Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Economy Fix or Fail?? (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=108460)

chuckman 05-8-2009 05:04 AM

Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Hello all,
My name is Charles, i've been a member for nearly 6 years now, and this is my first actual Thread Post. This is only relevant because the topic that im going to discuss now is as important as the fact that it actually made me want to take time out of my day to post this and hope that you people out there actually care. So marijuana is a plant, that for the last 50 years, has been looked upon as a drug. Worse yet, its negative propaganda, such as the movie "Reefer Madness" and the Goverments constant denial of its already proven medical traits, has caused the United States public to view it as such. This has caused the plant to become a major contributer to the Mexican Cartel, as well as other major drug organizations to flourish.(as well as other factors, not worth mentioning) Which brings me to my point, Whether or not the plant is legal or sold illegally through "drug dealing", its a 30 billion dollar-a-year industry. With our economy in its rut, our problems with synthetic, drug abuse, as well as the "War on Drug", we could use the extra money, as well time not spent on "marijuana cruesading". In essence, with the information givin, should the plant, not be legalized, but taxed and regulated like alchohol, so that the economy can return to normal? Should it also be regulated to allow us to face the other problems previously mentioned? I cannot answer those questions, but i would love to see what the ffr community as a whole thinks of that matter. Feel free to comment or message my page with more intimate questions or comments ;)...Live Life Free, and Without Negative Inibition

korny 05-8-2009 05:21 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 


How can you argue with this without being ignorant?

chuckman 05-8-2009 05:28 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Thnx for the Help :)
Nothing more to say, nothing less lol

devonin 05-8-2009 12:46 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

In essence, with the information givin, should the plant, not be legalized, but taxed and regulated like alchohol, so that the economy can return to normal?
The reason you can tax and regulate alcohol easily is that the average consumer is unable to make alcohol in any quality or variety themselves. It requires specialised equipment, lots of time and resources. You -can- have a still in your basement but it's going to make a) crap and b) only one kind of crap.

There's enough demand for alcohol of a quality that can't be easily manufactured by the consumer, so there's an industrial niche in the manufacture and sale of alcohol where it can be taxed and regulated.

Marijuana can be quite easily grown and processed by the individual consumer. It takes very little comparative time or effort to go from plant to joint, and the degree to which it is very widely available already in relatively high quality shows that there's no particular need for an industry to come up around it. There doesn't need to be large-scale marijuana plant farming concerns, there doesn't need to be whole stores dedicated to the sale of various kinds of marijuana.

Each person that wants to use it can just make their own, so the ability to tax and regulate it is not remotely so lucrative as you seem to want to suggest.

At BEST, legalizing marijuana means that they don't spend the money currently being spent to enforce its illegality. (The 'war on drugs' deals with more drugs than just marijuana, so that money would be slightly reduced at most, not eliminated. Additionally, the government would -lose- the income from fines and charges related to marijuana growth, possession and sale)

korny 05-8-2009 01:10 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Perhaps not quite as lucrative as formerly suggested, but do you mean to say that all of the positive benefits associated with it's legalization do not outweigh whatever profits the government would accumulate from it's being taxed? Maybe it wouldn't be 30 billion dollars, but certainly a multibillion dollar industry that would undoubtedly be beneficial to our economies current state.

On another note, do you mean to say that you agree with the governments means of income due to the fines paid by those charged with possession, growth, and sale? Sure, it's the law, and there's nothing we can do about it, but it doesn't make it right in any way. Extensive research has proven so many more positive benefits than negative, (if there are any true degenerative effects at all) from marijuana usage and it's industrial qualities. Not only that, but the legal system in itself costs a lot of money to process when you have things like court appointed attorneys to account for. I know that I've never paid my court appointed attorney so who paid for their services? While incarcerated 95% of the fellow inmates had court appointed attorneys, a majority there because of some sort of marijuana related charge, so how much do you think the government is actually receiving from marijuana related charges?

To grow marijuana properly also cost thousands and thousands of dollars. You need proper lighting and all the essentials to make the buds grow right. This takes a lot of time and strenuous effort. Sure, anyone can just get their weed from the person who grows it, but to get it on the level that the government is able to grow it is a whole different subject. I know I would only buy weed from the government. I smoke medicinal. I know the difference, and it is undeniably greater.

Devilsrejectedsoul 05-8-2009 01:19 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
I really don't think it should be if we become dependant on just one product just to bring back the economy back to a stable rate; if we did what if the product has a bad growing season, our economy would be back down in the dump again. I for one am not for it what so ever. I've tried it, didn't heal a thing just gave regret.

korny 05-8-2009 02:10 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Devilsrejectedsoul (Post 3066872)
I really don't think it should be if we become dependant on just one product just to bring back the economy back to a stable rate; if we did what if the product has a bad growing season, our economy would be back down in the dump again. I for one am not for it what so ever. I've tried it, didn't heal a thing just gave regret.

Please tell me where anyone stated that we would become dependent solely on the taxing of marijuana to boosting our economy back into the place it needs to be? All anyone said is that it would help, which is a no brainer.

Bad growing season? Marijuana is generally grown indoors. You really can't have a "bad" growing season. You're biased view against it is because of your "regrettable" experience, whatever that even means.

GuidoHunter 05-8-2009 02:29 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Marijuana should not be legalized, or kept criminalized, for economic reasons.

Either legalize it to give the people the freedom to control their own lives or keep it criminalized because its legalization would present too great a safety risk for intoxicated drivers and the such.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

korny 05-8-2009 03:53 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Coming from the conservative native Texan.

http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer...oes-marijuana-

Marijuana does not effect everyone the same. I perform tasks as if I were on an amphetamine while under the influence of marijuana, the feeling of synapses firing and such. It's all about state of mind and it varies from person to person. Perhaps not everyone can drive well while high. Not everyone drives worse or differently while high. I for one do not. I'm generally high more than I'm not and I've never even had a ticket before, let alone gotten into a wreck, and I smoke cannabis very heavily. I mean in all honesty, how many stories have you heard where someone wrecked their car because they were under the influence of marijuana, and marijuana only? I've smoked for 9 years and I have not. I'm not being biased. I'm just relating to you my personal experiences with marijuana over the years none of which have been negative due solely because of marijuana usage.

In closing. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...ng/dot78_1.htm

GuidoHunter 05-8-2009 05:58 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by korny (Post 3066996)
Coming from the conservative native Texan.

And that means?

Marijuana does not effect everyone the same. I perform tasks as if I were on an amphetamine while under the influence of marijuana, the feeling of synapses firing and such. It's all about state of mind and it varies from person to person.

Quote:

Perhaps not everyone can drive well while high. Not everyone drives worse or differently while high. I for one do not. I'm generally high more than I'm not and I've never even had a ticket before, let alone gotten into a wreck, and I smoke cannabis very heavily.
Oh? Well, by all means, let's go tell this to the lawmakers and we'll get those laws repealed immediately!

