Drugs and the Government

[Atman]

Well, I'll like to introduce myself in the forums since I've never really put any of my own thoughts down in here. Most of you know me for my thoughts and rants in the MP and Profile Chat.... Due to the immaturity, narrowminded thoughts, and ignorance, I've felt it's best to come in here and evade getting banned again for my own personal thoughts =X

Firstly, I looked through the rules in the Critcial Thinking, and noticed that drugs weren't allowed in here. I'm not going to be discussing methods of using, or anything similar. Actually I'm going to be discussing how drugs effect our government, our lives and the lives of others.

I'll firstly discus the negative effects of Marijuana. Firstly, Marijuana has only one sideffect that I've heard of, throat cancer. That's it. Secondly, there have been no deaths related to Marijuana from only using. There have been deaths which relate to violence concerning Marijuana. Examples: Gangs, mis-deals, and above all the government trying to control it.

With that said, one of the major reasons in my opinion that Marijuana, Shrooms, and other natural drugs (Notice I said "natural", as in not coke, methanol, etc...) are so "bad" for our people is that the government makes it so. They make these fallacies about drugs like Marijuana and include them with HARMFUL drugs like those I've stated earlier. Marijuana doesn't cause traffic accidents under the influence, does not promote horrible decisions like Alcohol does.

If you have anything to add in response to what I've put before you, please do your research and do not base your opinions off of personal experiences with friends or family. Especially if it only causes a biased opinion. If you do, heh then we'll have fun with that. Thank you for your time, and I'm not promoting drugs. Drugs should not be used under the age of 18 in my opinion, since when you're 18 and above you are fully capable of making up your mind, logically deciding whether or not it is something you believe in or choose to do. I'm sure there are a lot of run on sentences, and I appologise =P Thank you yet again for your time, look forward to hearing some sort of responses.

Normann, AKA Atman.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Atman

Well, I'll like to introduce myself in the forums since I've never really put any of my own thoughts down in here. Most of you know me for my thoughts and rants in the MP and Profile Chat.... Due to the immaturity, narrowminded thoughts, and ignorance, I've felt it's best to come in here and evade getting banned again for my own personal thoughts =X

Well, welcome to Critical Thinking. Hopefully by "evade getting banned again" you don't mean you are ban evading, because that would be bad.

Firstly, I looked through the rules in the Critcial Thinking, and noticed that drugs weren't allowed in here.

Er...I went back over the thread containing CT's rules, the thread about good threads in CT -and- the overall Chardish announcement about forum rules, and couldn't find anything about topics to do with drugs being disallowed. Could you perhaps link us to where you saw that? I may just be blind.

I'm not going to be discussing methods of using, or anything similar.

That's probably a good plan. Advocating the use of illegal substances might not be a good idea, rules or not.

Actually I'm going to be discussing how drugs effect our government, our lives and the lives of others.

I'll firstly discus the negative effects of Marijuana. Firstly, Marijuana has only one sideffect that I've heard of, throat cancer. That's it. Secondly, there have been no deaths related to Marijuana from only using. There have been deaths which relate to violence concerning Marijuana. Examples: Gangs, mis-deals, and above all the government trying to control it.

You might have a stronger case if you were advocating a lack of bad effects at all, as opposed to side effects. The side effects are anything that occurs incidentally in some number of people, whereas the effects themselves are what the substance does. My other objection is going to wait until the end, based on something else you said below.

With that said, one of the major reasons in my opinion that Marijuana, Shrooms, and other natural drugs (Notice I said "natural", as in not coke, methanol, etc...) are so "bad" for our people is that the government makes it so.

I really don't think the government makes these drugs bad. The phrase you're looking for is "One of the reasons people often percieve these kinds of drugs as being bad is that the government tries to influence public opinion about them" Clarity of thought is -really- important in CT, as being left open to misinterpretations is a very good way to have someone misinterpret you. Then we get this ludicrous back and forth as we struggle to make ourselves understood to each other. Bad times.

