more than that. In fact, given that today's product is supposed to be stronger I might actually do less!

bush_cheney2004 · May 26, 2010

Well, I haven't partaken in decades so I'm not sure if I'd bother getting back into the habit but I suppose I might do 3-4 joints over a weekend. I really can't imagine doing any more than that. In fact, given that today's product is supposed to be stronger I might actually do less!

Right...that's what I would expect as well. I can't see anything like a two-pack-a-day habit for smoking marijuana. The comparison is not valid. Tobacco smokers are far more addicted and religious about their daily nicotine rituals.

maple_leafs182 · May 26, 2010

Are you assuming the same sales volume as tobacco? Same distribution channels? Same (now limited) advertising?

Let's ask the dopers....how many packs of joints would you smoke per day? Every day? Every week? Every month?

If dope was legal I would hope I could buy it in bulk and not have to stick to buying joints, I don't smoke joints very often.

I would probably smoke 4 joints a day, I know people who would smoke 10 or more a day.

We should legalize it because keeping it illegal does more harm to society then good, we shouldn't be legalizing it because we can make a few bucks.

Edited May 26, 2010 by maple_leafs182

ZenOps · May 26, 2010

Are you assuming the same sales volume as tobacco? Same distribution channels? Same (now limited) advertising?

Let's ask the dopers....how many packs of joints would you smoke per day? Every day? Every week? Every month?

Volume, no of course not. It doesn't take much to get high on the marijuana they grow nowadays. I still think that most consumers are weekend potheads.

I'm going by agricultural numbers, which are actually very low compared to street price.

Found a more reputable number than my own: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BH0NK20091218

"The state tax board found that California could collect $1.4 billion a year in taxes from a legalization bill proposed by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat."

"2006 Harvard University study that valued California's annual marijuana crop of an estimated 8.6 million pounds (3.9 million kg) at $13.8 billion a year."

bush_cheney2004 · May 27, 2010

Volume, no of course not. It doesn't take much to get high on the marijuana they grow nowadays. I still think that most consumers are weekend potheads.

That means far fewer sales than with tobacco.

I'm going by agricultural numbers, which are actually very low compared to street price.

Street prices will plummet...already have.

Found a more reputable number than my own: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BH0NK20091218

"The state tax board found that California could collect $1.4 billion a year in taxes from a legalization bill proposed by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat."

Well at least you're going in the right direction...your ealier estimate was sky "high".

Edited May 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004 · May 27, 2010

bump

Edited May 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

ZenOps · May 27, 2010

It was a *little* bit high as an estimate.

There is always a chance that with legalization there will come broad acceptance, and marijuana is difficult to overdose on (unlike some other drugs)

For the people who aren't potheads you might enjoy Foamy the Squirrels viewpoint:

maple_leafs182 · May 27, 2010

It was a *little* bit high as an estimate.

There is always a chance that with legalization there will come broad acceptance, and marijuana is difficult to overdose on (unlike some other drugs)

You can't OD on pot, nobody in history has OD'd from pot.

Volume, no of course not. It doesn't take much to get high on the marijuana they grow nowadays. I still think that most consumers are weekend potheads.

I know many people who get high on a daily bases.

Sir Bandelot · May 27, 2010

Better that a bllion goes to government than 20 billion goes to organized crime.

Plus the expemse of fighting the drug war decreases. The money used for police and courts can be invested elsewhere, to fight more serious crimes instead of locking up benign pot smokers.

But it will never happen, as long as the prison-military-industrial complex is so deeply ingrained into the economic machinery, that is AmeriKKKa...

Army Guy · May 27, 2010

Plus the expemse of fighting the drug war decreases. The money used for police and courts can be invested elsewhere, to fight more serious crimes instead of locking up benign pot smokers.

How does it decrease the expense of the drug war ? Lets just say tommorow the government decides to make pot legal...do you think that is going to be it...Government regulation is in every product we produce, like tobaco ,booze, you name it...So once it is regulated, who enforces these regulations....who pays them, looks like those ex cops just got a new lease on life and your savings just went out the window....

GostHacked · May 27, 2010

How does it decrease the expense of the drug war ? Lets just say tommorow the government decides to make pot legal...do you think that is going to be it...Government regulation is in every product we produce, like tobaco ,booze, you name it...So once it is regulated, who enforces these regulations....who pays them, looks like those ex cops just got a new lease on life and your savings just went out the window....

Right now, no taxes are collected from pot, so it does not pay for anything and all the money goes to criminal entities.

In my view, the taxes put on pot would most likely be enough to pay for all those services. Same way the taxes on booze and smokes pays for the regulation of said products.

Pot regulation and taxes would at least put money back into the system.

Army Guy · May 27, 2010

Right now, no taxes are collected from pot, so it does not pay for anything and all the money goes to criminal entities.

Even with pot being declared legal, criminal elements will still be making a profit from non regulated pot...just like they do with smokes and booze, they will adapt just like they did when booze became legal...

