The Pot Place?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

amongst the horrors prohibition foisted upon us?  the kennedys

[Balog]

amongst the horrors prohibition foisted upon us?  the kennedys

I lol'ed. Sadly it's true.

[BlueStarLizzard]

This argument sounds good but does anybody really think that the Mexican cartels that are growing pot in California are suddenly going to go straight, incorporate themselves and start paying taxes?  Or that the people selling their medical marijuana a pound at a time are going to have a fit of remorse and start paying taxes if pot is legalized?  I don't see any incentive for them to do so, or for buyers to buy weed that has been taxed, they're getting away with it now and will probably continue to fly along under the radar. 

 

say pot had the same avalibilty as beer....
yes, actually, most (actually probably all) of my stoner friends (and i have quite a few both past and present) would be perfectly happy to go down to the local store and buy it (with tax). something legally avalible is gonna be a lot EASIER to get for most.
hell, even if it was restricted to state run ABC stores, i still expect them to buy it legally.

oh sure, some are gonna have themselves a pot plant or two grown about in containers or whatnot, but i would think large legitamate business would be happy to take over the production end of things, and make the money, which would also probably knock those mexican cartels out of the pot market.

what you keep FORGETTING is that we have a capitalistic system and pot is a cash crop. its a market, just like the rest of them and it works the same way. supply and demand. large corperations and smaller legel producers (i'm thinking similar distinctions to Budwiser vs. local brewery) would take over the majority of production, making money and flooding the market with cheap/specialized easily obtainable legel product. demand would gravitate towards this product rather then the illigally imported stuff.


think about it... other then the rare still making moonshine the 'ol fasioned way, how many people make oodles of money on illigal alcohol productions? they don't becuase ITS more expensive to distribute then going down to the ABC store. hell, i don't think the ol' fashioned stills really make money either as it seems to be more of a hobbie type thing then anything else.

[Matthew Carberry]

I'd have to go searching for it but, in general, I believe the evidence shows that anyone who wants to try or use any illegal drug now can get it.  I don't believe evidence exists to prove that use will increase dramatically long-term upon decriminalization (in fact I believe the evidence from the Netherlands contradicts that) nor that people who do use will misuse at higher levels than they do now.

Even if they do, we can punish the misuse using laws that already exist for such harmful behaviors.  Banning palpably does not restrict access or use in any practical sense AND causes crime that can only exist due to criminalization.

As for the Mexican cartels, do Mexican cartels smuggle booze into our legal marketplace right now?  If the answer is no there is no reason to suggest they would find it cost effective to do so with pot after  decrim.  It is only cost effective for them to import right now because domestic production is hampered by our more effective LE efforts than comparative production costs in Mexico with their ineffective and corrupt LE.  Once domestic growers only have to deal with the same regulatory scheme as distillers that cost disparity disappears and "American grown" will be cheaper to market and move. 

[280plus]

My question was whether banning alcohol destroyed even more lives.

So you don't believe the upswing in illegal activity brought on by prohibition destroyed any lives? How about those who were otherwise honest hardworking people beforehand that got caught up in the crimnal aspects of simply wanting a drink? Lured by the thoughts of quick easy money, etc etc? Plenty of otherwise decent lives were destroyed by this. As are being destroyed now by the new prohibition. Look at the prisons. What are there, 2,000,000 in prison right now across the country? How many of them are in there due to drug violations? Probably the majority of them, although I can cite no specific evidence right now. Otherwise good people tossed into the middle of murderers and rapists to suffer the depravity that exists there and emerge hardened criminals who won't be able to find work and will most likely wind up right back in prison.  You doubters need to leave this country and go where you can buy pretty much anything over the counter. See what's happening. Have those populations descended into drug crazed depravity? Not at all. Just like here, where we can all access any drug we want, there are those who will participate to excess and those who won't, except here if you get caught your life really WILL be destroyed.

Again I say all we're talking about is one segment of society forcing it's views of morality on another segment of society. Somewhere the Constitution or the Bill of Rights guarantees the pursuit of happiness. If Joe Blow is an otherwise hardworking, productive citizen and sees happiness as smoking a big spliff after work to relax, are we not violating his rights by criminalizing that activity? Does he deserve to go to prison because of it? Again I say if it were all legalized the vast majority of what is essentially the artificially induced criminal activity surrounding it would simply just go away. PLUS there would be sufficient money and manpower to attack the portion that remains.  

