Drugs

[geoffrey]

His point (I think)being that there is an unecessary fear of psychedellics and other recreational drugs is completely unfounded.

That's ridiculous. There are serious medical concerns with the use of recreational drugs, and it hardly ends there, that being the bigger issue.

Being said, if you want to legalise recreational drugs, then I want to be exempt as a tax payer for paying any costs associated with. I'm willing to make that same concession with alcohol consumption.

[BubberMiley]

Being said, if you want to legalise recreational drugs, then I want to be exempt as a tax payer for paying any costs associated with. I'm willing to make that same concession with alcohol consumption.

What if it makes money? Can we exempt you from the benefits?

[guyser]

There are serious medical concerns with the use of recreational drugs, and it hardly ends there, that being the bigger issue.

Being said, if you want to legalise recreational drugs, then I want to be exempt as a tax payer for paying any costs associated with. I'm willing to make that same concession with alcohol consumption.

And if you OD accidently on scripted drugs , please bring your wallet cuz we aint paying . Ok?

Serious medical concerns....not for moderate users there isnt.

Are we going to have the slippery slope discussion again?

[BubberMiley]

I can't imagine what kind of ridiculous tax system you're proposing where certain people can exempt themselves from funding specific line items they are personally opposed to. You must be on drugs to think that is even possible.

[gc1765]

Being said, if you want to legalise recreational drugs, then I want to be exempt as a tax payer for paying any costs associated with. I'm willing to make that same concession with alcohol consumption.

If you want to keep drugs illegal, then I want to be exempt as a tax payer for paying costs associated with enforcing those laws & prosecuting the people who break them.

[geoffrey]

What if it makes money? Can we exempt you from the benefits?

The government will never ever make money selling pot without increasing consumption. The market prevents it. Legalisation as a method to raise the price of weed or whatever else (and lower consumption) is an illogical argument.

The dealers will still sell the drugs, why would people go to the government unless it sold for much less? The margin for dealers is still huge, you could cut the price in half and they'd still make a killing. And $3 or 4 grams is definitely not going to lower consumption.

The government getting into the drug business will only fuel consumption and usage of drugs.

[gc1765]

The government will never ever make money selling pot without increasing consumption. The market prevents it. Legalisation as a method to raise the price of weed or whatever else (and lower consumption) is an illogical argument.

The dealers will still sell the drugs, why would people go to the government unless it sold for much less? The margin for dealers is still huge, you could cut the price in half and they'd still make a killing. And $3 or 4 grams is definitely not going to lower consumption.

The government getting into the drug business will only fuel consumption and usage of drugs.

Products on the black market are always going to cost more because of the inherent risk. If the government sold for prices similar to street value (say $10 per gram) no one in their right mind would buy from a dealer. How many bootleggers do you see around these days?

And even at $10 per gram, the government would be making a huge profit which should more than pay for any associated health costs etc. Anything leftover would mean a tax break for you and me.

[Drea]

Consumption of the drug nicotine has decreased dramatically in the past 20 years.

Yet it remains legal and freely available to adults everywhere. It has restrictions on where it can be consumed so that it's use does not affect those who choose not to use it.

Same with alcohol consumption and drinking and driving. Used to be cool to down a 26er and drive your 75 Camero at 120 miles an hour... now this behaviour is frowned upon.

What happened over the past twenty years to facilitate this decrease? Education.

Until drugs are legalized and the public educated to nth degree (like MADD, anti-smoking, etc.) drug use will continue to rise legal or not. And the only people that benefit are the criminals.

[geoffrey]

Products on the black market are always going to cost more because of the inherent risk. If the government sold for prices similar to street value (say $10 per gram) no one in their right mind would buy from a dealer. How many bootleggers do you see around these days?

And even at $10 per gram, the government would be making a huge profit which should more than pay for any associated health costs etc. Anything leftover would mean a tax break for you and me.

No way. The risk to a purchaser of weed from a trusted dealer is zero, even if they get caught they won't even get a record 999 times out of 1000. The growers are the only ones at risk, and they make an absolutely insane profit.

The risk to the producer doesn't change from today to legalisation day. To the buyer, it doesn't matter. The dealers and the producers will just lower their prices to be competitive, to the point where the government is subsidizing marijuana.

[BubberMiley]

The risk to the producer doesn't change from today to legalisation day. To the buyer, it doesn't matter. The dealers and the producers will just lower their prices to be competitive, to the point where the government is subsidizing marijuana.

