This is a good thing. If it becomes legalized, it becomes commoditized and pushes the small basement operations out because it is no longer profitable. In the end, prices are lower, crime is reduced, and the consumer and general public benefit from safer product and reduced crime.
Philip Morris makes tobacco a commodity. They'll surely treat cannabis the same way: grown outdoors with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, irradiated (not that that would matter, I guess, but it will be), sprayed with preservatives and who know what the hell else, etc.
The good growers will do so in climate-controlled, forced-flowering, sea-of-green indoor operations using massive lighting arrays and "low rider" hybrid strains that produce gigantic buds with amazing crystals.
It'll be like comparing "two buck chuck" wine at Trader Joe's to a Lafite Rothschild or Screaming Eagle. Most people won't care, but there is a market for the latter like you wouldn't believe.
Yep, I think marijuana would more closely resemble the beer and wine industries than cigarettes given the differences from one strain/grower to another. It wouldn't surprise me if PM became the Budweiser of the group, but that wouldn't push out the Sierra Nevadas. It would just make them have to be better.
Everyone always assumes it'll be the tobacco companies that'll take over once pot becomes legalized, but why? Why not the beer and liquor companies? Personally, I think it'd be a riot to see some Budweiser Bud. :-)
The best weed on the market is already close to being as good as it's going to get. The real trick is going to be establishing brands with reasonably consistent quality. Right now even if you only go to the dispensaries with the highest Yelp ratings, it's still hit or miss on any given strain.
What I think you will see though is that people who smoke Philip Morris weed will start getting cancer, in the same way that smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes. (Because of all the chemicals, the filters, and the fact that they're grown in radioactive soil w/ fertilizers that bind to uranium.)
Which probably explains why even today smokers in countries that don't use American cigarettes don't have anywhere near the same increase in lung cancer risk.
This really seems to fall into the "if this were really true, why haven't I heard of it until now?" category. There's an awful lot of people who could make an awful lot of money if they could prove that non-American cigarettes don't give you cancer.
None of those articles you provided state "American Cigarettes increase lung cancer risks more than Non-American Cigarettes" - Where are you getting this from?
Also, the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays is based on 'pack-and-a-half' smokers not typical smokers and it doesn't say anywhere specifically from American cigarettes. This is also based on a lifetime consumption I believe.
When I say American cigarettes are more dangerous, what I really mean is that cigarettes are more dangerous than other forms of tobacco consumption, and American tobacco is more dangerous than other tobacco.
For example, the levels of CEA (a cancer marker) in daily hookah smokers are so much lower than the CEA levels is cigarette smokers that they're actually statistically indistinguishable from non-smokers. Similarly, countries who don't grow tobacco in the same fields year after year using phosphate fertilizer have vastly less radioactive material in their tobacco.
The research on what about smoking actually causes cancer isn't very good yet, but if you combine the research that has been done with the data that shows the different points in history where lung cancer rates vastly increased or decreased, it starts to paint a pretty clear picture. For example, according to wikipedia, "From the 1950s, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma started to rise relative to other types of lung cancer.[135] This is partly due to the introduction of filter cigarettes. The use of filters removes larger particles from tobacco smoke, thus reducing deposition in larger airways. However the smoker has to inhale more deeply to receive the same amount of nicotine, increasing particle deposition in small airways where adenocarcinoma tends to arise."
Again, there is no safe form of smoking, but all evidence points to the fact that smoking cigarettes made from American tobacco is vastly more dangerous than the ways in which people have used tobacco historically.
Inhaling any burned plant material causes a slight increase in (primarily lung) cancer risk.
Inhaling burned tobacco has an above average ability to cause cancer.
Common commercial cigarettes, in general, have other ingredients that become carcinogenic when burned.
Nicotine, while not directly cancer causing, depresses the immune response in the affected areas, increasing cancer risk in those areas. This also affects chew, gum, inhalers, etc. Due to the nature of the rapid regeneration of the mouth and throat, this is likely a significant factor in the increased caused risk for chewed tobacco.
Additionally, chewed tobacco can cause Leukoplakia, which increases the risk of Oral cancer.
Cancer risk (most to least): Smoking, chew/dip, inhalers, gum, snuff.
And I can't help feeling that is the kind of industry we should avoid encouraging. I mean; heavy pot smokers are pretty non-functioning and it seems a shame to risk more lively minds to that drudgery.
This has always been a really difficult choice for me; because on one side I strongly feel that everyone should have their own choices and do what they want. But then on the other side I've seen first hand how easy it is to lose yourself to pot... and can't help feeling that exposing more people to that isn't a great thing.
I mean; heavy pot smokers are pretty non-functioning and
it seems a shame to risk more lively minds to that drudgery.
Correlation does not equal causation. People with no ambition tend to smoke pot frequently. However, that does not mean that people with ambition will lose it if they smoke pot. Anecdotally it has little or no effect on the ability of a person to "function."
You see, I have anecdotal evidence that this is the case (which is why I agrue we need to start real studies into the affects of pot before any decision can be made).
I have a couple of extremely bright friends (one of them was possibly the smartest guy I've met) who became pot abusers for all manner of reasons. One wanted (and had the skills) to be a stock broker. He spent the first summer of university trading and made a really strong start. But from the second year onwards his pot habit inhibited his learning/development and he now does door-to-door collections for a charity on minimum wage. He was probably my second closest friend at university so I am absolutely sure that cannabis was the cause of his decline.
I have several examples like that in my circle of friends, but I could also point you to at least one guy worth about 60 million euros that is a heavy pot smoker and a few others that did very well.
I think it is about the person at least as much as it is about the drugs, some people can deal with things like this better than others.
I had a best friend throughout HS/College who was extremely smart. He scored 32 on his ACT on his first try, breezed through AP courses and started college with tons of AP credits and enough tuition assistance that he was being paid a significant wage in excess grant and scholarship refunds just to be an undergrad.
Unless he was just extremely awesome at hiding something from our circle of friends, for absolutely no apparent reason at all, by the second semester of college, he had all but stopped going to class, stopped doing homework, slept through early morning tests, etc, eventually losing his scholarships and failing out of school by his third semester. He was my roommate in the dorms, so I probably would have known if he was doing anything in excess that was directly interfering with his abilities to function, and we were enrolled in similar courses with similar course load, and I handled it fine. He just lost the motivation to continue college.
The point is, is that people fuck up, people get depressed, people change what they place value in, even without drugs.
I feel for your friends drop from his potential, but the fact remains he did this all the while it was illegal. The legality of the product changed nothing in his outcome. You cannot argue that making the product legal would have changed his outcome in any way at all, for he smoked his way to mininum wage illegally. He could have just as easily chosen bourbon to lose himself in, as thousands and thousands of people do each year. At least smoking himself stupid he was less likely to kill himself or someone else. Any police officer will tell you that drunks are a problem and stoners are not.
