Booze, smokes worse than some illegal drugs: study

[BubberMiley]

You know Bubber, you should really read up on the drug to educate yourself, what could happen to someone like you, by using a toxic substance.

I'm an old man and nothing has happened to me yet. I only use reliable homegrown from a trusted source. No chemicals; no preservatives: just the pure green plant that god gave us.

[guyser]

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

That site you quote is full of crap. Sorry, but by the fourth section I had read enough. Physical cravings for pot? Wow, nice to make that one up.

Increased risk of cancer vs a cigarette smoker. Oh of course.....Not.

I am suprised not to find "Funded by Giant Pharmaceutical Co." on that site.....now there is a target for you.

[BubberMiley]

That site you quote is full of crap.

I don't agree. In fact, I think it's all likely true. It does affect your lungs negatively. There are physical symptoms when chronic users decide to abstain. It does affect hand-eye coordination, anxiety, and heart rate, particularly in casual users. But none of these symptoms justify the overreaction of criminalization. The law is meant to protect people from others, not to protect grown adults from themselves. And when criminalization creates organized crime and distribution of the product to children, the negative effects that already exist are only compounded.

[geoffrey]

government subsidization?

Yes, Geoffrey thinks you can lose money selling a weed at $10 a gram and it woujld have to be subsidized. I believe he claims to be an economics major too.

What I'm suggesting is the government will have to enter the market below the price of the current dealers. The current dealers have little issue accepting the legal risk for the return they make at $10 a gram. For anyone to buy from the government, the government is going to have to sell for less (the government will make you go to the weed store, show ID, buy your drugs, maybe even keep tabs on you, your dealer is going to deliver).

If anyone is going to go through more of a hassel (when already accepting the risk) to pay the same or even more, your kidding yourself.

The government will have to undercut dealers. Dealers have a massive profit margin. To actually force the dealers out of business, the government is going to have to cut the price of marijuana significantly.

Therefore subsidizing it below the free market rate.

I'm an accounting major BTW, economics was too.... abstract. I switched like a year and a half ago.

[BubberMiley]

Therefore subsidizing it below the free market rate.

I'm an accounting major BTW, economics was too.... abstract. I switched like a year and a half ago.

You would have to sell it for less than a gram of oregano for it to be subsidized. Even at 25 cents a pound, you could make a profit. It's a weed. It's practically worthless.

[geoffrey]

You would have to sell it for less than a gram of oregano for it to be subsidized. Even at 25 cents a pound, you could make a profit. It's a weed. It's practically worthless.

No, I'm not saying the government won't make a profit off any it sells, I'm saying the price will drop below the rate that the market would provide, which would increase consumption. The market has determined the price to be $10 a gram. Anything sold below that price due to the government's interference is an artifical subsidy.

The solution here isn't government production/sales. It never is.

[gc1765]

I believe we have already had this discussion: Link See my last post.

Therefore subsidizing it below the free market rate.

You mean subsidizing it below the black market rate, there is no free market rate as there is no free market. Even below the black market rate, the government would be making a huge profit.

[marcinmoka]

The solution here isn't government production/sales. It never is.

Exactly. But licensing/regulating its sale and production seems to be a very viable option, as is currently done with alcohol and tobacco.

I'm curious as to how this would pan out in regards to U.S bound exports, which as stated, forms the bulk of production. But since regulating designated growers would go to great legnths in reducing the criminal element currently involved in it's production, and policing resources could be better allocated to those illicitly growing and smuggling the product.

[DogOnPorch]

You mean subsidizing it below the black market rate, there is no free market rate as there is no free market. Even below the black market rate, the government would be making a huge profit.

Except the government has no clue as to how to grow the stuff...they try...but even cancer patients go for the hi-test stuff available via the local pot-net.

---------------------------------------------------------

Cheech: How's my driving??

Chong: I think we're parked, man.

---Cheech y Chong (duh)

[BubberMiley]

I think the most rational solution would be providing people with licences, perhaps issued by the Fire Department, to grow maybe five or six plants in their own basement for personal use. Then they could boost the penalties for cross-border trafficking and providing the product to minors. Most grown adults would be reluctant to buy a plant from gangsters that they could legally grow themselves, and the gangsters would see their income dry up considerably.

[DogOnPorch]

The thing about marijuana in my opinion is that it has always been viewed at least in North America as a 'black thing'. Indeed, it was a staple of the Jazz and Blues scene going wayyy back. Mainly white authorities over the years have discriminated against it accordingly. But, I believe marijuana use goes back at least as far as beer (ancient Sumer/Egypt) if not further. Just not in our 'western culture'.

There's no more reason to keep marijuana illegal than booze, frankly. The various concerns about the plant are generally unfounded or overblown and it has numerous other uses such as hemp, oils and such. So what we have now is widespread use from 99.9% illegal untaxed sources. Normally 'good citizens' are enabling a mafia-like racket and possibly putting themselves in danger doing it. It's almost irresponsible of the government at this point to keep it in its illegal state. However as mentioned, I think, the USA would also have to start viewing things this way or the crooks here would just move into cross-border smuggling more than they do already.

