Economy Fix or Fail??

[devonin]

Try to actually post using proper spelling, grammar and punctuation.

[chuckman]

the wonderful thing about a forum is that i can spell and punctuate any way i please...and if you want to complain about that you should go to the garbage bin section of the forums, cause thats where that last comment belongs...if you want to continue our so called "debate" on the economy then i'd be happy to...otherwise please refrain from future related comments on grammar. You should know this being the "Best Overall Poster"?

[korny]

Replacing the word is with are in my sentence make perfect sense. I had made a grammtical error. You somehow were unable to comprehend what I was saying however, seeing as I had asked the question in relation to the near complete harmless qualities that it is attributed with. I apologize for this slight error.

Miron acknowledged that it wasn't at all an exact comparison and while the figures given are all estimates, you forgot to mention "The bigger picture". You don't need complete factual evidence to support a claim so painstakingly obvious as this, since it's already generating a lot of money else where.

Bigger Picture

Miron focused his calculations and estimates on marijuana as an intoxicant being grown, bought and sold by individuals and businesses, but he FORGOT to calculate the potential revenues of eventual cannabis coffeeshops, cannatourism, natural medpot products, industrial hemp products, and canna-entertainment industries.

As Vancouver's Da Kine cannabis shop revealed, if you sell quality cannabis, pot edibles, and hashish, thousands of people will show up and give you lots of money. It's likely that marijuana "bars" and music clubs would be a serious rival to the alcohol bar industry within a few years of legalization. If the value of the Dutch cannabis shop industry is any indication, American pot entertainment could generate $7 billion a year in revenues BEYOND THE PROFITS miron has estimated for the regular retail market.

Marijuana-related entertainment is just now beginning to take off, pioneered by Marc Emery's revolutionary reality television shows on his very own television network Pot-TV.net, in which he features real people casually breaking the law, and enjoying the freedom and liberation cannabis legalization can permit. Just think of the money waiting to be made from authentic pot-related television and movies in a legal marijuana America! And what about industrial hemp? If the marijuana plant is legalized, hemp can again be grown in the US, where it would compete with cotton, nylon, animal fats, forest products, petrochemicals, petroleum, food oils, and other profitable products, which will generate many billions of dollars in commerce.

As you have repeatedly stated, these are only figures and not real numbers. But it strikes me as funny that you seem to overlook what many experts have been able to "predict" about actual figures. Even if their estimates are cut in half, WE'RE STILL UP BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Are you going to impose still, that just because they're estimates, that these figures are too difficult to predict whether we'd actually have a figure in the billions and billions? Give me a break. Solid evidence is not needed to support my claim, the obvious reality of it all does that for itself. But you're having a hard time taking his post seriously because of his saying "fascism, loss of civil liberties, harm to families, and creation of a police state." Well let's break down this statement shall we?

Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a POLICY OF BELLIGERENT NATIONALISM and racism. This is one way to describe the countries policy towards marijuana.

Belligerent nationalism? Oh god yes. The US is fighting against something that has proven to help those with serious illness, provides extremely beneficial industrial qualities, and has no life threatening qualities whatsoever, yet they sell the **** out of beer and cigarettes, two of some of the worst things you take into your body. This would also cover the loss of civil liberties segment, since the government is controlling your ability to legally partake in something that is far less dangerous than something they try to "sell the ****" out of.

Harm to families? Well that's a no brainer. You have roughly 800,000 people each year getting arrested for marijuana related charges. Many of my friends parents smoke pot, many adults who are parents smoke pot that are my friends also. The prohibition gives police an undue amount of leverage over average citizens. When something as widespread as pot possession is illegal, police can use it as an excuse to harass whole classes of otherwise law-abiding citizens. This unfair leverage can put income providers in jail, leaving them in a financial bind. I've seen it too many times and have heard too many stories, and the fact that we're currently in a recession doesn't necessarily help in that regard. I think that pretty much covers police state as well. Do you need to be biased to realize the realities of all this? I'd think not.

