Legalization of Marijuana

[bean]

While many people have pointed out that legalization of marijuana would be excellent for our economy as it would create new jobs, allow for government regulation and taxation instead of having it sold on the street, and would allow us to save money paying for less law enforcement (drugs officer, probation officers, and prisons), the counter-argument is that marijuana causes addiction.

A New York times article examines these claims and finds that the detractors are correct. 9% of people who use marijuana become addicted to it (far less than the 15% who are addicted to alcohol and the 100% who become addicted to tobacco, but there are some who still experience addiction).

Even though alcohol and opiates (which includes painkillers and heroin) are the two leading primary addictions, the percentage of those seeking treatment for marijuana addiction, compared with 10 years ago, has increased significantly to 16 percent in 2007 from 12 percent in 1997. The percentages of those seeking treatment for cocaine (13 percent of admissions in 2007) and alcohol addiction (22 percent in 2007) declined slightly.

Advocates for legalizing marijuana and some addiction specialists say these concerns are overwrought. The admissions data, they say, is deceiving because it was collected by government agencies that oppose legalization; 57 percent of those admitted for marijuana addiction treatment were ordered to do so by law enforcement. (The percentage of those ordered into treatment was lower for other drugs, except for methamphetamine. For alcohol abuse, 42 percent were ordered into treatment.)

Advocates and even some addiction specialists say cannabis is an effective treatment for medical and emotional problems, and can even help some battling addictions to harder drugs.

The risk of addiction, they say, is less problematic than for alcohol and other drugs. For instance, of the people who had used marijuana, only 9 percent became addicted, according to a 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, a nonprofit research organization on science and health. Of those who drank alcohol, 15 percent became addicted. For cocaine, the figure was 17 percent, and heroin, 23 percent. (These are the latest figures from the institute; advocates and addiction experts said there were no more recent data available.)

Personally, I don't smoke pot. It's too expensive both in cost and risk for the feeling of being light-headed, mellow, and calm; however, I think it's actually an extremely benign recreational drug and even if it was worse, I believe in personal freedom (even the freedom to do stupid things as long as no one else is made a victim of your choices). If people want to smoke pot, then we should let them. We should also regulate the industry so they get products that aren't bad for them, the people selling it aren't introducing them to worse drugs, and the profits from the sale of marijuana are being taxed.

What annoys me about this is that in investigating the "other side" of the issue, I came up against misleading information over and over. For example, they show treatment for marijuana use going up 4% over 10 years while more than half the people getting treatment for marijuana abuse are forced to be there by the courts (and another large portion of the remainder are teenagers being forced into treatment by their parents).

Statistics are supposed to be a scientific tool used by intelligent people to come to reasonable conclusions. It drives me crazy when I see people manipulating statistics to support their point of view. You see this all the time now. Both sides will reference the same research data results, but one side will find some narrow statistic that is meaningless when you actually look at the data. Even worse, sometimes you get groups that manufacture their own "studies" (they aren't actual peer-reviewed scientific studies, but pundits quote from them like they are studies). It's like you are baking cookies and we do a test run where the directions from Chef A make delicious cookies, and those from Chef B make shit-cookies made of pure shit. Then Chef B releases a statistic stating how the shit cookies are lower in sugar, so they must be better for you, and they get the Florida Family Association (or some other bull-shit loving group) to publish a "study" on it. Except for a few newspapers that still want Pulitzer's and thus do research, you can't trust statistics in the news either.

[Hawkzombie]

I was discussing this very issue with my sister in law yesterday.

I think it should be legalized, but then you have an interesting problem. Alcohol and Tobacco are legal to sell, providing you have a license, and legal to manuyfacture providing you have additional licenses, and follow a strict code of regulations.

Regulations, taxes, fees, licenses, etc...this will all drive the cost UP.

So even if we legalize Mary Jane (lol) so the common man can go get his pack of them at a local hash bar, what's to stop the same guy from getting identical looking marijuana joints from Jim down the street, when Jim simply grows his own and sells it for around half the price? The only risk is to Jim, not the consumer. You buy illegally made cigarettes or alcohol, after the transaction is done, then you're set. The seller is the only one in constant risk.

