If Marijuana was legal would you smoke it

[Arles]

If my options for teens are 50% drink and 18% use pot or 45% drink and 40% use pot after it's legalized, I'll gladly choose the former. The horse is out of the barn on teen alcohol use, we have an opportunity to keep it in the barn on teen pot use.

[stevew]

I wouldn't habitually, but might think about using if it was legal and easily accessible.

I don't see how taxing it and regulating it is going to put the street level dealers out of buisiness, but it's not like I ran the numbers on it. If it's illegal to sell without tax stamps, I think they'll still have a shitload of prosecutions and such.

And I think that just claiming that the tax income will be great is one thing, but there's bound to be a bunch of lost productivity. At least one would think.

Also-What would this do in regards to workplace safety and regulations? I would hope that an employer could still have an anti-marijuana policy in place, and test for it if they want to. Some industries like Trucking and manufacturing would not want any part of a pot head if they could avoid it, due to safety issues.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Arles

If my options for teens are 50% drink and 18% use pot or 45% drink and 40% use pot after it's legalized, I'll gladly choose the former. The horse is out of the barn on teen alcohol use, we have an opportunity to keep it in the barn on teen pot use.

Come on? Made up statistics? If I had my choice between numbers you made up and numbers I make up I'd take my numbers.

Essentially saying teens have access to alcohol already why the hell do we want to give them access to marijuana is a weak argument. Its less damaging to people's health than options teens have widely available to them so its hard to argue that keeping it illegal keeps teens safe.

If you want to go that route I'd argue that getting teens away from the sketchy guys who sell weed now lessens the chance of them having harder drugs readily available and pushed onto them. Not to mention takes huge cuts out of money used to fund gangs.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by stevew

Also-What would this do in regards to workplace safety and regulations? I would hope that an employer could still have an anti-marijuana policy in place, and test for it if they want to. Some industries like Trucking and manufacturing would not want any part of a pot head if they could avoid it, due to safety issues.

Drinking is legal and I'm fairly certain you can't show up to your job drunk and expect to keep it.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by stevew

Also-What would this do in regards to workplace safety and regulations? I would hope that an employer could still have an anti-marijuana policy in place, and test for it if they want to. Some industries like Trucking and manufacturing would not want any part of a pot head if they could avoid it, due to safety issues.

Seeing how heavily tested for drugs truckers are now (at least I have always been, I am sure some companies and indy guys get away with much less) I don't think a thing would change for them, legal or not.

Pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations, certain commercial truck drivers are required to be tested for alcohol and drugs. In addition to alcohol the federal regulations require testing for the following drugs: marijuana, cocaine / crack, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine (”PCP”).

The truck driver is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal, for testing positive for any of the drugs listed above or for registering a Blood Alcohol Concentration (”BAC”) of 0.02 or greater, are not permitted to drive a commercial truck or perform other “safety-sensitive functions” for at least 24 hours, and may not return to work without further testing.

But I don't drive a truck any more, and after 14 years of not smoking weed, I would highly enjoy giving it a shot again. If I knew someone who did I would probably grab some from them now, but I don't know anyone well enough to even ask if they do it. I know the neighbor kid does, but I feel kind of weird asking him for some.

[Atocep]

I don't smoke and haven't since I was a teenager. If it were made legal there's a small chance I'd give it another try, but I doubt it. Just not my thing anymore.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I already do smoke it every once in a while (blue moon-ish) .

Probably would do it more if legal.

This isn't as interesting a poll to me as, say, "if cocaine was legal.."

Havent touched either in 10 years or so......
But my voyes would be nah.....and HELL YES.....

[flere-imsaho]

Mmmmm, smoked trout....

I've tried pot twice and never really developed an interest. If it was legalized I might occasionally take a puff if offered to me at a party, but I wouldn't make any effort to smoke it on my own.

I haven't made up my mind about legalization of pot for teens, because of studies I've heard about that indicate that pot has a long-term detrimental effect on the development of kids' brains in the way that, say, alcohol use (not abuse) does not.

I would, however, be for a lifting of the age restrictions on alcohol, as I'm a firm believer that the main driver for alcohol abuse amongst teens is its legal status (to them). I would, however, add the caveat that anyone drinking alcohol under the age of 18 must be doing so under the supervision of an adult who is either a) in the same residence, b) in the same eating/drinking establishment or c) within 20 feet.