In regards to the morality issue, I am admittedly biased towards the fact that something that shows no threatening qualities should have any disdaining views. Put simply, this is an argument for a different time and place maybe, and I'd rather not get off topic as this is completely up to whatever moral code someone could have against such a thing.

I want all potheads to flourish was taken out of context. All I meant by that, is that they should be able to go about their cannabis business so to speak, in any form they want to and not have to be limited to just one way of it's acquirement.


In reference to the cause of extreme paranoia and panic attacks, I have based this purely on my 9 years of experience. I am not saying at all that my experiences alone rule out all other possibilities. However, it has been in my experience, (And I have experienced A LOT) that the sense of paranoia always exists with new smokers, and even some veterans when dealing with the aspects of weed. (It's acquirement, usage etc.) During the 9 years I have smoked it has been in my EXPERIENCE that the true sense of paranoia that has sometimes followed from smoking weed, has become heightened because the user has not been able to get it out of their head that they are doing something illegal and have let this cloud their better judgment as to how they would truly get caught unless while driving or using in a public place of course. So in essence this was an accidental biased statement right here. While these can most definitely be caused by other things, I have never heard it being caused otherwise. And regardless, this experience is extremely short lasting and once again poses no real threat. So yes paranoia exists everywhere when dealing with weed, I don't think the same could be said about panic attacks.


Aside from a subjective change in perception, the most common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart rate, lowered blood pressure, and impairment of psychomotor coordination, concentration, and short-term episodic and working memory.[16] Long-term effects are less clear.

Scenario-an outline of the plot of a dramatic work, giving particulars as to the scenes, characters, situations, etc.

Hmm, I thank you for providing me with facts (because that is all you did) that I am already well aware of, but could you put these into a scenario for me where someone only has feelings of "regret" by it's usage?

To conclude: A 2001 study suggested that marijuana smoking increases the risk of heart attack in the hour immediately after smoking. But this seems to be the case in no more than one-fifth of 1% of heart attacks -- a very rare risk indeed. Stephen Sidney, MD, associate director for research for Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif. Posting this in regards to your increased heart rate.

And since we've already established in this post
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...ng/dot78_1.htm that the impairment of coordination isn't as dangerous as you have been led to believe or are trying to convince me of, you have in short, no deaths or illnesses or anything regarding that matter relating to just pure marijuana usage. A cigarette easily does WAY more damage to your body and alcohol even more so. Comparing the deaths related to the 2 is well, taking the number of all people who have received cancer from smoking cigarettes and other life threatening diseases, adding to that the number of people who die every year from drunk driving related deaths and alcohol poisoning and all it's other lethal effects and statistics and subtract it by zero, the number of people who die every year from smoking only marijuana. Completely harmless, no, not completely harmless. Life threatening or truly dangerous? Definitely not.

[chuckman]

in the 5000 years of its cultivation and its 3000 of being smoked, there has never been one case of a death due to marijuana or ne thing related to it. Furthermore, they have established an overdose level for the human body...As well as deducted that its physically impossible for a human being to reach that designated "overdose" level. They also speculate should you, by some miracle, reach that "overdose" level, it may not even be lethal. Check out the surgeon general's website for backing of any thing i said here.

[AOD_ELEMENT]

Originally Posted by Erothyme

Not good cannabis, and that is what people want.

all marijuana grown by itself by no male plants will be good bud.
the male plants just pollunate the females making the offspring (seeds)
if you grow really ****ty bud then you shouldnt grow lol

[korny]

For starters, your first sentence was kinda hard to decipher I had to read it a couple times. Second, growing ****ty bud or not has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Perhaps you should read what's going on in this thread before pointing out irrelevant facts.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by chuckman

the wonderful thing about a forum is that i can spell and punctuate any way i please...and if you want to complain about that you should go to the garbage bin section of the forums, cause thats where that last comment belongs...if you want to continue our so called "debate" on the economy then i'd be happy to...otherwise please refrain from future related comments on grammar. You should know this being the "Best Overall Poster"?

Oh?

