Prop. 19 in California goes down

[blueblood]

Legalizing weed would be a disaster. Removing the liquidity of the black market from the economy would bring it to a standstill. Applying taxes to the purchase of weed would bring a tremendous financial hardship to those who are already paying too much for an ounce. Making it just another legal drug would eliminate the coolness factor, and force teenagers who want to have an outlaw image among their peers to use drugs that are actually dangerous.

I agree pretty much spot on with that post. However, there would still be the black market from the taxes that would be levied as there is with cigarettes. However, bootleg cigarettes I don't think have made that big of an issue because cigarette smoking has been ostracized in North American society whereas pot smoking is still "cool". Had there have been sky high taxes on cigarettes in the 30's to the 70's, bootlegging cigarettes would have been a licence to print money. Pot I think is much easier to produce in volume than alcohol.

I think its better that the cops chase kids doing something thats won't kill them rather than chase them doing something that will. If pot gets legalized then what's next 70-80 yrs down the road?

[eyeball]

If pot gets legalized then what's next 70-80 yrs down the road?

The End of Days?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Legalizing weed would be a disaster. Removing the liquidity of the black market from the economy would bring it to a standstill. Applying taxes to the purchase of weed would bring a tremendous financial hardship to those who are already paying too much for an ounce. Making it just another legal drug would eliminate the coolness factor, and force teenagers who want to have an outlaw image among their peers to use drugs that are actually dangerous.

You mean like already legal alcohol? One of the single most dangerous drugs a person can get their hands on. If not the most dangerous.

This guy sums it up pretty good.

Holy. Moly. Well, you go ahead and enjoy that cocktail or refreshing can of Four Loko. I'll be over here doing something nice and safe like anabolic steroids. Or speed.

Oh and the price of weed if legal would probably go down since the cost of transportation would go down so much. People may also just start growing it themselves instead because it's so easy to do.

I think its better that the cops chase kids doing something thats won't kill them rather than chase them doing something that will. If pot gets legalized then what's next 70-80 yrs down the road?

This is just a slippery slope argument and a fallacy.

Edited November 11, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Wild Bill]

However, bootleg cigarettes I don't think have made that big of an issue because cigarette smoking has been ostracized in North American society whereas pot smoking is still "cool". Had there have been sky high taxes on cigarettes in the 30's to the 70's, bootlegging cigarettes would have been a licence to print money. Pot I think is much easier to produce in volume than alcohol.

Hello? Earth to Blueblood? Contraband cigarettes are "not that big an issue"?

Here in Ontario the official line is that about HALF of all cigarettes being sold are contraband from factories on native reserves, run by what amounts to organized crime!

By 'official' I mean the figure the government admits to. That means its probably even higher!

We're talking MILLIONS of dollars here! The lost revenue from the taxes is huge.

It reminds me of the last time cigarette smuggling was such a problem, in the early 90's. My wife and I used to go cross-border shopping into Niagara Falls, NY. I was a pipe smoker back then. I used to buy a 1 0z pouch of pipe tobacco for around $11 Cdn. Across the border, I would buy 12 oz packages for $10 U$! If you do the simple math that works out to $0.83 per oz U$. At the time our exchange rate was less than .70, so that would mean maybe $1.20 CDN.

$1.20 Canadian for an ounce of pipe tobacco that at home cost me $11! Giving the going rate for an ounce of weed at the time, it was more profitable to smuggle pipe tobacco than marijuana!

Madness, just madness.

[BubberMiley]

I think its better that the cops chase kids doing something thats won't kill them rather than chase them doing something that will. If pot gets legalized then what's next 70-80 yrs down the road?

Maybe they should make video games illegal then. By your logic, if Grand Theft Auto were contraband, kids would never steal cars.

[Pliny]

I hadn't thought about the emphasis on education being coupled with a lack of experience before. Thanks for the new meme! It's triggering a host of new ideas in my brain!

I'll be chewing on this one for a while!

Well, keep me up to date.

[blueblood]

Hello? Earth to Blueblood? Contraband cigarettes are "not that big an issue"?

Here in Ontario the official line is that about HALF of all cigarettes being sold are contraband from factories on native reserves, run by what amounts to organized crime!

By 'official' I mean the figure the government admits to. That means its probably even higher!

We're talking MILLIONS of dollars here! The lost revenue from the taxes is huge.

It reminds me of the last time cigarette smuggling was such a problem, in the early 90's. My wife and I used to go cross-border shopping into Niagara Falls, NY. I was a pipe smoker back then. I used to buy a 1 0z pouch of pipe tobacco for around $11 Cdn. Across the border, I would buy 12 oz packages for $10 U$! If you do the simple math that works out to $0.83 per oz U$. At the time our exchange rate was less than .70, so that would mean maybe $1.20 CDN.

