When Your Problems are Economic, Legalize the Chronic!! [Archive]

DaN K. StAnLeY

13th March 2009, 12:26 AM

There have been quite a few stories about this on different news outlets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=not9lUpS0EA

another local (I think) stations report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8XB1yX9wUs&eurl=http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2955

and Glenn Beck (this guy's a doofus):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Quu5y3uY_A&feature=related

Here is another article from Time:
Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic State Assembly member Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale — a move that could mean billions for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion in annual sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion annually, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion in much-needed revenue a year, offsetting some of the billions in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget.

I'm not familiar with all of California's economic woes, but I'm curious what people think about this whole proposal. Will it really make a significant impact? Is this long over due? What message does it send if pot were legalized to free up money, if any? The Daily Show did a really good segment on this also, but I couldn't find it.

I didn't see any threads on this yet but if someone beat me to the punch then I'm "prepared to be assimilated."

kevinquinnyo

13th March 2009, 06:42 PM

But would they still cost the same amount? Drugs are expensive because they're illegal, mostly.

DaN K. StAnLeY

13th March 2009, 07:50 PM

I think the articles and videos all say that the tax would be equal to 1$ per joint and that's before mark up from distributors so I assume weed would get pretty pricey.

Thanks for saving my thread from the pits, BTW. I almost thought I'd changed my avatar for nuthin, hehehe:D

zaphod2016

14th March 2009, 09:37 AM

I think the articles and videos all say that the tax would be equal to 1$ per joint and that's before mark up from distributors so I assume weed would get pretty pricey.

Disclosure: I am totally opposed to drug prohibition.

I fear the politicians planning a $1 per joint tax have a gross misunderstanding of both weed and black markets.

First: weed is, well, a weed. Its not hard to grow. In fact, it can be found in all 50 states, either indoors or outdoors, despite nearly 100 years of prohibition. See also: dandelions, still thriving, despite decades of mass genocide via pesticides. Toss a handful of seeds into some dirt in Florida and you will have yourself a 3-foot tall plant in a few months, without grow lights or fertilizer or any proactive effort from you.

Second: black markets exist to fill gaps in supply and demand. Outlaw guns, guns are bought on the black market. Outlaw abortions, back-alley clinics appear. Outlaw drugs, and people grow and/or import them. And if the taxes on legal drugs make cost prohibitive compared to black market alternatives, the black markets will continue to thrive.

Assuming the goal is to decrease the use of weed, I would use a 3-prong approach.

1. Immediately release all non-violent drug offenders from jail, and use the money saved on corrections to bribe everyone needed to make step 2 and 3 happen

2. Completely legalize weed, and tax it on par with cigarettes (i.e. a tax in excess of 100% is not beyond reason, but $1 per smoke is just silly)

3. Offer land, equipment, cheap loans to aspiring pot farmers. Tell them to grow as much as they can. I would go so far as to subsidize it (i.e. corn) for 2 or 3 years.

How does this result in DECREASED use of weed?

Simple. Within a year, the weed market will be so flooded with product that the price will crash. Organized crime will lose interest quickly, and divert their resources to other, more lucrative trades.

At this point, usage will spike. Many will use weed for the first time out of curiosity. Most will be unimpressed. However, within a few years, when dirt-cheap weed can be found at every farmer's market in America (I mean out in the open, not just out of trunks as-is the custom now), the entire weed counter-culture will be all but obliterated. No longer will weed be "cool" or "edgy" or "hip" - its a mellow buzz for aging boomers and those of us too old to deal with hang-overs. Once the "cool" is gone, usage will plummet like a stone.

As with cigarettes, there will remain a group of children who continue to smoke, despite the health consequences. However, at the very least, a child of the future will need to convince the clerk at the local 7-11 that they are legal age, whereas dealers in the modern paradigm don't card at all. This is to say: although some use will remain despite all efforts to the contrary, I maintain the belief that legal distribution is the only realistic way to regulate consumption of mind-altering substances (i.e. prescription drugs, booze, cigs, whatever your poison might be).

The TL;DR version: don't just legalize pot, make it as plentiful as corn. I cannot stress the psychological component of "cool" or "counter-culture" enough. I sincerely believe that if corn were outlawed, it would be distributed illegally, and a die-hard group of "corn-heads" would propagate an entire sub culture around it, despite the fact that corn is a nice, but wholly unimpressive plant (just like pot).

When I was a kid, I never considered Mom's Old Milwalkee anything cool or sexy or interesting. Grandpa's scotch was equally gross. But I was always incredibly curious about Uncle Dave, who was always very happy, and always smelled funny, and would always "step outside" at family gatherings and return happier than ever. And the fact that no one could or would answer my questions directly only increased my curiosity. Weed was something "hip" and "cool", only for those "in the know". It was this, not a desire to get high, that led me to weed when I was a kid. And, for me, like most, the "sexy" phase ended very quickly.

DaN K. StAnLeY

14th March 2009, 06:37 PM

Yeash, I thought that 1$ per joint was funny. You can tell that this guy hasn't had to smoke schwag in those hard times, lol! I also heard someone make the point (probably jon stewart) that "oh well, all those years of prohibition were nothing personal, just business" and it seems pretty messed up that they would fall back on it now.

Furcifer

14th March 2009, 10:14 PM

DaN K. StAnLeY

15th March 2009, 01:26 PM

Does the $1 tax include rolling or not?

I think it's a buck without the labor, hehehe:D

If you usually buy higher grade pot, the tax might not bother you as much.

roger

15th March 2009, 04:20 PM

zaphod2016

15th March 2009, 08:54 PM

The trouble is, pot is made illegal at the federal level. DEA will still bust your butt, if I understand the issues correctly (and I may not). medical marijuana is legal here in CO, doesn't mean you won't get busted.

You are correct. The DEA (Federal) has raided several medical marijuana clinics, despite the fact that those clinics are legal under California law.

Insanity, pure and simple.

DaN K. StAnLeY

16th March 2009, 01:47 AM

The trouble is, pot is made illegal at the federal level. DEA will still bust your butt, if I understand the issues correctly (and I may not). medical marijuana is legal here in CO, doesn't mean you won't get busted.

Sure, I'm just thinking the whole "monkey see monkey do" effect will happen and maybe that will cause federal change.

Cavemonster

16th March 2009, 02:20 AM

D No longer will weed be "cool" or "edgy" or "hip" - its a mellow buzz for aging boomers and those of us too old to deal with hang-overs. Once the "cool" is gone, usage will plummet like a stone.

I think you're overestimating the value of the "cool" factor in kids decision to smoke weed. Old people drinking it doesn't limit teens and young adults going out and getting trashed on crappy beer. And as it stands, most 20-somethings getting stoned at whatever replaced Phish concerts have parents who were getting stoned not long ago and possibly still do.

I think you're right that there would be a spike and then a gradual decrease, but I think it would be mostly due to people who don't enjoy it much. I don't know a single regular weed smoker who does it for their image. Folks who get wasted clubbing to look exciting or smoke to look tough, both legal substances used by their uncool parents, those I've met.

People I know who smoke weed with any regularity do so because they enjoy it, I don't think a change in public perception of "coolness" would have too strong an effect.

DaN K. StAnLeY

16th March 2009, 04:38 AM

Rolfe

16th March 2009, 06:44 AM

kevinquinnyo

16th March 2009, 09:04 AM

Eddie Dane

17th March 2009, 02:44 AM

I always wonder if the drug dealers are the ones making sure drugs are kept illegal.

It's a conspiracy at best, but it's certainly plausible.

Companies who have a stronghold on any particular market are always making it harder to break into the market by lobbying for regulation and certifications and laws that make it harder to start a company making widgets.

It's like a total conspiracy, but it makes me think, if drug dealers aren't trying to keep drugs illegal as hard as they can, well then they certainly should be. It's definitely in their best interest.

I seem to remember that in the late nineties organised crime actually took action in Europe to block any discussion about legalisation of drugs.

I have no idea where to look for evidence, but it was something along the lines of bribing and infiltration in the European parliament.

It made the papers in really small way, but had quite an impact on my opinion of the subject.

Since looking into the subject, I'm in favour if legalisation for most currently illegal drugs. Some of the most dangerous substances should remain illegal IMHO. Users can just go for the legal, less harmful alternatives.

zep4dasoul

14th July 2009, 06:57 PM

Someone actually proposed the legalization question to president obama and he said no so fast you'd have thought george bush just asked for a cabinet position. I wonder if that response was simply reflex or if he is that passionate about it. We all know how he feels about cigarettes.

I think that legalization should be seriously addressed in Washington (not just because I am a user). If the revenue from taxes and the economy generated from sales aren't enough, it would also open up the hemp market which is another multi billion dollar industry, not to mention creating jobs in production, manufacturing, distribution, and sales. It seems like a no brainer to me.

zep4dasoul

14th July 2009, 07:14 PM

1. Immediately release all non-violent drug offenders from jail, and use the money saved on corrections to bribe everyone needed to make step 2 and 3 happen

This is another reason. We spend a ridiculous amount of money on corrections. The money spent on incarcerating drug offenders could be going to much more important things.

Patrick_R

14th July 2009, 08:10 PM

1. Immediately release all non-violent drug offenders from jail, and use the money saved on corrections to bribe everyone needed to make step 2 and 3 happen

2. Completely legalize weed, and tax it on par with cigarettes (i.e. a tax in excess of 100% is not beyond reason, but $1 per smoke is just silly)

3. Offer land, equipment, cheap loans to aspiring pot farmers. Tell them to grow as much as they can. I would go so far as to subsidize it (i.e. corn) for 2 or 3 years.

How does this result in DECREASED use of weed?

Simple. Within a year, the weed market will be so flooded with product that the price will crash. Organized crime will lose interest quickly, and divert their resources to other, more lucrative trades.

Except 1) you've created a perverse welfare state of dependent pot growers and 2) you've got a market flooded with cheap weed which lowers the price and the tax, which may increase consumption. You end up blowing money on welfare for farmers and losing tax dollars and not reducing consumption.

Government shouldn't be in the business in regulating peoples bodily intake - including weed.

mhaze

27th July 2009, 01:41 PM

....Government shouldn't be in the business in regulating peoples bodily intake - including weed.There should be no federal laws against because the power is not enumerated in the Constitution, although an argument could be made in transporting it into the country or between states. I think there is nothing wrong in this scenario for state law to vary from none to harsh.

corplinx

27th July 2009, 06:55 PM

Subsidies?

Piffle.

Pot being legal means:
a new market for plants/seeds is created
a new market for finished product is created

Farms that didn't exist before will be created to yield marijuana (existing farms may convert as well).
The farms buy tractors, fertilizer, irrigation, seeds, etc.
Channels form for farms to sell their product. Trucks are bought to move product.
Factories open to process the product into cigarettes.
Brands are created, companies that create cigarettes are created.
Channels form for getting finished product into stores. Trucks are bought to move product.
Distributorships are created.
End product at gas stations, stores, smoke shops increase their own revenue.

It would be a huge growth sector since it would basically go from 0. That's what I call real stimulus. All those people now making money and getting hired would spend more money. It may not solve create a 10 year boom cycle, but every dollar counts.

I don't see any reason to tax it more than sales tax. Its just another product on the shelf.

Barsdamian

29th July 2009, 06:50 AM

Barsdamian

29th July 2009, 07:04 AM

I'm not sure about this but pot could take away some of the drinking crowd. I would imagine that people would jump all over a chance to get jacked up all night and be totally fine for work (or a marathon) the next day. Never heard of a weed hang-over, or a "wang-over" I guess you'd call it.

When cannabis decriminalization is proposed either through legislation or ballot initiative for instance, it is always interesting to have a look at the prohibitionist side and their backers. The beer and alcohol industry are very frequently found to be funding the prohibitionist cause. That is very telling. They know that better access to cannabis will have a direct result on their bottom line.

On a personal note, I used to drink regularly although rarely to excess. My weekly alcohol consumption was somewhere around 5 drinks. Since trying cannabis on the recommendation of a friend 5 years ago that has dropped to almost zero. I can count the drinks I have in a YEAR on one hand now. When out with people and they ask why I don't drink, my response is simple: "I've found something better."

Cannabis is quite simply a better social inebriant on every level for me. Superior in every way to alcohol and with a lower potential for addiction than caffeine.

CynicalSkeptic

29th July 2009, 02:00 PM

There should be no federal laws against because the power is not enumerated in the Constitution, although an argument could be made in transporting it into the country or between states.

Yes, the Interstate Commerce Clause is howThe FedGovCo justifies it's stance.

geni

29th July 2009, 02:20 PM

You know, I wish some state, somewhere, would try this. Though it's probably arguable that experimenting on people is unethical or something.

Fortunetly the british empire wasn't bothered by things like ethics. Marijuana was legal in india. Only issue ever noted was bronchitis amoung heavy users.

mhaze

30th July 2009, 11:14 AM

Yes, the Interstate Commerce Clause is howThe FedGovCo justifies it's stance.Which is an unconstitutional stance, as I noted, with plausible exceptions.

Molinaro

31st July 2009, 05:33 AM

2. Completely legalize weed, and tax it on par with cigarettes (i.e. a tax in excess of 100% is not beyond reason, but $1 per smoke is just silly)

That seems contradictory. You say 100% tax is good but $1 on a joint is bad?

$1 on a joint if far less than 100% tax.

$200/oz

28 joints/oz

$7.15/joint

Making the $1 tax a 14% tax.

Fishstick

31st July 2009, 06:28 AM

You know, I wish some state, somewhere, would try this. Though it's probably arguable that experimenting on people is unethical or something. It's almost impossible to predict what would happen without at least one actual run-through. The law of unintended consequences can be a bummer, but it can work on either side of the argument.

Rolfe.

The Netherlands has had legal pot for years, and usage has been declining or been stable ever since. Weed culture isn't gone, but it's mostly a teenage or fringe thing - like with any substance. It's as simple as walking into a shop, picking your flavour from a board and paying. However, they tax growing ops.
Belgium has a decriminalised stance in that amounts under 3grams are not prosecuted - though it's still illegal to run a growing op or import/export out of the country.

The net effect of these two is that what happens is Dutch shops (legal) using Belgian growing ops (illegal, but cheaper since it's not taxed) to supply it with pot. This is bought again by Belgian drug tourists, who bring it back home for personal use in Belgium.

Because of this,dutch towns at the border of the Netherlands/Belgium are becoming more and more restricted by the dutch government or mayors due to crimes committed by said tourists. The solution? Close the border shops!

Obviously this just increases the problem in the few remaining border cities when a larger scale legalisation (ie European) would solve the problem better - since now French couriers no longer have to use rented cars to pick up a month's supply and risk jailtime.

Eddie Dane

4th August 2009, 04:29 AM

Cannabis is quite simply a better social inebriant on every level for me. Superior in every way to alcohol and with a lower potential for addiction than caffeine.

I disagree,

Cannabis makes me unmotivated and sluggish in bar fights.

Emperor_Gestahl

15th August 2009, 11:56 PM

I don't think trying to tax it, or significantly profit off it in any way would work well if it were really legalized. Even a heavy smoker could grow equal to his intake with relative ease, only casual smokers/experimenters would buy it unless it were cheap, and even then they could probably just bum some off a friend who's growing.

No barriers of entry, supply could easily meet any demand, there'd be no scarcity pressure on prices. I think drug legalization would be good for the country by saving on prosecution/jailing costs, keeping dollars within the U.S. (instead of leaking out through drug cartels), freeing up police officers for more pressing matters, plus potheads could keep more of their income for consumer spending due to getting free weed. Sadly no one person or group could get rich in the process, it's one of those "kinda good for everyone" type things, so it's not likely to happen without benevolent/competent leadership. And we humans don't have a very impressive record of that over the long term.

Alternately they could fully legalize use but still crush down with the iron fist on people who grow their own.. Much like persecuting people who brew their own beer this would be hard to justify even for lawmakers. There'd be profit in this system but only because the police would be working directly for "big marijuana"* with very little hope of concealing or veiling the fact.

Unprofitable one way and politically impractical the other.

*One could argue that they are already working for the cartels, but I think that's a symptom of our current system rather than a motivation for it.

NewtonTrino

16th August 2009, 09:59 AM

I spent a bit of time yesterday at Hempfest in Seattle.

This is a large "protestival" for pot. They claim it's the largest in the world although I didn't see any proof of that.