Forum Announcement: Spelling and grammar are MANDATORY

Critical Thinking Forum Rule 6: 6/ Proper spelling and punctuation are mandatory. Even moreso than in the rest of the forum, posts in CT need to contain full and proper english words. Text is a medium of communication, and wen u tak leik ths it breaks down the ability of people to understand you. Yes you know what you mean, yes we can figure out what you mean, but every time a post has to be made asking for a translation or interpretation of what you said, communication has broken down. Use spellcheck, use those language skills you should have been learning all these years in school.

[Erothyme]

You must be awfully insecure about your position if you have to argue about your opposition's English skills in the midst of a debate.

[devonin]

I must be the moderator of this forum if I have to moderate the forum in the middle of the forum.

[chuckman]

lol just what i thought devonin...I thought a person in your position would admit defeat, instead of complaining about my punctuation and grammar...im sure that you , as well as everyone else on this forum, could understand the point I was trying to get across. Either way this was a general discussion, not a debate. You initiated it, and I finished it. Simple as that. If you dont think you lost ask anyone who read the forum. Besides izzy

[devonin]

Chuck, all of the actually good and cogent points aren't even coming from you. If anybody is going to "win" the debate in favour of marijuana legalization it's going to be korny. Your walls of text making spurious claims with no real evidence to back them up are barely contributing to Korny's excellent logic and compelling evidence.

in the 5000 years of its cultivation and its 3000 of being smoked, there has never been one case of a death due to marijuana or ne thing related to it.

This is the quality of claim you make. You have any evidence whatsoever that for FIVE THOUSAND years nobody has ever died due to marijuana or anything related to it? I'd love to see where you have 5000 years of evidence. Please provide that for us.

Meanwhile, Korny, more excellent stuff that actually gives me a lot to think about. Let's see.

The US is fighting against something that has proven to help those with serious illness

15 states have laws allowing medicinal use as prescribed by a doctor, and the federal government has given free reign to the states to draft their own legislation on the subject. Sounds to me like the US isn't exactly fighting -against- it. Elements of americans sure, but as a formal policy decision, it's up to the state, and 15 states have already said medicinal use is perfectly fine.

Belligerent nationalism? Oh god yes.

How is that nationalism, let alone belligerent nationalism? I don't se very much by way of explicit american propaganda declaiming marijuna users as un-american. Maybe back in the 60s and 70s where every drug user "hated the man" and all drugs "made you commies" but today?

I think that pretty much covers police state as well. Do you need to be biased to realize the realities of all this? I'd think not.

As I said earlier. If you think a law is unfair, you fight to get it changed. While it's still a law, it's still a law, and you have to accept the consequences of breaking the law. Since marijuana users are also the first to point out the highly non-addictive nature of cannibis, you can't even suggest that once they're hooked they can't help but smoke, so each time they light up they are making a free clear choice to break the law, even if they don't agree with it. So while that surely created hardship to have the breadwinner for the family go to prison, that's not the fault of the police for enforcing the law. It's the fault of the person choosing to break the law.

Hmm, I thank you for providing me with facts (because that is all you did) that I am already well aware of, but could you put these into a scenario for me where someone only has feelings of "regret" by it's usage?

If you can't look at a list of things like "increased heart rate, lowered blood pressure, and impairment of psychomotor coordination, concentration, and short-term episodic and working memory" and think up a scenario wherein those things would be problematic, it sounds like you have a problem with your short-term and working memory.

Completely harmless, no, not completely harmless. Life threatening or truly dangerous? Definitely not.

You're using the old speeding ticket defense here. "But officer, shoudln't you be out catching murderers and rapists?"

I went to university in Windsor Ontario, which is directly across the river from Detroit. It is a very industrial city and there are a lot of foundries etc especially along the river on both sides.

They've done many studies on air quality there and found that by a HUGE lead, the industry all up and down the river contributes to the poor air quality, and the incidences of lung-based medical conditions etc.

A few years ago, they instituted a smoking ban in all public indoor areas, and there was a huge outcry along the lines of "There are far far worse pollutants effecting the city, it's ridiculous to piss off so many people to fix what is actually a minor problem in comparison" And while that might seem like a good argument to put more resources into forcing industry to stop polluting so much, it is not a good argument to remove the smoking ban.