$1.20 Canadian for an ounce of pipe tobacco that at home cost me $11! Giving the going rate for an ounce of weed at the time, it was more profitable to smuggle pipe tobacco than marijuana!

Madness, just madness.

Considering that the amount of people smoking these days to the amount of people smoking in the 30's to the 70's, that's not that big of a deal. Millions of dollars these days to the gov't is a rounding error.

Your argument is highlighting a potential problem with legalizing marijuana and taxing it, as what some activists are proposing. We have cigarettes (which use is on a huge decline) being heavily regulated and taxed and legal, and according to you there is a big problem with illegal cigarette manufacturing. Now just imagine if this is the 50's when everybody smoked. I don't think organized crime is going anywhere.

And then you have bubber's argument with the potential for escalation which IMO has happened with the advent of legalizing alcohol approx. 70 yrs. ago. Now we have a movement for pot legalization. I'll take the cat and mouse game over something that is "harmless" over the cat and mouse game of the next thing down the line. That and keeping it illegal does keep the number of users down, even though how miniscule it may seem - some people would prefer to obey the law than get high, not much but some.

[Smallc]

And even more people do it precisely because they want to 'stick it to the man', as it were. Also, by keeping pot illegal, we keep people in jail, out of treatment, and not productive.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'll take the cat and mouse game over something that is "harmless" over the cat and mouse game of the next thing down the line. That and keeping it illegal does keep the number of users down, even though how miniscule it may seem - some people would prefer to obey the law than get high, not much but some.

But the reality is, without the cat and mouse game, it's all inthe hands of criminals. By the same "toke-n", your logic says that people prefer to do whats legal. So they'll prefer to get their weed from legal sources.

In contrast, not too many get their booze from the black market. Judging by the lineups at the liquor store around here.

And one other thing. "harmless"? Tobacco is not even close to harmless. Marijuana is not as carcinogenic as cigarettes, if it is at all. And there is research to substantiate this.

[Guest TrueMetis]

And one other thing. "harmless"? Tobacco is not even close to harmless. Marijuana is not as carcinogenic as cigarettes, if it is at all. And there is research to substantiate this.

Some of which I posted in this thread.

[blueblood]

And even more people do it precisely because they want to 'stick it to the man', as it were. Also, by keeping pot illegal, we keep people in jail, out of treatment, and not productive.

If that were the case, then the numbers of people consuming alcohol would plummet. That doesn't appear to be the case. People consume pot because it's perceived as cool.

But the reality is, without the cat and mouse game, it's all inthe hands of criminals. By the same "toke-n", your logic says that people prefer to do whats legal. So they'll prefer to get their weed from legal sources.

In contrast, not too many get their booze from the black market. Judging by the lineups at the liquor store around here.

And one other thing. "harmless"? Tobacco is not even close to harmless. Marijuana is not as carcinogenic as cigarettes, if it is at all. And there is research to substantiate this.

They'll prefer to get their pot from legal sources if the price is right. And with cigarettes according to WIld Bill, on Ontario, bootleg smokes are a problem. So the argument of taxing and hyper regulating is a moot point.

Saying that there is line ups at the liquor store helps my case. Ideally, the situation is to get less people on mind altering substances on a regular basis as they are less productive in society than people who don't use them on a regular basis.

Booze is considerably more difficult and requires a ton of inputs. To make the amount of bootleg booze in comparable amounts to pot would be impossible because to produce booze on that kind of a scale without being caught would be impossible. Far easier to regulate booze than pot. We also see this comparison with booze and cigarettes.

And I didn't say tobacco wasn't harmless. Nor did I say pot was as dangerous as crack, alcohol, or cocaine.

[Wilber]

And I didn't say tobacco wasn't harmless. Nor did I say pot was as dangerous as crack, alcohol, or cocaine.

Seems it does make you stupid though

[felixjones100]

You missed my point.

we do not acknowledge your sham political system...

[bloodyminded]

If that were the case, then the numbers of people consuming alcohol would plummet. That doesn't appear to be the case. People consume pot because it's perceived as cool.

No, people consume pot because they enjoy its effects. Personally, I'm not crazy about it, and gave it up many years ago. But I absolutely guarantee that the overwhelming majority of smokers do it solely because they enjoy the high. It really is that simple.

[bloodyminded]

we do not acknowledge your sham political system...

Yes you do. You keep shouting about it.

[Sir Bandelot]

Saying that there is line ups at the liquor store helps my case.