[wade moore]

I have never smoked a cigarette or had a sip of alcohol - so I don't see me smoking pot, legal or illegal.

[Kodos]

Wade sticks exclusively with crack.

[molson]

I might try it alone once or twice. I hate the marijuana culture though, so I don't think I could stomach doing it around any regular users.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Wade sticks exclusively with crack.

Note he says nothing about injected drugs.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

I might try it alone once or twice. I hate the marijuana culture though, so I don't think I could stomach doing it around any regular users.

I'm a regular user myself and hate the marijuana culture too. People within the marijuana culture pretty much base their whole lives around the fact that they smoke.

I smoke it, but I don't go around advertising the fact (except on internet message boards).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Come on? Made up statistics? If I had my choice between numbers you made up and numbers I make up I'd take my numbers.

The 50% and 18% was based on a study from 2004. Here's one from 2007:

Alcohol & Drug Use - DASH/HealthyYouth

Current alcohol use among high school students remained steady from 1991 to 1999 and then decreased from 50% in 1999 to 45% in 2007. In 2007, 26% of high school students reported episodic heavy or binge drinking.6 Zero tolerance laws, in all states, make it illegal for youth under age 21 years to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol in their system.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among youth in the United States.9 Current marijuana use decreased from 27% in 1999 to 20% in 2007.

Basically as laws tighten (zero tolerance for booze and harsher penalties for underage drug use between 1999 and 2007), use goes down. So, if we roll back these laws, it would stand to reason that use will go up by teens.

Essentially saying teens have access to alcohol already why the hell do we want to give them access to marijuana is a weak argument. Its less damaging to people's health than options teens have widely available to them so its hard to argue that keeping it illegal keeps teens safe.

What you're basically saying is that because teens can have access to a grenade launcher, we might as well provide them access to sidearms because they are no more dangerous than a grenade launcher. My point would be to try and limit the access to firearms for teens, regardless of what they can get now.

If you want to go that route I'd argue that getting teens away from the sketchy guys who sell weed now lessens the chance of them having harder drugs readily available and pushed onto them. Not to mention takes huge cuts out of money used to fund gangs.

I agree there. But the numbers say only 20% of teens use pot. If you legalize it, that number will shoot up. And, given the tax proposals on pot, chances are it will still be cheaper to buy it from these "sketchy guys" who don't report taxes. So, there's a decent chance that not only will this 20% double once it's legal, but there will be even a higher demand for the cheaper options through street pushers (esp in the inner cities where pot use is much higher).

Just look at tobacco, people drive 30-40 minutes out to the Indian reservations here in Arizona to buy cheaper cigarettes because of the high tax rate. So, if an inner city kid is faced with paying someone to buy pot for $100 in a store or pay the local pusher $40, which is he going to choose? All legalizing does is legitimize the use of pot and increase access to everyone. once kids get exposed to it, you can be darn sure they will be looking for cheaper options to get their fix.

Do people really think a kid is going to say "Hmm, I can pay $100 to buy this legally or pay $40 to a local pusher - I think I will pay the $100." The only people who will buy it legally are those who don't have access to a pusher (and I contend wouldn't be smoking it if it wasn't legal). once they get a taste, they will be looking everywhere for cheaper pot. These are teens - a group with infinitely more time than money.

[lungs]

I still think the idea that government taxes would make legal pot more expensive is absurd.

In California prices are still high because the growers still have to worry about federal authorities stopping their growing operations. Growing operations are still under the radar with medicinal marijuana.

As a farmer, I know damn well that there are a lot of struggling farmers out there that would get into the marijuana game if it were legal to openly grow. Thus, the market would get flooded and the price of the raw material would go down.

As it stands, a lot of marijuana is grown indoors where the yields are lower and the cost of production is much higher. Most marijuana cultivation would head outdoors and into greenhouses where yields will increase and the costs of production would be lower due to the scale that it is done on.

It's capitalism at work, no?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

harsher penalties for underage drug use between 1999 and 2007

Huh?