Anyway it's basically just a bunch of stoners hanging out shopping at booths for food and pot related products like pipes (I bought one from an artist that is really cool and I like buying and supporting artists directly), bongs, hemp products like bags and shirts as well as tons of food. There are also a bunch of stages with different bands and other acts like comedy.

Of course this whole thing is covered in giant clouds of pot smoke. There was a police presence but they weren't arresting anyone for partaking/protesting by lighting up. I really didn't see very many police for a crowd that size. Everyone was pretty mellow as you can imagine.

Bottom line, there just isn't any reason not to legalize pot other than to protect the interests of those that make money from prohibition.

GreyICE

18th August 2009, 09:35 AM

Fortunetly the british empire wasn't bothered by things like ethics. Marijuana was legal in india. Only issue ever noted was bronchitis amoung heavy users.

Lung cancer is also a concern. It's basically all the same problems as smoking, since absolutely none of the problems of smoking are caused by nicotine - they're all caused by inhaling smoke. Nicotine is actually pretty harmless, all told.

MikeSun5

22nd August 2009, 12:10 AM

You know, I wish some state, somewhere, would try this.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. This was brought up in another thread. Could you imagine if California made it okay for anybody to just walk up to a gas station or vendor and get weed?
The drug tourism would be absolutely INSANE. Marijuana crimes are almost all felonies in Arizona. Imagine the state line between CA and AZ if Arizonians (and anyone driving through AZ) went to CA for weed. You think John McCain would let those hippies bring dope into his state? Soldiers hate hippies. It'd be like the border between Israel and Palestine.

...Brands are created, companies that create cigarettes are created....
Distributorships are created....

Awesome. I was just thinking about how we need another enormous Phillip Morris corporation screwing with government lobbyists.

The Netherlands has had legal pot for years...

Not so fast, fishstick... as barsdamian said earlier, the Netherlands has decriminalized weed, but you can MOST DEFINITELY get arrested for it over there. It is not totally legal.

Because of this,dutch towns at the border of the Netherlands/Belgium are becoming more and more restricted by the dutch government or mayors due to crimes committed by said tourists. The solution? Close the border shops!

That's ridiculous anyway. I used to go to Maastricht from Germany. If they shut down all those stores, Amsterdam would only be like 3 more hours to drive. Not a big deal. Drug tourism is way too big an issue to ignore, which is one reason the Dutch conservatives are trying to limit sale to Dutch people only.

I think state by state decriminalization would probably be the best way. Not all-out legalization, because then (among other reasons) the states in which weed is still criminal wouldn't have to divert so much energy, manpower, and money to border patrol and combating drug traffic.

Emperor Gestahl made some excellent points as well. I think decriminalization is the way to go, not legalization.

Barsdamian

25th August 2009, 07:42 PM

Lung cancer is also a concern. It's basically all the same problems as smoking, since absolutely none of the problems of smoking are caused by nicotine - they're all caused by inhaling smoke. Nicotine is actually pretty harmless, all told.

You would think so but I have studied this subject pretty closely and surprisingly there is no credible data to support a link between cannabis use and lung cancer. In fact, the best studies available on the subject suggest that there is no connection even with long term use. More recent studies even suggest that cannabis may be able to prevent or even shrink tumors although much much more research is needed in that area.

From the NORML blog:
In an interview with the McClatchy newspaper chain, Donald Tashkin of the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, said: "at this point, I'd be in favor of (marijuana) legalization. I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm (than marijuana)."

Tashkin said that when he began his work thirty years ago, he "opposed ... legalization because thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects." However, he now admits that his decades' worth of scientific research revealed an opposite conclusion.

In 2006, Tashkin led the largest population case-control study ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that marijuana smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract – even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime.

"What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," Tashkin told the newspaper chain, noting that cannabinoids cause "cells die ... before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to cancer."

Barsdamian

26th August 2009, 08:26 PM

Further to my last post. A friend forwarded this to me today. Another study showing that long term use of cannabis may have a preventative effect on certain types of cancer. Again, much more research is needed.

www . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pubmed / 19638490

After adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

edit: ugh still can't post hot links. Just take the spaces out of the above link and it should work.

MikeSun5

26th August 2009, 09:03 PM

Further to my last post. A friend forwarded this to me today. Another study showing that long term use of cannabis may have a preventative effect on certain types of cancer. Again, much more research is needed.

I know anecdotal evidence is frowned upon, but it's needed sometimes to be realistic...

I've met like one or two potheads in my life that didn't either mix tobacco with their weed, or smoke cigarettes in addition to it. Also, not every weed smoker uses a bong. Look at the residue in a used hash pipe or the last fraction of a joint. All those carcinogens lining your lungs cannot be healthy.

Lots of accredited sources claim marijuana causes cancer. Here's a government source (http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html), and here's a link from a cancer site (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Smoking_Marijuana_May_Increase_Cancer_Ris k.asp).

Some potheads will claim the government and cancer organizations are spreading propaganda because they benefit... but then again, some potheads are too stoned to research everything. :D Especially if it might prove something they love is dangerous.

WildCat

27th August 2009, 06:27 AM

I know anecdotal evidence is frowned upon, but it's needed sometimes to be realistic...

I've met like one or two potheads in my life that didn't either mix tobacco with their weed, or smoke cigarettes in addition to it.
I've never seen anyone in the US mix pot with tobacco. In fact, I only saw this done once, in Canada. Seemed to be the local custom there.

Also, not every weed smoker uses a bong. Look at the residue in a used hash pipe or the last fraction of a joint. All those carcinogens lining your lungs cannot be healthy.

Lots of accredited sources claim marijuana causes cancer. Here's a government source (http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html),
That link does not say what you claim it does.

and here's a link from a cancer site (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Smoking_Marijuana_May_Increase_Cancer_Ris k.asp).
Which is contradicted by this newer and larger study (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57O5DC20090825) published in the journal Cancer Prevention Research:

In a study, researchers have found that long-term pot smokers were roughly 62 percent less likely to develop head and neck cancers than people who did not smoke pot.
The new study featured 434 patients with head and neck cancers, which include tumors in the mouth, tongue, nose, sinuses, throat and lymph nodes in the neck, and 547 individuals without these cancers seen in the Greater Boston area from December 1999 to December 2003.
After factoring out the impact of smoking, drinking, and other factors that might influence the results, smoking marijuana from once every two weeks to three times every two weeks, on average, was associated with about half the risk of head and neck cancer, compared with less frequent use.

The only people benefitting from the marijuana prohibition laws are drug cartels and street gangs.

Barsdamian

27th August 2009, 06:31 AM

I've met like one or two potheads in my life that didn't either mix tobacco with their weed, or smoke cigarettes in addition to it. Also, not every weed smoker uses a bong. Look at the residue in a used hash pipe or the last fraction of a joint. All those carcinogens lining your lungs cannot be healthy.

You raise a good point. Mixing tobacco with cannabis is popular in regions where harsh prohibition laws drive up the price of the drug. At up to $500/oz in some parts of the US, many people use tobacco to stretch their stash. Where I live the practice is much less common because at $30-150/oz cannabis is much more affordable. Unfortunately few studies take this fact into account as a risk factor and render their conclusions unreliable as a result.

Also, I would assert that on the topic of cannabis use, your anecdotal information may be biased by the illegality of the drug. While there may be many "potheads" who are open about their cannabis use, there is also another category of responsible cannabis users that tend to stay well below the radar. People such as myself who are successful professionals but keep their drug use private due to the consequences they would face if they were outed. Responsible users are increasingly turning to vaporization as a vehicle for ingestion and thus avoiding the issue of smoking altogether.

Lots of accredited sources claim marijuana causes cancer.

The first page you site is from the NIDA which is not a credible source on cannabis. They have stated it is not their goal to advocate for research into the medical benefits of cannabis, only its abuse. The NIDA is the only government authorized supplier of cannabis for use in medical studies and routinely obstructs research by refusing to supply the drug even for legitimate research purposes. Several researchers have obtained the proper requisite licenses and approvals only to have the necessary supply of cannabis either denied or prohibitively priced by the NIDA. This was confirmed by a court ruling.

Also, there is a single man (Dr. Mahmoud A. ElSohly, PhD) who determines the price of this cannabis supply and he is in a clear conflict of interest as he also has financial interests in a pharmaceutical company that is developing a cannabis whole plant extract to bring to market.

The second link you gave I believe is a legitimate study that does contradict the one I posted. These conflicts in the available data illustrate why far more research into the subject is necessary.

Some potheads will claim the government and cancer organizations are spreading propaganda because they benefit... but then again, some potheads are too stoned to research everything. :D Especially if it might prove something they love is dangerous.

This is very true. Just like with so many topics we see here on the JREF, people would rather 'believe' than learn. I seek only the truth on the matter. That's why I undertook to study the research myself since there is constant propaganda coming from both sides. Unfortunately, laymen such as myself quickly find that accessing study data is largely reserved for those with letters after their name. ;)

GreyICE

27th August 2009, 02:13 PM

You would think so but I have studied this subject pretty closely and surprisingly there is no credible data to support a link between cannabis use and lung cancer. In fact, the best studies available on the subject suggest that there is no connection even with long term use. More recent studies even suggest that cannabis may be able to prevent or even shrink tumors although much much more research is needed in that area.

From the NORML blog:

Huh, wasn't aware of that. Offhand, it might be the number. It said the highest category was 'over 22000 lifetime' with very high being '11000 to 22000.'

While that seems high, one pack a day gets you 22,000 in 3 years. 22,000 is actually only about a pack a week. Of course that's still a dangerous level, so maybe something else is going on. Or maybe the test simply wasn't sensitive enough to pick it up.

There's still other health effects. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1853086)

Regardless, I agree it should be legal. It's just not as wonderful for you as some potheads seem to think.

themusicteacher

27th August 2009, 02:34 PM

Just like our approach to healthcare and abortion, irrationality, illogic and emotion rule the day when it comes to drug policy. Nobody can produce a sound reason to outlaw pot (while booze and cigarettes remain legal; the effects of marijuana are no more severe, on the whole, than these two perfectly legal substances) that doesn't involve a wag of the finger.

Specific to the OP, legalizing and taxing marijuana in Cali would do little to help their particular situation. They are $24 billion short on their budget so $1.3 bil isn't going to do much. It would help a little but it sort of obfuscates the real issue: why is pot illegal at all?

WildCat

27th August 2009, 06:31 PM

It would help a little but it sort of obfuscates the real issue: why is pot illegal at all?
Because it was popular with Mexicans and blacks and would soon corrupt our white youth and make them like jazz music if something wasn't done!

It sounds ridiculous, but it's actually what happened.

Barsdamian

27th August 2009, 08:54 PM

The only people benefitting from the marijuana prohibition laws are drug cartels and street gangs.

I agree except to add...

The DEA, CIA, NIDA, ONDCP among others. These all benefit from the war on drugs. Some wars are never meant to be won.

The beer and alcohol industries - often financially backing the 'NO' side on medical cannabis ballot initiatives as legalized cannabis would certainly cut drinking.

The pharmaceutical industry - cannabis has many proven therapeutic benefits and is easy as pie for anyone to grow themselves

The cotton industry - Cannabis prohibition is the basis for hemp being illegal to grow in the US. Hemp is superior to cotton in some ways and legal hemp would almost certainly take a bite out of cotton's market share.

The private prison and private drug treatment industries (including our scientology friends at Narconon) - 99.6 arrests on cannabis related charges per HOUR in the US. Some 850,000 in 2006. Many of these are diverted by the courts to 'addiction treatment'

Barsdamian

27th August 2009, 09:36 PM

Because it was popular with Mexicans and blacks and would soon corrupt our white youth and make them like jazz music if something wasn't done!

It sounds ridiculous, but it's actually what happened.

You are absolutely correct. The first cannabis prohibition ordinance in the US was passed in El Paso, TX as a response to the growing numbers of mexican workers in the area. By making cannabis illegal, they had an easy tool to evict any mexicans they liked since all the poor workers smoked the plant.

In fact, the term 'marijuana' was adopted by prohibitionist forces for this very reason. By attaching a mexican slang term to the plant they could easily make it sound foreign demonize it to a xenophobic public. The proper name for the plant is Cannabis Sativa.

If you ever have the chance, there is a great film entitled 'Grass' by Ron Mann. In it he humorously traces the changing slogans of cannabis prohibitionists through the decades from "it causes murderous rampages" and "it causes white women to have sex with black men" through to more modern messages like the gateway drug and higher potency myths. Its interesting to watch as through the years each successive prohibitionist argument is debunked they simply create the next one. Much like a religion which alters its doctrines as science continually disproves them.

MikeSun5

27th August 2009, 10:59 PM

That link does not say what you claim it does.

You're right... and I put "causes" in bold, too. <hangs head in shame> :(

The only people benefitting from the marijuana prohibition laws are drug cartels and street gangs.

As barsdamian said, there are plenty of people and organizations that benefit from marijuana prohibition. Some organizations would be completely obliterated if weed were legalized. Lots of people making good money depend on it's prohibition.

One item didn't really sit well with me, though:

The cotton industry - Cannabis prohibition is the basis for hemp being illegal to grow in the US. Hemp is superior to cotton in some ways and legal hemp would almost certainly take a bite out of cotton's market share.

I've said earlier that it would be so incredibly easy for the government to legalize industrial hemp that doesn't get people high. For that reason, the hemp argument doesn't really fly as far as an agricultural benefit because it seems like it would have been done already. Maybe there's a "big-cotton" corporate conspiracy to keep hemp down. Who knows?

...and not to derail, but $30 an ounce?? :eek:

Barsdamian

28th August 2009, 08:18 AM

I've said earlier that it would be so incredibly easy for the government to legalize industrial hemp that doesn't get people high. For that reason, the hemp argument doesn't really fly as far as an agricultural benefit because it seems like it would have been done already. Maybe there's a "big-cotton" corporate conspiracy to keep hemp down. Who knows?

I don't mean to suggest any sort of cotton conspiracy and I do not have information that they fund prohibitionist causes the way that the beer and alcohol industries do. That being said, hemp does make a superior textile to cotton and its not hard to imagine that the cotton industry would suffer as a result of cannabis legalization.

Actually cotton may have been a poor example on my part as there are other industries that would be hurt even more if industrial hemp were legalized in the US. Hemp is a cheap source of pulp for paper and is an excellent crop for producing ethanol, far superior to corn.

As for the agricultural benefits of hemp, I should point out that the US is the ONLY country in the industrialized world where agricultural hemp production is illegal. Elsewhere its a profitable crop. In Canada for instance, it has been legal since 1997 and it the first 10 years production soared to over 40,000 acres. In fact so many farmers rushed to grow the profitable crop in the first few years that they created a supply glut and nearly crashed the market.

Even in the US some 10-15 states have legalized hemp agriculture but the federal government still blocks farmers from planting. Their reasons are even more laughable than the reasoning behind cannabis prohibition. They cling to the claim that hemp fields could be used to hide illegal cannabis crops and its too difficult for agents to tell the difference. That's honestly the line of reasoning they still use in 2009.:boggled:

There is a good size hemp lobby in the US. Their website can be found here. http://www.votehemp.com

Here's another interesting tidbit from 1942. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne9UF-pFhJY

...and not to derail, but $30 an ounce?? :eek:

Yes if you live in the right place and run in the right circles. Don't expect to get a deal like that from the guy standing out back of the YMCA. :)

quarky

28th August 2009, 08:44 AM

Barsdamian

28th August 2009, 09:50 AM

With decriminalization, unless the law becomes even more heavy handed concerning growing, there would be no available revenues for the state in very short order. Pot heads would grow their own; casual users would find very cheap joints; huge farms would be absurd.

I haven't done the math, but I suspect that the total global market for pot would not translate to much farming. Even if 1 billion people smoke a joint a day, its only 50,000 tons/year.

I tend to agree with your argument here. Decrim or legalization would drop prices to the point where this would be a small cash crop and tax revenues would only be a drop in the bucket. As you correctly point out, many people who have learned to grow their own would not stop growing simply because they could now buy inexpensive joints.

However, the more immediate economic impact would be felt on the enforcement side. In 2003 alone (latest figures I could find) federal, state and local governments in the US spent a total of $49 billion on the drug war. Decrim or legalize cannabis and you could easily cut a fifth off that budget. That's where the real economic benefit is IMO.

themusicteacher

28th August 2009, 09:54 AM

Because it was popular with Mexicans and blacks and would soon corrupt our white youth and make them like jazz music if something wasn't done!

It sounds ridiculous, but it's actually what happened.

