Prohibition Makes Drug Dealers Richer - NPR

NPR’s Planet Money: Prohibition Makes Drug Dealers Richer, Increases Crime, Barely Reduces Use

Click here to Listen - NPR Radio (Skip to 3:10)

This is a great listen but I gotta address one thing that came up in the show. An economist they interview claims that legalizing drugs is a trade off between reducing crime and increased addiction. But that's a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

Legalization is just as likely to decrease addiction as raise it... if addicts no longer have to fear legal trouble because of their illness (self inflicted but an illness none the less) and can be treated as patients rather than criminals, I think it will help improve treatment results. People often think of drug addiction as the result of some super addictive substance. That's the story we've been fed, that this scary drug will steal our soul and ruin our lives if we so much as take it 1 time, but it's not true. There's a whole list of things that contribute to addiction, from the drug's potency to your genetic predispositions to the room you use the drug in. We like to have 1 thing to blame, it keeps things simple, but it's not accurate. The environment around us (social attitudes, peer groups, access to treatment, etc), contributes greatly to addiction, and legalization would change the environment by switching our countries focus away from viewing drug use as a criminal problem and instead to seeing it as a medical problem.

For one second, please imagine prohibiting... masturbation ........ it just wouldn't work, would it? We human's like to alter our state of consciousness, just like we enjoy sex and food, and you can't get us to stop. We will always attempt to alter our state of consciousness whether it be by smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer, meditating, dreaming, yoga, skydiving, sex, or any other drugs, and how we want to do it should be our choice.

In all of our communities there is a small population that will always use drugs no matter how illegal you make them. I have a theory that this drug using population won't grow so much, even if legalization happens. Why? Because the one's who aren't using crack right now mostly just don't want to use it. I know if crack was made legal tomorrow I sure wouldn't go out and buy it just because it was suddenly legal. I've no desire to buy it. I don't think there's a rush of new customers to the freshly built corner drug store. Any increase in use would be by current consumers who then have easier access. But increased use by regular customers doesn't mean an increase in addiction. If the liquor store has a sale and you buy more than you normally would, do you automatically become an alcoholic? No (for the majority of us at least). Alcohol is addictive and you can die from the withdrawal symptoms, yet increased use by a regular consumer doesn't cause addiction.

I'd rather that the current crack consumers be allowed to buy it without endangering their lives and mine by funding criminals and increasing crime, that instead of drug dealers getting all the money most of it goes to legitimate business owners and some of it goes to tax revenue, which should be set aside to fund treatment of drug abuse, health care and national parks. Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment. Isn't that better than the current system where our tax dollars pay for a little bit of treatment and a whole lot of wasted policing? And might not the treatment programs be better funded if the billions we poured into persecuting citizens of our country for altering their state of consciousness in a manner of their own choosing (aka putting whatever the fuck they want to put into their own damn body) were instead put into treatment programs? And wouldn't the farming industries in our country be boosted if they were allowed to grow the drugs here? And wouldn't families be left better off because they no longer face the situation of being denied financial aid when trying to send their kid to college, all due to a drug charge from when their kid got caught with some weed? That's the other problem with his argument - he acts as if the only benefit of legalization is a decrease in crime.

I can't say for sure that legalization would decrease addiction, but I think there's a chance that it could. What I can say for sure is that prohibition sure as hell isn't working and under its rein new drugs like meth have appeared, addicting more people. 40 years of a drug war and things are just as bad as ever, yet we continue with the same strategy. Isn't it insane to continue to do the same thing yet hope for a different result?

no it doesnt make drug dealers richer... it makes drug dealers... period.

unfortunately a larger % of the population need to realize the effects of drug legalization before anything can be done about it. The only way this can be done is by making cool tv shows like the wire.

On April 14 2011 02:35 Baal wrote: no it doesnt make drug dealers richer... it makes drug dealers... period.

pretty much that.
I'd like to add that if prohibition on these drugs didn't exist, corporations would be "richer" than the current drug dealers.

edit: also did you just compare smoking to sex and food, those are biological imperatives, how is that even remotely an argument? seriously wtf

im sympathetic to the cause, but really you don't need strawmen and slogans to do it.

EDIT2: I hope you were high when you wrote that

The main argument of money going to drug dealer instead of legitimate business or government is in my opinion not a good argument (edit : I first wrote valid, but it is, just that imo it's not pertinent). You could say the same for weapons or every prohibited thing.
It's not only an economics matter (ethics, health...) but to stay on this one, I would be more interested in the following : if you legalize drug (obviously you would have to consider various types of drugs), the money that government would earn by taxing it, would it be bigger than the one it would have to spend on heath care due to effects of those drugs ?

For example, even if tobacco is highly taxed, health care due to use does still cost more which (the main reason Finland plans on forbidding tobacco within 30 years).
It could be way different for cannabis. I'm not against some kind of legalization, I'm just wondering. And I like the idea of "Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment.", just that you have to evaluate the cost of it which can be huge.

I read the title "drug" and immediately knew who the poster was.

On April 14 2011 04:21 Jhyun88 wrote: I read the title "drug" and immediately knew who the poster was.

It was a tough guess, gg

On April 14 2011 04:20 kingpowa wrote: The main argument of money going to drug dealer instead of legitimate business or government is in my opinion not a good argument (edit : I first wrote valid, but it is, just that imo it's not pertinent). You could say the same for weapons or every prohibited thing. It's not only an economics matter (ethics, health...) but to stay on this one, I would be more interested in the following : if you legalize drug (obviously you would have to consider various types of drugs), the money that government would earn by taxing it, would it be bigger than the one it would have to spend on heath care due to effects of those drugs ? For example, even if tobacco is highly taxed, health care due to use does still cost more which (the main reason Finland plans on forbidding tobacco within 30 years). It could be way different for cannabis. I'm not against some kind of legalization, I'm just wondering. And I like the idea of "Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment.", just that you have to evaluate the cost of it which can be huge.

healthcare costs? LOL do you know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold? them popo's and jails aint free, there's a lot of money to be saved here

I think anyone with half brain realizes that all or most drugs should be legalized and controlled strictly with age criteria and so on. The War on Drugs is like the brother of the War on Terror. Creates many problems and government gladly comes and saves the day spending gazzilion of dollars with 0 effect and many people are in jail for victimless crimes and people are like "oh thanks God the drugs are illegal and we can live in peace". LOL And what the fuck is a victimless crime?!? Fucked up laws!

On April 14 2011 06:21 Gumster wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 04:20 kingpowa wrote: The main argument of money going to drug dealer instead of legitimate business or government is in my opinion not a good argument (edit : I first wrote valid, but it is, just that imo it's not pertinent). You could say the same for weapons or every prohibited thing. It's not only an economics matter (ethics, health...) but to stay on this one, I would be more interested in the following : if you legalize drug (obviously you would have to consider various types of drugs), the money that government would earn by taxing it, would it be bigger than the one it would have to spend on heath care due to effects of those drugs ? For example, even if tobacco is highly taxed, health care due to use does still cost more which (the main reason Finland plans on forbidding tobacco within 30 years). It could be way different for cannabis. I'm not against some kind of legalization, I'm just wondering. And I like the idea of "Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment.", just that you have to evaluate the cost of it which can be huge. healthcare costs? LOL do you know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold? them popo's and jails aint free, there's a lot of money to be saved here

true, it has to be considered. But no, I do not know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold. do you ?

After watching The Wire, my whole perspective on drugs has completely changed.

On April 14 2011 04:21 Jhyun88 wrote: I read the title "drug" and immediately knew who the poster was.

hahaha my thoughts exactly. I opened this thread and was like...damn, this sounds a lot like that k2o...what's his username again? *scrolls up* ah, yeah, k2o4, and yeah! he did make this thread!

well i'm gonna go ahead and be the devils advocate again

On April 13 2011 23:31 k2o4 wrote: NPR’s Planet Money: Prohibition Makes Drug Dealers Richer, Increases Crime, Barely Reduces Use Click here to Listen - NPR Radio (Skip to 3:10) This is a great listen but I gotta address one thing that came up in the show. An economist they interview claims that legalizing drugs is a trade off between reducing crime and increased addiction. But that's a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. Legalization is just as likely to decrease addiction as raise it... if addicts no longer have to fear legal trouble because of their illness (self inflicted but an illness none the less)

if a person voluntarily goes to a rehab clinic for any illegal substance abuse addiction they are free of any crimes of use pre treatment.

Also look at addiction rates of heroin for example (cuz i can't find other drugs at the moment/to lazy to really look for the rates)
For example rough estimate of opiate addicts in the 1890s was 313k...will use 1900 population of 76212368...amounts to about .5% of the population abusing opiates. Today the abuse rate is higher due mainly to the easy of getting prescription opiates like oxycotin. But if you take the actual mainly illegal substance which has been pursued, heroin, then addiction rates have likely dropped as today there are only 800k addicts in the US (roughly http://www.heroinaddiction.com/heroin_hist.html) 800k out of 308mil makes for .26%. Plus evidence that the majority of new opiate addicts now-a-days get their drugs or start abusing drugs through the semi-legal channel of prescription medication abuse further adds to the evidence that availability of the drugs increases the addiction rate.