If more people are murdered by guns each year than by knives, is it -bad- to take steps that eliminate all knife murders? More people die of cancer each year than die of say, ALS, but is it -bad- to put resources towards curing ALS?

It's not perfectly harmless, thus it is at least partially harmful, so the fact that there are other more harmful things doesn't necessarily prove that it is not harmful.

As to the actual meat of the statement, yes cigarettes are worse for you than pot. I would have no problem whatsoever with a global ban on cigarettes. Especially since what people are actually addicted to and what causes all the health problems is basically everything -but- the tobacco in them.

As for alcohol, the right kinds of alochol in the right proportions are actually -good- for you. The issues all stem from excessive consumption. I'll also point out that while you're perfectly allowed to drink excessively, you are -not- allowed to then go out in public, operate a vehicle or do anything else that endangers or even potentially endangers those around you.

Below is my stance on pot, since you guys seem to think I'm some sort of ignorant tool of THE MAN who thinks 'reefer madness' is real, despite the fact that I never actually stated one way or another what my personal view was, merely pointed out my issues with the claims regarding the incredible boon to the economy etc that this would be.

In your own home, or among friends, I really coudln't care less whether you smoke pot, drop acid, get pissed drunk or just play parcheesi. Every adult should have the right to do absolutely anything they want provided that everybody involved is consenting.

Private personal use of marijuana is perfectly fine by me. I know plenty of people who smoke pot, and I don't think less of them for it or anything.

If asked to vote on a decriminalization of marijuana I'd vote to support it. But my support would be solely on the grounds that consenting adults should have the freedom to do anything they want with other consenting adults. If asked to vote solely on economic grounds, I'd abstain on the grounds of insufficient research actually showing the costs involved in setting up the infrastructure versus actual income from its sale and tax etc.

I'd also vote to support it being illegal to drive under the influence of Pot, I'd vote to support laws forbidding its smoking in public spaces not dedicated solely to it (And such places would need to have the right kind of ventiliation to keep the smoke indoors) though I'd have no problem with places being allowed to be dedicated solely to it (By the same token that I support smoking bans for cigarettes, but am okay with the idea that a private club or bar could designate itself smoking-allowed)

[richhhhhard]

"Can you not at least agree that just plain marijuana usage regardless of illegalities, are not by any means "fair"?"

I am really at a loss as to how that question makes sense korny.

"My question made perfect sense maybe you should read it again"

All I am saying is that I have read it numerous times and still can't make any sense out of it. Kinda makes me wonder about the validity of the rest of your arguments...

[krunkykai22]

Wow. Alot of reading just done on my part .

Ok, one, Korny, you my friend, are a genius! I agree with everything you say. One topic I wanted to jump in on would be that of driving under the influence of weed. For one if they even legalized marijuana it would be under the same stipulation of alchohol. Can not drive under it, be in public under it, etc. Thats pretty much a given.

Two, yes marijuana is an "indoor" grown plant, but not all the time. I'm not going to say how i know this but believe me, the best stuff I have endured came from being grown outside .

As for the 15 states that have legalized this matter for medical purposes, yes they have legalized it but correct me if I am wrong, but is it not true that the government is fighting them for it now?? I believe California and Oregon are going through federal court with the government because of there use of marijuana, in its MEDICAL USE!!

As for the economic part, it would be an amazing asset to the government to tax marijuana and make it legal. The only reason I would agree to make it legal, is to stop the selling of it to underage children. I've seen 11 year olds sitting outside there house smoking a fatty before school. ARE YOU KIDDING???? Even though legalizing it would not stop that, it could greatly drop the rate of it being sold at least. :/

Completely off topic here but, why in gods name would you fight with a profile/forum mod????? Are you seriously that retarded?? He was not named a mod for no reason. Shut up and quit telling him how to run his job.

Ok im done

edit: one more thing, it is not true that no one has died from marijuana usage. To overdoes on this drug is extremely hard, because you need to smoke your entire body weight for you to completely overdose. for one you can't afford that much and two that would just be stupid.

[korny]

Fighting against it's recreational use, legalizing for industrial use etc.