I thought there was also some sort of concerted effort by William Randolph Hearst to make hemp illegal because the crop yields were better than his trees and, therefore, were a threat to his paper mills. Or something like that. Is that just a conspiracy theory?

Barsdamian

28th August 2009, 09:58 AM

That was a theory popularized by Jack Herer in his book 'The Emporer Wears No Clothes'. It is trumpeted from the rooftops today by cannabis activists but unfortunately there is precious little evidence to back it up.

Here's a good article on this. I get vilified on cannabis forums when I mention this so I keep this article bookmarked and post it regularly.

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/77339/

fredcarr

28th August 2009, 10:04 AM

I agree except to add...

The DEA, CIA, NIDA, ONDCP among others. These all benefit from the war on drugs. Some wars are never meant to be won.

The beer and alcohol industries - often financially backing the 'NO' side on medical cannabis ballot initiatives as legalized cannabis would certainly cut drinking.

The pharmaceutical industry - cannabis has many proven therapeutic benefits and is easy as pie for anyone to grow themselves

The cotton industry - Cannabis prohibition is the basis for hemp being illegal to grow in the US. Hemp is superior to cotton in some ways and legal hemp would almost certainly take a bite out of cotton's market share.

The private prison and private drug treatment industries (including our scientology friends at Narconon) - 99.6 arrests on cannabis related charges per HOUR in the US. Some 850,000 in 2006. Many of these are diverted by the courts to 'addiction treatment'

Following is my personal opinion:

The laws against drugs do not help Narconon. (And I imagine other treatment centers.) When a person comes to get cleaned up as a result of a court order they have less chance of doing well on the program. I've seen this time and time again. When a person wants to do a program and get cleaned up the success rate shoots way up.

I'm in the minority on this issue amongst my family and friends but I also agree that this should be decriminalized. I don't think its going to cause an explosion of pot smoking to make it legal to do so. There is already a huge segment of the population that do so.

Taxes from the sales of such substances should go to teaching children the truth about drugs. This is far cheaper and more effective way of handling the catastrophe that drugs create.

Barsdamian

28th August 2009, 10:45 AM

Following is my personal opinion:

The laws against drugs do not help Narconon. (And I imagine other treatment centers.) When a person comes to get cleaned up as a result of a court order they have less chance of doing well on the program. I've seen this time and time again. When a person wants to do a program and get cleaned up the success rate shoots way up.

I'm not quite sure I follow your argument. Narconon regularly sends out press releases like this:

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=98430&cat=15

I'm not sure how one could argue that they are not profiting from cannabis prohibition. Perhaps courts aren't sending people to Narconon directly but its pretty clear that the COS is eager to 'treat' cannabis addictions.

Its worth noting that study after study has shown that cannabis has a lower potential for addiction than heroin, tobacco, alcohol and arguably even caffeine. Over 70% of people attending rehab for 'cannabis dependency' were sentenced by the courts. The industry profits enormously from this and can often be found bolstering the prohibitionist cause either financially or through their press releases.

Its also interesting that according to the stats, well over 1/3 of people admitted for 'cannabis dependency' had not even used the drug in the 30 days prior to their admission. Real hardcore addicts there! :rolleyes:

fredcarr

28th August 2009, 03:23 PM

I'm not quite sure I follow your argument. Narconon regularly sends out press releases like this:

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=98430&cat=15

I'm not sure how one could argue that they are not profiting from cannabis prohibition. Perhaps courts aren't sending people to Narconon directly but its pretty clear that the COS is eager to 'treat' cannabis addictions.

Its worth noting that study after study has shown that cannabis has a lower potential for addiction than heroin, tobacco, alcohol and arguably even caffeine. Over 70% of people attending rehab for 'cannabis dependency' were sentenced by the courts. The industry profits enormously from this and can often be found bolstering the prohibitionist cause either financially or through their press releases.

Its also interesting that according to the stats, well over 1/3 of people admitted for 'cannabis dependency' had not even used the drug in the 30 days prior to their admission. Real hardcore addicts there! :rolleyes:

Not sure about the 1/3 of people admitted hadn't used in the last thirty days. In my experience it was more like 3 hours. They often said it was thirty days though:) Piss tests showed otherwise.

Read the article at the link. Like I said my commentary was just my opinion and I am not speaking for any organization.

And like I said in my experience individuals doing a drug treatment program as a result of being ordered to do it seemed to have a higher relapse rate and more difficulty doing the program as a result of not being there on their own determinism.

Even Mr. Hubbard notes in the book "Dianetics - The Modern Science of Mental Health" that he is surprised at the legalizing of alcohol over marijuana. (He says a lot more on the subject but that is just my take on part of it.)

Barsdamian

28th August 2009, 05:45 PM

Not sure about the 1/3 of people admitted hadn't used in the last thirty days. In my experience it was more like 3 hours. They often said it was thirty days though:) Piss tests showed otherwise.

You raise a good point. It would be very difficult to ascertain the veracity of that stat. People entering treatment would have several very good reasons to lie about this. I'll stop quoting this statistic unless I can find more info about it.

And like I said in my experience individuals doing a drug treatment program as a result of being ordered to do it seemed to have a higher relapse rate and more difficulty doing the program as a result of not being there on their own determinism.

I think we are on the same page here. When I stated that the addiction treatment industry "benefits" from cannabis prohibition, I didn't mean to suggest that it makes their programs more effective. I mean they benefit financially and of that there is little doubt. With 70% of admissions for 'cannabis dependency' coming from the courts, the industry would be dealt a major blow if cannabis prohibition were to end.

Even Mr. Hubbard notes in the book "Dianetics - The Modern Science of Mental Health" that he is surprised at the legalizing of alcohol over marijuana. (He says a lot more on the subject but that is just my take on part of it.)

Interesting. I have never heard this before. I wonder if old L Ron was a toker? :)

MikeSun5

28th August 2009, 05:54 PM

I just finished watching the movie Super High Me. You can find it on google video.

It's this comedian Doug Benson who goes 30 days sober and then 30 days high as gas prices and films the whole thing.

It's hilarious, and he does touch on decriminalization and legalization for medicinal purposes. They also address the idiocy of the DEA busting legal dispensaries in California.

It was very informative. I learned that you can get high off THC infused lip balm and topical ointments. :idea:

quarky

28th August 2009, 09:20 PM

With decriminalization, unless the law becomes even more heavy handed concerning growing, there would be no available revenues for the state in very short order. Pot heads would grow their own; casual users would find very cheap joints; huge farms would be absurd.

I haven't done the math, but I suspect that the total global market for pot would not translate to much farming. Even if 1 billion people smoke a joint a day, its only 50,000 tons/year.

Oops. My in-head calculation was off ten fold, assuming one billion people smoke a pound a year. It would be more like a half million tons/ year.

There's 2 parts of this debate that trouble me:

One, the nature of economics, and the idea that such and such costs us a lot of money. In a way, prohibition of pot generates maximum flow of money.
As do traffic accidents, hurricanes, and other hated wastes.

If pot was completely legal, a lot of jobs will be lost, and very few gained.

And, two, the need to sugar-coat the ethics. Forget all the hooplah. We should be allowed to get stoned if we want, especially in the home of the free and brave. Or not.

If not, we are free to break laws. This is one of the most salient features of freedom. I wonder how many here have chosen to break this law?

Barsdamian

29th August 2009, 01:24 PM

Well I think you'd have a hard time finding a billion people to smoke a pound per year. My best guess on an average would be about half that amount.

I am not an economist by any means but I do think your points are valid. I have yet to be convinced that there is an economic argument to be made by legalizing cannabis. Its prohibition really has become a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

That being said, I would have no problem seeing DEA agents put out of work. The animals who have been raiding state-law compliant MMJ patients, even handcuffing disabled people to their wheelchairs deserve no sympathy.

DEA = Drug Exploiting Animals

technoextreme

29th August 2009, 02:48 PM

Further to my last post. A friend forwarded this to me today. Another study showing that long term use of cannabis may have a preventative effect on certain types of cancer. Again, much more research is needed.

www . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pubmed / 19638490

edit: ugh still can't post hot links. Just take the spaces out of the above link and it should work.
I've always found medical marajiuana a stupid concept namely because of the fact that I find it an offshoot of the stupidity of naturopathy. Seriously??? The best you can do is to just give them the freaking plant? You don't need medical marijuana you need the active ingredient that is helpful.

WildCat

29th August 2009, 03:55 PM

Well I think you'd have a hard time finding a billion people to smoke a pound per year. My best guess on an average would be about half that amount.

I am not an economist by any means but I do think your points are valid. I have yet to be convinced that there is an economic argument to be made by legalizing cannabis. Its prohibition really has become a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
Legalizing it would lower the cost of marijuana dramatically, which means that money saved from pot purchases could be spent in other areas of the economy. It wouldn't just disappear.

WildCat

29th August 2009, 03:57 PM

I've always found medical marajiuana a stupid concept namely because of the fact that I find it an offshoot of the stupidity of naturopathy. Seriously??? The best you can do is to just give them the freaking plant? You don't need medical marijuana you need the active ingredient that is helpful.
Why spend money processing it to extract the "active ingredient"? I put that in scare quotes because it's likely a cocktail of ingredients that are beneficial.

All that would do is make it more expensive for no benefit.

technoextreme

29th August 2009, 04:25 PM

Why spend money processing it to extract the "active ingredient"? I put that in scare quotes because it's likely a cocktail of ingredients that are beneficial.
Since when did you need to extract active ingredients? You make them like every single other medicine on the face of the earth. It would actually make it cheaper, probably more effective, and probably safer. As much as I agree that there is something to medical maraijuana from what I have seen it just seems there are ridiculously stupid ways to administer the drugs.

esquel

29th August 2009, 04:42 PM

I had always understood that hiding smoking-grade cannabis in a field of hemp was counter productive because after a few generations, cross pollination would reduce the active ingredients to almost negligible. Hemp for paper or fiber or ethanol production has different desirable qualities which do not include the psychoactive elements. Anyone want to tackle this whole new facet of the 'contamination by bioengineered Frankenplants'!?

MikeSun5

29th August 2009, 06:48 PM

Why spend money processing it to extract the "active ingredient"? I put that in scare quotes because it's likely a cocktail of ingredients that are beneficial.

All that would do is make it more expensive for no benefit.

That's not all that hard to extract. There are a myriad of products that can provide THC to a person's body and they're not any more expensive than buying weed itself. They have drinks, lollipops, cookies, spaghetti sauce, lip balm, topical ointments, pills, suppositories, all kinds of stuff. You don't even have to smoke anything anymore.

As far as the medical benefits, sure there are some, but not as much as most medical marijuana supporters believe. Lots of people who support medicinal use really only support it because they believe it will lead to legal recreational use. I mean, just tell the doctor your back hurts, right? Then you get to smoke weed all day, bro. :rolleyes: Some people need to grow a pair and just say what they mean. I support recreational use. How hard is that?
Personally, I'm getting kind of tired of this medical marijuana initiative. Some people genuinely need it to alleviate symptoms of chemotherapy or spina bifida, or whatever, but most people just want to get high. Look at medicinal MJ supporters like Marc Emery and Jack Herer. What the hell illness do they have? (Herer had a stroke, but he was a pothed long before that) I've got two friends in the Bay Area who have ID cards that allow them to buy weed from dispensaries. Apparently it's not hard to get one because I know for a fact that neither of them are sick.

fredcarr

31st August 2009, 08:27 AM

You raise a good point. It would be very difficult to ascertain the veracity of that stat. People entering treatment would have several very good reasons to lie about this. I'll stop quoting this statistic unless I can find more info about it.

I think we are on the same page here. When I stated that the addiction treatment industry "benefits" from cannabis prohibition, I didn't mean to suggest that it makes their programs more effective. I mean they benefit financially and of that there is little doubt. With 70% of admissions for 'cannabis dependency' coming from the courts, the industry would be dealt a major blow if cannabis prohibition were to end.

Interesting. I have never heard this before. I wonder if old L Ron was a toker? :)

I hear ya. Last I checked Narconon's had less than 10 percent admissions coming from courts. (I don't know the accuracy of that number.) All the Executive Directors I have talked to have agreed that they are very chary of accepting individuals that are being court ordered to do a drug rehab program. So I think it wouldn't affect the Narconon organizations all that much if drugs were decriminalized. Drugs will still destroy lives and families whether there are laws or not on the subject.

www.drugfreeworld.org

NewtonTrino

1st September 2009, 01:51 PM

I think being skeptical of medical marijuana is smart. That being said my mind changed long ago and I think it's incredibly useful for making people feel more comfortable when they are sick. It definitely helps stomach issues and helps with appetite. This is reason enough. Of course it should just be completely legal. Prohibitionists simply don't have the facts on their side and in fact create most of the problems they complain about. What other flower sells for $5000 a pound? I mean seriously people we have created a monster. Legalize, throw on a tax of $50 a ounce and let people get on with their lives.

Fishstick

2nd September 2009, 06:45 AM

Following is my personal opinion:

Taxes from the sales of such substances should go to teaching children the truth about drugs. This is far cheaper and more effective way of handling the catastrophe that drugs create.

I'm agreeing with a scientologist. My worldview is shattered.

Ambrosia

2nd September 2009, 08:11 AM

Of course drugs should all be legal, and available in a similar fashion and taxed in a similar way to the drugs that are already legal, like alcohol and tobacco.

What business is it of any government anywhere what I do with my own body, provided I do not harm anyone else?

None of their business.

I don't think that people will grow their own gear any more than they make their own beer presently or grow their own tobacco. If the government were to legalise, regulate supply of, and tax Cannabis then surely lots of people would simply buy stuff over the counter rather than go to the hassle of growing it.

I did read with interest recently about LS9. They have engineered microbes to make petrol/diesel and other petrochemicals from sugar or "cellulosic biomass"

LS9 UltraClean™ products are a family of fuels produced by LS9 DesignerMicrobes™ created through the power of synthetic biology. Starting from low-carbon, natural sources of sugar such as sugar cane and cellulosic biomass, these renewable fuels will fundamentally change the transportation fuels landscape and set the stage for petroleum displacement. LS9 UltraClean™ fuels have higher energetic content than ethanol or butanol and have fuel properties that are essentially indistinguishable from those of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.

[ link (http://www.ls9.com/products/) ]

This might well prove to be a major shot in the arm for Hemp if it turns out that growing Hemp would be one of the most cost effective ways to produce the biomass needed for these microbes to digest into petrochemical replacements.

Praktik

2nd September 2009, 09:29 AM

...through to more modern messages like the gateway drug and higher potency myths.

The real gateway drug is tobacco.

portlandatheist

2nd September 2009, 01:13 PM

Praktik

2nd September 2009, 01:19 PM

I believe we need to regulate pot in the US so it only uses the metric system. On the black market, both the English system and metric system are used simultaneously. This barbaric and confusing method must come to an end. Round off errors are common place such as 28 grams in an ounce when it should be 28.3495231 grams.

Crap I never thought of that!

I've been gettin' gypped on my Os!!

Over my lifetime that probably adds up to at least a few O's I've lost out on!!

MikeSun5

2nd September 2009, 06:40 PM

What business is it of any government anywhere what I do with my own body, provided I do not harm anyone else?

Reminds me of this quote from "If 6 was 9..."

I'm the one who's gonna have to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.

I think being skeptical of medical marijuana is smart. That being said my mind changed long ago and I think it's incredibly useful for making people feel more comfortable when they are sick.

No doubt. The comfort factor is an obvious benefit. ;) I had Percocets perscribed to me one time and those things are brutal. Those pills really make you feel like a dope-head. Weed would have been so much better. :D

NewtonTrino

4th September 2009, 04:28 PM

See a lot of people think that giving people comfort for their pain is immoral. And god forbid you get high just for fun! Weed is a harmless substance that will at least make people feel better while they are sick. That's all that should be needed to make it legal for medical use in the same way one uses tylenol or advil. There are just so many reasons to legalize it's crazy. Cut down on money for organized crime, gain tax revenue, get a bunch of people out of prison who shouldn't be there, industrial uses of hemp and just plain freeeedom baby!

Cavemonster

4th September 2009, 05:00 PM

For the people who say that folks would continue to buy their pot from small growers, or grow their own, how many other products do most people create themselves instead of buying?

Growing tomatoes is a heck of a lot easier than growing Pot, but are home grown tomatoes or lettuce a major competition for farms?

A good chunk of people I know who buy weed now don't like dealing with the people they buy it from, a lot of them are sketchy, moving to a new town means finding a new connection of unknown quality, small growers means an inconsistent supply.

