The Legalization of Marijuana
- Thread starter Rynocerous
- Start date
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Schtankybampo in bold:
Posted by Kid:
"Well said deuce. Think about it like this financially if we take away pot from dealers that is a major percent of income for them. Less total income means less amount that can be invested back into their buissness. So other drugs will be harder to find."
I'm afraid that's a somewhat faulty economic theory. At least with what I have noticed in terms of the inner-city problems. When you want to find pot, you find a pot dealer. If you're looking for Meth, you find the Meth Guy. Taking money out of the pockets of the MJ dealers by making it legal and freely availble at say, 7-11 is going to force them to find other areas of employment.
Perhaps not quite so faulty:
"...experience with and subsequent access to cannabis use may provide individuals with access to other drugs as they come into contact with drug dealers. This argument provided a strong impetus for the Netherlands to effectively decriminalize cannabis use in an attempt to separate cannabis from the hard drug market. This strategy may have been partially successful as rates of cocaine use among those who have used cannabis are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States."
Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003.
You can't bolster your defense of your own usage by hiding behind economic principles. Don't defend it.
Sure he can bolster his defense by using economic principles. Any user can. They, like anyone else, can own various layers of political opinion. A user might have a perfectly sincere belief in the economic rationale of legalizing marijuana. From what I can tell you're assuming he has a dishonest agenda, and he might actually not be dishonest at all.
Regards,
Steve
Posted by Kid:
"Well said deuce. Think about it like this financially if we take away pot from dealers that is a major percent of income for them. Less total income means less amount that can be invested back into their buissness. So other drugs will be harder to find."
I'm afraid that's a somewhat faulty economic theory. At least with what I have noticed in terms of the inner-city problems. When you want to find pot, you find a pot dealer. If you're looking for Meth, you find the Meth Guy. Taking money out of the pockets of the MJ dealers by making it legal and freely availble at say, 7-11 is going to force them to find other areas of employment.
Perhaps not quite so faulty:
"...experience with and subsequent access to cannabis use may provide individuals with access to other drugs as they come into contact with drug dealers. This argument provided a strong impetus for the Netherlands to effectively decriminalize cannabis use in an attempt to separate cannabis from the hard drug market. This strategy may have been partially successful as rates of cocaine use among those who have used cannabis are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States."
Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003.
You can't bolster your defense of your own usage by hiding behind economic principles. Don't defend it.
Sure he can bolster his defense by using economic principles. Any user can. They, like anyone else, can own various layers of political opinion. A user might have a perfectly sincere belief in the economic rationale of legalizing marijuana. From what I can tell you're assuming he has a dishonest agenda, and he might actually not be dishonest at all.
Regards,
Steve
Schtankybampo
Green Belt
Anyone CAN use any argument that they please to bolster up anyposition that they like, that doesn't mean that it's logical.
First of all, I wasn't intending to imply that I thought anyone had an agenda at all, much less that one was "dishonest"
Your points are good ones, Steve, and I don't refute them, but they deal more with the exposure issues than the economic one that I was addressing.
Kid, do you think that the friends that you have that are currently dealing a "little bit" of pot now and then are going to get jobs as bank tellers, cashiers, stockbrokers? Or will they find another easy way to supplement thier income?
I happen to support legalization. Always have. I don't use, never will. But the economic arguments against legalization are far stronger and more compelling that the economic arguments for it. Cross-state commerce in drug traffic, while bringing plenty of income into Californias' coffers, will severly harm surrounding states. Unless the entire country legalizes, California will essentially be separatist at that point, with border checks on all four sides, ocean included.
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Spring98/moyers2.html
I support it. It's coming. But the problems associated with it are not going to be argued away. There are pros and cons to every single argument involved here.
First of all, I wasn't intending to imply that I thought anyone had an agenda at all, much less that one was "dishonest"
Your points are good ones, Steve, and I don't refute them, but they deal more with the exposure issues than the economic one that I was addressing.
Kid, do you think that the friends that you have that are currently dealing a "little bit" of pot now and then are going to get jobs as bank tellers, cashiers, stockbrokers? Or will they find another easy way to supplement thier income?
