EISPIRATEN

HikeUp wrote:

simonov wrote:That's why "decriminalization" is pointless, and full legalization (ie, treat it like tobacco or alcohol) will deliver the benefits.

Full legalization. Does that include all of the requisite regulations by the FDA, etc.?

Whatever bullshit is associated with tobacco and alcohol, yep.

But if you make the taxes too high, or you bracket its distribution and use with all kinds of onerous restrictions, you risk once again creating a black market. And that leads to crime, violence, etc.

We are heading dangerously in that direction with tobacco.

Zach wrote:

Bill wrote: If your afraid you have reason to be. I know some see this as a well meaning solution to the drug problem, I don't.

The fear tactic definitely doesn't scare me, although it seems to work beautifully on a lot of other Americans.

I guess my whole point is that making particular substances illegal has always led to massive black-hole type government spending to fight a perceived "problem." The result is the same. The law abiding citizens still obey the law and the rest keep doing what they're doing. I don't think I've ever heard of a substance abuser saying that he/she quit because the government made is so damn hard to get their fix.

You want to spend billions of dollars? Spend it on addiction-treatment facilities and programs that fix the ROOT of the problem for these addicts.

Bill wrote: Whether or not you and I would use them is irrelevant. We are older and wiser hopefully. I contend that legalization of those drugs amounts to acceptance and would be a green light for their use among those who don't know better in my opinon.

No, I definitely don't see legalization as green light for use. Everyone makes their own choices. The parent who says, "I don't want my children exposed to it" is gravely mistaken. Believe it or not, children WILL make their own decisions regardless of how "easy" or "hard" it is to obtain a substance (which is actually a joke). Spending a few pennies on the drug-fighting dollar to educate and inform "those who don't know better" would be far more (cost) effective than keeping it illegal.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. We obviously see things differently.

simonov wrote:

hvydrt wrote:Even if you make pot legal in California, the Mexican Cartels aren't going to give up smuggling and killing and get jobs at Walmart. There will still be millions of dollars to be made.

Right, on smuggling cocaine.

Then we can start working on legalizing that, too.

You mean out of sight, out of mind. That will be someone else's problem.

simonov wrote:

Zé wrote:good question, where do you draw the line?

I don't draw the line.

Remove prohibitions and the profits for drug trafficking are dramatically lowered. No more pushers, no more shady dudes hanging out at school playgrounds.

When was the last time you heard about dudes hanging around schools pushing vodka onto kids? How many homes are broken into by winos and other alcoholics to support their habit? Aside from the US Marines in the previous century, when were armies and militias involved in the cultivation and distribution of coffee in South America?

It is actually more difficult today for a minor to get his hands on a cigarette than to get some pot or cocaine. Why? Because the distribution of tobacco is in the hands of mostly law-abiding people who generally aren't interested in violating the law for the small profit they would earn in selling cigarettes to minors.

The pot and cocaine dealers don't care about breaking the law, by definition.

Legalize all that stuff and you put them out of business.

Never heard about winos pushing vodka...I have heard and known of people killed off in a drunk driving crash...but that shouldnt be taken into the discussion since legalizing it solved the discussion.

HikeUp wrote:

simonov wrote:That's why "decriminalization" is pointless, and full legalization (ie, treat it like tobacco or alcohol) will deliver the benefits.

Full legalization. Does that include all of the requisite regulations by the FDA, etc.?

The most important is freedom to smoke MJ. After enough people get killed off from intoxicated MJ users, then we can let someone be the hero and politicize it for more laws...call it a refinement in legalization. Course its already lame to drive under MJ, you know....if someone ends up dead or injured, its like ,man, that sucks. Dont mention the word 'bad', 'harmful', or anything else to judge anyone...and I know you arent thinking of limiting the free speech of a medicinal product on TV.

hvydrt wrote:

simonov wrote:Right, on smuggling cocaine.

Do you honestly think the cartels will just stop smuggling pot if its legalized in California? Why would they stop?

b/c no one will be buying it from them

simonov wrote: If cocaine were legalized tomorrow, I wouldn't use it. Would you?

I dunno, I'd like to see if my heart could explode hiking up Baldy.

Zé wrote:

simonov wrote: If cocaine were legalized tomorrow, I wouldn't use it. Would you?

I dunno, I'd like to see if my heart could explode hiking up Baldy.

FO (FabiOn) would really get on your case over that one.

Zé wrote:b/c no one will be buying it from them

Why not? Prices must be allowed to drop enough to undercut the prices the cartels sell for. That will not happen once all the fees and taxes associated with permits and licenses are factored into the legal market price. Plus add in the expenses of running a legitimate business like workers comp, insurance, medical etc. The price will be outrageous.

hvydrt wrote:

Zé wrote:b/c no one will be buying it from them

Why not? Prices must be allowed to drop enough to undercut the prices the cartels sell for. That will not happen once all the fees and taxes associated with permits and licenses are factored into the legal market price. Plus add in the expenses of running a legitimate business like workers comp, insurance, medical etc. The price will be outrageous.