I can make a hamburger at home pretty damned cheap and fast, yet Mcdonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's do huge amounts of business becuase the scale of their production allows them to keep it cheap and consistent, and most Americans value those things a lot.

If underground growers and distributors continue at the present scale, the sin tax would have to be pretty huge for them still to be a better deal than a large factory farm operation. If they become a larger underground operation, then they're in danger of being arrested for tax evasion as much as they're in danger of drug charges now and would need to build hazard pay into their prices.

There is no reason to think that legal MJ would be consumed through routes different than the way we consume everything else just for what will amount to a small price difference per unit.

NewtonTrino

4th September 2009, 06:02 PM

In a sane world we would be able to buy bundles of it at the farmers market and name brand stuff in the corner store.

jhunter1163

5th September 2009, 06:28 AM

I had Percocets perscribed to me one time and those things are brutal. Those pills really make you feel like a dope-head. Weed would have been so much better. :D

The only time I ever took Percs in my life was when I was waiting for a tooth to be extracted. I had to take two just to get the pain down to a tolerable level. Not only did they not work, they made me stupid.

Medical marijuana is legal for strictly defined conditions in Connecticut, where I reside. (I believe only cancers and degenerative orthopedic conditions, and there's a whole heap o' paperwork you have to do to get it.) It's also my understanding that you don't get the actual weed; you get Marinol, which my 60's-hippie wife refers to as "barrel THC". Not that she'd know anything about that though... :boxedin:

I'm for legalization myself, even though I'm not and never have been a user. It seems like a huge waste of resources, for very little effect.

WildCat

5th September 2009, 08:05 AM

Legalize, throw on a tax of $50 a ounce and let people get on with their lives.
That's the problem. If you did that people would just grow it themselves, and it is very easy to grow. There is simply not that much money to be had by taxing it.

It'd be like taxing tomatoes at $50/lb. No one would buy them at the store, they'd grow them themselves.

WildCat

5th September 2009, 08:07 AM

The real gateway drug is tobacco.
No, it's candy. Do you realize that nearly 100% of smokers and drug users tried candy before tobacco and drugs?

WildCat

5th September 2009, 08:09 AM

NewtonTrino

5th September 2009, 08:31 AM

Who cares if they grow it at home? I'm not for legalization specifically for generation of tax revenue it's just a nice side effect. Maybe $50 and ounce is too much tax but certainly not everyone is going to grow their own. The effort is similar to making crappy homebrew which not a lot of people bother with. I certainly wouldn't be growing my own, I want the best breeds, lots of variety, pre-rolled joints, baked goods etc. to be available. I want pot flavored doritos and drinks with added THC... In short I want a free market.

WildCat

5th September 2009, 08:40 AM

The effort is similar to making crappy homebrew which not a lot of people bother with.
No, it's not. It's a far simpler process than making home brew. It's no more difficult than growing chives or catnip.

I certainly wouldn't be growing my own, I want the best breeds, lots of variety,
What would be stopping you from growing lots of varieties or the best cultivars?

pre-rolled joints, baked goods etc. to be available. I want pot flavored doritos and drinks with added THC... In short I want a free market.
You could certainly get those things, but they won't be big sellers if they are taxed at exhorbitant rates.

NewtonTrino

6th September 2009, 09:33 AM

Ok wildcat I'm convinced. Let's just legalize it without taxation.

But you really think a bunch of potheads are going to homegrow instead of buying at 7-11? Keep in mind people with medical cards in Cali can grow but there are still hundreds of dispensaries selling at black market prices.

Cavemonster

6th September 2009, 09:45 AM

No, it's not. Pot is far easier.

Not true,
Pot would be very hard for a homegrower to grow outdoors for a number of reasons, lack of sunlight in most of the US, pollinated plants become useless so they need to be carefully shielded.

The indoor growing conditions with constant care and incredibly heavy lighting favored now aren't just there for legal reasons, they're essential to sustaining the high THC kinds of plants consumers are now used to. You can grow weed in your backyard flowerbed, but without all that extra equipment and light and effort it will take far longer than pretty much any garden vegetable and will have a lower yield of a likely inferior product.

Emperor_Gestahl

7th September 2009, 01:38 AM

I've always found medical marajiuana a stupid concept namely because of the fact that I find it an offshoot of the stupidity of naturopathy. Seriously??? The best you can do is to just give them the freaking plant? You don't need medical marijuana you need the active ingredient that is helpful.

LOL do you even know what the active ingredient IS? Californians can bake brownies if they want you know.

Lazy ones need all-natural peanut butter, saltine crackers, and an oven. OH NO THE INEFFICIENCY!

Emperor_Gestahl

7th September 2009, 01:44 AM

As far as the medical benefits, sure there are some, but not as much as most medical marijuana supporters believe. Lots of people who support medicinal use really only support it because they believe it will lead to legal recreational use. I mean, just tell the doctor your back hurts, right? Then you get to smoke weed all day, bro. :rolleyes: Some people need to grow a pair and just say what they mean. I support recreational use. How hard is that?

Having a pair and saying what we mean hasn't been working for 70 years! Let us have our "back pain" for god's sake, it's the only bone the rich are willing to throw us right now. And if you think the rich can be complained to think again.

NewtonTrino

7th September 2009, 04:16 PM

The medical back door also allows politicians to save a bit of face.

This whole prohibition is just insane. Have we learned no lessons as a society? Are we forever doomed to repeat these same stupid mistakes? As Penn would say ****!

WildCat

8th September 2009, 06:53 AM

Not true,
Pot would be very hard for a homegrower to grow outdoors for a number of reasons, lack of sunlight in most of the US,
Not true. Every part of the US gets more than 12 hours of sunlight at least part of the year, this is when plants are in their vegetative growth stage, and this phase need only last 2 months or so. Once sunlight drops to below 12 hours they begin to flower.

pollinated plants become useless so they need to be carefully shielded.
Pull the males once flowering begins and they show their sex. Unless you have people nearby letting the males grow unchecked there won't be much pollination happening. And putting an insect screen around the plants would further reduce pollination. You'd still get a few seeds, but it would be far from "useless".

The indoor growing conditions with constant care and incredibly heavy lighting favored now aren't just there for legal reasons, they're essential to sustaining the high THC kinds of plants consumers are now used to.
The "constant care" is simply watering/fertilizing, pulling the males when you force them to show their sex, and watching out for greenhouse pests (aphids and such). It's very simple and not at all time-consuming when you are only growing a few plants for personal use.

You can grow weed in your backyard flowerbed, but without all that extra equipment and light and effort it will take far longer than pretty much any garden vegetable and will have a lower yield of a likely inferior product.
Your back yard gets more light than any metal halide or high pressure sodium bulb can provide. And you have less worries about pests because outdoors those greenhouse pests have predators which keep their numbers down. And I've already addressed the pollination issue. There's no reason at all you cannot grow high quality marijuana outdoors in virtually any state of the US.

WildCat

8th September 2009, 06:57 AM

Ok wildcat I'm convinced. Let's just legalize it without taxation.
Never said you couldn't tax it. But it won't be the windfall some people claim.

But you really think a bunch of potheads are going to homegrow instead of buying at 7-11? Keep in mind people with medical cards in Cali can grow but there are still hundreds of dispensaries selling at black market prices.
They may rent and not be allowed to grow by their landlords, and those who own their own place may not have the space or they may be worried about the federal government coming in and taking their house.

Legalization removes several of those factors.

NewtonTrino

10th September 2009, 09:24 PM

They may rent and not be allowed to grow by their landlords, and those who own their own place may not have the space or they may be worried about the federal government coming in and taking their house.

Legalization removes several of those factors.

I'm sure some people will grow their own, but you think the majority? I seriously doubt it. Not when it can be grown in commercial quantities with research behind creating new strains for marketing reasons. Think BUDweiser etc. compared to home brew.

WildCat

11th September 2009, 08:18 AM

I'm sure some people will grow their own, but you think the majority? I seriously doubt it. Not when it can be grown in commercial quantities with research behind creating new strains for marketing reasons. Think BUDweiser etc. compared to home brew.
Home brew is more expensive than Budweiser. If Budweiser was $500/case you'd see far more home brewers.

NewtonTrino

11th September 2009, 08:05 PM

I'm not convinced the price difference is going to be that large though.

I guess we just disagree ;) I think people would would be happy to buy commercial and you don't. It's that simple.

MikeSun5

11th September 2009, 10:00 PM

I'm sure some people will grow their own, but you think the majority? I seriously doubt it.

If (the consumption of) weed were outright legalized, I'm sure there'd be laws against cultivation. Weed is way too easy to grow on your own. It's not like tobacco or home brewing beer. Those examples are only given in reference to drug prohibition. An easier comparison would be to spices. Imagine you used a few grams of basil and parsely per day. If people grew their own at home, there'd be little to no market for it. The only time you'd even need to buy any is if you were away from home or in a rush or something.

If weed was legal to grow in the city, you could have a few plants going in a closet or something and stagger the harvests so you never run out (eliminating the need to purchase it from a company).

If weed was legal to grow in the country, farmer Joe would have a bigass field of it, and he'd be able to undercut the prices at the local weed shop (or supply them cheaper than whatever big corporation).

I think WildCat's right. An all-out legalization of plants, seeds, and everything would probably not yield the enormous tax windfall that the pro-MJ people think. If they kept cultivation illegal, maybe.

NewtonTrino

12th September 2009, 10:06 AM

WildCat

12th September 2009, 11:04 AM

Yeah, you COULD grow it, just like you can grow your own chives right now. But how many people do? I think you guys are also way way underestimating the marketing machine that would kick in here. Name me another product like this that people do this with? Very few people even have a garden that they grow any kind of food in. I'm not denying that some people will grow but the vast majority will be big commercial farms with "special" breeds possibly GMO'd to make branded products. To think anything else simply goes against what happens with every other legal product.
Because the tax windfall I've heard people claim (such as funding schools entirely with the weed tax for example) we'd get from legalization would require an enormous tax, hundreds of dollars per ounce. If a 1 oz bottle of chives at the grocery store cost $200 nobody would buy it at the store, no matter how slickly marketed. They'd grow it themselves.

NewtonTrino

12th September 2009, 11:56 AM

WildCat

12th September 2009, 12:20 PM

How much is the tax on tobacco? If a pack of joints cost the same as a pack of cigarettes how much would that raise? I have no idea what the claims are but I would think there would be a decent amount of revenue even with a small tax. Either way it irrelevant because that's not the main reason to legalize. I do wonder what the law enforcement/prison savings would be like. I also wonder if this is part of the reason it's still illegal.
A pack of joints the size of a pack of cigarettes would last even a heavy smoker a month or so. There's a lot of tobacco in a pack of cigarettes! It would generate nowhere near the revenue tobacco would. That pack would last the weekend toker months.

NewtonTrino

12th September 2009, 01:42 PM

A pack of joints the size of a pack of cigarettes would last even a heavy smoker a month or so. There's a lot of tobacco in a pack of cigarettes! It would generate nowhere near the revenue tobacco would. That pack would last the weekend toker months.

A month? I don't think you know any heavy weed smokers then dude.

WildCat

12th September 2009, 02:28 PM

A month? I don't think you know any heavy weed smokers then dude.
Oh, you have no idea. They're high from the moment they wake up until the time they go to bed.

Unless you're smoking schwag you don't need much.

MikeSun5

12th September 2009, 06:22 PM

Yeah, you COULD grow it, just like you can grow your own chives right now. But how many people do?

Go to google and do a search for 'Vancouver grow ops.' If weed were legal, everybody would grow their own. I would. Wouldn't you?

If a pack of joints cost the same as a pack of cigarettes how much would that raise?

?? Okay, first off, that's out of the question. You're saying 20 joints for like $6. If weed was legal, they probably won't be selling the dirty schwag. Even if the market was flooded, I'd still bet it'd be at least like a dollar a joint. You can't get 20 joints for six bucks in Amsterdam (maybe, but they'd be mostly tobacco). And who smokes a pack a day of joints? Even if you've got lungs like Tommy Chong and you're covered in cancerous Elephant-man tumors from head to toe, you'd probably never smoke more than a joint per hour while you're awake.

WildCat

12th September 2009, 07:57 PM

As best I can tell, there's between 1 and 1.5 grams of tobacco in a cigarette, so 20-30 grams in a pack. 1 oz or so. You'd have to be quite a pothead to go through that much in a month, particularly if it was high quality. That's why taxing it would never generate the revenue some think it will.

NewtonTrino

12th September 2009, 11:34 PM

Forget about revenue what do you think the saving in law enforcement costs would look like?

I could easily see buying a pack of 20 joints a week. A lot of people who smoke cigarettes are fairly wasteful of tobacco. If weed was the same cheapness I could easily see leaving half smoked joints around just like cigarettes. I think you guys are underestimating how much could be sold as well as how many more people would switch from boozing. Anyway again let me state that income to the government is not the primary reason to legalize. The amount of revenue is probably overblown but I do think it would be a huge commercial business relatively quickly.

MikeSun5

12th September 2009, 11:44 PM

Forget about revenue what do you think the saving in law enforcement costs would look like?

They'd save bajillions. The cops could then focus on rapists or something.

...of course, that could be accomplished by decriminalization also. Not just legalization.

If weed was the same cheapness...

That will never happen. Look at the Netherlands, BC, etc...

I think you guys are underestimating how much could be sold as well as how many more people would switch from boozing.

I doubt that many. I don't know anybody who only drinks because weed is illegal.

Ambrosia

13th September 2009, 02:48 AM

If weed was legalised, regulated and taxed in such a way that prices were more or less what they are now, then there would be a tax windfall.

It takes time for someone to grow their own so for 6 months or however long it takes users would have little option other than to buy from a taxed outlet.

I'd guess that cultivation would only be allowed with a licence, tho perhaps there would be some provision that only allowed a unlicenced person to grow a small number, say 2 or 3 plants, at any one time.

I'd agree that the tax and income from legalised Marijuana would not be nearly so large as some people might suggest, tho I do think there would be a combination of significant savings, and extra income in tax that the system in place now is losing out on.

Don't markets self regulate prices to an extent?

The price of any commodity is regulated by how much the market will pay for that commodity. If the market charges too much, people will find an alternate supply, or will simply do without. I think that within a few months of legalisation/decriminalisation or however it was done that the price would settle down to one where the majority or users would happily buy their weed from an OTC regulated source rather than go to the trouble of producing their own.

Isn't any income from taxation orders of magnitude better than the prohibition currently in place that brings the government no revenue at all and has significant costs in enforcement etc?

NewtonTrino

13th September 2009, 08:37 AM

I doubt that many. I don't know anybody who only drinks because weed is illegal.

Oh, is this a topic that you discuss a lot with your friends?

I honestly think that a lot of people who haven't tried weed but who are regular drinkers could easily switch their drug of choice once it's legal.

WildCat

14th September 2009, 04:14 PM

If weed was legalised, regulated and taxed in such a way that prices were more or less what they are now, then there would be a tax windfall.
Fat chance. No one's going to pay $500 for an ounce of weed when they could grow 10 times that at home for 15 bucks in electricity after an initial investment of a few hundred for a metal halide or high pressure sodium lights.

t takes time for someone to grow their own so for 6 months or however long it takes users would have little option other than to buy from a taxed outlet.
3 months or so is all it takes.

ss that cultivation would only be allowed with a licence, tho perhaps there would be some provision that only allowed a unlicenced person to grow a small number, say 2 or 3 plants, at any one time.
with 2 or 3 plants you could grow half a pound of top quality pot every 3 months, which is probably more than you could smoke. You'd be giving it away to your friends like tomatoes this time of year.

Don't markets self regulate prices to an extent?

The price of any commodity is regulated by how much the market will pay for that commodity. If the market charges too much, people will find an alternate supply, or will simply do without. I think that within a few months of legalisation/decriminalisation or however it was done that the price would settle down to one where the majority or users would happily buy their weed from an OTC regulated source rather than go to the trouble of producing their own.
This flys in the face of your claim earlier that you foresee the price being simnilar to what it is now.

Isn't any income from taxation orders of magnitude better than the prohibition currently in place that brings the government no revenue at all and has significant costs in enforcement etc?
There would certainly be cost savings, but no huge tax windfall.

Toke

14th September 2009, 05:00 PM

A farmer could produce weed in huge amounts, he would used the right seeds and get good quality. The size of the tax would be set as the amount that would get most people to by in the shop instead of growing their own.