And, given the tax proposals on pot, chances are it will still be cheaper to buy it from these "sketchy guys" who don't report taxes.

That is a fundamentally flawed assumption. Just about any and all models of legalization will tell you the price of marijuana is likely to drop with legalization. The proposed taxes are not doubling or tripling the price, and are less than that of beer or cigarettes. Look at it from the other end, why is a wholeseller going to sell to some sketchy street dealer for a reduced rate, and let it trickle down through the street networks, when he could likely sell it to the government in bulk, at their own convenience, and actually likely make MORE money since it's going through far less hands?

And I've brought it up in the other marijuana thread, but I think non-users are making a stretch to equate shopping at a store, with going to your local dealer. Your local dealer is not always conveniently located, doesn't always answer the phone on your schedule, doesn't necessarily give you full weight of whatever you pay for, does not necessarily always have top quality product, and does not always have a variety of products. If you can offer just one of those things consistently, people would flock to you, let alone if you can offer ALL of those things, and they'd even pay a premium for it. If buying marijuana at a dispensary would be akin to buying cigarettes at a 7-11, then buying from a dealer is akin to buying cigarettes from a dude on the street, except he's only got one pack of Pall Malls, and one pack of Camel Menthols, and when he shows them to you, they're both open, crumpled up in a wad and several cigarettes have already been removed, then after you buy them, he expects you to give him a couple more for the road, and hang out at his house for a couple hours. The suggestion that stoners would prefer the latter to the former is ridiculous to anybody who actually goes through the process on a regular basis.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by Arles

. And, given the tax proposals on pot, chances are it will still be cheaper to buy it from these "sketchy guys" who don't report taxes. So, there's a decent chance that not only will this 20% double once it's legal, but there will be even a higher demand for the cheaper options through street pushers (esp in the inner cities where pot use is much higher).

I guess that's why kids buy all of their tobacco and alcohol on the black market.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Huh?

The proposed taxes are not doubling or tripling the price, and are less than that of beer or cigarettes.

I'd be really surprised if any marijuana tax wasn't well higher than that of cigarettes and alchohol. I think that would be necessary to ever pass something like that, you'd have to show a huge tax revenue potential, and the government would have to provide an even bigger disentive to use it then they do with cigarettes and alchohol.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

I guess that's why kids by all of their tobacco and alcohol on the black market.

This is such a popular point around here and it makes zero sense. There is a HUGE network of small-time marijuana growing and distribution around the US. That's not going away overnight. You don't have that for tobacco and alchohol. Yes, the latter two are legal, but they've been that way for 80 years (or in the case of cigarettes, forever).

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd be really surprised if any marijuana tax wasn't well higher than that of cigarettes and alchohol. I think that would be necessary to ever pass something like that, you'd have to show a huge tax revenue potential, and the government would have to provide an even bigger disentive to use it then they do with cigarettes and alchohol.

I'm guessing they'd have to set it artificially lower to start with in order to dissuade the black market from continuing to flourish. Then they could continue to raise it and raise it like they are doing with tobacco now, seeing how far they can take it.

I'm not sure that comparing taxes for marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco is comparing apples to apples. All three are measured differently and distributed differently (I doubt you'd be able to go pick up a pack of 20 joints like cigarettes and alcohol is a liquid).

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd be really surprised if any marijuana tax wasn't well higher than that of cigarettes and alchohol. I think that would be necessary to ever pass something like that, you'd have to show a huge tax revenue potential, and the government would have to provide an even bigger disentive to use it then they do with cigarettes and alchohol.

I guess that depends on whether you define the tax by its flat rate, or a percentage of the product price. In the California bill mentioned in the other thread, the tax is $50 an ounce, which is roughly 10% the retail cost, far far below the level of taxes levied against alcohol and taxes, with plenty of room for the feds to tack on their own taxes and remain below those levels.

On the other hand, the cost per unit of marijuana versus alcohol and cigarettes is already way out of proportion, so although the marijuana tax is lower in terms of percentage, you're still making a lot more tax revenue on a single sale.

[path12]

Originally Posted by molson

This is such a popular point around here and it makes zero sense. There is a HUGE network of small-time marijuana growing and distribution around the US. That's not going away overnight. You don't have that for tobacco and alchohol. Yes, the latter two are legal, but they've been that way for 80 years (or in the case of cigarettes, forever).

