Mainstream marijunna and minorities.

[Bells]

Originally Posted by Meister

Well, how would it? Serious question, I've never seen the rights of anyone who didn't want to smoke harmed in any way.

That would be the point where things i said would start getting bloated and biased as all hell, but i'll try to keep it simple...

First of all, what Funka said was pretty much spot on...

But, just to draw a co-relation of things. Considering not the individual, but the full picture of the subject. Would you agree with me that people who don't smoke tobacco got harmed in some ways in the past few years? Don't thik of just the rights as they are printed on paper, Social and economic effects hardly can be predicted this away.

Now, i'm not talking about the relationship between smoker and non-smoker. But rather about the relationship with the industry built around it and the people it affects. And of course The people who actually profit from it.

I already saw people claiming that making pot legal could Save california from Bankrupcy... that the price would go down, that it would actually take money away from criminals and drug dealers... everything i saw, knew and reed about it made me think that the exact opposite of those things are WAY more likely and logical to happen (not to say that Pot would bankrupt California, just that it would barely help or not at all).

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Bells

that the price would go down, that it would actually take money away from criminals and drug dealers... everything i saw, knew and reed about it made me think that the exact opposite of those things are WAY more likely and logical to happen (not to say that Pot would bankrupt California, just that it would barely help or not at all).

I think one cigarette company, don't know which one, has already patented marijuana cigarettes in case they get legalized. Street sellers are not going to be able to compete with large companies. It just ain't happening. The money won't go to the drug venders of the streets, will instead go to companies, and those companies will be taxed on that money, thus money that wasn't going to the government now is. I'm not going to say it will save California, but explain to me how the opposite of this is going to happen, and why.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well let's consider prohibition as an example. Prohibition was ridiculously expensive to enforce and all the profits went straight to criminals without the huge tax benefits that we get from alcohol these days.
And consider that studies have shown that decriminalisation/liberalisation of marijuana has not shown increases in use during studies. Here is a newspaper article talking about this, today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...nce-nott-drugs

But I have no idea how taking away pot would cost the state as you claim. What costs will they have? And how can they compete with the tax benefits.

[bluestarultor]

The problem with pot is that, unlike alcohol, it's piss-easy to grow and any idiot can do it fairly quickly, where alcohol needs the ingredients, needs to ferment, etc. My grandpa grew up during the Depression and one of his childhood memories was that alcohol was legal to make, just not to sell, and his dad regularly DID make it and even left a portion out for the friendly neighborhood beat cops so they could be merry on their lunch breaks.

Pot, on the other hand, actually had to be removed from regular bird seed because people picked it out and planted it. All pot needs is sun and water and you're set. Put it in your back yard, trim the leaves, and you've got yourself a supply.

Basically, I don't see legalizing pot as helping much. To put it this way, if you simply de-criminalize pot, you get to stop wasting money on finding growers and everyone gets some and things are easy. If you legalize it, depending on the restrictions, you still have to find the growers and see if they have a license and spend time and money regulating it, and then if someone is growing it who's not supposed to be, there's less you can do about it because it's not actually illegal to have anymore, and there's really no good way to tell which pot is from authorized growers and which isn't. Basically, if you're going to legalize and regulate, you're back where you started with an over-complicated mess. Again, this is depending on how its growth is regulated. If we're talking just legalizing its use, all you have to worry about is confiscating it when someone is carrying too much.

Overall, though, I think the idea that with how easy it is to grow, legalization is not going to really solve any problems. Sure, it might siphon a portion of the money into the government, but the idea that people are going to just sit back and let the farmers handle growing it doesn't strike me as realistic.

[BitVyper]

Put it in your back yard, trim the leaves, and you've got yourself a supply.

Why is this even bad?

but the idea that people are going to just sit back and let the farmers handle growing it doesn't strike me as realistic.

You know what else is piss easy to grow? Like, 90% of the produce you buy at the supermarket. You're over-estimating people. Yeah, some would grow small amount in their backyards - and I don't really see that as much of an issue - but the majority are just gonna go "fuck it," and buy it at the store.

Honestly, I'd much rather see small-scale stuff than another tobacco industry anyway.