People claim to drive better when they're drunk, too. The fact remains, however, that they're intoxicated nevertheless and are experiencing the world in an altered state, one that is in no way conducive to better, or possibly even adequate, driving.

For example: "I perform tasks as if I were on an amphetamine while under the influence of marijuana"

Sounds great to me! Here are your keys, bud!

Quote:

I mean in all honesty, how many stories have you heard where someone wrecked their car because they were under the influence of marijuana, and marijuana only? I've smoked for 9 years and I have not.
How many stories haven't you heard? More importantly, though, how many more would you hear were marijuana to be legalized? I don't know, nor do you. It is, however, a valid avenue of inquiry and not a question I'd like to test lightly.

Quote:

I'm not being biased.
Sure you are; no need to put on airs.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Erothyme 05-8-2009 09:21 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 3067091)
People claim to drive better when they're drunk, too.

There is a simple explanation for this: alcohol is a drug which feeds idiocy.

ps did you completely ignore his second link? I bet you did!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 3067091)
The fact remains, however, that they're intoxicated nevertheless and are experiencing the world in an altered state, one that is in no way conducive to better, or possibly even adequate, driving.

Alcohol's intoxication, an inhibition of your rational processes, is absolutely not comparable to the effects of cannabis; it is completely different from both a pharmacological and psychological perspective. The only people who I have ever seen driving high have, in fact, driven better. I even know a dude who meets qualifications to work as a professional driver who drives high regularly. He's ridiculously impressive, but I understand I can't prove that. I haven't tried it, probably won't, but the bottom line is it's nothing at all like driving drunk. In all likelihood, the worst you will do is drive a little slower than usual. I do, however, have experience with performing other tasks with the help of cannabis. I can say confidently after hundreds of trials that I am a better musician, a better athlete, a better orator, a better writer, a better everything after a couple of puffs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 3067091)
For example: "I perform tasks as if I were on an amphetamine while under the influence of marijuana"

Sounds great to me! Here are your keys, bud!

Millions of people are on prescription amphetamines and drive fine.

In fact, amphetamines improve your performance at essentially everything. That's more or less what they do, so your message here is backwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 3067091)
More importantly, though, how many more would you hear were marijuana to be legalized? I don't know, nor do you. It is, however, a valid avenue of inquiry and not a question I'd like to test lightly.

The idea that more people would drive high if cannabis was legal is an argument which could only be made honestly by someone who is oblivious to cannabis culture.

Erothyme 05-8-2009 09:28 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3066849)
Marijuana can be quite easily grown and processed by the individual consumer.

Not good cannabis, and that is what people want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3066849)
At BEST, legalizing marijuana means that they don't spend the money currently being spent to enforce its illegality. (The 'war on drugs' deals with more drugs than just marijuana, so that money would be slightly reduced at most, not eliminated. Additionally, the government would -lose- the income from fines and charges related to marijuana growth, possession and sale)

Sounds like someone has completely failed to consider the implications of the ban on hemp farming being lifted.
Also sounds like someone doesn't realize how much it would sell if it was available at the corner store.
And the War on Drugs thing is an easy one to fix: legalize it all. Addicts are sick. Sick people don't get better in prison.
As for the government losing money due to not being allowed to kick people around over a plant anymore, boohoo?

If the option to grow stopped people from buying it, no one would go to cannabis cafes in Amsterdam. Oh look, they get ridiculous amounts of business! Imagine that.

chuckman 05-9-2009 10:53 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
to devonin, i can say that was a very swift reply but i may say not very well thought out...By only using the "brewing" of beer as the example for why its harder to tax alchohol than marijuana, u in essence weakend your arguement....what about the 100 year process of wine curing huh? or the 1 year "aging" it takes to make good Jack Daniels Whiskey? To synthesize hardcore liquor the average person would have to take many classes of training, and would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the equipment to make the said alchohol...yes you could do it your basement and make A. crap and b. one type of crap....the same goes for taxed and regulated marijuana...if you devonin would take as much time to do research on the actually growing process of high end medical marijuana you'd know that the average person couldnt easilly pull off the said "opperation". Therefore the economy would profit off this because there would be a demand for people that know the actual growing process, how the plant works, what type of UV light to use, what venting system is required....so I can confidently say that we should still decriminalize it , tax it ,regulated it and keep the alchohol and cigs for people like devonin...so am i really butt slammed???

devonin 05-9-2009 12:02 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckman (Post 3067741)
to devonin, i can say that was a very swift reply but i may say not very well thought out...By only using the "brewing" of beer as the example for why its harder to tax alchohol than marijuana, u in essence weakend your arguement....

I didn't say -anything- about the "brewing" of beer. In fact, I didn't say anything about beer at all. I think I see which response was poorly thought out.

Quote:

what about the 100 year process of wine curing huh? or the 1 year "aging" it takes to make good Jack Daniels Whiskey? To synthesize hardcore liquor the average person would have to take many classes of training, and would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the equipment to make the said alchohol...yes you could do it your basement and make A. crap and b. one type of crap....
So your -objection- to my saying "It is harder to manufacture alcohol by yourself than to manufacture marijuana by yourself" is to say "But what about all these cases where it is harder to manufacture alcohol by yourself?"

In essence what you're saying is "But but! What about <The exact same thing I already said>" So yes...that. Thank you for restating as a counter to my claim, exactly what I claimed.

Quote:

the same goes for taxed and regulated marijuana...if you devonin would take as much time to do research on the actually growing process of high end medical marijuana you'd know that the average person couldnt easilly pull off the said "opperation".
The US Department of Health and Human Services already holds a patent for medical-use marijuana, it was issued in 2003. Given the existing status of medical marijuana in the US medical field, a discussion about legalizing or at least decriminalizing of marijuana (In an original post that said -nothing- about medical marijuana, nothing about the putative medical benefits of it, or anything whatsoever to do with medical-grade marijuana) seemed to me to be about decriminalizing it for casual personal use, and I responded accordingly. I apologise for not reading your mind.


Quote:

Therefore the economy would profit off this because there would be a demand for people that know the actual growing process, how the plant works, what type of UV light to use, what venting system is required....
Just because something has an expensive or time consuming process doesn't automatically mean the national economy would benefit. Do you have any concept of the time, effort and -money- that would be involved in -setting up- such a system of regulated and taxed sales of marijuana? Even if the ATF handled all the legal issues surrounding it, that's a whole pile of additional training for every employee of the agency, the hiring of additional staff nationwide, to carry out the various inspections etc for quality, legality and so on. A lisencing system for people to grow, a lisencing system for people to sell, it's not like a government regulated industry can just spring up at no cost to anybody.