They make these fallacies about drugs like Marijuana and include them with HARMFUL drugs like those I've stated earlier. Marijuana doesn't cause traffic accidents under the influence, does not promote horrible decisions like Alcohol does.

I assume you have some statistical data to go along with a claim like "Marijuana -doesn't- do X, Y, Z"

If you have anything to add in response to what I've put before you, please do your research and do not base your opinions off of personal experiences with friends or family. Especially if it only causes a biased opinion. If you do, heh then we'll have fun with that.

Well, since your post contains no citations, no references, no statistical data of any kind, how are we to be assured that you aren't merely presenting your own personal experience with friends or family? You've presented several absolute statements "Drug A -does not- cause effect B" "Nobody has -ever- died from marijuana use" without any actual evidence to back up the claims. Also...I hate to break it to you, but personal observation is one of the prime ways you -conduct- research. If I've personally witnessed someone smoke marijuana and have a siezure and die, that is absolutely a valid objection to your claim that it has no side effects and has never caused a death.

Thank you for your time, and I'm not promoting drugs. Drugs should not be used under the age of 18 in my opinion, since when you're 18 and above you are fully capable of making up your mind, logically deciding whether or not it is something you believe in or choose to do.

You put an awful lot of faith in 18 year olds to assume that on the magical birthday, 100% of them instantly gain a full capability to make up their mind, and engage in logical, reasoned analysis. If you were allowing us to reference our personal observations, I'd have -plenty- of counters to that statement.

I'm sure there are a lot of run on sentences, and I appologise =P Thank you yet again for your time, look forward to hearing some sort of responses.

Normann, AKA Atman.

You're very welcome. Don't take the forthrightness and blatancy of my response as something negative. Around here, a point by point discussion of what you said is a good sign. It means we considered what you posted to be good enough to want to respond to, to the best of our ability.

[TK_Breed]

Originally Posted by devonin

I assume you have some statistical data to go along with a claim like "Marijuana -doesn't- do X, Y, Z"

The chemicals released when you smoke marijuana are that of your own brain and do not slow down the neurotransmitters as of what alcohol does nor does the THC in your bloodstream. The only difference in thought process is that of an over whelming happiness during what you are doing which is from all those endorphins. Also, high drivers have a smaller percent crash rate then sober drivers. I read this a while back so im gonna have to do some looking up to quote my source but i would gladly do so if you dont believe me. High drivers generally dont want to be caught high so they also tend to be on edge when driving to make sure nothing happens. Now thats not statistical so much as a biological reason why he is right.
My best advice on learning about the subject is to do some research or your own on the stupidities of the government on this situation. The benefits outweigh the risks at least 100 to 1, and this isn't just concerning the effect drugs have the body. Marijuana is the best clothing resource(stronger, softer then cotton and much more but is a BIG DEAL), good source for canvas which can make paper that lasts 100's of years longer(guess what our original constitution was written on???lol), and blah blah blah i could write a hundred page essay on this. Try going to www.jackherer.com for much more detailed explanations or there's a very good book on it called "The Emperor Wears No Clothes."
I have also researched the negative effects of marijuana and frankly there just isn't any good reason for it being illegal. Cigarettes and Alcohol on the other hand, those have hundreds more reasons to be illegal!

[devonin]

There is one fundamental reason why marijuana will almost certainly remain illegal in the United States in perpetuity. I won't spoil it just yet, I'm sure you guys can come up with it on your own.

I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with tobacco companies, or the moral rightness/wrongness of marijuana, nor does it have anything to do with the percieved or actual consequences or after-effects of marijuana smoking.

[Atman]

Originally Posted by devonin

There is one fundamental reason why marijuana will almost certainly remain illegal in the United States in perpetuity. I won't spoil it just yet, I'm sure you guys can come up with it on your own.

I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with tobacco companies, or the moral rightness/wrongness of marijuana, nor does it have anything to do with the percieved or actual consequences or after-effects of marijuana smoking.

Haha right, but if the government were to legalize it, tax it. There'd be a huge rise on income for the government, along with a crapload of already organized businesses haha. But I definitely see all your points, very accurate.