I agree if the price is high enough. I have no idea how high it will be. Will there be more taxes on it than cigarettes? Like siminov said, tobacco is probably at the threshold for black market growth right now. Whereas I don't know of black market alcohol being a success.

Why tax marijuana more than either tobacco or alcohol, both of which could be argued are more harmful? But yeah if it is taxed higher, I agree it won't have the right effect.

I think if we get Monsanto involved, we could have some cheap dope.

hvydrt wrote:

Zé wrote:b/c no one will be buying it from them

Why not? Prices must be allowed to drop enough to undercut the prices the cartels sell for. That will not happen once all the fees and taxes associated with permits and licenses are factored into the legal market price. Plus add in the expenses of running a legitimate business like workers comp, insurance, medical etc. The price will be outrageous.

The consumer price you are referring to is padded out with all kinds of legitimate taxes and costs. Again, this leaves room for relatively little profit for the producer/distributor (compared to illegal substances). This is a model only a legitimate firm like Phillip Morris can sustain, due to their scale and infrastructure.

It is absolutely true that if government lards up the consumer price with too many taxes, a black market can develop, thus undercutting the advantages of legalization. Since the benefits of legalization are so obviously misunderstood by virtually every politician I have seen comment on it, this is a real risk.

But compare pot to tobacco or (far less regulated and taxed) coffee: it is far easier to cultivate, process and transport than either of those commodities, so if you regulate it exactly like tobacco, it will still be a moderately priced product with a modest profit for the producers/distributors.

Plus the notion that some plant or weed growing in my backyard is illegal is completely bizarre. People think it's normal only because we have been exposed to the idea since infancy. But think about it some more.

. . . which raises another point to bring this back on topic: if the cultivation of marijuana is legalized (and liberalized) in California, you will no longer see clandestine plantations in national forests guarded by armed men.

Zé wrote:Like siminov said, tobacco is probably at the threshold for black market growth right now. Whereas I don't know of black market alcohol being a success.

Alcohol remains cheap, even with all the taxes. Alcohol can be as harmful as tobacco, but it has to be abused, while tobacco causes harm through casual use. I guess that's the logic of taxing alcohol so lightly.

But a thriving black market for alcohol appeared in the United States between 1920 and 1933 and made fortunes for the gangsters who defied Prohibition. This was a time of the greatest rise in violent crime the Republic had seen since the Civil War. Coincidence? So many people refuse to draw the parallels between then and now, I guess most folks must really believe it was just a big coincidence.

Prohibition was repealed because ordinary people wanted to consume alcohol legally. The gangsters weren't put out of business, they moved on to heroin, cocaine (two more prohibitions to replace the recently repealed one), prostitution (a very old prohibition) and extortion. Now we are looking at repealing marijuana prohibition, again because more and more ordinary people want to use it legally. Sadly, not because folks have seen the light and understand what a terrible thing prohibition is in general. Cocaine and heroin will remain illegal (and will continue to provide huge profits for gangsters and allow them to destabilize South American countries) because Bad People use them.

So there is a real risk that this so-called decriminalization might be handled in a ham-fisted manner and deliver very few of the benefits that could accrue from complete legalization. But at least Joe Sixpack can legally smoke a joint.

Zé wrote:Why tax marijuana more than either tobacco or alcohol, both of which could be argued are more harmful?

Because from infancy everyone has understood that marijuana is Bad.

You make good arguements that prohibition of alcohol was a colosal failure. It made law abiding citizens instantly turn into criminals over night. (I'm talking about consumers here.) Because you took a product that was legal and widely available, illegal. But there is a difference here in that marijuana although legal at one point was not widely used when it was made illegal. I don't know your experience with marijuana. I had some experience with it (I did'nt inhale just kidding) and it seems to me it's purpose recreationally at least, is to alter your sense of reality. You may argue alcohol is similar, but there are sutle differences.
1. Like you mentioned with tobacco, pot smoke and it's use affects those around you. Even if you choose not to smoke, if you are stuck in a room where someone is smoking, you are affected by second-hand smoke. If your drinking, you need not involve anyone else. I'm talking kids here.
2. Drunk driving is a serious problem. Right now, accidents involving pot intoxication does not appear to be a problem, but part of that is because alcohol is also a component, and it is easier to test a violator's blood for alcohol. How many of those drunk drivers have also been under the influence of pot? Unknown. I think driving under the influence of pot can be worse, because there is a component of paranoia, and dilation of pupils affects vision, particularly during daylight hours.
3. Fire. The most common way of consuming pot is to smoke it. You have now added fire to the equation of someone who is under the influence of a drug which impairs your attention, and memory. A bad comination for someone just sitting in his livingroom. Let alone putting someone behind the wheel, camping in the woods, landing aircraft, you name it.
4. Moral issues. What ever your opinon of God or even your own conscious. What message is sent to kids about legalizing pot? I don't see any upside here. "Son they are legalizing pot, because we just can't win this war". "We just gave in to the drug dealers". "You can't win them all". "Maybe some of these other laws we don't follow we will just give up on as well". It may be a small thing, but it can lead to other things. Actually, it has already......
The speed limit merely a suggestion, more of joke unless the CHP is behind you.
Agreeing to pay your morgage is out too. Just wait for the government to bail you out because you forgot to read the fine-print on your contract. Just walk away, the rest of us will pay your bill.
"Let's not give letter grades to kids, cause some will feel bad about their grade".
At some point it affects society in a negative way, inspite of what you think about the cost of enforcing law, the alternative is worse.
There I go fear mongoring again. Sorry

simonov wrote: if government lards up the consumer price with too many taxes

Does anyone really think they wont lard up the price with taxes? Why give those clowns in Sacramento another source of revenue to waste.