There are benefits to legalization though, more accurate education will change drug habits, better control, etc, etc, etc.

and can be treated as patients rather than criminals, I think it will help improve treatment results.

probably, but the again if ppl knew they could legally go to a clinic anytime they want then there would also be good results, also if full legalization does increases users then the increased success rate is moot.

People often think of drug addiction as the result of some super addictive substance. That's the story we've been fed, that this scary drug will steal our soul and ruin our lives if we so much as take it 1 time, but it's not true. There's a whole list of things that contribute to addiction, from the drug's potency to your genetic predispositions to the room you use the drug in. We like to have 1 thing to blame, it keeps things simple, but it's not accurate. The environment around us (social attitudes, peer groups, access to treatment, etc), contributes greatly to addiction, and legalization would change the environment by switching our countries focus away from viewing drug use as a criminal problem and instead to seeing it as a medical problem.

environment has an effect sure but you can't just in one broad stroke say that the chemical itself is not addicting...crystal meth, heroin, etc are all very addicting.

For one second, please imagine prohibiting... masturbation ........ it just wouldn't work, would it? We human's like to alter our state of consciousness, just like we enjoy sex and food, and you can't get us to stop. We will always attempt to alter our state of consciousness whether it be by smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer, meditating, dreaming, yoga, skydiving, sex, or any other drugs, and how we want to do it should be our choice.

this obv has laws and such that need to be put in place...driving limits, age limits, public intoxication, etc.

In all of our communities there is a small population that will always use drugs no matter how illegal you make them. I have a theory that this drug using population won't grow so much, even if legalization happens. Why? Because the one's who aren't using crack right now mostly just don't want to use it. I know if crack was made legal tomorrow I sure wouldn't go out and buy it just because it was suddenly legal. I've no desire to buy it. I don't think there's a rush of new customers to the freshly built corner drug store. Any increase in use would be by current consumers who then have easier access.

there would be an increase also due to experimentation that leads to addiction.

But increased use by regular customers doesn't mean an increase in addiction. If the liquor store has a sale and you buy more than you normally would, do you automatically become an alcoholic? No (for the majority of us at least). Alcohol is addictive and you can die from the withdrawal symptoms, yet increased use by a regular consumer doesn't cause addiction.

yes it does...that's what addiction is, the body gets used to it physically so it starts needing it more and more. Also all the most addicting drugs are illegal ( http://www.troubleblog.com/addiction/...perties-commonly-abused-drugs-0408560 )

I'd rather that the current crack consumers be allowed to buy it without endangering their lives and mine by funding criminals and increasing crime, that instead of drug dealers getting all the money most of it goes to legitimate business owners and some of it goes to tax revenue, which should be set aside to fund treatment of drug abuse, health care and national parks. Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment. Isn't that better than the current system where our tax dollars pay for a little bit of treatment and a whole lot of wasted policing? And might not the treatment programs be better funded if the billions we poured into persecuting citizens of our country for altering their state of consciousness in a manner of their own choosing (aka putting whatever the fuck they want to put into their own damn body) were instead put into treatment programs? And wouldn't the farming industries in our country be boosted if they were allowed to grow the drugs here? And wouldn't families be left better off because they no longer face the situation of being denied financial aid when trying to send their kid to college, all due to a drug charge from when their kid got caught with some weed? That's the other problem with his argument - he acts as if the only benefit of legalization is a decrease in crime.

agreed

I can't say for sure that legalization would decrease addiction, but I think there's a chance that it could. What I can say for sure is that prohibition sure as hell isn't working and under its rein new drugs like meth have appeared, addicting more people. 40 years of a drug war and things are just as bad as ever, yet we continue with the same strategy. Isn't it insane to continue to do the same thing yet hope for a different result?

Actually crystal meth was initially a legal prescription drug in the 50s and people started becoming made at homes more and more often in the 60s. It wasn't made illegal til 1983 and by that time it's use, availability, and growth were already expanding quickly ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History )

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."-Einstein and I agree which is why I support more of a Portuguese approach of decriminalization of drugs which had led to a decrease in use, infectious diseases, etc. ( http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html ). Sure pot can be legalized once laws like driving intoxication levels are worked out, but for harder drugs legalization is a bit iffy. Decriminalization is a good compromise though. Drugs are still harder to come by then if they were legalized, drug education is more proper, there is less of a stigma and a better environment for the drug use, and people caught with a small amount are usually not sent to jail. The panel idea of 1 lawyer, 1 judge, 1 md deciding punishment for each person is fucking genius.

On April 14 2011 07:57 kingpowa wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 06:21 Gumster wrote:   On April 14 2011 04:20 kingpowa wrote: The main argument of money going to drug dealer instead of legitimate business or government is in my opinion not a good argument (edit : I first wrote valid, but it is, just that imo it's not pertinent). You could say the same for weapons or every prohibited thing. It's not only an economics matter (ethics, health...) but to stay on this one, I would be more interested in the following : if you legalize drug (obviously you would have to consider various types of drugs), the money that government would earn by taxing it, would it be bigger than the one it would have to spend on heath care due to effects of those drugs ? For example, even if tobacco is highly taxed, health care due to use does still cost more which (the main reason Finland plans on forbidding tobacco within 30 years). It could be way different for cannabis. I'm not against some kind of legalization, I'm just wondering. And I like the idea of "Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment.", just that you have to evaluate the cost of it which can be huge. healthcare costs? LOL do you know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold? them popo's and jails aint free, there's a lot of money to be saved here true, it has to be considered. But no, I do not know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold. do you ?

cost 44.1 bil, estimated savings 76 bil ( http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate...nstein-insanity-and-the-war-on-drugs/ )

control for dying and jail and getting ur life shit on by the system plz

i mean, cmon, ur fucking smarter than that, right?

On April 14 2011 03:32 Etherone wrote: edit: also did you just compare smoking to sex and food, those are biological imperatives, how is that even remotely an argument? seriously wtf im sympathetic to the cause, but really you don't need strawmen and slogans to do it. EDIT2: I hope you were high when you wrote that

I compared it to sex and food cause sex, food and drugs are all what we in the psychology world call "primary reinforcers" because these are things that motivate all living beings. You're right, sex and food are both biological needs that are required for survival. I'm not saying using drugs is a biological imperative. And drugs are a primary reinforcer because they alter our state of consciousness, and that's the key. We all make efforts to alter our state of consciousness and pleasurable alterations are reinforcing to our behavior. The point I'm trying to make is that drugs, which alter our state of consciousness in a pleasurable way, are something that will always be sought by the human population, and to try and restrict people from having something that they strongly desire will always fail.

I didn't realize I did a strawman - can you point it out to me? It wasn't intentional.

Also, which slogans are you referring too?

And yeah, I was high when I wrote it, hehe =)

On April 14 2011 07:57 kingpowa wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 06:21 Gumster wrote:   On April 14 2011 04:20 kingpowa wrote: The main argument of money going to drug dealer instead of legitimate business or government is in my opinion not a good argument (edit : I first wrote valid, but it is, just that imo it's not pertinent). You could say the same for weapons or every prohibited thing. It's not only an economics matter (ethics, health...) but to stay on this one, I would be more interested in the following : if you legalize drug (obviously you would have to consider various types of drugs), the money that government would earn by taxing it, would it be bigger than the one it would have to spend on heath care due to effects of those drugs ? For example, even if tobacco is highly taxed, health care due to use does still cost more which (the main reason Finland plans on forbidding tobacco within 30 years). It could be way different for cannabis. I'm not against some kind of legalization, I'm just wondering. And I like the idea of "Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment.", just that you have to evaluate the cost of it which can be huge. healthcare costs? LOL do you know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold? them popo's and jails aint free, there's a lot of money to be saved here true, it has to be considered. But no, I do not know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold. do you ?

http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

15 billion by the federal govt for 2010, 25 billion including the states. Wasteddddddddddddd money.

On April 14 2011 14:30 sawseech wrote: control for dying and jail and getting ur life shit on by the system plz

sorry, I totally can't figure out your point =( Not ignoring ya, just dunno how to reply cause I'm not sure what you mean

Seems like a random time to post this. It's long since been old news. Everyone educated about the matter knows the War on Drugs has been a massive failure since the day it began.

I mean really this whole posting could be summed up with simple economics.
1. There is a significant demand for drugs
2. If you make drugs illegal you strongly limit the supply available
3. Price goes up because the high demand product is somewhat difficult to obtain

Heck. You could probably solve USA's debt crisis with the revenue stream that would come from legalizing these drugs and selling through through a government office as controlled substances at a reasonable price.

On April 14 2011 11:57 palak wrote: well i'm gonna go ahead and be the devils advocate again

hehe glad you're here, it helps to have two sides represented.

if a person voluntarily goes to a rehab clinic for any illegal substance abuse addiction they are free of any crimes of use pre treatment. Also look at addiction rates of heroin for example (cuz i can't find other drugs at the moment/to lazy to really look for the rates) For example rough estimate of opiate addicts in the 1890s was 313k...will use 1900 population of 76212368...amounts to about .5% of the population abusing opiates. Today the abuse rate is higher due mainly to the easy of getting prescription opiates like oxycotin. But if you take the actual mainly illegal substance which has been pursued, heroin, then addiction rates have likely dropped as today there are only 800k addicts in the US (roughly http://www.heroinaddiction.com/heroin_hist.html) 800k out of 308mil makes for .26%. Plus evidence that the majority of new opiate addicts now-a-days get their drugs or start abusing drugs through the semi-legal channel of prescription medication abuse further adds to the evidence that availability of the drugs increases the addiction rate. There are benefits to legalization though, more accurate education will change drug habits, better control, etc, etc, etc.