In my view, the taxes put on pot would most likely be enough to pay for all those services. Same way the taxes on booze and smokes pays for the regulation of said products.

But regulation is only one of the problems we face once pot is declared legal...i assume there will be major companies that will be able to grow pot, for public consumption, god knows what it's quality or potentancy will be, consumer demand will deticate it i guess, if the government agrees to meet these demands if not it will spawn a illigal pot industry once again....once the jar is opened it can't be closed...

DO you guys really think letting the government in on the pot industry is a good idea....at first i see things going well, prices dropping, availability good....but like anything the govenment gets it's hands on and big bussiness i see prices quickly shooting up to what every consumers are willing to pay...

i see the only benifit in the long term is you won't get a record for having it....

those taxes collected on smokes and booze still do not pay for the expenses occured in say the medical field treating all the illiness generated from usage....

DO we grow our own here in Canada, or do we import it from whom criminals....what do we do with surpluses export it to whom....what about shortages here do we import to satisfy our demand....

Smallc · May 27, 2010

Even with pot being declared legal, criminal elements will still be making a profit from non regulated pot...just like they do with smokes and booze, they will adapt just like they did when booze became legal...

So then we should reintroduce prohibition....good idea.

maple_leafs182 · May 28, 2010

Even with pot being declared legal, criminal elements will still be making a profit from non regulated pot...just like they do with smokes and booze, they will adapt just like they did when booze became legal...

The wouldn't be able to operate on the scale they do now.

But regulation is only one of the problems we face once pot is declared legal...i assume there will be major companies that will be able to grow pot, for public consumption, god knows what it's quality or potentancy will be, consumer demand will deticate it i guess, if the government agrees to meet these demands if not it will spawn a illigal pot industry once again....once the jar is opened it can't be closed...

DO you guys really think letting the government in on the pot industry is a good idea....at first i see things going well, prices dropping, availability good....but like anything the govenment gets it's hands on and big bussiness i see prices quickly shooting up to what every consumers are willing to pay...

i see the only benifit in the long term is you won't get a record for having it....

those taxes collected on smokes and booze still do not pay for the expenses occured in say the medical field treating all the illiness generated from usage....

DO we grow our own here in Canada, or do we import it from whom criminals....what do we do with surpluses export it to whom....what about shortages here do we import to satisfy our demand....

Truthfully I don't want the government involved. I don't think marijuana should be taxed besides sales tax.

eyeball · May 28, 2010

So then we should reintroduce prohibition....good idea.

The concept of consistency might be a good idea.

I still recall Dad lecturing me on the evils of dope with a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

I guess he didn't get it either.

Army Guy · May 28, 2010

So then we should reintroduce prohibition....good idea.

Not my words but yours. My piont was that the Criminal elements will always find away around the laws to make a profit.

Wild Bill · May 28, 2010

Not my words but yours. My piont was that the Criminal elements will always find away around the laws to make a profit.

Step back a bit and look again, AG! Of course criminal elements will always find a piece of everything for themselves. The question is, will they be participating to the same extent they are now?

After Prohibition ended we still saw and see crime with booze. However, the levels involved are vastly different! Today we have some illegal booze coming through the border reserves to escape the duties. That's a far cry from Prohibition levels.

If the taxation is not too onerous people tend to buy through legal channels. It's only when taxes make the difference in legal and illegal pricing so ridiculously high that contraband flourishes.

Back in the early 90's when Quebec, Ontario and the Feds cut the price of a carton of cigs down to $25 from over $50, to match the contraband price, the smuggling problem shrunk to a pittance overnight! I vividly remember those days. I was an "outside salesman" and once a week my route took me through the Six Nations Reserve. There must of been a hundred kiosks selling smokes along that stretch of rural highway. I would buy at least two dozen cartons, for family and work mates. I didn't smoke myself. I also never charged a dime in profit. I just was so offended by government hypocrisy that I enjoyed the chance to thumb my nose at politicians in general.

I went along the same route the week the taxes were reduced and already most of the smoke huts were gone! I always wondered why so quickly. Why the rush? Then I realized that they all likely were just leasing their small spot of land so it made sense that they'd not want to pay any unnecessary rent.

Anyhow, I'm just pointing out that there is rarely an absolutist solution but that doesn't meant we shouldn't do anything!

GostHacked · May 28, 2010

Not my words but yours. My piont was that the Criminal elements will always find away around the laws to make a profit.

You are always going to find people doing what they can to get around the law no matter what the 'business' is. But with making it legal, you seriously marginalize the current criminal element and generate some government income with taxes.

Smallc · May 28, 2010

Not my words but yours. My piont was that the Criminal elements will always find away around the laws to make a profit.

I was being sarcastic. You have to admit that alcohol and tobacco do not make organized crime the kind of money they would make if they were illegal. The same is true for marijuana, but in the opposite directions.