It would bring in a lot less than the tobacco tax, and the main "income" would be the savings on enforcing the ban, and locking up the potheads.

Legalizing would be a great thing, feeing up police for more important things like bicycle theft, (guess we have more bicycles in Denmark).

NewtonTrino

14th September 2009, 05:43 PM

Fat chance. No one's going to pay $500 for an ounce of weed when they could grow 10 times that at home for 15 bucks in electricity after an initial investment of a few hundred for a metal halide or high pressure sodium lights.

Nobody pays $500 an ounce now anyway. I think you are underestimating how lazy pot smokers are and how much money they make.

WildCat

14th September 2009, 08:30 PM

Nobody pays $500 an ounce now anyway. I think you are underestimating how lazy pot smokers are and how much money they make.
That's the going rate here, I have many pothead friends. Cheaper for schwag though.

I know it's much cheaper on the west coast, but even at $200/oz you'd have a hard time selling it in a store. And I doubt it's that cheap even on the west coast.

WildCat

14th September 2009, 08:31 PM

Legalizing would be a great thing, feeing up police for more important things like bicycle theft, (guess we have more bicycles in Denmark).
Not only that but it eliminates a big part of the reason for the existence of street gangs. If drugs were legal you'd see the murder rate plummet overnight.

But I guess all those dead bodies are worth it if it keeps one kid from smoking a joint...

NewtonTrino

14th September 2009, 09:14 PM

I know it's much cheaper on the west coast, but even at $200/oz you'd have a hard time selling it in a store. And I doubt it's that cheap even on the west coast.

I've heard street price around here is $320 for decent stuff. Given that dispensaries from what I hear also sell in this price range legally at a store why would $200/oz be impossible for a market price? Anyway I still think $200 an ounce is too much and I don't think the taxes should be that high. In fact they should be set at the level to maximize revenue which has to take into account the black market. There have been a few places that have raised cigarette taxes so high that people start smuggling them to avoid the taxes.

If a pack of joints was priced similarly to cigarettes or maybe a bit more with a few less cigarettes I think they would sell tons (literally).

WildCat

14th September 2009, 09:23 PM

I've heard street price around here is $320 for decent stuff. Given that dispensaries from what I hear also sell in this price range legally at a store why would $200/oz be impossible for a market price?
The "legal market price" is still highly inflated because at any time the feds can raid them and send them to prison for years, and confiscate the property of all involved.

Anyway I still think $200 an ounce is too much and I don't think the taxes should be that high. In fact they should be set at the level to maximize revenue which has to take into account the black market. There have been a few places that have raised cigarette taxes so high that people start smuggling them to avoid the taxes.
And the cigarette tax is what, about $5 or $6 an ounce?

If a pack of joints was priced similarly to cigarettes or maybe a bit more with a few less cigarettes I think they would sell tons (literally).
Problem is a few farmers could probably grow enough for the entire country. I don't think it would be a profitable crop to grow. Greenhouse growers could grow better quality but still the market would likely be glutted.

There'd likely be far more money in growing hemp for fiber.

NewtonTrino

14th September 2009, 09:49 PM

There'd likely be far more money in growing hemp for fiber.

Also a good idea!

Ambrosia

15th September 2009, 08:36 AM

Fat chance. No one's going to pay $500 for an ounce of weed when they could grow 10 times that at home for 15 bucks in electricity after an initial investment of a few hundred for a metal halide or high pressure sodium lights.

I thikn you are underestimating how lazy some people are and how pervasive the convenience culture we live in is.

This flys in the face of your claim earlier that you foresee the price being simnilar to what it is now.

I don't see why. The price the market will currently bear is $x after regulation the same market is likely to still pay $x from a regulated outlet as it avoids many of the problems of buying from a black market.

Competition in the legal market will reduce the price a little. The people in the black market now have to significantly reduce their prices to get more market share. Instead of charging $500oz the black market can now only get $250 - and the law enforcement now have more resources to pursue illegal grow ops and will bust more of them, so they have increased risk for greatly decreased profit. The less incentive there is for a black market the smaller it gets, and I'm guessing that prices would not have to decline all that much from present levels given that the risks of black market production will increase, and the quality of legal product will be much higher, to drive much of it out of business.

There would certainly be cost savings, but no huge tax windfall.

This seems to be the opposite position of "there will be huge tax windfall"

I am saying that there will be a tax windfall, but it won't be particularly large, and there will be savings.

Also some of the tax windfall will be offset by a lower tax income for already legal regulated drugs (i.e. alcohol) I forsee a reasonable % of people consuming less alcohol after legalisation of Cannabis than before.

NewtonTrino

16th September 2009, 12:20 AM

I forsee a reasonable % of people consuming less alcohol after legalisation of Cannabis than before.

I completely agree. It goes a lot better in many situations. For example I went and saw porcupine tree tonight and smoking a joint first gets you in the right spirit. Booze just makes me tired.

MikeSun5

16th September 2009, 08:00 PM

I think you guys are underestimating ... how many more people would switch from boozing.

I honestly think that a lot of people who haven't tried weed but who are regular drinkers could easily switch their drug of choice once it's legal.

:confused: You actually think that there are people who only drink booze because weed is illegal? What on earth do you base this claim on? Do you think those people just need to be intoxicated that bad and don't care what type of buzz they have as long as they have one? Are people that law-abiding that they'll stick to only legal mind altering substances? Do you think being drunk and being stoned are that similar that you can substitute one for the other? If someone gets drunk all the time and weed was suddenly legalized, do you really think they'd stop drinking to switch to weed?

I don't even know why I'm persuing this line of conversation. :D I should have just said that statement was crazy. That statement was crazy. Next statement:

I've heard street price around here is $320 for decent stuff. Given that dispensaries from what I hear also sell in this price range legally at a store why would $200/oz be impossible for a market price?

Because that's just the initial price. You guys keep talking about this enormous "tax windfall." Where would that come from? Oh yea! Taxes! That sends your $320 price (or even your $200 price) way back up.

Anyway I still think $200 an ounce is too much and I don't think the taxes should be that high.

Most potheads agree would agree. :D Most potheads want to smoke for damn near free. Most potheads would if they could. If most potheads thought that was too expensive (most potheads would), most potheads would probably grow it themselves.

If a pack of joints was priced similarly to cigarettes or maybe a bit more with a few less cigarettes I think they would sell tons (literally).

That's crazy talk. It's weed. Marijuana. It'll sell tons regardless. :)

As far as the crazy talk about weed being priced similarly to cigarettes, check this out: 1 cigarette = 1 gram of tobacco. 28 grams = 1 ounce. That means (if we go by your unlikely $200 per ounce price), it'd still be about $140 per joint-pack (20 cigs). And that's before tax. Selling joints at the same price as cigarettes would mean weed would cost $0.30 per gram (before tax). I know you want weed cheap, but an ounce of weed for $8.50??? Riiiiiiggght... Keep dreaming those Nice Dreams, Cheech.

WildCat

16th September 2009, 08:41 PM

As far as the crazy talk about weed being priced similarly to cigarettes, check this out: 1 cigarette = 1 gram of tobacco. 28 grams = 1 ounce. That means (if we go by your unlikely $200 per ounce price), it'd still be about $140 per joint-pack (20 cigs). And that's before tax. Selling joints at the same price as cigarettes would mean weed would cost $0.30 per gram (before tax). I know you want weed cheap, but an ounce of weed for $8.50??? Riiiiiiggght... Keep dreaming those Nice Dreams, Cheech.
Grow your own and it's be cheaper than that.

NewtonTrino

16th September 2009, 09:13 PM

:confused: You actually think that there are people who only drink booze because weed is illegal? What on earth do you base this claim on? Do you think those people just need to be intoxicated that bad and don't care what type of buzz they have as long as they have one? Are people that law-abiding that they'll stick to only legal mind altering substances? Do you think being drunk and being stoned are that similar that you can substitute one for the other? If someone gets drunk all the time and weed was suddenly legalized, do you really think they'd stop drinking to switch to weed?

I don't even know why I'm persuing this line of conversation. :D I should have just said that statement was crazy. That statement was crazy. Next statement:

It's not crazy at all. When I started smoking weed my drinking went down by a factor of at least 10. If weed was legal and we had "weed bars" and regular clubs had weed people would buy less booze. I'm not saying they won't drink at all but some people will start smoking that weren't before and it's likely their alcohol consumption will go down.

Because that's just the initial price. You guys keep talking about this enormous "tax windfall." Where would that come from? Oh yea! Taxes! That sends your $320 price (or even your $200 price) way back up.

You are not making sense here. The "initial" price is the cost to produce which is very little. The only reason they charge $320 an ounce right now is because it's illegal. That would easily drop by a factor of 10 and probably more like a factor of 100. Then add $50 an ounce in taxes and you are up to $55 an ounce.

Most potheads agree would agree. :D Most potheads want to smoke for damn near free. Most potheads would if they could. If most potheads thought that was too expensive (most potheads would), most potheads would probably grow it themselves.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. I think I disagree though.

That's crazy talk. It's weed. Marijuana. It'll sell tons regardless. :)

As far as the crazy talk about weed being priced similarly to cigarettes, check this out: 1 cigarette = 1 gram of tobacco. 28 grams = 1 ounce. That means (if we go by your unlikely $200 per ounce price), it'd still be about $140 per joint-pack (20 cigs). And that's before tax. Selling joints at the same price as cigarettes would mean weed would cost $0.30 per gram (before tax). I know you want weed cheap, but an ounce of weed for $8.50??? Riiiiiiggght... Keep dreaming those Nice Dreams, Cheech.

Actually $140 for 20 joints is about what it costs in Amsterdam and people pay it...

Personally I don't care what it costs because I make mad cash. I just want it legal so I don't have to worry about being bugged by the coppers.

MikeSun5

16th September 2009, 09:36 PM

It's not crazy at all. When I started smoking weed my drinking went down by a factor of at least 10.

Oh okay. I didn't know you had anecdotal evidence to back up your claims. Cool. I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary. :rolleyes: Your statement is still crazy.

You are not making sense here. The "initial" price is the cost to produce which is very little. The only reason they charge $320 an ounce right now is because it's illegal. That would easily drop by a factor of 10 and probably more like a factor of 100. Then add $50 an ounce in taxes and you are up to $55 an ounce.
Actually $140 for 20 joints is about what it costs in Amsterdam and people pay it...

:confused: ...and I'm the one not making sense? You say the only reason they charge that amount is because it's illegal, and then you go and quote a similar price in Amsterdam where it's NOT illegal. How does that work?

Prices are dictated by supply and demand. You can gas up your car in Venezuela for $0.14 per gallon. One gallon will run you $0.05 in Baghdad. I paid $2.82 per gallon yesterday. Just because gas (like cannabis) is cheap to make doesn't mean governments have to sell it cheap. You really think the government would drop "normal" per-ounce weed prices simply because it doesn't cost that much to produce? :rolleyes:

Anyway, I've been all over Holland, and have been to A-dam many times. Weed is decriminalized and regulated there, and even with the cheapest/weakest stuff you'll still pay a few US dollars per gram. Unless you grow your own, your $55 per ounce idea is a damn pipe dream. Of course it's totally possible to get weed that cheap right now, but we all know the quality that super-low price brings.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. I think I disagree though.

Not sure what I'm saying, but pretty sure you disagree with it? :D

Peace

16th September 2009, 10:43 PM

Free the weed!

NewtonTrino

16th September 2009, 11:07 PM

You say the only reason they charge that amount is because it's illegal, and then you go and quote a similar price in Amsterdam where it's NOT illegal. How does that work?

Because it's still *gasp* illegal. It's decriminalized but you can't cultivate it in commercial quantity. With full legalization the price would drop dramatically. I don't see how that's even remotely debatable.

MikeSun5

17th September 2009, 12:19 AM

With full legalization the price would drop dramatically. I don't see how that's even remotely debatable.

Because you can't even remotely prove it. :D

NORML and all these activist groups claim that free market weed would drive the price down to like $2 per ounce or some crazy BS. (here's a decent example (http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/NORML_Economics_Cannabis_Legalization.pdf)) They claim marijuana would be produced similar to other medicinal herbs and therefore priced similarly. They point to tobacco prices and say, "there's no reason legalization wouldn't result in comparable prices."

That's crap.

If weed were all-out legalized, there would be a few enormous Phillip Morris-style companies that would stand to get fat-cat rich off of this brand new crop. Do you think these corporations would drop accepted prices by 300 percent because they CAN?? (notice the word "accepted")

Any company selling weed would know damn well what their customers are paying for it, and would know how to capitalize. See the oil/gas analogy I posted earlier.

Here's a forum (http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/236050-question-dispensary-prices.html) discussing dispensary prices in California. As you can see, even when it's a legal treatment for ailments, it's as expensive as it would be for me to get it from the dope man down the street (actually I know a few dudes who can beat the dispensary prices ;)).

Here's a bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_390) being considered by California's legislature. As you'll notice, NewtonTrino, they plan on charging $50 per ounce in taxes. If we go back to your tobacco price analogy (tobacco's taxed at about 25% of the sale price), that would mean an ounce of weed would be $250. Still WAY over what you say you want to pay -- but you know what? You'd still pay it. A company that sold weed would know that. See my point?

Ragnarok

17th September 2009, 02:41 AM

I don't know what is happening in your country, but here in the UK you can get decent resin, ie, strong enough to give you a nice mellow buzz, for £45 an oz, and the price has been coming down every year.

Weed, grass, skunk, whatever you want to call it, is at least £140 an oz, and the reason us herb smokers don't grow our own, is the same reason the home beer and wine making revolution never took off - because people are lazy and they want their product any time they want it, without the hassle of setting up indoor greenhouses.

It being illegal would not stop me if it wasn't such a pain in the ass. As it is, I'd rather let someone else make all that effort.

Tippit

17th September 2009, 02:46 AM

Because you can't even remotely prove it. :D

NORML and all these activist groups claim that free market weed would drive the price down to like $2 per ounce or some crazy BS. (here's a decent example (http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/NORML_Economics_Cannabis_Legalization.pdf)) They claim marijuana would be produced similar to other medicinal herbs and therefore priced similarly. They point to tobacco prices and say, "there's no reason legalization wouldn't result in comparable prices."

That's crap.

So you're claiming implicity that the risk premium for marijuana production and distribution that is baked into the market price because it is banned simply doesn't exist. This is ridiculous. In most states drug-dealing carries substantial jail time, and this has to be accounted for in the price.

If weed were all-out legalized, there would be a few enormous Phillip Morris-style companies that would stand to get fat-cat rich off of this brand new crop. Do you think these corporations would drop accepted prices by 300 percent because they CAN?? (notice the word "accepted")

They wouldn't have much choice, given the fact that marijuana is easily grown almost anywhere. I don't know the economics of tobacco very well or the barriers of entry to the market, but I'm willing to bet it's a lot more than marijuana.

Any company selling weed would know damn well what their customers are paying for it, and would know how to capitalize. See the oil/gas analogy I posted earlier.

Here's a forum (http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/236050-question-dispensary-prices.html) discussing dispensary prices in California. As you can see, even when it's a legal treatment for ailments, it's as expensive as it would be for me to get it from the dope man down the street (actually I know a few dudes who can beat the dispensary prices ;)).

Here's a bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_390) being considered by California's legislature. As you'll notice, NewtonTrino, they plan on charging $50 per ounce in taxes. If we go back to your tobacco price analogy (tobacco's taxed at about 25% of the sale price), that would mean an ounce of weed would be $250. Still WAY over what you say you want to pay -- but you know what? You'd still pay it. A company that sold weed would know that. See my point?

As far as I know the penalties for possession in California are mild, so the prices there and in Canada wouldn't change nearly as much as anywhere where the penalties are much steeper. It's a simple function of supply and demand.

NewtonTrino

17th September 2009, 06:59 AM

Because you can't even remotely prove it. :D

NORML and all these activist groups claim that free market weed would drive the price down to like $2 per ounce or some crazy BS. (here's a decent example (http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/NORML_Economics_Cannabis_Legalization.pdf)) They claim marijuana would be produced similar to other medicinal herbs and therefore priced similarly. They point to tobacco prices and say, "there's no reason legalization wouldn't result in comparable prices."

That's crap.

If weed were all-out legalized, there would be a few enormous Phillip Morris-style companies that would stand to get fat-cat rich off of this brand new crop. Do you think these corporations would drop accepted prices by 300 percent because they CAN?? (notice the word "accepted")

Any company selling weed would know damn well what their customers are paying for it, and would know how to capitalize. See the oil/gas analogy I posted earlier.