I see your point. But we're stuck in a world of overall hypotheticals, because we don't know for sure if the benefits will outweigh the negatives. I do agree that some people will become addicted due to increased access. But I think most of those people are ones who were predisposed to it in the first place. And if we set the system up to better help them, by funding treatment rather than persecution, I think it evens out. I also think that it's important to remember the 3 things that are involved in any drug effect - the drug, the set and the setting.

Drug means the potency, type, etc. Set means the person - their mental state, their genetic predispositions, etc. Setting means the environment, who you do the drug with, where you do it, societal views of the drug, etc. Right now we totally focus on the drug part of it and neglect the other 2 aspects. These things explain why 1 person can do heroine on a regular basis and live a successful, unaddicted life, while another person takes 1 hit and becomes a junkie. When you look at successful drug users you realize that the set and setting are the keys to why they aren't homeless addicts. Their set allows them to choose their drug wisely and smartly control the dose. Their setting gives them support to do it in a positive way.

Let's use alcohol as an example because that's the drug most people have tried and will be able to relate to. First you take the potency - a shot of quervo or everclear. Depending on which type of alcohol you choose, you will have a different effect. Now the set - this will contribute to which type of alcohol you choose and how much you use. Plus it refers to your mental state - are you drinking to escape, to blow off steam, cause you're depressed, cause you're angry, or cause you're celebrating, cause you're connecting with people. What's your motivation behind drinking, what's your mental state? These things matter. I know that if I'm angry before I start drinking I'm often an angry drunk, but if I'm drinking to celebrate I lean towards being a happy guy. Lastly look at the setting - are you drinking at home with just you and your lover, at a bar with a crowd of strangers, in a stadium at a football game, at a work party, etc. The attitude of the people around you will effect the potency and amount you take as well as your mood.

I think that legalizing and improving treatment availability and overall drug education will do a lot more to decrease addiction than restricting access and criminalizing people. And when I say legalize I don't mean just put it on the shelf in the grocery store for any human being to buy. Of course there are regulations and we should look at each drug individually to determine how much regulation needs to be in place. But if we switch the culture to one where people believe in responsible drug use then I think the amount of addiction will go down.

Palak, an interesting book for you to read would be "Drug, Set and Setting" which talks about work with successful heroine users - people who use heroine on a regular basis and are living productive, successful lives as upstanding citizens. I'm not saying every person can do or should do that - we're all different. But I think every person should have the freedom to make that choice for themselves.

But increased use by regular customers doesn't mean an increase in addiction. If the liquor store has a sale and you buy more than you normally would, do you automatically become an alcoholic? No (for the majority of us at least). Alcohol is addictive and you can die from the withdrawal symptoms, yet increased use by a regular consumer doesn't cause addiction.

yes it does...that's what addiction is, the body gets used to it physically so it starts needing it more and more. Also all the most addicting drugs are illegal ( http://www.troubleblog.com/addiction/...perties-commonly-abused-drugs-0408560 )

I agree that tolerance builds up, but tolerance isn't automatically addiction. And I agree that some people will become addicted. My point is that just because you have increased access to a drug, and even if you make use of that access, it doesn't mean automatic addiction. If it did I'd be an alcoholic.

Gotta run but I wanna say that I agree with you about some of the portugal stuff. I think they've made some great strides and shown some good systems to set up. I still don't like decriminalization because you don't get rid of the drug dealers.

On April 14 2011 15:24 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 03:32 Etherone wrote: edit: also did you just compare smoking to sex and food, those are biological imperatives, how is that even remotely an argument? seriously wtf im sympathetic to the cause, but really you don't need strawmen and slogans to do it. EDIT2: I hope you were high when you wrote that I compared it to sex and food cause sex, food and drugs are all what we in the psychology world call "primary reinforcers" because these are things that motivate all living beings. You're right, sex and food are both biological needs that are required for survival. I'm not saying using drugs is a biological imperative. And drugs are a primary reinforcer because they alter our state of consciousness, and that's the key. We all make efforts to alter our state of consciousness and pleasurable alterations are reinforcing to our behavior. The point I'm trying to make is that drugs, which alter our state of consciousness in a pleasurable way, are something that will always be sought by the human population, and to try and restrict people from having something that they strongly desire will always fail.

This logic doesn't work..."some people will always want it therefore it should be legal"..people will always want more land, more material possessions, more sex, etc....so by this logic prostitution should be completely legal (would quite possibly increase human trafficking) ..pedophiles will always exist and trying to keep them from having sex w/ children will always fail, doesn't mean society shouldn't try to stop it. Also to preempt that argument of "child abuse hurts others, drug abuse doesn't hurt anyone else", drug abuse does hurt friends/family emotionally, and a person who is intoxicated on pcp is more likely to physically assault someone then if they were sober. Plus drug use leads to an increase is intoxicated driving which increases motor fatalities. So increased drug use can/will have real negative effects on people besides the drug user.

If legalization/availability/proximity don't effect addiction then why does Nevada have double the rate of gambling addicts as the rest of the country? More and more states are loosening their laws on gambling so they can raise money because they are all in debt. Sure most people that go into a newly built casino won't develop an addiction, but some do, and they end up ruining their lives.

I shoulda said "the majority of people want it", not some. When you try and prohibit something that the majority of people want it fails. People want to alter their state of consciousness through drugs, and that's not going to stop cause we tell them not to.

And I think prostitution should be legal. Human trafficking would definitely decrease if it was legal, not increase.

No time to make that argument right now but penn and teller did a great job of it in their show "Bullshit"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805439/

It's streaming on netflix if you wanna check it out.

EDIT: trying to do homework while LP is open is a bad idea, hehe, so distracting

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.

Suggesting that usage rates would increase if the substance were legal is incorrect. There have been many large studies done that examine usage rates when comparing whether the drug is legal or illegal in various countries. It has been statistically proven over and over again that usage rates do not increase with the legalization of a drug. Individuals who choose to use drugs are doing so because they enjoy the activity and in some cases become dependent on the substance. Individuals who do not use drugs choose to avoid them because they want to preserve their own health. Legal status of the drug is not a factor in peoples decisions whether or not to use drugs. It's a health decision. Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal. You don't see everyone becoming an addict. In fact rates of smoking have decreased as people have become more and more aware of the health risks over the years. The more awareness there is about the bad effects of using substances the more people intelligently choose to refrain from usage to protect their health.

If you want to talk about harm reduction think of how much damage those who become addicted to drugs do to themselves, their families, and the community because of crimes related to the acquisition of more drugs. If you decriminalize or legalize controlled substance usage rates stay the same but the price goes way down. Drugs that are less expensive and more easily available = less crime committed by those committing crime to feed their addiction. All of a sudden its no longer underground or difficult to receive the substances. Put a government tax on all drugs sold and use it towards rehabilitation centers that treat people who suffer from serious addiction and mental health issues. Government programs that provide free drugs to addicts in order to scale them down to lower and lower rates of usage until eventually reaching zero is far superior to the current model.

It's all about what causes the least harm to society. Attempting to control something that cannot be controlled is retarded. If you want to treat the sources of the problem you focus on harm reduction, education, rehabilitation, and access. If you want to sit on your high horse and cry about how drugs are bad and we should all be scared to make them legal go ahead but the argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting the drug war. There is mountains of evidence supporting a different approach. Sure there are two sides to every argument. My side is the right one. Your side is just a bullshit political agenda used to get votes from ignorant masses of people who don't know shit and don't care to read or learn about the issue.

On April 14 2011 16:07 blackjacki2 wrote: If legalization/availability/proximity don't effect addiction then why does Nevada have double the rate of gambling addicts as the rest of the country? More and more states are loosening their laws on gambling so they can raise money because they are all in debt. Sure most people that go into a newly built casino won't develop an addiction, but some do, and they end up ruining their lives.

Well probably because you made a comparison that is completely retarded. Lets ask a simple question.

1. Would a reasonable person think that visiting the casino just for fun could have a negative effect on their health?
2. Would a reasonable person think that using drugs even just recreationally could have a negative effect on their health?

Yes or no question. In case one the obvious answer is no. Visiting the casino for entertainment purposes and with the expectation that you will lose some money but have some fun is not expected to have negative consequences. Using drugs on the other hand is widely known to have potentially harmful effects on your health.

Usage rates don't increase for drugs when they're legal because people know it's bad for them. Usage rates of casinos obviously go up when there is one nearby simply because it's just a form of entertainment. There is no negative health effects of visiting a casino.

I still don't like decriminalization because you don't get rid of the drug dealers.

it would hurt dealers due to an increase in supply but it doesn't get rid of them legalization just shifts where the illegal dealings would be occurring, instead of dealers selling to adults illegally you would have underage people buying and using the drugs illegally. This leads to a larger amount of teenage use, probably would be mis-use, leads to death and damages occurring that otherwise wouldn't have. Decriminalization prevents this.

if you really want to go uber close to legalization in a real world example then the Colombian law of "personal production" being legal hurts the cartels without having full legalization.