Don't think our enemies don't know this. I'm sure they embrace the vice laws in this country because they know full well that we waste valuable resources on them. Resources that we might otherwise turn in their direction and use against them. Theirs is a never ending war of attrition and anything that wastes our resources works in their favor toward that end.

[MicroBalrog]

You doubters need to leave this country and go where you can buy pretty much anything over the counter

Where is this? I want a ticket.

Although I have visited Amsterdam and I have to say the biggest problem caused by pot was the absolutely staggering amount of young tourists who  were obviously there for the pot. The biggest moment of hilarity I experienced was watching the 'coffee shop' (i.e. MJ vendor) in next to the hotel me and my father stayed at. Right next to it all was also a police station.

In the morning, you would see the pot smokers sitting on the shop's porch, smoking and staring at the cops as they went out on their patrols, as if these  were the strangest, most hilarious thing since the platypus.

[280plus]

Hong Kong for one. All manner of what are prescription drugs here are purchased over the counter there. Including amphetamines and barbituates. Funny parallel to what you said about Amsterdam is the only people who seem to abuse this are the American sailors on liberty. We had a few ODs on my ship. Most of us didn't touch the stuff. I know I didn't.

I'll bet the Dutch would hate to see MJ laws removed here. It would KILL their tourist income.  

[De Selby]

I think pot is really bad for you - worse than tobacco.

But spending billions every year to ferret out pot plants from the sky, and using a small army of law enforcement to stop its consumption?  That's a bit much.

It should be treated like tobacco.  Legal to buy and consume, but lots of public health efforts to reduce the use of the product.

[zahc]

My question was whether banning alcohol destroyed even more lives.

So what if it did?

I don't care if it made everyone live 300 years and *expletive deleted*it rainbows. The government using the force of law to tell people what they can and cannot purchase, make, or consume is wrong. In itself. I don't care to what extent we were saved from ourselves, or how much better everyone's health was, or what happened to the birthrate or the price of soybeans as a result of prohibition. It doesn't matter; prohibition was wrong. Wrong in itself, and even more evil than prohibition is the idea that it's ok for the government to commit force/evil if a "greater good" be served.

[Firethorn]

I don't think anybody was questioning whether or not alcohol destroys lives.  I think they wanted to see some proof that during Prohibition alcohol was actually destroying more lives per capita than before it was outlawed.

Well, consider the effect prohibition and the WoD has had on the Murder rates.  Browsing various sources, I see a 60% rise in murders during prohibition, then a drop afterwards, rising again when the 'war on other drugs' kicked off.

Then consider the problems of making the police even more of an adversarial force, the problems of corruption/bribery/etc... 

I'll admit that I can see the sense of cancer patients medical marijuana.  If pot improves somebodies appetite they just might have the strength to survive the treatment.  I just don't think the benefit of this outweighs the cost to society in general.  As far as growing and selling pot being a victimless crime?  I see plenty of victims here, starting with the trashing of public land right on down the line to houses being broken into because somebody thought there was a grow.  Plus it has an effect on kids brains just like alcohol does.

1.  Trashing of public land for grow ops:  If growing is legal if done properly, are they still going to be trying to grow illegally on public land?  Probably not.
2.  Busting into houses because they think there's a grow op there:  Why would MJ growers use expensive houses illegally if they can legally grow in a greenhouse?  Will people bust into places as much if they can get reasonably priced high quality MJ from the corner shop?
3.  I've said it before elsewhere, high school students have rated illegal drugs such as MJ as easier to get ahold of than Alchohol or Tobacco.  I never said I wouldn't make it illegal to sell to minors - this is a 'gripping fist' problem - prohibition is a very tight fist, thus you end up with very little real control.  Relax the fist a bit, you can drain the market sufficiently that people can't make a living off of just selling to kids.

i don't think one will find evidence that prohibition of alcohol destroyed more lives then legel alcohol.

Quality control:  'No price too high: victimless crimes and the ningth amendment' - Death rate per 100k from alcoholism and alcohol poisoning went from 1.4 in 1919 to 4.1 in 1926.  Add in a 60% increase in murder rate...

my main arguement for legelizing pot is that it doesn't make any sense that pot is illigal when alcohol and tobbaco are. I do not promote the legalization of other drugs and i don't think you should be able to buy herion or crystal meth at the local drugstore.