Saying that, though, this does not extend into addictive hard drugs that destroy lives and cause large amounts of crime as a side effect. Meth...Coke...Heroin...PCP. Only those sitting in an ivory tower can say good things about these drugs. One look at

will sober anyone up with any remaining liberal thought-processes re: hard drugs. These include social jokes like needle exchanges and methadone clinics. But what to do? We don't 'make' these particular drugs here in Canada for the most part.

More E. Hastings St...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was called the "Elegant Parlour" (on Davie St)...whenever the Motown acts would stay in Vancouver they would come down to my club, cause it was like a black after hours booze bar, and it was hip.

---Tommy Chong

[BubberMiley]

The market has determined the price to be $10 a gram. Anything sold below that price due to the government's interference is an artifical subsidy.

You clearly haven't given this much thought if you don't even recognize the "market" rate is totally a result of the fact that it's an illegal product. Therefore, government interference has determined the current price, which has been established based on the level of risk the seller incurs.

[BubberMiley]

But, I believe marijuana use goes back at least as far as beer (ancient Sumer/Egypt) if not further. Just not in our 'western culture'.

Actually, the fact that we have cannibinoid receptors built into our brains suggests we've been consuming it since god created adam.

[DogOnPorch]

Sounds pretty prehistoric to me, man....lol. Brings new meaning to the Stone Age, for sure.

-------------------------------------------------

Anybody can direct, but there are only eleven good writers.

---Mel Brooks

[blueblood]

The market has determined the price to be $10 a gram. Anything sold below that price due to the government's interference is an artifical subsidy.

You clearly haven't given this much thought if you don't even recognize the "market" rate is totally a result of the fact that it's an illegal product. Therefore, government interference has determined the current price, which has been established based on the level of risk the seller incurs.

What??? It's 10 bucks a gram because people are willing to pay that price. Illegal DVD's sell stupid cheap, shouldn't they cost more since they are illegal? The illegal DVD guy and the pot dealer run the same risk IMO. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. It's straight up supply and demand.

[BubberMiley]

Talk about a ridiculous comparison. Illegal DVDs have to be cheaper than the legal versions, otherwise people wouldn't buy them. There is no legal version of pot to compete with so the comparison doesn't work. Pot's black market value is a completely artificial construct based on the fact that it's contraband. Certainly the price has to be a rate that people are willing to pay, but if you compare areas based on the level of risk of severe prosecution--say, B.C. versus Texas. In Texas, where you can get life for possession of small amounts, the price of weed is about four times what it is here.

[geoffrey]

Talk about a ridiculous comparison. Illegal DVDs have to be cheaper than the legal versions, otherwise people wouldn't buy them. There is no legal version of pot to compete with so the comparison doesn't work. Pot's black market value is a completely artificial construct based on the fact that it's contraband.

That's exactly my point. The black market will continue to sell it cheaper and cheaper as the government lowers it's weed price to be 'competitive'. Consumption therefore increases.

[guyser]

That's exactly my point. The black market will continue to sell it cheaper and cheaper as the government lowers it's weed price to be 'competitive'. Consumption therefore increases.

Geoffrey, the smokes one can get from the reserves, ilegally or not, are cheaper than Fed regulated smokes and no one is claiming smoking is up.

Under your theory, and you are an accountant not I , you assume the sellers will remain in the game. When the price drops too low , even they wont work for a minimum wage , which it surely will come from the feds being involved. We see it in brew your own wine and beer, and sales at LCBO are improving in spite of your assertion.

Now if the govt sells crap....all bets are off.

[gc1765]

Consumption therefore increases.

Why is this a bad thing? I imagine it will increase slightly, but I doubt everyone is going to be smoking up. I doubt it will be used more often than alcohol.

[blueblood]

That's exactly my point. The black market will continue to sell it cheaper and cheaper as the government lowers it's weed price to be 'competitive'. Consumption therefore increases.

Geoffrey, the smokes one can get from the reserves, ilegally or not, are cheaper than Fed regulated smokes and no one is claiming smoking is up.

Under your theory, and you are an accountant not I , you assume the sellers will remain in the game. When the price drops too low , even they wont work for a minimum wage , which it surely will come from the feds being involved. We see it in brew your own wine and beer, and sales at LCBO are improving in spite of your assertion.

Now if the govt sells crap....all bets are off.

Booze is a little more easily regulated, its a way more difficult process to produce booze, the bottling vast amounts serves a problem in itself. Plus a lot of big booze companies were around for a couple hundred years, all they needed to do was to fire the plants back up. If there wasn't the booze companies lobbying the gov't, I wouldn't be surprised if booze would still be illegal. Booze and Pot are like comparing apples and oranges. When drinking was made legal a whole lot more people started drinking, look at bar lineups. Booze and smokes cause enough problems, we don't need a third, and if you don't believe weed causes problems, then that's just naive. Should the gov't start making ecstasy while we're at it?