I can tell many similar stories of friends who lost their way with drugs and alcohol. Bad shit happens in this world, and being successful means not only hard work but avoiding temptations. You've got to do well in all aspects of your life : to me there is little difference between the person who won't but any effort in to study and accepts a minimum wage, and those that put effort into study but waste it all by being a drug addict.
> we need to start real studies into the affects of pot before any decision can be made
It seems that a decision has already been made: prohibition.
That your friend didn't fully realize his potential whilst becoming a pot smoker doesn't imply causation, it is just a correlation. There probably are all kinds of factors at play in your friend's case.
I'm readily agree that his could (or even is) an individual/specific case; but I am 100% certain that his decline was purely due to the drug (I lived with him during the whole period and we were extremely close).
It was mostly intended as a rebuttal of:
Anecdotally it has little or no effect on the ability of a person to "function."
further up the thread.
It seems that a decision has already been made: prohibition.
I think there is dialogue to be had. I suspect (talking realistically) I will see legalization of a number of drugs in my lifetime.
I've got a large number of friends who smoke pot everyday. They're far from non-functioning.
Two of my closest developer buddies smoke all day long. Like, literally, all day long, smoking as soon as they wake up in the morning. That's about as extreme as you can get in the realm of the pothead.
They're fine. They've held their jobs for long periods, been promoted, given raises... all of the things you expect from a "functioning" member of society.
I don't really hang out with very many non-functioning member of society and I know a LOT of people who smoke pot... maybe you tend to hang out with a lot of non-functioning people for some reason? A rather larger percentage of people smoke pot around the world, so it would tend to cross a number of socioeconomic boundaries.
To me, this issue you have with perceiving that pot is making people in to listless sacks of flesh seems to be a personal problem and entirely subjective.
I agree it is somewhat subjective. However it was backed up by a study my ex-gf did a few years ago into drug use.
She interviewed hundreds cannabis users across the country and across various social strata - her general comment was that or the most part users did tend towards the slump. There were certainly a lot more "listless sacks of flesh" than high-functioning individuals (but she also noted that those who were "functioning" tended towards the extraordinary as opposed to just sticking on the normal curve).
I avoid using that as too much proof because it is entirely possible, and even likely, that cannabis is only a contributing factor in this and not outright cause.
If you're going to lobby for prohibition of pot then please also focus your attention on alcohol as well. This is a far worse 'drug' IMO than marijuana could ever be.
I don't understand how anyone could think alcohol should be legal but not marijuana.
EDIT: Also notice from the linked article that drug use actually went down after legalization in Portugal.
Well, then we should avoid encouraging fast food, liquor, and a lot of other things.
Plus there may be some selection bias going on. How do you know that some of your high-functioning coworkers aren't heavy pot smokers when they get home?
Plus there may be some selection bias going on. How do you know that some of your high-functioning coworkers aren't heavy pot smokers when they get home?
That doesn't make sense. There is a definite/noticeable slump below the norm for all the pot smokers I know (off hand count; perhaps 20-25) across a wide variety of jobs/ages.
Certainly some high functioning people I know could be abusers behind closed doors; but they exhibit none of the standard symptoms so it's hard to imagine that is true... (I will try and do some surveying though :))
In other words; you really need to find a high functioning heavy pot smoker to give the theory credence - and I don't think that is going to be easy.
Well, then we should avoid encouraging fast food, liquor, and a lot of other things
We are already doing that; indeed for several years now there have actually been campaigns to discourage the overuse of those things.
I'd call myself a high-functioning pot smoker. Didn't touch the stuff for my entire life until I moved to SF. Certainly didn't expect to become a regular.
By day I'm a software developer. I smoke most nights, and I still get good work done (although it sometimes takes me longer). Have you ever gotten into a 'groove' when programming, when time fades away and you're generally very productive? Well, it's like that with pot...but more often, and to a greater degree.
It just makes everything better. Music sounds better, food tastes better, conversation is funnier, movies are epic-er, heck, even the laundry is fun again. Tonight I'm going to a concert, and I wouldn't dream of going sober.
Thanks for pitching in an opinion from the perspective of a user. How heavy a user are you (if I can ask) - joints/day?
I guess you raise an interesting point; the life enrichment versus the "although it usually takes me longer" aspect is the trade off.
I wonder at which point that becomes too much?
I've attempted a number of drugs over the years on the belief that you can't really hold an opinion without knowing all the facts, and trying it. I readily admit a slight bias arising from the fact I never really "got" any of the highs; the trade off was instantly too much for me.
I try not to smoke joints; the water bong is much friendlier on your lungs and throat. I probably average 1-2 joints' worth per day.
I think a lot about whether pot has been a net positive in my life, and honestly I'm still unsure. Certainly I enjoy the experience, and I've met some great people as a result, but it comes with a cost (in dollars as well as time). Jury's still out.
I should add that I have a deep-seated loathing for most kinds of alcohol. I enjoy an occasional glass of red wine, but my alcohol consumption is easily less than 1 drink per week.
In other words; you really need to find a high functioning heavy pot smoker to give the theory credence - and I don't think that is going to be easy.
Carl Sagan. Richard Feynman. Steve Yegge. Thousands of others.
If you're involved in a creative profession, of which I think that software development is one, then smoking marijuana boosts your ability to function.
Further, people with your typical high-powered "successful" jobs are almost without exception routinely drug-tested, so they are forced to make a choice between continuing to smoke and having their careers. Talk about selection bias...that's not even factoring in the illegality of the thing, which strongly biases the sample of smokers towards those with less to lose if they were caught.
Uh, what? I've never heard of a (programming) job requiring a drug test. It's just not all that illegal anymore -- doctors prescribe it and you get it at a state-certified pharmacy.
The only FUD your post was missing was a link to Reefer Madness.
Interesing point; I'd have to mull on that (I wonder how heavy they were as users - anyone know?).
(as a programmer I found that pot, which I tried for a couple of months - see elsewhere for my reasoning - didn't personally boost my ability to function, but instead tended to hinder it - particularly when not high)
Because making it illegal does not make it go away. It certainly hasn't made it difficult to get for those that want it bad enough. Instead, it drives casual users away that know how to control themselves away.
My point is that a potential for abuse is not a specific enough criticism. Drinking and driving is illegal because it endangers property and other people, public drunkenness is illegal because it is a nuisance, smoking in public buildings is illegal (at least here) because it is a health hazard to others; things should not be outlawed for their _potential_ for abuse, the effects of their abuse should be outlawed. I recognize that at this point we probably have a difference of opinion that is difficult to argue past, but I wanted to clarify my position.
I think the perspective here is a bit skewed--the problem of abuse is here; it's as widespread as it can get. That problem can be alleviated by legalization: We remove the legal difficulties inherent in asking for help with problematic consumption, and--as illustrated in Portugal, the Netherlands, and other places--may very well decrease consumption, as well.
the problem of abuse is here; it's as widespread as it can get.
