PDA

View Full Version : The Drug War Seems to Have Failed


Pages : [1] 2

JFrankA
2nd June 2011, 12:49 PM
Recent post on the CBS website about Global Commission Report who reports that the War on Drugs has failed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/02/501364/main20068210.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;1

You can even download the report here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Global_Commission_Report_English.pdf?tag=contentMa in;contentBody

Personally, my knee-jerk reaction is "Yaaay! Can we NOW do something about this please?" But I'm at work and haven't read the report yet. So what about your reactions and thoughts.

Mark6
2nd June 2011, 12:58 PM
"It's the rest of the world which failed! Here in US we keep on fighting!"

Cynically, that's what I expect to hear from pretty much all levels of government.

Monketey Ghost
2nd June 2011, 01:00 PM
No, they're winning.

Eventually, people will stop wanting to get high and the problem will be solved forever.
:rolleyes:

madurobob
2nd June 2011, 01:04 PM
I'm still wondering how Richard Branson fits in with the rest of the folks on the panel. But, I don't disagree with the panel's decision.

Taarkin
2nd June 2011, 01:14 PM
That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible.

WildCat
2nd June 2011, 01:54 PM
That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible.
Conspiracy theories thataway ------------>

Drugs were prohibited during the temperance movement of the early 20th century, for much the same reasons alcohol was prohibited. You can throw racism in the mix for drugs.

bookitty
2nd June 2011, 02:21 PM
That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible.

The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.

WildCat
2nd June 2011, 02:33 PM
We'll continue to fight the drug war if it takes every drop of blood from every last Mexican.

Dr. Keith
2nd June 2011, 02:41 PM
But then who will mow the grass and pick the fruit?

nota
2nd June 2011, 02:42 PM
give peace a chance

Mr. Purple
2nd June 2011, 03:36 PM
Conspiracy theories thataway ------------>

Drugs were prohibited during the temperance movement of the early 20th century, for much the same reasons alcohol was prohibited. You can throw racism in the mix for drugs.

The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.

To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence. I am sure the legislation didn't read:
"In an effort to lock up those people, we are going to make marijuana illegal". If I understand correctly it was more heavily used by the black population than the white population.

MikeSun5
2nd June 2011, 03:56 PM
"It's the rest of the world which failed! Here in US we keep on fighting!"

Cynically, that's what I expect to hear from pretty much all levels of government.

Agreed. Our government spends so much on this "war" that the organizations and law enforcement who the "War on Drugs" money goes to will never give those dollars up without a fight.

If the DEA can't raid legal marijuana dispensaries anymore, what on Earth will they spend that raid money on? Don't forget that this is a WAR, people. :rolleyes:

What's funny is that people have been saying stuff outlined in that report for years, but now since the "right people" are saying it, the media and governments are finally paying attention.

rjh01
2nd June 2011, 04:27 PM
To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence. I am sure the legislation didn't read:
"In an effort to lock up those people, we are going to make marijuana illegal". If I understand correctly it was more heavily used by the black population than the white population.

Here is a link that backs up your claim http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
You’ll also see that the history of marijuana’s criminalization is filled with:

Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed
These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

MikeSun5
2nd June 2011, 05:06 PM
To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence.

I didn't see it mentioned in rjh01's article there, but I actually heard once that the reason people started calling it "marijuana" in the first place is because "cannabis" didn't sound Mexican enough, and the powers that be were essentially trying to tie weed to Mexicans. I guess they thought if people believed only Mexicans smoked weed, then it HAD to be evil. Or something like that...

Praktik
2nd June 2011, 05:27 PM
That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible.

Actually this caught me up in an undergraduate Public Law class I took in university. See it's ok for a right to be violated in most western countries if the government can support a genuine societal interest that is served by the violation.

The Charter case law that really fleshed out how this was to be judged in Canada came, interestingly enough, from a possession case over a gram or so of hash. The Oakes Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakes_test#Oakes_test) states that any violation of one's rights must meet the following conditions:

There must be a pressing and substantial objective
The means must be proportional:
The means must be rationally connected to the objective
There must be minimal impairment of rights
There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective
And so I argued, in class, that if the objective of the law was to stop people from smoking hash, then the law was not "rationally connected" to the objective. Evidenced perhaps most handily by the stubborn persistence and long periods of extended upticks in use over the 8 or 9 decades of its prohibition.

But see- I was thinking the wrong way. I forgot that this is really a religious issue.

The objective is not to stamp out drug use - it never was. The goal was "to fight the good fight" in a noble and eternal war.

And once I realized that, I realized my Charter case that was gonna blow prohibition wide open wasn't gonna work on those grounds. I was thinking rationally about a policy rooted in irrationality.

A definite "moment" in my journey to skepticism!

Puppycow
2nd June 2011, 08:21 PM
Beat me to it.

Another story (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/war-on-drugs-a-failure-international-panel-declares/article2045400/).

And our lame-o president's reaction is politically safe and predictable:

Rafael Lemaitre, Communications Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy:

“Legalization remains a non-starter in the Obama administration because research shows that illegal drug use is associated with voluntary treatment admissions, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness, and emergency room admissions.”

All those things are equally true of alcohol. :rolleyes:

Joey McGee
2nd June 2011, 08:46 PM
The harm that drugs do is made worse by their illegality, and it prevents us from helping those people effectively. If they really want to cut down on addiction, accidents and illness they should be pro-legalization. What an embarrassingly stupid statement. Rafael obviously didn't read the evidence that was in the report? The evidence points in one direction, their further adherence to ideology will continue to hurt people, but increasingly as more people look at the evidence, hurt themselves politically as well.

MattusMaximus
2nd June 2011, 08:58 PM
It's about damn time someone in the government actually acknowledges what the rest of us have known for many years. Now, whether or not they actually do something to remedy the problem, that's another question...

Democracy Simulator
2nd June 2011, 09:34 PM
I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government:

“Legalization won’t stop organized crime, its turf wars or its violence. Nor will it strengthen our security institutions and law enforcement. To equate organized crime in Mexico with drug trafficking is to forget that organized crime commits other offences such as kidnapping, extortion and robbery.”

It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it.

Barsdamian
2nd June 2011, 09:39 PM
To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence. I am sure the legislation didn't read:
"In an effort to lock up those people, we are going to make marijuana illegal". If I understand correctly it was more heavily used by the black population than the white population.

Consider these quotes from Harry Anslinger during his campaign to have cannabis outlawed federally.


"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"

"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."


No racism there. In fact the term marijuana was popularized my Anslinger in an effort to paint the drug as a problem of mexican migrant workers. Prior to that the plant had been more commonly known as indian hemp weed or just hemp.

Puppycow
2nd June 2011, 09:50 PM
The harm that drugs do is made worse by their illegality, and it prevents us from helping those people effectively. If they really want to cut down on addiction, accidents and illness they should be pro-legalization. What an embarrassingly stupid statement. Rafael obviously didn't read the evidence that was in the report? The evidence points in one direction, their further adherence to ideology will continue to hurt people, but increasingly as more people look at the evidence, hurt themselves politically as well.

Agreed. The only thing they really care about is what's the politically safe position.

It's about damn time someone in the government actually acknowledges what the rest of us have known for many years. Now, whether or not they actually do something to remedy the problem, that's another question...
Er, that still hasn't happened:
A high-powered panel of former heads of states and United Nations officials says it is time for governments to find new ways to deal with the world’s drug problem.

“The fact is that the war on drugs is a failure,” former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso said Thursday at the unveiling of a report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

Along with Mr. Cardoso, the commission includes former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria, former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan and Canadian Louise Arbour, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Current members of the government continue to play it safe. Canadian, US and Mexican government spokespeople all hand-waved it away. Oh, and calling it a "high-powered panel" is dubious too for the same reason.

I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government:



It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it.

Yup. Maybe once they retire from politics and have no power, they will admit the truth too.

keale
2nd June 2011, 09:59 PM
I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government:



It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it.


Well in many places in Mexico the government and the cartels are on the same side and in many cases the same people.

Praktik
2nd June 2011, 10:08 PM
No racism there. In fact the term marijuana was popularized my Anslinger in an effort to paint the drug as a problem of mexican migrant workers. Prior to that the plant had been more commonly known as indian hemp weed or just hemp.

Ya and I think people don't realize those racist roots... or like to think "we're so past that now". And if you're talking about the people implementing current policy I can actually agree with that: I don't think the current drug czar, or any of the most recent czars, have approached drug use with that same brand of antique racism. Maybe on the lower levels, like street level, you'll see more instances of racism but it's nowhere near as pervasive - or overt - as it was (for the most part).

That being said, the laws surely were rooted in racism - but I would argue the stronger influence was actually puritanical moral absolutism. And that never went away. Sure, the cartoonish racism of a bygone era was discarded along with those decaying generations that propagated it. Yet the burning core of raging morality, steeped in the puritanical roots of America, remained - and still remains to this day.

To my mind its still a glaring irrationality at the root of our drug laws: whether that's a racist irrationality or some misguided application of pious morality, its all flim flam and flawed reasoning underneath. I have difficulty conceiving of an evidence-based position in support of the Drug War - by definition it is a Crusade and a Religious Obligation for those fighting the good fight.

Current Drug Warriors aren't as racist as they were in the past just as society isn't as racist as it was in the past. But everyone is just as crazy!

Barsdamian
2nd June 2011, 10:23 PM
Current Drug Warriors aren't as racist as they were in the past just as society isn't as racist as it was in the past. But everyone is just as crazy!

Its interesting how as society changes, the prohibitionist message changes. In Anslingers day it was "Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers". Nowadays its terrorists. Consider this quote from John Walters the US drug czar in 2007.


the people who plant and tend the gardens are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties.


The message changes but its no less ridiculous.

andyandy
3rd June 2011, 02:18 AM
What's funny is that people have been saying stuff outlined in that report for years, but now since the "right people" are saying it, the media and governments are finally paying attention.

I wish that was true - but i don't think there's any evidence, any report, any peer reviewed data or any body of celebrities or ex politicians who would make even a gnat sized dent in the political status quo over prohibition....

Maybe give it another 50 years.......

Joey McGee
3rd June 2011, 02:22 AM
The people still run the government, no?

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa440/TheMunchkinMan/711-18.png

I am actually rather optimistic for a tipping point on this issue.

WildCat
3rd June 2011, 05:32 AM
It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities and corrupt Mexican officials is a bad idea.
ftfy

ThunderChunky
3rd June 2011, 06:49 AM
The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.

A lot of people get rich off of the drug war. Seems they would have a vested interest in keeping the program running.

Earthborn
3rd June 2011, 07:19 AM
Seems this commission has the right idea... The commission is especially critical of the United States, which its members say must lead changing its anti-drug policies from being guided by anti-crime approaches to ones rooted in health care and human rights.... oh, well. It was a nice thought anyway. The United States can't even get healthcare coverage for all it citizens it doesn't consider lowlife junkies, so this is a bit much to ask of them.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing (snip)Does anyone seriously think that just because something is legalised, criminals will suddenly stop doing it? I never understood that claim. Is it that crime bosses are going to say: "Oh, no! We can't do anything legal. We're criminals; that goes against everything we stand for!"

GreyArea
3rd June 2011, 07:30 AM
...but I would argue the stronger influence was actually puritanical moral absolutism. And that never went away. Sure, the cartoonish racism of a bygone era was discarded along with those decaying generations that propagated it. Yet the burning core of raging morality, steeped in the puritanical roots of America, remained - and still remains to this day.
I think that's part of it, but I don't quite understand the last step in their reasoning. Is intoxication (by whatever means) wrong because it clouds one's mental abilities to contemplate God? Or is it wrong because it leads to dis-inhibited behaviors and a poor work ethic?

Arguably, only the former reason would be religious/theological. The latter reasons would be, respectively, for reasons of civic harmony and for reasons of industry (in the old sense of the word) versus idleness. I think these would make a stronger case for prohibition than a purely religious reason, if anyone was pressed to spell out the case (which is hardly ever done).

Mycroft
3rd June 2011, 07:31 AM
The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.


Wouldn't you agree it's at least a contributing factor?

Taarkin
3rd June 2011, 08:29 AM
Does anyone seriously think that just because something is legalised, criminals will suddenly stop doing it? I never understood that claim. Is it that crime bosses are going to say: "Oh, no! We can't do anything legal. We're criminals; that goes against everything we stand for!"
Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

Mark6
3rd June 2011, 08:34 AM
Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?
Precisely.

Whenever an illegal trade is legalized, it's not that its former practicioners suddenly quit from some kind of ideological reason. Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it.

JFrankA
3rd June 2011, 08:40 AM
Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

Exactly. Also, the product at Walgreens would be pure product regulated by the government. Who's going to want to buy a product that might have things in it that is not supposed to be in there?

(I once read, though I can't confirm this, that a lot of deaths from E is because what they took wasn't E, or there was very little E in it, and the death was from the impurities in the pill and not the E itself).

Combine these two things, that makes the product much less profitable for criminals to produce and sell. In effect, that takes the product away from the criminal.

JFrankA
3rd June 2011, 08:41 AM
Precisely.

Whenever an illegal trade is legalized, it's not that its former practicioners suddenly quit from some kind of ideological reason. Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it.

Mark beat me to it and put it more succinctly. :)

Dave Rogers
3rd June 2011, 08:47 AM
Exactly. Also, the product at Walgreens would be pure product regulated by the government. Who's going to want to buy a product that might have things in it that is not supposed to be in there?

The same people who buy herbal remedies, probably. Which may have a substantial overlap with the ones who use mind-altering substances.

Dave

IDB87
3rd June 2011, 08:48 AM
*ETA this post is strictly about cocaine.


Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

I find this incredibly far-fetched.

How will the government of Mexico A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?

Decriminalizing cocaine, even making it legal, will do nothing to slow the production of the Cartels already in place. All you end up with is a government competing with the big boys.

I'm really honestly curious as to what your solution is.

I Am The Scum
3rd June 2011, 09:05 AM
*ETA this post is strictly about cocaine.




I find this incredibly far-fetched.

How will the government of Mexico A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?

Decriminalizing cocaine, even making it legal, will do nothing to slow the production of the Cartels already in place. All you end up with is a government competing with the big boys.

I'm really honestly curious as to what your solution is.

Why are you saying that cocaine production would be a government-run industry? Just decriminalize it, and entrepreneurs will pick up the slack.

Most arguments in favor of decriminalization will draw parallels with the prohibition fiasco back in the 20s. I'm pretty sure that most proponents would stick to that model.

Earthborn
3rd June 2011, 09:13 AM
Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?Will Walgreens decide to sell creepy drugs? Seems unlikely to me, if they would they certainly won't do so without prescription. Many addicts may prefer the more no-questions-asked approach by illegal drug dealers over having to ask permission from a doctor. In the US especially, having to go to a doctor to get a prescription may very well be more expensive than buying directly from someone on the street.

Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it.If it worked like that, there would be no illegal market for any legal medication. And yet there is. There is also an illegal market for other legal products, such as cigarettes; often stolen from legitimate manufacturers and sold without tax.

Earthborn
3rd June 2011, 09:27 AM
Why are you saying that cocaine production would be a government-run industry? Just decriminalize it, and entrepreneurs will pick up the slack.Makes no difference whether it is a government run industry or entrepreneurs picking up the slack. The question remains the same: how will they A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?

The entrepreneurs you are talking about may be able to do A, but will definitely need help from the government to do C. And that is assuming there are enough non-criminal entrepreneurs eager to start a business in selling dangerous hard drugs.

Xulld
3rd June 2011, 09:39 AM
The harm that drugs do is made worse by their illegality, and it prevents us from helping those people effectively. If they really want to cut down on addiction, accidents and illness they should be pro-legalization. What an embarrassingly stupid statement. Rafael obviously didn't read the evidence that was in the report? The evidence points in one direction, their further adherence to ideology will continue to hurt people, but increasingly as more people look at the evidence, hurt themselves politically as well.

Its amazing what people will say when its there job on the line, or the funding that allows them to hire friends and family to positions of authority.

I would not argue from the perspective of how this effects drug cartels, I don't care, for me its all about liberty, the government should not be in the business of protecting citizens from themselves, its a loosing battle on all fronts. Helping people is different then protecting, the governments roll in this regard should be supportive, not dominating. That allows liberty to be legal, and provides the support that actually helps people, the war on drugs helps no one expect the industry of locking up drug users. I call it the government subsidized prisons system program.

WildCat
3rd June 2011, 09:41 AM
Why are you saying that cocaine production would be a government-run industry? Just decriminalize it, and entrepreneurs will pick up the slack.

Most arguments in favor of decriminalization will draw parallels with the prohibition fiasco back in the 20s. I'm pretty sure that most proponents would stick to that model.
You appear to be confusing "decriminalizing" with "legalizing". They are not the same thing.

WildCat
3rd June 2011, 09:43 AM
Will Walgreens decide to sell creepy drugs? Seems unlikely to me, if they would they certainly won't do so without prescription. Many addicts may prefer the more no-questions-asked approach by illegal drug dealers over having to ask permission from a doctor. In the US especially, having to go to a doctor to get a prescription may very well be more expensive than buying directly from someone on the street.
Why would there be a prescription? I don't need one to buy beer or booze.

WildCat
3rd June 2011, 09:45 AM
Makes no difference whether it is a government run industry or entrepreneurs picking up the slack. The question remains the same: how will they A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?
Do you think the mafia produces booze any more? Why do you think that is?

IDB87
3rd June 2011, 09:59 AM
Do you think the mafia produces booze any more? Why do you think that is?

Easy to make than cocaine. Easier to sell.

Or can your average Joe start a cocoa field in his backyard and have the know-how to produce cocaine and then sell it?

I Am The Scum
3rd June 2011, 10:09 AM
You appear to be confusing "decriminalizing" with "legalizing". They are not the same thing.

Can you elaborate? I'm looking in the dictionary and the terms still appear interchangeable to me.

Crossbow
3rd June 2011, 10:18 AM
Recent post on the CBS website about Global Commission Report who reports that the War on Drugs has failed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/02/501364/main20068210.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;1

You can even download the report here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Global_Commission_Report_English.pdf?tag=contentMa in;contentBody

Personally, my knee-jerk reaction is "Yaaay! Can we NOW do something about this please?" But I'm at work and haven't read the report yet. So what about your reactions and thoughts.

Well, I guess it is like Martin Sheen said in Wall Street, "if you live long enough, then you see everything".

I recall in 1986 when it was announced that the Reagan "War on Drugs" (remember the Nancy slogan of "Just say no!"?) was a failure. In fact, the price of illegal drugs was lower in 1986 than it was in 1980.

And now, here it is about 25 years later and we are still amazed that the "War on Drugs" has been a failure.

If you ask me (and you are), the "War on Drugs" has always been a failure. There is either too much money in the illegal drug economy (so it just keeps expanding), or there is too little real interest in fighting this war (which serves to expand the illegal drug economy), or some combination of both (which is almost always the case).

Ugh! It is high time (that was an intentional pun, by the way) that a new approach be taken to the problem of illegal drugs.

Joey McGee
3rd June 2011, 10:23 AM
Its amazing what people will say when its there job on the line, or the funding that allows them to hire friends and family to positions of authority.

I would not argue from the perspective of how this effects drug cartels, I don't care, for me its all about liberty, the government should not be in the business of protecting citizens from themselves, its a loosing battle on all fronts.Aha! I appreciate your appreciation, but here I must contend, well-being trumps all with me, if keeping drugs illegal and allowing the oddball cops to abuse people threw people in jail actually made the world a better place, I wouldn't choose liberty over that, it's really conceivable that we might have evolved a different way, and in an alternate universe, the balance is tipped in that direction, yes I am thinking way too hard about this, but that's a guiding principle, I have a lot of anti-liberty stances :D In this case your logic is correct but for other reasons than liberty. Is this paranoia against fundamentalist moralist thinking, probably.

Helping people is different then protecting, the governments roll in this regard should be supportive, not dominating. That allows liberty to be legal, and provides the support that actually helps people, the war on drugs helps no one expect the industry of locking up drug users.Here I emphatically hand clap, Why are they not being their brother's keeper? Do you sense any "tough love" going on here? Not I! Brother...


I call it the government subsidized prisons system program.
The fact anyone benefits from this is vomit inducing.

bookitty
3rd June 2011, 10:31 AM
Can you elaborate? I'm looking in the dictionary and the terms still appear interchangeable to me.

The difference is a bit subtle. Decriminalization removes the criminal penalties but usually includes some type of regulation. Pot is not legal in Amsterdam, it is decriminalized. Therefore it can only be sold in certain places, in certain amounts and there are fines for people who deal or smoke pot outside of these limitation.

It's basically when the government says "This is bad, but not so bad that we're going to toss you in jail for doing it within reason."

Earthborn
3rd June 2011, 10:36 AM
Why would there be a prescription? I don't need one to buy beer or booze.I doubt you buy those in a pharmacy, which seems to me the only viable way to distribute substances such as heroin and cocaine. Which pharmacy is going to let you buy such dangerous substances with no questions asked?

Alcohol is probably the only hard drug that can legally be sold without prescription, and it also happens be abused in staggering amounts. I don't think alcohol sale is a hopeful model for drug legalisation. Just because the Drug War is a terrible idea, doesn't mean every alternative to it a good idea.

Do you think the mafia produces booze any more?Probably. Is there any reason to assume that they don't?

JFrankA
3rd June 2011, 10:40 AM
Can you elaborate? I'm looking in the dictionary and the terms still appear interchangeable to me.

Portugal has a good example of the difference:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

Here's a more recent article from another source.

http://crawfordondrugs.com/2011/05/portugese-drug-reform-10-years-later-no-illusion-that-society-will-be-drug-free/

ZirconBlue
3rd June 2011, 11:06 AM
I doubt you buy those in a pharmacy

Your doubts are misplaced. Alcohol of various types (depending on jurisdiction) is widely available in Drug Stores.

Probably. Is there any reason to assume that they don't?

I think it's pretty obvious that organized crime is much less involved in illegal alcohol sales now than they were in Al Capone's time.

IDB87
3rd June 2011, 11:12 AM
Your doubts are misplaced. Alcohol of various types (depending on jurisdiction) is widely available in Drug Stores.

Off the shelf.

Are we going to advocate selling cocaine and heroin off the shell like beer?

Taarkin
3rd June 2011, 11:18 AM
Makes no difference whether it is a government run industry or entrepreneurs picking up the slack. The question remains the same: how will they A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?
Probably the same way that legal producers/distributors deal with competing illegal producers/distributors in almost every single other industry ever.

