Armed robbery – $75
Murder – $150
Rape – $150
Having a net positive carbon footprint – $100,000,000

Think how quiet the jails would become! (I just put that last one in the mix to give it a California-e feel.)

Now he’s dead to me and I couldn’t care less.

state could realize some tasty revenues from a marijuana tax

-moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney-

Politicians can smell “revenue sources” from an adjoining galaxy.

Alcohol and Tobacco can probably be traced to even more extreme examples of that, but (save for Prohibition) they can RARELY be traced to organized crime (or worse).

You seem to agree that alcohol prohibition was a huge factor in the growth of organized crime in America. Yet, you exempt marijuana prohibition from that mechanism. In fact, you seem to think it works in reverse for marijuana: while bad groups are part of the supply network right now, if we legalize it then those bad groups will take an even greater role in the supply network. Huh?

I believe the opposite will happen. Legalization will bring more competition, thus lowering profit, thus lowering the incentive for the bad groups. Bad groups mostly deal in black markets: that’s where the high profit margin is. Legalization will drastically reduce the black market.

The black market for alcohol and tobacco is small because those drugs are legal. The black market demand for any product is most directly related to its legality and the degree to which it is regulated (with high-regulation and high-taxation increasing black market demand.)

Once again, you miss the forest for the sake of the trees…

That part seems the basis for your argument: if marijuana is no more degenerative than either alcohol or tobacco, then why continue with the prohibition?

It IS, but it isn’t the main one.

The main one is that, unlike the Prohibition, where the breweries were reopened in legit hands, the fact is that most of the groups growing them are not some I would like, ie. FARC and the Taliban.

Marijuana was not made illegal because of its demonstrable negative effects. And while analysis does exist today showing some negative effects from marijuana use, none of them are pathological. With around 15 million marijuana users in this country, why don’t we see the death toll? Is the press not looking hard enough?

It depends. The bottom line on Marijuana is that you rarely see people die from overdosing on it or from getting intoxicated. What you often DO see is somebody’s inhibitions being lowered making them do something stupid. Like (to use a real example) taking your rifle out to start shooting up your old job and the poor souls who work there.

It is correct that it does little directly on the individual front, but it does a considerable amount indirectly.

But that isn’t may main point.

(While the CDC has reported some deaths in the last 30 years with marijuana as the “underlying factor”, none of them are because marijuana is “toxic”. In other words, you can’t overdose on it. It’s about as deadly as falling off a curb, probably less so. Much more dangerous than smoking or ingesting marijuana is being caught with it.)

Only 30? How the hell are they counting these things?

Well, if we were to count the “UNDERlying causes,” it might even be lower, but that is beside the point.

“Mary Jane” almost never makes you do anything you don’t want to (and even then, the issue is with those with pre-existing mental issues).

It is that it makes you do things you want to but that you KNOW you shouldn’t. It lowers the natural defenses of an individual to do stupid or outright evil things that they probably otherwise wouldn’t.

But that isn’t my major point.

Alcohol and Tobacco can probably be traced to even more extreme examples of that, but (save for Prohibition) they can RARELY be traced to organized crime (or worse).

Why? Because breweries have been all over the world for centuries, and the manufacture is comparatively “Democratic;” you don’t get major monopolies from any individual company.

On the other hand, most of the “newer” (yes, I know not all of them originate from the modern era, but they only came of agree recently) drugs are concentrated on relatively small portions of the world, and have traditionally been cultivated by the less-than-savory or by small farmers who the less-than-savory can dominate.

The “Poppy Cartel” (or “Poppy Junta”, which is more accurate, as Cartel did not have the connotations it does now) was a sterling example of that.

And so are FARC, the Taliban, the Shining Path, various Oriental mobs (THE Yakuza (as opposed to generic Yakuza) is particularly of note here), and our dear friends the Triads.

Now, perhaps you can argue that Marijuana and its ilk have been ripped off by history and that, had the fates been different, it would be Tobacco that would be financing the world’s swine. And you might have a point.