On another note, I also remember reading in a smoke enthusiast store that 1 acre of marijuana = to roughly what, 4 or 5 acres of trees? as far as nutrients, and oxygen productivity. Thank you for the input on how I should be more clear with my thinking. And yet again, thank you for all your inputs, keep 'em coming!!!

Thanks for the welcome =P

Firstly, I looked through the rules in the Critcial Thinking, and noticed that drugs weren't allowed in here.

I meant

Firstly, I looked through the rules in the Critical Thinking, and noticed that there wasn't a rule against talking about drugs. =P

[SkySpy]

I would love to see Marijuana advertising companies pop up in magazines and billboards. Spliff-easy Ciggaweed, a 60 40 blend that will send you flying. But really guys, you ever see the great government produced "Reefer Madness" PSA/show?.. ,not remembering exactly what it was, but it showed people smoking marijuana then while "high" killing loved ones and all around being cranky.

About legalization though, I'm not sure what reason your thinking would be the gov's reasoning behind not legalizing it, but i wouldn't want it to be anyway. As an avid "stoner" I have a relatively easy and safe passage whenever I feel like making a purchase. I know exactly where my product is coming from half of the time and its usually good quality.... I would hate to lose the experience of hanging out with friends (who would happen to be dealers) and smoking the plant I've seen grow from seedling form. Which is what I think would happen if it became Legal. The common Citizen loses the right to grow, whatever company does its patents blah blah and has the R.J.Reynolds of Pot. I know the prices would be a great increase and the strains used for most would degrade.

Well I don't remember where I was planning on going with this but ill leave you with a main point I guess. I love the drug community (around where I live anyway) and I sort of take pride in how my friends and I are part of this business/family tree ladder of runners and dealers... its a great company to get into... though its not for everyone. Theres plenty of things wrong and dangerous about the drug in certain situations, but its a lot less frightening than Alcohol.

[devonin]

See, here's the thing though...if the government were to legalize marijuana and try to tax it, they would absolutely -NOT- make a ton of money from it.

The kind of cigarettes most people are addicted to take a -lot- of processing between "A tobacco plant" and "A cigarette"

Alcohol that is any good requires a long time, and special facilities to make.

We have a vested interest in letting the government tax cigarettes and alcohol because the extra cost doesn't come close to outweighing the time and expense involved in manufacturing it ourselves.

Now look at pot. There's really just about -one- step between a plant and a joint, and that one step is easy, involves no special machinery and very little time. You see where I'm going with this?

People are already growing pot on their own, in their basements, and back gardens, and processing it themselves. All legalizing it would do is make it that much cheaper and easier to grow and use your own. The government would derive -very- little revenue from it, because very few people would have an incentive to buy it through government systems when they could just grow their own.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by devonin

I really don't think the government makes these drugs bad.

It indeed does. See, marijuana is in the black market. The black market is a bad thing. Gangs get money from the black market because they're generally the ones who have control of it. Drugs are more potent in the black market to get the most out of a shipment. Things are UNREGULATED IN THE BLACK MARKET. There are zero taxes! You're getting a lot of bang for your buck in the black market.

Guess who generally buys from the black market? I bet you know. Why? Because it's illegal! A law abiding person is less likely to do something illegal by definition. There's also just so much risk from dealing with illegal drugs. Mess up and your future is ruined. Hard-working, intelligent people can lose a job 20 years down the road because they got caught with marijuana at one point.

Kids have easier access in the black market, too. If you have connections, in < an hour you could have any illegal substance on your doorstep (so says aperson at least). With cigarettes or alcohol, you'd need to do a straw purchase (remember, ALL of this is illegal!), which requires more effort because dealers usually don't carry around legal substances because, well, someone could usually get them anywhere yourself. And that would require having a different dealer, usually, especially if your dealer is also underage (which is the case for many kids who'd be into drugs... they'd get their drugs from their friends, possibly the one that got them into drugs, who might even possibly have another peer as a dealer, and who knows when the ladder ends and it finally hits an adult who could legally buy all of that stuff!).

