Prohibition Makes Drug Dealers Richer - NPR - Page 4

On April 15 2011 14:11 D_smart_S wrote: curtinsea, listening to you I believe Palak just found an IQ-buddy, go and play with him and stop thinking. Weed addiction stronger than nicotine addiction? Argument: "I gave up cigarettes 16 years ago, but not weed. I can tell you first hand which is easier to shake." Legalizing weed would cause weed prices to skyrocket? "we would see the price of our beloved herb skyrocket." Dude, do me a favour and kick yourself in the balls. Thanks.

Is that supposed to be an argument? Way to demonstrate your own low IQ!

it's not an argument, i am just mocking you. Find the facts about physical addiction and the thing about legalization making weed more expensive - that's just LOOOL

what facts? do you have a counter argument? if so let's hear it.

Being illegal has nothing to do with the price of weed, I've made an argument why I believe the price would actually go up. Make a counter point instead of some childish bullshit.

I'm sure I have been smoking weed longer than you have been alive, so my view is based on experience, not some shit I read in a book.

Seems that many ppl here have a hard time with the economic side of the problem. The easy way is to back in history and refer to prohibition, tell me how much money does the War on Alcohol cost? Oh wait what war? And how much revenue from taxation the goverment gains?
The wild conclusions like: "OMG my weed will be so expensive" and "I was growing weed in my garage, therefore Milton Friedman knows shit about what he is talking" are not even trying to be objective, they are as one sided as they can be. Purely focusing on the smallest and most insignificant thing. The weed users need to undestand this is not about them, its about every substance, that the goverment is trying not to controll but bann (hence the comparasion to overeating, that is totaly describing the current problems in the US).

On April 14 2011 20:23 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 17:51 blackjacki2 wrote:   On April 14 2011 16:10 k2o4 wrote: Blackjack, some people watch porn and become addicted. Should we therefore make porn illegal? Just cause some people can't handle it does it mean that you shouldn't be allowed to do it? I think that's what it comes down to for me. I didn't say anything should be illegal. I'm just not buying the premise that legalizing something won't cause more people to do it. There isn't a single thing I can think of that if legalized more people wouldn't do. Well, maybe necrophilia. There are tons of studies showing drug use for non addictive substances does not change over the long term by a significant factor. I believe (to lazy to find the study or figures) but pot use in the netherlands following marijuana legalization increased sharply for like 3-6 months or something, then decreased to levels just barely higher then they were while the drug was illegal. Basically everyone went, holy shit pot is legal lets smoke a fuck ton, then ppl who didn't like to smoke said fuck it and the levels went back down. Pretty much every study or article I have read comes to the conclusion that non-addictive drug rates do not increase or decrease to statistical significance due to legalization. Decriminalizing addictive substances also does not appear to have a statistically significant effect on the amount of users either. I mean Yes CATO institute says it decreases rates, but that's cuz they are a libertarian think tank so while their studies are well done and have good numbers, etc. They are really biased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal   On April 14 2011 16:08 k2o4 wrote: I shoulda said "the majority of people want it", not some. This argument doesn't work for this discussion. The majority of people also won't or don't want to do hardcore drugs such as cocaine, heroin, or meth. So then it should stay illegal right cuz a minority want to do it? At least that's the logic of that argument. For pot or whatever you might be able to make the majority argument, for hardcore drugs you can't.

I have to stop arguing and just agree with Palak here. He's got good info and a good point =)

On April 15 2011 09:16 curtinsea wrote: Legalization won't make anyone happy, not even those advocating it now. When you turn it over to corporations and tax it, the price will go up, not down. Don't kid yourself. I'll give you an example. When I was in high school, a eighth ounce bag of killer buds cost $30. It's gone up to $40 now in the 25 years between. When I was in high school, a pack of cigarettes cost $1.50. It's around $7.50 now. So that bag of illegal weed went up 33% while that legal pack of cigarettes went up 500% in the same period. If weed was made legal, it would be pounced upon by the tobacco industry, as they already have the infrastructure to manufacture, distribute, and collect taxes on this product. And we would see the price of our beloved herb skyrocket. Then there is the issue of control. Once you have made it "legal" and given it over to industry, you still need to stamp out the black market, which means your "war on drugs' doesn't end. And since your "legal" weed is going to be more expensive than the "illegal weed", you are going to have a real problem with people still growing their own. Believe me when I tell you, from experience, that growing your own supply of weed is easy, far easier than making your own booze was/would be. No, "legalization" is not the answer. "Decriminalize" would be better. Just stop the war on drugs. Stop putting people in prison for minor drug offenses. Levy fines on the big drug dealers when you catch them, seize there cash, cars, boats, etc. Just leave the users the fuck alone

Decriminalization doesn't stop the war on drugs though, because drug dealers still exist. It just means that me, the guy smoking pot, doesn't get in trouble for it. But to sell pot is still illegal, so we still have drug dealers. That's my 1 big beef with decriminalization. Otherwise I can see why it's appealing.

On April 15 2011 10:45 curtinsea wrote: weed isn't as addictive as cigarettes?? what do you base that on? I gave up cigarettes 16 years ago, but not weed. I can tell you first hand which is easier to shake. As for your state sponsored idea, variations on that theme already exist. I know quite a few people getting free methadone to supposedly free them from heroin use. Unfortunately, they are so fucked up on methadone they can't function any better than when they were on heroin, and they are just as addicted to the methadone as they were to heroin. So I would dare say that is a failed experiment as well. You don't need to make any drastic changes to the law to take a big bite out of the expense of the so called war on drugs. What and how much enforcement is done is a simple policy issue, easy to change.