Well, yeah, you don't have a lot of small-time tobacco and alcohol production (except for craft microbrewing and the such).

But you do have large multi-national corporations for both.

So I guess I don't quite see your point.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by molson

This is such a popular point around here and it makes zero sense. There is a HUGE network of small-time marijuana growing and distribution around the US. That's not going away overnight. You don't have that for tobacco and alchohol. Yes, the latter two are legal, but they've been that way for 80 years (or in the case of cigarettes, forever).

And if it were profitable there would be a "HUGE network of small-time" bootleggers (as there was, once) and tobacco growers. Obviously it isn't. There's no reason to expect a difference in this particular case.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

This is such a popular point around here and it makes zero sense. There is a HUGE network of small-time marijuana growing and distribution around the US. That's not going away overnight. You don't have that for tobacco and alchohol. Yes, the latter two are legal, but they've been that way for 80 years (or in the case of cigarettes, forever).

But looking back on alcohol prohibition, wasn't there an illegal manufacturing and distribution network in place then? A lot of the manufacturing came out of the dark and into the mainstream, thus cutting off the illegal distribution network and eliminating that.

The market will determine everything. If the government taxes the hell out of it to make it more profitable to continue black market operations, the black market operations will continue. That's why I'm saying the tax may be relatively low to start with and gradually be raised. There needs to be incentive for the black market cultivation to come into the mainstream and growing new avenues of mainstream cultivation (like I said earlier, farmers will dive into this).

[Fidatelo]

You know what? I know lots of people that make their own wine or beer, but it doesn't seem to be hurting the alcohol industry or the tax generated from it.

I also don't know a single person that bootlegs moonshine anymore, or buys their cigarettes from the local smugglers, despite smokes being like 12 dollars a pack up here.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

You know what? I know lots of people that make their own wine or beer, but it doesn't seem to be hurting the alcohol industry or the tax generated from it.

I also don't know a single person that bootlegs moonshine anymore, or buys their cigarettes from the local smugglers, despite smokes being like 12 dollars a pack up here.

There are definitely bootleggers in the States (can't speak for Canada). As you said above, I don't see it having any major economic impact - but it certainly happens.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed. Big producers will usually push out the little producers out of the market. Mostly because legal selling seems to be "cleaner" in terms of you will always get what you pay for in whatever quality, etc, etc. People like to have that sort of confidence in the products they buy.

Quite right the point about tobacco as well. Even with ridiculous amounts of taxation, I don't see people saying I'm growing my own!

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by wade moore

There are definitely bootleggers in the States (can't speak for Canada). As you said above, I don't see it having any major economic impact - but it certainly happens.

I'm sure people bootleg anything and everything: video games, music, televisions, popcorn... anything. The argument is that people won't use the legal avenues of procurement for marijuana because the illegal ones are a more attractive option, and I just think that's horseshit given that it would be counter to every other product out there. I mean, even with the ridiculous ease and anonymity of online piracy (bootlegging), legal services (iTunes, amazon.com, etc) still work and are gaining huge ground.

The bottom line is that most people will do things the legal way if they can. The only people that will be growing or smuggling their own dope if it becomes legal are crackpots and hardcore enthusiasts. Why on earth would little Timmy phone up Sammy the 25 year old crackhead to try to score him some weed when he can just ask his older brother to pick some up for him at the store? Are you kidding me?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I
Why on earth would little Timmy phone up Sammy the 25 year old crackhead to try to score him some weed when he can just ask his older brother to pick some up for him at the store? Are you kidding me?

Because Sammy has the good stuff, and the store only sells watered-down government-licensed corporate stuff.

Obviously, whether the black market still flourishes depends on three thigns. Cost, availability, and quality.

1. Cost - there's differing opinions on that, but we really can have no idea how its taxed. I would guess that it would have to be taxed HUGED to ever get the support to be legal.

2. Availability - everybody's kind of assuming that it will be available at every 7/11, but I don't think that'll be the case. More likely at first, you'll need a restrictive and expensive license. Maybe we only see the stores in urban areas.