(Although, with the legalization of all drugs, the black market for drugs would consist entirely of straw purchases intended for minors. Everything would arguably be just as easy as it was to get as before because people would switch to dealers intended for straw purchases, not purchases through the illegal drug market. This already established black market filters out things not in it, so removing everything from it would make the straw purchase market predominant. It would be wrong for me to assume that, well, since having alcohol and cigarettes legal makes it harder for minors to get it, that making everything legal would make everything harder to get. But would it matter at that point? No!)

I don't know about "bad." That assumes they're good in the first place. But their status as illegal definitely makes them worse.

[devonin]

You seem to have made the same error in language that I was correcting in the first place.

"The government makes them bad" implies that They are good, and through some physical process, they are made literally into worse substances. "The tobacco companies make tobacco bad" is a true statement, because they add many chemicals and so forth to the tobacco that make them quantitatively -worse- for you than they started.

The phrase you're both looking for is "The government makes them out to be worse than they are"

[lord_carbo]

It does not need to become physically worse to become worse. Although when illegal the drugs generally become more potent.

[Izzy-chandess]

Usually the drugs are more potent because (excuse my obvious answer) people want a better high. The better the product, the more money you'll be taking in because word will spread that you have really good stuff. Therefore another dealer tries to get even better stuff to run you out of the competition, etc...

Drugs are just bad for you, period. Of course I'm also just a good, old-fashioned law-abiding person now. My answer may be biased because of my experiences, but drugs, not matter how "beneficial" it may be, are bad. Period. However, this is just my opinion, and I understand that others may vary greatly. I just have not seen any benefits with people that use drugs.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Izzy-chandess

Usually the drugs are more potent because (excuse my obvious answer) people want a better high. The better the product, the more money you'll be taking in because word will spread that you have really good stuff. Therefore another dealer tries to get even better stuff to run you out of the competition, etc...

Wrong. I repeat what I said: more out of a shipment. Of course a dealer will be charging more, which is how they get the most out of a shipment. If they charged the same amount for a more potent shipment, then they wouldn't need to make it more potent:

On one unintended consequence of prohibition—drug potency—Thornton has a nice discussion. He shows, using standard economic analysis, that making drugs illegal causes the mix of drugs sold to be more potent. The idea, drawn from work by Armen Aichian and William Allen, and by Yoram Barzel, is that prohibition acts like a tax. If the government imposes the same per-unit tax on beer and whiskey, the price of beer, though still lower than the price of whiskey, becomes higher relative to the price of whiskey. Buyers would rationally respond by increasing the percentage of whiskey in the mix of liquors they buy. I communicate this subtle economic insight to noneconomists with the old saying: “You might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj13n1/cj13n1-13.pdf

Originally Posted by Izzy-chandess

Drugs are just bad for you, period. Of course I'm also just a good, old-fashioned law-abiding person now. My answer may be biased because of my experiences, but drugs, not matter how "beneficial" it may be, are bad. Period. However, this is just my opinion, and I understand that others may vary greatly. I just have not seen any benefits with people that use drugs.

It is your opinion. Okay. Then don't present it like it's some sort of truism.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

Wrong. I repeat what I said: more out of a shipment. Of course a dealer will be charging more, which is how they get the most out of a shipment. If they charged the same amount for a more potent shipment, then they wouldn't need to make it more potent:

On one unintended consequence of prohibition—drug potency—Thornton has a nice discussion. He shows, using standard economic analysis, that making drugs illegal causes the mix of drugs sold to be more potent. The idea, drawn from work by Armen Aichian and William Allen, and by Yoram Barzel, is that prohibition acts like a tax. If the government imposes the same per-unit tax on beer and whiskey, the price of beer, though still lower than the price of whiskey, becomes higher relative to the price of whiskey. Buyers would rationally respond by increasing the percentage of whiskey in the mix of liquors they buy. I communicate this subtle economic insight to noneconomists with the old saying: “You might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj13n1/cj13n1-13.pdf

So...you're saying that making something illegal makes it more potent on the grounds that "If I'm breaking the law, I might as well break it as much as possible"?! I'm not entirely sure I buy that. In the example, if beer was 2.00 and whiskey was 5.00, and the fine for drinking alcohol was 5.00, they seem to be saying "In that situation, its as though beer became -more- more expensive than the whiskey did, so people who previously drank beer will drink whiskey"

Their example uses prohibition, making all alcohol illegal, as being the equivalent of a tax being put equally on all alcohol. Nowhere I've looked still has exact statistics or listed penalties available, but I find it hard to believe that the punishment for prohibition was identical for making/selling/drinking 0.5% beer as it was for making/selling/drinkin 75% moonshine you made in a still out back.