Additionally, half the reason the "industry" is so "profitable" is that the illegality carries risks which express themselves in a price markup of the merchendise. If farmers could just grow a 500 acre marijuana crop, and ship it off to the processing plant, the actual finished product would be -dramatically- cheaper to manufacture and thus sell, meaning less money being spent on it, and thus less taken in from taxes, and overall just less profitiability in the product anyway.


Quote:

so I can confidently say that we should still decriminalize it , tax it ,regulated it
Awfully confident, do you have a background in economics? Let's get Q and Carbo in here to provide some economic analysis before we say things like "confidently say"

Quote:

and keep the alchohol and cigs for people like devonin.
What does that even mean? Was that supposed to be insulting or something?
Quote:

Originally Posted by korny
Perhaps not quite as lucrative as formerly suggested, but do you mean to say that all of the positive benefits associated with it's legalization do not outweigh whatever profits the government would accumulate from it's being taxed? Maybe it wouldn't be 30 billion dollars, but certainly a multibillion dollar industry that would undoubtedly be beneficial to our economies current state.

Well, take the amount of money the marijuana industry makes in a year, subtract the extra charged for the product along every step of the line because it is illegal, subtract the amount taken in by the government every year in fines and charges and siezed assets, subtract the amount that would have to be spent to -institute- the system in the first place, subtract the amount that would have to be spent to manage the system.


Quote:

do you mean to say that you agree with the governments means of income due to the fines paid by those charged with possession, growth, and sale? Sure, it's the law, and there's nothing we can do about it, but it doesn't make it right in any way.
Do I mean that I agree with the legal system extracting fines and punishment for people engaging in illegal activity? Absolutely I do. Just because you personally think it shoudln't be illegal doesn't mean it isn't. It's still against the law and you make the free choice to break the law so you can deal with the consequences. Do I think it -should- be illegal? Probably not, but ignoring a law is pretty much never the right way to try and go about changing it.

Quote:

To grow marijuana properly also cost thousands and thousands of dollars. You need proper lighting and all the essentials to make the buds grow right. This takes a lot of time and strenuous effort. Sure, anyone can just get their weed from the person who grows it, but to get it on the level that the government is able to grow it is a whole different subject. I know I would only buy weed from the government. I smoke medicinal. I know the difference, and it is undeniably greater.
Wait...you don't even just want the government to regulate it, you want the government to be responsible for the whole process? Okay, now it's even MORE expensive for them, they have to be paying for land, farmers, workers, owning the processing facilities, staffing those as well, now it's probably -losing- money in the long run.

Quote:

It's all about state of mind and it varies from person to person. Perhaps not everyone can drive well while high. Not everyone drives worse or differently while high. I for one do not. I'm generally high more than I'm not and I've never even had a ticket before, let alone gotten into a wreck, and I smoke cannabis very heavily.
So you criticized one person for drawing a conclusion based on their personal experiences, and here you draw conclusions based on your personal experiences -while- admitting that everyone's personal experience vaires.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erothyme
I even know a dude who meets qualifications to work as a professional driver who drives high regularly. He's ridiculously impressive, but I understand I can't prove that.

Even if you could, you're already stating that he's starting from superior ability. I bet Alex Rodriguez drunk can hit a 90mph fastball a hell of a lot better than I can stone sober. The issue isn't people who are already highly competent because their performance could be degraded and still appear perfectly competent. The issue is the kind of people who get into car accidents while not drunk, not high, and not overtired because they are just bad drivers. You have no way to prove that such a person wouldn't be -more- prone to getting in accidents while high. The general logic behind the "high people drive -better-" theory is the mild state of heightened awareness/paranoia making you naturally more cautious. But overcautious driving causes plenty of accidents, not just overaggressive driving.

Quote:

The idea that more people would drive high if cannabis was legal is an argument which could only be made honestly by someone who is oblivious to cannabis culture.
Why? Multiple people in this thread say they drive high all the time, or related stories of people they know who drive high all the time. Even if only 5% of people who use marijuana drive while high, if you quadruple the number of people using it, it stands to reason that you'll quadruple the number of people who drive while using it.

Quote:

Sounds like someone has completely failed to consider the implications of the ban on hemp farming being lifted.
Well, we've still got plenty of hemp and lumber kicking around to make all the various non-drug products that can also be made from marijuana, so I don't think legalizing -another- such product is going to have a huge economic impact. Further, you're only just now bringing into the discussion the other uses of marijuana by referencing the hemp farming unban (Random picture near the OP notwithstanding) So far, everyone but you has been talking about decriminalization for the purpose of personal drug use. This is a seperate issue entirely. Once again, apologies for my lack of clarivoyance.

Quote:

Also sounds like someone doesn't realize how much it would sell if it was available at the corner store.
Mass produced things are cheaper than individually produced things. Legal things are cheaper than illegal things. Why do these two statements translate into very expensive mass-produced legal products?

Quote:

And the War on Drugs thing is an easy one to fix: legalize it all. Addicts are sick. Sick people don't get better in prison.
The war on drugs isn't a war against American drug-users, it is a war against foreign and american drug smugglers. Addicts are sick, yes. But they weren't addicts when they tried it the first time. They made a free choice to break the law and use something they knew was bad for them and addictive. So yes, now they are sick and sick people don't get better in prison, but they were law-breakers first.


Quote:

As for the government losing money due to not being allowed to kick people around over a plant anymore, boohoo?
Well, when the main focus of the thread before you arrived was on how this would be profitable for the government, things that would change the amount of money the government was making seem pretty relevant to me. Boo hoo indeed.

devonin 05-9-2009 12:04 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Double post to use my mod voice:

Please bear in mind that this thread is in Critical Thinking. That means no "I agree" posts, that means no "one-liner shot taking" and we address the issues not the posters.

korny 05-9-2009 01:23 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
The multi quote option is bugging me so bear with this post.

While contemplating what effects the wide availability of marijuana would have on lets say, your typical stoner, like myself, and the millions of other people who would now indulge because of it's now legality, and understanding that, "Hey! This stuff isn't what the media made it out to be after all!" , I've concluded that the figure of 30 billion dollars can now be raised substantially. Why? Scenario: "**** I ran out of weed last night. Oh wait, there's high grade marijuana at the 7-11 down the street. Awesome, now I don't have to drive to georges house and who knows what he's got but I know what 7-11 does, and I certainly don't have to worry about that." Ask any stoner, a large majority would most indefinitely increase their consumerism on the product purely due to it's now wide and easy availabiliy and now that there's wide avaibility of a product of this caliber? Damn, that's pretty much self-explanatory right there. And in all reality I would never get georges weed to begin with because like previously stated, medicinal cannabis is on a level that can't be easily imitated whatsoever. So In regards to the cost management of the whole process, I subtracted the figures and hey, we're still up something odd billion dollars. Must not be worth the time and effort still though right? So I dunno lets just raise that amount to 40 billion dollars, subtract 10 billion and hey we're right where we left off. This is all speculative of course, but I think it's very safe to assume that we'd be near what we left off if not much better off than before.