[geoffrey]

Under your theory, and you are an accountant not I , you assume the sellers will remain in the game. When the price drops too low , even they wont work for a minimum wage , which it surely will come from the feds being involved. We see it in brew your own wine and beer, and sales at LCBO are improving in spite of your assertion.

Of course the sellars won't work for minimum wage. So the government has to force the profit on weed so low that the dealers can no longer make any money. That increases demand. Pot consumption is going to skyrocket on $1/grams. I was friends with many in this crowd at one time, I know the mentality.

I'm really quite confused about your comparison to brew your own wine and beer. There are many differences.

For me to make a profit selling illict liquor (ie. avoiding all licensing fees, income and consumption taxation), I need to sell a massive amount. The physical amount of 'stuffs' required is huge. Distilleries don't fit in your basement, not one that produces massive profit anyways. For me to make a massive profit selling marijuana, I need very little, in fact, I'll venture the guess that most people profitting off the drug trade are middlemen and not the initial growers (of course they take a share too).

The other difference is that alcohol is often sold on brand reputation. I understand that weed has various types, but at the end of the day, it's all very similar. I don't know any pothead that will pay $500 for a gram of the finest in someone's collection. In alcohol, it's impossible to market an illicit product because people have existing brand preferences. In weed, it's whatever works.

It's completely different, all alcohol and weed have in common is that they are drugs. Past that, the industries don't work the same.

All this talk about licensing private dealers and raising revenue from tax is ridiculous too. Do you actually think that, after so many years of breaking serious laws, all the dealers are going to fork half their money over to the government in exchange for legality? No way, most are going to continue to break the law in order to maximize profit. They already accept the risk. That won't change.

[BubberMiley]

Booze and smokes cause enough problems, we don't need a third, and if you don't believe weed causes problems, then that's just naive.

If you don't think we already have a problem from drugs, that's even more naive. We have a third, and a fourth, a fifth...already. Criminalization has simply been a massive failure, and arguments like yours are based on an assumption that it is actually working.

[guyser]

Of course the sellars won't work for minimum wage. So the government has to force the profit on weed so low that the dealers can no longer make any money. That increases demand. Pot consumption is going to skyrocket on $1/grams. I was friends with many in this crowd at one time, I know the mentality.

In that scenario it may increase consumption, but I doubt to any real degree. The stuff is available now pretty easily and kids arent flocking to it.

I'm really quite confused about your comparison to brew your own wine and beer. There are many differences.

Sorry I was not clear. My point was that brew your own has been around for quite some time, and the resulting cost per bottle is quite cheap in comparison. But the sales at liquor stores have been steady or increasing.

For me to make a massive profit selling marijuana, I need very little, in fact, I'll venture the guess that most people profitting off the drug trade are middlemen and not the initial growers (of course they take a share too).

I understand ti to be the opposite. The growers are the ones making the real dough. Thus we can cut them out of the picture.

It's completely different, all alcohol and weed have in common is that they are drugs. Past that, the industries don't work the same.

But they would in time. Produce, marketing , sales.

All this talk about licensing private dealers and raising revenue from tax is ridiculous too. Do you actually think that, after so many years of breaking serious laws, all the dealers are going to fork half their money over to the government in exchange for legality? No way, most are going to continue to break the law in order to maximize profit. They already accept the risk. That won't change.

I dont know anyone who has given that impression. The current dealers "might" want to get in on the legal trade aspect , should the profit be worth it, but I would suspect that they will get out of it an d into other things.

[blueblood]

Booze and smokes cause enough problems, we don't need a third, and if you don't believe weed causes problems, then that's just naive.

If you don't think we already have a problem from drugs, that's even more naive. We have a third, and a fourth, a fifth...already. Criminalization has simply been a massive failure, and arguments like yours are based on an assumption that it is actually working.

Criminalization of drunk driving isn't a massive failure. Lots of people I know used to drive drunk, (it's a rural thing). Criminaliztion is working due to the fact that those who don't want to break the law are staying away from the stuff, granted that's not many people, but it's some nonetheless. The only thing that will stop the drug thing is attitudes towards it. Looking at it this way, booze is legal and look at the amount of people who use it and all the problems it causes, same thing would happen with pot. We don't need more problems than there already is.

[guyser]

Criminalization of drunk driving isn't a massive failure. Lots of people I know used to drive drunk, (it's a rural thing).

And those same rules will apply. So thats a non-issue. Unless one counts the problem, so far, in a reliable test to prove someone has pot impairing their actions

Criminaliztion is working due to the fact that those who don't want to break the law are staying away from the stuff, granted that's not many people, but it's some nonetheless.

No actually they are staying away from driving , not the booze. Same goes for any impairment issue. Be it meds, mental health, booze or other drugs.

The only thing that will stop the drug thing is attitudes towards it. Looking at it this way, booze is legal and look at the amount of people who use it and all the problems it causes, same thing would happen with pot. We don't need more problems than there already is.

No the same thing would not happen with pot. Under your rules the govt should do away with booze and save some REAL money. Pot does not nor has it ever cost us anything near what booze does. Both from a physical and mental health issue.