Economy Fix or Fail??

[korny]

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]

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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

Miron acknowledges this is not at all an exact comparison

and

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

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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

See above.

Biased is definitely not the word.

And yet

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

I'm speaking for myself and a majority of potheads

Sounds at least a little biased to me.

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.

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.

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]

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]

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??

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

[chuckman]

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]

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]

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]

Re: Economy Fix or Fail??

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]

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]

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"?

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]

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]

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]

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