If by widespread you mean it is everywhere then agreed. If you mean in terms of numbers I disagree - it strikes me as logical that a legalized drug will have more users, and equably more abuser.
That problem can be alleviated by legalization: We remove the legal difficulties inherent in asking for help with problematic consumption
I agree with the last part. But am unconvinced that legalization is required to achieve that - just decriminalize personal possession, or remove any legal fall out associated with rehab/drugs help.
If that's our sole reason for legalization I don't think it stands up.
The point of making pot legal is so that casual users aren't fined or criminally punished for having a joint after work.
Ah, well that seems reasonable. I'd actually come out in support of decriminalization - it seems to have tentatively worked in countries where it has been trialled.
But this is formulating the question in the wrong way. The question isn't whether or not pot use is a good thing. The question is what is the most rational and empirical and effective social policy.
If you begin with the assumption that you can effectively control use, you're probably already off on the wrong track, based on the results of almost 100 years of failed policy.
It's probably worth saying now that I am partly playing devils advocate here because I suspect (from previous times this has come up) that the overriding consensus here is pro-legalization. I think it's interesting to provoke some debate where the pro-prohibition side isn't a troll/idiot (again, like has happened in the past).
So; not currently on the side of legalization, but not on the opposite side either (though happy to play it temporarily)
My real feeling? I'm still not convinced by full legalization but equally not behind the current hardline attitudes. I've seen the negative effects of drugs - and they can be pretty awful for some. If we can offset those using education, taxation, decriminalization and other methods then that seems a great way to start - then legalization becomes a possibility in my eyes (consider it this way: trying to address the problems of alcohol abuse before it becomes widespread/common)
I'd like to think my aim is to help protect those who might be adversely affected by drug legalization rather than deliberately trying to prevent people having the choice.
EDIT: interested as to why the downvote. Is it for admitting to playing devils advocate - I only ask because if that proves unpopular Ill avoid it in future :)
It is, however, really the only alternative to legalization.
Decriminalization is stupid. Dispensary systems are stupid. Coffee shops are stupid.
Decriminalization is stupid because the implication is that cannabis is evil, and the only reason people want to smoke it is that they're addicted. This is false. The "push toward treatment" isn't helpful for anyone who isn't addicted and doesn't want to be treated, like me. Plus there's the implication that selling someone to someone who asks for it is somehow evil, which is even worse ("Selling is legal! Fucking is legal! Why isn't selling fucking legal?!").
Dispensary systems are stupid because dishonesty is baked (haha) into the system. The South Park episode Medicinal Fried Chicken is a decent explanation, but the short of it is that people fake illness to get weed. Granted, this is like people faking illness to get painkillers -- but since cannabis is significantly safer than opioids and benzodiazepines, doctors are significantly less likely to care. It's not an issue with physical consequences, since cannabis is extremely safe when used under medical supervision, just the fact that lying becomes so much more prevalent.
Coffee shops are lame because free markets work[1], so why don't we have one? They're not that bad, though -- the implementation of such a system would bump the legalization of cannabis way down my priority list.
What really gets me on this is that people conflate the
question "should cannabis be legal" with the question "should you smoke cannabis". Nobody conflates the legality of trampolines with the safety of trampolines. I find it incredibly disheartening when people I know -- smart people, in most respects -- respond to legalization with the idiotic knee-jerks "but it's dangerous!", "but my friend does nothing but smoke weed", ad absurdum. I know people who do nothing but play video games. I know at least one person who quit his job and left everyone he knew to become a paragliding instructor. He took a huge pay cut, too. And this latter example, I think, illustrates the biggest issue I have with arguments like yours:
Who the hell do you think you are that you can dictate what someone does with their life? If it's what they enjoy, they can go for it. Even if it is a bad decision -- you really can't outlaw bad decisions, because it's hard to say what is a bad decision. Thing is, the sort of "always-on" lifestyle, that sort where cannabis (also other distracting activities) is most likely to interfere, really isn't a good fit for some people. Some people burn out on weed, some burn out on other things.
Thing is, sometimes people just burn out. I think there are a lot of people who come into this argument from a pro-prohibition point of view because someone close to them changed after they started smoking marijuana. And I think that this is akin to blaming a spark for a bomb. The thing is, that your stock-broker friend may in fact have been unhappy as a stock broker. It is possible, even likely, from my anecdotal experience, that he latched onto weed because he didn't like where he was in life. It doesn't really matter if you think he should have liked where he was in life.
There are plenty of harm reduction arguments for legalization, but I prefer the libertarian argument because, I think, it most directly refutes the central point of the popular anti-legalization arguments.
Decriminalization is stupid because the implication is that cannabis is evil, and the only reason people want to smoke it is that they're addicted.
And yet decriminalization has proven tentatively successful when trialled.
If your issue is that cannabis use is still looked on as evil (that's something of a strong word; I suspect only real puritans view it as evil :)) then possibly that is something we can address. However on the other hand I suspect the idea of cannabis being looked on as bad/evil/nasty would be unaffected by decriminalization/legalization - at least in the short term.
Speaking personally I'd like to get to a happy medium where you can have the choice of cannabis if you like, but it's not so readily available that it becomes the kind of widespread habit smoking became. I'd like to see a society were cannabis use didn't raise any eyebrows and was accepted as something people chose to do.
What really gets me on this is that people conflate the question "should cannabis be legal" with the question "should you smoke cannabis"
I've personally tried to be very specific when replying here regarding this issue. I'm open to discuss the former and as to the latter I have a personal opinion - which is that, on balance, I think smoking cannabis is probably bad for you.
Who the hell do you think you are that you can dictate what someone does with their life?
That made me a bit angry to be honest; because I don't make personal judgements like that! Definitely pro-choice here and I tend to get angry when people berate my friends for drug use (it's not their place! as you say).
Sure, if someone asks me the outright question: "Tom, should I smoke cannabis" I would say no (and then try to back it up, obviously). I'll maybe, maybe, try and raise the issue with a close friend if they seem to be struggling/having issues due to drug use, but that's it.
As you say these are 2 different issues and we should definitely address them seperately.
As a quick further comment: I think it is absolutely fine to talk to people about their "bad" life choices. One of the worst life choices I nearly made was to do architecture rather than engineering - I'd have been a shit architect but it had been my passion from a very young age. A few close friends/family helped to show me it was a poor choice and for that I am forever thankful (I probably owe most of my current success to that single decision).
So, as long as your not forcing or overbearing on anyway it seems fair to lay out why they might be making a bad choice :)
Thing is, sometimes people just burn out.
Agreed, ny friend was not one of them though. As I explained elsewhere a) we were extremely close during that period and b) it was less a proof that cannabis use was dangerous (I concede a single example is useless for that) as a rebuttal to someone else who suggested that cannabis could not have that affect.