And let's say they develop sting operations. That's more wasted money that is being wasted like it is now on the war on drugs.

I don't smoke pot. Never have, never will. But there are two sides to every coin, and it's not as simple as simply 'legalize it'

[Vanthar]

Originally Posted by Hawkzombie

I was discussing this very issue with my sister in law yesterday.

I think it should be legalized, but then you have an interesting problem. Alcohol and Tobacco are legal to sell, providing you have a license, and legal to manuyfacture providing you have additional licenses, and follow a strict code of regulations.

Regulations, taxes, fees, licenses, etc...this will all drive the cost UP.

So even if we legalize Mary Jane (lol) so the common man can go get his pack of them at a local hash bar, what's to stop the same guy from getting identical looking marijuana joints from Jim down the street, when Jim simply grows his own and sells it for around half the price? The only risk is to Jim, not the consumer. You buy illegally made cigarettes or alcohol, after the transaction is done, then you're set. The seller is the only one in constant risk.

And let's say they develop sting operations. That's more wasted money that is being wasted like it is now on the war on drugs.

I don't smoke pot. Never have, never will. But there are two sides to every coin, and it's not as simple as simply 'legalize it'

You think that single sellers could somehow have lower costs than big manufacturers? There's just no way. Growing large scale will benefit those larger companies that choose to do it. Jim down the street might be able to grow enough to sustain himself, but his costs cannot compete with a big industry grower in spite of regulatory fees.

I can brew my own beer or go drink some of my friends that they might have brewed, but it surely is not hurting the liquor industry at all. People can already grow tobacco plants or brew beer and these are not serious threats to their respective industries.

I suppose the best indicator would be beer prices before and after prohibition. I expect the illegal commodity to be substantially more expensive.

[carnage11]

As far as addiction goes, psychological addiction is much different from physical. People can be psychologically addicted to many things. It's no reason to prohibit things, though. Sex? Food? Sociality? I mean...anything in life can be addicting. It's personal choice, it's freedom.

To think that Cannabis is illegal for health reasons, or any such thing is laughable.


This was going around Facebook a while ago, and it is so very true:





It is WAAAAY to easy to grow pot in your backyard or garage. There's no way the government could legalize it and get any profit from it. There is WAAAAY too much money to be lost over the legalization of cannabis. That's not even considering the shady shit the DEA does behind the curtain.

[VALIS]

Breaking news: People use propaganda to support their position.

In other news, video games are too expensive, and video game companies would like to stop used game sales.

[Hawkzombie]

Ok, let's say it costs Jim 4 dollars a joint and the big business 2 dollars a joint. Let's say the government taxes the shit out of it. and it ends up being 4.50 a joint. Then add sales tax. Then add regulations and license fees. Regulatory standards of quality, etc. Retail markup. Suddenly you've got a joint that costs 6 bucks. Jims may cost him more to make, but he has nothing else to charge for but the weed.

This isn't about a home brewery (I could be wrong but I was the impression it was illegal to brew hard liquor at home) or growing your own tobacco for personal use and small selling (even micro-breweries have to have licenses and follow strict food regulations). This is a guy who grows it specifically to sell it. And while his costs for growing it might be initially higher than big business, Big business has to deal with the government and the regulations. If they can't turn a good profit AND sell less than 'basement dealers' there is no reason for them to even get into it. And like I said...unless the government can fully regulate it and get a cut of those sales (like alcohol and tobacco) then there is no way in hell they are gonna legalize it.

Marijuana isn't illegal because it's a drug and drugs are bad mmkay. it's still illegal because it's simply not profitable for the government to dip its big toe into that pool. Plus the controversy around it. Most people could care less. But voters seem to care a lot. And voters keep politicians in power.

This is all just theorizing, but it makes sense to me.

[bean]

Originally Posted by Hawkzombie

Ok, let's say it costs Jim 4 dollars a joint and the big business 2 dollars a joint. Let's say the government taxes the shit out of it. and it ends up being 4.50 a joint. Then add sales tax. Then add regulations and license fees. Regulatory standards of quality, etc. Retail markup. Suddenly you've got a joint that costs 6 bucks. Jims may cost him more to make, but he has nothing else to charge for but the weed.