[solopro]

Originally Posted by Normann

Drugs should not be used under the age of 18 in my opinion, since when you're 18 and above you are fully capable of making up your mind, logically deciding whether or not it is something you believe in or choose to do. I'm sure there are a lot of run on sentences, and I appologise =P

Of course drugs shouldn't be used by minors.

But, they still manage to get it somehow.

And for alcohol and such, yeah, I don't know why. Most minors believe all the myths people say about beer, like it'll make you feel good and crap. Well, it don't. I'm also thinking that most of the alcohol consumption, by minors, is by young girls.

But they end up getting raped if they are at a party. Why? They had too much, and they got some stuck in them, and they had a huge hangover the next morning.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by solopro

And for alcohol and such, yeah, I don't know why. Most minors believe all the myths people say about beer, like it'll make you feel good and crap. Well, it don't. I'm also thinking that most of the alcohol consumption, by minors, is by young girls.

I disagree completely. I would say most underage drinking is done by males 15-X (Where X is your legal age) though it would be a relatively simple task for you to check with your government information on underage drinking charges.

But they end up getting raped if they are at a party. Why? They had too much, and they got some stuck in them, and they had a huge hangover the next morning.

Um...wait what? So...in your theory, a girl gets drunk, a guy (presumably not drunk in this scenario or you'd have said so) -RAPES- her, and you blame that on her having gotten drunk? Oh my friend, I wouldn't say that around too many women.

[Dragula219]

Originally Posted by Atman

With that said, one of the major reasons in my opinion that Marijuana, Shrooms, and other natural drugs (Notice I said "natural", as in not coke, methanol, etc...) are so "bad" for our people is that the government makes it so.

I first want to point out that this a completely illogical argument. By this you are saying that quote "Un-Natural" Drugs are as bad as the government makes them out to be. Now, I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but I am saying you don't really know what a drug is. It's not marijuana or shrooms as a whole that that get you high, it is the chemical(s) inside them (Delta-9 THC and Psilocybin being the main chemicals, along with other ones that have a small affect on brain function.) Also, you seem not to know much about Cocaine either, or else you would know that pure cocaine is 100% natural, it is derived from the coca plant being ground in many different steps. By methanol, I'm pretty sure you meant Methamphetamine.

My point is, you can't say a drug is necessarily "better" because it is natural. It has nothing to do with how dangerous the chemicals inside them are. There are many natural plants that can kill you more quickly than 2C-I or other synthesized chemicals could kill you.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

Wrong. I repeat what I said: more out of a shipment. Of course a dealer will be charging more, which is how they get the most out of a shipment. If they charged the same amount for a more potent shipment, then they wouldn't need to make it more potent.

Even though I do agree with you (to an extent), you're still missing the other main idea of drug dealing. I agree with you for higher ups in drug dealing, If A shipment comes in that is higher quality than normal than of course the buyer will be expected to pay more. But when you get down to lower amounts for common drugs, the main benefit to having higher quality product is not to make more money, because you could easily get lower quality product for less money and still sell it just fine. No, it is because customers want to get as high as they can for the money the spend and If they are completely satisfied with the transaction, they tell other people, Many people start coming to you. Better product = Less competitors, Less competitors = More customers, More customers = More deals more often. Drug Dealing is a lot more about the Time to Profit ratio than about the profit.

Originally Posted by devonin

There is one fundamental reason why marijuana will almost certainly remain illegal in the United States in perpetuity. I won't spoil it just yet, I'm sure you guys can come up with it on your own.