Well, alcohol prohibition is a reasonable parallel case study. What happened after prohibition ended was the government made a lot of money from selling alcohol, and organized crime lost a major source of revenue. Why did your scenario not play out so that bootleggers are competing with the government? Probably because your theory is like me--half-baked.

[blueblood]

The risk to the producer doesn't change from today to legalisation day. To the buyer, it doesn't matter. The dealers and the producers will just lower their prices to be competitive, to the point where the government is subsidizing marijuana.

Well, alcohol prohibition is a reasonable parallel case study. What happened after prohibition ended was the government made a lot of money from selling alcohol, and organized crime lost a major source of revenue. Why did your scenario not play out so that bootleggers are competing with the government? Probably because your theory is like me--half-baked.

Weed is so much cheaper and easier to produce though. Making home brew is a big pain in the ass. It's also way easier to regulate alcohol production. Also EVERYBODY drinks now, and there are lots of people with drinking problems, why run the risk of something else.

[leonardcohen]

The risk to the producer doesn't change from today to legalisation day. To the buyer, it doesn't matter. The dealers and the producers will just lower their prices to be competitive, to the point where the government is subsidizing marijuana.

Well, alcohol prohibition is a reasonable parallel case study. What happened after prohibition ended was the government made a lot of money from selling alcohol, and organized crime lost a major source of revenue. Why did your scenario not play out so that bootleggers are competing with the government? Probably because your theory is like me--half-baked.

Weed is so much cheaper and easier to produce though. Making home brew is a big pain in the ass. It's also way easier to regulate alcohol production. Also EVERYBODY drinks now, and there are lots of people with drinking problems, why run the risk of something else.

Not to hijack the thread, but i just can't believe how easy it is for me to buy drugs where i work, in a workplace of 40 employees i can buy drugs from no less than 5 people, and i work in an area that by any standards is a low crime area.

I guess reality is just to much for some people,if i want to escape it,i'll read a book.

[Drea]

Weed is so much cheaper and easier to produce though. Making home brew is a big pain in the ass. It's also way easier to regulate alcohol production. Also EVERYBODY drinks now, and there are lots of people with drinking problems, why run the risk of something else.

You've obviously never tried to get a female pot plant to bud.... ;-)

It aint that easy. The conditions have to be just right. Unlike brewing wine where all you have to do is wait.

btw, EVERYBODY doesn't drink now. At least no more than people did before or during prohibition. Not EVERYBODY likes the way alcohol makes them feel.

Person #1 comes home from work and pours herself a glass of red wine... Person #2 come home from work and roll a joint. (geez, not like the ones you see on TV -- a normal joint is about a quarter of the circumference of a cigarette)

Why should Person #2 be considered a criminal while Person #1 is not? They are both injesting (oooh scarrrry!) a mind altering substance are they not? Why is one legal and the other not? There is no logical reason for it.

AND

if Person #1 continues and pours herself two, three, four, five glasses of wine she will be totally wasted. I've never known anyone who would keep smoking and smoking... but I know plenty of people who would keep drinking and drinking and drinking...

[BubberMiley]

Also EVERYBODY drinks now, and there are lots of people with drinking problems, why run the risk of something else.

I don't drink at all. I was given 12 beer at Christmas that are going skunky in my fridge. I think the law has little effect on people's consumption habits, so I don't think you're "running a risk of something else" at all. Once again, anybody who wants to do drugs can do drugs; anybody who doesn't want to, doesn't do them. The law does nothing but push the wealth distribution of drug consumption underground, where the people who argue for the status quo want it.

[blueblood]

For all the problems booze causes it should be illegal. If you don't think pot doesn't cause problems it's time to come out of your box. I've seen people who chain smoke pot like cigarettes. I've seen people develop problems on pot and booze.

Public Opinion decreases the occurances in things we don't like, not education. There are all sorts of info on drugs now and they have people come into schools and talk about it. Drunk driving has always been illegal, the only reason it went down was because of public opinion.

There are people who don't smoke pot because it's illegal. Making it legal makes it easier for pot to be pushed onto people who normally wouldn't smoke it (like drinking)

[BubberMiley]

For all the problems booze causes it should be illegal.

But then, as prohibition proved, there would be more problems. I'm not saying there are no problems resulting from smoking pot. I'm just saying they aren't particularly serious.

And who are these people who don't smoke pot because it's illegal? I think there are lot of people who smoke pot and don't tell anyone because it's illegal--millions and millions of them. I don't think there is anyone who would smoke it but is intimidated by the law.