Regarding the governments "fairness" to punishing those who distribute, possess, and use cannabis; I only meant to suggest that because of it's non-negative effects that they should have no "real" basis for doing so. Can you not at least agree that just plain marijuana usage regardless of illegalities, are not by any means "fair"? I ask you now purely out of curiosity since you've made it so clear that the law is the law and should always be abided by regardless of whether it's "reasonable" or not. Ignoring the law is one way to look at it, but if it's a question of morality, I'm not doing anything wrong. That is the way I look at it since it is the ONLY law that exists that I disagree with on a moral standpoint. So yes it's the law, I understand what you're saying completely, I'm now just curious as to whether you think it's fair or not regardless of whether or not that changes anything at all.

Please tell me where I said at all that I want the government to solely be responsible for the process? I only stated that because I know of the quality I'm getting, that I would only buy that marijuana.

If by criticizing someone based on their experiences you are referring to devilsreject, perhaps he should elaborate more on what he means by using marijuana to "heal" and that it only left him "regret" since I fail to see how marijuana alone could be responsible for his "unfortunate" experience whatsoever. I analyzed his response based off the fact the he seems to be using the use of weed, as a cop out when there are more than likely deeper underlying issues at hand than just an "I used weed it ruined my life" type of response. I think it was quite obvious that my stating everyones experience is different, was directed toward a persons ability to handle certain tasks and not the their mental wellbeing which in devils case, was already in some degree of peril, but this was all I could ascertain with such a vague post.

devonin 05-9-2009 02:22 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

So In regards to the cost management of the whole process, I subtracted the figures and hey, we're still up something odd billion dollars. Must not be worth the time and effort still though right?
But all of these numbers are either random guesses with no actual study to back them up, or numbers that are just glossed over and never actually stated.

We can think that perhaps it would be profitable and perhaps not, but I don't think anybody on this forum has done the research, because I don't think that anybody has done the research in an appropriate manner.

Quote:

Can you not at least agree that just plain marijuana usage regardless of illegalities, are not by any means "fair"?
This question makes no sense, can you please restate it so I can answer it?

Quote:

I ask you now purely out of curiosity since you've made it so clear that the law is the law and should always be abided regardless of whether it's "reasonable" or not.
If you think a law is unreasonable, you go through legitimate legislative channels to try and get the law changed. But while it is the law, whether you think it is reasonable or not, you obey the law or you accept the consequences if you get caught.

Quote:

That is the way I look at it since it is the ONLY law that exists that I disagree with on a moral standpoint.
There are people for whom the only law that exists that they disagree with on moral grounds is the one allowing women to have abortions. Does that mean, since they disagree with it on moral grounds, that it is automatically a bad law to allow women to have abortions?

Quote:

Please tell me where I said at all that I want the government to solely be responsible for the process? I only stated that because I know of the quality I'm getting, that I would only buy that marijuana.
You said "but to get it on the level that the government is able to grow it is a whole different subject" So yes, that is where you said that you wanted the government to be responsible for the process. Even if you also want other people to be able to if they want to, you made your personal preference clear that government-grown marijuana was what you a) wanted to see happen and b) that other people would feel the same way.


Quote:

I think it was quite obvious that my stating everyones experience is different, was directed toward a persons ability to handle certain tasks and not the their mental wellbeing
He said "My personal experience is X" and you said, basically 'Your conclusion is invalid, because you're biased based on a negative experience' and yet seem to not see how your own conclusion is just as biased based on your positive experiences. Just because you personally haven't had bad experiences doesn't mean a) nobody has bad experiences, b) you will never have a bad experience, or c) that enough people might be having bad experiences to make it wholly relevant to the discussion.

korny 05-9-2009 03:21 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Haha ok man have fun with this then.


The Economic Benefits Of Legalization

The answer to that question has been partly provided by economics professor Jeffrey Miron, whose recent report on the fiscal impact of marijuana prohibition was endorsed by 550 of the world's leading economists, including Nobel Prize-winner Milton Friedman.

Miron attempts to evaluate how much it costs US federal, state and local governments to enforce marijuana laws, how much revenue would be generated if marijuana was taxed like most products, and how much would be generated if it was taxed like alcohol or tobacco.

The economist's report is based on an envisioned level of legality far exceeding that of decriminalization, but the report is not based on a calculation of the economic benefits that marijuana had from the 1600's until the plant was outlawed in the early 1900's. During that multi-century period, marijuana was not subject to any prohibitive legal rules (although for a while, the King of England required colonist farmers to grow hemp) and was an extremely valuable industrial crop in the USA.

US Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew hemp, as did thousands of other farmers. Before cotton replaced hemp as the primary source for fiber and seed oil in the 1840's, cannabis was among the most important agricultural sectors of the American economy, and could also be grown in anyone's personal garden.

The Miron report postulates that marijuana production and sales in a legalized environment would operate somewhat like the Dutch cannabis market. Miron acknowledges this is not at all an exact comparison. But it's the closest analogy he can find, and so he glosses over key issues and questions in what is otherwise a courageous, valuable document that usefully challenges prohibition.

These center on exactly how a legal marijuana marketplace would function economically: a) what percentage of total marijuana transactions would continue in the black market and involve people who grow, purchase or barter cannabis rather than buying it in stores as they would buy other products; b) what percentage of transactions would involve marijuana burdened by "sin taxes," as are cigarettes and alcohol; c) what percentage of marijuana transactions would be subject to taxation and regulation at all; d) what are likely fiscal impacts of legalization? The report contains two different estimates of tax revenues marijuana could generate if it was legal. Both calculations assume a decrease in the price of cannabis due to removal of risks associated with growing during prohibition.

Starting with an estimate of an $8 billion-per-year US pot expenditure, Miron says marijuana could generate $2.4 billion in taxes if cannabis is taxed at a normal tax rate, and could generate $6.2 billion yearly if taxed like booze or tobacco.

The report predicts major savings if cannabis is legalized. The drug war creates lots of costs for courts, police, jails and prisons. At the state and local level, legalization could save at least $5.3 billion yearly in taxpayer-funded drug war expenses. At the federal level, legalization could save at least $2.4 billion in drug war expenses.

By taking the amount of money governments would not have to spend arresting, judicially processing and incarcerating people, and adding it to the amount of tax revenue possibly generated by legal pot, Miron estimates as much as $14 billion per year in savings and new revenue could be generated if marijuana was made legal.

CAVEATS

There are subtle nuances and unfathomables to Miron's calculations, and he acknowledges some of them. For example, one reason the drug war exists is so governments can seize drug defendant's property and keep it, but Miron says the value of seized assets is a tiny fraction of what it costs to run the drug war.