The thing is, that your stock-broker friend may in fact have been unhappy as a stock broker.
It's a really sad story. He came out of rehab at the end of last year and is currently working in the city and doing moderately well - but his concentration is shot and his spark/skill aren't what they were. It's sad but, yes, not proof that all cannabis use ruins lives.
> And yet decriminalization has proven tentatively successful when trialled.
It's more of a logical thing than a physical thing. If you can't justify throwing a cannabis user in jail, how do you justify throwing a cannabis seller in jail? It's ludicrous! If you can't justify throwing someone in jail for smoking weed, how do you justify fining them $100?
It essentially encourages organized crime. You're feeding a black market that has no competition, for chrissake.
> I think it is absolutely fine to talk to people about their "bad" life choices.
Of course it is. I make no claim that you can't try to tell someone not to smoke weed, only that you oughtn't try to force someone not to smoke weed. And that's what prohibition is, and that's also what the goal of decriminalization is.
> it's not so readily available that it becomes the kind of widespread habit smoking became.
It doesn't matter! If 24% of the country wants to smoke weed, then 24% of the country can smoke weed! I think you'll find, though, that most people choose not to. This is another assumption that I think gets ignored: "if weed is legal, everyone will want to use it" -- well, hell, if everyone wanted to use it, they would already. Most people don't want to use it. If that's your main concern, it's worth pointing out that it wouldn't matter if weed were sold in every gas station in the country: cannabis usage probably would never rise above 15% or so. It's already 11%, according to the WHO. A lot of people don't even like it, if you read bluelight. This is the third thing that bugs me: somewhere along the line cannabis became the best feeling ever. I like alcohol more than weed. I smoke (vaporize?) weed more than I drink because the negatives are less severe.
> Agreed, ny friend was not one of them though.
But that's what they all say! Everyone's friend was perfectly happy. People who burn out don't do nothing -- they while away their time playing video games, or masturbating (ya rly), and slowly neglect things that they may have once enjoyed. That said, I accept what you are saying.
It's true: some people do get addicted. But punishing everyone because some people react badly doesn't work. More to the point: punishing me because someone got addicted is being a dick. Punishing the guy who sells me weed is still being a dick. Punishing the guy who sold your friend weed is being a dick.
I'd like to make a potentially difficult claim: selling cannabis to a burnout is not necessarily wrong[1]. It is not entirely the responsibility of a seller to control the use of their product. The image of a predatory dealer who pushes cannabis on an addict who is trying to quit[2] is, in my experience, largely false, especially among the affluent and the well-educated. It happens, though I can't think of any particular instance. It can't happen under a system of legitimized commerce. It is frightening to see people use it as an argument against a system of legitimized commerce.
[1]: In a world where cannabis is legal, they would be responsible for adequately and accurately informing the user of the risks of cannabis, verifying the user's age, and possibly for providing information about treatment for cannabis addiction. All of these are good things. All of these can't happen under prohibition or decriminalization. In fact, the only way I can see to blame a drug dealer is if they claim that their product isn't addictive -- which doesn't happen, and can't happen, in the world of legitimate commerce.
[2]: The image of a dealer who gives out free first samples of extremely addictive things is a little more grounded in reality. Cannabis is not one of those things, in that I hope we can all agree that it is not extremely addictive.
EDIT: Slight, but significant, modification to last paragraph. I intended to clarify that the provision of cannabis is not a problem in and of itself -- there are of course unethical things that a dealer can do and may have done in your friend's case.
ps: Personal freedom is a hard argument to make, and it can be a bitter pill to swallow (Farnsworth: "now, if they could put it in the form of a suppository"). I think that's why tax revenue dominates the national stage. I don't like it, really. Instead of having to make a difficult -- but ultimately sensible -- decision, that might establish a serious, meaningful precedent, we are instead distracted by the prospect of more shiny things that we might get.
how do you justify throwing a cannabis seller in jail?
Ok.. think of it this way - we can, as society, judge cannabis use a poor choice. And thereby punish people who encourage that choice. But accept people who make the choice for themselves.
well, hell, if everyone wanted to use it, they would already.
That seems illogical. I'm sure there are many people who are interested in trying it but who don't. :)
Anyway; I'm talking more about things like peer pressure. A large number of people develop a smoking habit from peer pressure at school. It's already a problem with weed as well - but I'd personally prefer not to see it become more widespread.
But that's what they all say!
We can argue this all day; but the fact remains that in this case you just have to accept what I observed in my friend :)
The image of a predatory dealer who pushes cannabis on an addict who is trying to quit is, in my experience, largely false... ...especially among the affluent and the well-educated
The killer point is that last bit; affluent/well-educated people aren't the problem demographic. A lot of effort it put into pushing drugs onto inner city/poorer families. It is easier to hook them because of social issues.
This is the sort of problem I feel we need to address.
but punishing everyone because some people react badly doesn't work....
Please read back; as I have reiterated a number of times the example was used to disprove somebody else's assertion that cannabis could not destroy someones life. It's not specifically relevant to the pro/anti legalization debate.
It's not particularly nice to be called a dick.. you seem angry so I will leave it there because it's never a good basis for debate.
(as an aside in that I hope we can all agree that it is not extremely addictive.. This is one area of this that interests me deeply. It is becoming clear that cannabis is not physically addictive - but I have observed dependence in most people I know who smoke it. I'd love to see some better studies into why that is - is psychosomatic because they expect to be addicted, or just a product of habit?)
Good point; the best growers will always have a market for their product. NorCal is a lot like Napa Valley... some of the best wines in the world, if you know what I mean.
There's also the tax revenue. I'd assume some of the money made from the illicit trade is laundered, but from my pro poker days I can tell you for sure that much of it is not. Even the people making, for instance, $200k per year are probably at most laundering (and therefore paying tax on) half of it.
Some people argue that owners of certain plants should be allowed to sell their property, but only on the condition that they give a portion of the proceeds to other individuals who demand it by threat of force.
> If it becomes legalized, it becomes commoditized and pushes the small basement operations out because it is no longer profitable. In the end, prices are lower, crime is reduced
The small basement operations aren't part of the crime problem (ignoring the illegality of marijuana itself).
For the most part I agree with your arguments, except:
crime is reduced
I'm not so sure that is the case (well, apart from the fact that selling the drug would no longer be illegal :)).
It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway.
But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D
> It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway.
That depends on what you mean by 'crime due to people taking the drug.' How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit.
> But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D
True, but then it would no longer be 'pot-related crime' where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.' You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another.
How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit.
We still have to account for potential taxation etc. so the price might not go right down. Secondly there will certainly be more users and possibly people using more of the drug.
With all that said I highly doubt there is a meaningful statistic for pot abusers causing crime; it's just not the profile of the drug.
You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another.
Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :)
where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.'