It doesn't, really. It shows that people want to do this, for a variety of reasons we can get into. But main point is, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to stop it.

Ideally, the situation is to get less people on mind altering substances on a regular basis as they are less productive in society than people who don't use them on a regular basis.

Ok, so let's discuss the best ways to achieve that. My view is that a criminal record, something that a person carries around with them for the rest of their life, is more destructive than the drug problem in itself. In our society today these are essentially life sentences, despite being two-years-less-a-day.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[blueblood]

It doesn't, really. It shows that people want to do this, for a variety of reasons we can get into. But main point is, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to stop it.

That's what I'm saying as well. Legal booze consumers are high. My point is that there are some people who choose not to do illegal things because they are law abiding citizens and the prospect of getting a criminal record deters from that. However there are a great many people who don't care about that.

Ok, so let's discuss the best ways to achieve that. My view is that a criminal record, something that a person carries around with them for the rest of their life, is more destructive than the drug problem in itself. In our society today these are essentially life sentences, despite being two-years-less-a-day.

The criminal record is supposed to be a deterent. Some people accept that and some people don't. That's the choice they make.

Ideally the best way to achieve reduction in use is the same way cigarette use has substancially declined. The government had nothing to do with it. It was the ostracizing effect of cigarette smoking being branded as gross, trashy, and uncool. Drug use from what I've seen has not seen that ostracizing effect in the same degree as cigarette use. That's up to society to fix.

The only logical reason I see for the gov't keeping it illegal is to keep the use numbers as low as possible, by targeting law abiding citizens with the prospect of jail/criminal record. It's not effective as they like, but it's something. The most effective way is society saying "this isn't for me anymore" and demand evaporates.

It is much more difficult to market something by saying "no you can't", than it is by saying "yes you can". Drug dealers have the advantage of being able to have the positive message, and that's what contributes to the problem.

What worries me is the more harmful stuff that could come down the line in the future that would be debated for legality or not. It's fine where it is.

[maple_leafs182]

Well if you look at places like Portugal where they have legalized many drugs, drug use has gone down.

If you look at places like the Netherlands where marijuana is decriminalized, there is less use there then any of its neighboring countries.

There is no evidence that supports the argument that keeping drugs illegal lowers use. Keeping drugs illegal may deter some people but it raises use in other places. For instance, drug dealers don't I.D. children, there has been studies that suggest it is easier for kids to get weed then alcohol.

The best way to lower use is to educate people on the dangers of use, if they still wish to use they should be allowed to. Nobody should be able to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. Life is yours, you live it your way.

[Sir Bandelot]

Nobody should be able to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. Life is yours, you live it your way.

I disagree, and I'll tell you why. You know how many people there are in my shanty-town, who are substance abusers of some kind, either alcoholics or hash hounds of some sort? And they have kids. Because of their substance abuse they neglect their obligations to family, they have poor jobs with minimal income, they live ina dirty run down shack. Those kids grow up generally neglected. They are ignored by their own parents who live in squalor and like to get high. For most of these kids, their fate is sealed. And there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

So I am not for legalization, but decrim and work harder at rehabilitation. The courts should have ore options besides criminal record and jail time. That only puts the drug user deeper into the hole they've dug themselves into.

And honestly, you right wingers who oppose decrim, which of you has never had a drink after a hard days work? Or your mom was on valiums for depression, for years. Why should anyone go to jail, just because they're having problems.

[maple_leafs182]

I disagree, and I'll tell you why. You know how many people there are in my shanty-town, who are substance abusers of some kind, either alcoholics or hash hounds of some sort? And they have kids. Because of their substance abuse they neglect their obligations to family, they have poor jobs with minimal income, they live ina dirty run down shack. Those kids grow up generally neglected. They are ignored by their own parents who live in squalor and like to get high. For most of these kids, their fate is sealed. And there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

So I am not for legalization, but decrim and work harder at rehabilitation. The courts should have ore options besides criminal record and jail time. That only puts the drug user deeper into the hole they've dug themselves into.

And honestly, you right wingers who oppose decrim, which of you has never had a drink after a hard days work? Or your mom was on valiums for depression, for years. Why should anyone go to jail, just because they're having problems.

Well I don't know the people who you are talking about but it seems like they are doing that whether drugs are legal or illegal.

Obviously having it illegal doesn't stop any problems and throwing people in jail or even just fining them is a very poor strategy for treating addictions. We need to bring drugs into the community...that sounded bad, we need to accept drug users as members of society, we demonize them now, we scare many away from seeking help simply because we frown upon and look at drug users as second class citizens.