I am voting no, but even if it passes, it will never take effect. I read this in the San Francisco chronicle: Marijuana still remains illegal under federal law, thus any locally imposed taxes are legally uncollectible, according to case law, which states that no one can be compelled to pay a tax that might subject them to prosecution by the federal government.

It will end up in the court for years, further wasting more of our money.

As forum administrator, I say it is legal for you to smoke pot while viewing this forum.

Signed,
Your friendly Libertarian Admin guy

Bill, why not explain to your children what you perceive to be the harmful effects of the substance instead of talking about its history. We teach our kids about the harmful effects of every other LEGAL substance so just add one to the list... if you're so inclined. Also, please, for the love of God please mention adequate exercise, excess sugar intake and Type 2 Diabetes because my ass doesn't wanna be wiping their's when they get to be my age

Zach wrote:Bill, why not explain to your children what you perceive to be the harmful effects of the substance instead of talking about its history. We teach our kids about the harmful effects of every other LEGAL substance so just add one to the list... if you're so inclined. Also, please, for the love of God please mention adequate exercise, excess sugar intake and Type 2 Diabetes because my ass doesn't wanna be wiping their's when they get to be my age

I'm lucky, I have good kids, and they are pretty clued in as to right and wrong. 8) They are all pretty active (cross-country, hiking etc) They run circles around me, although my doctor tells me I'm in good shape for a fat guy. Ha Ha. Good tip on the Diabetes and low sugar intake. Definately preventable with diet and excercise in some cases. Are you in the medical field Zach?

R.N.

Oddly enough, I don't smoke pot... or anything for that matter.

(which isn't to say i haven't tried it... i too, did not inhale )

Zach wrote: R.N.

Oddly enough, I don't smoke pot... or anything for that matter.

(which isn't to say i haven't tried it... i too, did not inhale )

Yeah, me either. I don't even drink anymore. I worked as a PM myself with the FD for several years until I finally gave up my cert a couple years back after promoting. RNs are a noble group you are to be respected and admired. 8)

"The excessive availability of marijuana on the street is just nauseating," said L.A. County Sheriff's Sgt. Mike Hannemann.

I understand pot is good for that.

robnokshus wrote:"The excessive availability of marijuana on the street is just nauseating," said L.A. County Sheriff's Sgt. Mike Hannemann.

I understand pot is good for that.

Yeah but then you need some serious snack time.

hvydrt wrote:Even if you make pot legal in California, the Mexican Cartels aren't going to give up smuggling and killing and get jobs at Walmart. There will still be millions of dollars to be made.

No there won't, not if an ounce really goes down to $40 or something near that. Do these guys ever smuggle beer into the country?

Bill wrote:
So we legalize pot what is next? Crack cocaine, ecstasy, heroine?

This is the same "slippery-slope" pseudo-argument the gaybashers use - is pot the same as cocaine, E, heroin, etc.?

Bill wrote:Admittedly, it is not the same as alcohol with respect to violencel, but it will have it's own unique problems. It impairs judgement (driving, or what ever requires full attentiveness) whatever. Why expose society to another layer of problems, on a gamble?

Impairing someone's ability to drive, operate heavy machinery, etc. isn't any different than alcohol - what's unique about that?

I swear I'm not trying to pick on you, but what unique problems?

Apply all laws concerning alcohol to pot and you're covered. Don't drive, do it in public or buy it for minors.

hvydrt wrote:

simonov wrote:Right, on smuggling cocaine.

Do you honestly think the cartels will just stop smuggling pot if its legalized in California? Why would they stop?

Uh, $$? If it costs them more to smuggle it than they make selling it - they'll stop.

How much alcohol and tobacco do they smuggle?

Layne Cantrell wrote: Uh, $$? If it costs them more to smuggle it than they make selling it - they'll stop.

hvydrt wrote:Uhhh, prices must be allowed to drop enough to undercut the prices the cartels sell for. That will not happen once all the fees and taxes associated with permits and licenses are factored into the legal market price. Plus add in the expenses of running a legitimate business like workers comp, insurance, medical etc. The price will be outrageous.

Lets just say I am completely wrong, and the Pro 19 pipe dream of cheap dope comes true. California will be the only place in North America that allows recreational use. The cartels will use California to purchase the cheap pot and distribute it throughout North America. Do you really want all that violence going on over control of the distribution points in Mexico to come here to California, just so you can smoke pot and eat Cheetos?

hvydrt wrote:...just so you can smoke pot and eat Cheetos?

Don't forget Scooby!