Police promote asset forfeiture and court-ordered fines/restitution as a way of making criminals pay for their crimes, but in many cases, asset forfeiture and fines hurt defendants but don't significantly reimburse taxpayers for the cost of the drug war. The police keep what they seize and use it themselves; taxpayers pay more and more for the drug war each year. Also left unanswered is whether people would buy taxed marijuana if the purchase price were inflated significantly by a sin tax, as is the price of alcohol and tobacco.

Legalization would cause significant job losses that Miron fails to mention. One of my favorite attorneys says criminal defense lawyers refer to marijuana laws as "The Full Employment Act for the Criminal Defense Bar."

My lawyer friend notes that 800,000 people are arrested in the US for marijuana every year. Some are arrested for other crimes and just happen to have marijuana with them at the time of their arrest; judicial statisticians still count this as a pot bust. Miron estimates that 50% of all listed marijuana arrests are just for marijuana and nothing else; my lawyer friend stipulated that at least 400,000 marijuana-only arrests are made per year.

If you calculate profits for lawyers generated by these hundreds of thousands of pot busts, my friend says wryly, "you begin to see why most criminal defense lawyers don't want marijuana legalized – ever."

Here's how lawyers benefit tremendously from prohibition: Some cannabis arrests are ticketable offenses, and others are arrestable offenses: some felonies, some misdemeanors. A few defendants are represented by public defenders, but that system is so underfunded and understaffed that most defendants are forced to hire private lawyers, and pot lawyers rarely work for free, even in medpot cases where defendants are dying and destitute. My friend calls it "cash register justice."

Noting that marijuana philanthropist Marc Emery has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for other people's cannabis criminal cases and Supreme Court challenges, the lawyer said that if those defendants had had to pay for their lawyers themselves, they would have never been able to get beyond the first appellate court, if that far. Justice is expensive, and lawyer's fees are the reason why.

Assuming a conservative estimate of 50% of those 400,000 pot-only arrestees hiring a lawyer for an average of at least $2500 per case, lawyers are making a minimum half a billion dollars a year off marijuana prohibition! And it must be remembered that many marijuana cases, especially felony cultivation and felony trafficking cases, generate lawyer fees in the tens of thousands of dollars – and that defendants also have to pay for private investigators, court reporters, transcripts, filing fees, and other costs of their defense.

I have known felony cultivation defendants who spent $40,000 trying to get acquittal, but in the end were advised to plea bargain to a felony and probation, and shut up. Marijuana defendants must also pay for other "services," including bail bondsman, urine testers, court-ordered fines and restitutions, incarceration fees, and drug counseling.

The drug testing industry, which focuses primarily on cannabis, is a $7 billion annual industry. The anti-drug counseling industry is also burgeoning, with counselors paid an average $42,000 per year, working in all sectors of American society from elementary schools to prisons to corporations.

Most drug counselors are in business because courts offer marijuana convicts a "choice" of punitive sentences: pay thousands of dollars for mandatory drug testing, probation, and counseling… or go to jail. If people can afford it, they usually choose the counseling route.

If marijuana were legal, another big loser would probably be the hydroponics industry. This industry, which includes manufacturers of high intensity lights, air exchangers, electrical grids, heatingcooling units, odor removers, irrigation tubing, timers and pumps, monitoring sensors, carbon dioxide gas, generators and tanks, rockwool, fertilizers, and other grow media, is estimated to be selling at least $2.5 billion worth of gear to American indoor pot growers per year. There might be an increase in large-scale commercial indoor production if pot is legalized, but it's doubtful that as much money overall would be spent on expensive indoor hydro gear if people could legally grow kind bud trees in the back yard.

And as Miron says, it's probable that prices for marijuana will drop if cannabis is legal, thus depriving some black market growers the currently huge mark-up that allows them to pay off mortgages, buy monster trucks, and otherwise live large by growing a plant that is worth more than its weight in gold.

In 1970, an ounce of high grade seeded Colombian buds cost $20, and gasoline cost 50 cents a gallon. Today gas is $2.50 a gallon and bud is $400 an ounce. Does prohibition have anything to do with that? Go figure!

Would ten high quality cannabis seeds still sell for $200 if pot were legal? Would legal pot still sell for $400 per ounce? Probably not. Even if demand skyrockets and most people choose not to grow their own after legalization, it's likely the wholesale and retail prices of cannabis – if removed from the black market of risks and rippers – would go down.

Others who stand to lose lots of money when cannabis is legal are police, prison guards, prison builders, drug dog companies, and governmental drug warriors like the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the White House, the DEA, and others who make their living oppressing drug culture and people.

Drug warriors claim if marijuana is legal, society will suffer financially due to alleged health problems, car accidents, insanity, babies, lost employee efficiency, and lost work hours. But there's never been a reliable study that proves expensive societal marijuana damage, or that marijuana use reduces the efficiency of the work force. Indeed, workplace drug testing has proven that most marijuana users are exemplary employees who never attracted negative attention from their employers until their employers randomly tested them for drugs. That urine tests are required is proof that no flaw was detectable in a cannabis using person's performance, otherwise they would have been fired for incompetence.

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 Jack Herer proves in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, the value of a free market hemp industry would be tremendous, because hemp can replace so many other commercial products and processes and do so with far less ecological damage.

Numbers Talk

Traditional economists don't take into account ethics, value systems, Mother Earth, or human spirit factors. They are professional automatons; it's part of their creed to only care about numbers and economic theory. That's why economists are eagerly responsible for International Monetary Fund and World Bank economic policies that destroy the environment, civil society, and human rights.

Miron admits his evaluation of marijuana legality focuses only on economics. It doesn't take into account how much prohibition costs in terms of freedom, fascism, loss of civil liberties, harm to families, and creation of a police state.

Still, Miron has done the marijuana community a sweet favor by showing in cold, hard, ruthless economic language that pot prohibition is as needlessly expensive as it is morally repugnant. "The fact that marijuana prohibition has these budgetary impacts does not by itself mean prohibition is bad policy," he says in his report, which was sent to the White House and Congress.

"Existing evidence, however, suggests prohibition has minimal benef its and may itself cause substantial harm. We therefore urge the country to commence an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition. We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods. At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current [drug war] policy to show that prohibition has benef its sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition."

by Ray Boyd

My question made perfect sense maybe you should read it again but I'll word it differently since it gave you some sort of problem. Ummm, marijuana usage has proven harmless. It's illegal but shouldn't because of this factor. Agree or disagree? That better?

When I say moral, I mean that there is morally nothing wrong with marijuana. Abortion is a matter of ethics. Whether you agree that the fetus is a child and should or should not be "Killed" has absolutely nothing to do with something that has no negativities known to man. Seriously what do you not get about that or do you honestly think that marijuana usage is bad well, for no apparent proven reason? Tell me where marijuana is a matter of ethics and I'll be able to understand this post more.