I understand that Europe has had success providing heroin and alternatives in drug treatment programs, even 'continual maintenance' over just prohibiting it.  I think other drugs, if legalized, could replace home brew meth.  Making meth in makeshift labs is mostly a product of semi-effective enforcement against the other drugs.

On thing about most of the illegal drugs is that absent prohibtion; they're cheap.

i can really think of no way that alcohol is useful in a medical contexts (althouth with this headcold, i doubt a shot of whiskey would hurt    ) Pot, on the other hand, is a proven and effective way to control pain and nasuea assiociated with many serious medical problems.

Sanitation?  I remember reading once it was used to stop contractions if necessary in pregnant women.  There's evidence that a glass of wine a day helps with heart health.

Legalize it, tax it, regulate it.  That's my saying.

[roo_ster]

Some quick research:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675
We estimate the consumption of alcohol during Prohibition using mortality, mental health and crime statistics. We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level. The level of consumption was virtually the same immediately after Prohibition as during the latter part of Prohibition, although consumption increased to approximately its pre-Prohibition level during the subsequent decade.

I will assume this is Holy Writ, as I have no desire to look around for the data.

Let assume 1.00 (100%) is the level of consumption of any legal consciousness-altering product: ethyl, weed, meth, whatever.

Make it illegal, and use goes down to 0.65 (65%).  "Hey, we just reduced consumption by 35%!  Hooray for us! Ain't we smart!  Let's have a toast (with sparkling grape juice) to just how witty we are when we're sober!"

Well, there are a couple of factors that indicate all that self-praise is only half right:

1. The 35% that quit are most likely the most law-abiding, straight-arrow of your citizenry.  The fact that it is illegal is enough for them to say, "No, thanks."  I would suggest that these folks never were a danger to others, whatever might be legal and culturally acceptable. 

These are the kind folks that are mildly appalled that, in response to someone complaining about some location being illegal to CCW, others might reply, "Concealed is concealed." 

IOW, you have gained pretty much zero WRT public order and quality of society.

2. The equation is not
1.0 + prohibition = 0.65

The equation is
1.0(mostly mild stuff*) + prohibition = 0.65(mostly hard stuff**) + more_crime + more_political_corruption + less_respect_for_law_in_general + less_liberty + more_taxes


* If ethyl is to be prohibited: beer & wine

** If ethyl: distilled spirits

For instance, I can't imagine that the gang violence in the 1930's was anywhere near as destructive as drunk driving is today.

Wrong comparison.  Is drunk driving today anywhere near as destructive as today's crack/meth wars in the inner cities and now rural areas?

This argument sounds good but does anybody really think that the Mexican cartels that are growing pot in California are suddenly going to go straight, incorporate themselves and start paying taxes?

No, they will be pushed out of the market by legal producers & distributors who will beat them like a drum WRT efficiency.

There will be fewer Mexican cartels & cartel members as there will be less money to be made in crime relative to legal work.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I think pot is really bad for you - worse than tobacco.

you ever done it?

probably not. however you can easily look up the chemical and medical effects of THC.
for one its not NEARLY as physically addictive as nicotine. plus it has little to no additives (sometimes those looking for more then a buzz will lace it with cocaine or something else, but for the most part its straight off the plant and dryed) where as ciggerettes have about a gazillion and one additives, almost all of which are basically poison. the tar alone in ciggerettes causes many of the related health problems.

[Firethorn]

No, they will be pushed out of the market by legal producers & distributors who will beat them like a drum WRT efficiency.

There will be fewer Mexican cartels & cartel members as there will be less money to be made in crime relative to legal work.

Darn it, knew I was missing a point in my earlier post.  Yeah, the gangs/cartels will, if they remain criminal, be pushed out of the market by the advantages legal growers enjoy.  I believe that some of them will likely make the transition, if under a different name.

On your equation:  You might want to add in:  -Jobs in illegal industries generally don't pay income taxes, leading to +more welfare fraud.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So what if it did?

I don't care if it made everyone live 300 years and *expletive deleted*it rainbows. The government using the force of law to tell people what they can and cannot purchase, make, or consume is wrong. In itself. I don't care to what extent we were saved from ourselves, or how much better everyone's health was, or what happened to the birthrate or the price of soybeans as a result of prohibition. It doesn't matter; prohibition was wrong. Wrong in itself, and even more evil than prohibition is the idea that it's ok for the government to commit force/evil if a "greater good" be served.