Anyway, while this is all perspective of course, this is the way I see it so take from it what you will. You have adults who have grown up in this country, and all they have known is marijuana to be illegal. The media has spread false propaganda to young adults and children about the dangers and repercussions of it's use ever since the 1930's. It is this sense of danger that has become imbibed in american culture and it is all we as a people have ever been shown to know. A prime example I'd like to point out is my friend who I recently got into this discussion about. While he is an extremely intelligent individual, what he so ignorantly pointed out, is that he has grown up having a marijuana illegal life so to speak, and that he sees no reason to change that. He doesn't care what I "think" I know about it, because he's never done it and was raised and taught to be against it whether it was his family, religion, media etc. All he knows from marijuana is what I have told him, which is pretty much everything. He doesn't smoke, he continues to think it is harmful even after repeatedly providing him with evidence that that is more than hardly the case, it is just a matter of pure ignorance. You can tell someone over and over again that something is ok, but if you have an entire society telling you differently, and it is how you were raised to understand it, and never partook of it to truly understand, then you're going to more than likely have a majority to believe it to be the case. Especially in this country, where we are taught to love it so proudly, we are more or less brainwashed with the ideals that go along with it and what I mean by that is simply; America says it's bad to smoke pot, I love my country, I'm not going to smoke pot. Do I really think there are people like this? Well, sort of yes. To such a literal degree? Perhaps not quite as many but it this sense of " belligerent nationalism" that exists in different levels. People fear that which they don't understand, and what makes it so much more difficult is that not only do they have this self-righteous sense of fear, but they have an annoying sense of ignorance that helps to conspire against it's legality if that makes sense. No I don't think everyone who is against marijuana is like that, but you have to think about well, what exactly is their reason against it, with all the evidence provided when you have the state of california operating just as it had before they had legalized it in 1996 as a prime example. You have of course stated you're feelings towards marijuana so this is by no means directed towards your personal views about it, more just me ranting to the ignorant people out there and relating to this sense of "belligerent nationalism" I was trying to get across to you. There are people who feel the need to take it upon themselves to be against marijuana because the "majority" of americans they know are against it without even knowing what they're "hating on". Put simply, those born in the 50's were raised in a time to naturally have a different view against other races because of the conflicts during the time they had grown up in. Whether they're racist or not, because they were raised in a different time, it has embedded in their minds a different perspective on the subject more so then it would people today. While marijuana has become more and more socially accepted, it is by no means to the point to where this ignorance has dissipated. It is very frustrating.



Sure, I honestly can't argue with you anymore there. It is illegal whether it should be or not. The only thing point I stand to make is that alcohol and tobacco are killing so many people worldwide, while marijuana is not killing any, and it is giving the police unfair leverage to exercise their authoritative power. Quite frankly, it's plain paradoxical.

Again, you point out facts about what marijuana usage can do to you, yet I fail to see how a scenario can be created in which one has feelings of regret. Do you mean to say he had a rare heart attack at his young age, and was caused by the extremely rare instance of which it is caused by marijuana? Or perhaps it was his loss in motor skills that caused him to wreck his car or fall down and trip and break his leg even though the car thing can pretty much be ruled out with the link to the car study I provided. No that's not it, perhaps he got so stoned that he forgot he had a test the next day he needed to study for and it was the cause of him to fail his entire class? And If he did indeed break or hurt himself while stoned, well, it's just like alcohol. Know your limits and be responsible about it. There are levels of high, that you can easily control. Even still, I highly doubt this was the cause of his so called regrettable experience. So while analyzing these possibilites, I still fail to see how his regrettable experience was caused by weed alone. Perhaps you can provide me with a better one, since my short term memory is working against me.