Plus the whole get rid of the drug dealers isn't really a fair argument, the people who are the drug dealers now-a-days would just move to a different type of crime. Lets take the 3 big gangs of LA and their illegal activities

Latin Kings: Racketeering, assault, arms trafficking, drug trafficking, extortion, identity document forgery, robbery, and murder

Bloods: Murder, Drug trafficking, Robbery, Extortion

Crips: Drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, murder, burglary and identification theft

Legalizing drugs would not stop the dealers of these gangs from committing harmful crimes, it would just shift what harmful crimes they are committing.

what a revelation.. people profiting from illegal activities, which would otherwise be legal, is resulting from... it being illegal? Wow!

edit: in other news - during the time of prohibition (the noble experiment), numerous syndicates profited immensely from extremely high-priced alcohol due to the inherent illegal nature of it. Ie. Al Capone, Kennedy family, etc.

Does this surprise anyone?

I think that's a pretty cool picture and from my impression, pretty accurate, although some of the "yellow" drugs are only "yellow" under the assumption that they are used correctly.

On April 14 2011 16:16 Bejamin1 wrote: Suggesting that usage rates would increase if the substance were legal is incorrect. There have been many large studies done that examine usage rates when comparing whether the drug is legal or illegal in various countries. It has been statistically proven over and over again that usage rates do not increase with the legalization of a drug.

find me any study that has been done on the legalization of hard addictive drugs (meth, cocaine, heroin) for any amount of personal use in a society does not lead to an increase in the addiction rate and I'll believe you. Studies on things that have been legalized like pot n shrooms etc have no influence in this since they arn't addicting.

If you want to talk about harm reduction think of how much damage those who become addicted to drugs do to themselves, their families, and the community because of crimes related to the acquisition of more drugs. If you decriminalize or legalize controlled substance usage rates stay the same but the price goes way down. Drugs that are less expensive and more easily available = less crime committed by those committing crime to feed their addiction. All of a sudden its no longer underground or difficult to receive the substances. Put a government tax on all drugs sold and use it towards rehabilitation centers that treat people who suffer from serious addiction and mental health issues. Government programs that provide free drugs to addicts in order to scale them down to lower and lower rates of usage until eventually reaching zero is far superior to the current model.

agreed which is why i support decriminalization.

It's all about what causes the least harm to society. Attempting to control something that cannot be controlled is retarded. If you want to treat the sources of the problem you focus on harm reduction, education, rehabilitation, and access. If you want to sit on your high horse and cry about how drugs are bad and we should all be scared to make them legal go ahead but the argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting the drug war. There is mountains of evidence supporting a different approach. Sure there are two sides to every argument. My side is the right one. Your side is just a bullshit political agenda used to get votes from ignorant masses of people who don't know shit and don't care to read or learn about the issue.

I don't think there's much of an argument out there besides that tax revenue for full legalization either, could be wrong, but i havn't seen any studies on it. Pretty sure the vast majority of the studies and evidence supports decriminalization of the drugs.

On April 14 2011 16:39 palak wrote: Legalizing drugs would not stop the dealers of these gangs from committing harmful crimes, it would just shift what harmful crimes they are committing.

I have to agree and disagree here. Although it is true that there will be a shift from one illegal profitable activity (drug-trafficing), to another one (ie. prostitution) in order to make money, it is also equally true that the amount of money being made is directly relative to the amount of money that people (society) will spend on it.

Yes, they could probably make money focusing on other under-world activities, but it all comes down to the amount. For example (and this is completely hypothetical, dont get nitty on numbers) a gang of 1000 makes 1000 dollars a day selling crack. Crack becomes legalized, therefore they sell minute amounts of crack. There will be a shift to another less profitable means of accruing revenue (say they make $500/day), but, it most likely wont support the gang of 1000 members.

Also, the nature of the high amounts of profit (risk vs return) are what lead to so much desperate (violent) activity, as groups fight to hold the high-return illegal activities.

A great example of this is with prohibition in the Capone era. Yes, many of them moved on to other activities (especially high-jacking, union fund theft, union control and exploitation of contractual work), however, the amount of outright murder and crime dropped significantly.

edit: I haven't read through the whole thread, just a couple posts - so forgive me if i'm repeating what's been said earlier.

On April 14 2011 16:22 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 16:07 blackjacki2 wrote: If legalization/availability/proximity don't effect addiction then why does Nevada have double the rate of gambling addicts as the rest of the country? More and more states are loosening their laws on gambling so they can raise money because they are all in debt. Sure most people that go into a newly built casino won't develop an addiction, but some do, and they end up ruining their lives. Well probably because you made a comparison that is completely retarded. Lets ask a simple question. 1. Would a reasonable person think that visiting the casino just for fun could have a negative effect on their health? 2. Would a reasonable person think that using drugs even just recreationally could have a negative effect on their health? Yes or no question. In case one the obvious answer is no. Visiting the casino for entertainment purposes and with the expectation that you will lose some money but have some fun is not expected to have negative consequences. Using drugs on the other hand is widely known to have potentially harmful effects on your health. Usage rates don't increase for drugs when they're legal because people know it's bad for them. Usage rates of casinos obviously go up when there is one nearby simply because it's just a form of entertainment. There is no negative health effects of visiting a casino.

As if this country were full of reasonable and healthy people.. It's not exactly a secret that cigarettes or fast food will kill you either.

On April 14 2011 16:08 k2o4 wrote: I shoulda said "the majority of people want it", not some. When you try and prohibit something that the majority of people want it fails. People want to alter their state of consciousness through drugs, and that's not going to stop cause we tell them not to. And I think prostitution should be legal. Human trafficking would definitely decrease if it was legal, not increase. No time to make that argument right now but penn and teller did a great job of it in their show "Bullshit" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805439/ It's streaming on netflix if you wanna check it out. EDIT: trying to do homework while LP is open is a bad idea, hehe, so distracting

not surprised Penn and Teller want it to be legalized.

http://prostitution.procon.org/

There are a bunch of arguments on it. Some studies show rape increased when prostitution is legalized, others show it decreases. Some people say sex trafficking will increase, others say it will decrease. I'm going to go ahead and say the swedish system is a good compromise. Selling sex is legal, buying sex is illegal. Pretty good compromise for everyone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitu...en#Research_on_prostitution_in_Sweden

On April 14 2011 16:59 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 16:39 palak wrote: Legalizing drugs would not stop the dealers of these gangs from committing harmful crimes, it would just shift what harmful crimes they are committing. I have to agree and disagree here. Although it is true that there will be a shift from one illegal profitable activity (drug-trafficing), to another one (ie. prostitution) in order to make money, it is also equally true that the amount of money being made is directly relative to the amount of money that people (society) will spend on it. Yes, they could probably make money focusing on other under-world activities, but it all comes down to the amount. For example (and this is completely hypothetical, dont get nitty on numbers) a gang of 1000 makes 1000 dollars a day selling crack. Crack becomes legalized, therefore they sell minute amounts of crack. There will be a shift to another less profitable means of accruing revenue (say they make $500/day), but, it most likely wont support the gang of 1000 members. Also, the nature of the high amounts of profit (risk vs return) are what lead to so much desperate (violent) activity, as groups fight to hold the high-return illegal activities. A great example of this is with prohibition in the Capone era. Yes, many of them moved on to other activities (especially high-jacking, union fund theft, union control and exploitation of contractual work), however, the amount of outright murder and crime dropped significantly. edit: I haven't read through the whole thread, just a couple posts - so forgive me if i'm repeating what's been said earlier.

Could easily be true. Violent crimes and the such probably would decrease, I just don't like the idea ppl seemed to be putting across that made it seem like dealers would magically no longer be committing crimes.

I have issues with having the current trade compared to prohibition though which is why I have been avoiding it. Prohibition and the alcohol use at the time was a lot different then it is today with drug use. For example during prohibition people went to speakeasys during prohibition specifically for drinking. Now-a-days people who do meth, cocaine, heroin, etc do not really gather in a common place day after day specifically to do drugs. They usually buy on their own for personal use or use at a different place. People also do not gather at clubs specifically to do drugs, drugs are a part of a larger social setting, not the focal point.

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.

On April 14 2011 15:59 palak wrote: so by this logic prostitution should be completely legal (would quite possibly increase human trafficking)

and legalizing drugs would quite possibly increase drug dealing

On April 14 2011 17:51 blackjacki2 wrote: There isn't a single thing I can think of that if legalized I wouldn't be more aware of people doing.

Did I fix your post by reality-izing it?

On April 14 2011 17:51 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

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.

Key words being non-addictive, which in the case of illegal drugs is probably the exception and not the rule.

On April 14 2011 18:21 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 17:51 blackjacki2 wrote: There isn't a single thing I can think of that if legalized I wouldn't be more aware of people doing. Did I fix your post by reality-izing it?

yeah you're right, going to prison and getting ass raped isn't a deterrent for anything.