You don't have the right to harm others.  You don't live in an anarchy where you're free to do whatever you like, willy nilly, without regard to the impact you have on everyone else.

If you can do drugs without harming anyone else, then have at it.  As long as you are correct in your belief that you harm no one, your odds of being caught and prosecuted are about nil.

Thing is, most drug use does impact others negatively, in ways minor or major.  This is why society has chosen to make drug use a crime.  You may not like the fact that harming others is a crime, but so be it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

you ever done it?

probably not. however you can easily look up the chemical and medical effects of THC.
for one its not NEARLY as physically addictive as nicotine. plus it has little to no additives (sometimes those looking for more then a buzz will lace it with cocaine or something else, but for the most part its straight off the plant and dryed) where as ciggerettes have about a gazillion and one additives, almost all of which are basically poison. the tar alone in ciggerettes causes many of the related health problems.

The harmful aspects of cigarette smoking are largely due to the mass-production processes involved.  People who take their tobacco straight from the plant, cigar and pipe smokers, suffer virtually none of the health risks of cigarettes.

Produce MJ in the same factories as cigarettes, using the same mass-production techniques, and you'll find the same health problems as cigarettes.

[BlueStarLizzard]

You don't have the right to harm others.  You don't live in an anarchy where you're free to do whatever you like, willy nilly, without regard to the impact you have on everyone else.

If you can do drugs without harming anyone else, then have at it.  As long as you are correct in your belief that you harm no one, your odds of being caught and prosecuted are about nil.

Thing is, most drug use does impact others negatively, in ways minor or major.  This is why society has chosen to make drug use a crime.  You may not like the fact that harming others is a crime, but so be it.

then why isn't alcohol illigal?

oh yeah, BECAUSE WE FAILED MOST MISERABILLY when we did make it illigal.

explain to me PLEASE, how pot is anymore distructive or horrible then alcohol? both are drugs. both are used recreationally. both make one incapiable of driving. both have harmful effects on the friends and families of addicts. both can be a perfectly pleasent diversion when used by a responcible person.

so explain to me why one is legel (and mind you, its the one that i personally think is MORE harmful) and the other is illegel and our gov spends billions of dollers persicuting those who choose to use it?

[BlueStarLizzard]

The harmful aspects of cigarette smoking are largely due to the mass-production processes involved.  People who take their tobacco straight from the plant, cigar and pipe smokers, suffer virtually none of the health risks of cigarettes.

Produce MJ in the same factories as cigarettes, using the same mass-production techniques, and you'll find the same health problems as cigarettes.

actually, from the culture that surronds pot use, there probably would be emphises placed on 'green' and clean production. most ciggerette smokers arn't targeted by that type of production/ad campaign.

[makattak]

You don't have the right to harm others.  You don't live in an anarchy where you're free to do whatever you like, willy nilly, without regard to the impact you have on everyone else.

If you can do drugs without harming anyone else, then have at it.  As long as you are correct in your belief that you harm no one, your odds of being caught and prosecuted are about nil.

Thing is, most drug use does impact others negatively, in ways minor or major.  This is why society has chosen to make drug use a crime.  You may not like the fact that harming others is a crime, but so be it.

Here's my problem with the argument.

Those arguing for drug legalization are much like the libertarians in their approach: ALL OR NOTHING! (I suppose it is not coincidental that most who make the drug legalization argument are USUALLY libertarians.)

I don't think recreational drugs should be legal. I would be very much opposed to their legalization nationwide.

I am also in agreement with a large majority of citizens who believe this.

Those pushing for legalization are making foolish arguments about how much better everything will be because, justified or not, the majority of voters see what stoners and crackheads do and are afraid of widespread addicts.

Here's my suggestion to the pro-legalization side: Stop arguing for legalization. Don't argue that things will be better if all drugs were legal or some drugs were legal or different drugs were legal. You can't win that fight.

Argue, instead, that states should make these decisions, not the federal government. Point out that Nevada has legalized prostitution and gambling, but it has not harmed Illinois (or Virginia or Texas or...). Make a case for federalism.

In that way, you can argue over a point you can win. You can then argue how getting the federal government out of the enforcement business will be a big plus (like the arguments now). You can argue about cost savings. You can say that certain states can experiment and other states can learn from their experience.

I'd support that: I am for as small a federal government as possible.