I happen to support legalization. Always have. I don't use, never will. But the economic arguments against legalization are far stronger and more compelling that the economic arguments for it. Cross-state commerce in drug traffic, while bringing plenty of income into Californias' coffers, will severly harm surrounding states. Unless the entire country legalizes, California will essentially be separatist at that point, with border checks on all four sides, ocean included.
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Spring98/moyers2.html
I support it. It's coming. But the problems associated with it are not going to be argued away. There are pros and cons to every single argument involved here.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
First of all, I wasn't intending to imply that I thought anyone had an agenda at all, much less that one was "dishonest"
I'll accept that, but I hope you can see how easy it is to misconstrue your meaning given the way you wrote that.
But the economic arguments against legalization are far stronger and more compelling that the economic arguments for it. Cross-state commerce in drug traffic, while bringing plenty of income into Californias' coffers, will severly harm surrounding states. Unless the entire country legalizes, California will essentially be separatist at that point, with border checks on all four sides, ocean included.
A quote from the article:
One can easily imagine thousands of individuals traveling to the state, buying drugs at a price substantially below their market value in other states and reselling them at home for an enormous profit.
One can easily imagine somebody undercutting that price by growing it themselves...which they're allready doing...or California's licit drugs driving down the price of pot in states farther away than those bordering it.
Nevada grew over 27 million dollars worth of marijuana in 1995. Oregon grew ten times that much with 276 million dollars worth. Arizona grew 175 million dollars worth of pot. These are low retail estimates.
California, on the other hand, grew over six billion dollars (yes, that's a BILL-yun) in pot and grows one fourth of the country's market share. If it is legalized there, they automatically will have the potential for controlling a future legalized pot industry.
California is a trend-setter state. If it became legal, a number of states would follow with decriminalization at the very least in order to avoid the expenses of increased vigilance. Some states will get militant (for awhile) with their enforcement. Others will turn quickly pragmatic and realize it is a lost cause. Borders are porous, and to have drug dogs at every interstate, every state line on every small road...is simply unachievable given the enormity of California's potential output. Nevada and Oregon are so tolerant of pot now, they likely won't even try and stop the flow of weed in that direction.
I seriously doubt there will be a hyper vigilance on the part of the states and the feds. But then, I have no crystal ball. Not one currently that's working. Since the start of the Third Age my Palantir simply hasn't been worth a darn.
Interesting, if speculative, article.
Regards,
Steve
I'll accept that, but I hope you can see how easy it is to misconstrue your meaning given the way you wrote that.
But the economic arguments against legalization are far stronger and more compelling that the economic arguments for it. Cross-state commerce in drug traffic, while bringing plenty of income into Californias' coffers, will severly harm surrounding states. Unless the entire country legalizes, California will essentially be separatist at that point, with border checks on all four sides, ocean included.
A quote from the article:
One can easily imagine thousands of individuals traveling to the state, buying drugs at a price substantially below their market value in other states and reselling them at home for an enormous profit.
One can easily imagine somebody undercutting that price by growing it themselves...which they're allready doing...or California's licit drugs driving down the price of pot in states farther away than those bordering it.
Nevada grew over 27 million dollars worth of marijuana in 1995. Oregon grew ten times that much with 276 million dollars worth. Arizona grew 175 million dollars worth of pot. These are low retail estimates.
California, on the other hand, grew over six billion dollars (yes, that's a BILL-yun) in pot and grows one fourth of the country's market share. If it is legalized there, they automatically will have the potential for controlling a future legalized pot industry.
California is a trend-setter state. If it became legal, a number of states would follow with decriminalization at the very least in order to avoid the expenses of increased vigilance. Some states will get militant (for awhile) with their enforcement. Others will turn quickly pragmatic and realize it is a lost cause. Borders are porous, and to have drug dogs at every interstate, every state line on every small road...is simply unachievable given the enormity of California's potential output. Nevada and Oregon are so tolerant of pot now, they likely won't even try and stop the flow of weed in that direction.
I seriously doubt there will be a hyper vigilance on the part of the states and the feds. But then, I have no crystal ball. Not one currently that's working. Since the start of the Third Age my Palantir simply hasn't been worth a darn.
Interesting, if speculative, article.
Regards,
Steve
Schtankybampo
Green Belt
Yeah, it's very speculative. But ya know, everything is and will be speculation until it actually happens and we see what the results are. Time, as always, will tell.
Enjoyable debate.