On April 14 2011 16:08 k2o4 wrote: I shoulda said "the majority of people want it", not some. When you try and prohibit something that the majority of people want it fails. People want to alter their state of consciousness through drugs, and that's not going to stop cause we tell them not to. And I think prostitution should be legal. Human trafficking would definitely decrease if it was legal, not increase. No time to make that argument right now but penn and teller did a great job of it in their show "Bullshit" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805439/ It's streaming on netflix if you wanna check it out. EDIT: trying to do homework while LP is open is a bad idea, hehe, so distracting

prostitution in new zealand got legalized in 2003. Nothing changed afterwards except police didn't have to devote any resources to the crime. everyone profits!

On April 14 2011 18:21 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 17:51 blackjacki2 wrote: There isn't a single thing I can think of that if legalized I wouldn't be more aware of people doing. Did I fix your post by reality-izing it?

rofl, legalized murder would be a big economic boom for contract killers.

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

On April 14 2011 16:45 devon06atX wrote: . . . .in other news - during the time of prohibition (the noble experiment), numerous syndicates profited immensely from extremely high-priced alcohol due to the inherent illegal nature of it.

This isn't correct at all, it wasn't extremely high priced at all. They profited because there was still a huge market for the product, and they produced it in large quantities to meet that demand.

On April 14 2011 16:16 Bejamin1 wrote: If you decriminalize or legalize controlled substance . . . . the price goes way down.

This is simply not true

Drugs that are less expensive and more easily available = less crime committed by those committing crime to feed their addiction. All of a sudden its no longer underground or difficult to receive the substances.

Drugs are already inexpensive and easily available. It may be underground but it is not difficult to get drugs. You are basing your argument on a fallacy.

Put a government tax on all drugs sold and use it towards rehabilitation centers that treat people who suffer from serious addiction and mental health issues. Government programs that provide free drugs to addicts in order to scale them down to lower and lower rates of usage until eventually reaching zero is far superior to the current model.

This will drive the prices up, and people will look towards underground, black market distributors. This means your "war on drugs" doesn't end, as the government must go after non taxed drugs that will still be pervasive.

Attempting to control something that cannot be controlled is retarded.

This statement is true, and counters the whole rest of your argument.

If you want to treat the sources of the problem you focus on harm reduction, education, rehabilitation, and access.

This, instead of interdiction and prosecution. Money better spent for sure. Quit incarcerating small time dealers and users, put that money to use in education and treatment.

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

wouldn't cigarette price have gone up because of the huge tax they put on it because of health reasons? if what you say is true then if drugs were legalized i think the best option would be for the government to make a state owned enterprise that would be aimed at selling drugs as cheaply as possible to addicts so they don't have to steal shit all day to get high. This way drugs would also be given by people who are paid to give a shit about their customer.

On April 15 2011 10:13 Stroggoz wrote: wouldn't cigarette price have gone up because of the huge tax they put on it because of health reasons?

Well, duh

Health reasons, is that why it's taxed so high? That may be the argument the left uses every time they raise so called "sin taxes", but the reality is they raise the taxes because they can, and because it raises revenue.

And don't you think the same thing will happen to weed?

On April 15 2011 10:11 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 16:16 Bejamin1 wrote: This, instead of interdiction and prosecution. Money better spent for sure. Quit incarcerating small time dealers and users, put that money to use in education and treatment.

rehab centres seem like a massive waste of money to me. Ineffective and you must be joking if you think a rehab centre can get someone off hard drugs.

On April 15 2011 10:19 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 15 2011 10:13 Stroggoz wrote: wouldn't cigarette price have gone up because of the huge tax they put on it because of health reasons? Well, duh Health reasons, is that why it's taxed so high? That may be the argument the left uses every time they raise so called "sin taxes", but the reality is they raise the taxes because they can, and because it raises revenue. And don't you think the same thing will happen to weed?

yep, i see your point, but im still unsure if it would happen to weed since the product would be quite elastic since the drug isn't nearly as addictive as tobacco? Anyhow i don't know much about economics so im not gona say much more about that. what about the last half of my quote though.

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.

On April 15 2011 10:28 Stroggoz wrote: rehab centres seem like a massive waste of money to me. Ineffective and you must be joking if you think a rehab centre can get someone off hard drugs.

not nearly as massive a waste of money as prisons are. Rehab centers are the best chance anyone has of getting off of hard drugs, no that is no joke.

weed would obviously become more expensive if it was legalized. comparing norway to holland, I think weed/hash is the only thing less expensive/equally expensive in norway. quality wise you still get way more bang for your buck in the netherlands though. but either way:
this is irrelevant. weed SHOULD be more expensive. ideally, it'd be something you can comfortably afford if you are working full time or nearly full time, but something you cant afford too frequently if you're not working, because if you're not working you should be doing something else. I know katy williams disagrees but whatever.

Hi, long time lurker (like 3 years, no kidding), first time poster.



Milton Friedman telling us how it works. Not just the obvious economic side but also the moral side. Key word = choice.
I have a strong feeling about this subject and I dont miss an oportunity to get into an interesting discussion.

For the record Im not a drug user, non-smoker and occasional alcohol user. And I still think that drug legalisation is the right way to go.

On April 15 2011 11:50 Kodiax wrote: Hi, long time lurker (like 3 years, no kidding), first time poster. Milton Friedman telling us how it works. Not just the obvious economic side but also the moral side. Key word = choice. I have a strong feeling about this subject and I dont miss an oportunity to get into an interesting discussion. For the record Im not a drug user, non-smoker and occasional alcohol user. And I still think that drug legalisation is the right way to go.

His whole view on marijuana interdiction is false. Marijuana is easily grown indoors discreetly, and is the most widely available drug of them all. Also, the prices of marijuana have not gone up at even the rate of inflation over the last 25 years.

As far as incentive to grow more potent marijuana, this is driven by demand. Anyone who has ever grown marijuana, myself being one of them, can tell you first hand that growing plants for potency is better than growing plants for yield. You can't give shitty pot away, people want quality and will balk at crap.

Nothing is driving people away from marijuana and to heroin or crack, that is laughable. Marijuana is, was, and forever will be the most popular of drugs, outside of alcohol of course.

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. The government isn't going to be expending massive resources trying to stop black market weed because it won't be +EV in tax revenue and there won't be a criminal element involved any longer.

The price that it sells for when its legal won't be incredibly high, marijuana is NOT tobacco. Companies will have to price compete with the reality that it is easy to grow and there will be many companies and locally-ran businesses competing in the market. Not to mention that in order for legalization to be massively +EV it doesn't have to turn into an enormous, tax revenue generating industry.. the halt of this absurd persecution and waste of government resources will save billions on its own, not to mention it will stop taking otherwise productive people out of the economy (and into prison).

I would be fairly certain if there was full pot legalization corporate lobbyists would get congress to ban home growing

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

On April 15 2011 13:10 palak wrote: I would be fairly certain if there was full pot legalization corporate lobbyists would get congress to ban home growing

This ^

Legalization proponents view it in utopian terms instead of realistic ones. Yes, you can "see" or "envision" a way where everything works out perfectly, but in order to do that, you have to discount the reality of government regulation and taxation, the effects of corporate take over, and the lobbyists they will hire to protect their investments in a burgeoning industry

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.

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?

On April 15 2011 22:51 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + 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

this post is filled with so many assumptions, so pessimistic, I will laugh when a joint sells for the price of a cigarrette.

On April 15 2011 09:55 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 16:45 devon06atX wrote: . . . .in other news - during the time of prohibition (the noble experiment), numerous syndicates profited immensely from extremely high-priced alcohol due to the inherent illegal nature of it. This isn't correct at all, it wasn't extremely high priced at all. They profited because there was still a huge market for the product, and they produced it in large quantities to meet that demand.

Is this a level?

Anyways, instead of saying "are you friggin kidding me, you actually believe the price didn't go up!?!" I decided to look up some academic journal articles for you.

Instead of just linking them (you probably don't have access to these online scholar databases), I figured I'd throw in some parts that are relevant.

"Perhaps the most incontrovertible effect of prohibition is an upward shift in
the supply curve for drugs. Enforcement and potential legal punishment effectively
impose a "tax" on suppliers, thereby raising the costs of supplying drugs. This tax
includes the jail sentences and fines that drug suppliers face if apprehended, along
with any costs that suppliers incur in evading detection. In addition, supply costs
increase because drug suppliers cannot rely on the legal and judicial system to
enforce contracts or resolve disputes.
Prohibition is also likely to shift the demand curve for drugs downward. This
shift results from legal penalties for possession of drugs, greater uncertainty about
product quality, additional costs and danger associated with transactions in an illegal
market and a "respect for the law" under which individuals abstain from"
illegal acts. Page 176

And a very good one.

... "widespread evidence indicates
that prices of prohibited goods-be they drugs, alcohol or prostitutionare
higher under prohibition. For example, Warburton (1932) estimates that alcohol
prices were approximately three times higher during alcohol Prohibition
than beforehand, and Morgan (1991) estimates that cocaine currently sells for at
least 20 times its free market price." page 177

Oh man, tons of good stuff in this article that support my earlier statement

"The behavior of the murder rate in the United States further supports the
claim that prohibition increases violence (Friedman, 1991). The murder rate rose
rapidly after 1910, when many states adopted drug and alcohol prohibition laws.
The rate also rose through World War I, when alcohol and drugs were first prohibited
nationally, and it continued to rise during the 1920s as efforts to enforce alcohol
prohibition increased. The rate then fell dramatically after Prohibition's repeal
in 1934 and (except for wartime) remained at modest levels for several decades.
In the late 1960s, the rate increased dramatically again and stayed at
historically high levels through the 1970s and 1980s, coinciding with a drastic increase
in drug law enforcement." Page 178

Anyways, I have a final in about 6 hours that I'm cramming for, so I don't feel like reading the rest of this academic journal. If you want the info for it, here it is -

Hope this enlightened you on a couple things.