So then it becomes "crack is destroying our society" - there will always be people saying these things. Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our society". I guess pot is more widely lambasted due to being illegal (and possibly due to the fact it tends to inhibit abusers interactions in a much more noticable way)
In this situation I would probably support legalization; if you look at the drugs profile in the area most of the production is from small/medium gangs and individuals. The legal trade has changed that profile even more.
The major stumbling blocks I feel exist generally for legalization of pot is that in other areas larger, more dangerous drugs gangs exist and I a) don't think we should give into them and b) don't imagine they will let us take a lucrative industry from them without a fight.
> Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :)
My point was that a number of people point to crime as the reason to keep it illegal. "If it's causing all this crime now, then making it more easily accessible to larger amounts of people would cause even more crime." Crime is the symptom, but <insert illegal drug here> is not the disease.
> Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our society"
To a lesser extent though. People like to attack drugs that are illegal much more just because:
- They have been illegal. (i.e. the government says it's bad so therefore it must really be bad)
- They have been demonized for very long time. (i.e. "I grew up hearing about how bad <drug> is; therefore that is 'the way things are.'")
- They are an unknown. (i.e. "I've never taken the drug, and I don't know anyone that has taken the drug so therefore it's very easy for me to just believe all the demonizing stories I hear and blame drug users for all the ills of the world.") This is very similar to the attitudes that a lot of people have (or have had) towards homosexuals. Some of the ideas that people have about how 'all' homosexuals are, are completely outrageous, but they hold these ideas very easily because they've never met/known someone that isn't heterosexual. (I'm not really saying that 'drug users' are just persecuted like gays are/were. There are plenty of people have have wild fantasies about what the reality of drug use really is, and I'm using the wild fantasies that people have about what homosexuals are really like as a parallel.)
People like to attack drugs that are illegal much more just because:
Yeh, sorry that was my point. I was trying to say; it's not an ideal argument because there will always be people who say these things.
In a small part they are right (because heavy pot smokers are generally low-achieving/non-functioning due to the drug). But then the same applies to heavy alcohol abusers.
Basically; it's possible to simply ignore those who blame pot/alcohol/broccoli etc. because they will always moan about something regardless of what happens :P
It's at least an empirical opinion. Apart from some extraordinary individuals I am not aware of a heavy pot smoker (from among my retinue of friends/aquaintances/people I know about) who does not suffer from some form of associated problem.
I'm willing & happy to be proved wrong, but there hasn't been enough studies yet to prove one way or the other (though as far as I last read it was starting to come down on the side of what I have seen)
>Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :)
I totally agree, and that's why we should bring back alcohol prohibition. Sure, it would increase alcohol-related violence, but "people will commit crimes regardless", so what does it matter?
Why not? It is a solution to the cannabis-crime factor. Prohibition of alcohol isn't "a solution to the crime factor", but it certainly led to a reduction in obtaining-alcohol-related-crime.
> Why not? It is a solution to the cannabis-crime factor.
I think that you're missing the point. Like was said before, most of the people committing crimes related to cannabis will just move on to commit the same crimes, but related to another drug or illegal substance. The effect on overall crime will probably be negligible.
On the other hand, it would reduce the 'crime' related to things like possession. I guess it really comes down to which stats you are using to look at 'crime'...
> but it certainly led to a reduction in obtaining-alcohol-related-crime.
As I pointed out, it's incomparable because it is a different type of crime. Prohibition of Alcohol probably would reduce the overall amount of crime in society. But it's another matter. If, on the other hand, prohibition drove individuals to other (hypothetically legal) substances which had the same affect as alcohol and were eventually as widespread then it is a comparable issue.
You can't turn around and present legalization as a way of reducing crime - because that seems very unlikely. It's better to rely on other arguments.
How can you not understand this? Look at the prohibition of alcohol for an example. Organized crime ran the bootlegging operations; people were shot in the streets for control of the alcohol and money generated from it.
Now, look at what is happening in Mexico and the southern parts of the U.S. Try to tell me that crime wouldn't be reduced.
You need to learn some basic economics. (First question: Cocaine, heroin, opium, alcohol and marihuana used to be legal in the UK (and most other places), there was nothing like todays gang violence. Why? Second question: Why did crime increase during prohibition?)
Prohibition of a substance people wants leads to illegal distribution. Illegal distributors can not use private property protection normally used by those who distribute legal goods. So bootleggers, crack dealers etc. kill each other to enforce contracts, take markets and steal each others stuff. This is why prohibition causes crime. You will have a very hard time finding any informed participant in the debate over legalization contesting this fact.
Prohibition of a substance people wants leads to illegal distribution....
Most of your post I am entirely in agreement with.
The problem is thus:
Currently we are discussing cannabis legalization. I for one could see myself being convinced, and even supporting, it's legalization at some point (certainly my attitude has changed in the last 12 months!). However, in realistic terms, that is not going to reduce overall crime related to the illegal drugs trade - dealers will simply shift focus to other drugs (I admit that there could well me a small reduction where dealers find it too much hassle etc.).
For your scenario to take affect all drugs have to be legalized. I cannot see a reasonable argument for making Heroin, a highly addictive and dangerous substance, legal. I'm fairly sure that many people behind the legalization of cannabis would feel the same way.
And even then I feel the problem would not go away - at least in the long term. Illegal markets will always exist. Sure we can keep legalizing them - but at what point does the danger become too great, at what point does designer drug X become too dangerous? I posit that such a point will come (given rampant legalization) and as such the illegal trade will continue to flourish.
Essentially what you are arguing is the idea of shifting poisonous assets (crime) elsewhere to allow positive gains in certain areas (cannabis industry/use). Which is fine but a) you have to be aware of where those poisonous assets are going to (can you control them?) and b) those assets still exist and you have to deal with them at some point.
That is economics :)
With regards your other post, which you deleted, I can't (and wouldn't anyway!) down mod your replies [for obvious reasons] but I suspect the reason was because of the first comment - the tone of which is usually frowned on here.
"So has the removal of prohibition removed problems due to trading in illegal substances? Answer, by your own admission, is no :)"
"For your scenario to take affect all drugs have to be
legalized."
"I feel the problem would not go away"
You seem to assume that the amount of illegal "effort" to supply illegal substances (with the violence that follows from those activities) has and will remain constant trough prohibition/legalization of some of the most common drugs (alcohol and cannabis). This contradicts basic economic theory. If there is a bigger demand (for illegal substances) there will be a bigger supply (of illegally distributed illegal substances) if an increase in this supply requires organized criminal effort (involving, among other things, violence) prohibition will lead to more crime. (It could also decrease other forms of crime but thats not the matter here.)
"Essentially what you are arguing is the idea of shifting poisonous assets (crime) elsewhere to allow positive gains in certain areas (cannabis industry/use)." I'm not arguing for anything, I'm trying to get the point above across. There are cost and benefits to prohibition of any substance. One of the most widely recognized costs (this is literally the first time I have hard it questioned) is that it causes organized crime.