I'm speaking for myself and a majority of potheads that they would rather have the best quality. Something the government would be able to provide easily. There are those that would grow their own low quality in their back yard sure, but you can't possibly understand what easily LEGAL accessible weed means to your average stoner unless you are one yourself I guess? I dunno how to get this point across to you I really don't. But nowhere in my post do i specifically state that I want the government to only be responsible. You're taking words out of my mouth and twisting them around. I want people to be able to grow their own if they want to, I guess I had to say that since it wasn't as implied as I thought it was. I want all potheads to flourish in the culture however they want. There I said it. I just know how a majority are going to go about it.

Biased is definitely not the word. I'm a realist. In reality, negative experiences are not known to be caused by marijuana alone. The only negativity is panic attacks or extreme paranoia that people experience while thinking about the fact that it is illegal, when it shouldn't be. Like I said, his post was too vague to truly understand what he was getting at. In conclusion to this statement, I still fail to see how any negative experience can come to be unless you are able to provide me with a scenario in which one can happen.

devonin 05-9-2009 05:19 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
That's an interesting read. See this is the thing about posting to CT: When you have something like actual evidence to support your claims, try -leading- with that instead of waiting until someone points out that you've done nothing to support your claims.

It's a reasonably compelling argument in terms of some numbers, though when you consider that
Quote:

Miron acknowledges this is not at all an exact comparison
and
Quote:

it's the closest analogy he can find, and so he glosses over key issues and questions
I'm not sure how seriously to take his findings. And the author of this article is -clearly- heavily biased when he uses language like
Quote:

fascism, loss of civil liberties, harm to families, and creation of a police state.
Bear in mind that I've never said I'm opposed to the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. I've just said that the logic of "But it will fix the economy and make the government billions of dollars" has never had remotely enough actual evidence to support it, and after reading this article, it still doesn't. It sounds like a shoehorned best-fit theory based on numbers from another nation and culture entirely written by someone looking for a way to justify the stance economically instead of socially.

I'm all for social opposition to the law, but trying to make it about economics reeks of "trying to justify it to the Man" especially since a quick look into the background of Jeffrey Miron suggests that he's primarily known for "Being a libertarian" and "Fighting for drug decriminalization" so one would hardly expect him to be caring about all the "key issues and questions" that article admits he glosses over.


Quote:

My question made perfect sense
Please parse this sentence for me: "Can you not at least agree that just plain marijuana usage regardless of illegalities, are not by any means "fair"?"

Even if I correct the grammar to "is not by any means fair" then what you're saying is "Can you agree that using marijuana isn't fair?" which makes no sense.

Quote:

marijuana usage has proven harmless. It's illegal but shouldn't because of this factor. Agree or disagree? That better?
Yes, that's much better since it actually asks a cogent question. I'd say that instead of 'marijuana has proven harmless' I'd say 'marijuana has been seen in general to have far fewer negative effects than have been previously supposed' Anything that alters your mental state at all can't be said to be "harmless" even if -most- of the consequences of that altered state are not necessarily negative in all cases.

Quote:

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.(Riedel G, Davies SN (2005). "Cannabinoid function in learning, memory and plasticity". Handb Exp Pharmacol (168): 445–77. PMID 16596784)
I don't think I can classify that as "Completely harmless"

Quote:

When I say moral, I mean that there is morally nothing wrong with marijuana. Abortion is a matter of ethics.
Ethics: A set of moral principles.

Your morals are your intrinsic beliefs about what is good or bad, your ethics are your applications of your morals in a given circumstance.

If you think abortion is morally wrong, you will be ethically opposed to it. If you think smoking pot is morally right, you will be ethically supportive of it.

Quote:

Tell me where marijuana is a matter of ethics and I'll be able to understand this post more.
See above.

Quote:

Biased is definitely not the word.
And yet

Quote:

I want all potheads to flourish in the culture however they want.
Quote:

I'm speaking for myself and a majority of potheads
Sounds at least a little biased to me.


Quote:

panic attacks or extreme paranoia that people experience while thinking about the fact that it is illegal
Wait...seriously? You seriously think that people are only paranoid or suffer panic attacks while on pot because they're thinking about the fact that it's illegal? Pretty sure they think about that before they buy it, when they're buying it, while they've got it hidden, when they use it and after they use it. And yet they only have the extreme paranoia or panic attacks -while- using it? Convenient.

Quote:

I still fail to see how any negative experience can come to be unless you are able to provide me with a scenario in which one can happen.
Quote:

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.(Riedel G, Davies SN (2005). "Cannabinoid function in learning, memory and plasticity". Handb Exp Pharmacol (168): 445–77. PMID 16596784)
Scenario provided.

chuckman 05-10-2009 12:14 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Devonin, i was restating your statement, to show you that you can paralell them two. By saying that you didn't think your statement out,was to show that you to are coming off biased. You also are making states in an ultimating type tone, when you yourself agree that there isn't any research based information. Why do you think that is? Because people like youself, that figure they have every answer or rebuttal for everything. They dont take time to understand the hard work that goes into growing a plant that has a suitable "thc" count to get you high...and even if you, the consumer doenst use the plant to smoke, like korny's graph, we can use it for a slew of other things that dont fall under the smoking catagory. Therefore other parts of the industry would profit off this...devonin you are the only person completely biased toward this idea...rather than argue a point that was never supposed to be a debate in the first place, why dont you take the time to actually read up on this plant , and its advantages to the gov't, medical field,textile factories, patients, and the average american consumer...your a very intelligent man/woman...take my advice if you value information over your pride as a well known flash flash debate...

devonin 05-10-2009 12:25 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Try to actually post using proper spelling, grammar and punctuation.

chuckman 05-10-2009 11:45 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
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 05-10-2009 12:03 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
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 05-10-2009 12:10 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
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 05-10-2009 12:15 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Erothyme (Post 3067272)
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 05-10-2009 12:19 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
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 05-10-2009 12:54 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckman (Post 3068831)
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 05-10-2009 01:01 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
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 05-10-2009 01:13 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
I must be the moderator of this forum if I have to moderate the forum in the middle of the forum.

chuckman 05-10-2009 01:28 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
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 05-10-2009 03:13 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 05-10-2009 04:47 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
"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 05-10-2009 05:49 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
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 :D.

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. :D for one you can't afford that much and two that would just be stupid.

korny 05-10-2009 06:30 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
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 05-10-2009 06:38 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by krunkykai22 (Post 3069221)

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. :D 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 05-12-2009 03:33 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
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 05-12-2009 03:50 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

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 05-12-2009 03:57 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
True. However, marijuana accounts for over 60% of what's being fought against.

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

devonin 05-12-2009 04:13 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

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 05-12-2009 04:15 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by krunkykai22 (Post 3069221)

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. :D 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)

devonin 05-12-2009 04:21 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Ooh Korny, just as another scaling down of your figures, the same Miron study that you quoted earlier as saying that 30 billion dollars would be generated in government revenue was under the assumption that ALL drugs would be completely decriminalized and legalized for sale and use in the US.