The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition
Author(s): Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel
Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 175-192
Published by: American Economic Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138396 .
Accessed: 16/04/2011 01:24

edit: I still laugh when I see the title of this thread. It's like saying "The NBA makes professional basketball players richer"

On April 16 2011 00:19 LikeASet wrote: this post is filled with so many assumptions, so pessimistic, I will laugh when a joint sells for the price of a cigarrette.

Don't hold your breath

On April 16 2011 00:35 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + On April 15 2011 09:55 curtinsea wrote:   On April 14 2011 16:45 devon06atX wrote: . . . .in other news - during the time of prohibition (the noble experiment), numerous syndicates profited immensely from extremely high-priced alcohol due to the inherent illegal nature of it. This isn't correct at all, it wasn't extremely high priced at all. They profited because there was still a huge market for the product, and they produced it in large quantities to meet that demand. Is this a level? Anyways, instead of saying "are you friggin kidding me, you actually believe the price didn't go up!?!" I decided to look up some academic journal articles for you. Instead of just linking them (you probably don't have access to these online scholar databases), I figured I'd throw in some parts that are relevant. "Perhaps the most incontrovertible effect of prohibition is an upward shift in the supply curve for drugs. Enforcement and potential legal punishment effectively impose a "tax" on suppliers, thereby raising the costs of supplying drugs. This tax includes the jail sentences and fines that drug suppliers face if apprehended, along with any costs that suppliers incur in evading detection. In addition, supply costs increase because drug suppliers cannot rely on the legal and judicial system to enforce contracts or resolve disputes. Prohibition is also likely to shift the demand curve for drugs downward. This shift results from legal penalties for possession of drugs, greater uncertainty about product quality, additional costs and danger associated with transactions in an illegal market and a "respect for the law" under which individuals abstain from" illegal acts. Page 176 And a very good one. ... "widespread evidence indicates that prices of prohibited goods-be they drugs, alcohol or prostitutionare higher under prohibition. For example, Warburton (1932) estimates that alcohol prices were approximately three times higher during alcohol Prohibition than beforehand, and Morgan (1991) estimates that cocaine currently sells for at least 20 times its free market price." page 177 Oh man, tons of good stuff in this article that support my earlier statement "The behavior of the murder rate in the United States further supports the claim that prohibition increases violence (Friedman, 1991). The murder rate rose rapidly after 1910, when many states adopted drug and alcohol prohibition laws. The rate also rose through World War I, when alcohol and drugs were first prohibited nationally, and it continued to rise during the 1920s as efforts to enforce alcohol prohibition increased. The rate then fell dramatically after Prohibition's repeal in 1934 and (except for wartime) remained at modest levels for several decades. In the late 1960s, the rate increased dramatically again and stayed at historically high levels through the 1970s and 1980s, coinciding with a drastic increase in drug law enforcement." Page 178 Anyways, I have a final in about 6 hours that I'm cramming for, so I don't feel like reading the rest of this academic journal. If you want the info for it, here it is - Hope this enlightened you on a couple things. The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition Author(s): Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 175-192 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138396 . Accessed: 16/04/2011 01:24 edit: I still laugh when I see the title of this thread. It's like saying "The NBA makes professional basketball players richer"

Surely you realize that economists don't all agree on anything, but I thank you for putting forth the effort. I'm glad you got something out of that education you parents paid for.

Smart kids are still kids. No book is a substitute for experience.

Keep dreaming, drugs will never be legalized in the USA

since when did we have 2 Baals?

On April 16 2011 01:09 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 16 2011 00:35 devon06atX wrote:   On April 15 2011 09:55 curtinsea wrote:   On April 14 2011 16:45 devon06atX wrote: . . . .in other news - during the time of prohibition (the noble experiment), numerous syndicates profited immensely from extremely high-priced alcohol due to the inherent illegal nature of it. This isn't correct at all, it wasn't extremely high priced at all. They profited because there was still a huge market for the product, and they produced it in large quantities to meet that demand. Is this a level? Anyways, instead of saying "are you friggin kidding me, you actually believe the price didn't go up!?!" I decided to look up some academic journal articles for you. Instead of just linking them (you probably don't have access to these online scholar databases), I figured I'd throw in some parts that are relevant. "Perhaps the most incontrovertible effect of prohibition is an upward shift in the supply curve for drugs. Enforcement and potential legal punishment effectively impose a "tax" on suppliers, thereby raising the costs of supplying drugs. This tax includes the jail sentences and fines that drug suppliers face if apprehended, along with any costs that suppliers incur in evading detection. In addition, supply costs increase because drug suppliers cannot rely on the legal and judicial system to enforce contracts or resolve disputes. Prohibition is also likely to shift the demand curve for drugs downward. This shift results from legal penalties for possession of drugs, greater uncertainty about product quality, additional costs and danger associated with transactions in an illegal market and a "respect for the law" under which individuals abstain from" illegal acts. Page 176 And a very good one. ... "widespread evidence indicates that prices of prohibited goods-be they drugs, alcohol or prostitutionare higher under prohibition. For example, Warburton (1932) estimates that alcohol prices were approximately three times higher during alcohol Prohibition than beforehand, and Morgan (1991) estimates that cocaine currently sells for at least 20 times its free market price." page 177 Oh man, tons of good stuff in this article that support my earlier statement "The behavior of the murder rate in the United States further supports the claim that prohibition increases violence (Friedman, 1991). The murder rate rose rapidly after 1910, when many states adopted drug and alcohol prohibition laws. The rate also rose through World War I, when alcohol and drugs were first prohibited nationally, and it continued to rise during the 1920s as efforts to enforce alcohol prohibition increased. The rate then fell dramatically after Prohibition's repeal in 1934 and (except for wartime) remained at modest levels for several decades. In the late 1960s, the rate increased dramatically again and stayed at historically high levels through the 1970s and 1980s, coinciding with a drastic increase in drug law enforcement." Page 178 Anyways, I have a final in about 6 hours that I'm cramming for, so I don't feel like reading the rest of this academic journal. If you want the info for it, here it is - Hope this enlightened you on a couple things. The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition Author(s): Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 175-192 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138396 . Accessed: 16/04/2011 01:24 edit: I still laugh when I see the title of this thread. It's like saying "The NBA makes professional basketball players richer" Surely you realize that economists don't all agree on anything, but I thank you for putting forth the effort. I'm glad you got something out of that education you parents paid for. Smart kids are still kids. No book is a substitute for experience. Keep dreaming, drugs will never be legalized in the USA

Wow, that was pretty condescending. Just because someone clearly proves you're wrong about something, doesn't mean you have to take it as an insult and react in such a way.

Please provide me with legitimate evidence (peer-reviewed articles, journals, published pieces of work, whatever) that support your claim that I was wrong in saying that prohibition did indeed raise the price of alcohol. I took the time to respond to you with proper evidence backing what I claimed, and if you're going to be so abrasive and stubborn in your responses and stance, I ask you to do the same.

As for experience - I highly doubt that you were old enough to be a customer at the speakeasy's. Regarding drugs being legalized in the states - I don't know, nor does anyone for that matter. More importantly, I don't give a shit. All I claimed was that prohibition did in fact raise the price of booze (by three times too apparently, was unaware it was that much), as it does other illegal things, and that yes, violent crime does increase as a result of the huge profit potential.

Instead of speaking down to you, I'll ask you nicely again. Please provide me with verifable evidence about the stances you claim I'm wrong on.

Oh, and about the 'parents paid for my education' jab, sadly, I'm the sole owner of this debt

On April 16 2011 01:30 LikeASet wrote: since when did we have 2 Baals?

I was born with two Baals, weren't you?

On April 16 2011 01:33 devon06atX wrote: Wow, that was pretty condescending. Just because someone clearly proves you're wrong about something, doesn't mean you have to take it as an insult and react in such a way.

I was just mocking you back, if it's good for you it's good for me too.

Please provide me with legitimate evidence (peer-reviewed articles, journals, published pieces of work, whatever) that support your claim that I was wrong in saying that prohibition did indeed raise the price of alcohol. I took the time to respond to you with proper evidence backing what I claimed, and if you're going to be so abrasive and stubborn in your responses and stance, I ask you to do the same.

Alright, I'll come back with something in a day or two, but it won't matter to you, so it's probably moot. And you are being just as stubborn and abrasive as I, perhaps more so. I didn't insult anyone in any of my comments until you chimed in with a shot at me, something so typical of this site, I wonder why I ever come back here.