IDB87
3rd June 2011, 11:39 AM
Probably the same way that legal producers/distributors deal with competing illegal producers/distributors in almost every single other industry ever.

You had some trouble with this problem.

The most important and glaringly obvious issue is that you did not answer the question or even attempt to address it.

WildCat
3rd June 2011, 11:48 AM
Easy to make than cocaine. Easier to sell.
And no longer produced by the mob, because it's a legal product and the mob is woefully inadequate compared to the commercial distilleries.

Or can your average Joe start a cocoa field in his backyard and have the know-how to produce cocaine and then sell it?
Assuming Joe lives in an area where cocoa can grow (It's a high-altitude plant IIRC) he wouldn't be making cocaine out of it, any more than a wheat farmer makes bread.

Joe would sell his cocoa to a company that manufactures cocaine. That company would then distribute it to whatever retail outlets want to sell it.

Joey McGee
3rd June 2011, 11:52 AM
The counter-intuitive thing about a scientifically astute pro legalization argument is that it recommends the least amount of people smoke marijuana. That isn't to say we should judge the people who choose to use it anyway, but optimally I see so many dangerous factors that it's imperitive that we stress the options as part of drug education, and I'm talkin' bout yer natural highs. Yeay, swing sets and butterflies.

Just take pot for example

Vomiting syndrome. Yes I know a few poor souls who keep smoking pot even though it makes them vomit and crave hot showers. If that's a syndrome, from my cursory inspection of evolutionary medicine I say there's any number of syndromes.

Allergy. Sad secret of the marijuana trade, every once in awhile the trimmer breaks out in hives and can't touch or smoke dope less they go into severe allergic shock. Weird eh. Obviously happens in a range with a large percentage of peoples.

Then we have strain quality, which could be remedied by legalization get rid of the bathtub gin, and then you still have to find a properly grown medical strain that fits you personally. Otherwise don't even mess with pot it's like, dinky cars.

Then you have the pure fact that all drugs mess with your reward system, they can replace the chemicals that usually are used to transform you and make things happen. It's like pot is mostly harmless but what about the things you didn't do?

On top of all of that, how are you supposed to tap into the power of your brain's potential for neuroplasticity that was guided by evolution while smoking something that is slightly a trick on the ole genome yer carryin' around. What then? Isn't that counter-productive?

So that's why, despite my admittedly wholly radical take on the drug war, I think as soon as it's done our efforts and taxes should be equally spent on education, for an equal amount of time that the stupid drug war took up.

IDB87
3rd June 2011, 12:15 PM
And no longer produced by the mob, because it's a legal product and the mob is woefully inadequate compared to the commercial distilleries.

The distilleries were already built and in operation when prohibition went into effect. When prohibition ended they put the mob out of business because the mob did not control these distilleries.

It is the opposite with cocaine, where the cartels already control the established production facilities required to grow, harvest and manufacture the drug.

To compete with that, entrepreneurs (lol) or the government will either have to come up with 50+ billion dollars in revenue, or begin taking over a piece of that market in order to eventually cut off/dry up the income for the Cartels. Do you expect this to happen peacefully?


Assuming Joe lives in an area where cocoa can grow (It's a high-altitude plant IIRC)-

Low altitude mostly, but I think it depends on the species being grown. Just a detail.

ZirconBlue
3rd June 2011, 01:11 PM
Off the shelf.

Are we going to advocate selling cocaine and heroin off the shell like beer?


Maybe. How about we start small and try marijuana first?


The distilleries were already built and in operation when prohibition went into effect. When prohibition ended they put the mob out of business because the mob did not control these distilleries.

It is the opposite with cocaine, where the cartels already control the established production facilities required to grow, harvest and manufacture the drug.

To compete with that, entrepreneurs (lol) or the government will either have to come up with 50+ billion dollars in revenue, or begin taking over a piece of that market in order to eventually cut off/dry up the income for the Cartels. Do you expect this to happen peacefully?


I think you'll find that there are already commercial production facilities making similar products that could pretty easily add these products to their production lines.

IDB87
3rd June 2011, 01:20 PM
Maybe. How about we start small and try marijuana first?

Sounds good to me. I know of several 'legal' alternatives to Marijuana anyway (mostly over the counter), so this should be pretty easy to do.

I think you'll find that there are already commercial production facilities making similar products that could pretty easily add these products to their production lines.

The problem is getting the raw product to produce the drug. Where will it (can it) be grown besides South America?

dtugg
3rd June 2011, 03:49 PM
The only drug that uses a plant that only grows in certain regions is cocaine. All the others can be grown anywhere (marijuana, opium) or are synthesized in a lab (MDMA, LSD, ect).

And it is not like drug cartels control production of coca plants. They absolutely do not. Many tons of the stuff is grown for use in Coca-Cola, teas, ect.

Do you think that the drug cartels are going to start killing everybody that sells coca plants to legitimate businesses. Somehow, I doubt that. Did the mafia start whacking everybody who sold wheat to businesses besides them? No. Even if they did, you could make deals with these people which would entirely cut off the cocaine supply to Mexican drug cartels who are to blame for most of the violence,

Also, cocaine can be synthesized...

keale
3rd June 2011, 08:25 PM
I doubt you buy those in a pharmacy, which seems to me the only viable way to distribute substances such as heroin and cocaine. Which pharmacy is going to let you buy such dangerous substances with no questions asked?

Alcohol is probably the only hard drug that can legally be sold without prescription, and it also happens be abused in staggering amounts. I don't think alcohol sale is a hopeful model for drug legalisation. Just because the Drug War is a terrible idea, doesn't mean every alternative to it a good idea.

Probably. Is there any reason to assume that they don't?


This is another old argument. The precedent is there decriminalization has been done in other countries and it works. Instead of pouring money into a drug war maybe we should put that money into education and rehab to reduce potential customers. Fewer customers means less revenue for the cartels. Its time to change course....maybe one day people will have the guts to do the right thing.

Polaris
4th June 2011, 02:48 PM
And no longer produced by the mob, because it's a legal product and the mob is woefully inadequate compared to the commercial distilleries.


Assuming Joe lives in an area where cocoa can grow (It's a high-altitude plant IIRC) he wouldn't be making cocaine out of it, any more than a wheat farmer makes bread.

Joe would sell his cocoa to a company that manufactures cocaine. That company would then distribute it to whatever retail outlets want to sell it.

Er...

Cocoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoa_bean)

Coca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca)

Polaris
4th June 2011, 02:52 PM
I doubt you buy those in a pharmacy, which seems to me the only viable way to distribute substances such as heroin and cocaine. Which pharmacy is going to let you buy such dangerous substances with no questions asked?

I can go around the block and buy beer, wine, cigarettes, cheap cigars and smokeless tobacco from CVS and Walgreens. Though this is a damp city I can cross into Dallas and buy all those things at a liquor store, which is hardly a pharmacy - in some cities and states I can buy all those things at a grocery or convenience store as well. And booze and tobacco are much more dangerous than (certainly) marijuana and (arguably) cocaine.

MikeSun5
4th June 2011, 02:53 PM
Do you think that the drug cartels are going to start killing everybody that sells coca plants to legitimate businesses. Somehow, I doubt that.

I visited Peru once, and there are like 10 year old kids that walk around selling bags of coca leaves. There's cocaine around if you want it, but literally everyone and their mother has coca plants in Peru.

Cartels have no reason to kill people with plants... but I'm sure they'd kill people selling drugs. Also, I'm convinced that cartels/gangs are not going to stop selling drugs if they were decriminalized or even legalized entirely. In Amsterdam there are people standing on the streets selling the same drugs that are available in cafes and smartshops. Actually, now that Holland voted to stop allowing tourists to purchase marijuana legally, there will likely be MORE cartel activity.

dtugg
4th June 2011, 04:27 PM
Cartels have no reason to kill people with plants... but I'm sure they'd kill people selling drugs.

Why? Did the mafia start killing people who sold alcohol after 1933?

Also, I'm convinced that cartels/gangs are not going to stop selling drugs if they were decriminalized or even legalized entirely. In Amsterdam there are people standing on the streets selling the same drugs that are available in cafes and smartshops. Actually, now that Holland voted to stop allowing tourists to purchase marijuana legally, there will likely be MORE cartel activity.

Of course there are still going to be gangs involved if it is decriminalized. The production and sale would still be illegal. Even in Amsterdam, it is illegal to sell marijuana, although they have tolerated people selling small amounts.

As for it if it legalized, there is no way that gangs would be involved in any significant way. They wouldn't be able to make money if they had to compete with legitimate businesses selling regulated, guaranteed product. Is the mafia still in the alcohol business? No, of course they are not.

NewtonTrino
4th June 2011, 09:30 PM
It seems like a lot of people assume that the drug war is at least "partially" successful and if we could just ramp it up a bit we might "win". Sorry but not only is it not partly succesful, by any measure it's made things a lot worse.

Regulate/Legalize/whatever it all! Anything has got to be better than the status quo.

Virus
4th June 2011, 09:41 PM
Regulate/Legalize/whatever it all! Anything has got to be better than the status quo.

Not really. And very few people are gambling on that.

dtugg
4th June 2011, 09:43 PM
Not really. And very few people are gambling on that.

Yeah, most people are irrational. So I don't think that anything is going to be done that can actually help anytime soon.

rjh01
4th June 2011, 11:22 PM
If anyone wants evidence that increasing the toughness of drug laws do not work consider the fact that you can get illegal drugs in jail, where prisoners have few, if any rights.

Joey McGee
5th June 2011, 01:19 AM
If think our jails are crazy, check out Venezuela

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/world/americas/04venez.html?_r=1&hp

Drugs, booze, women, guns, parties, pools, bbq, loud music, it's all good, you just can't leave.

Why do they even bother?

fishbob
5th June 2011, 01:19 AM
Off the shelf.

Are we going to advocate selling cocaine and heroin off the shell like beer?

Why not?
That is what happens now - with the shelf being the back seat of a dealers car. Anybody that wants cocaine or heroin can get it now.

The change would result in:
quality control
less theft to support drug habits
less money going to gangs, thugs, and other murderous criminals
less expense to the taxpayer for jails, courts, DEA agents, and other law enforcement
more attractive packaging
very interesting commercials

What is the down-side?

fishbob
5th June 2011, 01:24 AM
I visited Peru once, and there are like 10 year old kids that walk around selling bags of coca leaves. There's cocaine around if you want it, but literally everyone and their mother has coca plants in Peru.

Cartels have no reason to kill people with plants... but I'm sure they'd kill people selling drugs. Also, I'm convinced that cartels/gangs are not going to stop selling drugs if they were decriminalized or even legalized entirely. In Amsterdam there are people standing on the streets selling the same drugs that are available in cafes and smartshops. Actually, now that Holland voted to stop allowing tourists to purchase marijuana legally, there will likely be MORE cartel activity.

If the outrageous profit goes away, then why would the cartels even bother with the business? They couldn't begin to compete with the inventory control and supply chain management of organized business.

Aepervius
5th June 2011, 01:39 AM
Seems this commission has the right idea... ... oh, well. It was a nice thought anyway. The United States can't even get healthcare coverage for all it citizens it doesn't consider lowlife junkies, so this is a bit much to ask of them.

Does anyone seriously think that just because something is legalised, criminals will suddenly stop doing it? I never understood that claim. Is it that crime bosses are going to say: "Oh, no! We can't do anything legal. We're criminals; that goes against everything we stand for!"

That is not the argument. The argument is that criminal do it because of the high payoff, and high markup. But if the markup and payoff drop down by legalizing and having it taxed, it does not look as interresting and part of them switch off for high payoff activity. It is quite clear that some element would still goes for the drug smuggling route, just like some criminal element goes for the cigarette smuggling route to avoid tax.

Legalizing and dropping the markup/payoff would definitively make some criminal element look at other activities rather than bother.

Aepervius
5th June 2011, 01:47 AM
Makes no difference whether it is a government run industry or entrepreneurs picking up the slack. The question remains the same: how will they A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?

The entrepreneurs you are talking about may be able to do A, but will definitely need help from the government to do C. And that is assuming there are enough non-criminal entrepreneurs eager to start a business in selling dangerous hard drugs.

They do not need to compee with the cartel production, they only need to compete with cartel price and quality.
Would you go out of your way to buy 2 E which might have been cut with whatever hapenned at hands and you pay a few dollar each, or do you buy the mari-jeanne official store at half a dollar the pill , with known excipient, and a 19% VAT tax ? Heck even if it was only 10% cheaper than normal drug, or even the same price with VAT, I predict that just knowing the quality is stable and without surprise would drive the people in drove there. And with time that would mean the normal vendor would pick up production, and criminal element would have to drop price , rise quality, or have unsold stocks. At some point (price/quality) some will stop bothering.

As for the cigarette , do not forget one important point : those are not made up with illegal tabaccoe planted somewhere, they are actually official normal manufctured cigarette somewhere, but which are smuggled to avoid tobaccoe and alcohol tax. And that is an important difference.

MikeSun5
5th June 2011, 01:10 PM
Even in Amsterdam, it is illegal to sell marijuana, although they have tolerated people selling small amounts.

Wrong, it's legal to sell it in authorized places, similar to a liquor license. The amount you can purchase is regulated -- with a gang, not so much.

As for it if it legalized, there is no way that gangs would be involved in any significant way. They wouldn't be able to make money if they had to compete with legitimate businesses selling regulated, guaranteed product.

I think the gangs would still be involved. There's still other issues like quantity to deal with. Using the mafia/alcohol analogy doesn't really fit. There's not really a limit to the amount of alcohol you can walk into a store and purchase. If say, weed and cocaine were available from "legitimate businesses selling regulated, guaranteed product," you probably wouldn't be allowed an unlimited amount. You said it yourself: "regulated." In Holland, the max amount of weed a tourist could walk out of a coffeeshop with was something like 4 grams. A gang on the other hand could get you a truckful.

If the outrageous profit goes away, then why would the cartels even bother with the business?

They could provide product to people who can't get it, like people who aren't allowed to have it. People who want a lot of it. People who are too young to buy it. People in places where it's not available. The outrageous profit will never go away.

Those opiate painkiller pills that people get addicted to are legal, regulated, guaranteed and widely available, but you have to have a perscription to get them. Yet there is an enormous illegal market for them. Why do you suppose drugs like weed and coke would be any different?

GeeMack
5th June 2011, 02:04 PM
They could provide product to people who can't get it, like people who aren't allowed to have it. People who want a lot of it. People who are too young to buy it. People in places where it's not available. The outrageous profit will never go away.


Yes. That's why we see all the gang violence, drive by shootings, and organized crime stuffing their pockets with profits from the trade in black market beer. Oh wait... :rolleyes:

It's always interesting to see how the anti-drug propaganda has been so successful. The pro-prohibition argument seems to be, "Look at all the problems caused by (the prohibition against) drugs! If we end prohibition we'd still have all those problems (that are the result of prohibition)." Might be there's nothing that will get past the willful ignorance of those who have been duped by that very effective pro-prohibition propaganda. Might be some of it comes from a sense of self righteousness. Maybe it's just a lack of critical thinking.

dtugg
5th June 2011, 05:46 PM
Wrong, it's legal to sell it in authorized places, similar to a liquor license. The amount you can purchase is regulated -- with a gang, not so much.

Wrong. It is tolerated. As in it is official policy to not enforce the law

I think the gangs would still be involved.

You're wrong.

There's still other issues like quantity to deal with. Using the mafia/alcohol analogy doesn't really fit. There's not really a limit to the amount of alcohol you can walk into a store and purchase. If say, weed and cocaine were available from "legitimate businesses selling regulated, guaranteed product," you probably wouldn't be allowed an unlimited amount.

Then treat it exactly like alcohol.

You said it yourself: "regulated."

"Regulated" doesn't mean that there is a limit to how much you can buy. Alcohol is regulated, and as you said yourself there is really no limit to the amount of alcohol you can walk into a store and purchase.

In Holland, the max amount of weed a tourist could walk out of a coffeeshop with was something like 4 grams. A gang on the other hand could get you a truckful.

Then doing it like that is stupid.

But really, putting a limit to how much end customers can purchase at a time isn't likely to cause room for criminals to operate so long as the limit is reasonable. The thing that will do that is legalizing (or really tolerating it in Holland's case) sale of small amounts to end users while still having everybody else in the supply chain a criminal. How can you not have criminals involved in the production and distribution of drugs when it is a crime to produce and distribute drugs?

They could provide product to people who can't get it, like people who aren't allowed to have it. People who want a lot of it. People who are too young to buy it. People in places where it's not available. The outrageous profit will never go away.

Like is currently done over alcohol and tobacco.

Those opiate painkiller pills that people get addicted to are legal, regulated, guaranteed and widely available, but you have to have a perscription to get them. Yet there is an enormous illegal market for them. Why do you suppose drugs like weed and coke would be any different?

There is a black market because you need a prescription to get them legally and not everybody that wants them can get a prescription, genius.

Democracy Simulator
5th June 2011, 07:24 PM
With legalization, it is important to stress that the policy potentially becomes more effective as more nations take up such a policy. For example:

Mexico, which spends about $8.2 billion annually on law enforcement, would save between 5 percent and 15 percent of GDP if narcotics were legal in all countries, says Luis Rayo, a finance professor at the University of Utah who studies the drug trade.


As for the idea that the cartels would compete with legal businesses - this seems to be far-fetched. Every reference to this scenario I can find seems to support the idea that once legal businesses get involved in drug production and distribution, that the cartels would be unable and unwilling to compete, as happened with alcohol in the US.

MikeSun5
5th June 2011, 08:04 PM
You're wrong....Then doing it like that is stupid.

Crap, I forgot who I was dealing with. My bad. You are the man, dtugg. Par for the course on that condescending attitude.

There is a black market because you need a prescription to get them legally and not everybody that wants them can get a prescription, genius.

The question stands, genius. Why would that situation ^^ be any different from medicinal marijuana, genius?

MikeSun5
5th June 2011, 08:07 PM
Yes. That's why we see all the gang violence, drive by shootings, and organized crime stuffing their pockets with profits from the trade in black market beer. Oh wait... :rolleyes:

Again, pills are a better example than beer. Nobody in California or Colorado goes to a Beer Dispensary with a perscription for alcohol.

dtugg
5th June 2011, 08:23 PM
Crap, I forgot who I was dealing with. My bad. You are the man, dtugg. Par for the course on that condescending attitude.

lol@you getting your panties in a bunch.

The question stands, genius. Why would that situation ^^ be any different from medicinal marijuana, genius?

Obviously, genius, if you require prescriptions for marijuana, there is still going to be a black market. That's why you sell it over the counter like beer. Will that happen anytime soon? No. There are far too many morons and tyrants in this country for that.

Again, pills are a better example than beer. Nobody in California or Colorado goes to a Beer Dispensary with a perscription for alcohol.

Then sell drugs the same way beer is sold. Problem solved!

GeeMack
5th June 2011, 09:06 PM
lol@you getting your panties in a bunch.

Obviously, genius, if you require prescriptions for marijuana, there is still going to be a black market. That's why you sell it over the counter like beer. Will that happen anytime soon? No. There are far too many morons and tyrants in this country for that.


Really. It's like the self righteous prohibition supporters have this standard flawed argument that goes something like this... If we imagine all kinds of ways that drugs might be legalized but be restricted in such a way that there will still be a black market, there will still be a black market. Well, duh.

If we imagine allowing anyone to grow marijuana plants like tomatoes or cucumbers, that part of the black market would vanish almost literally overnight. The black market exists because there's money in it. If everyone who wants some is allowed to grow it in their backyard, at certain times of the year there would be so much marijuana in circulation you could barely give it away. I've shopped around. You can't do much better than free. Organized crime, gangs, bootleggers, smugglers, they can't compete with marijuana priced like parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme and still make money.

Then sell drugs the same way beer is sold. Problem solved!


But... but... if we imagine all kinds of ways that beer might be legalized but be restricted in such a way that there will still be a black market, there will still be a black market! :eek:

MontagK505
5th June 2011, 10:51 PM
Will Walgreens decide to sell creepy drugs? Seems unlikely to me, if they would they certainly won't do so without prescription. Many addicts may prefer the more no-questions-asked approach by illegal drug dealers over having to ask permission from a doctor. In the US especially, having to go to a doctor to get a prescription may very well be more expensive than buying directly from someone on the street.

If it worked like that, there would be no illegal market for any legal medication. And yet there is. There is also an illegal market for other legal products, such as cigarettes; often stolen from legitimate manufacturers and sold without tax.
I don't think the market for illegal Valiums is a major source of income for the illegal drug cartels. To make the same kind of money they would have to raise prices much higher than a prescription equivalent.

Earthborn
6th June 2011, 12:19 PM
The pro-prohibition argument seems to be, "Look at all the problems caused by (the prohibition against) drugs! If we end prohibition we'd still have all those problems (that are the result of prohibition)." Might be there's nothing that will get past the willful ignorance of those who have been duped by that very effective pro-prohibition propaganda.Living in the Netherlands I don't see a lot of pro-prohibition propaganda. I do see a lot of recognition that not all the problems caused by drugs are caused by the prohibition against drugs; some problems are caused by the drugs themselves, as they are not exactly healthy. A blanket legalisation will solve the problems caused by the prohibition on drugs, but it won't solve the problems caused by the drugs. The latter problems may even get worse if access to drugs becomes easier.

Then treat it exactly like alcohol.Alcohol abuse causes so much damage to society that it cannot serve as a productive model for the legalisation of other drugs. If other drugs are treated like alcohol, and the effects on public health will be similar to the effects of alcohol, then drug-prohibitionists worst fears will come true.

There is a black market because you need a prescription to get them legally and not everybody that wants them can get a prescription, genius.There is a reason that many medicines can only be bought legally with a prescription: not everybody that wants them can be trusted with easy access to them.

If we imagine allowing anyone to grow marijuana plants like tomatoes or cucumbers, that part of the black market would vanish almost literally overnight. The black market exists because there's money in it. If everyone who wants some is allowed to grow it in their backyard, at certain times of the year there would be so much marijuana in circulation you could barely give it away.Flawed example. The overproduction of tomatoes and cucumbers isn't caused by people growing them in the backyards, and there is no reason to assume that will happen for any other crop.