3. Quality - I'm no expert on the mechanics of marijuana, but surely there will be restrictions as to potency. The black market will specalize in the good stuff.

I'm not persuaded by the arguments comparing marijuana to alchohol and tobacco. Too different - in culture, history, and production.

The legal stuff will of course have business, but I find it odd that you make that point comparing piracy to legal music distribution. That's a pretty big ratio of illegal to legal you're using to make your point, meaning that while a lot of music is paid for, a TON of it is downloaded illegally.

[path12]

Where do you go to get greater than 3.2 beer? The still?

[molson]

Originally Posted by path12

Where do you go to get greater than 3.2 beer? The still?

It's different. Marijuana isn't alchohol.

We have a whole marijuana culture in place that's based around growing it and selling it on the street. We don't have that with beer. Just the mechanics and volume of it are more different - how much physical quantity and weight does one need of beer v. marijuana for a fun night? How are you gonna buy a case of beer from the guy on the street? Does he have a lot of pockets?

And if we're all used to 3.2 beer today, and then tomorrow, there's all new restrictions on it and all you can get is 0.5, you can bet that more people are going to be brewing their own beer and selling it. But even then, it won't have the national network that marijuana does now, because it's more difficult to make, more costly, more practically difficult to sell it any meaningful way.

Not to mention that it's a different kind of drug. Nobody's clamoring for stronger booze then what they have access too. I think the marijuana culture, which is already used to doing something illegal, is going to be looking for the "best shit". There will be a huge market for that. There will be a certain coolness factor just buying it locally as opposed to from a major tobacco company. I can see it now. The kid with the "corporate weed" will be mocked, whereas the kid who got his via Mexico via his connection will be the cool kid. 80 years from now, once everyone has grown up in a legal-marijuana society, maybe all that goes away.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

It's different. Marijuana isn't alchohol.

This is exactly why I don't think the argument that potency would be regulated holds much water.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

Because Sammy has the good stuff, and the store only sells watered-down government-licensed corporate stuff.

You're making a series of huge, baseless assumptions to say that legal weed would be watered down, or entirely corporate (cool kids wouldn't buy some organic 'additive-free' American Spirit/Newman's Own weed?). Further, you've got a lot of convoluted thought invested into the demand, and absolutely none applied to the supply. Where is Sammy getting this good stuff, now that it's legal? Why is that source still choosing to sell his high-quality superior product, 5th hand to Sammy, at a rate less than market value? Would some small time dealers continue to exist and thrive even under legal marijuana, sure, but they'd be exceptions, and even those people's best customers would likely ALSO be getting their marijuana through legal means on more than an occasional basis. You're also making another huge assumption that everybody has access to a steady dealer in the first place, which is not at all the case, plenty of people would jump at the chance not to go through a friend of a friend of a friend, or jump at the chance to buy ANYTHING depending on the circumstances. Likewise you're making a huge assumption that everybody has a dealer AND that dealer ALWAYS has access to top-shelf product, AND he's there whenever you want him. Not at all the case.

Obviously, whether the black market still flourishes depends on three thigns. Cost, availability, and quality.

1. Cost - there's differing opinions on that, but we really can have no idea how its taxed. I would guess that it would have to be taxed HUGED to ever get the support to be legal.

I think you can say with pretty good authority that it is NOT going to be taxed in such a way that would prohibit sales. Again, marijuana is not like beer or cigarettes in terms of pricepoint. You could tack a $10 tax on the sale of the typical marijuana bag, and most users wouldn't blink...especially since there is ample evidence that legalization would cause prices to drop at least that much. A $10 tax would qualify as both HUGE tax revenue, and acceptable to the consumer.

2. Availability - everybody's kind of assuming that it will be available at every 7/11, but I don't think that'll be the case. More likely at first, you'll need a restrictive and expensive license. Maybe we only see the stores in urban areas.

While I agree that it won't be available at every corner, it's ridiculous to suggest legalization would somehow cause availability to decrease.

3. Quality - I'm no expert on the mechanics of marijuana, but surely there will be restrictions as to potency. The black market will specalize in the good stuff.