The only thing you have ignored is the fact that individual drugs are not part of discrete markets. If a dealer loses a revenue stream in cannabis why does that mean he will not continue (and start) in other areas.
While we are on economics there is another issue you've ignored. The fact that legalization removes a revenue stream for the drugs gangs. They will want to expand markets - that means new drugs and new problems.
If they cannot supply cannabis why is it illogical to imagine they would not expand the heroin/coke markets.
If you want some "insider info"; we did a couple of investigations into drugs gangs last year. There is already a lot of market control within the gang infrastructure - they use fairly sophisticated market strategy to expand usage of underperforming drugs in an area for example.
This depends. Do people get into the weed industry because they want to commit crime (naturally evil), or do they get into crime because the weed industry is lucrative and crime comes with it (naturally good with lax morals).
I don't think the distinction matters; surely both profiles will move to other drugs (the first because they want to commit crime, the second because the illegal drugs market is probably more lucrative)
This is pretty interesting situation considering that it's as close to free market as you can get. Legalization could be good or bad but I think the more people, who currently don't use it due to legality, would consume pot and thus keep the prices stable. I have no experience with growing pot but it seems to be a pretty easy thing to do and thus supply is abundant. The market should readjust but that will be harsh
I doubt there's an enormous untapped market here, given the stats on the current number of users. And there's no particular economic reason to think that "prices would remain stable"; yes, demand might rise, but supply will definitely rise (even if supplies were materially constant supply effectively rises due to lowered total cost of production due to lower risk of imprisonment), and there's no a priori reason to believe that these two forces would be even remotely in balance, even if they both exist. That's the way a human brain thinks about things, not the way reality works.
High quality oregano is ~$5 a pound, according to a quick web search. Is there any particular reason to believe it wouldn't stabilize in roughly the same place give or take, say, 5x, if legalized? (And bear in mind that taxes not only don't go to the producer, they actually inhibit produce demand (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Cha... , search for "Who Pays Taxes?"), so that only makes it worse for these guys if the government starts taxes it punitively.) That's still over a full order of magnitude price drop from the estimates of MJ/lb I could dig up. It strikes me as very, very likely the bulk of the cost is compensation for taking on risk, rather than material or labor costs.
"True, and grapes are 2.99 a pound at the local grocery store. Doesn't seem to explain why a good dinner table wine can be upwards of $100 a bottle."
While there is an element of perceived value built into the price of a bottle of wine, much more goes into pricing a bottle of wine than the price of grapes.
Different grape varietals can be more or less easy to grow depending on skin thickness, adaptability to different climates, and disease resistance. The pinot noir grape, a notoriously finicky varietal, really only shines in cooler regions and its thin skin makes it highly susceptible to disease. Other grape varietals, like Chardonnay, are highly adaptable to a number of different regions and soil types.
Once harvested, grapes are typically sorted according to quality. The best grapes are used for the best wines. The excess, low-quality harvest is usually used for blending into massive batches of lower quality wine or grape juice or it's thrown into compost to fertilize the next year's crop.
Once the juice from the grapes is pressed and fermented, the wine, depending on type, will either be aged in oak barrels or steel tanks. American Oak Barrels can range in price from $500-$1000 and French Oak Barrels can be double that. If aged in oak, which is typical of many reds and a few whites, the aging can typically take anywhere from a few months to many years.
Once aged, the winemaker will typically select small samples from different barrels and experiment with different blends to get the optimal blend for balance and aging.
All this being said, here's what I learned from working at a smaller winery in Virginia for a year: As a rule of thumb, most of our wines cost about $5-6 per bottle to produce. In the winery, we would sell at retail between $10-30 depending on the type of wine. We would sell at wholesale to restaurants and stores at $8-12/bottle. Stores would typically mark the bottles up to match what we sold the wine at at retail in the winery. Restaurants on the other hand will typically mark up a wine 3-5x what they purchased the wine at to account for corked wine, uncorking fees, storage costs, and of course to make a profit.
So sure, marketing and perception play a big part establishing a market price for wine. (Thus a huge jump in Pinot sales the year after Sideways came out, and a corresponding drop in Merlot sales). But it's also naive to compare the mass-produced Concord or Niagra grapes you're getting at a grocery store to the bottle of wine you're getting at a restaurant.
>But it's also naive to compare the mass-produced Concord or Niagra grapes you're getting at a grocery store to the bottle of wine you're getting at a restaurant.
As naive as some here assuming that all marijuana would be grown, harvested, processed, packaged, and marketed like bulk oregano?
The process of cultivating, harvesting, trimming, drying and curing medicinal-grade Marijuana is as involved and labor-intensive as any other artisanal process like winemaking or gourmet food preparation. It can't be that everyone still thinks it's essentially Cheech and Chong growing bagseed in their high school dorm room closet.
Take a look at the lengths people will go to find and cultivate world-beating cannabis:
I can definitely tell you this much: California has had essentially legal cannabis for over a decade now, Amsterdam even longer. Growers and dispensaries/shops operate in clear view of the law and only a few ever see serious legal repercussions.
I can also tell you that properly dried and cured cannabis of an exotic or perceivably powerful or flavorful strain is about $400 per ounce. Regular, serviceable "bulk" weed grown outdoors for commercial trade runs about 75-100 an ounce. THAT market I can see becoming commoditized. The high-end market, maybe a bit, but not nearly to such an extent.
Along with the disassembly of your point made by others, I'd observe that your argument falls flat even before we get to the question of wine. Bulk MJ is much more like oregano in the processing and creation than a wine process; its mind altering-ness hardly factors into costs of production at all.
I think you may be making a critical, but easy, economic error, which is considering only one side of the supply/demand dynamic. Yes, demand may be sky high, but that only implies high prices if supply is scarce. Things with sky-high demand and a corresponding sky-high supply are still frequently very, very cheap. And legal MJ's supply would be sky high; as others have pointed out, it's called "weed" for a reason. It is not hard to grow, it is not hard to process, it is not hard to move, it doesn't take specialized equipment beyond what already exists off the shelf. The only two ways for the price to end up even remotely high is for the government to tax the hell out of it, or for a cartel to form. And it's very difficult to see how a cartel could form under those circumstances, too; how would you form a dandelion cartel?
First, it takes ~3 lbs of grapes to make a bottle of wine (and the grapes aren't likely the same as the ones you buy in a store). So that would be ~$9/bottle based on the 2.99/lb you mentioned, which is probably a lot more common than $100/bottle. Trader Joe's wine is what, $3?
Even so, you haven't accounted for the winemaking process, which I imagine is significantly more complicated and time consuming than the marijuana-making process (does it involving anything more than drying the leaves?).