Organized crime, gangs, bootleggers, smugglers, they can't compete with marijuana priced like parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme and still make money.There is no reason to assume marijuana will ever be priced that low, and the main reason it is much more expensive is that it is illegal; it costs a lot of money to get people to risk ending up in jail. Once it is legal the same people can save a lot of money on production and distribution costs, and there is no reason to assume they won't be able to compete with other businesses.

I don't think the market for illegal Valiums is a major source of income for the illegal drug cartels. To make the same kind of money they would have to raise prices much higher than a prescription equivalent.Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/7529389.stm) an article on illegal valium trade in Scotland, where the stuff is practically free on prescription. Maybe not a major source of income for illegal drug cartels, but still profitable enough to do it.

NewtonTrino
6th June 2011, 12:39 PM
Living in the Netherlands I don't see a lot of pro-prohibition propaganda. I do see a lot of recognition that not all the problems caused by drugs are caused by the prohibition against drugs; some problems are caused by the drugs themselves, as they are not exactly healthy. A blanket legalisation will solve the problems caused by the prohibition on drugs, but it won't solve the problems caused by the drugs. The latter problems may even get worse if access to drugs becomes easier.


May get worse but there's plenty of evidence for the opposite. In fact do you have any evidence that problems get worse when drugs are legal?



Alcohol abuse causes so much damage to society that it cannot serve as a productive model for the legalisation of other drugs. If other drugs are treated like alcohol, and the effects on public health will be similar to the effects of alcohol, then drug-prohibitionists worst fears will come true.


I disagree. You have to compare illegal alcohol to legal alcohol. During prohibition many more problems were caused.


There is a reason that many medicines can only be bought legally with a prescription: not everybody that wants them can be trusted with easy access to them.


Yes there is a way to access them, they aren't completely banned like some drugs in the USA.



Flawed example. The overproduction of tomatoes and cucumbers isn't caused by people growing them in the backyards, and there is no reason to assume that will happen for any other crop.

There is no reason to assume marijuana will ever be priced that low, and the main reason it is much more expensive is that it is illegal; it costs a lot of money to get people to risk ending up in jail. Once it is legal the same people can save a lot of money on production and distribution costs, and there is no reason to assume they won't be able to compete with other businesses.


I don't think you understand how easy it is to grow WEED. If it were completely legal the price would be pretty low. If it were commercialized I bet almost all of the cost would be tax.



Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/7529389.stm) an article on illegal valium trade in Scotland, where the stuff is practically free on prescription. Maybe not a major source of income for illegal drug cartels, but still profitable enough to do it.

So now imagine this same drug is completely illegal. What would it look like then?

I'm curious how you feel about banning tourists from dutch coffee shops since you live there.

PGH
6th June 2011, 12:49 PM
I think we need to accept the fact that a certain segment of society is going to check themselves out and we need to stop killing ourselves trying to save them. We're arguing about the gangs, the cartels, the violence and the high costs and for what? Trying to keep people from doing to themselves what they're desperately trying to do to themselves.

Legalize all the weed, cocaine, heroin and whatever else you're hiding on the shelves back there. Drug test for all occupations involving public safety. Take the taxes from the drug sales and the money currently spent prohibiting drugs and use that for education and treatment.

Government, society, etc. is no ones mother. It's a tough life and some people are going to fall off the rails. While that may be sad I don't see the current system as any sort of improvement. Seeing as what we have now is rampant gang warfare to the point where they can nearly take over entire countries, unregulated product, violence and abuse so widespread you couldn't begin to calculate the entire cost. And guess what? I doubt we've kept a single person from getting their hands on a single drug, if they want it.

DRUG WAR = COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE

jiggeryqua
6th June 2011, 01:27 PM
And guess what? I doubt we've kept a single person from getting their hands on a single drug, if they want it.

DRUG WAR = COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE

I've had nights I couldn't score.

DRUG WAR = as near as damn it a COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE

GeeMack
6th June 2011, 04:28 PM
Flawed example. The overproduction of tomatoes and cucumbers isn't caused by people growing them in the backyards, and there is no reason to assume that will happen for any other crop.


The reason tomatoes and cucumbers are almost free for a couple months a year where I live is because I'm surrounded by millions of acres of some of the world's finest agricultural land, and when my friends and neighbors toss some seeds on a patch of disturbed soil, tomatoes and cucumbers just grow. More tomatoes than my friends and neighbors can eat. They're giving them away for a couple months a year.

And I have every reason to believe the marijuana needs of every pot smoker I know could easily be met the same way. A year's supply for everyone, just for spending a few hours each summer tending a small co-op garden. People may buy marijuana for the price of parsley plus whatever vice tax gets added on, but the actual cost of producing the stuff isn't any more than the cost to produce catnip or basil or sage. And people sell those at fifty cents to five bucks an ounce while making a profit at those prices.

There is no reason to assume marijuana will ever be priced that low, and the main reason it is much more expensive is that it is illegal; it costs a lot of money to get people to risk ending up in jail.


Duh. Again that flawed argument that smacks of self righteousness and a desperate attempt to perpetuate the notion that drugs are BadTM. Listen to yourself: There is no reason to believe marijuana will ever be cheap if it's legal because what causes it to be expensive is the effects of it being illegal. See how ridiculous that is? It's simply nonsense.

Once it is legal the same people can save a lot of money on production and distribution costs, and there is no reason to assume they won't be able to compete with other businesses.


Sure, once it's legal the same people who sell it now might be engaged in the legal manufacture and sale of marijuana. And yes, there's no reason to believe they can't do it competitively with other businesses doing the same thing. But because of that competition, and no legal risk, and the fact that marijuana costs literally pennies per ounce to produce, legal marijuana could be cheaper than oregano.

And when it comes to growing things, I don't know if the Netherlands is a big barren pile of gravel, but the state where I live is twice as big as the Netherlands, and the soil and growing conditions are so excellent here that marijuana will grow anywhere including the cracks of the sidewalks in the state's largest urban areas. True. No hyperbole or exaggeration required. I'd venture to say even if marijuana were legal, farmers here would pay for herbicides to kill it -- they would pay to get rid of it -- because they'd rather grow corn and soy beans. Hell, they do that now.

So if marijuana were legal to the extent that people didn't risk confiscation of their property for growing a few plants along the fence row, no black market could exist. You can't make any money competing with almost free.

Darth Rotor
6th June 2011, 06:17 PM
Funny, quite unusual for me and Crossbow to agree. But the War on Drugs was already a failure twenty years ago, and further back, if we restrict War on Drugs to mean "keep marijuana illegal."

The problem is, there are a whole host of controlled substances that are dealt illegally, many of which are legal to get with a perscription.

The "medical drug" gambit with dope is not all that bright. It doesn't solve the problem, it only adds some doctors to the number of people on the DEA hit list, along with the doctors who used to over perscribe Valium, etc.

Get back to thinking about dope as a recreational drug, which is what beer is.

That way, dope does not get tarred with the brush of seriously dangerous drugs like ... cocaine .... heroin ... crystal meth.

Whatever you do, STOP defending all controlled and illegal drugs for the sake of dope.

Do what NORML did, identify ONE not so dangerous drug and work to get it taken out of the category that some drugs, controlled, Belong In.

dtugg
6th June 2011, 06:40 PM
Funny, quite unusual for me and Crossbow to agree. But the War on Drugs was already a failure twenty years ago, and further back, if we restrict War on Drugs to mean "keep marijuana illegal."

The problem is, there are a whole host of controlled substances that are dealt illegally, many of which are legal to get with a perscription.

The "medical drug" gambit with dope is not all that bright. It doesn't solve the problem, it only adds some doctors to the number of people on the DEA hit list, along with the doctors who used to over perscribe Valium, etc.

Get back to thinking about dope as a recreational drug, which is what beer is.

That way, dope does not get tarred with the brush of seriously dangerous drugs like ... cocaine .... heroin ... crystal meth.

Whatever you do, STOP defending all controlled and illegal drugs for the sake of dope.

Do what NORML did, identify ONE not so dangerous drug and work to get it taken out of the category that some drugs, controlled, Belong In.

The fact of the matter is that drugs that are supposedly controlled are actually less controlled than alcohol. They are widely available and not regulated at all. As long as there is a demand, and there always will be, there will be somebody meeting the demand. I realize that some people are ok with the scum of the earth murdering thousands of people, challenging the power of entire countries, and making billions of dollars if it means that some kids in America have a slightly harder time getting coke, but I am not.

Joey McGee
6th June 2011, 07:39 PM
The "medical drug" gambit with dope is not all that bright.This is actually a bigoted attack on medical marijuana activists that has been happening since day one. "They just want to get high!" It would be a stupid gambit to pull, but I've never seen any reason to think any activist is actually doing that, just examples of prohibitionists attacking them with the accusation.

You seem to be (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7234301&postcount=32) one of the people biased on this way. Just sayin'

Why would we "think as dope as a recreational drug"? It has the potential to be a lot of things. Let's think about it what it actually is, shall we?

NewtonTrino
6th June 2011, 08:35 PM
I just want to get high. Why won't you people just let me instead of making me a criminal? Seriously.

Is putting me in jail supposed to help society in some way? I really really don't understand why weed is illegal to begin with. How can a prohibitionist really look at the pros and cons of this and decide that it being illegal makes any sense. Look at alcohol during prohibition and you can see all of the parallels.

The only rational conclusion is that this is a religious/political issue and not a practical issue. A lot of stuff seems to bottom out at ideology. Can't have any of them dope smokers getting high, they might come across some normal god fearin' folk and corrupt them. Anyone who wants to keep weed illegal is no friend of mine and I have zero respect for.

PGH
6th June 2011, 08:40 PM
What's hilariously pathetic to me is the idea that weed is illegal because of religious reasons. It's a plant. A naturally growing plant. It needs very little manipulation to enter our lungs in such a wonderfully mind altering fashion. If you believe in god you have to believe he put it here.

But then the religious folk always have this weird idea that god puts thing here solely as tricks and tests. It really is a silly god they've dreamed up.

I'm an atheist for sure but if you did want to convince me of a divine creator I'd suggest you start with weed.

Taarkin
6th June 2011, 09:17 PM
It's ok to clear cut the forests because God gave us the bounty of the earth to do with as we will but don't you dare touch that beaner devil weed!

Cavemonster
6th June 2011, 09:42 PM
I don't see religiously motivated prohibition as any sillier than the rest of religion.
As soon as it gets done explaining the origins of the universe and assembling a chosen people, the torah gets right down to labelling things as unclean and prohibiting them.

Strike that, it starts earlier.

The very first story, once the cast of characters is assembled, is a story of prohibition. The fruit of the tree of knowledge.

So say that religious prohibition is silly, but don't call it inconsistent. It is central to Abrahamic religion from the start.

GreyArea
7th June 2011, 10:19 AM
The only rational conclusion is that this is a religious/political issue and not a practical issue.
What's hilariously pathetic to me is the idea that weed is illegal because of religious reasons.
I don't see religiously motivated prohibition as any sillier than the rest of religion.
What religious reasons? Are there any in current U.S. laws against drug use? What do the "whereas"es say?

If the reasons were only religious, I would agree with you that those reasons are unsupportable and do not belong in the legal code of a secular society. But didn't the various state and federal legislatures ever mention practical concerns?

For example, from what I have heard about the federal marijuana ban in the 1930's, it was in response to reports that the drug caused violent frenzies in the users. Whether or not that was a genuine effect, you have to admit that such an effect would be a practical issue (in this case, public safety), not a theological one.

MikeSun5
7th June 2011, 12:04 PM
If we imagine allowing anyone to grow marijuana plants like tomatoes or cucumbers, that part of the black market would vanish almost literally overnight.

I've heard this argument from neo-hippies like you and dtugg before, but that utopian "if everyone has weed then it will be free, bro" attitude is BY FAR just wishful thinking. Comparing marijuana to vegetables is silly, too. Cucumbers and tomatoes don't get anyone high.

The black market exists because there's money in it.

Well, duh.

A precedent has been set with marijuana. That's why in the places it has been decriminalized, it's not free. Matter of fact, it's not free pretty much anywhere in the world. The precedent has already been set, and those making money off it won't give that up. People on our planet like money. If weed were legalized and everyone were allowed to grow it in their yards next to their tomatoes, I wouldn't be surprised if the price of weed seeds skyrocketed and the only weed you could buy was sinsemilla. My whole point is that somebody somewhere will be making money.

But... but... if we imagine all kinds of ways that beer might be legalized but be restricted in such a way that there will still be a black market, there will still be a black market! :eek:

but... but... if we imagine all kinds of spaced-out hippie scenarios where the government arbitrarily legalizes all schedule 1 drugs without trying to cash in on that potential revenue in any way, then it won't cost anything to buy weed or LSD because everyone and their mom will have some. It will be so super awesome to finally get high for free. :eek:

PGH
7th June 2011, 12:39 PM
I've heard this argument from neo-hippies like you and dtugg before, but that utopian "if everyone has weed then it will be free, bro" attitude is BY FAR just wishful thinking. Comparing marijuana to vegetables is silly, too. Cucumbers and tomatoes don't get anyone high.



Well, duh.

A precedent has been set with marijuana. That's why in the places it has been decriminalized, it's not free. Matter of fact, it's not free pretty much anywhere in the world. The precedent has already been set, and those making money off it won't give that up. People on our planet like money. If weed were legalized and everyone were allowed to grow it in their yards next to their tomatoes, I wouldn't be surprised if the price of weed seeds skyrocketed and the only weed you could buy was sinsemilla. My whole point is that somebody somewhere will be making money.



but... but... if we imagine all kinds of spaced-out hippie scenarios where the government arbitrarily legalizes all schedule 1 drugs without trying to cash in on that potential revenue in any way, then it won't cost anything to buy weed or LSD because everyone and their mom will have some. It will be so super awesome to finally get high for free. :eek:

Um, it's a plant? Comparing it to tomatoes and cucumbers is very appropriate, they're plants. You put a seed in the ground, water it and it grows. Very cost-effective. If it's made legal I don't see how your argument of price controls holds up.

Here let me give you an example:

I would grow weed in my backyard, by planting marijuana seeds. It would grow, aided by light and soil. Then I could harvest it and smoke it. If I have more than I need I could even sell some and make a small profit.


Where does the "precedent" come in? Will drug gangs be going door to door and murdering every citizen who legally grows marijuana, without police doing a thing to stop it? Who do you think is going to control the price of seeds and make them so prohibitive to buy? Will that same entity be removing all seeds that naturally come with the product they sell?

sadhatter
7th June 2011, 12:54 PM
If anyone wants evidence that increasing the toughness of drug laws do not work consider the fact that you can get illegal drugs in jail, where prisoners have few, if any rights.

A great canadian philosopher in regards to drug laws had a slightly different take on the availability.

" Your lucky to get stoned once a week in jail, and when you do the dope sucks."

sadhatter
7th June 2011, 12:58 PM
lol@you getting your panties in a bunch.



Obviously, genius, if you require prescriptions for marijuana, there is still going to be a black market. That's why you sell it over the counter like beer. Will that happen anytime soon? No. There are far too many morons and tyrants in this country for that.



Then sell drugs the same way beer is sold. Problem solved!

You know to add to that...

As someone who is planning on being a pharmacist, this is the last thing i would want. Another product that people are going to come in and beg, whine and ***** about getting more of.

I am all about the legalization of pot, though i can no longer smoke due to my career choice ( should it be legal, and not break any requirements of my profession i would indulge again, but until then, not so much.) . But it should be legalized the same way any other substance that is primarily used to get "messed up" is. Not shoved to a pharmacy and snuck in under medical reasons.

sadhatter
7th June 2011, 01:08 PM
Funny, quite unusual for me and Crossbow to agree. But the War on Drugs was already a failure twenty years ago, and further back, if we restrict War on Drugs to mean "keep marijuana illegal."

The problem is, there are a whole host of controlled substances that are dealt illegally, many of which are legal to get with a perscription.

The "medical drug" gambit with dope is not all that bright. It doesn't solve the problem, it only adds some doctors to the number of people on the DEA hit list, along with the doctors who used to over perscribe Valium, etc.

Get back to thinking about dope as a recreational drug, which is what beer is.

That way, dope does not get tarred with the brush of seriously dangerous drugs like ... cocaine .... heroin ... crystal meth.

Whatever you do, STOP defending all controlled and illegal drugs for the sake of dope.

Do what NORML did, identify ONE not so dangerous drug and work to get it taken out of the category that some drugs, controlled, Belong In.

Call it arbitrary, but my personal opinion on legalizing drugs is as follows.

If you can die in one reasonable sitting, and it is addictive enough to make you want to do it constantly, it should have a very critical eye cast upon its legalization.

Alcohol, is a very borderline drug in this regard for me. But most people , drinking at a reasonable rate, and even having the occasional **** faced night, seem to by and large, survive.

And this, is what separates Pot, from the rest for me. Your average person cannot induce death by smoking any reasonable amount, and while some people like to use it every day, it tends to not effect those who do, as much, as , lets say alcohol. ( the guy who burns one every morning, tends to be a lot more functional and together than the guy who likes to drink every morning.)

And we know, that alcohol may not be something that cures societies woes, but we get along just fine ( and some would argue even better.) with it. So something of a similar nature, that is less harmful, and has less debilitating effects ( think of the money saved in hang over days from work alone if people just smoked.) than alcohol, should be a no brainier to sell legally but regulated in regards to age, and where one can be high, in the same vein as alcohol.

sadhatter
7th June 2011, 01:12 PM
Um, it's a plant? Comparing it to tomatoes and cucumbers is very appropriate, they're plants. You put a seed in the ground, water it and it grows. Very cost-effective. If it's made legal I don't see how your argument of price controls holds up.

Here let me give you an example:

I would grow weed in my backyard, by planting marijuana seeds. It would grow, aided by light and soil. Then I could harvest it and smoke it. If I have more than I need I could even sell some and make a small profit.


Where does the "precedent" come in? Will drug gangs be going door to door and murdering every citizen who legally grows marijuana, without police doing a thing to stop it? Who do you think is going to control the price of seeds and make them so prohibitive to buy? Will that same entity be removing all seeds that naturally come with the product they sell?

Call this snark if you will, but i stand by the statement.

The thought that gangs would be going door to door, taking out weed growers is laughable. No one cares that your selling an ounce to your friends, your friends, don't cut into their customers. The more likely situation is that if you have an awesome crop, they will offer to buy it if they happen to be low. As your probably going to sell it for a very reasonable price, and your not a thug likely to rip them off.

And if all else fails, that small profit could be used to purchase a firearm. Because apparently in the hypothetical put to you, the cops suddenly don't do anything anymore.

GeeMack
7th June 2011, 01:50 PM
I've heard this argument from neo-hippies like you and dtugg before, but that utopian "if everyone has weed then it will be free, bro" attitude is BY FAR just wishful thinking. Comparing marijuana to vegetables is silly, too. Cucumbers and tomatoes don't get anyone high.


I don't do drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. I don't engage in wishful thinking. And the closest thing I ever was to being a hippie was as a young adult back in the 1960s and 70s when there actually were hippies. But I do know and have known many people who smoke(d) pot. And even while it's illegal, when one or another of those people brings in a small crop, there's some amount of free stash to go around. That's with the risk of having one's property confiscated if caught growing it. It would be irrational to believe that marijuana would cost more if everyone who wanted to could legally grow a few plants along the fence row. It costs pennies per ounce to produce.

A precedent has been set with marijuana. That's why in the places it has been decriminalized, it's not free.


In places where it's been decriminalized it isn't legal yet for everyone to grow a few plants along the fence row.

Matter of fact, it's not free pretty much anywhere in the world.


If it were legal to grow a few plants along the fence row, or to get a dozen people involved in a co-op garden of a couple hundred square feet, it would be so close to free that no black market could survive. It costs pennies per ounce to produce.

The precedent has already been set, and those making money off it won't give that up.


That's probably what the wrong thinking people and irrational pro-prohibitionists thought about alcohol back in 1925. What a bunch of idiots they turned out to be, eh?

People on our planet like money. If weed were legalized and everyone were allowed to grow it in their yards next to their tomatoes, I wouldn't be surprised if the price of weed seeds skyrocketed and the only weed you could buy was sinsemilla.


That is irrational unsupported nonsense. If everyone who wanted to grow marijuana could do it without risking confiscation of their property, there would likely be social clubs where people would trade seeds and advice on growing techniques. It only costs pennies per ounce to produce.

My whole point is that somebody somewhere will be making money.


Probably. Sort of like when alcohol prohibition ended in 1933, and now over 75 years later when the rest of the economy has undergone massive inflation, a bottle of beer costs about a dollar. But skyrocketed? Only if the word is intentionally and/or dishonestly convoluted.

but... but... if we imagine all kinds of spaced-out hippie scenarios where the government arbitrarily legalizes all schedule 1 drugs without trying to cash in on that potential revenue in any way, then it won't cost anything to buy weed or LSD because everyone and their mom will have some. It will be so super awesome to finally get high for free. :eek:


The insults couched in the silly straw man are no substitute for a reasonable argument, but are noted.

Governments could cash in on billions of dollars of potential revenue by simply eliminating all the current spending on enforcement and punishment. Marijuana could be as unregulated as catnip and governments would save billions, maybe tens of billions of dollars. The black market in marijuana would virtually disappear. Governments could apply a vice tax to commercially produced marijuana at a rate so low it would be economically impractical for organized crime to be involved. And that vice tax would add possibly billions more to that extra revenue available from not spending it on enforcement and punishment. Governments wouldn't have to try to cash in on any potential revenue. It would land in their laps.

Earthborn
7th June 2011, 02:00 PM
May get worse but there's plenty of evidence for the opposite. In fact do you have any evidence that problems get worse when drugs are legal?Note that in my argument I didn't write "when they are legal" but "if access becomes easier." Those things are not the same.
Not all forms of legalisation necessarily increase access. But increased access will lead to more of the problems caused by the drugs themselves.

I disagree. You have to compare illegal alcohol to legal alcohol. During prohibition many more problems were caused.I fail to see why I "have to compare illegal alcohol with legal alcohol" since I am not advocating a blanket prohibition. Just because "during prohibition many more problems were caused" than during times when alcohol is easily available to anyone, does not prove that another model for legalisation could not limit the problems caused by alcohol abuse.

Yes there is a way to access them, they aren't completely banned like some drugs in the USA.Doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.

I don't think you understand how easy it is to grow WEED.I am sure it easy to grow, but I am not so convinced it is as easy to grow in a consistent and high quality and a large quantity. The people growing it certainly don't make it look easy.

So now imagine this same drug is completely illegal. What would it look like then?What has "what would it look like then" have anything to do with what I wrote? I didn't claim any drug should be completely illegal.

I'm curious how you feel about banning tourists from dutch coffee shops since you live there.Such a policy change is mostly to appease our neighbouring countries who don't like it that their citizens can easily buy illegal drugs by hopping over the border. If it is what is necessary to save our own policy of tolerance, it is probably worth it.

GeeMack
7th June 2011, 02:39 PM
I am sure it easy to grow, but I am not so convinced it is as easy to grow in a consistent and high quality and a large quantity. The people growing it certainly don't make it look easy.


The argument from incredulity is noted. Here in the Midwest region of North America the difficulty is approximately this: You poke your finger into the ground. You drop in a seed. You push a little dirt back in the hole. You repeat that process twenty times over the next ten minutes. Then sit back and wait for it to rain. Of course if it doesn't rain enough you can water those little holes with a hose. A couple months later, voila, you have marijuana. It is barely more difficult to grow than dandelions. Arguably easier than tomatoes.

As for consistent? Nothing to it. People have been engaged in hybrid agriculture for tens of thousands of years. In my part of the country kids literally learn the concepts of it in grade school science classes. It is reasonable to say any twelve year old with a little gumption, a little attention, and a little self discipline could manage to grow consistently decent marijuana.

As for high quality? Let's say the quality of alcohol ranges from cheap beer to extremely elegant champagne. The poking a hole in the ground method described above, when done with decent seeds, starts you with something that might compare to cheap beer. But before you bring in the often-tried-always-failed argument about everyone wanting primo sinsemilla, remember that people drink millions upon millions of gallons of cheap beer as a recreational intoxicant. They do it by choice.

And as for large quantity? Remember those twenty holes you poked in the ground and dropped in a seed? If only half of those plants grow, and if only half of those are females, you'd probably have enough marijuana to last a typical recreational pot smoker for a year.

dtugg
7th June 2011, 04:04 PM
I could grow pounds of high quality stuff in my backyard with very little trouble. Of course, I am not going to do that right now because I don't want to go to prison. But if I didn't have to worry about that...

dtugg
7th June 2011, 04:12 PM
I've heard this argument from neo-hippies like you and dtugg before

:dl:

Yeah, a neo hippy who likes guns? No, I'm just not irrational.

GeeMack
8th June 2011, 02:30 PM
:dl:

Yeah, a neo hippy who likes guns? No, I'm just not irrational.


Whoa, dude. Like peace, love, and Glocks, man. :peace1

Earthborn
8th June 2011, 02:57 PM
The argument from incredulity is noted. Here in the Midwest region of North America the difficulty is approximately this: You poke your finger into the ground. You drop in a seed. You push a little dirt back in the hole. You repeat that process twenty times over the next ten minutes. Then sit back and wait for it to rain. Of course if it doesn't rain enough you can water those little holes with a hose. A couple months later, voila, you have marijuana.Gosh, if it was that easy, you would think the actual growers (including the ones doing it legally) would do it just like that instead of growing indoors with energy wasting grow lights and complex irrigation systems. It would certainly be a lot easier for the illegal growers here in the Netherlands if they could avoid detection through their energy bills.

Taarkin
8th June 2011, 03:02 PM
I think there is a motivation for growing indoors that you may be overlooking.

dtugg
8th June 2011, 03:06 PM
Gosh, if it was that easy, you would think the actual growers (including the ones doing it legally) would do it just like that instead of growing indoors with energy wasting grow lights and complex irrigation systems. It would certainly be a lot easier for the illegal growers here in the Netherlands if they could avoid detection through their energy bills.

Yeah, then they have to worry about getting busted because somebody saw their plants. Or worry about getting jacked.

I have no idea what the weather conditions are in the Netherlands, but in much of North America it is perfect. And in fact, lots of people do grow weed outdoors. Although typically off their property to minimize risk - that also means less time tending to the plants.

INRM
8th June 2011, 03:14 PM
Regardless of what the original intent of the War on Drugs was, the whole thing seems to have turned itself into a tool with which to give the government a great deal more power. Even though the War on Terror has largely eclipsed the War on Drugs; some domestic surveillance technology has been aimed not just at fighting terrorism, but at fighting the drug-war.

The Z-Backscatter vans which effectively use the same backscatter technology used at airports have been pitched not just for fighting terrorism, but for enforcing drug laws, and regular law enforcement as well (which is dangerous as it could easily be used without a warrant as nobody would know they were being spied on).

GeeMack
8th June 2011, 04:55 PM
Gosh, if it was that easy, you would think the actual growers (including the ones doing it legally) would do it just like that instead of growing indoors with energy wasting grow lights and complex irrigation systems.


Gosh if it was that easy there might be tons of Mexican and South American marijuana, grown outdoors, in the dirt and sun and rain, with only minimal attention, being smuggled across the southern US borders and sold to millions of pot smokers all over the country every day. Oh wait, there is. :rolleyes:

It would certainly be a lot easier for the illegal growers here in the Netherlands if they could avoid detection through their energy bills.


It would be a lot easier if they could grow marijuana indoors there in the Netherlands, out of sight of the authorities, and without the light systems and hydroponic pumps that make their electric bills so high, and get the same results as growing it outdoors, 10 to 25° further south in latitude, in some of the world's best agricultural soil. Yes, it would be a lot easier. But of course it would be ridiculous to expect that given the differences.

MikeSun5
8th June 2011, 05:16 PM
Um, it's a plant? Comparing it to tomatoes and cucumbers is very appropriate, they're plants.

It's a plant sure, but it gets people high. By your logic, tequila and baby formula are equal comparisons because they're both drinks. Bad analogy.

Who do you think is going to control the price of seeds and make them so prohibitive to buy?

The people producing the quality marijuana.

Will that same entity be removing all seeds that naturally come with the product they sell?

Not all that knowledgeable on the topic, I see. Google "sinsemilla."

It costs pennies per ounce to produce.

The good stuff doesn't. There's no way growing some terrible dirt-weed in your back yard can compete with the legitimate growers in terms of quantity or ESPECIALLY quality.

In places where it's been decriminalized it isn't legal yet for everyone to grow a few plants along the fence row.

Exactly. Therefore, quantity is restricted. Therefore, a black market could exist to fill that void.

That is irrational unsupported nonsense. If everyone who wanted to grow marijuana could do it without risking confiscation of their property, there would likely be social clubs where people would trade seeds and advice on growing techniques. It only costs pennies per ounce to produce.


People liking money is "irrational unsupported nonsense." :D Okay.

You can make your own alcohol at home. Similar to growing your own marijuana, it takes minimal setup to be producing your own alcoholic beverages for pennies on the dollar. This fact has not resulted in plummeting bar prices. Why not?

dtugg, PGH, and GeeMack -- Why isn't alcohol "next to free" when people are allowed to make booze in their homes?

Let's say the quality of alcohol ranges from cheap beer to extremely elegant champagne. The poking a hole in the ground method described above, when done with decent seeds, starts you with something that might compare to cheap beer.

Then why don't people make their own cheap beer? It's legal to do so and would save TONS of money for those who drink beer all the time. Also, brewing beer would reduce demand which would drive down beer prices everywhere. Why doesn't that happen? I mean, it's been 75 years already... I'd be willing to bet that beer prices have risen since prohibition was repealed.

What makes any of you think marijuana would be different??

dtugg
8th June 2011, 05:20 PM
Beer isn't a plant.

MikeSun5
8th June 2011, 05:22 PM
^^comes from them.
[/science lesson]

dtugg
8th June 2011, 05:26 PM
^^comes from them.
[/science lesson]

So what. I still can't grow beer in my backyard.

MikeSun5
8th June 2011, 05:34 PM
So what. I still can't grow beer in my backyard.

Yea, you're probably right.

Pretty much everyone else can, though. (http://www.simplymakeyourownbeer.com/)

Taarkin
8th June 2011, 05:36 PM
Growing and processing passable weed is much easier than growing barley and brewing passable beer. Much like how understanding this very basic fact is much easier than feigning ignorance and being obtuse.

edit: so easy even stoners can do it

GeeMack
8th June 2011, 05:39 PM
The good stuff doesn't. There's no way growing some terrible dirt-weed in your back yard can compete with the legitimate growers in terms of quantity or ESPECIALLY quality.


Maybe you don't understand how to grow decent marijuana outdoors in the sun and rain and dirt. That doesn't mean it can't be done by people more intelligent, aware, and capable.

For those who continue bleating the often-tried-always-failed argument that marijuana must be grown indoors to meet an acceptable quality level, here's a list of the estimated marijuana production by state in the US...

Marijuana Production in the United States (2006) (http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/Appendix_State_MJ_Prod.pdf)

It looks like almost 20 million out of that 22 million pounds of marijuana is grown outdoors. Somebody is smoking that 20 million pounds. Somebody considers that quality acceptable. So as always, the silly argument that indoor grown pot is the only pot worth smoking and nobody would want anything else because it's all worthless dirt weed has failed, miserably and completely. Again.

dtugg
8th June 2011, 05:40 PM
Yea, you're probably right.

Pretty much everyone else can, though. (http://www.simplymakeyourownbeer.com/)

Perhaps you don't know what the word "grow" means.

Anyway, that kit is enough to make 6 gallons of beer. Or 10.67 six packs. $115.99/10.67=$10.87=actually pretty steep for a 6 pack.

So much for people making their own cheap beer. Your own site shows how you fail.

MikeSun5
8th June 2011, 09:47 PM
So as always, the silly argument that indoor grown pot is the only pot worth smoking and nobody would want anything else because it's all worthless dirt weed has failed, miserably and completely. Again.

Thanks for all the irrelevant stats, but nobody said anything about weed having to be grown indoors. You invented that strawman.

I was just saying that you walking into your backyard, poking a hole in some dirt, throwing a seed in and waiting for it to rain will not produce a quality product. There will always be demand for a professional version of a crap product. Always.

Also, some people may not want to grow it. I know how easy it is to grow a tomato plant, I have a planter with dirt in it, and it rains a lot here. I eat tomatoes all the time, but I grow none of my own. I prefer to go to the store and purchase a better product from someone who knows what they're doing. You seem to be saying that demand and prices would fall simply because you're allowed to make your own weed and "everyone" would be doing it (they wouldn't). I want to know what makes marijuana different from any other product in that regard. Why do you think, if weed were legalized, would everyone who wanted it start growing it? Why is everything at Whole Foods so expensive when vegans can grow their own fruit and vegetables? Why isn't everything there "next to free?"

Another thing that people on your side of the argument forget is that weed is classified as a drug - and in many places where it's decriminalized, it's available only as medicine. That's why it can't just be available to grow in your backyard, and that's why there will be potential for black market sales. Sure it's "just a plant," but so is opium.

So much for people making their own cheap beer. Your own site shows how you fail.

Removed personal remark Home brews on this site costs about (http://www.windriverbrew.com/apprentice.html)$7.50 per six-pack for the 1st batch, and the 2nd batch is about $3.50 per six pack. My German beer is still $8 or $9 plus, when it should be less.

Taarkin
8th June 2011, 10:06 PM
You seem to be saying that demand and prices would fall simply because you're allowed to make your own weed and "everyone" would be doing it (they wouldn't). I want to know what makes marijuana different from any other product in that regard.
If weed isn't different from any other product, then surely prices would fall if growing it were legalized.

dtugg
8th June 2011, 10:21 PM
Thanks for all the irrelevant stats, but nobody said anything about weed having to be grown indoors. You invented that strawman.

I was just saying that you walking into your backyard, poking a hole in some dirt, throwing a seed in and waiting for it to rain will not produce a quality product. There will always be demand for a professional version of a crap product. Always.

Also, some people may not want to grow it. I know how easy it is to grow a tomato plant, I have a planter with dirt in it, and it rains a lot here. I eat tomatoes all the time, but I grow none of my own. I prefer to go to the store and purchase a better product from someone who knows what they're doing. You seem to be saying that demand and prices would fall simply because you're allowed to make your own weed and "everyone" would be doing it (they wouldn't). I want to know what makes marijuana different from any other product in that regard. Why do you think, if weed were legalized, would everyone who wanted it start growing it? Why is everything at Whole Foods so expensive when vegans can grow their own fruit and vegetables? Why isn't everything there "next to free?"

It is. At least compared to weed. I am pretty sure nobody is paying hundreds of dollars an ounce for tomatoes.

Another thing that people on your side of the argument forget is that weed is classified as a drug - and in many places where it's decriminalized, it's available only as medicine. That's why it can't just be available to grow in your backyard, and that's why there will be potential for black market sales. Sure it's "just a plant," but so is opium.

Congrats, you told us the current situation.The point is that it shouldn't be like that, genius.

Removed personal remark Home brews on this site costs about (http://www.windriverbrew.com/apprentice.html)$7.50 per six-pack for the 1st batch, and the 2nd batch is about $3.50 per six pack. My German beer is still $8 or $9 plus, when it should be less.

Not my problem that you cited a page that showed you incorrect.

And OK, you scoured the internet for a cheap(er) beer making kit. Good for you. It probably tastes like crap. And you can still get a keg of good stuff for cheaper.

Joey McGee
8th June 2011, 11:21 PM
What people are arguing over whether it's hard to grow a weed?

We would develop strains specifically for the local climate. They already do this, in BC they have an outdoor strain they have combined with cannabis ruderalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_ruderalis), a subspecies that is definitely a weed and is growing wild and adapting to it's locale all over the world. "Despite years of US government sponsored eradication programs, these wild plants still remain in bountiful abundance"

They are able to get two harvests a year this way because of early flowering. It can increase hardiness, increase THC, reduce height, offer immunity from local insects (by combining with a local wild strain of ruderalis that has already adapted) the possibilities are endless.

Let's not forget that unlike cucumbers and tomatoes, you can cure and store pot for a long time and make oils and tinctures. Lasts longer than stored beer as well.

3point14
9th June 2011, 01:52 AM
Gosh, if it was that easy, you would think the actual growers (including the ones doing it legally) would do it just like that instead of growing indoors with energy wasting grow lights and complex irrigation systems. It would certainly be a lot easier for the illegal growers here in the Netherlands if they could avoid detection through their energy bills.

I'm afraid that this demonstrates that you really don't know what you're talking about.

3point14
9th June 2011, 01:56 AM
Then why don't people make their own cheap beer? It's legal to do so and would save TONS of money for those who drink beer all the time. Also, brewing beer would reduce demand which would drive down beer prices everywhere. Why doesn't that happen? I mean, it's been 75 years already... I'd be willing to bet that beer prices have risen since prohibition was repealed.

What makes any of you think marijuana would be different??


My grandad and my dad used to make their own beer.

Do you have any idea how many different ingredients and processes are involved?

For weed, not so much. Plant, Sun, Water.

3point14
9th June 2011, 01:59 AM
Thanks for all the irrelevant stats, but nobody said anything about weed having to be grown indoors. You invented that strawman.

I was just saying that you walking into your backyard, poking a hole in some dirt, throwing a seed in and waiting for it to rain will not produce a quality product. There will always be demand for a professional version of a crap product. Always.




Again, a demonstration that you really doin't know what you're talking about.

Indoor grown weed islikely to be a greater yeild per plant, but the quality is mainly dependant on the seed you use and the soil the plant is in, not if there's a roof involved.

Emperor_Gestahl
9th June 2011, 02:12 AM
This tomato talk is silly, you can't feed yourself for a year with a couple tomato plants. Of course prices would plummet if anyone could grow it. People would brew lots of beer too if they could churn out 365 6-packs every year with minimal effort and expense. If someone wants to drink every night from their own brewery methinks that would be a little more cost and trouble than checking on a plant from time to time.

GeeMack
9th June 2011, 06:57 AM
Thanks for all the irrelevant stats, but nobody said anything about weed having to be grown indoors. You invented that strawman.

I was just saying that you walking into your backyard, poking a hole in some dirt, throwing a seed in and waiting for it to rain will not produce a quality product. There will always be demand for a professional version of a crap product. Always.


Certainly hundreds of thousands, probably millions of acres of marijuana are grown all over the world with little more effort than tossing some seeds in the ground and watching it grow. Then after some outrageous markups added at several levels because of prohibition, that marijuana gets purchased and consumed by millions of people. Something about poking some seeds in the dirt in Afghanistan, Columbia, Mexico, Southeast Asia, USA, Jamaica, or South Africa seems to be working pretty well to supply thousands of tons worth of someone's demand. Because that is the "professional version of a crap product". And it only costs pennies per ounce to produce.

Also, some people may not want to grow it. I know how easy it is to grow a tomato plant, I have a planter with dirt in it, and it rains a lot here. I eat tomatoes all the time, but I grow none of my own. I prefer to go to the store and purchase a better product from someone who knows what they're doing.


Your notion that it requires "someone who knows what they're doing" to scratch a groove in the dirt, sprinkle in some seeds, and watch green things grow out of the ground is just silly. Your notion that growing marijuana is necessarily more complicated than that is silly, too.

And yes, some people wouldn't want to grow their own. If it wasn't illegal to grow it and if there were legal channels for sales, the base price before vice taxes, even after money is made all along the production and distribution chain, would compare to any other dried and packaged leafy agricultural product. It would be so low that criminal organizations wouldn't be stupid enough to bother with it.

You seem to be saying that demand and prices would fall simply because you're allowed to make your own weed and "everyone" would be doing it (they wouldn't). I want to know what makes marijuana different from any other product in that regard. Why do you think, if weed were legalized, would everyone who wanted it start growing it? Why is everything at Whole Foods so expensive when vegans can grow their own fruit and vegetables? Why isn't everything there "next to free?"


Looking around the web I find marijuana, grown in the sun and dirt in Mexico, California, Illinois, or Kentucky, costs around $800 a pound. I just bought some tomatoes for $1 a pound, pretty close to free by comparison. In July and August I'll have some of the best tomatoes available, more than I can use, and I won't pay for them at all. Even sage, parsley, and basil only cost $8 a pound if you buy them by the ounce and pay the grower, pay for 16 little plastic bottles and 16 printed labels, pay some trucking company's time and fuel, add in some food distributor's markup, and include the grocery store's profit. That is still next to free when compared to marijuana at $800 a pound and much, much more if purchased in quarter ounce parcels.

The point is, the economics of the black market are dependent on the product being illegal. Legal agricultural products are close enough to free, relatively, that no self respecting crime organization is stupid enough to think they could make money selling bootleg tomatoes, basil, apples, or pumpkins. The current high markup is for the risk in dealing with contraband. The product itself only costs pennies per ounce to produce.

Another thing that people on your side of the argument forget is that weed is classified as a drug - and in many places where it's decriminalized, it's available only as medicine. That's why it can't just be available to grow in your backyard, and that's why there will be potential for black market sales. Sure it's "just a plant," but so is opium.


Nobody is forgetting that. Obviously. This discussion is exactly about drug policy and the not-forgotten fact that marijuana is illegal. But it is just a plant. And some pretty unsophisticated dirt farmers in the mountains of Columbia, Mexico, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are clearly able to produce a product that meets a quality level accepted by millions of consumers. They plant it in the ground, watch it grow in the sun and rain, cut it down with machetes, dry it on the tin roofs of the little shacks they live in, and sell it by the ton to international black market purveyors.

If it was legal for any adult in the United States to grow a few plants in the backyard or in a little four hundred square foot co-op garden, the black market in marijuana in the US would cease to exist. Marijuana only costs pennies per ounce to actually produce, and any moderately intelligent person can do it.

IDB87
9th June 2011, 07:16 AM
My grandad and my dad used to make their own beer.

Do you have any idea how many different ingredients and processes are involved?

For weed, not so much. Plant, Sun, Water.

Ditto.

It's also not cheap to make your own beer, or, it's at least SLIGHTLY less expensive than your favorite six pack.

*ETA

Those who drink bud light as preferred beverage need not read this post.

Mycroft
9th June 2011, 12:01 PM
I am sure it easy to grow, but I am not so convinced it is as easy to grow in a consistent and high quality and a large quantity. The people growing it certainly don't make it look easy.

It's very easy to grow. Much easier than tomatoes or cucumbers.

The people who grow it who make it seem complicated have a vested interest in keeping the price at $400 an ounce and very much want others to believe they couldn't possibly produce the same quality product themselves.

PGH
9th June 2011, 12:07 PM
In fact it is so easy to grow it's a WEED. You'd literally have to work to get rid of it once you planted some.

I think working on a small crop in my backyard, trying different strains and working to keep males away from females, sounds like a real nice little hobby. Like any kind of gardening or people who have Bonsai trees. When harvest time rolls around you can invite a few neighbors over for a little backyard bbq, with added smokable enjoyment. I'm not saying it's going to cure all the world's problems but I do see a world with legalized marijuana as a bit more pleasant to live in. And isn't that a very noble goal?

Or we keep things as they are and watch Mexico turn into a live action video game.

Earthborn
9th June 2011, 01:14 PM
I think there is a motivation for growing indoors that you may be overlooking.It isn't to hide the plants from the authorities, because even legal growers do it exactly like that, and it just makes it easier for the authorities to find the illegal growers. It is also not because the Netherlands is a lousy place to grow; despite being one of the smallest and most densely populated countries in the world, it also happens to be a third largest exporter of agricultural products, and by far the largest exporter of flowers. Things grow pretty darn good in Holland.

No, there is only one reason marijuana is usually grown indoors here: it is to control the conditions in which the plants grow so that they produce a consistent and very high level of THC. Levels that cannot be achieved consistently by casual backyard growers depending on random rainfall and sunshine.

The claim was that if it was legal to grow your own weed in your own garden, organised crime would have no way to compete. In the Netherlands it is possible to grow for your own use, and yet very few people bother to do it. They know that there is no way to compete with professional growers in consistency and "quality" (by which potheads mean level of THC).

It's very easy to grow. Much easier than tomatoes or cucumbers.There is a reason the Dutch grow those indoors as well.

The people who grow it who make it seem complicated have a vested interest in keeping the price at $400 an ounce and very much want others to believe they couldn't possibly produce the same quality product themselves.I am pretty sure it doesn't cost $400 an ounce where I live.

sadhatter
9th June 2011, 01:28 PM
Ditto.

It's also not cheap to make your own beer, or, it's at least SLIGHTLY less expensive than your favorite six pack.

*ETA

Those who drink bud light as preferred beverage need not read this post.

Me and my friends always have that issue, we have all these " brew your own" places around here, and every single time we think " Sweet, cheap beer..." and it turns out, 100% of the time, to be within the ballpark of any beer we drink.

What exactly is the allure of these places i wonder ( we have a small city and no less than 4 of the *******) ? I mean i don't think they would get very far with the sales pitch " Possibly make something that sucks, and pay about as much as you normally would."

I mean going in, we assumed it would " suck" for lack of a better term, but that is okay if it is cheap enough. Not asking for the moon here, just cheap beer.

The only time we found one that was even close to a value, was wine, that ended up being about 1 dollar cheaper ( per large bottle.) than the cheapest we could find not on sale. Great, if we wanted to not only switch up our drink, but drink a crappy version of a new product we would be all set.

Modified
9th June 2011, 02:20 PM
Also, some people may not want to grow it. I know how easy it is to grow a tomato plant, I have a planter with dirt in it, and it rains a lot here. I eat tomatoes all the time, but I grow none of my own. I prefer to go to the store and purchase a better product from someone who knows what they're doing.

Better?

jiggeryqua
9th June 2011, 02:52 PM
Better?

I think he means 'easier'. A product is 'better' if it takes less personal effort to acquire it.

GeeMack
9th June 2011, 03:17 PM
The claim was that if it was legal to grow your own weed in your own garden, organised crime would have no way to compete. In the Netherlands it is possible to grow for your own use, and yet very few people bother to do it. They know that there is no way to compete with professional growers in consistency and "quality" (by which potheads mean level of THC).


The vast majority of professional marijuana growers on this planet grow it outdoors in the dirt with sun for light and watered by rain from the sky. Almost 90% of the domestically grown marijuana in the US is grown outdoors. Millions of acres on Earth are utilized for marijuana production. Millions of consumers find it acceptable to their quality standards. Tons of it. Bales. Enough to sink small ships.

It would be irrational to believe that upon legalization, suddenly 90% of the market would shun the marijuana they could easily grow in their gardens, marijuana of the same or better quality than what they are currently buying on a regular basis. It would be irrational to believe that suddenly all those people smoking all those millions of pounds of dirt-and-sun grown marijuana, if given the legal opportunity to grown their own for almost free, will start buying hydroponically grown and specialized marijuana from black market suppliers.

And even for those who might demand a higher potency of pot, they'll be able to set up their own hydroponic and isolated outdoor gardens. It doesn't take more than the corner of a garage or a small basement room to produce a continuous supply for a couple of people. There is no rational reason to believe that the black market in marijuana could survive selling their product competitively for the price of catnip, if it was legal for anyone to grown a few plants in their yard or on their sun porch.

And as far as growing it in the Netherlands, take a look at a map. Note particularly the grid lines that show the latitude. Compare that to the latitude of the millions of fertile acres in the US from about Wisconsin south to Louisiana. Then check a grade school science book to see the implications of the amount of sunlight available.

Note the vast stretches of land from the Atlantic Ocean west to around Kansas. The growing conditions are so close to perfect here that you can sprinkle seeds on some scratched up soil and marijuana will grow by itself, literally. Tons of it, marijuana that meets the quality demands of 90% of the existing market. If it was legal to do that, people would do that.

Manger Douse
9th June 2011, 03:58 PM
Sorry but this stuff about the quality and THC content being different between a 'pro' set-up and a home-grow is rubbish - utter rubbish. I've done a proper hydro all singing all dancing lit up like a christmas tree grow and I've used the same cuttings in a plant pot on my window sill and the only difference was the amount I got.
The only problem I can see with growing it outdoors in the right climate is with unwanted pollination.
I've also been in places in Spain where it grows so easy you can't even pay money for it.

dtugg
9th June 2011, 04:10 PM
The biggest single factor in growing quality marijuana is the seeds. And you can buy quality seeds on the Internet right now for relatively cheap.

Manger Douse
9th June 2011, 04:10 PM
Duplicate post (and I ain't even stoned!)

Mycroft
9th June 2011, 09:57 PM
No, there is only one reason marijuana is usually grown indoors here: it is to control the conditions in which the plants grow so that they produce a consistent and very high level of THC. Levels that cannot be achieved consistently by casual backyard growers depending on random rainfall and sunshine.

I think you may believe it's difficult to grow indoors. It's not. If it's just for personal use, setting up a system that will provide all the needs for the grower and his friends is about as complicated as setting up a fish-tank if you want to do it hydroponically. If you want a soil grow, then it's about as complicated as growing any other houseplant, only probably more forgiving. Right now there is a thriving market aimed at the home-grower, selling them grow-lamps and other accessories.


The claim was that if it was legal to grow your own weed in your own garden, organised crime would have no way to compete. In the Netherlands it is possible to grow for your own use, and yet very few people bother to do it. They know that there is no way to compete with professional growers in consistency and "quality" (by which potheads mean level of THC).

Wasn't this argument about the criminal competing with the home-grower? Just because some will choose to purchase from a professional doesn't mean the criminal isn't affected. First, now he's out in the open and is not even a criminal anymore, then he has to compete with all the professional growers who are able to bring their own expertise in to play.


There is a reason the Dutch grow those indoors as well.

Quite easily and successfully, I might add.



I am pretty sure it doesn't cost $400 an ounce where I live.

That's per ounce which is a little over 28 ounces. An individual dose would be a gram or less, which would come to about $15.

rjh01
10th June 2011, 12:02 AM
If it is easy and illegal to grow then what is stopping people from putting a few seeds in some other people's gardens and then when the plants grow report them to the authorities?

nvidiot
10th June 2011, 12:42 AM
That does happen. I recall some police being a bit red faced to discover large plants growing out the front of their station in the garden beds. It wasn't until they started growing reasonably tall and the scent filled the air that they noticed that a guerilla gardener had planted it there.

But Cannabis is indeed easy to grow. Perhaps not quite as easy to grow quality product as some here are asserting, but nonetheless a very forgiving commercial crop.

If it was legalised you would still have a few gardeners producing their own for personal use, but the majority of the market would be fed by professional greenhouse and open air cropping, distributed through retail outlets like any other plant that's grown for commerce.

MikeSun5
10th June 2011, 05:16 PM
Again, a demonstration that you really doin't know what you're talking about.

Indoor grown weed islikely to be a greater yeild per plant, but the quality is mainly dependant on the seed you use and the soil the plant is in, not if there's a roof involved.

Please read the posts before replying with more craziness. Nobody said anything about indoor-grown weed being better -- that was a strawman made up by someone.

I'm just saying there will always be demand for a product created by an expert (or at least a non-amateur). Sure, it's a weed. Sure it's relatively easy to grow. But saying you could randomly toss some seeds into your backyard and then have it be overrun with high-grade marijuana in a few months is just crazy, and shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Yes, seriously. There are competitions that are held (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_Cup)for strains of marijuana. The winners are always from esablished grow houses, not from random guys hoping for the best by tossing seeds into a yard and letting nature do her thing.

I think he means 'easier'. A product is 'better' if it takes less personal effort to acquire it.

Nope. I meant "better." I don't know anything about pesticides, proper plant nutrition, or anything really, so my tomatoes would definitely be a worse product than what I could by at the store.

And it only costs pennies per ounce to produce.

Yea, you keep saying that. So why is it so expensive in places where it's allowed? One of the biggest reasons people support the legalization of marijuana is the potential tax revenue that selling it would generate. Do you think the government wouldn't tax it? A drug? Of course they would. It's not taxed now, so any drop in price after any legalization would likely be replaced by tax.

But Cannabis is indeed easy to grow. Perhaps not quite as easy to grow quality product as some here are asserting, but nonetheless a very forgiving commercial crop.

If it was legalised you would still have a few gardeners producing their own for personal use, but the majority of the market would be fed by professional greenhouse and open air cropping, distributed through retail outlets like any other plant that's grown for commerce.

^^Exactly. And distributers or producers would be taxed. With "everyone" growing it, the potential for a black market (of tax-free weed) remains.

There is still a black market for cigarettes. Why would marijuana be any different?

GeeMack
10th June 2011, 05:37 PM
There is still a black market for cigarettes. Why would marijuana be any different?


Uh, because marijuana can be grown in virtually every part of North America by just about anyone with the brains of a ten year old kid. If you lack the understanding, skills, or ability to grow decent marijuana it does not change this.

Taarkin
10th June 2011, 10:21 PM
Best reason to end the war on drugs. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/10/the-wire-creator-to-holder-ill-do-another-season-if-you-end-the-drug-war/)

How the hell can Holder be a fan of The Wire but still champion the war on drugs? That's not even a thing that you can be.

JFrankA
11th June 2011, 04:14 AM
Here in Connecticut, they just voted to decriminalize pot.

http://articles.courant.com/2011-06-07/news/hc-pot-decriminalization-0608-20110607_1_marijuana-laws-decriminalize-possession-criminal-penalties

The thing that gets me is the argument by the lawmakers who are against it.

Rep. John Frey, a Republican from Ridgefield, spoke of the heartbreak of his niece's drug addiction. "For her, marijuana was the gateway drug,'' he said. "She spent all but one month of her senior year in high school in a rehab facility."

Bristol Democratic Rep. Frank Nicastro worked as a truant officer in that city for 17 years and said he has seen countless lives wrecked by addiction.

"What we're saying to the youth of our state is it's not a crime anymore and they're going to take advantage of that because they don't realize how dangerous marijuana can be,'' Nicastro said.

Rep Frey's argument against it is the same old story "gateway drug", "spent her senior year in a rehab" and I don't mean to sound heartless, but the first reason is absolutely ridiculous and the second reason could be said because she was addicted to alcohol or gambling. High school kids aren't going be affected by decriminalization anyway. In fact, in Connecticut, they'd be punished harder.

Rep Nicastro's argument is also silly. They don't know how dangerous it could be? Well, educate the truth rather than the lies that have been pouring out. It's that simple.

And both arguments stem from the same battle cry: "Think of the children".

This is the attitude of the lawmakers who are out there who are still fighting the war on drugs. In fact, and I apologize because my Google-foo is weak today, but I remember seeing an article where Obama's drug czar basically said, "Nope, it's wrong and we are winning!"

dtugg
11th June 2011, 04:44 AM
How the hell can Holder be a fan of The Wire but still champion the war on drugs? That's not even a thing that you can be.

Because all these people care about is their own individual power. Maybe Holder does realize that the war on drugs is a gigantic failure but if he came out against it, Obama would probably fire him. I would bet anything that Holder's (or Obama's for that matter) power is more important to him than what is right.

MikeSun5
11th June 2011, 01:41 PM
Uh, because marijuana can be grown in virtually every part of North America by just about anyone with the brains of a ten year old kid. If you lack the understanding, skills, or ability to grow decent marijuana it does not change this.

You're missing the point. What percentage of the millions of North Americans "with the brains of a ten year old kid" do you think would grow their own marijuana if they could? I'd imagine probably about the same percentage of people who grow their own vegetables right now. What do you think? All of them? Half of them? :rolleyes:

Again, weed is a drug that makes a lot of people a lot of money. If it were legal, it would be taxed. Plain and simple. Any drop in price from the small influx of product from people growing their own would likely be barely noticeble after taxes are figured in.

GeeMack
11th June 2011, 03:00 PM
You're missing the point. What percentage of the millions of North Americans "with the brains of a ten year old kid" do you think would grow their own marijuana if they could? I'd imagine probably about the same percentage of people who grow their own vegetables right now. What do you think? All of them? Half of them? :rolleyes:

Again, weed is a drug that makes a lot of people a lot of money. If it were legal, it would be taxed. Plain and simple. Any drop in price from the small influx of product from people growing their own would likely be barely noticeble after taxes are figured in.


You're missing the point. If it was legal for anyone to grow a few marijuana plants along their fence row, the black market in marijuana would be about the same as the black market in beer, unless you consider home-brewers sharing their production with a few friends and neighbors to be a black market. Rational people wouldn't. And if you look around you'll see there aren't a whole lot of people smuggling small planes full of beer from other countries, doing drive by shootings, and having turf wars over their share of the bootleg beer market.

If it was legal for a few pals to grow a couple hundred square foot co-op marijuana garden, which they could do at a production cost of a few cents per ounce, and the alternative was to spend $50, $100, $150 per ounce to buy pot from a bootlegger, or at the liquor store or pharmacy, people would grow their own. And they would do that because of the combination of two primary factors. First, it's so easy a grade school child of normal intelligence could do it. And second, need I say it again, marijuana only costs pennies per ounce to produce.

MikeSun5
11th June 2011, 05:23 PM
You're missing the point.

Look, I got your point. You say that if it were legal to do so, people would grow it in their backyards and that would drop prices and eliminate the black market.

I didn't miss your point, I just think it's bogus.

If it was legal ... people would grow their own.

Who? How many people? Where are you getting your information?

Yes, America has farms. Yes, Americans have backyards. But not all of us. The number of people who would grow thier own weed is probably equal to those who grow their own vegetables right now. And that is a SMALL section of society (especially in cities). I highly doubt the number of people growing weed in yards and sharing with their friends would make any kind of dent in nationwide (or even statewide) prices.

Oranges grow wild in certain places in the Everglades here in FL. You can just drive out there and get some. I used to live in Germany and the same thing happened with blackberries. You could just pick them off bushes everywhere. When a product is available for zero money, why in the world would stores still sell them? And why weren't they "next to free?" (hint: the answers you come up with would definitely apply to legal weed)

Say for argument's sake that weed costs two pennies per ounce. Since it is a drug, it would most definitely be taxed. The fact that you can buy say, a dollar's worth, from a friend without paying the taxes on it would leave room for a black market. So yes, you missed my point.

WildCat
11th June 2011, 05:41 PM
I am sure it easy to grow, but I am not so convinced it is as easy to grow in a consistent and high quality and a large quantity. The people growing it certainly don't make it look easy.
It is ridiculously easy to grow. Almost as easy to grow as tomatoes or peppers or catnip, the only difference being in that you have to remove the male plants from the garden or you'll get lots of seeds. And it's very easy to identify the male plants. 95% of the quality is pure genetics, it would be really hard to screw up a marijuana crop.

WildCat
11th June 2011, 05:47 PM
Gosh, if it was that easy, you would think the actual growers (including the ones doing it legally) would do it just like that instead of growing indoors with energy wasting grow lights and complex irrigation systems.
Pot is grown this way because it's illegal. Maybe there are laws prohibiting outdoor propagation in the Netherlands, but grow outdoors and 99% of the costs of growing it are removed. No lights to buy, no electric bill to pay, no pots and irrigation systems.

It would certainly be a lot easier for the illegal growers here in the Netherlands if they could avoid detection through their energy bills.
Once again, you stumble upon the reasons it's costly to produce yet manage to completely miss it.

WildCat
11th June 2011, 05:53 PM
I was just saying that you walking into your backyard, poking a hole in some dirt, throwing a seed in and waiting for it to rain will not produce a quality product.
Assuming you tend the garden just like a vegetable garden yes, it will produce a quality product. One indistinguishable from a professional grower.

Can you distinguish a tomato grown in your back yard from one grown at a farm by a professional? If you can, it's likely because the homegrown one is better quality...

WildCat
11th June 2011, 06:06 PM
No, there is only one reason marijuana is usually grown indoors here: it is to control the conditions in which the plants grow so that they produce a consistent and very high level of THC. Levels that cannot be achieved consistently by casual backyard growers depending on random rainfall and sunshine.
Absolute nonsense.

The only reason to grow indoors is when you're growing plants for seed, and indoors you can control which plants pollinate each other. Also, you can grow year round instead of just in the summer.

No grow light can match the sun in lumen output, and no artificial soil can match the real thing as far as plant nutrients go.

GeeMack
11th June 2011, 06:11 PM
Say for argument's sake that weed costs two pennies per ounce. Since it is a drug, it would most definitely be taxed. The fact that you can buy say, a dollar's worth, from a friend without paying the taxes on it would leave room for a black market. So yes, you missed my point.


Say it's legal for people to grow a few marijuana plants along their fence row for pennies per ounce, or alternatively pay some drug dealer $150 an ounce. Sure a tiny portion of people don't have a few square feet of backyard, a large planter pot, a sun porch, or some pals who have a place to grow a plant or two. Sure a tiny portion of consumers aren't resourceful enough or skilled enough to grow some, don't have enough gumption, or can't do simple math and realize they could pay 2% of what they are paying.

The other millions upon millions of marijuana consumers have the brains to understand the difference between $3 and $150. They aren't independently wealthy where cost isn't an issue. Those millions of people buy Miller Lite on tap, millions of gallons of it, instead of imported champagne or 12 year old Scotch for a reason. Those people, given the legal opportunity to do so, will happily spend a half hour a week tending a couple marijuana plants to save $147 per ounce.

You may choose to pay the $100, $150, or more per ounce. I live in Illinois, in a sea of fertile land from horizon to horizon, and I have reasonably intelligent friends and associates. In all my life I've personally known one person rich enough to simply not care about the difference between $3 and $150. Where I live, given the general state of intelligence, financial position, and capability of everyone I've come in contact with over the decades, if it was legal to grow marijuana in the backyard, the number of marijuana bootleggers for 300 miles in every direction from me would probably equal the number of beer bootleggers.

WildCat
11th June 2011, 06:20 PM
Again, weed is a drug that makes a lot of people a lot of money. If it were legal, it would be taxed. Plain and simple. Any drop in price from the small influx of product from people growing their own would likely be barely noticeble after taxes are figured in.
The price would drop to the price of oregano even if no one grew it at home. As I've calculated in other threads, the entire US marijuana demand could be met with a few thousand acres under marijuana cultivation. The potential for market glut is enormous, so much so that no farmer would bother growing it without a contract from a buyer. Otherwise, he'd end up with a bunch of marijuana he can't sell at any price.

You simply can't sustain $400/oz for a plant that can easily produce a pound of product per plant and is easy to grow.

Joey McGee
11th June 2011, 06:49 PM
GeeMack's posts are consistently amazing, and not just because I'm Joey McGee the Mack.

When weed is legal I will give it away for free so allll the world's children can wear hemp clothes and benefit from cannabis derived medicines.

Taarkin
11th June 2011, 07:29 PM
People buy bell peppers, even though they could grow them at home, because they're 99 cents a pound. If they cost HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS a pound, you're damn right people would grow them at home more often.

WildCat
11th June 2011, 09:28 PM
I still want to hear from MikeSun how in a free market any business can sustain a 10,000% profit margin.

Mycroft
11th June 2011, 10:44 PM
Yes, America has farms. Yes, Americans have backyards. But not all of us. The number of people who would grow thier own weed is probably equal to those who grow their own vegetables right now. And that is a SMALL section of society (especially in cities). I highly doubt the number of people growing weed in yards and sharing with their friends would make any kind of dent in nationwide (or even statewide) prices.


But just one person who grows his own can grow a lot more than just for his personal use. If it's legal, then one hobby grower could easily support dozens of friends.

nota
11th June 2011, 10:54 PM
The biggest single factor in growing quality marijuana is the seeds. And you can buy quality seeds on the Internet right now for relatively cheap.

CLONES= cutting and root growth hormones
clone the clones ect
some plants become immortal
they even have names like 90daywonder or kripto
no need for seeds clones aways are exactly the same plant
year after year

rjh01
12th June 2011, 12:10 AM
Evil plan number 2. How to grow your own plants with minimal risk. Grow it in other people's property. Method.
1. Get some seeds or clones or other raw material.
2. Study a number of houses. Ignore all houses that have
- Dogs (you do not want to risk the dog waking the owners up)
- Good gardens (they will remove any weed, pun intended)
- places that are hard to get to the backyard.
3. You are now left with a number of properties that are suitable for your use.
4. Plant one or two planets per property. Best done at night-time. Be ready for an excuse if caught, such as being a drunk needing a quiet spot.
5. When the plants are ready for harvesting you can return and remove at night-time.


The above must have a fatal weakness or it would be common. What is it?

dtugg
12th June 2011, 12:31 AM
Evil plan number 2. How to grow your own plants with minimal risk. Grow it in other people's property. Method.
1. Get some seeds or clones or other raw material.
2. Study a number of houses. Ignore all houses that have
- Dogs (you do not want to risk the dog waking the owners up)
- Good gardens (they will remove any weed, pun intended)
- places that are hard to get to the backyard.
3. You are now left with a number of properties that are suitable for your use.
4. Plant one or two planets per property. Best done at night-time. Be ready for an excuse if caught, such as being a drunk needing a quiet spot.
5. When the plants are ready for harvesting you can return and remove at night-time.


The above must have a fatal weakness or it would be common. What is it?

Your fatal weakness is that it is a really stupid idea. How many people would not notice that there is marijuana suddenly growing in their backyards? Your best bet if you don't want to grow on your property is to find someplace that nobody goes. Incidently, this is how lots of people do it.

Georg
12th June 2011, 01:55 AM
There are competitions that are held (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_Cup)for strains of marijuana. The winners are always from esablished grow houses, not from random guys hoping for the best by tossing seeds into a yard and letting nature do her thing.



According to the link given by yourself,

A team of VIP judges decide which seed company has grown the best marijuana.


So, a competition for seed companies is only won by seed companies.
Not really a surprise, is it?
More important: hobby growers don't need to invent new strains and win a cup, they only need to use the seeds sold by the pros or (selfmade and therefore cheap) clones.
As someone mentioned before, the quality of the weed mainly depends on the genetics of the plant.


Your best bet if you don't want to grow on your property is to find someplace that nobody goes. Incidently, this is how lots of people do it.


A little plantation I found by accident :):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/156584afc6133d6f49.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/156584afc6133b1382.jpg

The setup does not look too complicated, does it?

WildCat
12th June 2011, 01:02 PM
The setup does not look too complicated, does it?
Obvious photoshop, we have all been assured that marijuana cannot grow outdoors. :p

dafydd
12th June 2011, 02:01 PM
I think you may believe it's difficult to grow indoors. It's not. If it's just for personal use, setting up a system that will provide all the needs for the grower and his friends is about as complicated as setting up a fish-tank if you want to do it hydroponically. If you want a soil grow, then it's about as complicated as growing any other houseplant, only probably more forgiving. Right now there is a thriving market aimed at the home-grower, selling them grow-lamps and other accessories.



Wasn't this argument about the criminal competing with the home-grower? Just because some will choose to purchase from a professional doesn't mean the criminal isn't affected. First, now he's out in the open and is not even a criminal anymore, then he has to compete with all the professional growers who are able to bring their own expertise in to play.



Quite easily and successfully, I might add.




That's per ounce which is a little over 28 ounces. An individual dose would be a gram or less, which would come to about $15.

Not one dose. If you inhaled a gram of Dutch weed in one go you wouldn't get up for a couple of days. Current prices in the coffeeshops are from 7 to 20 euros a gram,depending on the variety. The most expensive weed is New York Diesel.

dafydd
12th June 2011, 02:05 PM
What's hilariously pathetic to me is the idea that weed is illegal because of religious reasons. It's a plant. A naturally growing plant. It needs very little manipulation to enter our lungs in such a wonderfully mind altering fashion. If you believe in god you have to believe he put it here.

But then the religious folk always have this weird idea that god puts thing here solely as tricks and tests. It really is a silly god they've dreamed up.

I'm an atheist for sure but if you did want to convince me of a divine creator I'd suggest you start with weed.

Weed is illegal because the cotton barons in the USA in the 1930's were afraid that hemp was going to take over their market,hence the 'killer weed' campaigns back then,which were often racist in nature. Hell,Thomas Jefferson had acres of mariajuana.

dafydd
12th June 2011, 02:07 PM
I could grow pounds of high quality stuff in my backyard with very little trouble. Of course, I am not going to do that right now because I don't want to go to prison. But if I didn't have to worry about that...

As Keith Richards said 'I never had any trouble with drugs,only with policemen.'

dafydd
12th June 2011, 02:17 PM
http://www.ccguide.org/studies.php

MikeSun5
12th June 2011, 07:05 PM
I still want to hear from MikeSun how in a free market any business can sustain a 10,000% profit margin.

It couldn't.

But just one person who grows his own can grow a lot more than just for his personal use. If it's legal, then one hobby grower could easily support dozens of friends.

Sure, but if marijuana would be legal, it would most definitely be taxed like any other legal drug. That hobby grower would be breaking the law by supplying his friends with untaxed weed.

So, a competition for seed companies is only won by seed companies.
Not really a surprise, is it?

It's not a competition for seed companies, it's a competition of marijuana strains. If individuals grew better stuff than a company that specializes in it, then there's nothing stopping them from entering a strain. Believe me, the judges don't care where it's from, they just want to smoke the best. ;) The point is that the seed companies grow better stuff than individuals.

Nobody is disputing the fact that genetics are the main factor in quality. It's just that the common homegrower doesn't have access to all the strains that a seed company does. A guy growing dirt weed in his back yard is not going to be experimenting with hybrid strains and mixing clones or whatever to get a higher quality strain. That guy is just hoping it doesn't rain for 4 days straight and ruin his crop.

Companies that specialize in a product will always have an advantage over the do it yourself guy, and that specialization will always be in demand. That's why the world doesn't drink Miller High Life all the time. Because there is better stuff out there.

dtugg
12th June 2011, 07:11 PM
You know that seed companies sell seeds, right?

Darth Rotor
12th June 2011, 08:13 PM
This is actually a bigoted attack on medical marijuana activists that has been happening since day one. "They just want to get high!" It would be a stupid gambit to pull, but I've never seen any reason to think any activist is actually doing that, just examples of prohibitionists attacking them with the accusation.

You seem to be (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7234301&postcount=32) one of the people biased on this way. Just sayin'

Why would we "think as dope as a recreational drug"? It has the potential to be a lot of things. Let's think about it what it actually is, shall we?
Not bigoted, Joey, I don't find the special pleading for dope as the next wonder drug to have any substance.

If you look at about 80 years of history, to yesterday, you will find hemp being used for a wide variety of things. It got itself into recreational status through no fault of its own ... it got there by HOW IT WAS HABITUALLY USED.

Your special pleading isn't helping. That is does have medicinal uses is a good thing, but don't pretend that for that past 80 years, dope has been used primarily as medicine. If it does have medicinal uses, good, use it for such. I am actually on the California side of the case that went down about 5 years ago (Oakland) where the Feds got overzealous on the dope being used for what was, in CA, legal use.

But that doesn't change the standards of usage.

Try

Preponderance of evidence on its usage, Joey, and you might be worth listening to.

By the way, I am a proponent of dope as a legal recreational drug, like beer.

Just in case your own bigotry in re people who don't see things your way has clouded your vision.

So, again, to understand the point: you are arguing for dope via special pleading, under the premise that dope has a special virtue.

I don't find that reasoning compelling. That I 'd prefer doctors to be able to prescribe it as an option seems to have gone by you like the SST, when it was still flying.

GeeMack
12th June 2011, 08:14 PM
It's not a competition for seed companies, it's a competition of marijuana strains. If individuals grew better stuff than a company that specializes in it, then there's nothing stopping them from entering a strain. Believe me, the judges don't care where it's from, they just want to smoke the best. ;) The point is that the seed companies grow better stuff than individuals.

Nobody is disputing the fact that genetics are the main factor in quality. It's just that the common homegrower doesn't have access to all the strains that a seed company does. A guy growing dirt weed in his back yard is not going to be experimenting with hybrid strains and mixing clones or whatever to get a higher quality strain. That guy is just hoping it doesn't rain for 4 days straight and ruin his crop.

Companies that specialize in a product will always have an advantage over the do it yourself guy, and that specialization will always be in demand. That's why the world doesn't drink Miller High Life all the time. Because there is better stuff out there.


You have clearly demonstrated again here that you aren't especially knowledgeable on the subject. Your opinion is unqualified. You're guessing. And for the most part, you're guessing wrong.

Anyone can grow the best marijuana in the world when he/she obtains a handful of seeds or some cuttings. Like maybe even those same seeds that the seed companies sell. There's no magic to it. It can be done in backyards, along fence rows, in community gardens and tiny hydroponic set-ups in the corner of someone's pole barn, basement, or storage shed. Almost any reasonably intelligent sixth grader could do it, your own admitted inability notwithstanding.

And as for the commonly available product, the marijuana that 90% of everyone currently finds to be acceptable quality? There is nothing about that level of acceptability that would change if marijuana is legal. Your implication that it would be different is a wild guess, pulled out of nowhere. It's nonsense.

And as for the notion that "the world doesn't drink Miller High Life all the time [...] because there is better stuff out there"? The world drinks millions upon millions of gallons of cheap beer compared to the amount of fancy beer or expensive Scotch or rare champagne it consumes. So although there may be a demand for a specialty product, it will not put a dent in the mainstream market, the Miller-Lite-on-tap marijuana that almost everyone is smoking now and that almost everyone finds acceptable.

If it was legal to grow a few plants on the porch or in the backyard, or for a few people to tend a small co-op garden, since marijuana only costs a few cents an ounce to produce, people would grow it cheap rather than pay hundreds of dollars an ounce to buy it. And it would be excellent quality, as good or better than anything anyone is currently buying in the mainstream 90% of the market. As cheap and easy as it is to produce all that good quality marijuana, if it was legal for any adult to grow their own, no black market could possibly survive.

Georg
12th June 2011, 10:18 PM
It's not a competition for seed companies, it's a competition of marijuana strains. If individuals grew better stuff than a company that specializes in it, then there's nothing stopping them from entering a strain. Believe me, the judges don't care where it's from, they just want to smoke the best. ;) The point is that the seed companies grow better stuff than individuals.


Well, I was quoting from the link you provided. But that's not what the discussion is about. The job of the seed companies is to develop new strains, not to grow large amounts for sale.

Nobody is disputing the fact that genetics are the main factor in quality. It's just that the common homegrower doesn't have access to all the strains that a seed company does. A guy growing dirt weed in his back yard is not going to be experimenting with hybrid strains and mixing clones or whatever to get a higher quality strain. That guy is just hoping it doesn't rain for 4 days straight and ruin his crop.

Companies that specialize in a product will always have an advantage over the do it yourself guy, and that specialization will always be in demand. That's why the world doesn't drink Miller High Life all the time. Because there is better stuff out there.


The common home grower does indeed have access to the strains, but that's besides the point again.
The companies develop the new strains, which takes time, money, experience etc. a simple grower is normally not willing or able to invest, I'll give you that.
The seed companies do that for a reason though, which has nothing to do with altruism.
They want to sell the seeds and make money. All the cannabis cup winners seeds I just googled are for sale.
What you did is conflate two different issues, developing strains and growing the already developed strains, and that makes no sense.

If you got any evidence that hobby growers are not able to grow the stuff successfully that the companies invent, please show it.

By the way, raining 4 days straight does not ruin the crop if you pick the adequate outdoor seeds that were developed to withstand mold. Or so I've heard :cool:.

Joey McGee
13th June 2011, 04:54 AM
Not bigotedI don't think you are but some people are using it in that way.
Joey, I don't find the special pleading for dope as the next wonder drug to have any substance. It doesn't but the argument for medical marijuana is just to allow the real science to be done and known to the public which has been blocked for a long time. It's almost complete, all they have to do is take it off schedule I, and put it to III, even the AMA recommended that. That's a real struggle, and it's seperate. You are right that in the MM debate you have to treat it with the same rules as any other treatment and that it's a seperate debate than for legal use.

If you look at about 80 years of history, to yesterday, you will find hemp being used for a wide variety of things. It got itself into recreational status through no fault of its own ... it got there by HOW IT WAS HABITUALLY USED.

Your special pleading isn't helping. That is does have medicinal uses is a good thing, but don't pretend that for that past 80 years, dope has been used primarily as medicine. If it does have medicinal uses, good, use it for such. I am actually on the California side of the case that went down about 5 years ago (Oakland) where the Feds got overzealous on the dope being used for what was, in CA, legal use.

But that doesn't change the standards of usage. It didn't get there by objective harm to society or how is alcohol still tolerated? It's not special pleading. If I say, "hey, not only has pot never killed anyone, you can use it as a medcine for a huge number of conditions" that's just part of the rational argument for legalization for recreational use, not special pleading, it's not "legalize it for everyone so these patients can have it" if that's what you really think people saying.

Try

Preponderance of evidence on its usage, Joey, and you might be worth listening to.

By the way, I am a proponent of dope as a legal recreational drug, like beer.

Just in case your own bigotry in re people who don't see things your way has clouded your vision.

So, again, to understand the point: you are arguing for dope via special pleading, under the premise that dope has a special virtue.No, I'm not. Can you point to me stating this explicitly? I'm arguing that the very real restrictions on research should be removed and that doctors can't mistreat their patients with their own bigotry, and the AMA and the Canadian legal system agree with me on both points. In no way do I think this is an argument for total legalization, I think that on other accounts.

I don't find that reasoning compelling. That I 'd prefer doctors to be able to prescribe it as an option seems to have gone by you like the SST, when it was still flying.I noticed, if you'll notice the only thing I had a problem with was false accusations of special pleading.

JoelKatz
13th June 2011, 05:04 AM
Sure, but if marijuana would be legal, it would most definitely be taxed like any other legal drug. That hobby grower would be breaking the law by supplying his friends with untaxed weed.If marijuana were legal, there would be very few hobby growers and nobody would particularly care about them. The only reason there are hobby growers now is because marijuana is expensive and hard to acquire safely. You do have people who make wine, beer, and hard liquor as a hobby and people who grow tobacco as a hobby. But they're not very important commercially and even though they probably are breaking tons of laws, nobody particularly cares.

I grow super-hot (1 million SHU and up) peppers as a hobby. I can tell you there's no way I can compete with commercial growers. The only reason it makes any sense is that I can't get peppers this hot fresh commercially. If I sold them, I'd have to charge $4 a pepper to break even.

3point14
13th June 2011, 05:12 AM
Please read the posts before replying with more craziness. Nobody said anything about indoor-grown weed being better -- that was a strawman made up by someone.

I'm just saying there will always be demand for a product created by an expert (or at least a non-amateur). Sure, it's a weed. Sure it's relatively easy to grow. But saying you could randomly toss some seeds into your backyard and then have it be overrun with high-grade marijuana in a few months is just crazy, and shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Yes, seriously. There are competitions that are held (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_Cup)for strains of marijuana. The winners are always from esablished grow houses, not from random guys hoping for the best by tossing seeds into a yard and letting nature do her thing.


I think you misunderstand the goal of smoking pot.

The object of the exercise is to get high. If it takes twice as much of something free than it does of something with a price, most pot smkers are going to take the free option. It's not like wine (but it might get there) when people sit around talking about 'body' and 'aroma', it's about the effect as much as anything.

Sure there might be a market for 'high end' weed, but I suspect (but cannot prove) that most people, give the chance between an effectively infinite supply of cheap stuff and an expensive, limited supply version, are going to go for the free.

In this brave new world we're building, most of the pot would be homegrown and it wouldn't worry anyone.

Oh, and there would eventually be a lot of talented amateurs growing very high quality stuff, just like the best veg is from allotments, not supermarkets.

However, if I propogated a strawman, I apologise.

JoelKatz
13th June 2011, 05:34 AM
Say for argument's sake that weed costs two pennies per ounce. Since it is a drug, it would most definitely be taxed. The fact that you can buy say, a dollar's worth, from a friend without paying the taxes on it would leave room for a black market. So yes, you missed my point.So why doesn't this happen with tobacco? It's a drug. It's taxed. There is a black market, but it's not in home-grown tobacco.

The object of the exercise is to get high. If it takes twice as much of something free than it does of something with a price, most pot smkers are going to take the free option. It's not like wine (but it might get there) when people sit around talking about 'body' and 'aroma', it's about the effect as much as anything.So why doesn't this happen with tobacco which is *heavily* taxed? It's because it costs a home grower many times more than a commercial grower. If you want to give your friends free weed (and I'm sure plenty of people would, just as they do with alcohol now), it would still be more efficient to buy it than to grow it.

3point14
13th June 2011, 06:12 AM
So why doesn't this happen with tobacco which is *heavily* taxed? It's because it costs a home grower many times more than a commercial grower. If you want to give your friends free weed (and I'm sure plenty of people would, just as they do with alcohol now), it would still be more efficient to buy it than to grow it.

To be honest, I don't know. I don't know how hard it is to grow good tobacco, how much yeild you get per acre and how much care and attention it requires. I have never known anyone that grows their own tobacco.

I know that, to grow weed, you need sun, earth and seed. I have known quite a few people who have grown their own, it's really easy.

I suspect the reaon is that you need way more tobacco to see a user through a year than you do weed and it's just not practical to grow all that yourself. I am guessing though.

PGH
13th June 2011, 07:03 AM
Sad to fight for the other team but I did realize a reason against growing marijuana in your backyard.

Those damn teenagers.

Assuming marijuana becomes completely legalized I still doubt it would be legal for minors. I'd safely guess there would be a legal age limit, like 21 for alcohol or at the very least 18 years old.

If you're growing marijuana in the backyard and minors are restricted from purchasing it then you better believe they'll hop the fence to score some. I can clearly remember everything we went through as kids trying to get beer. If someone had an alcohol tree (or a weed plant for that matter) growing in their back yard you can believe we'd have found a way to snag it.

Simple solution-high fence around your property with a lock. Not as appealing visually but it should serve as a pretty good deterrent.

Joey McGee
13th June 2011, 07:19 AM
Those damn teenagers.

Assuming marijuana becomes completely legalized I still doubt it would be legal for minors. I'd safely guess there would be a legal age limit, like 21 for alcohol or at the very least 18 years old.No, the illegality of weed punishes teenagers the most. Don't give something for dumb cops to harass bored teenagers with. What do you really need to prevent teenagers from doing? What good does this law really do? Teenagers know where to get pot easier than adults.

tsig
13th June 2011, 08:05 AM
Sad to fight for the other team but I did realize a reason against growing marijuana in your backyard.

Those damn teenagers.

Assuming marijuana becomes completely legalized I still doubt it would be legal for minors. I'd safely guess there would be a legal age limit, like 21 for alcohol or at the very least 18 years old.

If you're growing marijuana in the backyard and minors are restricted from purchasing it then you better believe they'll hop the fence to score some. I can clearly remember everything we went through as kids trying to get beer. If someone had an alcohol tree (or a weed plant for that matter) growing in their back yard you can believe we'd have found a way to snag it.

Simple solution-high fence around your property with a lock. Not as appealing visually but it should serve as a pretty good deterrent.

Electric fences keep out the varmints.

PGH
13th June 2011, 08:14 AM
Oh varmints! That's right. A scourge almost as bad as teenagers.

A buddy of mine in high school who tried to grow a little pot in the woods quickly learned that deer enjoy a good mind altering substance as much as the next guy.

And Joey McGee I support you in theory. But if the push for legalization includes minors there's going to be a real uphill battle, to the point where it won't even be a consideration. It's hard enough right now to get legal medical marijuana for sick people who really could use it. Any movement that supports legalization even in the case of minors is doomed from the start.

nvidiot
13th June 2011, 08:27 AM
You don't have to support legalisation for minors to realise that the present unregulated black market system results in far more cannabis in the hands of minors than there would be if it was a regulated and legalised drug.

If you're worried about more drugs getting into the hands of teh childrenz!!1 then prohibition is an utter failure. One way to see if a regulated or at least semi-regulated market would increase this is to look at the usage rates amongst those under 18 in countries which have done so. If they increased, then perhaps prohibition is the better of two evils. If it stayed similar to before, then legal sanctions do nothing to affect use rates anyway, and if it dropped you could suggest that regulation either decreased desirability of cannabis to minors or made it harder to obtain.

Anyone want to look that up? I think we could find a few example countries...

JFrankA
13th June 2011, 08:42 AM
You don't have to support legalisation for minors to realise that the present unregulated black market system results in far more cannabis in the hands of minors than there would be if it was a regulated and legalised drug.

If you're worried about more drugs getting into the hands of teh childrenz!!1 then prohibition is an utter failure. One way to see if a regulated or at least semi-regulated market would increase this is to look at the usage rates amongst those under 18 in countries which have done so. If they increased, then perhaps prohibition is the better of two evils. If it stayed similar to before, then legal sanctions do nothing to affect use rates anyway, and if it dropped you could suggest that regulation either decreased desirability of cannabis to minors or made it harder to obtain.

Anyone want to look that up? I think we could find a few example countries...

Well, the reasons I've heard from people who do not want to legalize, or decriminalize or even approve it for medical purposes is not to "keep it out of the hands of the children", but "what kind of message are we sending our children".

....Which is a far lamer reason than "keep it out of the hands of the children".

Joey McGee
13th June 2011, 09:11 AM
Yeah, the only thing that will ever change for minors is the quality of pot and the stigma being a pot smoker comes with, no one is going to change how they think about it at this point. Every kid in the western world knows what Reefer Madness is, and they know the government scaremongered and lied about ecstasy too (not to mention those idiots that got a study published in Nature which mistakenly used meth) so basically unless you're hoping that the youth somehow forget about these things, you have to go with education only.

If you don't want your kid to use pot until they leave the house or turn 18, if you do a good job as a parent, chances are they won't. What other minors choose to do is none of your damned business.

MikeSun5
13th June 2011, 02:26 PM
You're guessing. And for the most part, you're guessing wrong.

the pot (pun intended)

And as for the commonly available product, the marijuana that 90% of everyone currently finds to be acceptable quality?
...
So although there may be a demand for a specialty product, it will not put a dent in the mainstream market, the Miller-Lite-on-tap marijuana that almost everyone is smoking now and that almost everyone finds acceptable.

and the kettle.

Where are you getting your statistics? You have any links that support what you're saying? Show me where you saw that 90% of everyone currently finds the commonly available product acceptable. And show me where you found what is considered the "commonly available product." Show me where you learned what "almost everyone is smoking now." Don't preach about guesswork, dude.

...no black market could possibly survive.

Okay fine. I think I finally see where you're coming from. If weed were not taxed, available to children, and 90% of people grew it, there would be no black market. That's a lot of "ifs" though... and unfortunately, none of them are likely.

If marijuana were legal, there would be very few hobby growers and nobody would particularly care about them.

I agree. GeeMack seems to think they would constitute somewhere like 9 out of 10 potheads.

I think you misunderstand the goal of smoking pot.

That's what I tell my mom, anyway. :cool:

The object of the exercise is to get high.

Exactly. As it's been said, weed is a drug. People build up tolerance like any other. Eventually a stoner is going to want to "graduate" to something better. There will always be a market for better stuff. In ANY product. I don't care how inexpensive it is. Water falls from the frickin SKY every day for free, and I can still walk to the store right now and spend like $6.00 on a bottle of some "good stuff."

And what about all those other things for the folks who don't like to smoke? If weed were legalized, I highly (pun intended) doubt that people would be making their own candy bars, lollipops and energy drinks.

dtugg
13th June 2011, 02:36 PM
You can grow the better stuff yourself. They sell the seeds, you know.

MikeSun5
13th June 2011, 03:19 PM
You can grow the better stuff yourself. They sell the seeds, you know.

but...but... that would mean you'd have to BUY something! :eek:

Now you're going to tell me that if weed were legal and everyone could just grow the best of the best by themselves, that the best seeds available would be super duper cheap, right? Probably tax-free too, huh? Dudes selling the seeds probably didn't spend any money on advertising or anything else that could drive up price, huh? :rolleyes:

Please research what commerce is and get back to us.

WildCat
13th June 2011, 05:10 PM
And what about all those other things for the folks who don't like to smoke? If weed were legalized, I highly (pun intended) doubt that people would be making their own candy bars, lollipops and energy drinks.
Nobody is taxing candy bars so they cost $400/oz, as you seem to think will happen with weed. If candy bars did cost $400/oz, yes people would make their own candy bars.

WildCat
13th June 2011, 05:15 PM
but...but... that would mean you'd have to BUY something! :eek:

Now you're going to tell me that if weed were legal and everyone could just grow the best of the best by themselves,
Yes.

that the best seeds available would be super duper cheap, right?
IIRC the seed companies charge ~$7 per seed, supposedly guaranteed female. I would actually expect that to be cheaper if legal since there'd be actual competition. And as others have pointed out marijuana also grows readily from cuttings. You could make many plants from just a single seed, all clones of the original.

Probably tax-free too, huh?
Depends whether you buy it locally or on the internet, like anything else.

Dudes selling the seeds probably didn't spend any money on advertising or anything else that could drive up price, huh? :rolleyes:

Please research what commerce is and get back to us.
Why is this so complicated for you?

Marijuana is a plant, it grows from seeds. Just like tomatoes. Do you have great difficulty growing tomatoes?