I highly doubt there will be restrictions as to potency. You're can't OD on marijuana in the conventional sense of the word, you're not going to die from marijuana poisoning, so I'd be suprised to see those kind of regulations. For whatever it's worth, I don't think any of the current state medical programs bother to even track/test/note potency, and without that precedent even under the auspices of medical use, I'd be surprised to see it implemented for recreational use.

The legal stuff will of course have business, but I find it odd that you make that point comparing piracy to legal music distribution. That's a pretty big ratio of illegal to legal you're using to make your point, meaning that while a lot of music is paid for, a TON of it is downloaded illegally.

I think the point stands that there is room for TONS of financial benefit, even if there does remain a substantial black market (and you're right that those things aren't going to simply disappear overnight). The California example stands up pretty well, without any analogies. California has always been a pot state, with a massive underground network, and even with their now loose definition of 'medicinal' plenty of thousands of people in California choose to still go the traditional underground route....but plenty of hundreds of thousands of people also choose to buy from the dispensaries, even choosing to pay a premium (they've all paid several hundreds of dollars for a 'diagnosis' and the card), and those dispensaries make money hand over first, even with California's decades old underground weed network (and until things get legalized, WITH the underground weed network).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Huh?

This is just Arizona, but between 2000 and 2006 the zero tolerance "drugged driving" law was put in place, as well as an increase in fines for possession of under 2 pounds (up to 150K now).

That is a fundamentally flawed assumption. Just about any and all models of legalization will tell you the price of marijuana is likely to drop with legalization.

The problem with pot is the options available. There are going to be quality constraints and health restrictions on the legal stuff that black market people don't have to adhere to. Add in taxes and the legal stuff will end up costing in the mid-range (as a guess). Well, kids aren't going to have $200 to blow on pot so they will look for cheaper options (which most dealers will be more than happy to supply).

So, in regards to kids, I don't see the cost impact. I can see an availability impact for some who don't have access to dealers, but most kids who smoke now don't pay a lot for their pot (and it's normally not great quality).

The proposed taxes are not doubling or tripling the price, and are less than that of beer or cigarettes. Look at it from the other end, why is a wholeseller going to sell to some sketchy street dealer for a reduced rate, and let it trickle down through the street networks, when he could likely sell it to the government in bulk, at their own convenience, and actually likely make MORE money since it's going through far less hands?

The networks are already there and they are not going away over night. Now, over 5-10 years, I could see the black market taking a hit as pot becomes more mainstream and cheaper legal options appear. Initially, the only difference I see is that pot is now legitimized as a party option to kids and that many kids with cash will have better access to pot than they probably did before.

And I've brought it up in the other marijuana thread, but I think non-users are making a stretch to equate shopping at a store, with going to your local dealer. Your local dealer is not always conveniently located, doesn't always answer the phone on your schedule, doesn't necessarily give you full weight of whatever you pay for, does not necessarily always have top quality product, and does not always have a variety of products. If you can offer just one of those things consistently, people would flock to you

This is my point. If you have a good dealer, odds are you won't change to get marginal quality "legal" stuff. If you don't have access to a dealer, you will be more apt to try it if it's legal. It's almost the worst of both worlds. Poor kids will continue to use and pay $20 for their cheap stash. Middle/upper middle income kids who hadn't been exposed to pot will now have more options to try it. And, if they like it, they will start seeking out higher quality or lower cost options on the street if they have means.

If buying marijuana at a dispensary would be akin to buying cigarettes at a 7-11, then buying from a dealer is akin to buying cigarettes from a dude on the street, except he's only got one pack of Pall Malls, and one pack of Camel Menthols, and when he shows them to you, they're both open, crumpled up in a wad and several cigarettes have already been removed, then after you buy them, he expects you to give him a couple more for the road, and hang out at his house for a couple hours. The suggestion that stoners would prefer the latter to the former is ridiculous to anybody who actually goes through the process on a regular basis.

Right now, people drive 40 minutes in Arizona to Indian Reservations to save the tax money on cigarette purchases. If there was a similar setup (or even a "Black Market" for smokes) in other states, I'm pretty sure people would flock to that as well. The network isn't there for cigs and booze like pot. If it did exist and people could pay less or get better quality smokes, human nature would be for many people to use it.