Then Jim gets to sell $4 joints at the risk of paying heavy fines for not having a license OR maybe there's a law saying you can have 2-3 plants for personal use, but you can't sell it. However, he COULD get a license and sell it as a small-time distributor, but he'd need to follow the rules and be open for inspection like other licensed businesses. Licensing isn't a bad thing - it ensures businesses are doing things to protect the public interest (like not having dirty kitchens, or growing pot in a backyard with no protection from neighborhood kids getting into it, etc.)

However, what you aren't considering is that Jim's product will probably be inferior as a large-scale manufacturer will literally invest millions into finding the best tasting and most convenient way to package and sell marijuana. It will be like tobaccos is now. . . you can absolutely get pipe tobacco at a tiny fraction of the cost that you pay for cigarettes, but barely anyone bothers with pipes.

[roboninja]

Originally Posted by Hawkzombie

Ok, let's say it costs Jim 4 dollars a joint and the big business 2 dollars a joint. Let's say the government taxes the shit out of it. and it ends up being 4.50 a joint. Then add sales tax. Then add regulations and license fees. Regulatory standards of quality, etc. Retail markup. Suddenly you've got a joint that costs 6 bucks. Jims may cost him more to make, but he has nothing else to charge for but the weed.

This isn't about a home brewery (I could be wrong but I was the impression it was illegal to brew hard liquor at home) or growing your own tobacco for personal use and small selling (even micro-breweries have to have licenses and follow strict food regulations). This is a guy who grows it specifically to sell it. And while his costs for growing it might be initially higher than big business, Big business has to deal with the government and the regulations. If they can't turn a good profit AND sell less than 'basement dealers' there is no reason for them to even get into it. And like I said...unless the government can fully regulate it and get a cut of those sales (like alcohol and tobacco) then there is no way in hell they are gonna legalize it.

Marijuana isn't illegal because it's a drug and drugs are bad mmkay. it's still illegal because it's simply not profitable for the government to dip its big toe into that pool. Plus the controversy around it. Most people could care less. But voters seem to care a lot. And voters keep politicians in power.

This is all just theorizing, but it makes sense to me.

Your problem here is your numbers. Weed is simply a plant. An extremely easy to grow plant. There is no reason it should cost more than tobacco, other than the fact it is illegal. So your $4/joint analogy makes no sense, adding taxes etc. after that amount. The thing could be taxed to high heaven and still be way cheaper than your $4 example. And way cheaper than it is now.

I smoke nearly every day, so I obviously would love for it to be legal.

[J Arcane]

This was going around Facebook a while ago, and it is so very true:

Except for the part where it isn't at all.

It's legal to raise non-drug-grade hemp, which is what's used in all those other products.

Or did you think all those hemp clothes and hemp milk they sell in the hippie stores were actually coming from the same crop the dude selling dimebags in the park gets his stocks from?

[carnage11]

Originally Posted by J Arcane

Except for the part where it isn't at all.

It's legal to raise non-drug-grade hemp, which is what's used in all those other products.

Or did you think all those hemp clothes and hemp milk they sell in the hippie stores were actually coming from the same crop the dude selling dimebags in the park gets his stocks from?

Is that all you got from that picture? Hemp shirts and milk?

Think....Petroleum (plastics), Medicinal, Recreational (alcohol), etc. The pharmaceutical companies are gonna let people grow their own medicine?


It's more than that, though. It's all about money. The DEA gets a very large sum of money each year for the War on Drugs. Then there's the prison systems that get to build bigger and better prisons to accommodate all the non-violent "criminals".

[MagGnome]

Hemp milk ice cream is actually really good. There's a chocolate one that I love. I haven't had it in a while though, hmm...


As for marijuana, as I've said many times before, I am 100% in favor of legalization. Let companies sell joints in stores (just like cigarettes), let people grow their own pot at home (just like people can grow their own hops and brew their own beer, wine, mead, etc.), and regulate/tax commercial sales of marijuana in a similar manner to alcohol and tobacco. Limit smoking of pot to the same places where cigarette smoking is allowed...which will hopefully one day be in private residences only.

[bean]

Originally Posted by MagGnome

Limit smoking of pot to the same places where cigarette smoking is allowed...which will hopefully one day be in private residences only.