Here's a forum (http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/236050-question-dispensary-prices.html) discussing dispensary prices in California. As you can see, even when it's a legal treatment for ailments, it's as expensive as it would be for me to get it from the dope man down the street (actually I know a few dudes who can beat the dispensary prices ;)).

Here's a bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_390) being considered by California's legislature. As you'll notice, NewtonTrino, they plan on charging $50 per ounce in taxes. If we go back to your tobacco price analogy (tobacco's taxed at about 25% of the sale price), that would mean an ounce of weed would be $250. Still WAY over what you say you want to pay -- but you know what? You'd still pay it. A company that sold weed would know that. See my point?

No, I don't see your point. In fact I think you're dead wrong. In a legal environment that price simply isn't sustainable. Weed is insanely expensive only because it's illegal. Note, it's NOT LEGAL in california as much as you want to say it is. It's partially decriminalized but you can still easily go to jail for cultivating commercial quantities. Picture GIANT FARMS of pot and then explain why it's going to cost $300 an ounce or whatever. You simply aren't making a lick of sense here.

Dispensary prices are high specifically because they are competing directly with the black market. If you can pay the same either way but one way is legal with a doctors note what would you do? Make it completely legal and the price drops to nothing + tax.

Toke

17th September 2009, 10:44 AM

http://www.boltinggaard.dk/images/photoalbum/1024x768px_4_t2.jpg
Imagine these in green.

WildCat

17th September 2009, 12:57 PM

Actually $140 for 20 joints is about what it costs in Amsterdam and people pay it...
You do realize it is not legal in Amsterdam, don't you?

eta: oops, just read your later post. :blush:

WildCat

17th September 2009, 01:06 PM

If weed were all-out legalized, there would be a few enormous Phillip Morris-style companies that would stand to get fat-cat rich off of this brand new crop. Do you think these corporations would drop accepted prices by 300 percent because they CAN?? (notice the word "accepted")
No, it would be $3/oz because that's all they could get for it. They couldn't make weed sell for hudreds of dollars an ounce any more than they could sell tobacco for that much.

Here's a bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_390) being considered by California's legislature. As you'll notice, NewtonTrino, they plan on charging $50 per ounce in taxes.
They can plan anything they want, but why pay that much for something you can grow yourself for practically free? $1 billion is a pipe dream, pun intended. :D

If we go back to your tobacco price analogy (tobacco's taxed at about 25% of the sale price), that would mean an ounce of weed would be $250. Still WAY over what you say you want to pay -- but you know what? You'd still pay it. A company that sold weed would know that. See my point?
No, you wouldn't. Not any more than you would pay that much for chives, or basil, or anything else you can grow yourself.

Toke

17th September 2009, 02:11 PM

No, you wouldn't. Not any more than you would pay that much for chives, or basil, or anything else you can grow yourself.

And to repeat for clarity, there is a big difference between growing weed and growing tobacco worth smoking.
http://www.essenbaekken.dk/sidste_nyt/h%C3%B8stuge/store%20billeder/HalmballerPict0013.jpg

Any guess at what one of these would fetch, if green, at the local farmers marked?

WildCat

17th September 2009, 02:24 PM

http://www.essenbaekken.dk/sidste_nyt/h%C3%B8stuge/store%20billeder/HalmballerPict0013.jpg

Any guess at what one of these would fetch, if green, at the local farmers marked?
$1.98?

Toke

17th September 2009, 02:30 PM

$1.98?
:D

I guess a bale of weed could fetch more, maybe $10.:)
The buyer does after all have a major job sorting leaves from stems.

MikeSun5

17th September 2009, 10:07 PM

Okay, so what I'm seeing here is the belief that if weed were legalized (for use, cultivation, and sale), the price would drop to a price similar to tobacco or basil.

I simply don't believe that. Sure the price would drop, but a $2 ounce? I'm not buying it. This is a drug. An extremely popular one, at that. The potential to make money is way too great. Do you guys seriously think that nobody would capitalize on that?

Imagine you're a corporate executive at a company. You have a product that regularly sells for X, and you are suddenly given an exclusive license to be the only seller of that product. Would you 1.) drop prices by 300% or 2.)continue to charge what the consumer is used to paying? Anyone who says they'd drop prices by 300% would get fired so fast. That'd be a terrible businessman.

Dispensary prices are high specifically because they are competing directly with the black market.

You mean dispensaries are in communication with the black market to determine prices? :rolleyes: You have proof of that, right?

The prices in Amsterdam are high, and they aren't competing with any black market weed, so that argument doesn't work. Here's an A-Dam coffeeshop menu. (http://www.coffeeshops-in-amsterdam.com/images/13.jpg) You can see from the weakest weed to the strongest hash (I did the Euro math), it goes from $5.15 to $19.91 per gram. That's $144 to $557 per ounce. Why do you suppose their prices are that high if there is no competition from the black market?

NewtonTrino

17th September 2009, 10:30 PM

Okay, so what I'm seeing here is the belief that if weed were legalized (for use, cultivation, and sale), the price would drop to a price similar to tobacco or basil.

The only reason it's expensive is because you have to cultivate it in secret under pain of arrest. So yes it would drop like a rock. It's a flower so you could compare it to flowers of some sort as far as price goes.

I simply don't believe that. Sure the price would drop, but a $2 ounce? I'm not buying it. This is a drug. An extremely popular one, at that. The potential to make money is way too great. Do you guys seriously think that nobody would capitalize on that?

Have you ever heard of the free market? It has a way of driving prices lower through competition. The government spends BILLIONS of dollars enforcing pot laws every year. This causes the price to be high. It's really simple.

Imagine you're a corporate executive at a company. You have a product that regularly sells for X, and you are suddenly given an exclusive license to be the only seller of that product. Would you 1.) drop prices by 300% or 2.)continue to charge what the consumer is used to paying? Anyone who says they'd drop prices by 300% would get fired so fast. That'd be a terrible businessman.

Well then I'm just going to raise the price of my product 1000 times. Oops I have competition nobody will buy it!

You mean dispensaries are in communication with the black market to determine prices? :rolleyes: You have proof of that, right?

Gimme a break. You can't be that clueless about how this stuff works. The price of weed is high because it's illegal. Place that can sell it legally are only a small part of the market and don't have to compete with each other as much as the rest of the black market. Due to their legitimacy people are willing to buy from them at the black market prices.

The prices in Amsterdam are high, and they aren't competing with any black market weed, so that argument doesn't work. Here's an A-Dam coffeeshop menu. (http://www.coffeeshops-in-amsterdam.com/images/13.jpg) You can see from the weakest weed to the strongest hash (I did the Euro math), it goes from $5.15 to $19.91 per gram. That's $144 to $557 per ounce. Why do you suppose their prices are that high if there is no competition from the black market?

It's not legal to cultivate commercial quantities of pot and the market is restricted (the density of coffee shops is controlled). If it was completely legal it would be plentiful and cheap. It's called WEED for a reason! It grows like a weed!

The government can put some amount of tax on it but they have to be careful at what level they set it. I've seen cigarette smuggling before when taxes got too highon those.

MikeSun5

17th September 2009, 11:03 PM

The price of weed is high because it's illegal.

:bwall That's not the only reason, but since I can't disprove that, let's assume it's true. What I'm saying is legalizing it will not drive the price back to the days of hunters and gatherers.

There's plenty of competition and no black market in Amsterdam, but the prices are still comparable to ours.

Same goes for the prices in the Czech Republic. Weed is LEGAL to grow, sell, possess and use in the Czech Republic, and they still pay $275 per ounce on average. (source) (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats09/ppptab1a) Prices have not dropped simply because the government has eliminated the ex-factors of black markets and monopolies.

Yes, the US govt. wastes gajillions of dollars per year on busting simple weed related crimes. We all agree on that. For the sake of this conversation, let's go ahead and assume it's all the prohibition that drives the prices up so high...

So here we are. Prices are high. I have shown that your arguments (black markets and competition) wouldn't necessarily make prices drop at all, let alone by 300%. NOW do you see my point?

NewtonTrino

17th September 2009, 11:14 PM

No I don't see your point because there is no place in the world that I'm aware of that has a truly free weed market.

Could I get a source on weed being completely legal in the Czech Republic?

It sure as heck isn't legal to grow large quantities in any country that I'm aware of.

MikeSun5

17th September 2009, 11:28 PM

No I don't see your point because there is no place in the world that I'm aware of that has a truly free weed market.

And there never will be. So?

I think you're not seeing my point because it conflicts with your belief that legalization in America would shoot the price down to a few bucks an ounce. ;)

Could I get a source on weed being completely legal in the Czech Republic?

This article was (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/24/world/fg-weed24) the only thing I could find quickly that isn't written in Czech.

WildCat - you'd get a kick out of that article because it mentions what you've been saying. If weed were legalized, people would just grow it themselves and share with friends.

Of course if you do choose to go out and buy it, the article mentions the price is still around $5 per gram. That's $140 per ounce, or about $135 - $138 more than NewtonTrino would be willing to pay in his magical free-weed-market fantasy land. :D

WildCat

18th September 2009, 06:22 AM

WildCat - you'd get a kick out of that article because it mentions what you've been saying. If weed were legalized, people would just grow it themselves and share with friends.

Of course if you do choose to go out and buy it, the article mentions the price is still around $5 per gram. That's $140 per ounce, or about $135 - $138 more than NewtonTrino would be willing to pay in his magical free-weed-market fantasy land. :D
The only person engaging in fantasy is you. There simply is no mechanism for the price to remain high if it were legal, none at all. You mentioned tobacco companies growing it ands selling it for hundreds of dollars an ounce, because they're greedy big corporations or something. If that is true, why don't they sell tobacco for hundreds of dollars an ounce? The answer, of course, is they can't. There's competition.

Likewise, marijuana is not legal in Amsterdam. All large quantities are bought on the black market. There are no farmers with acres of marijuana crops. Hell, if it were legal there and could still be sold for a hundred dollars an ounce farmers would grow nothing but marijuana, why would you grow corn or wheat when you could grow millions of dolars of pot per acre?

I stand by my statement that pot would be $3 an ounce or so if it were legal.

Toke

18th September 2009, 06:40 AM

I stand by my statement that pot would be $3 an ounce or so if it were legal.
Sounds like the high end, with taxes, to me.

Gate2501

18th September 2009, 08:06 AM

As much as I would love legalized marijuana, I have to agree with pretty much everything that Wildcat has said. I personally know a few people who have grown their own, and at least one of them was a terrible idiot who really didn't know what in the hell he was doing. He was turning out pretty huge harvests every 3 or 4 months.

It would end up costing less than potatoes!

NewtonTrino

18th September 2009, 12:36 PM

It would end up costing less than potatoes!

Can you name me another legal product that isn't commercially cultivated? Seriously, people still sell potatoes in the store! The argument that wildcat seems to be making is that there will be no commercial market whatsoever OR that there will be a commercial market but the price will be thousands per pounds. Both of those seem like rather extreme positions.

The bottom line is that keeping it illegal is retarded. It does nothing but hurt the people that can afford it the least while enriching drug cartels.

Toke

18th September 2009, 12:49 PM

http://www.hjklinkby.dk/Bod.jpg
The argument is that legally grown weed will be sold at road stands along with strawberries and potatoes. The price will reflect the trouble of sorting it into little bags from the previously shown bales of weed.
So not much room for taxes, just getting much sale with vat included might be a problem.

Praktik

18th September 2009, 01:49 PM

There will still be a range of prices though. I think we could realistically see "shake" go down to 2$ an ounce or even less.

But as easy as weed grows, it takes talent and equipment to make truly great green. The curing process is important, some companies might have possession of unique strains that only they have (and you can bet that many will market it as if they do even if its not all that special).

So I would still expect there to be some moderately priced weed in a legal framework, for those willing to pay for a better product.

Kind of like how a nice cigar is more money than a pack of lucky strikes.

or native smokes. I see peeps round here buying giant ziplocs rammed with ****** smokes for like 20 bucks.

NewtonTrino

18th September 2009, 02:00 PM

Praktik has it nailed.

It's just not any different that ANY other farm product.

WildCat

18th September 2009, 04:55 PM

Can you name me another legal product that isn't commercially cultivated? Seriously, people still sell potatoes in the store! The argument that wildcat seems to be making is that there will be no commercial market whatsoever OR that there will be a commercial market but the price will be thousands per pounds. Both of those seem like rather extreme positions.
The problem with a commercial harvest is that it wouldn't take many acres of farmland to supply the entire US. If on average Americans smoked a quarter ounce of pot per person per year that's a yearly market of 4.7 million pounds or so. Spaced 18" apart you could grow about 19,200 marijuana plants per acre. Assuming 4 ounces of flowers per plant that's a yield of 4,800 pounds per acre. Which means you'd need only 980 acres or so to supply the entire demand in the US for marijuana. That's one modestly-sized farm. If more than a few farmers decide to grow it it will glut the market and prices would crash. Thus, farmers wouldn't bother with it because there is just too much risk in growing it.

Even if I'm wrong about demand by a factor of 10 (and I'd be amazed if that happened!) it would only take a few dozen farms to supply the entire US demand.

There just isn't much reason for a large commercial market.

The bottom line is that keeping it illegal is retarded. It does nothing but hurt the people that can afford it the least while enriching drug cartels.
True.

WildCat

18th September 2009, 04:57 PM

The curing process is important,
What curing process? Marijuana requires none, unlike tobacco.

MikeSun5

18th September 2009, 06:03 PM

The only person engaging in fantasy is you.

I've shown that when police aren't wasting time on weed busts, there is no black market influence, and there is plenty of competition, that weed prices can still remain high. You guys have shown nothing to support any of your arguments. So far I've only seen assumptions and comparisons to tobacco and basil.

Weed will never be completely legal. Decriminalized maybe, but never totally legal. There are too many factors to consider. Legal weed in America and $2 ounces are the ***** fantasy. You guys are chasing Puff the Magic Dragon. For realsies.

Do you know why they're able to price weed so high in the Czech Republic? Quality. Amsterdam? Tourism. (...and quality)

Imagine weed being legalized in California. Completely legal for use, cultivation, possesion, and sale. No restrictions at all. You could buy it at roadside stands for $20 per pound because supply so far exceeds demand. Imagine everyone being allowed to grow all the weed they wanted - no license required. Just farms of it everywhere.
What happens in states where demand far exceeds supply? What would the CA-AZ state line look like? What would happen to their economy and trade?

A free-weed-market? And I'M the one with the fantasy? :rolleyes:

WildCat

18th September 2009, 06:25 PM

I've shown that when police aren't wasting time on weed busts, there is no black market influence, and there is plenty of competition, that weed prices can still remain high. You guys have shown nothing to support any of your arguments. So far I've only seen assumptions and comparisons to tobacco and basil.
Just because you refuse to counter the arguments made dose not mean you are right. Remember when you claimed tobacco companies woulod keep the price of weed high? Why don't they do that with tobacco?

Weed will never be completely legal. Decriminalized maybe, but never totally legal. There are too many factors to consider. Legal weed in America and $2 ounces are the ***** fantasy. You guys are chasing Puff the Magic Dragon. For realsies.
Now you are backpedaling. Are you acknowledging that if it were legal it would indeed sell for $2 an ounce or so?

Do you know why they're able to price weed so high in the Czech Republic? Quality. Amsterdam? Tourism. (...and quality)
Actually it's because it is illegal there. You keep ignoring that for some reason.

Imagine weed being legalized in California. Completely legal for use, cultivation, possesion, and sale. No restrictions at all. You could buy it at roadside stands for $20 per pound because supply so far exceeds demand. Imagine everyone being allowed to grow all the weed they wanted - no license required. Just farms of it everywhere.
This statement is full of contradictions. Why would there be "farms everywhere" when it is so cheap? Wouldn't corn and soybeans be more profitable? And at any rate, California legalizing it would only be symbolic if it's still illegal under federal law. Not many farmers are willing to risk getting all their property confiscated by the feds in order to grow weed.

What happens in states where demand far exceeds supply?
Price goes up, like any other commodity.

What would the CA-AZ state line look like?
Desert.

What would happen to their economy and trade?
Who are you referring to by "their"?

A free-weed-market? And I'M the one with the fantasy? :rolleyes:
What the hell is a "free-weed market"?

MikeSun5

18th September 2009, 06:51 PM

Just because you refuse to counter the arguments made dose not mean you are right.