You will win FAR more supporters with this argument than with an absolute argument. I also think this happens to be the right argument.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

then why isn't alcohol illigal?

oh yeah, BECAUSE WE FAILED MOST MISERABILLY when we did make it illigal.

explain to me PLEASE, how pot is anymore distructive or horrible then alcohol? both are drugs. both are used recreationally. both make one incapiable of driving. both have harmful effects on the friends and families of addicts. both can be a perfectly pleasent diversion when used by a responcible person.

so explain to me why one is legel (and mind you, its the one that i personally think is MORE harmful) and the other is illegel and our gov spends billions of dollers persicuting those who choose to use it?

Because society has judged alcohol use less harmful than pot use.  At least, in the micro/individual sense.  Maybe society is right, maybe society is wrong, I render no opinion there.  You may think pot less harmful, but you're in the minority on that point.

And for the record, most of the harmful ways to use alcohol are every bit as illegal as pot use.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Because society has judged alcohol use less harmful than pot use.  Maybe society is right, maybe society is wrong, I render no opinion there.  You may think pot less harmful, but you're in the minority on that point.

And for the record, most of the harmful ways to use alcohol are every bit as illegal as pot use.

uhhh actually its not illigal to be a drunk. its just illigal to drive in that state. tell me that watching someone you love/adore kill themselves legelly with alcohol isn't harmful.

[Jamisjockey]

Prohibition of drugs is nothing more than a moral judgment against personal behavior.  Liberty, ala carte.
liberty isn't always pretty.  Having the ability to choose one's own destiny no matter the outcome, defines true liberty and true freedom.
Many of the arguments made against legalization are exact replicas of those used by gun control advocates.  I'm amazed the hypocrisy isn't self evident.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

uhhh actually its not illigal to be a drunk. its just illigal to drive in that state. tell me that watching someone you love/adore kill themselves legelly with alcohol isn't harmful.

It's illegal to be drunk in public, driving or not.  It is illegal to get drunk in public.  It is illegal to serve someone enough alcohol that they become drunk.

And so on...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Prohibition of drugs is nothing more than a moral judgment against personal behavior.  Liberty, ala carte.
liberty isn't always pretty.  Having the ability to choose one's own destiny no matter the outcome, defines true liberty and true freedom.
Many of the arguments made against legalization are exact replicas of those used by gun control advocates.  I'm amazed the hypocrisy isn't self evident.

Strawman.  Most of us who are against full legalization of drugs don't care either way what you do with your life, we care what you do with ours.  To that end, we don't want you using drugs in ways that harm us.  You cannot tell me that liberty demands that you be able to hurt me.  (Well, you could tell me that, but I've no reason to to take you seriously if you do.)  It ain't about morality, except perhaps the basic morality of liberty, which is that you can swing your fist anywhere you want except at my nose.

And false dichotomy.  You seem to think that either everything you'd ever want is legal, or you have no liberty at all.  Liberty != anarchy

[BlueStarLizzard]

It's illegal to be drunk in public, driving or not.  It is illegal to get drunk in public.  It is illegal to serve someone enough alcohol that they become drunk.

And so on...

well, the harm that came to me didn't happen in a bar or in public. you could maybe have a weak charge of child abuse/neglect, but since he wasn't physically abusive towards me and my sober mother generally kept a close eye on me, its unlikely.

your talking to the child of two hardcore alcoholics (one who got sober before he came into my life, and the other who may have gotten sober at this point, but its far to late)
my biological father lost everything, becuase he drove his family away. and he will never get me back simply because it hurt too damn much when his drunking destroyed my trust and love for him. Furthermore, the majority of what he did while intoxicated was not illegal.

but i defiy you to tell me it wasn't incredibly harmful. nor is my story rare. in fact, the sad truth is its quite commen.  

[makattak]

Prohibition of drugs is nothing more than a moral judgment against personal behavior.  Liberty, ala carte.
liberty isn't always pretty.  Having the ability to choose one's own destiny no matter the outcome, defines true liberty and true freedom.
Many of the arguments made against legalization are exact replicas of those used by gun control advocates.  I'm amazed the hypocrisy isn't self evident.

Drug use is not a constutionally protected right. It is also not in the enumerated powers for the federal government.

Therefore, the federal government should not have anything to do with the issue, either prohibiting or permitting.

This is a states' powers issue. I see nothing preventing states or localities from outlawing drugs (or alcohol).