GeeMack
13th June 2011, 05:41 PM
Where are you getting your statistics? You have any links that support what you're saying? Show me where you saw that 90% of everyone currently finds the commonly available product acceptable. And show me where you found what is considered the "commonly available product." Show me where you learned what "almost everyone is smoking now." Don't preach about guesswork, dude.


This marijuana crop report, Marijuana Production in the United States (2006) (http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf), indicates that US outdoor marijuana cultivation in 2006 was estimated to be 19.7 million pounds, while indoor cultivation was estimated to be 2.5 million pounds. This report on The Supply of Marijuana to the United States (http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr4/5Supply.html) shows upwards of 50 million pounds a year is available in the US, much of it imported from Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Africa, Jamaica, and elsewhere. It is estimated that only 10% of the marijuana smuggled into the US is intercepted by law enforcement. That's millions of acres of marijuana being grown worldwide, millions of pounds making its way to the US, bought by millions of people, and consumed.

That is the marijuana that almost everyone is smoking now. Nearly 90% of our domestic crop is grown outdoors with little more effort than planting the seeds, watching the rain, in some cases culling the males, chopping it down and drying it on the roofs of sheds and hanging in pole barns. Almost all of the imported marijuana is produced that way. And all of it that doesn't get confiscated gets sold, which makes the fact that "everyone currently finds the commonly available product acceptable" self evident.

Okay fine. I think I finally see where you're coming from. If weed were not taxed, available to children, and 90% of people grew it, there would be no black market. That's a lot of "ifs" though... and unfortunately, none of them are likely.


Actually I've been very clear in my position throughout this discussion, your dishonest attempt to change the meaning of it notwithstanding. If it was legal for adults in the United States to grown marijuana in their yards, porches, basements, or sheds, or for people to grow a few hundred square feet of co-op marijuana gardens, there would be no black market in marijuana. It only costs pennies per ounce to grow.

I agree. GeeMack seems to think they would constitute somewhere like 9 out of 10 potheads.


Again, contrary to your continued effort to dishonestly change the meaning of what I've been saying, if the option was to grown their own marijuana or be involved in small co-op gardens where it can be produced for pennies per ounce, versus the choice of buying marijuana on the black market for up to hundreds of dollars per ounce, the vast majority of people being intelligent enough, willing enough, and capable enough, would opt to grow their own. This is obviously not based on your personal intelligence, willingness, and capability.

Exactly. As it's been said, weed is a drug. People build up tolerance like any other. Eventually a stoner is going to want to "graduate" to something better. There will always be a market for better stuff. In ANY product. I don't care how inexpensive it is. Water falls from the frickin SKY every day for free, and I can still walk to the store right now and spend like $6.00 on a bottle of some "good stuff."


That's nonsense. Again you demonstrate that you don't really have any idea what you're talking about. People smoke similar amounts of pot week after week for decades without craving something stronger. Certainly there will be a market for a specialty version of virtually any product, but just like the millions of people happily guzzling millions of gallons of cheap beer, cans of Bud and Miller and pitchers from a tap every day, the average marijuana consumer is not a connoisseur. They just want a decent buzz as cheaply as they can get it. Millions of them.

And as for buying water for $6 a bottle, sure some people are easily duped by effective marketing. Those same rubes might be buying $150 an ounce marijuana even if they can spend an hour a week growing it for $3. It would be irrational to suggest that is the common consumer. Clearly the common consumer considers what they're buying and smoking now to be acceptable quality because, well, they're buying it and smoking it now.

And what about all those other things for the folks who don't like to smoke? If weed were legalized, I highly (pun intended) doubt that people would be making their own candy bars, lollipops and energy drinks.


Who cares? The common consumer today, even while it's subject to prohibition, smokes marijuana grown in dirt and sun, watered by rain, dried in barns and on tin roofs, and produced at a cost of pennies per ounce. If given the legal opportunity to grow their own, and if the alternative was to pay $150 an ounce from a bootlegger, smart resourceful people would grow their own.

Mycroft
13th June 2011, 11:40 PM
Sure, but if marijuana would be legal, it would most definitely be taxed like any other legal drug. That hobby grower would be breaking the law by supplying his friends with untaxed weed.

Yikes.



It's not a competition for seed companies, it's a competition of marijuana strains. If individuals grew better stuff than a company that specializes in it, then there's nothing stopping them from entering a strain. Believe me, the judges don't care where it's from, they just want to smoke the best. ;) The point is that the seed companies grow better stuff than individuals.

Nobody is disputing the fact that genetics are the main factor in quality. It's just that the common homegrower doesn't have access to all the strains that a seed company does. A guy growing dirt weed in his back yard is not going to be experimenting with hybrid strains and mixing clones or whatever to get a higher quality strain. That guy is just hoping it doesn't rain for 4 days straight and ruin his crop.

Companies that specialize in a product will always have an advantage over the do it yourself guy, and that specialization will always be in demand. That's why the world doesn't drink Miller High Life all the time. Because there is better stuff out there.

Uhm, if a seed company produces a superior strain, they would then sell the seeds so anyone could buy them. That's why they're called seed companies. They're companies that sell seeds. Giving the everyday guy access to these superior genetics is exactly what these seed companies do.

Mycroft
13th June 2011, 11:56 PM
but...but... that would mean you'd have to BUY something! :eek:

Now you're going to tell me that if weed were legal and everyone could just grow the best of the best by themselves, that the best seeds available would be super duper cheap, right? Probably tax-free too, huh? Dudes selling the seeds probably didn't spend any money on advertising or anything else that could drive up price, huh? :rolleyes:

Please research what commerce is and get back to us.

Look, you can google marijuana seeds and see for yourself how much they cost. Even though they are illegal, you can still buy them online easily. But even if they were prohibitively expensive, any entrepreneur could make their money back by selling more cuttings or seeds of the plants they grew.

JoelKatz
14th June 2011, 12:21 AM
To be honest, I don't know. I don't know how hard it is to grow good tobacco, how much yeild you get per acre and how much care and attention it requires. I have never known anyone that grows their own tobacco.It's simply because commercial growers have the benefits of an economy of scale. Even though they are taxed and you could evade the tax by growing your own, it's still an order of magnitude cheaper to buy tobacco from commercial growers.

I know that, to grow weed, you need sun, earth and seed. I have known quite a few people who have grown their own, it's really easy.That's likely because of how much safer it is than their other options, not because it is commercially sensible.

I suspect the reaon is that you need way more tobacco to see a user through a year than you do weed and it's just not practical to grow all that yourself. I am guessing though.It's not practical to grow any weed yourself. People don't do it because it's practical, they do it because they have no good choices. Why don't most people grow their own tomatoes, can their own jam, or bake their own bread? All of these things are vastly more efficient as large-scale commercial operations.

Most of the people who do these things themselves do so either because they don't have access to the commercial products or they prefer a customized, fresh, or higher-quality product. With marijuana, like tobacco, those wouldn't be significant factors (unlike bread and jam).

3point14
14th June 2011, 02:29 AM
Look, you can google marijuana seeds and see for yourself how much they cost. Even though they are illegal, you can still buy them online easily. But even if they were prohibitively expensive, any entrepreneur could make their money back by selling more cuttings or seeds of the plants they grew.

round here it's not even illegal:

http://www.carpkrazy.com/carp-baits-hempseed.html

3point14
14th June 2011, 02:36 AM
It's simply because commercial growers have the benefits of an economy of scale. Even though they are taxed and you could evade the tax by growing your own, it's still an order of magnitude cheaper to buy tobacco from commercial growers.

That's likely because of how much safer it is than their other options, not because it is commercially sensible.

It's not practical to grow any weed yourself. People don't do it because it's practical, they do it because they have no good choices. Why don't most people grow their own tomatoes, can their own jam, or bake their own bread? All of these things are vastly more efficient as large-scale commercial operations.

Most of the people who do these things themselves do so either because they don't have access to the commercial products or they prefer a customized, fresh, or higher-quality product. With marijuana, like tobacco, those wouldn't be significant factors (unlike bread and jam).

I'm not sure about that. Tomatoes and stuff are really much harder to get right than weed. For anynoe who keeps houseplants or tends a garden it's practially zero more effort to grow a hemp plant, you just add it to the bottom of the list.

You may be right about the commercial product being more desirable as it requires less effort, but the ability to stick a plant in the ground would keep the prices of comnmercial crops honest, at least.

dafydd
14th June 2011, 03:14 AM
It's just a plant,I've never understood what all the fuss is about.

Aepervius
14th June 2011, 03:49 AM
Not bigoted, Joey, I don't find the special pleading for dope as the next wonder drug to have any substance.

If you look at about 80 years of history, to yesterday, you will find hemp being used for a wide variety of things. It got itself into recreational status through no fault of its own ... it got there by HOW IT WAS HABITUALLY USED.

Your special pleading isn't helping. That is does have medicinal uses is a good thing, but don't pretend that for that past 80 years, dope has been used primarily as medicine. If it does have medicinal uses, good, use it for such. I am actually on the California side of the case that went down about 5 years ago (Oakland) where the Feds got overzealous on the dope being used for what was, in CA, legal use.

But that doesn't change the standards of usage.

Try

Preponderance of evidence on its usage, Joey, and you might be worth listening to.

By the way, I am a proponent of dope as a legal recreational drug, like beer.

Just in case your own bigotry in re people who don't see things your way has clouded your vision.

So, again, to understand the point: you are arguing for dope via special pleading, under the premise that dope has a special virtue.

I don't find that reasoning compelling. That I 'd prefer doctors to be able to prescribe it as an option seems to have gone by you like the SST, when it was still flying.

The ilelgal use is indeed recreational overwhelmy. But I think his point was that the legal use , the medicinal one is not overwhelmely recreational as you seem to place it. If you say the main use of medicinal Mari Jeanne is recreational then provide evidence for it. Until then you are indeed prejudiced by the ilelgal use and congruate it with the medicinal use. Pardon me if I am wrong on what you meant, but this is how I read your post.

Joey McGee
14th June 2011, 05:00 AM
The ilelgal use is indeed recreational overwhelmy. But I think his point was that the legal use , the medicinal one is not overwhelmely recreational as you seem to place it. If you say the main use of medicinal Mari Jeanne is recreational then provide evidence for it. Until then you are indeed prejudiced by the ilelgal use and congruate it with the medicinal use. Pardon me if I am wrong on what you meant, but this is how I read your post.No this is a misunderstanding, unless I have also misunderstood :)

Darth Rotor is right that you shouldn't use the "medical marijuana" argument for legalizing pot. After all morphine has lots of medical uses too but that doesn't mean we should legalize it for everyone. You shouldn't say "It's medicinal, therefore legalize it!" This indeed would be special pleading, to treat pot differently than any other medical drug. My point is simply that I have never said this, I have also never heard anyone else say it, to the best of my recollection. I have however heard it used as an attack on activists quite often. It is a straw man/appeal to emotion/muddying the waters type of thing. What I would ask for is evidence of any activist actually explicitly using this argument.

In that other thread I showed that reputable scientists working in the field are outraged and disgusted by the restrictions on research and strongarming from NIDA. The AMA recommends the US govt remove pot from schedule I and place it on III, a Canadian judge forced the government to change it's policies to stop maltreatment of patients by bigoted doctors. There are real medical marijuana issues that call for evidence-based sanity. This is all very important stuff.

But if your goal is complete legalization there are easier, more basic arguments to make that serve your goal more directly. I think that's all he was really trying to suggest.

Aepervius
14th June 2011, 05:53 AM
Ha thanks I understood it the other way around, which made no sense.

Taarkin
14th June 2011, 07:44 AM
It's just a plant,I've never understood what all the fuss is about.
Minorities like it, therefore

dafydd
14th June 2011, 08:37 AM
Minorities like it, therefore

If Walter Raleigh had brought back weed from the New World instead of tobacco then things would be different. I'll bet the native Americans are still giggling about that one.

PGH
14th June 2011, 10:05 AM
If Walter Raleigh had brought back weed from the New World instead of tobacco then things would be different. I'll bet the native Americans are still giggling about that one.

"No worry. We give white man brown plants. We keep good green plants for us. Silly white man probably try to destroy good green plants, call it Manifest Destiny."

/racist parody

NewtonTrino
14th June 2011, 12:18 PM
BTW I smoke tons of outdoor norcal produced pot. It's fine...

WildCat
14th June 2011, 12:34 PM
It's simply because commercial growers have the benefits of an economy of scale. Even though they are taxed and you could evade the tax by growing your own, it's still an order of magnitude cheaper to buy tobacco from commercial growers.

That's likely because of how much safer it is than their other options, not because it is commercially sensible.

It's not practical to grow any weed yourself. People don't do it because it's practical, they do it because they have no good choices. Why don't most people grow their own tomatoes, can their own jam, or bake their own bread? All of these things are vastly more efficient as large-scale commercial operations.

Most of the people who do these things themselves do so either because they don't have access to the commercial products or they prefer a customized, fresh, or higher-quality product. With marijuana, like tobacco, those wouldn't be significant factors (unlike bread and jam).
The difference between tobacco and marijuana is scale. A couple of plants in 10 square feet of space produces enough to supply the typical pot smoker for a year. Tobacco smokers typically smoke about a pack (about 1 oz) of tobacco per day, whereas an ounce of marijuana lasts even a heavy marijuana smoker a month. To grow your own year's supply of tobacco you need space, and a lot of it. A quarter acre at least. And not only do you need a lot of space to grow it, you need more space to cure it. Few people have this much extra space. Not to mention the extra time it takes to maintain 150-200 plants as opposed to 3-4 plants.

And then there's the far more complex curing process for tobacco, which includes additives. Marijuana is simple to cure and needs no additives, in fact I've never heard of any marijuana grower using additives.

If you have a reasonable marijuana tax, say $5-$10/oz, then many people would likely just buy it at a retail outlet. But from what I gather people have far more ambitious tax plans for marijuana, $100/oz and up. At that price point yes, many (most?) marijuana smokers will just grow their own. Certainly the heavy users will.

NewtonTrino
14th June 2011, 12:36 PM
If you have a reasonable marijuana tax, say $5-$10/oz, then many people would likely just buy it at a retail outlet. But from what I gather people have far more ambitious tax plans for marijuana, $100/oz and up. At that price point yes, many (most?) marijuana smokers will just grow their own. Certainly the heavy users will.

For the record as someone who smokes a lot of pot I would never grow my own. Nor do I make my own wine but I still drink plenty of good stuff. I would gladly pay $100oz in tax if I can buy premade joints at 7-11.

WildCat
14th June 2011, 12:37 PM
round here it's not even illegal:

http://www.carpkrazy.com/carp-baits-hempseed.html
Er, hemp seed is legal in the US too. Most bird seed contains it.

But you will not be able to produce marijuana from hemp seed. Hemp was bred for fiber, not to smoke. It produces very little THC.

eta: and why would anyone want to catch carp? Yuck!

WildCat
14th June 2011, 12:41 PM
For the record as someone who smokes a lot of pot I would never grow my own. Nor do I make my own wine but I still drink plenty of good stuff. I would gladly pay $100oz in tax if I can buy premade joints at 7-11.
You also claim to be quite wealthy. You would look at it from an entirely different perspective if you were of average income.

NewtonTrino
14th June 2011, 12:48 PM
You also claim to be quite wealthy. You would look at it from an entirely different perspective if you were of average income.

Yup, that's entirely possible. I can only speak for myself.

PGH
14th June 2011, 12:56 PM
For the record as someone who smokes a lot of pot I would never grow my own. Nor do I make my own wine but I still drink plenty of good stuff. I would gladly pay $100oz in tax if I can buy premade joints at 7-11.

I probably would too (and many other people). I live in the city so growing space isn't much of an option, I'd have to dig up the old concrete out back. And, like I said before, you never know if someone is going to swipe your plants. Plus all the effort and time involved in harvesting.

I'd probably try it as a hobby. Almost certainly. But for most of my needs I'm sure I'd be buying from a smoke shop. Like most people.

Plus the $100 a month you listed above is exactly my monthly expenditure on the quality stuff I get now and go through like it's never going to end. And I'm far from wealthy. Man is work over yet??

dafydd
14th June 2011, 02:29 PM
There is an organization in Belgium called Trek U Plant. If anyone can speak Dutch I'll provide the link. They campaign for legalization and also grow a plant for you,it costs 45 euros. When the plant is ready you go and collect it and dry it yourself. Their plantation was recently raided and all the plants were confiscated.You are allowed to have three plants for your own use in Belgium. All the confiscated plants had a certificate of ownership and were tagged with the owner's name. The organization put in an immediate appeal and the the police were forced to return the plants. What a stupid waste of time and money,all this fuss about a weed. If a person wants to smoke it,it's their business.

JoelKatz
14th June 2011, 06:33 PM
If you have a reasonable marijuana tax, say $5-$10/oz, then many people would likely just buy it at a retail outlet. But from what I gather people have far more ambitious tax plans for marijuana, $100/oz and up. At that price point yes, many (most?) marijuana smokers will just grow their own. Certainly the heavy users will.That is absolutely right. A high tax, on almost anything, will prompt significant evasion.

Taarkin
14th June 2011, 07:50 PM
That is absolutely right. A high tax, on almost anything, will prompt significant evasion.
Yes. The current "illegal drug dealer's tax" is a lot higher than $5-10/oz.

WildCat
14th June 2011, 08:37 PM
Yes. The current "illegal drug dealer's tax" is a lot higher than $5-10/oz.
It's far cheaper than the tax of growing it yourself, which wll result in losing your home and 5-10 in the slammer.

Georg
14th June 2011, 09:54 PM
but...but... that would mean you'd have to BUY something! :eek:

Now you're going to tell me that if weed were legal and everyone could just grow the best of the best by themselves, that the best seeds available would be super duper cheap, right? Probably tax-free too, huh? Dudes selling the seeds probably didn't spend any money on advertising or anything else that could drive up price, huh? :rolleyes:

Please research what commerce is and get back to us.


You're becoming desperate with your argumentation.....

That sort (http://sensiseeds.com/earlyskunkfeminised/1p1560008.htm) is available at 60 Euro (roughly 90 US dollars) for 10 feminized seeds.
If you only get a ripe plant out of every second seed (maybe not all open, maybe a plant gets eaten by snails or whatever) that would mean 18 dollars for a plant. Add two dollars for fertilizer (the cheapest one will do), you arrive at 20 dollars a plant that can easily get you 5 ounces of dry buds (we don't smoke the leaves where I live). You get your ounce of very good weed for 4 dollars. Seeds would even get cheaper if more people would buy them, right?

Yeah, really expensive......

3point14
15th June 2011, 02:02 AM
Er, hemp seed is legal in the US too. Most bird seed contains it.

But you will not be able to produce marijuana from hemp seed. Hemp was bred for fiber, not to smoke. It produces very little THC.

eta: and why would anyone want to catch carp? Yuck!

Oh, it is possible.

I used to live near a 'jungle shop' that sold hyrdoponic equipment and lights and control irrigation systems, and, very, very oddly, fishing bait. Very, very high quality fishing bait. Believe me, it worked. :)

3point14
15th June 2011, 02:10 AM
It's far cheaper than the tax of growing it yourself, which wll result in losing your home and 5-10 in the slammer.

I'm so glad I don't live in the states. I mean, the fact that it's illegal both here and there is crazy, but your home and five to ten? For possesing a plant?

JFrankA
15th June 2011, 02:30 AM
I'm so glad I don't live in the states. I mean, the fact that it's illegal both here and there is crazy, but your home and five to ten? For possesing a plant?

You forget. This is the country where the President was compared to Hitler when he tried to give everyone health care........


The people of the US get caught up in hype very easily, and, unfortunetly, it's hard for us to let it go. :(

nvidiot
15th June 2011, 02:52 AM
Problem being that the US wasnt really happy leaving the hype at home.

Cannabis is cheap to produce, and even in the most expensive indoor hydroponic gardens is capable of producing profit margins in orders of magnitude.

A legalized regime would include a small hobby market, sure, and a connoisseur and el cheapo market as well. Just like now really, just generating more tax, more legitimate employment and wouldn't criminalise individual preference for psychoactive substances.

I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a progressively declining taxation system in the early days of repeal. But ultimately the price of cannabis is not determined by free market forces. It's determined by black market forces, and all that entails for the producers, marketers and consumers.

Let's be blunt: people are now consuming cannabis at a massive rate. This isnt going to change with the same tools. Even criminal sanctions like the aforementioned and abominable 5-10 and lose your house doesn't stop it. So who would you rather sells you or your dad, or your mum, or your son, or your daughter, cannabis? (remember it's going to happen whether you like it or not) The guy down the street who dropped out of horticulture school and is making a buck to support a habit? Or a professional business generating profits and taxation with strict quality, potency and regulatory controls?

Hmmmm?

3point14
15th June 2011, 02:55 AM
You forget. This is the country where the President was compared to Hitler when he tried to give everyone health care........


The people of the US get caught up in hype very easily, and, unfortunetly, it's hard for us to let it go. :(


See, that works great when it's say, "Let's go to the moon", the inability to let go of that one worked out quite well in the end.

With this issue, less so.

Does anyone have any idea just what % of US citizens would riot in the streets (or at least shift their vote) if it were legalised? Are more than 50% of the public over there aware that it being illegal is just daft and expensive?


For myself, a fairly boring middle class individual, in a middle class area and working in a pretty unremarkable office and it never ceases to amaze me the number of people that do indulge. I realise it's anecdotal and so biased it's not true, but it's way over 50%.

Taarkin
15th June 2011, 08:21 AM
I'm so glad I don't live in the states. I mean, the fact that it's illegal both here and there is crazy, but your home and five to ten? For possesing a plant?
Don't worry, it's not always 5-10 years. Sometimes, it is a life sentence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=208726).

MikeSun5
15th June 2011, 03:39 PM
That is the marijuana that almost everyone is smoking now. Nearly 90% of our domestic crop is grown outdoors

That's not what you said. You made a distinction between high-grade weed and "commonly accepted product," and now post links that refer to ALL marijuana? Your links don't prove any of the claims you made, they're just attempts at misdirection. Bad form.

I want to see proof that "almost everyone" is smoking that "Miller-Lite-on-tap marijuana" right now. (your words)

If it was legal for adults in the United States to grown marijuana in their yards, porches, basements, or sheds, or for people to grow a few hundred square feet of co-op marijuana gardens, there would be no black market in marijuana.