No it doesn't, but I've used facts and links to support my arguments, not just guesses, hopes, and assumptions.

Remember when you claimed tobacco companies woulod keep the price of weed high?

Nope.

Why don't they do that with tobacco?

Because tobacco prices were never high. They were always low, and therefore established a precedent. The established precedent for weed price is way higher. Tobacco was never illegal, either.

Now you are backpedaling. Are you acknowledging that if it were legal it would indeed sell for $2 an ounce or so?

No. I've shown why I don't think that.

Although, I would bet you could get pounds and pounds of non-smokeable industrial hemp for super duper cheap...

Actually it's because it is illegal there. You keep ignoring that for some reason.

I'm not ignoring that, I know that. I've been all over Holland many many times. I used it as an example because weed is tolerated. The fact that it's NOT legal there doesn't help you guys' argument, either. You're still left with no proof for your claims, or any kind of accurate comparison.

What the hell is a "free-weed market"?

I don't know. It was something NewtonTrino made up.

WildCat

18th September 2009, 10:29 PM

Because tobacco prices were never high. They were always low, and therefore established a precedent. The established precedent for weed price is way higher. Tobacco was never illegal, either.

Doesn't matter. If it were legal no corporate exec on the planet could figure out a way to charge hundreds of dollars an ounce. The market would be glutted with high-quality pot, the price would drop to practically nothing.

This is basic economics Mike. It's extremely easy and cheap to grow high quality pot. I could grow 10 pounds of it in my back yard if I wanted, so could anyone else. No one would pay hundreds of dollars an ounce for it.

You're arguing that somehow you could command hundreds of dollars an ounce for a commodity with an unlimited supply, that anyone can produce. No way in hell can such a commodity command a high price, it simply doesn't happen and cannot happen. It flies in the face of every economic theory ever, as well as economic fact.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim here, not me. Go ahead and support it, I doubt you can but hey go for it.

MikeSun5

18th September 2009, 11:39 PM

You're the one making the extraordinary claim here, not me.

Really? Hmmm....

It's extremely easy and cheap to grow high quality pot.

:eek: That ^^ doesn't qualify?? You can grow high quality pot in your back yard? If that's the case, our definitions of "high quality pot" differ QUITE A BIT, buddy. Lemme tell ya.

Go ahead and support it, I doubt you can but hey go for it.

Okay... I've shown proof that black market influence, business competition, and the lack of police enforcement don't necessarily have an effect on price and you still doubt I can support my position that those things don't matter as much as you say they do?

Wow. That's a new level of head-in-the-sand oblviousness I wasn't prepared to deal with. Hey, if you don't want to hear it, you won't hear it.

Besides, if legalizing weed would flood the market and drop the price to practically nothing, where will this supposed enormous tax windfall come from? I mean, 25% of "practically nothing" isn't a whole lot...

No one would pay hundreds of dollars an ounce for it.

Why not? They do now... You keep ignoring the fact that everyone pays that much right now. Even places where it's tolerated and commercially grown in abundance. Even places where thousands of potheads grow their own. People. Still. Pay. That. Much. Prices of commodities are dictated by the supplier, not the consumer. Diamonds are plentiful, but still damned expensive.
There's no reason to believe that pot-growing companies would drop the prices to "practically nothing" simply because they can. I'd like to think that logic could overcome greed, too... but that's just not realistic.

I think I could go ahead and agree with you that in extremely rural areas - like farmlands in the middle of Wyoming or something - people could grow ditch weed themselves for extremely cheap. The places where everyone lives, however... not so much. I'd most definitely pay a few hundred an ounce (like I always have) to get some real stuff rather than paying you $5 for an ounce of your "high quality" backyard weed.

The position I challenged was the one that stated "weed is expensive because it is illegal." That statement was supported by the assumption that business competition and the lack of a black market influence would drop the price to nothing. I've shown that's not demonstrably true. If you guys think that you've proven yourselves and supported your claims with just your assumptions and optimism bias, so be it. I've got other walls I can talk to.

Toke

18th September 2009, 11:55 PM

http://www.boltinggaard.dk/images/photoalbum/1024x768px_4_t2.jpg
Imagine these in green.
Lets try again Mikesun5.

IF growing pot was legal, a farmer could easily grow weed in the quantities shown above. The quality would be a question of seeds and sun.

IF the price was $200 a ounce, how much would those bales be worth?
How many farmers would be tempted to grow weed at that price?

Please document those Dutch weed fields you are imagining.

MikeSun5

19th September 2009, 01:06 AM

The quality would be a question of seeds and sun.

Yes, because we all know the best strains are grown outside in wheat fields. :rolleyes: Isn't that what "hydroponic" means? "Grown outside with pesticides?"

How many farmers would be tempted to grow weed at that price?

All of them. Wouldn't you? Of course with everyone growing weed, wheat and corn would be pretty damned expensive, wouldn't they?

How would you get those enormous and cheap bales of weed to inner city Los Angeles? All Americans don't live on farms, you know.

Imagining those bales in green may make your mouth water, but it doesn't disprove anything I've said. My argument was against the statement "weed is expensive because it's illegal."

Please document those Dutch weed fields you are imagining.

If you guys are going to disagree, that's fine... but strawmen? Seriously? Where did I say there are Dutch weed fields?
I have personally seen greenhouses in Holland and weed fields in Jamaica. Here's a pic (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/05/28/weed_control/) of an illegal Dutch one, and a Jamaican field (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2qidAtO67qo/RlnwcpMo0UI/AAAAAAAAD0w/9Z4RQVB3ppc/s400/2222222222250+069.jpg). (FYI, the Jamaican stuff grown outside was absolute crap. The good stuff in Jamaica is grown indoors)

The prices in Holland are comparable to the US. The prices in Jamaica are comparable to the US. The prices in Czech Republic are comparable to the US. The prices in western Canada are comparable to the US as well, even though thousands (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d914d3a4-7e03-429c-a8ec-0c7bf2e4a9cc) of people grow their own.

Like I said... this product makes way too much money to ignore, and it always will.

Anyway, this whole debate is completely hypothetical anyway. Marijuana will never be completely legal in the way you guys want it. In the US, I can see gradual state-by-state decriminalization as a possibility (with TONS of restrictions and strings attached), but never all-out legalization. Because of that, this entire conversation is irrelevant.

Toke

19th September 2009, 01:23 AM

How would you get those enormous and cheap bales of weed to inner city Los Angeles? All Americans don't live on farms, you know.You could use a truck?
Weed is being distributed now, illegally, doing it legally would be easier and cheaper.

As for different qualityes and prices, Practik covered that nicely.

NewtonTrino

19th September 2009, 07:12 AM

Anyway, this whole debate is completely hypothetical anyway. Marijuana will never be completely legal in the way you guys want it. In the US, I can see gradual state-by-state decriminalization as a possibility (with TONS of restrictions and strings attached), but never all-out legalization. Because of that, this entire conversation is irrelevant.

I pretty much agree with you. Not in our lifetimes anyway although you never know. I think some kind of pansie ass decriminalization that maintains the status quo as far as distribution is what we'll end up with, if anything.

WildCat

19th September 2009, 08:15 AM

:eek: That ^^ doesn't qualify?? You can grow high quality pot in your back yard? If that's the case, our definitions of "high quality pot" differ QUITE A BIT, buddy. Lemme tell ya.
There's no reason you couldn't. You don't have the slightest idea how easy it is to grow, do you?

eta: The sun puts out more light than any electric light does, and grow more roots when not in pots. The plants grow much larger and put out more flowers outdoors. Here's a thread on a pot growing forum with some pics of high-quality outdoor-grown pot. There's no reason at all anyone couldn't do the same. Scroll down to post #51 for the pics: http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=97073&page=4

Now explain again how you are going to charge hundreds of dolars an ounce for something that can be grown in vurtually unlimited quantities? Can everyone quit their jobs and just grow 20 lbs of pot instead?

MikeSun5

19th September 2009, 07:05 PM

You don't have the slightest idea how easy it is to grow, do you?

No comment. ;)

The sun puts out more light than any electric light does...

Sure, but the sun only works for less than half a day (assuming it's not overcast). Plus you have pests to contend with. Outdoor weed is unreliable.

Now explain again how you are going to charge hundreds of dolars an ounce for something that can be grown in vurtually unlimited quantities?

Because of the established precedent of price. Charging $5 for something that used to cost $150 denies a company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost) of the $145 they could receive by keeping the price the same as everyone is used to paying.

Your logic is solid - flood the market with product and the price will drop. I'm just saying that cannabis is not your average product. It's a drug that people are accustomed to paying a certain price for. If a huge multi-million dollar corporation took over the business of the drug dealers, I really don't think they'd drop prices simply because they can. Diamond suppliers could charge way less - they don't. Oil suppliers could charge way less - they don't.

Can everyone quit their jobs and just grow 20 lbs of pot instead?

If they want to... Of course, that would make all those other recently-quit jobs extremely valuable and high paying, right? An abundance of high paying jobs would increase the prices of commodities - including weed - so we're back to square one. (ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer :))

Anyway... if weed were ever to be legalized for use and sale, personal cultivation would be out of the damn question. I'm tired of arguing a hypothetical. This conversation is like arguing who'd win in a fight between the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. (I say Bunny.)

WildCat

19th September 2009, 08:07 PM

Because of the established precedent of price. Charging $5 for something that used to cost $150 denies a company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost) of the $145 they could receive by keeping the price the same as everyone is used to paying.
You've made no argument for why the price would remain high.

Your logic is solid - flood the market with product and the price will drop. I'm just saying that cannabis is not your average product. It's a drug that people are accustomed to paying a certain price for.
At one time people were accustomed to paying $1,000 for a single tulip bulb. What's the going rate now?

If a huge multi-million dollar corporation took over the business of the drug dealers, I really don't think they'd drop prices simply because they can.
They'd drop prices because they'd have to. Actually, multi-million dollar corporations probably wouldn't bother at all, because there isn't much money to be made through selling legal pot.

Diamond suppliers could charge way less - they don't.
Diamonds are basically a DeBeers company monopoly. They own the diamond mines, they can control the prices. Prices of diamonds would be much less if the market price actually reflected the supply of diamonds, but since deBeers keeps the supply artificially low they get higher prices.

Oil suppliers could charge way less - they don't.
The price of oil fell by more than half in the last year. The price of oil is controlled by the market, not by the oil companies.

If they want to... Of course, that would make all those other recently-quit jobs extremely valuable and high paying, right? An abundance of high paying jobs would increase the prices of commodities - including weed - so we're back to square one. (ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer :))
Apparently, the point of this "stupid" question went right over your head. If pot were legal anyone could grow it trying to make a quick buck. Just 20 pounds at current market rates could earn the grower $75,000. Everyone and their grandma would be growing pot if this was possible, of course al that pot would flood the market and the price plummets. This is Economics 101 Mike, supply and demand curves.

Anyway... if weed were ever to be legalized for use and sale, personal cultivation would be out of the damn question.
Why? Tomatoes are legal, and millions of people grow them. Why don't you think people would grow pot if it were legal?

I'm tired of arguing a hypothetical. This conversation is like arguing who'd win in a fight between the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. (I say Bunny.)
Your scenario of pot retaining its high price post-legalization is about as realistic as the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

Ambrosia

19th September 2009, 09:00 PM

What curing process? Marijuana requires none, unlike tobacco.

While it's true that is does not *require* a curing process, any good quality weed has been cured.

The process is very similar to curing tobacco, takes about the same amount of time and is done for more or less the same reasons.

You could smoke a freshly dried tobacco leaf if all you want is nicotine and don't care too much about how you get nicotine.
Likewise you can smoke freshly dried marijuana, if all you want is THC.

It's like the difference between drinking £10 /litre mass produced "whiskey" and £40/litre aged single malt.
Most of the weed available on the black market is akin to £10/litre mass produced whiskey.

This is a feature of the black market, most black market growers only care about knocking out as much of the stuff as quickly as possible, for the most profit, as the market will buy all that they can grow and then some. Most weed that I ever saw had not been cured, and most users didn't seem to care, or know any better.

Whenever I visited Amsterdam personally I always went for the more expensive stuff because that kind of quality is simply unavailble in my neck of the woods.

Visions of people selling weed from roadside stands for pennies, saying this will hugely drive the price down is just wrong. Marijuana is a drug and it's sale, like alcohol and tobacco, should be regulated. Government would tax it, in part to pay for the costs of regulation, and in part because they can.

If it was legal then you'd suddenly have a product available that was much superior at a similar price. Once people become accustomed to better quality they will not want to return to a much inferior quality.

Illegal growers now have to increase their own quality of product, which adds 3 months or so to production times, face increased risk of prosecution, (law enforcement has more resources to pursue fewer criminals) and face declining prices.

They have to do more work, for less return, at increased risk. The number of black market suppliers will reduce.

If everyone was able to grow as much as they liked, like tomatoes, then yeah the price will plummet. Tomatoes aren't a drug though. Government would be just as irresponsible allowing everyone to grow as much as they like, as they are allowing noone to grow any at all imo.

Ambrosia

19th September 2009, 09:06 PM

If pot were legal anyone could grow it trying to make a quick buck. Just 20 pounds at current market rates could earn the grower $75,000. Everyone and their grandma would be growing pot if this was possible, of course al that pot would flood the market and the price plummets.

True. Which is why cultivation on any kind of scale larger than a hobbyist, and sale outside of having a licence would very likely remain illegal and carry stiff penalties.

WildCat

19th September 2009, 09:30 PM

While it's true that is does not *require* a curing process, any good quality weed has been cured.
I have never heard of marijuana being cured. Can you give an example of this?

Whenever I visited Amsterdam personally I always went for the more expensive stuff because that kind of quality is simply unavailble in my neck of the woods
Anyone could grow that quality. 95% of the quality of marijuana is genetics, not any special growing know-how.

Visions of people selling weed from roadside stands for pennies, saying this will hugely drive the price down is just wrong. Marijuana is a drug and it's sale, like alcohol and tobacco, should be regulated. Government would tax it, in part to pay for the costs of regulation, and in part because they can.
Alcohol and tobacco require much more know-how to make your own quality product. Beer is simple but brewing your own isn't much cheaper than the cost in a store. Marijuana can be easily grown at home for a few dollars. Sure, the government can regulate it all they want, but this won't stop people from growing their own at home. And if it's over-reguilated (taxes too high, limits on THC content, etc) they will just encourage the black market and we'll end up with the same problems we have now with criminal gangs.

If it was legal then you'd suddenly have a product available that was much superior at a similar price.
No, it would be much, much cheaper.

Illegal growers now have to increase their own quality of product, which adds 3 months or so to production times, face increased risk of prosecution, (law enforcement has more resources to pursue fewer criminals) and face declining prices.
No, it doesn't take any longer to grow higher-quality marijuana. In fact, it loses potency (and taste) if left on the plant for too long. And as I said earlier, I'm not aware of any curing process for marijuana.

If everyone was able to grow as much as they liked, like tomatoes, then yeah the price will plummet. Tomatoes aren't a drug though. Government would be just as irresponsible allowing everyone to grow as much as they like, as they are allowing noone to grow any at all imo.
And if they allow you to grow any at all high prices are unsustainable. Who would pay hundreds of dollars an ounce for something you could grow for practically nothing?

MikeSun5

20th September 2009, 12:31 AM

I have never heard of marijuana being cured. Can you give an example of this?

:confused: Never heard of it? Here's a simple google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22curing+marijuana%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g5g-s1g4).

Anyone could grow that quality. 95% of the quality of marijuana is genetics, not any special growing know-how.

Really? You got any proof to back either of those statements up?

Marijuana can be easily grown at home for a few dollars.

Your obvious lack of growing knowledge combined with statements like that lead me to believe that quality is something that is lost on you. I don't even consider ditch weed marijuana. Might as well roll up and smoke lawnmower cuttings.

Go to Vancouver or Amsterdam, learn what real quality is, then return to this thread. You can actually get weed in Jamaica right now for like $10 to $20 an ounce. Of course, it's grown cheaply outside in someone's backyard (your preferred technique). You'd have to smoke half of that ounce to get high, and your throat would feel like sandpaper. Or you could pay $10 to $20 for a gram of the good, smoke half of it and get twice as high. And don't get me started on taste...

Not that I'd know or anything.

Ambrosia

20th September 2009, 01:37 AM

Anyone could grow that quality. 95% of the quality of marijuana is genetics, not any special growing know-how. ...