As for experience - I highly doubt that you were old enough to be a customer at the speakeasy's. Regarding drugs being legalized in the states - I don't know, nor does anyone for that matter. More importantly, I don't give a shit. All I claimed was that prohibition did in fact raise the price of booze (by three times too apparently, was unaware it was that much), as it does other illegal things, and that yes, violent crime does increase as a result of the huge profit potential.

nope, not that old, but as old as your parents I bet. Funny thing about getting older, your perspective changes. You learn a lot more from experience than you do from books. You don't become a great poker player by reading supersystem alone, you gotta put in the hands.

Instead of speaking down to you, I'll ask you nicely again. Please provide me with verifable evidence about the stances you claim I'm wrong on.

You didn't ask me nicely yet, so since you finally did, sort of,
I will look. I may have to concede you are right on this issue. That alone doesn't change my view of how legalization would turn out if it were to actually happen.

Good point, I'm just being a sensitive little pansy atm... sleep deprivation + exams will do that. Shouldn't have got so offended. I'm actually extremely (in my own prejudiced opinion.. heh) open-minded about most stuff (with the exception of most feminist trains of thought, which I write tomorrow.. fml), so if I'm wrong, and you can show me how, and how it's argued/proven, etc. I'm more than interested. It's good to get more than one opinion on things, especially controversial ones.

I actually enjoy a good debate. Typically on lp tho, it's just people stubbornly throwing around unjustified opinions and not listening to anything with an open mind, so I'm actually surprised and glad at your last paragraph.

About how it would work in the states, I can only guess based on my already existing beliefs and assumptions. Societal structures regarding all things (church, state, marital status of homosexuals, perceptions of 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' activities, etc.) takes a long time to change and people to adjust to. But yeah, I'm a firm believer in basically legalizing and regulating essentially everything. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this would never fly as people are staunch supporters against various things for various reasons.

Also, where do you draw the line? Cocaine? Heroine? It's a complicated issue. However, I do believe that some of the issues regarding regulation and legalization could be much easier found in subjects such as pot, prostitution, shrooms, etc. due to fact it's not nearly as 'extreme' a topic for most.

On April 15 2011 22:53 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + 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?

40-50 an 8th is in the standard acceptable range for decent-'fire' kindof stuff.

When i was in the street pharmaceuticals business my stuff sold crazy fast at 40 an 8th.

40 for an 1/8th of an ounce is the standard rate or about 3.6 or so grams.

You guys do realise that tobacco is like a few buck an OUNCE.

and we pay HEAVY taxes on cigs. (well over 50% of what we pay is tax i believe) but if someone refutes that I'll go look it up.

It's hard to imagine how taxes and regulation will cause the price of weed to go up even more than it is now currently. It's ridiculously cheap and easy to produce weed. And big corporations can easily build the right infrastructure to produce decent to high quality MJ at a very low cost.

Hell I'll throw up side bets that the price of weed will go down (maybe not immediately i can see people be like LOL HOLY SHIT LEGAL and mass buy the products that aren't as readily available from legal streams) If weed is ever legalized. Although the bet would prob be pretty worthless as this won't happen for a long long time.

Just think of your standard capitalism market. If big tobacco can sell at 50% of what it's worth and still pull a huge profit (which they def will) then the price will start dropping severely as other competitors will have to compete with those prices and so and so forth. As the cost of growing starts going down as infrastructure is set up so will the prices drastically. Seems like a pretty basic economic question to me.

Note in countries where tobacco isn't taxed as heavily it's like 1-3 dollars for your standard pack of cigs. Even in a country like South Korea the cigs there go for about 1500-3000 won which is about ~1-3 USD. Which is less than half of what it's going for here in the states.

On April 16 2011 13:28 YoMeR wrote: 40 for an 1/8th of an ounce is the standard rate or about 3.6 or so grams. You guys do realise that tobacco is like a few buck an OUNCE. and we pay HEAVY taxes on cigs. (well over 50% of what we pay is tax i believe) but if someone refutes that I'll go look it up. It's hard to imagine how taxes and regulation will cause the price of weed to go up even more than it is now currently. It's ridiculously cheap and easy to produce weed. And big corporations can easily build the right infrastructure to produce decent to high quality MJ at a very low cost.

Yes they can, doesn't mean they will.

Just think of your standard capitalism market. If big tobacco can sell at 50% of what it's worth and still pull a huge profit (which they def will) then the price will start dropping severely as other competitors will have to compete with those prices and so and so forth. As the cost of growing starts going down as infrastructure is set up so will the prices drastically. Seems like a pretty basic economic question to me.

I gave you a historically accurate assessment . . . the user price of weed has risen 33% in 25 years while the user price of cigarettes has gone up 500%

I have no doubt that the cost to produce cigarettes has actually declined, but taxes and regulation have inflated the price.

It is simply naive to think that the same wouldn't happen if weed was legalized.

I haven't once said in this entire thread that your views of how great legalization would be are not possible. What I have done is laid out a far more likely scenario, based on experience.

I know what a bag of weed cost in 1985, and I know what cigs cost in 1985, and I know what they cost now. And not from a book or from some web page.

BTW, I couldn't refute that prohibition made alcohol prices go up, so I stand corrected on that point. However, that does not necessarily mean legalization would bring prices down.

I really don't care if pot is illegal, I have and will smoke it anyway. I have for a long time, and I grew it for a few years as well, never facing any hassle with the law. The risk/reward ratio is +EV in my view. I don't do any other drugs (anymore) so I don't care about those either. I do believe we should have freedom of choice, but I don't have the energy to fight this battle (cuz I'm stoned).

My view is pessimistic, yes. But it's only because I've been around. Anyway, I have shared my views and my experience with you all, take from it what you will.

Peace

Even if prices go up, its the morally correct choice.

On April 16 2011 17:30 Baal wrote: Even if prices go up, its the morally correct choice.

You know, I don't disagree with you. I believe we should be free to do what we want as long as we aren't hurting anyone. We shouldn't punish people for doing drugs, or for selling drugs even, to those that wish to purchase them. It shouldn't be criminal.

My whole point is that "legalization" won't eliminate the rules, it will merely change them. It will be yet another instance where the power shifts to the corporation, the government meddles in our personal lives. And we won't be happy with the new rules either.

I guess it boils down not only to actual "legalization", but the form that legalization takes. So if you are going to advocate the legalization of drugs, you better have a clear design in mind of just what legalization entails.

On April 16 2011 20:53 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 16 2011 17:30 Baal wrote: Even if prices go up, its the morally correct choice. You know, I don't disagree with you. I believe we should be free to do what we want as long as we aren't hurting anyone. We shouldn't punish people for doing drugs, or for selling drugs even, to those that wish to purchase them. It shouldn't be criminal. My whole point is that "legalization" won't eliminate the rules, it will merely change them. It will be yet another instance where the power shifts to the corporation, the government meddles in our personal lives. And we won't be happy with the new rules either. I guess it boils down not only to actual "legalization", but the form that legalization takes. So if you are going to advocate the legalization of drugs, you better have a clear design in mind of just what legalization entails.

Agreed, government fucks upanything it touches (thats why it shouldnt exist)

Even then all drugs should be legal for moral reasons, the practicality of how it works out is secondary to our right to be free.

by government do you mean government or the state?

On April 17 2011 02:54 sawseech wrote: by government do you mean government or the state?

the state, any form of government is doomed to fuck up, but this is not the subject here.

On April 16 2011 15:22 curtinsea wrote: I gave you a historically accurate assessment . . . the user price of weed has risen 33% in 25 years while the user price of cigarettes has gone up 500% I have no doubt that the cost to produce cigarettes has actually declined, but taxes and regulation have inflated the price. It is simply naive to think that the same wouldn't happen if weed was legalized. I haven't once said in this entire thread that your views of how great legalization would be are not possible. What I have done is laid out a far more likely scenario, based on experience. I know what a bag of weed cost in 1985, and I know what cigs cost in 1985, and I know what they cost now. And not from a book or from some web page. BTW, I couldn't refute that prohibition made alcohol prices go up, so I stand corrected on that point. However, that does not necessarily mean legalization would bring prices down. I really don't care if pot is illegal, I have and will smoke it anyway. I have for a long time, and I grew it for a few years as well, never facing any hassle with the law. The risk/reward ratio is +EV in my view. I don't do any other drugs (anymore) so I don't care about those either. I do believe we should have freedom of choice, but I don't have the energy to fight this battle (cuz I'm stoned). My view is pessimistic, yes. But it's only because I've been around. Anyway, I have shared my views and my experience with you all, take from it what you will. Peace

Just pointing out that you didn't actually adjust for inflation on the cigs and weed. Also when economists do those calculations they use ceteris paribus or all other things being held constant assumption. By competition changing, taxes changing and many other variables changing it is hard to actually make an accurate calculation or model like the one you did. Also you are using localised data, I know you aren't claiming anything other than that but your price at the time might of been inflated or deflated compared to the rest of the country due to employment, income etc. If weed is legalised I guess it depends initially on how the suppliers and consumers react. If demand stays the same but there is an influx of supply the price will be driven down. If however there is an influx of new people wanting to try weed etc because it's legal then demand quantity will increase and hence price will. I think it's kind of hard to predict as there are a few unknowns, either way market equilibrium will be reached at some point.