Surely there would be craft/luxury brands that are more expensive, but I think for mass-producers, selling a cheaper (as in not cost prohibitive) product would be significantly more profitable.
> Even so, you haven't accounted for the winemaking process, which I imagine is significantly more complicated and time consuming than the marijuana-making process (does it involving anything more than drying the leaves?)
Well, if we're to set aside the actual strain-crossing, hybridization of sativa and indica (not to mention with ruderalis for a different flowering and flavor profile), cloning, pulling of males and hermaphrodites, creating plants simply for harvesting feminized seeds guaranteed to yield _foo_ amount of grams per plant or per square foot of space depending on lighting, and on and on... then yes, cannabis is not like wine.
Making high-quality hashish, butane hash oils, tinctures, or other "decoctions" such as icewater extraction, are supplemental processes that require significant labor for the amount produced.
I hear you, though. Winemaking is fancy and there have been shows like "Falcon Crest" that chronicle it with an heir of refinement and love's labor that you don't see from, for example, "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle". Cannabis will, until fully legalized, always be demonized and caricatured as a rebellious college kids' vice.
It is an extremely significant cash crop in the US, though; and I think it will be even when legalization does come around; much moreso than, say, oregano or sage.
> True, and grapes are 2.99 a pound at the local grocery store.
Yes, and by the pound is how bulk MJ is bought and sold at a wholesale level.
> Doesn't seem to explain why a good dinner table wine can be upwards of $100 a bottle.
This has been post-processed, aged, and blended by masters whose work is more art than science. I'm not sure there is a good analogue in MJ world except perhaps hashish or hash oil. Hashish is relatively easy to produce and may be aged. It is certainly refined to a greater potency than bulk MJ.
So it will cost more per weight unit than bulk MJ.
In this article "Prices are now much less than $2,000 a pound."
A lot of pro legalisation campaigners take the "imagine how much you could collect in taxes" approach and calculate based roughly on the current size of the industry.
I think marijuana is easy enough to produce and responsive enough to modern agricultural tricks to be a pretty small industry. Perhaps orders of magnitudes smaller then alcohol.
As others have mentioned, there will probably be a premium market, but even there it is hard to imagine a prices anywhere near $2k per pound
Perhaps not an argument against, but certainly a 'reality' check argument against the "it's so obvious we should do it" mentality that seems to thrive in online forums.
Work is hard, let's go shopping. Is a poor argument. The real issue is the total difficulty of all issues not simply the number of them.
EX: A "major" issue is it's hard to detect if someone is currently under the effects of pot. Because, apparently drug test are designed to detect if you have smoked not if you are currently impaired. However, an officer can do a road side sobriety test without using a breatilizer so it's not a real issue.
Now if there was some sort of bioaccumulation of pot ever time that caused massive issues then that single issue could prevent legalization on its own.
Now if there was some sort of bioaccumulation of pot ever time that caused massive issues then that single issue could prevent legalization on its own.
I don't see a problem. Pot use can be detected, sometimes days (or weeks) after. The law in most of europe is simple: If you're tested positive while driving then your license is gone.
My point is if you get high and are only impaired for 8 hours then after 8 hours if you are not impared you should be able to drive. If you must wait 2 weeks after smoking to drive then it's not exactly legal for most people.
The bioaccumulation idea was a separate issue; if smoking pot for 30 years turned people into zombies with an uncontrollable desire to eat brains then it should be illegal regardless of other negatives. (I could not think of any issues like this so I made something up for the sake of argument.)
PS: You can probably detect pot in the blood of 75% of Americans if you set your threshold low enough. (Second hand smoke from 2 blocks away etc.) That does not mean it's impossible to separate smokers from non smokers just you need to set a reasonable threshold and accept you might miss the occasional smoker.
My point is if you get high and are impaired for 8 hours then after 8 hours you should be able to drive. If you must wait 2 weeks after smoking to drive then it's not exactly legal for most people.
Well, the tests are not that precise (yet), but it's the same with alcohol. You may very well be tested positive if you had been drunk the day before.
Imho that's just fair. If I want to smoke then leaving the keys at home for a few days seems reasonable. If I want to be a regular pot smoker then I shouldn't be driving anyways, as my reflexes are permanently reduced.
I can attest to the latter from experience, as I used to smoke quite a bit for a while. The longterm effect on concentration and memory have been fairly small, but definitely noticeable.
This is way out of my area of expert ease, but as I understand it alcohol tests are focused on the presence of alcohol because they are trying to see if someone is currently impaired. Pot tests are focused on metabolic waste products from Pot because the goal is to discover if someone has smoked in the past not if they are impaired. This is why at least one type of Pot test can get false positives from taking an over the counter pain killer as they both produce the same metabolic waste.
Anyway, as a non smoker I assumed Pot like most drugs had a fairly short term effect, if you are impaired for 3-7 days then that's a separate issue I was not aware of.
Bit surprised about the downvotes (some pot fanatic around? ;-) ).
FWIW, I've been smokin' quite a bit myself for a few years, I'm in no way against it.
I think your reasoning is not correct. I think the quick-tests go for the metabolic waste simply because there is no other reliable test short of taking your blood.
I've not been in the situation but I guess that blood test will take place before you actually lose the license, just like with alcohol.
Anyways, like I said, I know what I was like when I was smokin' frequently and anyone who does will probably agree that your overall performance is slightly reduced even a few days after. For that reason I'm okay with not allowing people to drive during a reasonable timespan.
I have yet to hear a cogent argument against legalization.
I have a couple of pretty simple one (it's worth considering).
The long term affects of pot abuse are pretty easy to develop - I've seen medium-heavy users become fairly "brain dead" after several years of use. This is entirely from observation but it seems to occur faster than the same effect due to alcohol abuse. As a result we could see quite a few problems from more long term users.
It is also harder to determine if someone is under the influence. This would mean some industries would have to begin mandatory drug testing prior to performing sensitive work - random examples: doctors, pilots. That's costly, time consuming etc. And if the long term affects of the drug are as pronounced as I suspect you could see heavy abusers in those fields actually pass drug tests and still fail to concentrate at a critical moment.
It's certainly an area that needs a lot more research before legalization occurs.
But this presumes that keeping it illegal prevents people from using it, and it clearly doesn't.
Mandatory drug tests are common already (Home Depot does drug tests on all employees -- don't you feel safer about hardware?) People's performance are also impacted by stress, sleep deprivation, etc. - they should be monitored for performance, not blood chemistry.
>It's certainly an area that needs a lot more research before legalization occurs.
People's performance are also impacted by stress, sleep deprivation, etc. - they should be monitored for performance, not blood chemistry.
Solid point. I can't disagree. Possibly the only issue worth raising is that cannabis influence may not be as physically obvious as those things you mention. For example a nurse may notice a brain surgeon is looking fatigued and raise concerns, but if on drugs his attention may wander at random moments which are not immediately obvious in the same way.