Of the 30 billion, only 6.7 would actually be from marijuana. Again, 6.7 billion dollars is still a lot of money, but it's only 22% of the figures you quoted earlier.

korny 05-12-2009 05:05 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Fine. The original argument is will marijuana legalization fix our economy? Fix? No. Help? Yes. Like previously stated and unanswered, California, can generate $1.3 billion dollar a year alone from marijuana. With this information, i think that it is more than safe to assume that taxing marijuana will generate additional billions and billions with all the previous information and statistics provided. I don't see where the argument lies anymore regarding whether it'll really help or not.

And i already stated that I doubt it would really create as much as 30 billion dollars.

Also, I could smoke 8 pounds of weed and not die.

devonin 05-12-2009 06:12 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
I guess it's time for another round of "Devonin explains what he does in CT"

The thing that Chuckman seemed unable to grasp is that I'm not trying to "win" and I'm not in any danger of "losing" because I'm not actually debating my view against you. What I do in CT is try to foster in depth analysis and real questioning of one's position.

If all you want to do is prove you are right and "win" you'll have to engage other users of the forum on the subject. The only reason you don't also see me attacking the logic of the people who oppose your view is that, basically, nobody else is opposing your view.

Go have a look at any of the religion threads in this forum and in chit-chat, and you'll see that I'm just as likely to be arguing on one side as the other in any given post.

What I'm doing by pointing out flaws in your logic, and reasoning as I perceive them, is trying to help you to be more critically aware of your own reasons for taking the stance that you do. Do you think in a future discussion of why it would make economic sense to legalize marijuana you'll say that Miron says it could generate 30 billion dollars in government revenue now? I hope not. Saying he found it would generate 6.7 billion dollars in government revenue is still a -STRONG- argument that legalization would make economic sense, but in perhaps a more formal or heated debate, you won't get called out later for misrepresenting his findings.

I like to think, in my less modest moments, that I provide a useful service to this forum by poking holes in the arguments of -anybody- whose argument seems to warrant it, and by so doing, encourage everyone to be more critical and analytical about their arguments in the future.

It took me 2 pages before I actually spelled out my own poisition on marijuana (Which is far more simliar to yours than it is dissimilar) only because several posters were reacting as if, by suggesting flaws in their reasoning, I must be vehemently opposed to their view.

I'm perfectly willing to argue any side of any issue I know much of anything about, and believe me, if there had been a strong back and forth between say, Korny and Guidohunter (Since he expressed some opposition to the view as well) I'd have been just as keen to nitpick at Guido's side as well.

I want to be a facilitator in this forum, keeping the threads active and keeping the brains working. Not the "winner" of "fights"

devonin 05-16-2009 12:06 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

And I wonder how quickly your stance will change when you get into a major auto-wreck and learn that the guy on the other side crashed into you because he was smoking marijuana.
Except if there actually is evidence to support that, for example, driving while under the influence of marijuana is unsafe or even just less safe than not, who says legalization of marijuana won't include the implementation of a law against driving while using it?

Alcohol is legal for consumption, you can even legally consume it excessively, there are just strict limits on what you can do while you're drinking, and that includes no driving, or operating heavy machinery, heck it includes -walking outside- while drunk.

I can't imagine a decriminalization of marijuana without at least some legislation of things you aren't allowed to also do at the same time.

TC_llama499 05-16-2009 04:37 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Saik0Shinigami (Post 3075803)
This number is given for the current usage of marijuana. ".25%" of the CURRENT USERS who have heart attacks are due to marijuana use.

Sorry, but to me this screams "we should NEVER legalize this." That "fact" you given proves that the drug can affect you enough to KILL YOU AND OTHERS AROUND YOU(example: driving). A drop in blood pressure can easily make you light headed.

so whats your view on alcohol and cigarettes then? because im sure those don't kill anyone right? And just because it would be legalized it would still have laws and boundaries. A DUI is a DUI no matter what you are intoxicated bye, ie alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saik0Shinigami (Post 3075803)
Someone also stated somewhere in this thread "an ounce will put you sleep". So if the drug is legalized, manufactured at cheaper rates, and used more; how many people will use more than an ounce and drive, or do anything that requires you to actually be awake?

actually the government would not be selling it at cheaper rates. the point of legalizing it is so they can TAX it and make a profit to help us out with our debt. You also make it sound like just because it will become a legal substance that it is going to be abused by everyone. Yes there will probably be a few people who will do this, but i assure you that there is no mind altering substance that is legal that isn't being abused.

korny 05-17-2009 11:04 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Were I on another computer and not my Wii where I have to click on letters I'd add a lot more. What I am going to point out is that I find it ironic that you say you don't want to be around cigarettes just because of the smell and not the second hand smoke when it causes cancer and weed does not.

Vendetta21 05-17-2009 11:56 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3067908)
Words

Yes whatever, I get your masterful art of weaving logic and legalese.

It comes down to simple pragmatism why the drug should be made legal, and there is a pretty simple to draw economic trade-off.

Your choice, and this is a dichotomy, is between:

1. Drug lords and smugglers making egregiously high profits on the basis of illegality whilst police are sinking costs into combating their own, otherwise for the most part law abiding, populace. These profits going to groups that stranglehold the security structure of developing nations, the most vivid examples being Mexico, Columbia.

2. A greater number of people who drive high, greater availability to minors, increased danger on the roadways, increased alcohol poisoning deaths.

There is no cohesive empirical evidence to suggest marijuana is a gateway drug that I have ever seen.

Your call, sarge.

A2P 05-17-2009 04:42 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
This is going to be off topic, but it's worthwhile to note:

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3072193)
I want to be a facilitator in this forum, keeping the threads active and keeping the brains working. Not the "winner" of "fights"

I would also like to add that you can have an opinion all you want, but what makes one valuable is reason. Any opinion can and will be attacked by criticism. It is up to your reason to give your opinion value.

And without criticism, there would be no reason for logic and knowledge. People would be allowed to say whatever they want, and without an opposing view, it would be accepted no matter how silly or ignorant the notation might be.

devonin 05-17-2009 04:47 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Yes whatever, I get your masterful art of weaving logic and legalese.
Quote:

Your call, sarge.
Clearly you didn't get it.

Vendetta21 05-18-2009 08:01 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3076978)
Clearly you didn't get it.

I got it, but it's better to think of legalization as trade-offs than it is to think of it in a system of legality and morality. At least I'm far too pragmatic to look at it any other way. Maybe it's because I'm a practical nihilist who can only gauge things on their results, it doesn't really matter.

Clearly we aren't doing very much in stopping either marijuana supply or demand, clearly we are turning a large contingent of the American people into criminals without really them putting anyone else in danger through the act of smoking weed, and clearly there is a negative ramification of its illegality: it creates enough of a profit margin for it to support organized criminal enterprise. There is nothing inherent in the marijuana that creates this profit margin. The illegality is the dominant factor. And the illegality of it is also what feeds into its own illegality: the fact that buying it supports criminal enterprise.