[blueblood]

For all the problems booze causes it should be illegal.

But then, as prohibition proved, there would be more problems. I'm not saying there are no problems resulting from smoking pot. I'm just saying they aren't particularly serious.

And who are these people who don't smoke pot because it's illegal? I think there are lot of people who smoke pot and don't tell anyone because it's illegal--millions and millions of them. I don't think there is anyone who would smoke it but is intimidated by the law.

Look at it this way, what would you rather have people getting their illegal fix with pot/booze or crystal meth/heroin/coke? If you legalize pot, it goes up the ladder? Where do you draw the line? I'd prefer it at pot, better kids doing the whole illegal thing with something harmless than something harmful.

[BubberMiley]

Doing the whole illegal thing?

[gc1765]

No way. The risk to a purchaser of weed from a trusted dealer is zero, even if they get caught they won't even get a record 999 times out of 1000. The growers are the only ones at risk, and they make an absolutely insane profit.

The risk to the producer doesn't change from today to legalisation day. To the buyer, it doesn't matter. The dealers and the producers will just lower their prices to be competitive, to the point where the government is subsidizing marijuana.

If you think the dealers/producers are going to lower their prices to be competitive, then I'd ask you why don't dealers/growers lower their prices right now? You know as well as I do that the price of weed is controlled by supply and demand, like anything else, and that the "supply" of people willing to risk getting caught is relatively low. If there wasn't a significant risk, why isn't EVERYONE selling weed, sicne they are making such a killing? Or why don't some dealers charge less to get more business, just like in any other business? The "market" has already set the price of weed, which hasn't changed much, and here in Vancouver it's say $10 per gram. At that price the government would make a killing and would have ZERO risk. There is absolutely no way that an illegitimate dealer can compete with the government. If that was the case, then I'd ask again, why are there not more bootleggers around?

[gc1765]

Or another way of looking at it...let's say that the government legalizes and sells weed, but for some reason people keep buying from dealers anyways, then we would be in exactly the same situation we are in right now, no better, no worse. So what's the big deal? At least people will have the choice if they want to buy legal weed from the government, or if they want to continue to buy weed on the black market as they have always done.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, I was in amsterdamn a while back and the prices were even higher than they are here in Vancouver.

[geoffrey]

The "market" has already set the price of weed, which hasn't changed much, and here in Vancouver it's say $10 per gram. At that price the government would make a killing and would have ZERO risk. There is absolutely no way that an illegitimate dealer can compete with the government. If that was the case, then I'd ask again, why are there not more bootleggers around?

So the government would have to offer it's weed for $9 a gram, and the dealers would cut to $8. Then this would go on and on forever until we have massively subsidized weed, which using your supply and demand argument wouldl allow consumption to skyrocket.

Government selling weed or even imposing a tax upon it will result in increased consumption through market mechanisms alone, let alone the pscyhological effects of legality and all that stuff.

[gc1765]

So the government would have to offer it's weed for $9 a gram, and the dealers would cut to $8.

If this was the case, why don't dealers cut down to $8 per gram right now? The reason is that because selling weed is a risky activity, dealers need to have a huge profit margin in order for it to be worth the risk. If dealers were willing to take this risk for less money, they would already be selling it at $8 per gram.

Then this would go on and on forever until we have massively subsidized weed, which using your supply and demand argument wouldl allow consumption to skyrocket.

Even if dealers cut their prices, they could never cut them as low as the government. IOW they can never compete with the government and still make a profit, and their profit would have to be much higher to justify the risk. Let's pretend it costs $2 per gram to actually produce the weed. The other $8 is the profit needed to justify a risky activity, otherwise everyone would be selling weed if they could make that much money without risk. The government has no such risk, so it doesn't matter if their profits are less. If the price of weed was $2.50 per gram, do you think dealers would risk getting caught to make a measly $0.50 on each gram? What if it was $2.25 or $2.10...there is no way dealers would be selling at that price. Meanwhile, the government can afford to make a lower profit margin. And that's not even taking into consideration that the government could almost certainly produce weed at a much lower cost (economy of scale, as well as any costs associated with trying not to get caught).

Government selling weed or even imposing a tax upon it will result in increased consumption through market mechanisms alone, let alone the pscyhological effects of legality and all that stuff.

Probably. I don't see a problem with that though. If people want to smoke weed now, they can. The only increase in usage will be from law-abiding citizens who up until now avoided breaking the law. It's probably a lot safer for people to smoke pot than it is for them to drink.