The most effective argument is that it is a "Gateway Drug". There is no proof that weed makes people use crack or heroin but it is a good way to scare the public.
Marijuana is a gateway drug to other illegal drugs because it itself is illegal. In order to get marijuana you need to go see a guy that is ALSO selling other drugs (the kind that are actually dangerous).
Legal marijuana makes it so that people don't start using more dangerous drugs on a whim. They are no longer presented with an easy opportunity.
If pot is on the same level as alcohol which do you think is more of a gateway drug? One that makes you introverted and cautious or one that makes you more confident while simultaneously impairing your judgement?
It's also a 'gateway drug' in that you don't go crazy and commit mass-murder when you try it the first time, so you start to disbelieve all of the anti-drug propaganda and maybe decide that 'they' were lying about the harder drugs too.
I was tempted to give one, but I don't think this is a good forum for discussing such a boring political issue. Please keep pro/anti drug legalization arguments elsewhere.
I'm new(ish) here, but I don't see why not. HN tends to have a much better atmosphere for serious discussion than most web forums I've seen. I'd be happy to hear both sides of this argument here, and hopefully to see more reasonable debate than what is usually presented.
It has a pleasant atmosphere in part because it mostly avoids inflammatory topics like politics. I'd much rather talk startups and business, and maybe living abroad with patio11, for instance, than discuss why he's a Republican and I'm not. The former is bound to be a useful, interesting discussion; the latter most likely not.
Actually, I'd be ok with the latter discussion too, but only in person, not on an internet fourm.
>Please keep pro/anti drug legalization arguments elsewhere.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your account is 49 days old...I'm not sure that you're at the "I get to tell people what sorts of discussions they're allowed to have" stage yet, especially not to people that have been here for almost three years.
Honestly? Not really. It's an open forum, I don't think it's really ever good form to tell somebody "hey, you're not supposed to talk about that here." (unless it's spam, in which case, just downvote. Saying "don't talk about that" is off-topic and has been specifically addressed by PG in the past.)
I'm sorry I didn't know that you had an alt account, it's just annoying when people start showing up and trying to dictate how things "should be" to established members of an existing community.
Growing something is easy. Growing a plant or plants healthy and robust enough for a decent harvest is far from easy unless you're already a farmer/grower.
"Growing a plant or plants healthy and robust enough for a decent harvest is far from easy ..."
You can cover up a multitude of sins using solvent extraction + chromatographic separation + blending. If legalization takes off, I suspect we will see the rise of blending conglomerates that assemble products for various tastes and purposes, like we see with whisky.
growing grapes is easy, but producing an amazing wine is hard, or more in the spirit of HN building a web app is pretty easy but building something people want is hard, I assume the same applies with weed.
It would be pretty lame if the Budweisers and Phillip Morris of the world come in and commoditize Marijuana, and it would put a major dent in some local California economies. But like a fine microbrew or boutique web shop there will always be a market for quality.
"Creative destruction can cause temporary economic distress. Layoffs of workers with obsolete working skills can be one price of new innovations valued by consumers. Though a continually innovating economy generates new opportunities for workers to participate in more creative and productive enterprises (provided they can acquire the necessary skills), creative destruction can cause severe hardship in the short term, and in the long term for those who cannot acquire the skills and work experience.
However, in the long-term society as a whole (including the descendants of those that experienced short-term hardship) enjoys a rise in overall quality of life due to the accumulation of innovation - for example, 90% of Americans were farmers in 1790, while 2.6% of Americans were farmers in 1990[9]. Over those 200 years farm jobs were destroyed by exponential productivity gains in agricultural technology and replaced by jobs in new industries. Present day farmers and non-farmers alike enjoy much more prosperous lifestyles than their counterparts in 1790."
In the article they explain it is more like wine than a standard commodity. After legalization you will end up with everything from cheap mass produced quality up to artisan award winning products with a wide range of prices.
I can personally vouch for at least 1 individual who isn't smoking now but would certain be interested if it was legal. Unfortunately, I err.. I mean "this individual" doesn't live in California. :-(
My only question is - if California legalizes, will the Obama administration step in and block the move just like the Clinton administration did with Oregon and medical marijuana?
I wonder if it would be legal to create a futures market in weed prices. This would allow producers to hedge. They would just settle by looking at average prices (per some agreed-upon source) rather than physical delivery.
Futures markets in heroin and cocaine could be used to predict political instability in Afghanistan and Colombia, respectively.
The US government created a futures market in political assassinations a few years ago, so I can't imagine they'd have a problem with a futures market in drug prices.
So unfortunately it might be a little complex as a government project. But surely there's at least one wealth stoner who might want such a market to exist. Maybe James Cayne wants something new to trade.
If marijuana isn't legalized in fall I'm seriously going to start lossing faith in humanity. I can't believe it's already 2010 and a herb that does nothing but good to everybody is ilegal for all the wrong reasons.
I have long wondered what the impact would be on other illegal drug prices if MJ is legalized and undergoes a massive price drop. Many happy accidents from unintended consequences seem possible. If this removes ~20% of the revenue going to cartels and organized crime, will prices of other drugs go up or down? Will this lead to an up tick or down tick in inter-gang violence? Will local gangs in our communities lose enough revenue to put them out of business?
Will there be fewer thugs on the streets committing crimes in general, all because you can buy a pound of MJ for $100 instead of $10,000.
It's time to stop the War on Some Drugs (as Robert Anton Wilson so eloquently put it). I'm glad to see that it sounds like we're getting closer, with California leading the way. The amount of abuse, crime and fraud in the legal drug industry dwarfs the illegal drug industry combined, so by taking the spot light off this silly war on drugs, we can achieve many bigger policy goals in the pharmaceutical industry.
Another plus will be we can finally help to strengthen Mexico. Anything about Mexico is politicized due to the current economic issues with immigration and drugs, so you see very few people calling a duck a duck, and saying the US indirectly caused spill-over failure in Mexico by having the war on drugs at all. Anyone who wants to fix immigration and stop all the rampant crime on the border, well, you need to also be on board with stopping the War on Some Drugs. If Mexico was as stable as Canada there wouldn't be as many immigrants, and if Mexico wasn't run by ultra-violent drug lords making billions off of US consumers, then not as many Mexicans would even want to leave their own country.
100 years from now everyone will look back at the decades of the war on drugs and consider our entire culture as being cruel and barbarous. As a society, we punished millions of people and ruined countless lives because we chose to collectively treat drug use and chemical addiction as a criminal issue, instead of a health issue. To be fair, we simply didn't have the technology to frame it as a public health issue, treat it medically, and thereby take it out of the hands of law enforcement and the courts. But we could have at least not ruined millions of innocent people's lives.
The sad thing is, people will indict the poor economic situation as a result of marijuana when its a result of every major "rush". People having no sense of how to plan financially.