I have no problem with smokers smoking outside - even near doors. That's rude of them, but few places have created a safe area for smokers that is out of the wind.

[bean]

@J Arcane - Right. I agree about the hemp part. However, I have to wonder about the one point that remains. Are pharmaceutical, alcohol, and tobacco companies opposing the legalization of marijuana in order to prevent competition?

I have never read anything that would suggest this is actually happening, and I'm thinking alcohol and tobacco companies wouldn't take a hit. Pharmaceutical companies would probably take a large hit as people would use marijuana for pain relief and a sleep aid. I know that when I was taking chemo, my friends gave me marijuana brownies because they made it so I could actually keep food down (I didn't really get "high" off them though).

[National Kato]

Originally Posted by bean

@J Arcane - Right. I agree about the hemp part. However, I have to wonder about the one point that remains. Are pharmaceutical, alcohol, and tobacco companies opposing the legalization of marijuana in order to prevent competition?

PhRMA, for sure. The medicinal application of marijuana, instead of buying OTC and prescription medicines, would hurt the pharmaceutical companies on their bottom line. Add alcoholic beverage manufacturers/distributors and tobacco companies to cover recreational usage and you have a lot of lobbying power against legalization.

[evilgoodwin]

I'd rather be "addicted" to marijuana than my current nicotine and alcohol addictions.

[Hawkzombie]

Like I said my thoughts and opinions are merely theories. I have no basis in fact for them at all, but they seem to make sense to me. Right now you have a LOT of people growing their own profits. Once the government takes over, do you really think they are gonna stop simply because the Government can undercut them? And let's say they do...if I make 1500 bucks a week from selling pot, would I really be all

Well, looks like it's legal now. Better close up show since people can buy it cheaper

No...not really. But that's just me.

[bean]

Originally Posted by Hawkzombie

And let's say they do...if I make 1500 bucks a week from selling pot, would I really be all Well, looks like it's legal now. Better close up show since people can buy it cheaper.

Would you pay your license fee and taxes to make $1000/week without a risk of jail?

[biosc1]

Living in a city where it is decriminilized (ie. they will not arrest you for smoking it, but will if you are dealing), I have to say the local pot smokers are worse than cigarette smokers in terms of being a nuisance.

I don't care if you smoke pot, but you should at least obey the same rules the cigarette smokers do...don't smoke pot in places where smoking a cigarette is banned. "Sticking it to the man", is tiresome and gains you little public sympathy.

[Reverant]

Originally Posted by biosc1

Living in a city where it is decriminilized (ie. they will not arrest you for smoking it, but will if you are dealing), I have to say the local pot smokers are worse than cigarette smokers in terms of being a nuisance.

I don't care if you smoke pot, but you should at least obey the same rules the cigarette smokers do...don't smoke pot in places where smoking a cigarette is banned. "Sticking it to the man", is tiresome and gains you little public sympathy.

That's kinda why I support legalization- let people pursue use if they desire to do so, but also apply the same limitations as everything else. No smoking and driving. No smoking in public (like cigarettes, anyway- depends on local laws). Let people have their outlet, but this way there's well understood and enforceable limitations that are also acceptable to both users and non-users.

I've never used any drug against painkillers after surgery and, of course, alcohol. I used to militant anti-drug in high school, though. Time's mellowed me out a great deal. I have no desire to use the stuff, but I feel that the prohibition of the drug is far, far more damaging to society than its actual recreational use. As long marijuana is subject to the same enforceable limitations as cigarettes and alcohol and society largely adheres to those limitations, I have no problem wholeheartedly supporting full legalization.

[J Arcane]

Is that all you got from that picture? Hemp shirts and milk?

Think....Petroleum (plastics), Medicinal, Recreational (alcohol), etc. The pharmaceutical companies are gonna let people grow their own medicine?

Again, covered by the same laws that let Woody Harrelson walk around in hemp burlap shirts, so far as any plastics purposes are involved.

The only shit that's controlled is the shit that gets you fucked in the brain pan.

If it was profitable to replace half the shit we use with fucking hemp, we'd already be doing it. Hemp oil is not going to solve the fucking energy crisis.