Yes, you've said that. And again, I think you are wrong. I contend that because marijuana is a drug, it will be taxed just like cigarettes. I think that tax would result in a black market, just like it does for cigarettes. I also think that prices would not drop to "pennies," as you seem to think.

Again, contrary to your continued effort to dishonestly change the meaning of what I've been saying,

...another pot...

if the option was to grown their own marijuana or be involved in small co-op gardens where it can be produced for pennies per ounce, versus the choice of buying marijuana on the black market for up to hundreds of dollars per ounce, the vast majority of people being intelligent enough, willing enough, and capable enough, would opt to grow their own.

...and another kettle. In the same sentence, no less! If marijuana were legalized, prices would surely drop from hundreds of dollars per ouce, so attributing that argument to me is a strawman. I'm just saying prices would not drop to "pennies" like you seem to be saying. Ask any cigarette smoker: they'll likely tell you they pay too much in taxes for their smokes. What makes you think marijuana would be different in terms of over-taxing? It's a drug that millions of people currently pay hundreds of dollars an ounce for, after all.

Certainly there will be a market for a specialty version of virtually any product, but just like the millions of people happily guzzling millions of gallons of cheap beer, cans of Bud and Miller and pitchers from a tap every day, the average marijuana consumer is not a connoisseur.

The average consumer?? How do you even know?? You say stuff like the "average marijuana consumer" and use phrases like "almost everyone" and that clearly shows you're guessing. How can you speak for "almost everyone," or even the "average consumer" when you have no data to support it?

They just want a decent buzz as cheaply as they can get it. Millions of them.

Sure, but there are millions more who would pay for something 1.) they don't want to grow themselves, 2.) they can't grow themselves, 3.) is better than what they have, 4.) they are too young to obtain legally.

And as for buying water for $6 a bottle, sure some people are easily duped by effective marketing.

Yet the bottle remains for sale at that price. How would marijuana be different?

If given the legal opportunity to grow their own, and if the alternative was to pay $150 an ounce from a bootlegger, smart resourceful people would grow their own.

And how many people (percentage wise, or number wise) do you think are smart and resourceful enough to do so? I've been trying to get you to answer that question, but you can't. I did notice you've shifted from "almost everyone" to "smart resourceful people," but you still can't answer the question.

Also, your generalizing statements don't account for the "smart resourceful" people who would rather pay for someone else to grow it. There is a large section of people down here who support price gouging during hurricane season. People will stock up on plywood, water, and gasoline and sell them down the street at almost double the price when the lines for the gas stations and Home Depot are 2 miles long. Guess what? People will pay double if they don't have to wait. That sounds absurd when all it takes is a little planning ahead, but people are always willing to pay extra for convenience. What makes you think marijuana would be any different?

Uhm, if a seed company produces a superior strain, they would then sell the seeds so anyone could buy them. That's why they're called seed companies.

Exactly. But do you think that IF weed were to be legalized, and that legalization included growing it yourself in your yard, don't you think the seeds would be taxed as much if not more than a bag of kush would?

If you have a reasonable marijuana tax, say $5-$10/oz, then many people would likely just buy it at a retail outlet. But from what I gather people have far more ambitious tax plans for marijuana, $100/oz and up. At that price point yes, many (most?) marijuana smokers will just grow their own. Certainly the heavy users will.

I highly doubt any marijuana tax would be "reasonable," which is why I believe there will be ample room for a black market. I just think that the number of people who will grow their own is exaggerated in this thread.

NewtonTrino
15th June 2011, 03:46 PM
That's not what you said. You made a distinction between high-grade weed and "commonly accepted product," and now post links that refer to ALL marijuana? Your links don't prove any of the claims you made, they're just attempts at misdirection. Bad form.

I want to see proof that "almost everyone" is smoking that "Miller-Lite-on-tap marijuana" right now. (your words)


Potency is irrelevant if you have quantity. I would rather smoke hash anyway and you can make that from ditch weed if you have enough of it.

I smoke plenty of norcal outdoor stuff. It's fine.

Also most people have no idea what they're smoking unless they make it themselves anyway. Many people are happy to get access at all.


Yes, you've said that. And again, I think you are wrong. I contend that because marijuana is a drug, it will be taxed just like cigarettes. I think that tax would result in a black market, just like it does for cigarettes. I also think that prices would not drop to "pennies," as you seem to think.


So set the price correctly. Some amount of tax is certainly feasible.


...and another kettle. In the same sentence, no less! If marijuana were legalized, prices would surely drop from hundreds of dollars per ouce, so attributing that argument to me is a strawman. I'm just saying prices would not drop to "pennies" like you seem to be saying. Ask any cigarette smoker: they'll likely tell you they pay too much in taxes for their smokes. What makes you think marijuana would be different in terms of over-taxing? It's a drug that millions of people currently pay hundreds of dollars an ounce for, after all.


Most pot smokers would love to pay the same prices as cigarettes. That would be about 100x cheaper still.


I highly doubt any marijuana tax would be "reasonable," which is why I believe there will be ample room for a black market. I just think that the number of people who will grow their own is exaggerated in this thread.

Even $100 an oz would be about 1/3 the price people now pay.

I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.

WildCat
15th June 2011, 04:16 PM
I'm so glad I don't live in the states. I mean, the fact that it's illegal both here and there is crazy, but your home and five to ten? For possesing a plant?
They don't even need a trial to take your home.

MikeSun5
15th June 2011, 04:24 PM
I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.

I am arguing GeeMack's notion that weed would be "almost free," I'm arguing the idea that there would be no black market if weed were legal, and I'm arguing the claim that "almost everyone" (or even "most people") would grow their own if allowed to.

You responded to responses from a conversation you and I weren't having. I think that's what confused you.

Taarkin
15th June 2011, 04:39 PM
edit: if you leave the reply window open too long, your reply might be rendered obsolete!

Distracted1
15th June 2011, 05:10 PM
I am arguing GeeMack's notion that weed would be "almost free," I'm arguing the idea that there would be no black market if weed were legal, and I'm arguing the claim that "almost everyone" (or even "most people") would grow their own if allowed to.

You responded to responses from a conversation you and I weren't having. I think that's what confused you.
In 1988 my "good friend" grew a pot plant in his backyard in Michigan (which has a relatively short growing season).
Helped along by conscientious pruning, Miracle-grow, and a sunnier than average summer, he yeilded a large crop of moist, sticky,buds (some longer than an adults' hand) which completely filled four, gallon sized freezer bags.
The crop was of a quality equal or superior to what we were regularly purchasing at the time.

Not wishing to consider himself a drug-dealer, my friend kept two bags, and gifted the rest to a few good friends, keeping them all supplied for months, for free.

I haven't smoked weed for over a decade, but I can tell you that if it were legal I would regularly grow plants for the hell of it, maybe smoke a single bowl, and give the rest away to whoever cares to have it.

I find myself with many more pounds of tomatoes than I can use most summers, and do the same with them.

I know that is anecdotal evidence, but my gut feeling is that I would be but one of many regularly giving/throwing away good pot.

GeeMack
15th June 2011, 05:46 PM
That's not what you said. You made a distinction between high-grade weed and "commonly accepted product," and now post links that refer to ALL marijuana? Your links don't prove any of the claims you made, they're just attempts at misdirection. Bad form.

I want to see proof that "almost everyone" is smoking that "Miller-Lite-on-tap marijuana" right now. (your words)


Unless you can demonstrate that something like 50 million pounds of dirt and sun grown marijuana that gets bought and sold in this country are simply being discarded and not consumed, or demonstrate that there is some marijuana in radically greater quantities being consumed but somehow nobody is aware that it exists, your badgering and whining above can be dismissed as just that.

Yes, you've said that. And again, I think you are wrong. I contend that because marijuana is a drug, it will be taxed just like cigarettes. I think that tax would result in a black market, just like it does for cigarettes. I also think that prices would not drop to "pennies," as you seem to think.


I contend that you appear to be having a hard time understanding plain English, and/or are dishonestly attributing to me a position I haven't taken. Since everyone else in this discussion seems to understand what I've written so far, I see no reason to post it all again only to have you lie about it again.

If marijuana were legalized, prices would surely drop from hundreds of dollars per ouce, so attributing that argument to me is a strawman. I'm just saying prices would not drop to "pennies" like you seem to be saying. Ask any cigarette smoker: they'll likely tell you they pay too much in taxes for their smokes. What makes you think marijuana would be different in terms of over-taxing? It's a drug that millions of people currently pay hundreds of dollars an ounce for, after all.


Virtually all the people I've ever known have the agricultural skills, or at least aptitude, at or above those of a typical eleven year old kid. And all those people could easily grow excellent quality marijuana, enough to supply their entire annual requirement and then some, with only maybe an hour's time per week for several weeks each summer. I've already conceded that you and the people you know may not possess that level of intellect or capability.

The average consumer?? How do you even know?? You say stuff like the "average marijuana consumer" and use phrases like "almost everyone" and that clearly shows you're guessing. How can you speak for "almost everyone," or even the "average consumer" when you have no data to support it?


The average consumer. Those people buying and presumably smoking those millions of pounds of dirt and sun grown marijuana from my references. Your intentional ignorance of those references does not make them cease to exist.

Sure, but there are millions more who would pay for something 1.) they don't want to grow themselves, 2.) they can't grow themselves, 3.) is better than what they have, 4.) they are too young to obtain legally.


And again, it appears you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. There is no marijuana in the world that can't be grown by any individual I know or have ever known. There is no magical "better" marijuana that some mysterious bootlegger can grow that can't be grown by any person with a few square feet of backyard.

Yet the bottle remains for sale at that price. How would marijuana be different?


There will almost certainly be idiots who would pay radically higher prices than necessary because they are rich, lazy, stupid, easily fooled, pretentious, or for any of a number of other reasons. After all, some of those idiots are buying water for $6 a bottle. Unless you are able to demonstrate that those are the mainstream consumers, somehow analogous to the people buying and smoking the 50 million pounds of dirt and sun grown marijuana, your argument is nonsense, a silly non sequitur.

And how many people (percentage wise, or number wise) do you think are smart and resourceful enough to do so? I've been trying to get you to answer that question, but you can't. I did notice you've shifted from "almost everyone" to "smart resourceful people," but you still can't answer the question.


Almost everyone I know has the intelligence to acquire the agricultural skills of a bright fourth grade child. That's smart and resourceful enough to grow a small crop of excellent marijuana. You probably won't get an argument if you contend that you and your associates are less intellectually capable or less skilled than that.

Also, your generalizing statements don't account for the "smart resourceful" people who would rather pay for someone else to grow it. There is a large section of people down here who support price gouging during hurricane season. People will stock up on plywood, water, and gasoline and sell them down the street at almost double the price when the lines for the gas stations and Home Depot are 2 miles long. Guess what? People will pay double if they don't have to wait. That sounds absurd when all it takes is a little planning ahead, but people are always willing to pay extra for convenience. What makes you think marijuana would be any different?


Nonsense. We're not talking about lining up to buy something in an emergency or natural disaster situation. It is interesting, and telling, that your position is so pitifully feeble that it requires you reach to such a silly extreme.

I highly doubt any marijuana tax would be "reasonable," which is why I believe there will be ample room for a black market. I just think that the number of people who will grow their own is exaggerated in this thread.


If it was legal for any adult to grow a few marijuana plants in the yard or on the porch, or for anyone to share a few hundred square feet of co-op marijuana garden among friends, at a production cost of a few cents per ounce, and if the alternative was to pay hundreds of dollars an ounce to buy marijuana from black market suppliers, people would grow their own. But maybe I'm biased because pretty much everyone I know is at least as intelligent and resourceful as an average grade school kid.

Taarkin
15th June 2011, 07:07 PM
If legalized, weed would still cost a nonzero amount of money and there would be a nonzero amount of black market activity, therefore [????]

GeeMack
15th June 2011, 08:05 PM
If legalized, weed would still cost a nonzero amount of money and there would be a nonzero amount of black market activity, therefore [????]


If marijuana was legal for adults in the US to grow in their yards or houses, the black market in marijuana would be similar to the black market in beer. There would likely be similar amounts of drive by shootings and turf wars, similar amounts of smuggling across borders, similar amounts of overfilled planes crashing and boats sinking, similar amounts of people filling courtrooms and jail cells as we have now with all those beer bootleggers.

MikeSun5
15th June 2011, 08:26 PM
Unless you can demonstrate...your badgering and whining above can be dismissed as just that.

I don't need to demonstrate a thing. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. You claimed that "almost everybody" smokes cheap weed, or for the sake of the conversation, you used the "Miller-Lite-on-tap" comparison. Here:

the Miller-Lite-on-tap marijuana that almost everyone is smoking now and that almost everyone finds acceptable

You said that. You refused to say how many you think "almost everyone" is, and you couldn't support what you were saying. You're just evading now. You didn't answer any of my questions or respond to any points. I asked you a direct question about taxes and you ignored it and spouted off about how children are smart enough to grow weed. You're getting close to troll status, but I'm still not going to resort to your silly way of implicit insults in an attempt to avoid the mods' Rule 0. Grow a pair and call me stupid, already. ;)

There is no marijuana in the world that can't be grown by any individual I know or have ever known.

By "can't grow it," I meant not everyone has a place to grow it. But you knew that, you're just playing semantics. Beats having to answer questions, I guess.

There will almost certainly be idiots who would pay radically higher prices than necessary because they are rich, lazy, stupid, easily fooled, pretentious, or for any of a number of other reasons. After all, some of those idiots are buying water for $6 a bottle.

Hey! Common ground! I agree. Kind of makes me wonder, though. How much do YOU pay for water? It's free from the sky, after all. I'd say that almost everybody has the mental capacity to put buckets outside when it's raining. Why do you think nobody does?

Unless you are able to demonstrate that those are the mainstream consumers...

I don't have to. I simply said there were millions of them.

We're not talking about lining up to buy something in an emergency or natural disaster situation. It is interesting, and telling, that your position is so pitifully feeble that it requires you reach to such a silly extreme.

I've been trying to find ways to get different points across to you, but nothing seems to get through because you ignore most of it. It is interesting, and telling, that my use of such an extreme example finally got you to admit people will unnecessarily pay lots of money for a product. Who knows? A few more extreme examples and maybe you might see that you don't know wtf you're talking about. :rolleyes:

If it was legal for any adult to grow a few marijuana plants in the yard or on the porch, or for anyone to share a few hundred square feet of co-op marijuana garden among friends, at a production cost of a few cents per ounce, and if the alternative was to pay hundreds of dollars an ounce to buy marijuana from black market suppliers, people would grow their own.

As usual, the "ifs" here don't account for any of the discussion that has taken place here. You are intentionally ignoring most of what has been said so you can keep repeating this BS.

If weed were legalized, it would be taxed regardless of if you grow it yourself or not. The black market would revolve around TAX and the lack thereof, not pennies vs. hundreds of dollars. This has been explained ad nauseum, but you're not paying attention because you insist on repeating your same crazy mantra. Here, lemme save you some time.

If it was legal for any adult to grow a few marijuana plants in the yard or on the porch, or for anyone to share a few hundred square feet of co-op marijuana garden among friends, at a production cost of a few cents per ounce, and if the alternative was to pay hundreds of dollars an ounce to buy marijuana from black market suppliers, people would grow their own.

:slp:

GeeMack
15th June 2011, 09:02 PM
I don't need to demonstrate a thing. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. You claimed that "almost everybody" smokes cheap weed, or for the sake of the conversation, you used the "Miller-Lite-on-tap" comparison.


By far and away the majority of marijuana consumed in the US costs only a few cents an ounce to produce. It's grown in dirt, sun, and rain. Upwards of 50 million pounds of it per year. I already linked the source. Again, your ignorance of that source does not make it go away. If you don't believe that's what they're smoking, you're welcome to provide a source of your own to show otherwise.

Mycroft
15th June 2011, 09:11 PM
Exactly. But do you think that IF weed were to be legalized, and that legalization included growing it yourself in your yard, don't you think the seeds would be taxed as much if not more than a bag of kush would?

No, but it wouldn't matter if they did.

It's ridiculously easy to grow and propagate. If the cost per seed were $100, all I'd need to do is get one viable plant growing, and I'd be able to make my money back ten times over by selling healthy rooted cuttings for $10 each. Or I'd let the plant go to seed, and have hundreds of seeds to sell or give away myself. Once it's made legal for individuals to grow, there is no way to contain it.

WildCat
15th June 2011, 09:18 PM
I am arguing GeeMack's notion that weed would be "almost free," I'm arguing the idea that there would be no black market if weed were legal, and I'm arguing the claim that "almost everyone" (or even "most people") would grow their own if allowed to.
You're certainly trying to argue that. But it's not very convincing. Basically, your premise is that most pot smokers love spending lots of cash on something any idiot can grow.

WildCat
15th June 2011, 09:30 PM
Or I'd let the plant go to seed
That's a bit trickier than cuttings. Marijuana plants are either male or female, only the females flower into the "buds" people smoke". A bud is actually hundreds of flowers. If left unpollinated the plant keeps producing flowers, and the buds get thicker and more potent.

If you had a female plant and wanted it to produce seed through self-pollination (assuring it's a clone of the parent) you'd have to force it to become a hermaphrodite, producing both male and female flowers. This can sometimes be done by stressing the plant, but it's hit or miss. At which point it would polllinate itelf and you'd have seeds which are clones of the parent plant.

Mycroft
15th June 2011, 09:32 PM
By far and away the majority of marijuana consumed in the US costs only a few cents an ounce to produce. It's grown in dirt, sun, and rain. Upwards of 50 million pounds of it per year. I already linked the source. Again, your ignorance of that source does not make it go away. If you don't believe that's what they're smoking, you're welcome to provide a source of your own to show otherwise.

You know, I think we've reached the point where it's best to just stop.

Somebody on the internet is wrong and won't listen to reason. It's frustrating when you have a well reasoned airtight argument that just doesn't seem to penetrate like it should, but if you let that bother you then you will never know peace.

Other people have read this thread and through your efforts and the efforts of others are a little better educated on these matters than they were before. They're the ones who stopped participating pages ago. They are the ones who can process new information and be informed by it. Right now you are struggling with the one hold-out who cannot. Further efforts from you will not bring you any rewards.

Mycroft
15th June 2011, 10:19 PM
That's a bit trickier than cuttings. Marijuana plants are either male or female, only the females flower into the "buds" people smoke". A bud is actually hundreds of flowers. If left unpollinated the plant keeps producing flowers, and the buds get thicker and more potent.

If you had a female plant and wanted it to produce seed through self-pollination (assuring it's a clone of the parent) you'd have to force it to become a hermaphrodite, producing both male and female flowers. This can sometimes be done by stressing the plant, but it's hit or miss. At which point it would polllinate itelf and you'd have seeds which are clones of the parent plant.

I know, but not everybody buys the feminized seeds. If you don't, you grow multiple plants to guarantee some of them are females and kill the males as they show pollen sacks. In MikeSun5's fantasy world, if seeds really are as hard to get or as expensive as he describes, it would be easy and worthwhile to let your first crop get fertilized by the males, put up with a crop of lower-quality product for your first crop but have a bonus of hundreds of seeds. then grow a second crop that's nothing but females cloned from your first crop.

Then if you were really industrious, you could clone some of those males too, or at least keep some of their pollen in a plastic baggy for genetic experimentation later.

Or so I've heard. I'd never consider doing any of that on my own unless it were legal. :cool:

Emperor_Gestahl
16th June 2011, 03:03 AM
And as for the notion that "the world doesn't drink Miller High Life all the time [...] because there is better stuff out there"? The world drinks millions upon millions of gallons of cheap beer compared to the amount of fancy beer or expensive Scotch or rare champagne it consumes.

Cheap scotch too, mmm Grand Macnish. And how about that Carlos Rossi wine?

nvidiot
16th June 2011, 03:43 AM
That's a bit trickier than cuttings. Marijuana plants are either male or female, only the females flower into the "buds" people smoke". A bud is actually hundreds of flowers. If left unpollinated the plant keeps producing flowers, and the buds get thicker and more potent.

If you had a female plant and wanted it to produce seed through self-pollination (assuring it's a clone of the parent) you'd have to force it to become a hermaphrodite, producing both male and female flowers. This can sometimes be done by stressing the plant, but it's hit or miss. At which point it would polllinate itelf and you'd have seeds which are clones of the parent plant.

I don't want to turn this thread into a gardening for dummies manual, but the highlighted part is incorrect. You appear to know something about cannabis cultivation but the above sentence is just wrong. The resulting seed is NOT a clone of the parent. Very similar, yes, but a clone? No.

3point14
16th June 2011, 04:09 AM
They don't even need a trial to take your home.

Really?

What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?


That's the sort of thing that should lead to rioting in the streets.

I'm sure that for years there have been folks sitting around saying

"Let's just have one or two more doobies then get out there!"

JFrankA
16th June 2011, 05:34 AM
Really?

What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?


That's the sort of thing that should lead to rioting in the streets.

I'm sure that for years there have been folks sitting around saying

"Let's just have one or two more doobies then get out there!"

You got it wrong. They don't take your home because of a punishment. They take your home as evidence......and then pass punishment....

JFrankA
16th June 2011, 05:40 AM
I don't want to turn this thread into a gardening for dummies manual, but the highlighted part is incorrect. You appear to know something about cannabis cultivation but the above sentence is just wrong. The resulting seed is NOT a clone of the parent. Very similar, yes, but a clone? No.

Please do! I don't grow or smoke but I from what I am reading, it's either very very easy to grow pot or it's very very intricate. Which is it?

JFrankA
16th June 2011, 05:41 AM
As a side note, Scott's Miracle-Gro wants to get in on the Medical Marijuana trade.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/miracle-gro_tries_to_figure_ou.html

From what I've read in the comments, it's not good for the plant....or the smoke...

3point14
16th June 2011, 05:53 AM
You got it wrong. They don't take your home because of a punishment. They take your home as evidence......and then pass punishment....

Oh, well that sounds perfectly just and reasonable...

Who's Idea was that?

3point14
16th June 2011, 05:58 AM
double post.

WildCat
16th June 2011, 06:58 AM
Really?

What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?
Because, you see, this isn't an action against a person, it's an action against the property, as if the property committed the crime. You would have to sue to get the property back, and the burden of proof would be on you.

This absurdity is a relic of laws aimed at incidents where, say, a cargo ship was smuggling contraband and US law had no access to the ships owners (because they reside in foreign lands or are unknown) so they seized the ship instead. Somehow this passed constitutional muster when applied to the domestic drug war.