Thanks all. Again, if I ruffled any feathers or twisted anyones' boxers, I apologize.
M
Enjoyable debate.
Thanks all. Again, if I ruffled any feathers or twisted anyones' boxers, I apologize. M
Flatlander
Grandmaster
I have a question. If it is legalized in the US in any form, is that a Federal or State by State decision? Can the Federal government overrule a decision made by an individual state? I'm unfamiliar with the actual balance of power down there......
Federal Law always superceded state law. The federal government can pass a bill that gives the states control over the legalization of controlled substances and when/if they do that, then the states can and will have to make their own laws regarding the control of drugs that were federally controlled to include penalties for possession of drugs, drug paraphenalia, the terms of incarceration, and limits to use and possession and the definition of which drugs are illegal, unless the feds outline that in the statute.
This is why, when a city or county legalizes marijuana use, the state comes down on the city/county and if a state legalizes it, the feds can come down on the state and would override the state or local law.
This is why, when a city or county legalizes marijuana use, the state comes down on the city/county and if a state legalizes it, the feds can come down on the state and would override the state or local law.
Flatlander
Grandmaster
Thanks, G.shesulsa said:
So, what then do you all see as the likelyhood that the House would ever be able to come to agreement on something like this? Presumably, this is a decision that they will not leave up to individual States to make, as the potential for inter-State conflict and dissent is certainly very real. Thoughts?
I tend to agree that interstate cooperation would be difficult and that this could fuel something much bigger than it deserves. It would be a curious tactic of one or other party to justify actions we don't want to think our government is capable of doing, but some of us think should be done - like, the elimination of blue.
And to be truthful, the legalization of MJ could very well be divisive enough to bring about the kind of violence we see with the conflict on other things; clinic bombings may turn into head shop bombings, sabotaging farms and suppliers. Get my drift?
I think the logical next step for now is to keep it illegal until our current state of politics is changed. If our politics are as bad as I think they are, the relinquishment of the control of substances to the state level would be a set-up for a larger move by the right, which, given recent foreign relations actions, would not surprise me a bit.
And to be truthful, the legalization of MJ could very well be divisive enough to bring about the kind of violence we see with the conflict on other things; clinic bombings may turn into head shop bombings, sabotaging farms and suppliers. Get my drift?
I think the logical next step for now is to keep it illegal until our current state of politics is changed. If our politics are as bad as I think they are, the relinquishment of the control of substances to the state level would be a set-up for a larger move by the right, which, given recent foreign relations actions, would not surprise me a bit.
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
This is a common misconception.shesulsa said:
The Constitution grants the Federal Government authority only in specific cases, and also specifically states that in all cases not specifically listed in the Constitution, states retain all rights to define their own laws.
I suppose I could have expanded on this comment to define thusly: The federal government assigns some things to be controlled at state level, but those things which the Feds outline as being under their control are always, indeed, controlled by the Federal government.
So, Dan, if a state passes legislation that is contrary to or slightly different from federal legislation on the same issue, the federal legislation will supercede the state legislation on that issue if the feds get involved.
If the feds have relinquished legislation of an issue to the state level and have no legislation at the federal level other than to say it has been relinquished to state control, then the feds have no say in the matter unless it is pertinent to a federally-controlled issue. Heh heh heh.
OP
OP
Rynocerous
Blue Belt
????????????:idunno: ROFLOL, kid did you smoke a little before you contemplated what to write here? Hey man, no hard feelings, you actually made me laugh today which seemed like an impossible task.kid said:
Ryan?
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Shesulsa in bold:
And to be truthful, the legalization of MJ could very well be divisive enough to bring about the kind of violence we see with the conflict on other things; clinic bombings may turn into head shop bombings, sabotaging farms and suppliers. Get my drift?
I doubt that it'd go that direction, as marijuana doesn't engender the same emotional friction that abortion does. Bombing a head shop almost sounds like a redundancy in any case. Won't the proprieters allready be bombed to begin with?
Sabotaging farms and suppliers...good question. It might happen, but not to any extent that would be damaging to the overall finances of the operation. Imagine California with their six billion dollar dope industry. That's a huge amount of money, and that is a low end estimate. Damaging those many fields will be difficult...and providing security for them will be fairly cost effective given the amount of money a company will have to spend on such things.