[Kim]

This is also why fast food restaraunts exist.

[BitVyper]

I'm figuring the guys who are going to grow it in their back yards are probably exactly the same ones who are growing it already.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

You know what else is piss easy to grow? Like, 90% of the produce you buy at the supermarket. You're over-estimating people. Yeah, some would grow small amount in their backyards - and I don't really see that as much of an issue - but the majority are just gonna go "fuck it," and buy it at the store.

Tell me about it. We have an apple tree and a pear tree in our back yard. The apples aren't really very good (although my grandpa's are much better), but the pears are great and we got a ton of them this year without lifting a finger. No pesticides, no watering, my brother and I just happened to be raking and saw it was loaded this year, he grabbed one and took a bite, and we decided to grab everything we could. Our neighbors two houses down the street have a plum tree with THE sweetest plums I've ever tasted. When I was friends with the neighbors on the other side of them (Steve and I had a falling out, sadly), we'd go over and grab some. The Kerswells don't even eat the things. They just throw them all out. It's a total waste, but I don't have an excuse to be nearby anymore to sneak any.

Then again, not everyone has fruit trees, which take a long time to grow, where pot has a waiting time a few good years shorter than that. Non-tree fruit requires a ton of planting and maintenance every year and isn't as good an example.

Honestly, I'd much rather see small-scale stuff than another tobacco industry anyway.

Well, while I have nothing major against that, I don't think that's what people are hoping for when they're arguing this from a political standpoint.

[Sithdarth]

The problem with pot is that, unlike alcohol, it's piss-easy to grow and any idiot can do it fairly quickly, where alcohol needs the ingredients, needs to ferment, etc.

See here is the big gaping hole in your theory. Tobacco is basically as easy to grow as pot and without the legal ramifications. With the ridiculous taxes on tobacco most states have to encourage you not to smoke you'd think massive amounts of people would be growing it but they're not. Modern man is a lazy son of a bitch that won't do anything for himself that someone else will do and will pay extra for the convenience. Not to mention with microbrewing making your own alcohol has become almost as easy as growing tobacco or pot.

Overall, though, I think the idea that with how easy it is to grow, legalization is not going to really solve any problems.

It would certainly solve the problem where we spend millions (or is it in the billions now) of dollars trying to catch and keep in prison people growing and using it. I mean the money spent on housing prisoners alone has to be crazy. It costs a lot to keep a person alive and somewhat comfortable and I here there are a relatively large number of people whose only crime is pot in jail. That is not to say that some people don't do pot related stuff and non-pot related stuff. Then of course there is also court costs. I don't have hard numbers but I'd expect it to be rather high.

People want to smoke it let them smoke it. As long as we add it to the DUI list and keep it out of enclosed spaces it'll be fine.

[BitVyper]

Drugs are drugs, they're not pathways to universal truth or a gateway to enlightenment.

I'm sure you've heard someone use courage as a metaphor for alcohol before, yes? Drugs are interesting in that they allow you to force your mind to operate on a different track. This can have a wide range of effects, both positive and negative, and yes, they CAN help you attain a better state of mind (what you call that is up to you). We've been using drugs for this exact purpose in mental patients for years. Much harder drugs than marijuana, at that. Now they aren't Get Into Enlightenment Free cards, but you can benefit from a temporarily altered perspective both in the short and long term. If you're an idiot about it - and a lot of people are - then they can also fuck you up, but in the case of marijuana, you have to try very very hard to do that. Even then, it's debatable whether or not you actually can.

Lot of guys have come up with some fantastic art and music under the influence of drugs. I've seen firsthand how it can make people create really cool things they wouldn't have created otherwise. So yeah, drugs can actually open you up to positive things that you wouldn't have otherwise seen. They can make you stupid too, so there's good and bad.

Edit: Very little of this post applies to marijuana, because marijuana is just not all that strong of a drug. Hell, it's barely worth calling a drug at all. I'd be willing to bet that caffiene has a stronger effect.

It would certainly solve the problem where we spend millions (or is it in the billions now) of dollars trying to catch and keep in prison people growing and using it.

Lets not forget the problem where we pretend decent people are hardened criminals.