But, unfortunately, we have to accept that well over half of the “Other” drugs (such as Mary Jane) are under the control of those who at best are merely ruthless and immoral thugs, at worst are fanatics like FARC or the Talibs who would use the money of those in the West to organize the slaughter of those very same individuals.

And that is not something we can just ignore.

An often-parroted thing I have heard is how the ban is somehow funding the Mexican warlords seeking to overthrow Calderon. However, this fails to note the disconnect between the Prohibition and the Marijuana ban by not noticing that those same warlords would likely be the very ones to benefit from a larger market as opposed to underfunded and inexperienced legitimate growers, who (if black market history has taught us anything) are more likely to be bought up or forced out of business.

This is part of the reason I am not terribly enthusiastic about government attempts to seize medical Marijuana: while I despise the drug, at least it comes from a “clean” source, unlike most of those on the market (and many of those that are smoked by the “responsible potheads” you mentioned).

Without this key factor, I would still not welcome legalization, but with some restrictions put in place like those with Alcohol or Tobacco, and I would be more than capable of dealing with it.

But before that happens, let’s deal with the AK-wielding thugs who control most of the world’s drug market and thus help give rise to a cleaner, legitimate market.

That part seems the basis for your argument: if marijuana is no more degenerative than either alcohol or tobacco, then why continue with the prohibition?

Marijuana was not made illegal because of its demonstrable negative effects. And while analysis does exist today showing some negative effects from marijuana use, none of them are pathological. With around 15 million marijuana users in this country, why don’t we see the death toll? Is the press not looking hard enough?

(While the CDC has reported some deaths in the last 30 years with marijuana as the “underlying factor”, none of them are because marijuana is “toxic”. In other words, you can’t overdose on it. It’s about as deadly as falling off a curb, probably less so. Much more dangerous than smoking or ingesting marijuana is being caught with it.)

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nutshell-marijuana.htm

-

The “there will be no tax revenue” argument is beyond silly. Even those rare, fringe economists who actually oppose MJ legalization admit that it will generate tax revenue.

True, but you are ignoring a larger point:

It will generate income for the government, yes, but it will also generate income for those who are indisputably in the best place to take advantage of legalization.

Those like the “Poppy Cartel” over eighty years ago: FARC, the Taliban, the Shining Path, a laundry-list of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Japanese gangs/organizations, and the Mexican drug warlords fighting to overthrow the justly-elected governmnet.

Simply put, we cannot ignore the lives of dozens of thousands (AT LEAST) endangered around the world (not to mention the very real health effects of various stripes here, though they are a secondary issue) for the sake of even the “Responsible” ‘potheads.’

We did not trade with Japan in 1938, why should we trade with Chavez and the Taliban now?

And you’ve yet to prove that it would, except to claim growing a weed is just so hard, even though it’s a weed.

There is little doubt that Tax Revenues would be generated, considering that California ALREADY DOES generate some tax from medical pot. If you suspect that growing pot is so damned easy, why don’t medical MJ patients just get a liscence and grow their own supply?

Answer: the professionaly grown stuff is cheaper and better.

As to spending less on enforcing it, isn’t California doing that already?

The feds still raid legal dispenseries and local police departments still harsses doctors when they don’t have anything better to do. It’s still a major legal point of contention and still a tax drain.

Yeah, people do that already.

Small potatoes compared to what could be acheived if it were legal. And with no risk of being raided, it would be cheaper to produce too.

, more like: potentially greater supply + likely higher demand (don’t pretend there aren’t people who would smoke only if it were legal) + massive taxes = likely greater price

Yes, but there supply will probably increase several fold while the demand will just tick upward. About half the nation has toked up sometime in their life as it is.

And there is just no way that MJ prices will actually be MORE expensive than what it is currently after legalization cuts the price to a fraction of what it is now.

The “there will be no tax revenue” argument is beyond silly. Even those rare, fringe economists who actually oppose MJ legalization admit that it will generate tax revenue.

It’s everywhere, and anyone who wants to partake eventually does.

It is to an extent. But not for the types of people who actually waited until they were 21 for their first drink, and I think there are more of those than you realize.

Plus, there’s always that subset that believes if it’s legal, it’s OK. If it’s not, then there’s something wrong with it.

And there are just those who don’t care one way or another about it and who wouldn’t be around it normally without a legal avenue, like a coffee shop.

I surmise that your large uptake position is mostly based on the power of advertising. How about we treat marijuana advertising like we did alcohol for years — strict limitations, even barring some media? I can’t say I believe that’s the best solution, but would find it far better than the current incursion of privacy and prolific penalization.

deesine on May 6, 2009 at 5:28 PM

I think that would help. Certainly, but once the “genie is out of the bottle,” I just don’t think it will matter.

And I think that’s something we need to be honest about in these discussions. Are we prepared to accept all of the consequences?

You seem to be very reasonable on this subject. I appreciate your responses, though get out while you still can. I’ll check back with the thread if you post later.

shows them to be more physically addictive and have direct links to numerous negative and pathological health conditions.

The argument that marijuana has a “far more radical affect on self-control” is silly and completely unfounded.

Sources?

Harvard, Oxford, and a few others seem to disagree on that matter.

Oh yes, and any reason you are choosing a relatively unimportant part of my argument to attempt your counterattack? Can you refute my larger point about Marajauna legalization?

ronsfi:

Police records would indicate OTHERWISE.

So you can have a bunch of back-to-nature hippies grow each batch up north (getting paid “living wage”, presumably), you can get the tax stamp, and you can ship it and store it, then tack on a markup to run the shop — or you can get the cutting on the cheap and stick it on your patio and harvest for years, just so long as you don’t forget to water.

Or you can have the back-to-nature hippies being paid a premium for “dangerous” work, pay for security, pay for lawyers, pay for gangs to move the stuff, pay for prisons to house those too stupid to get off, and ship most of it out-of-state to collect cash from other areas.

I’m thinking that legalizing cannabis might just bankrupt the state, seeing as how employment there is currently being supported by outsiders.

marijuana-related deaths

.
No such thing.

That doesn’t really do away with my argument that legalization would very likely result in a large increase in smokers, something you said you didn’t want.

Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Darn, been sucked into this discussion (it’s been a while).

I’m not sure there’s many folks, including teenagers that have wanted to try marijuana in the last year but didn’t, because of its illegal status. It’s everywhere, and anyone who wants to partake eventually does.

I surmise that your large uptake position is mostly based on the power of advertising. How about we treat marijuana advertising like we did alcohol for years — strict limitations, even barring some media? I can’t say I believe that’s the best solution, but would find it far better than the current incursion of privacy and prolific penalization.

Try these:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/drugdata/index.html
http://www.justicepolicy.org/
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion1.htm

-

Contrast that cardboard tomato with an heirloom tomato, one that you can actually taste. There is absolutely no comparison.

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM

A neighbor a few doors down takes great care to grow tomatoes organically and they are so delicious and melt in your mouth. Supermarket tomatoes don’t compare. But … even his tomatoes don’t go for $50 an ounce. He’ll give you 8 good-sized ones for $5. They will last you a week or two.

But any more so than the current abuses?

Any more so? At least on par.

So, let’s not tax at the intense level: maybe at or slightly above tobacco rates.

That might actually get you revenue and prevent people from seeking alternate sources.

And, assuming there is “much more”, is there some social control equation whereby we automatically use the ban stick?

Pretty sure no.

Is alcohol and tobacco abuse beyond our means to control?

Yeah, pretty much.

This seems like a means justifies the ends argument.

Not at all, not from me anyway. I’m not arguing that it was justified, just that it wasn’t a total failure, as many like to claim.

(oddly enough, I read this as “ends justify the means” anyway)

But, talk to most any police officer that’s been involved and they’ll tell you the same thing: they really don’t make a dent in the amount of available marijuana and the number of people smoking it. The really honest ones might even tell you how many on the force they know to be smokers.

-

deesine on May 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM

That doesn’t really do away with my argument that legalization would very likely result in a large increase in smokers, something you said you didn’t want.

While I disagree with restrictions on cigarettes, forgive me if Marajuana- with its far more radical effects on self-control- is more important to restrict.

…

[Alcohol and tobacco] are the most costly because they are legal, and thus have a larger market.

Turtler on May 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM

No, they are most costly because medical science and analysis shows them to be more physically addictive and have direct links to numerous negative and pathological health conditions.

The argument that marijuana has a “far more radical affect on self-control” is silly and completely unfounded.

Intense taxes are an abuse of government power.

Indeed. But any more so than the current abuses? So, let’s not tax at the intense level: maybe at or slightly above tobacco rates.

How do you know any of that?

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/
http://www.cga.state.ct.us/lrc/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyRpt2.htm
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/

These should get you started. There’s plenty more: just google “marijuana use rate” and “marijuana abuse rate”.

And what makes you think, as Turtler put it, that once pot gets the Big Tobacco treatment, that there won’t be more smokers?

There probably will be more. How much more is another question. And, assuming there is “much more”, is there some social control equation whereby we automatically use the ban stick? Is alcohol and tobacco abuse beyond our means to control?

Prohibition itself, while largely a failure, did result is less Americans drinking. That’s merely a fact. Why should pot be any different?

This seems like a means justifies the ends argument. Some (maybe most?) people said booze was bad, and had to be ended. On what legal grounds? At what social cost? At what criminal cost?

I too wish less Americans would abuse alcohol. But I don’t pretend and suppose that government should or even can be a major part of the solution.

I’m running out of time, or I’d get the DOJ’s numbers on incarceration and seizure rates. But, talk to most any police officer that’s been involved and they’ll tell you the same thing: they really don’t make a dent in the amount of available marijuana and the number of people smoking it. The really honest ones might even tell you how many on the force they know to be smokers.

-

He says he doesn’t support legalizing it. Although there is a sorta-famous moment in Pumping Iron where he lights up a big fat joint after winning a competition. So I guess there will be a debate. As California struggles to……

Marijuana tax revenue, no matter the amount, is a minor reason to want less government abuse of power.

Intense taxes are an abuse of government power.

That puts the number of casual users at about 15 million. The vast majority of those people are not abusers. They never get arrested. They never cause an auto accident under the influence. They never cause a workplace accident under the influence. They’re what we could call a “responsible” user. And despite the government’s efforts to put those people in jail for their and everyone else’s good, they start and stop smoking marijuana all one their own. No government help or interdiction needed. That’s the vast majority of users.

How do you know any of that?

And what makes you think, as Turtler put it, that once pot gets the Big Tobacco treatment, that there won’t be more smokers?

It’s naive to think no one will try it out just because it’s legal. As many have noted, right now, you have to know someone. Not everyone has a dealer. If it’s legal, that won’t be a problem.

Prohibition itself, while largely a failure, did result is less Americans drinking. That’s merely a fact. Why should pot be any different?

Why the hell would anybody pay $50 an ounce for anything that’s legal that isn’t a precious metal? That’s the whole point. Legalize pot but it’s never going to be a revenue generator for taxes. Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 2:43 PM ……

Anyway, nobody I knows that partakes in a toke grows their own simply because it’s not as easy as one might think to grow weed that has enough quality make it a desirable smoke. Skunk is called skunk for a reason.

Spiritk9 on May 6, 2009 at 3:15 PM

I’m old enough to have seen the Change Over happen: in the last two decades most smokers, especially older ones, have switched from low quality field weed to high quality indoor chron. It went from “who’s got the chron” to “what kind do they got”. There’s places where unless you know some city teens, you probably wont be able to find $60/ounce dirt weed at all.

I believe this is mostly due to government abation and interdiction efforts. It’s also due to the evolution of indoor growing techniques and equipment. Most of the weed smoked in the US today is grown domestically, indoors: it does not come from Mexico or elsewhere. The only way for the government to continue prohibition is to find more ways to get into our bedrooms, a further decrease in our rights and more government abuse of power. It’s pretty simple.

Marijuana tax revenue, no matter the amount, is a minor reason to want less government abuse of power.

No reasonable person wants the streets and workplaces filled with stoners. And I’ve yet to read a convincing study/report that shows the number of smokers would drastically increase due to legalization.

There’s approx. 50 million people in the US who smoked marijuana at least once last year. That puts the number of casual users at about 15 million. The vast majority of those people are not abusers. They never get arrested. They never cause an auto accident under the influence. They never cause a workplace accident under the influence. They’re what we could call a “responsible” user. And despite the government’s efforts to put those people in jail for their and everyone else’s good, they start and stop smoking marijuana all one their own. No government help or interdiction needed. That’s the vast majority of users.

By the government’s own numbers, the rate of smokers to non-smokers has almost imperceptibly changed in the last 30 years, despite the tens of billion$ spent on prohibition and the millions of people sent to jail.

When do we look at the evidence and not our first instinct to tell us that this huge government program of prohibition is wrong, and has failed?

roninacreage:

If it is legalized, the anti-smoking Nazis will have it banned from public use. Just as tobacco is.

While I disagree with restrictions on cigarettes, forgive me if Marajuana- with its far more radical effects on self-control- is more important to restrict.

deesine:

I assume you’re not taking into account the two most costly drugs in society — alcohol and tobacco. Or do you really believe that you are not currently affected by the use and abuse of those two drugs?

They are the most costly because they are legal, and thus have a larger market.

Tell you what: let’s put everything out on the market with producers and suppliers just as well funded and well publicized as Big Alcohol or Big Tobacco, and wait about a year.

THEN let us see how dangerous the rest are in comparison.

And this isn’t because I am against the idea of somebody turning their brain to mush, but because they often endanger others in the process (crimes under the influence of drugs in Columbia are NOT something you want to look into).

But you won’t, because you lot just like tossing around that statistic without any context, now don’t you?

justfinethanks:

Once pot is legalized, what pothead do you think will be willing through that months of hard work just to get high. The free market will take over, providing consumers with higher quality and cheaper MJ than they could ever grow at home.

Are you that shortsighted to not see the obvious problem here?

OK, let me start with the whole bathtub gin/Prohibition allegory:

Do you know why Bathtub Gin, in spite of being 98% garbage, became popular?

Because there was no legal, finer alcohols.

And the reason it died out?

Because the breweries were either handed back to their legal owners or put up for auction, and few people drink poor quality, outright toxic tripe that takes a lot of effort when you can simply pay for higher-quality, more readily avalible alcohol.

Unfortunately, the paradox with drugs such as Marajuana is exactly the opposite.

Legalization will simply hand a massive advantage and a ready-made market to those best prepared to run and operate it, those with experience and contacts.

And guess who those are?

The Drug Cartels.

In short, while a repeal of the Prohibition shot down the illegal “moonshine” breweries and gave rise to legalized brewing, that was because the legal brewers were of far better quality and had more experience.

This is the exact inverse of the drug market, which has always been used by unsavory individuals.

For instance, do any of you hear about the “Poppy Cartel” of Interwar Columbia?

You had a rough collection of landowners, businessmen, military leaders, and outright thugs taking advantage of lax Western drug laws to sell them LEGALLY from California to Poland, and guess what they used them for?

That’s right, a coup.

It got so desperate that we actually had to send the AAF to bombing Pabon’s troops on the road to Caracas to allow the Federales to disperse the coup.

And yet this is never something ANYBODY on the legalization side talks about.

Look, if you want to legalize drugs, fine, as long as you put in a few restrictions like with alcohol.

But before you do that, will you PLEASE go in and burn down the cartels and the Islamist “farms” FIRST to make sure those SELLING them will not be using them to buy bombs and bullets to kill us with?

THANK YOU.