I'm sorry if I'm blind to your arguments, but it's because the whole issue seems very simple and I can't seem to get past the idea of what is the trade-offs for legalization. Call it myopic. Call it unlearned. Call it illogical.

devonin 05-18-2009 12:58 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Instead I call it "directed at which words exactly?"

Vendetta21 05-19-2009 12:58 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3077685)
Instead I call it "directed at which words exactly?"

The ones I skimmed.

Vendetta21 05-19-2009 01:00 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Up until my first reply I thought this was TGB. I wouldn't have come into this if I thought it was CT because then I would have actually felt compelled to care, and the effort is beyond me. Sorry Big D. You made formidable points, I guess I mostly caught your stuff about law breaking in the skim, and that still doesn't settle with me because I don't know if I agree with your view of the legal system in its entirety.

Changing laws has many forms, and one of them being that when a law is not something the populace follows and that law is not protecting other individuals, it is often changed on that basis in a supreme or national appellate court or through legislation. Sometimes law breaking is the way a law can be changed, given special criterion.

I'm not arguing the current state of legality of the drug, I'm saying very few people respect the law in this case, and the law isn't effectively stopping anyone who wants to smoke pot. I'm 20 and it is easier for me to get marijuana than it is alcohol. Now this isn't the rule, but it is a microcosm of the greater culture among people in my age range (16-20.) In legal systems they have something called practice versus policy, which often can dictate outcomes in cases about policy: when the practice does not follow or conform to the policy it can grant gravity for someone arguing against the policy. This has more to do with contract law than criminal law, but I think it's a good analogy for how I feel about legality in this case. Not all cases though, just this one.

I understand the legal distinctions here: the police aren't necessarily ignoring the policy, therefore the practice does not supersede the policy. But police are increasingly turning an eye to the lower levels of marijuana crime. And this is worth noting.

Lastly worth noting is that one philosophy of the legal system is about the intention of laws rather than the laws themselves, and that when a law does not produce its intended effect it needs to be changed to do so. Legislators often change traffic laws in their jurisdiction because either the traffic system has changed or the law was not working as intended. What is the intended effect of the marijuana law?

devonin 05-19-2009 02:22 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Well my issue is that by skimming only, you basically completely missed the whole thing about how I'm personally actually FOR the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use. I just happen to -also- feel that if legalized, there should also be some standards and limits put on its use in the same way that alcohol has standards and limits on its use.

kommisar[os] 05-19-2009 10:08 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
legalizing would obviously relieve a lot of financial stress what with the incredible amounts they spend to try and prevent the use; however, this alone is far from sufficient to fix the entire economy.

i also agree that it would need the same amount of restrictions as alcohol, but this would also bring out the people against it and those who would prefer not to get baked off second hand smoke.

korny 05-20-2009 04:07 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
You can't get high off of second hand smoke. I mean technically you could, but the amount needed would be very expensive and it would have to be in a small contained area. I understand what you're saying though about everything else.

chuckman 05-21-2009 07:58 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
hahah everyone devonin is a built debater...he'll never be right, at the some token, he also will never be wrong...he'll just stand behind his idea until everyone gives up....thats how he is...in my opinion lmao!

x After Dawn x 05-21-2009 08:17 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by korny (Post 3080090)
You can't get high off of second hand smoke. I mean technically you could, but the amount needed would be very expensive and it would have to be in a small contained area. I understand what you're saying though about everything else.

Actually, you can get slightly high off second-hand smoke fairly easily. Try walking downtown at night in Vancouver.

korny 05-21-2009 08:41 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Interesting. I smoked an eighth ounce of blunts in my old minivan and a girl who was with us wasn't smoking and didn't get high from the session and blunts allow way more THC to escape than do pipes.

lord_carbo 06-4-2009 11:18 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckman (Post 3081153)
hahah everyone devonin is a built debater...he'll never be right, at the some token, he also will never be wrong...he'll just stand behind his idea until everyone gives up....thats how he is...in my opinion lmao!

That's called stubbornness; that's not really what devonin is doing. He's pointing out the logical holes he sees in other people's arguments, regardless of whether or not he agrees with the general proposition being put forward.

Cavernio 06-5-2009 11:22 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendetta21 (Post 3076797)
1. Drug lords and smugglers making egregiously high profits on the basis of illegality whilst police are sinking costs into combating their own, otherwise for the most part law abiding, populace. These profits going to groups that stranglehold the security structure of developing nations, the most vivid examples being Mexico, Columbia.

"egregarious"? Is that gregariousness displayed via an electronic format? "Whilst"? This isn't the 16th century, the word is 'while'.
Oh, also, your point is irrelevant because marijuana isn't cocaine or heroin or any other drug that drug lords lord over people. I bet you I would find more fields of marijuana in New Brunswick than I would where cocaine growth abides.

Korny: I'm sure that smoking marijuana is a risk factor for lung cancer. Pretty much all smoke is. Even if the marijuana itself is totally benign, by the very act of filling up one's lungs with unclean air and holding it there, your lungs become less sensitive to having crap in them very, very quickly. This is bad because you're less likely to cough up stuff that shouldn't be in there, (which is pretty much anything besides clean air.)
Also, the girl who was with you who wasn't smoking? I bet you she hadn't smoked marijuana much/at all...I mean, why else wouldn't she have smoked it? That explains her lack of reaction.

devonin 06-5-2009 11:43 PM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio
"egregarious"?

No
Quote:

Originally Posted by "Vendetta21
egregiously

"conspicuous ; especially : conspicuously bad : flagrant"

Best to actually read what people type before you call them on it.

Edit: Also, I consider 'whilst' to be perfectly valid common usage. 'While' is a noun (This might take a while) a conjunction (I'll type this while I wait for a response) and a transitive verb (While away the hours)

Conversely, 'whilst' is unambiguously the conjunction.

korny 06-6-2009 01:24 AM

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3097805)
Korny: I'm sure that smoking marijuana is a risk factor for lung cancer. Pretty much all smoke is. Even if the marijuana itself is totally benign, by the very act of filling up one's lungs with unclean air and holding it there, your lungs become less sensitive to having crap in them very, very quickly. This is bad because you're less likely to cough up stuff that shouldn't be in there, (which is pretty much anything besides clean air.)
Also, the girl who was with you who wasn't smoking? I bet you she hadn't smoked marijuana much/at all...I mean, why else wouldn't she have smoked it? That explains her lack of reaction.

Marijuana is a risk factor for lung cancer because it's smoke taken into the lungs? See below
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7503

In fact. See below
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7241

About the girl. She wasn't smoking because she was on probation. You would think she wouldn't want to risk it for fear of being drug testing would you not? I was able to convince her that it wouldn't show up on a urine screening and whaddayaknow? I was right.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution