When Your Problems are Economic, Legalize the Chronic!!

[Barsdamian]

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

Rolfe.

Cannabis decriminalization has been tested for a number of years in the Netherlands and the result is that cannabis use remained fairly stable, and continues to be lower than the US and other EU countries with more restrictive laws. Here's a link to a comparison between the two nations.

drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67

(Sorry can't post hot links yet)

Similar results have been reported with decrim measures in Portugal, Spain and Brazil.

The old prohibitionist line that decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis will lead to an increase in consumption has not been confirmed by real world experience.

 

[Barsdamian]

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

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

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

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

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

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

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

 

[geni]

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

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

 

[mhaze]

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

Which is an unconstitutional stance, as I noted, with plausible exceptions.

 

[Molinaro]

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

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

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

$200/oz

28 joints/oz

$7.15/joint

Making the $1 tax a 14% tax.

 

[Fishstick]

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

Rolfe.

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

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

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

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

 

[Eddie Dane]

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

I disagree,

Cannabis makes me unmotivated and sluggish in bar fights.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Sadly..

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

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

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

Unprofitable one way and politically impractical the other.



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

 

[NewtonTrino]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GreyICE]

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

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

 

[MikeSun5]

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

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

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

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

The Netherlands has had legal pot for years...

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Barsdamian]

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

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

From the NORML blog:

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

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

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

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

 

[Barsdamian]

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

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

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

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

 

[MikeSun5]

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

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

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

Lots of accredited sources claim marijuana causes cancer. Here's a government source, and here's a link from a cancer site.

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

 

[WildCat]

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

I've met like one or two potheads in my life that didn't either mix tobacco with their weed, or smoke cigarettes in addition to it.

I've never seen anyone in the US mix pot with tobacco. In fact, I only saw this done once, in Canada. Seemed to be the local custom there.

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

Lots of accredited sources claim marijuana causes cancer. Here's a government source,

That link does not say what you claim it does.

and here's a link from a cancer site.

Which is contradicted by this newer and larger study published in the journal Cancer Prevention Research:

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

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

 

[Barsdamian]

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

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

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

Lots of accredited sources claim marijuana causes cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GreyICE]

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

From the NORML blog:

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

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

There's still other health effects.

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

 

[themusicteacher]

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

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

 

[WildCat]

It would help a little but it sort of obfuscates the real issue: why is pot illegal at all?

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

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