Weed is FAR less addictive than cigarettes. All the studies agree. Weed ranks lower than caffeine on addiction level.

On April 15 2011 13:37 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 15 2011 12:48 Night2o1 wrote: Curtinsea, I don't know why you think there will be a problem with "black market" weed once its legalized. Like tomatoes, most people will go to the store to buy them, and a minority of people will get it from small-time guys growing tomatoes in their backyard. It isn't a problem. This is a terrible comparison. In order to grow tomatoes for production, you would need more than a few plants. The yield from the same space is in no way comparable to weed. In a space 5' wide by 10' deep I grew a supply of weed that yielded a pound of quality weed every 45 days. That's a supply for 15 stoners year round

The fact that people could grow their own weed is one of the reasons price will drop. It increases supply and reduces demand.

On April 15 2011 17:23 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 15 2011 13:37 curtinsea wrote:   On April 15 2011 12:48 Night2o1 wrote: Curtinsea, I don't know why you think there will be a problem with "black market" weed once its legalized. Like tomatoes, most people will go to the store to buy them, and a minority of people will get it from small-time guys growing tomatoes in their backyard. It isn't a problem. This is a terrible comparison. In order to grow tomatoes for production, you would need more than a few plants. The yield from the same space is in no way comparable to weed. In a space 5' wide by 10' deep I grew a supply of weed that yielded a pound of quality weed every 45 days. That's a supply for 15 stoners year round The fact that people could grow their own weed is one of the reasons price will drop. It increases supply and reduces demand.

This would only be true if the form of legalization was that we were allowed to grow our own. Since that would not be able to be regulated, monitored, nor taxed, it is highly unlikely that legalization would take this form.

If it was legal to grow your own weed, that would be great. It would solve a lot of the issues that marijuana users face, but there would be nothing in it for the government.

^Legalization will not allow home growing to become legal. Decriminalization probably would. Once corporations get involved they will make sure they control the production.

Oh I see i missread the point here. Its just potheads wanted their drug to be legal, but noo cocaine is too harcore so that one dont legalize. I see im in the wrong thread, I hoped for some "free choice" disscusion, not lol marihuana is totaly not addictive hurrr durrr.

I'll say it again, just so we are clear. We can all envision drugs being "legalized" and many benefits to be drawn from that. But all of those scenarios include ideas that simply can't be enacted.

I don't like to see people being sent to prison because politicians with a cigar in one hand and a cocktail in the other think weed is bad for you. But that can be changed by changes in enforcement policy without actually legalizing drugs.

With legalization would have to come regulation, and it's regulation that will mess it all up.

My fears of legalization are the unintended consequences that are bound to come about. I've smoked pot for 30 years, I know a little bit about what I am talking about here.

Have you ever smoked pot in the future-USA where pot has been legalized? 30 years smoking is pretty irrelevant to the topic

On April 15 2011 17:54 curtinsea wrote: I'll say it again, just so we are clear. We can all envision drugs being "legalized" and many benefits to be drawn from that. But all of those scenarios include ideas that simply can't be enacted. I don't like to see people being sent to prison because politicians with a cigar in one hand and a cocktail in the other think weed is bad for you. But that can be changed by changes in enforcement policy without actually legalizing drugs. With legalization would have to come regulation, and it's regulation that will mess it all up. My fears of legalization are the unintended consequences that are bound to come about. I've smoked pot for 30 years, I know a little bit about what I am talking about here.

like what consecuences?

lol. tough guy on the block been smoking pot for 30 years. shit bro, don't get too crazy and eat an entire bag of cheetos while you watch futurama reruns.

Weed has been effectively legalized (here in the sunny state of California), and prices have not changed.

On April 15 2011 19:05 Night2o1 wrote: Have you ever smoked pot in the future-USA where pot has been legalized? 30 years smoking is pretty irrelevant to the topic

ok, you go ahead believe in that Utopian future where everything is just as you want it to be, or dream of it's possibilities.

All I am saying is there is no path to legalization that makes drugs more readily available, lower in cost, with sweet people selling the product, and no crimes being committed.

With legalization will come regulation. With regulation will come corporations. Gone will be the small time peddler, he won't have access to product. Competition will diminish, and prices will go up accordingly. Taxes will be applied, and as history shows, they will go up every year. You will have to buy what they are offering. Prices will rise. Quality will fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA, it will be manipulated and controlled. Potency will be reduced, so you'll have to buy more, and pay more taxes. ATF will be in charge of enforcement, making sure only licensed and taxed product is out there, still stamping out smuggling and sending people to prison. Prices will rise, and junkies will still be junkies, incapable of working, resorting to stealing. But prices will be higher, and they will need to steal more. Or prostitute themselves, or panhandle in the streets. They will still need their fix, and it will still cost money, even more than before.

We will wish it was still illegal

that's cuz quality has gone up, better product at the same price.

On April 15 2011 22:42 PillPoppin wrote: lol. tough guy on the block been smoking pot for 30 years. shit bro, don't get too crazy and eat an entire bag of cheetos while you watch futurama reruns. Weed has been effectively legalized (here in the sunny state of California), and prices have not changed.

What do you pay for weed down there?

On April 15 2011 22:42 PillPoppin wrote: lol. tough guy on the block been smoking pot for 30 years. shit bro, don't get too crazy and eat an entire bag of cheetos while you watch futurama reruns. Weed has been effectively legalized (here in the sunny state of California), and prices have not changed.

What do you pay for weed down there?

On April 15 2011 22:53 sawseech wrote: that's cuz quality has gone up, better product at the same price.

How do you know how much quality has gone up, unless you've been smoking for a long time?