While your analogies towards the smoking ban and such are good points, once again you are pointing out the obvious and making no real point. We're talking about human lives and how they're being taken from already legal things as opposed to something that does not and is illegal. Alcohol in moderation is considered healthy in some regard of course, yet you have thousands and thousands of people continuing to abuse it and die every year. Cigarettes obviously holding absolutely no beneficial value whatsoever. No they are not allowed to go out in public and interact with society as if they were sober. A drunk persons ability to act reasonably in society however, compared to a person under the influence of marijuana are not only completely incomparable, but well kind of stupid. The effects both have on an individual are way too drastic to put into the same category because like erothyme has stated, and something I can say for myself, there is nothing I can't do better when I'm high. My best one handed scores in this game are always done when high, and this can be used as a great example. One handing takes great dexterity to do it as well as I can. I am perhaps one of the best one handers if not the best that has ever played the game, and one of my most controversial scores (Reach's reality AA) was done while being very stoned. Where is the real harm in 0 deaths? That is what I don't quite understand.

All in all even though the figures that I've given are all speculative and can only be generalized, I find it hard to believe that a person such as yourself who seems to be very intelligent and understanding of economics and such, fails to see how a billion dollar industry can be created by marijuana taxing with the information provided, even if a lot of it are only predictions. Look at California's supposed income based on medical cannabis. It's over a billion dollars. That's just California and it's not even for recreational use. On top of that the, shops and all other kinds of stores and bars that will generate income, well, is it really that hard to imagine?

[korny]

Originally Posted by krunkykai22

edit: one more thing, it is not true that no one has died from marijuana usage. To overdoes on this drug is extremely hard, because you need to smoke your entire body weight for you to completely overdose. for one you can't afford that much and two that would just be stupid.

So you're telling me that you think someone possesses the ability to not only smoke, I dunno 125lbs (how much I weigh) in not only an allotted time of I dunno, a week straight but also stay awake for the process? You must know some serious smokers man.

[TC_llama499]

According to the Office of National Drug Control the U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. is it really worth the billions of dollars being spent just to try to keep marijuana off the streets?

The FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report stated, “786,545 people arrested in 2005 for marijuana violations made up 42.6 percent of all drug arrests, and more arrests then the total number for all violent crimes combined, including murder, manslaughter, and rape, robbery and assault.” this right here is what first caught my attention when i started researching this topic.

so the government is spending billions of dollars and using a majority of the jail systems time and space just to try and prevent people from smoking marijuana. I 100% think that it is a good idea to legalize marijuana and espicialy Hemp


By the way Industrial hemp has a THC content of between 0.05 and 1%. Marijuana has a THC content of 3% to 20%. To receive a standard psychoactive dose would require a person to power-smoke 10-12 hemp cigarettes over an extremely short period of time. The large volume and high temperature of vapor, gas and smoke would be almost impossible for a person to withstand. yet Hemp is still illegal because of its close relation with Marijuana. For info on Hemps hundreds of uses just click here

[devonin]

U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs

The war on drugs, not the war on drug. This figure presumably also includes the cost of trying to keep cocaine, heroine, etc etc off the streets as well.

[korny]

True. However, marijuana accounts for over 60% of what's being fought against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFmti...layer_embedded

[devonin]

However, marijuana accounts for over 60% of what's being fought against. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFmti...layer_embedded

The figure of "60 percent or more" he said, was of "the total drug problem [being] related to marijuana exports and to marijuana being sold in the united states." You'll notice that the general meaning of this has nothing to do with what America is spending on the war on drugs.

From this link alone, all I see is that about 60% of the illegal drug trade by price, not even by volume coming up through Mexico into the US is in Marijuana. That in no way suggests that the same 60% of American anti-drug resources are also being used against marijuana.

Even if we assume that the US is directing the money in exact proportion to the current sales figures of various kinds of drug (which makes no sense, even for silly US policies) that still cuts down the magnitude of his argument by 40%, while 11.4 billion dollars is still a very large amount, so is the 7.6 billion dollars that -don't- impact his argument.

[TC_llama499]

Originally Posted by krunkykai22

edit: one more thing, it is not true that no one has died from marijuana usage. To overdoes on this drug is extremely hard, because you need to smoke your entire body weight for you to completely overdose. for one you can't afford that much and two that would just be stupid.

at this i forgot where i read this but from what i understand you only have to smoke about 8lb of marijuanna, but this is physicaly imposible to do. after about MAYBE an ounce you will fall asleep (which is why Marijuanna is used to help insomnia)