Not to mention keeping drugs illegal leads to a multi billion dollar black market for gangs, if we want to begin to make the streets safer we have to attack gangs where it hurts, their wallets.

[blueblood]

And honestly, you right wingers who oppose decrim, which of you has never had a drink after a hard days work? Or your mom was on valiums for depression, for years. Why should anyone go to jail, just because they're having problems.

Well since I'm a greedy, heartless and cheap individual, I don't see the point in having a drink. Money spent on stuff like that is akin to me taking money out and lighting it on fire, and being as I'm greedy and cheap, that just won't fly.

Having problems is a poor excuse to commit crimes. Many crimes and serious ones at that are commited because people have problems. A great many people can solve their own problems without having to resort to committing crimes.

[dre]

If that were the case, then the numbers of people consuming alcohol would plummet. That doesn't appear to be the case. People consume pot because it's perceived as cool.

They'll prefer to get their pot from legal sources if the price is right. And with cigarettes according to WIld Bill, on Ontario, bootleg smokes are a problem. So the argument of taxing and hyper regulating is a moot point.

Saying that there is line ups at the liquor store helps my case. Ideally, the situation is to get less people on mind altering substances on a regular basis as they are less productive in society than people who don't use them on a regular basis.

Booze is considerably more difficult and requires a ton of inputs. To make the amount of bootleg booze in comparable amounts to pot would be impossible because to produce booze on that kind of a scale without being caught would be impossible. Far easier to regulate booze than pot. We also see this comparison with booze and cigarettes.

And I didn't say tobacco wasn't harmless. Nor did I say pot was as dangerous as crack, alcohol, or cocaine.

Booze is considerably more difficult and requires a ton of inputs. To make the amount of bootleg booze in comparable amounts to pot would be impossible because to produce booze on that kind of a scale without being caught would be impossible. Far easier to regulate booze than pot. We also see this comparison with booze and cigarettes.

No, making significant quantities of alcohol is incredibly easy. I used to make shine with just white sugar and water, and turbo yeast. Then distill it using a pressure cooker, 5 feet of copper tubing, and a salad bowl full of water. Just put your wash into a clean carboy, add the turbo yeast, let it ferment for a few weeks. Then boil it in the pressure cooker... the copper tube attaches to the steam valve on the cooker, and you bend a section of it into tight coils and these coils sit in your large salad bowl full of cold water. Your spirits drip out the end.

ANYBODY can make booze man.

Heres my rig right here. (someone elses diagram of the identical system)

Edited November 18, 2010 by dre

[Oleg Bach]

Todays pot is equal to guzzling scotch..do we need another state sanctioned vice?

[eyeball]

That's what I'm saying as well. Legal booze consumers are high. My point is that there are some people who choose not to do illegal things because they are law abiding citizens and the prospect of getting a criminal record deters from that. However there are a great many people who don't care about that.

The criminal record is supposed to be a deterent. Some people accept that and some people don't. That's the choice they make.

Ideally the best way to achieve reduction in use is the same way cigarette use has substancially declined. The government had nothing to do with it. It was the ostracizing effect of cigarette smoking being branded as gross, trashy, and uncool. Drug use from what I've seen has not seen that ostracizing effect in the same degree as cigarette use. That's up to society to fix.

The only logical reason I see for the gov't keeping it illegal is to keep the use numbers as low as possible, by targeting law abiding citizens with the prospect of jail/criminal record. It's not effective as they like, but it's something. The most effective way is society saying "this isn't for me anymore" and demand evaporates.

It is much more difficult to market something by saying "no you can't", than it is by saying "yes you can". Drug dealers have the advantage of being able to have the positive message, and that's what contributes to the problem.

What worries me is the more harmful stuff that could come down the line in the future that would be debated for legality or not. It's fine where it is.

In light of the immediate chilling effect that our tough new impaired driving laws in BC have had I'd suggest that prohibiting things like alcohol and tobacco might be a lot easier than people believe.

No doubt those drinkers and smokers that also happen to be social conservatives would be screaming for mandatory sentencing for drinkers and smokers the very next day. I mean, the law is the law is the law right?

[dre]

The only logical reason I see for the gov't keeping it illegal is to keep the use numbers as low as possible, by targeting law abiding citizens with the prospect of jail/criminal record. It's not effective as they like, but it's something. The most effective way is society saying "this isn't for me anymore" and demand evaporates.

Thats conventional wisdom, but Im not sure its true.

In the real examples Iv seen usage DID NOT go up when drugs were decriminalized. What went up was the number of people seeking TREATMENT.

The government could use the massive ammount of money they waste on prison/enforcement/court costs and offer easy access to treatment for users who would now be able to admit they have a problem without confessing to a crime.