On April 17 2011 15:16 Funktion wrote: Just pointing out that you didn't actually adjust for inflation on the cigs and weed. Also when economists do those calculations they use ceteris paribus or all other things being held constant assumption. By competition changing, taxes changing and many other variables changing it is hard to actually make an accurate calculation or model like the one you did. Also you are using localised data, I know you aren't claiming anything other than that but your price at the time might of been inflated or deflated compared to the rest of the country due to employment, income etc. If weed is legalised I guess it depends initially on how the suppliers and consumers react. If demand stays the same but there is an influx of supply the price will be driven down. If however there is an influx of new people wanting to try weed etc because it's legal then demand quantity will increase and hence price will. I think it's kind of hard to predict as there are a few unknowns, either way market equilibrium will be reached at some point.

I didn't adjust for inflation?? Does inflation affect one product more or less than another, or inflation a general term. I gave a comparison of the price of the two items then and now. I think it speaks for itself.

Also, all the other things you mentioned miss the point . . . . I have no doubt that production costs and wholesale prices will go down, but at the user end we will pay more. Taxes will more than offset any savings, which I think is clearly demonstrated by the skyrocketing price of cigarettes.

The fact is that an 1/8th of weed is the same $40 it has been for nearly 20 years. No other product I know of can make that same claim.

Risk, as in the illegality of it, does not seem to be a factor in pricing.

So the point is your prices...won't bother.

Legalization of weed in California has really cut into my profit margins and has put more than a few of my dealer friends completely out of business. You barely cover your running costs with prices so low unless you have a "larger" operation. Pounds of good quality weed that just last year would have landed you $2500-3000 a pound last year can go as low as $700-800 this year.

On April 18 2011 19:22 NotSorry wrote: Legalization of weed in California has really cut into my profit margins and has put more than a few of my dealer friends completely out of business. You barely cover your running costs with prices so low unless you have a "larger" operation. Pounds of good quality weed that just last year would have landed you $2500-3000 a pound last year can go as low as $700-800 this year.

So three years later, we have retail weed here in Washington State. That retail weed is grossly more expensive than my guy down the street, so his business is not likely to suffer. Although, as stated above, an ounce that once was worth $300 is worth about half that now. Unfortunately, there is still enforcement for those other guys, so very little has changed, other than the state getting it's cut.

But as predicted, there is hope on the horizon. Big tobacco is coming, and with mass production, we could see retail prices fall, at least temporarily until the tax man cometh

http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/experts-b...lcohol-coming-for-marijuana-industry/ again.

point is palak its not even the addiction itself necessarily that ruins an addicts life. Is addiction intrinsically bad? Probably, but just like we are addicted to oxygen in a sense (we need it constantly to survive) as long as that addiction is satisfied (we have oxygen to breathe) we are ok. It is when we don't have the drug we are addicted to that we run into problems such as withdrawal and crime. Some drugs can be harmful to the body like cocaine, but for example opiates are non-toxic in the body (much like marijuana but maybe even less harmful long term at least cognitively) and you can do them all day daily for an entire long life. That is assuming you are able to avoid life threatening respiratory depression due to overdose, which should be easy to do for any user with experience and a tolerance. Most deaths are from inexperienced, uneducated users. Proper education would save a lot more lives than the current system of abstinence and incarceration.

The problem is because of their legal status drug prices have risen to obscene levels. The poppy, the marijuana plant, the cocoa plant, these grow freely all over the world these drugs would cost nothing if they weren't highly regulated. People have to basically devote all their time and energy into obtaining these drugs because of the cost and the rest of their lives fall to the wayside. Crime, etc. to pay for the drugs, then jail rinse repeat. This cycle is perpetuated. The war on drugs has created a whole giant world economy, it would cost a lot of people a lot of money to change things. For all we know the price to banks, the for profit prison system, etc. of legalization would trash the economy. At the very least the banks laundering the drug money would not be happy.

Just look at alcohol (most destructive drug to society probably- drunk driving) and you will see the massive hypocrisy behind all of this. And anyone wanting to curtail pharmaceutical pain killers because of illegal use I have a message for you. Nobody should have trouble getting any pain medication they need (pain is horrible) due to some authority's fear that it may be diverted for others to use recreationally. The fear of some people getting high should keep no one from the meds they need to live pain free. Who cares if an individual decides to ingest a substance; it is that persons business. Same thing for prison. Someone uses a substance to feel pleasure in the safety of their home. That makes them a criminal? They should be locked away in a cage away from society for that? of course not, common sense people. Even the people supplying the drugs; they are providing something that someone is consciously and willfully handing their money over for. Not much wrong with that either imo. I don't believe in victimless crime.

wow I got owned by a resurrected thread. I hadn't seen that idiot Palak in a while and I let him tilt me in this 3 year old thread.

The dispensarys in NorCal are still charging a lot retail out the door. Top shelf ounces for 260-350 which is expensive as ever so they are getting their money. They obviously only buy it for a fraction of that though. But because of high retail prices up here it is still possible for street dealers to survive if they just push decent shit at 10/g most people around here will pay. As far as larger weights; yea pounds don't go for 3 racks anymore (Although I heard pounds of fire cookies shipped over to the East Coast were still fetching 5k last week) but they can still go for half that. clubs might not pay more than 1 but especially with all the concentrates being made now BHO especially and made out of flowers too even not just trim you can find other people to buy ur dank. Might have to travel but shouldn't be too far. I'm not sure about IN Humboldt county. Maybe pounds are going 500 all day up there. Its still not as cheap in San Francisco because over half of the shit up north flys straight down I-5 to SoCal and never even touches the city. Everyone up here is on the Dab hype right now so get a vacuum oven and start making shatter to make $.

yay measure 91 passed in oregon...legal weed can be bought a year from now I'm guessing. not sure how it'd affect prices but if it's the oregon alcohol commission it'll prob be just as expensive if not more than the dealers around here.

legalize it to reduce unecessary incarcerations, legitimize sources and hurt non tax-paying dealers. to make cheaper, widely accessible weed should not be the goal of this thing, anything that intoxicates is obviously harmful to society

Part of the drug war is the war on euthanasia drugs. People are drinking the 3$ clorox (middle age torturous death) to kill themselves instead of the illegal 10$ nembutal (painless death). Its evil to prohibit euthanasia drugs from those who would use them.
Case in point, Frank Underwood's Father: "When I was thirteen, I walked in on my father in the barn. There was a shotgun in his mouth. He waved me over. "Come here, Francis," he said. "Pull the trigger for me." Because he didn't have the courage to do it himself. I said, "No, pop," and walked out, knowing he would never find that courage. The next seven years were hell for my father, but even more hell for my mother and me. He made all of us miserable; drinking, despair, violence... My only regret in life is that I didn't pull that trigger."
If nembutal were legal, ezpz.

On November 16 2014 13:47 MyAnacondaDont wrote: Part of the drug war is the war on euthanasia drugs. People are drinking the 3$ clorox (middle age torturous death) to kill themselves instead of the illegal 10$ nembutal (painless death). Its evil to prohibit euthanasia drugs from those who would use them. Case in point, Frank Underwood's Father: "When I was thirteen, I walked in on my father in the barn. There was a shotgun in his mouth. He waved me over. "Come here, Francis," he said. "Pull the trigger for me." Because he didn't have the courage to do it himself. I said, "No, pop," and walked out, knowing he would never find that courage. The next seven years were hell for my father, but even more hell for my mother and me. He made all of us miserable; drinking, despair, violence... My only regret in life is that I didn't pull that trigger." If nembutal were legal, ezpz.

hi woodbrave/josephcalgary!

You can trace back the criminalization of cannabis back to the 1920s/30s in America. A random pharmacologist testified before congress that he did marijuana and it turned him into a vulture that flew around the room he was in. So after that the drug was criminalized because it made people insane. Then lawyers started getting people off murders because they used the insanity defense and said the murderer was doing marijuana. So that was dropped, and they made up the 'gateway drug' myth afterwards. The history of drug criminalization is pretty funny/interesting, but sad also.

What happens when a heroin user decides to go on a killing spree and kill innocent newborn babies becauae of the drug psychosis huh? Im happy that these drugs will never ever in a million years be legalized. Also cannabis causes psychosis for some people.

Why not just quit doing drugs instead of crying that they should be legal?

On November 16 2014 23:58 Srsbob wrote: What happens when a heroin user decides to go on a killing spree and kill innocent newborn babies becauae of the drug psychosis huh? Im happy that these drugs will never ever in a million years be legalized. Also cannabis causes psychosis for some people. Why not just quit doing drugs instead of crying that they should be legal?

Not trolling homie

Well you are either trolling ore retarded

Lol I hope you are trolling dog otherwise Baal is right you are retarded

Guys...c'mon...

Srsbob = awesomeguy - you know, the guy who got banned for being a total trolling jackass? And then made another account w/ the same name? I think he's on his fourth account by now..

don't feed him

On November 17 2014 01:29 Baalim wrote: Well you are either trolling ore retarded

this made me BURST out laughing lmao.

On November 16 2014 23:58 Srsbob wrote: What happens when a heroin user decides to go on a killing spree and kill innocent newborn babies becauae of the drug psychosis huh? Im happy that these drugs will never ever in a million years be legalized. Also cannabis causes psychosis for some people. Why not just quit doing drugs instead of crying that they should be legal?

Srsbob the prophet