Alcohol and tobacco require much more know-how to make your own quality product.

Define "quality product". Marijuana you can smoke and that will get you high is not imo "quality product" it's just fit for purpose. Cultivation of marijuana is no different to cultivation of any other type of plant. You need good genetics AND you need good cultivation skills to produce a good quality crop, how much is down to genetics and how much is down to know how is debateable, but I think your 95% genetics claim is way out.
After you grow the plant there is still a good many ways you can ruin what you have grown, which all falls under the "know how" part. I would argue that you need just as much know how to produce good quality wine, or good quality tobacco as you do good quality marijuana.

No, it doesn't take any longer to grow higher-quality marijuana.... and as I said earlier, I'm not aware of any curing process for marijuana.

It doesn't take longer to *grow*, it takes longer to *produce*, and requires more resources.
The curing process (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Marijuana_Cultivation/Curing) takes time and resources and allows more time for law enforcement to discover the operation, hence most don't bother with it.

Legal growers would compete on both price and on quality. The quality would rise dramatically and once people get used to the higher quality gear they won't want to return to the dross they presently buy for the most part.

Who would pay hundreds of dollars an ounce for something you could grow for practically nothing?

Lazy people, people who can't afford the cost of setting up, people who value their time more highly than a few hundred $ once in a while...

Nothing is free. If you grow your own stuff then you are spending time that could be used for something else. If you can grow your own for "practically nothing" then you are not valuing your time very highly.

dtugg

20th September 2009, 02:31 AM

Growing high quality weed outdoors is really easy assuming you have good seeds or clones. Anybody could grow a few pounds in their backyard with minimal effort. Let's just say I have a friend that used to do this.

I don't smoke any more, but if weed were legal, I sure as hell wouldn't pay hundreds of dollars an ounce for the stuff if I started again.

Ambrosia

20th September 2009, 03:16 AM

Growing high quality weed outdoors is really easy assuming you have good seeds or clones. Anybody could grow a few pounds in their backyard with minimal effort.

What about people that live in the city or who don't have access to a backyard?

What about people who live in a part of the world that doesn't have a great climate for it? Like say most of the UK.

While you could *grow* a few pounds outdoors with minimal effort, getting from point of harvest to being able to smoke it is not "minimal effort"

While you might grow your own were it legal, or I might, or even a good number of people might, what happens when we run out, or fancy a different type than what we have available, or have just moved house and are waiting for our first crop to finish?
What if you want to try out some different strains before you grow some of your own?

Wouldn't some varieties be patented and exclusive so your only source would be the legal market?

dtugg

20th September 2009, 04:35 AM

I'm not saying that wouldn't be a place for it on the market, just that nobody would pay the the outrageous prices currently on the black market given how easy it is to grow. And even though not everybody could or would grow it, competition, as others pointed out would keep prices down.

And getting a few pounds ready to smoke would indeed take minimal effort considering how much it is worth on the black market now.

WildCat

20th September 2009, 07:43 AM

:confused: Never heard of it? Here's a simple google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22curing+marijuana%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g5g-s1g4).
That's hardly a curing process.

Really? You got any proof to back either of those statements up?
Let's just say I was once a student of Ed Rosenthal. :blush:

Your obvious lack of growing knowledge combined with statements like that lead me to believe that quality is something that is lost on you. I don't even consider ditch weed marijuana. Might as well roll up and smoke lawnmower cuttings.
You are clueless. I know the difference.

Go to Vancouver or Amsterdam, learn what real quality is, then return to this thread. You can actually get weed in Jamaica right now for like $10 to $20 an ounce. Of course, it's grown cheaply outside in someone's backyard (your preferred technique). You'd have to smoke half of that ounce to get high, and your throat would feel like sandpaper. Or you could pay $10 to $20 for a gram of the good, smoke half of it and get twice as high. And don't get me started on taste...
Once again, you are completely clueless. People grow indoors because there's less risk than in growing outdoors. It is easier to keep seedless that way, but unless there's male plants nearby your crop will remain seedless. And without the need for pots the plants grow much bigger. Indoor plants are limited in size by the root ball.

Grow Skunk #1 or Northern Lights #5 or any other quality cultivar and you'd be hard-pressed to screw it up so long as you pull the males. You certainly couldn't produce ditch weed with such fine seed stock.

Not that I'd know or anything.
Apparently you don't.

quarky

20th September 2009, 07:52 AM

Why do people want pot so strong that 2 hits, and you puke? Around here, outdoor grown pot is worth $250/oz

WildCat

20th September 2009, 07:55 AM

Define "quality product".
Phat sticky stinky diggety-dank.

Marijuana you can smoke and that will get you high is not imo "quality product" it's just fit for purpose. Cultivation of marijuana is no different to cultivation of any other type of plant. You need good genetics AND you need good cultivation skills to produce a good quality crop, how much is down to genetics and how much is down to know how is debateable, but I think your 95% genetics claim is way out.
I disagree, as does Ed Rosenthal. Have you ever read his books?

After you grow the plant there is still a good many ways you can ruin what you have grown, which all falls under the "know how" part. I would argue that you need just as much know how to produce good quality wine, or good quality tobacco as you do good quality marijuana.
Believe whatever you want, doesn't make it true. About the worst you could do post-harvest is let it get moldy. But you'd have to be a complete idiot to have that happen.

It doesn't take longer to *grow*, it takes longer to *produce*, and requires more resources.
The curing process (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Marijuana_Cultivation/Curing) takes time and resources and allows more time for law enforcement to discover the operation, hence most don't bother with it.
What you and Mike keep calling "curing" is simply the drying process. Curing agricultural products (including tobacco) usually involves chemical (which can be natural) additives. No such curing is done to marijuana.

Legal growers would compete on both price and on quality. The quality would rise dramatically and once people get used to the higher quality gear they won't want to return to the dross they presently buy for the most part.
You act like growing takes some sort of special skills, it doesn't.

Lazy people, people who can't afford the cost of setting up,
If you can't afford $200 in grow lights for indoor growing you certainly can't afford to pay $200/oz for pot, so this doesn't even make sense.

people who value their time more highly than a few hundred $ once in a while...
I suppose there would be a limited commercial market for the person who smokes once or twice a year. Probably not enough to attrract a multi-million $ corporation though.

Nothing is free. If you grow your own stuff then you are spending time that could be used for something else. If you can grow your own for "practically nothing" then you are not valuing your time very highly.
It doesn't take much time, certainly no more than any other garden does.

WildCat

20th September 2009, 07:57 AM

Why do people want pot so strong that 2 hits, and you puke? Around here, outdoor grown pot is worth $250/oz
Don't smoke it when you're drunk and this won't happen.

WildCat

20th September 2009, 07:59 AM

What about people who live in a part of the world that doesn't have a great climate for it? Like say most of the UK.
Arguably the finest strains of marijuana ever developed come from Afghanistan. Not exactly a tropical climate there.

NewtonTrino

20th September 2009, 09:29 AM

Why do people want pot so strong that 2 hits, and you puke? Around here, outdoor grown pot is worth $250/oz

It's extremely unusual to throw up from using weed. I've seen this a couple of times but in all cases it was non-smokers who took a hit from a joint that had weed + TOBACCO in it. A bit hit of tobacco can easily make a non-smoker puke. I also think it would be possible for someone who isn't a regular weed smoker to overdue it a bit and make get disoriented and throw up but I don't know that I've seen a solid case of this.

Lithrael

20th September 2009, 09:54 AM

Well, some people like pot that tastes really good and yet don't want to smoke a lot of it. Buying a little bit of really nice pot is self-regulating kinda like someone who really likes chocolate buying a teeny box of the gourmet stuff.

I have to agree then that legalization wouldn't be a huge windfall, but it'd make a great hobbyist's product. I'm sure a few people would love to be able to grow even if it's not profitable; I have certainly run into people who love the stuff that much.

The main upside would of course be all the money we'd save on harassing and locking people up over the stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if legalizing it would be a huge blow to gang activity too: IMO the actual 'gateway' function of weed works on its young sellers. A young man can get started selling weed without even tweaking his conscience. The spiral from inner city weed seller to hard drug seller has got to be more like real life than the supposed spiral from pot smoker to hard drug user. "I'm already selling illegal drugs for a good profit, and my contact has harder stuff too, why not."

Funny enough I am pretty sure that legal weed would even bring a much needed element of non-criminal comraderie to some poor communities. People really do love to get together over some great weed, just like they like to get together over some cheap beer - only without the risk of ever having to deal with a mean drunk.

WildCat

20th September 2009, 10:16 AM

Ambrosia

20th September 2009, 12:00 PM

Phat sticky stinky diggety-dank.

thats a collection of colloquialisms for weed, on face value fat heavy sticky buds refer more to sativa strains. Got a better definition?

I disagree, as does Ed Rosenthal. Have you ever read his books?

Got a source for that? I've not read his books no, tho I am well aware of who he is.

What you and Mike keep calling "curing" is simply the drying process. Curing agricultural products (including tobacco) usually involves chemical (which can be natural) additives. No such curing is done to marijuana.

My brief google search on "tobacco curing" threw up a myriad of sites like this one (http://www.coffinails.com/curing_tobacco.html) which describes an air drying/aging process during which harmful/undesirable chemicals in the plant are changed into desirable ones.

From what I read adding chemicals to tobacco is done by tobacco companies
to improve the smoking properties and allow the use of various byproducts to both save wastage and to produce a consistent branded blend.

Most commerically used tobacco is described as "flue-cured brightleaf" and that means it's been hung in a large barn to age that has had the temperature and humidity controlled.

This is exactly the same process for marijuana (almost) the only difference being marijuana curing takes place in a dry atmosphere and not a humid one.

"Curing" = "Aging" more or less.

You act like growing takes some sort of special skills, it doesn't.

That depends on how you are growing, if you are growing indoors hydroponically you need some skills, outdoors less so. An experienced grower will get better yields, and a better quality of finished product than a noob will. So saying it takes no skills is wrong.

If you can't afford $200 in grow lights for indoor growing you certainly can't afford to pay $200/oz for pot, so this doesn't even make sense.

Why do you need to buy a whole ounce at a time?

I suppose there would be a limited commercial market for the person who smokes once or twice a year. Probably not enough to attrract a multi-million $ corporation though.

I am arguing that legalisation will mean many more people will smoke, or otherwise use marijuana, and that for many of the new "casual" users an ounce will last them months, and a great deal of people that only smoke say a joint or two a week, or make a batch of cookies once in a while aren't going to want or need to bother with growing their own.

That prices will start out close to what they are now and remain that way for a while before dropping, and that it's this period of time that will produce the "windfall" in tax revenues. I am taking "windfall" to mean a one time short term boost in tax revenues, not an on going long term large increase in tax revenue. That while there will be a windfall it won't be anything lke as large as most pro-legalisation people are claiming, or as small as you are claiming.

As far as climate goes a poorer climate results in lower yield, and if you were a hobbyist limited to only 3 plants at one time and only get one or two harvests a year you might not make enough to supply yourself a whole year.

Also almost every joint I've ever smoked has had about 70% tobacco content. It's the way joints are over here.

WildCat

20th September 2009, 12:26 PM

thats a collection of colloquialisms for weed, on face value fat heavy sticky buds refer more to sativa strains. Got a better definition?
What is your definition?

The best bud I have ever seen back when I was a pothead was homegrown, I knew the guy who grew it. Nothing ever grown in Vancouver or Amsterdam was better. Just as good probably, but better? Nope.

And I was a daily pot smoker for 15 years or so, smoked everything from seed-loaded Colombian schwag to skunk and kush. I know the difference.

Incidentally, the stuff my friend grew was his own cross between Skunk #1 and Northern Lights #5.

Got a source for that? I've not read his books no, tho I am well aware of who he is.
I just gave you the source... :confused:

My brief google search on "tobacco curing" threw up a myriad of sites like this one (http://www.coffinails.com/curing_tobacco.html) which describes an air drying/aging process during which harmful/undesirable chemicals in the plant are changed into desirable ones.

From what I read adding chemicals to tobacco is done by tobacco companies
to improve the smoking properties and allow the use of various byproducts to both save wastage and to produce a consistent branded blend.
All tobacco you buy in the store is cured with other substances such as maple syrup. The exception is the cigarettes advertised as being just pure tobacco, which most smokers think is crap.

Most commerically used tobacco is described as "flue-cured brightleaf" and that means it's been hung in a large barn to age that has had the temperature and humidity controlled.

This is exactly the same process for marijuana (almost) the only difference being marijuana curing takes place in a dry atmosphere and not a humid one.

"Curing" = "Aging" more or less.
And if you harvest a pound of buds you certainly won't be smoking it all in a day or so. Plenty of time for it to dry properly, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to stick it in a jar.

That depends on how you are growing, if you are growing indoors hydroponically you need some skills, outdoors less so. An experienced grower will get better yields, and a better quality of finished product than a noob will. So saying it takes no skills is wrong.
Maybe so, but a n00b will learn after a few crops.

I am arguing that legalisation will mean many more people will smoke, or otherwise use marijuana, and that for many of the new "casual" users an ounce will last them months, and a great deal of people that only smoke say a joint or two a week, or make a batch of cookies once in a while aren't going to want or need to bother with growing their own.
Exactly. Do you dispute my earlier post where I figured you could satisfy the entire US demand for marijuana with less than 1,000 acres of land? This is why it will never be a huge money-maker for anyone.

That prices will start out close to what they are now and remain that way for a while before dropping, and that it's this period of time that will produce the "windfall" in tax revenues. I am taking "windfall" to mean a one time short term boost in tax revenues, not an on going long term large increase in tax revenue. That while there will be a windfall it won't be anything lke as large as most pro-legalisation people are claiming, or as small as you are claiming.
I disagree. The price drop would be dramatic and instantaneous.

As far as climate goes a poorer climate results in lower yield, and if you were a hobbyist limited to only 3 plants at one time and only get one or two harvests a year you might not make enough to supply yourself a whole year.
You'll only get 1 harvest a year outdoors no matter what climate, because the plant will not flower until there is less than 12 hours of sunlight. Prior to taht it is all vegetative growth.

There are varieties taht will flower after a certain amount of time, but these aren't the high-quality plants we're talking about here.

Also almost every joint I've ever smoked has had about 70% tobacco content. It's the way joints are over here.
I've never seen that in the US. I was stunned the first time I was in Canada to see someone mixing tobacco with their pot, completely ruined the taste! I understand it's common in Europe also. Personally, I don't get it.

Ambrosia

20th September 2009, 05:52 PM

What is your definition?

Carefully grown buds of good genetics grown in close to optimal conditions, that have been well manicured, thoroughly dried, and aged for a minimum of 3 months.

The grown in optimal conditions is important as imo plants grown to their fullest potential contain more cannibinoids, that can then develop givng enough aging into a better taste while smoking, and allow me to use less of them when I make joints/cookies/whatever my preferred method of ingestion happens to be.

Incidentally, the stuff my friend grew was his own cross between Skunk #1 and Northern Lights #5.

I liked 'C99' or 'flo'. I smoked daily for 10 years or so and quit a couple of years back.

I just gave you the source... :confused:

I meant as in which book?

Exactly. Do you dispute my earlier post where I figured you could satisfy the entire US demand for marijuana with less than 1,000 acres of land? This is why it will never be a huge money-maker for anyone.

I have no reason to dispute the 1000acres claim, but patents on varieties, and the market in goods made using cannabis mean that cannabis will doubtless be a big moneymaker for someone. Not to mention that a lot more scientific research would be done with cannabis that people just don't bother with presently that could yet discover some pharmecutical or some other as yet unknown spinoff.

I disagree. The price drop would be dramatic and instantaneous.

I can agree to disagree. I might well be wrong, if only it got put to the test.

I've never seen that in the US. I was stunned the first time I was in Canada to see someone mixing tobacco with their pot, completely ruined the taste! I understand it's common in Europe also. Personally, I don't get it.

Economics. When I first started smoking it was this horrible brown "resin" called 'soap bar' that cost £20/eighth. Weed was unheard of. You had to mix this with tobacco to smoke it. Then when weed started becoming more available people mixed that with tobacco as well, and got way higher cos dirtsoapbar doesn't really have a lot of THC in it. Good weed was £25/eighth (late 80's early 90's) and hard to come by so people stretched it as far as possible.

When availability rocketed in the mid/late 90's here it was frequently so badly grown that you couldn't smoke it pure if you tried to, wet etc etc, so it was mixed with tobacco to make it smokeable at all. Tradition dies hard.