I think the logical next step for now is to keep it illegal until our current state of politics is changed. If our politics are as bad as I think they are, the relinquishment of the control of substances to the state level would be a set-up for a larger move by the right, which, given recent foreign relations actions, would not surprise me a bit.
I don't see how they can fight a drug war and a war overseas. The government is allready strapped for cash. Further, the mood throughout the US is growing increasingly tolerant towards marijuana after a low point awhile back that corresponds with the Drug War.
Also interesting is how a survey taken by AARP (American Association of Retired People) found that roughly three out of four thought marijuana ought to be allowed for medical use...even though these older people thought it addictive. These people are sympathetic to pain because they have it...daily. I think they're more tolerant of the notion of letting a person have their addiction if it means they get hooked.
Also interesting...15% of those 60-69 had tried weed. Old stoners. Go figure.
Other attitudes: Six years ago Hazelden did a study that found that 41 percent of parents had smoked weed. That said, a majority of parents (988 percent) in the study reported they'd be upset if they found out their kid was smoking it. Only 40 percent of parents talk to their kids about dope, and roughly half the kids have tried it before graduating high school.
www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/ library/graphs/cvmarjna.htm
http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/Articles/a2005-01-18-mag-marijuana.html
http://www.hazelden.org/servlet/hazelden/cms/ptt/hazl_7030_shade.html?sf=t&sh=t&page_id=25827
Regards,
Steve
And to be truthful, the legalization of MJ could very well be divisive enough to bring about the kind of violence we see with the conflict on other things; clinic bombings may turn into head shop bombings, sabotaging farms and suppliers. Get my drift?
I doubt that it'd go that direction, as marijuana doesn't engender the same emotional friction that abortion does. Bombing a head shop almost sounds like a redundancy in any case. Won't the proprieters allready be bombed to begin with?
Sabotaging farms and suppliers...good question. It might happen, but not to any extent that would be damaging to the overall finances of the operation. Imagine California with their six billion dollar dope industry. That's a huge amount of money, and that is a low end estimate. Damaging those many fields will be difficult...and providing security for them will be fairly cost effective given the amount of money a company will have to spend on such things.
I think the logical next step for now is to keep it illegal until our current state of politics is changed. If our politics are as bad as I think they are, the relinquishment of the control of substances to the state level would be a set-up for a larger move by the right, which, given recent foreign relations actions, would not surprise me a bit.
I don't see how they can fight a drug war and a war overseas. The government is allready strapped for cash. Further, the mood throughout the US is growing increasingly tolerant towards marijuana after a low point awhile back that corresponds with the Drug War.
Also interesting is how a survey taken by AARP (American Association of Retired People) found that roughly three out of four thought marijuana ought to be allowed for medical use...even though these older people thought it addictive. These people are sympathetic to pain because they have it...daily. I think they're more tolerant of the notion of letting a person have their addiction if it means they get hooked.
Also interesting...15% of those 60-69 had tried weed. Old stoners. Go figure.
Other attitudes: Six years ago Hazelden did a study that found that 41 percent of parents had smoked weed. That said, a majority of parents (988 percent) in the study reported they'd be upset if they found out their kid was smoking it. Only 40 percent of parents talk to their kids about dope, and roughly half the kids have tried it before graduating high school.
www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/ library/graphs/cvmarjna.htm
http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/Articles/a2005-01-18-mag-marijuana.html
http://www.hazelden.org/servlet/hazelden/cms/ptt/hazl_7030_shade.html?sf=t&sh=t&page_id=25827
Regards,
Steve
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
This just in...cannabinoids reduce inflammation in Alzheimer's.
The choice is between being senile and being merely forgetful and having a major case of the munchies...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/4286435.stm
Regards,
Steve
The choice is between being senile and being merely forgetful and having a major case of the munchies...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/4286435.stm
Regards,
Steve
Flatlander
Grandmaster
I have thought about it.kid said:
It seems to me that the people who choose to take a life do so out of a lack of respect for life. Whether or not any particular substance is legal has no bearing whatsoever on their psychopathic tendencies.
In the story to which you refer, kid, that guy killed cops because he wanted to, not because marijuana is illegal.
You think about it.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
The Resurgence of Traditional Martial Arts in Modern Mixed Martial Arts
- Latest: isshinryuronin
-
-
-