I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with tobacco companies, or the moral rightness/wrongness of marijuana, nor does it have anything to do with the percieved or actual consequences or after-effects of marijuana smoking.

You're right, it has a lot more to do with the fact marijuana can make a higher quality paper than trees, an acre of marijuana plants produces more paper than an acre of trees with less waste, and the best part is you can grow another crop in months as apposed to years. Hemp can also create a very high quality fabric that's comfortable and much more durable than cotton. One pot plant can also produce an extremely high amount cellulose (Due to the fibers in the stems) to make more methanol (an alternative to gasoline for fuel). And again, best part is you can keep growing it, almost a new crop every quarter, as opposed to using up all our non-renewable resoruces.

No, Marijuana Being illegal has little to nothing to do with "morals" or being bad, It's all about businesses and economy. Could you imagine everyone in Lumber/Paper, Oil, and Textile (and some other fields) companies being suddenly unemployed due to the legalization of a plant?

[Atman]

BUT, the whole reason of legalizing it would be to make it easier for those people who have trouble obtaining the product. All those people in jail for ONLY using or in possession of, those slots would be free. I think the government wouldn't be obligated to WASTE so much money on keeping this substance off the streets, out of the homes. Personal opinion right there.

Originally Posted by SkySpy

I would love to see Marijuana advertising companies pop up in magazines and billboards. Spliff-easy Ciggaweed, a 60 40 blend that will send you flying. But really guys, you ever see the great government produced "Reefer Madness" PSA/show?.. ,not remembering exactly what it was, but it showed people smoking marijuana then while "high" killing loved ones and all around being cranky.

About legalization though, I'm not sure what reason your thinking would be the gov's reasoning behind not legalizing it, but i wouldn't want it to be anyway. As an avid "stoner" I have a relatively easy and safe passage whenever I feel like making a purchase. I know exactly where my product is coming from half of the time and its usually good quality.... I would hate to lose the experience of hanging out with friends (who would happen to be dealers) and smoking the plant I've seen grow from seedling form. Which is what I think would happen if it became Legal. The common Citizen loses the right to grow, whatever company does its patents blah blah and has the R.J.Reynolds of Pot. I know the prices would be a great increase and the strains used for most would degrade.

Well I don't remember where I was planning on going with this but ill leave you with a main point I guess. I love the drug community (around where I live anyway) and I sort of take pride in how my friends and I are part of this business/family tree ladder of runners and dealers... its a great company to get into... though its not for everyone. Theres plenty of things wrong and dangerous about the drug in certain situations, but its a lot less frightening than Alcohol.

[lord_carbo]

(Mostly a response to devonin's post, also to an extent Dragula's)

Originally Posted by devonin

So...you're saying that making something illegal makes it more potent on the grounds that "If I'm breaking the law, I might as well break it as much as possible"?! I'm not entirely sure I buy that. In the example, if beer was 2.00 and whiskey was 5.00, and the fine for drinking alcohol was 5.00, they seem to be saying "In that situation, its as though beer became -more- more expensive than the whiskey did, so people who previously drank beer will drink whiskey"

Their example uses prohibition, making all alcohol illegal, as being the equivalent of a tax being put equally on all alcohol. Nowhere I've looked still has exact statistics or listed penalties available, but I find it hard to believe that the punishment for prohibition was identical for making/selling/drinking 0.5% beer as it was for making/selling/drinkin 75% moonshine you made in a still out back.

I too doubt identical, but very close. A felony is a felony. If I were caught with marijuana as opposed to heroin, I'd probably get less of a sentence but I'd still have a huge mark on my criminal record.

But believe what you may, it is true. what? Gonna try smuggling a kilogram of marijuana, or 500 grams with ten times the potency? If you sell by potency, you're getting the same amount and one is tons easier to smuggle. Here, this article says even more about the issue:

http://www.marijuananews.com/marijua...crack_by_r.htm

The article also talks about the demand perspective as the second reason, i.e. the consumers. Rather, the trend in who would be a consumer given its regulation. This more or less affects the types of drugs sold, not as much the single drug's potency levels. With really strict control and laws against them (to the point where it's unjust), marijuana sale and distribution would be damn near nonexistent. So in a sense, Izzy's reason (minus the details) was not entirely incorrect.

But either way, you are not trying to sell more potent drugs because people want to buy a drug that's more potent because there are dealer wars and people want to buy from the dealer who sells the most potent drugs. This may happen frequently but it is not the main reason, else we'd see this same trend dominant in the alcohol market today (potent alcohol exists, yes, but it is not mainly sold). Remember, general liquor potency increased during Prohibition and fell again when it ended. That goes undisputed.

I'd really like to hear from some sources for what you believe, though. Your viewpoint still seems vague to me.

[TK_Breed]

Originally Posted by devonin

See, here's the thing though...if the government were to legalize marijuana and try to tax it, they would absolutely -NOT- make a ton of money from it.

The kind of cigarettes most people are addicted to take a -lot- of processing between "A tobacco plant" and "A cigarette"

Alcohol that is any good requires a long time, and special facilities to make.

We have a vested interest in letting the government tax cigarettes and alcohol because the extra cost doesn't come close to outweighing the time and expense involved in manufacturing it ourselves.

Now look at pot. There's really just about -one- step between a plant and a joint, and that one step is easy, involves no special machinery and very little time. You see where I'm going with this?

People are already growing pot on their own, in their basements, and back gardens, and processing it themselves. All legalizing it would do is make it that much cheaper and easier to grow and use your own. The government would derive -very- little revenue from it, because very few people would have an incentive to buy it through government systems when they could just grow their own.

You are ever so wrong my friend. Making a cigarette is only hard to do in the manner that companies do it. A REAL cigarette is dried tobacco leaf crumbled up and wrapped in either a tobacco leaf or any paper(which is the same process of a joint). now take into consideration how many people want to grow there own tobacco. tobacco is even easier to grow then marijuana and yet nearly nobody does it because going to the local store to buy your smokes is massively easier then growing yourself. now to get to my point, nobody would want to go through the extreme effort of growing cannabis which needs a precise environment and constant care, especially for marijuana and would MUCH rather just drive down the road, spend 5 minutes and 5 bucks to get themselves 20 precisely rolled joints packaged up nice and cute.


Secondly, and more importantly, the government would benefit greatly from this for so many reasons i could not list them all off of the top of my head here and now. Marijuana is for smoking, so when purely talking about marijuana the benefits are just for taxes and new business, but the cannabis plant would revolutionize the material making world. better clothing, better paper material, more oxygen apparently as claimed by someone earlier, better medicine, more food, alternate energy sources, and for America, many more tourists.



I am addressing these lightly now, but could get heavily into it. my word of advice is do some research or at least a little bit of thinking before you post.

[TK_Breed]

Originally Posted by Dragula219

I first want to point out that this a completely illogical argument. By this you are saying that quote "Un-Natural" Drugs are as bad as the government makes them out to be. Now, I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but I am saying you don't really know what a drug is. It's not marijuana or shrooms as a whole that that get you high, it is the chemical(s) inside them (Delta-9 THC and Psilocybin being the main chemicals, along with other ones that have a small affect on brain function.) Also, you seem not to know much about Cocaine either, or else you would know that pure cocaine is 100% natural, it is derived from the coca plant being ground in many different steps. By methanol, I'm pretty sure you meant Methamphetamine.

My point is, you can't say a drug is necessarily "better" because it is natural. It has nothing to do with how dangerous the chemicals inside them are. There are many natural plants that can kill you more quickly than 2C-I or other synthesized chemicals could kill you.

tell me how THC harms the human body? because it doesnt, before you attack someone else on a subject, the thc enters the bloodstream and exits through your pee, not taking anything with it. the only reason you loose brain cells is because your not exercising your mind because you are so relaxed by the release of the serotonin. to add on to that you are constantly losing brain cells anyways and the only reason you get smarter is by connecting synapses in your brain, and when you are high you lose them the same way but the synapses are less likely to be connected and so you appear to be getting dumber.

*edit* your point is correct though