I don't think the smokes/booze situation is a good parallel to pot. I think gun use is a better comparison. There is a huge black market for guns (despite many being legal) because of the red tape involved in obtaining guns or even getting "higher quality guns" (ie, assault rifles). I see the same situation happening with pot. You'll have your "shotgun/handgun" pot in stores with cheaper models available on the street - as well as the "automatic rifle" quality stuff that stores won't be able to sell due to health restrictions.

[thesloppy]

For the record, this is what a dispensary looks like:

http://www.change.org/photos/wordpre...dispensary.jpg
Tell me again why I'm choosing to go to Jimmy's house? The fact that I don't know where he got it? The fact that I don't know how much it weighs? The fact that he might/might not be there when I want him? The fact that I don't have any idea about the quality? The fact that he'll have way less variety, if any? The fact that I have to hang out at his house with his friends for two hours?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

This thread is like listening to old white Republicans discuss rap music.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by molson

The legal stuff will of course have business, but I find it odd that you make that point comparing piracy to legal music distribution. That's a pretty big ratio of illegal to legal you're using to make your point, meaning that while a lot of music is paid for, a TON of it is downloaded illegally.

Consider these points regarding downloading music:

- Aside from computer/internet costs, it is 100% free.
- Unless you are a 'dealer', you are 99.9999% guaranteed to never be caught.
- You don't have to know anyone, or deal directly with a single person. Ever.
- You are totally anonymous.

Buying weed from some smuggler would:

- Not be free. *Maybe* cheaper, but certainly not free.
- Users get caught in stings all the time. Not fun.
- Unless you want to be the idiot in the sting above, you need to know some connections, deal with some unsavory types, etc.
- You are not anonymous, drug dealers now know your face, maybe your name and cell phone number, who knows what else depending on how closely you tie in with them.

Now, despite the massively safer and easier access to free music, millions of people still buy songs off iTunes. And more people are doing it every day. Given the comparison above, I think it's safe to say that the marijuana story would be much, much better right off the bat, never mind as time goes on.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

For the record, this is what a dispensary looks like:

http://www.change.org/photos/wordpre...dispensary.jpg
Tell me again why I'm choosing to go to Jimmy's house? The fact that I don't know where he got it? The fact that I don't know how much it weighs? The fact that he might/might not be there when I want him? The fact that I don't have any idea about the quality? The fact that he'll have way less variety, if any? The fact that I have to hang out at his house with his friends for two hours?

1. You bought from Jimmy for years, he's not a stranger.
2. His stuff is better
3. You hate corporations
4. Because of local zoning laws, he's open at 2AM and the store isn't
5. He doesn't charge taxes
6. His stuff is direct from Mexico. The stuff at the store is from a nameless, evil corporation and they use fertilizer, hormones, and are destroying the genetic diversity of bananas.
7. His stuff is considered "cooler" in the druggie crowd.

Those are just a couple of reasons. I understand Europe, but like I've been saying in the healthcare threads, this ain't Europe, and the federal government DEFINITELY ain't a small European government. Again, in a few decades, a lot of those reasons go away, but there will still be a black market for a while.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

There is a huge black market for guns (despite many being legal) because of the red tape involved in obtaining guns or even getting "higher quality guns" (ie, assault rifles). I see the same situation happening with pot. You'll have your "shotgun/handgun" pot in stores with cheaper models available on the street - as well as the "automatic rifle" quality stuff that stores won't be able to sell due to health restrictions.

I appreciate your concern for kids and drugs, and I think that is definitely one of the thornier issues of legalization. More availability in general, naturally means more availability to kids, and I certainly wouldn't advocate ignoring that issue. I guess the easy answer is to say I'd push for more education, and instead of separating those drug and alcohol figures, toss them together, and try to address and reduce kid drug & alcohol abuse as one topic, which is easier said than done of course.

I still think it's a huge jump to assume that all legal weed will be less potent. Again, that's certainly not the case in California medical system, or in the Netherlands, and those are the only real precedents for sanctioned marijuana sales that we have.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

I understand Europe, but like I've been saying in the healthcare threads, this ain't Europe, and the federal government DEFINITELY ain't a small European government. Again, in a few decades, a lot of those reasons go away, but there will still be a black market for a while.

PSSST! That picture is from California.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

PSSST! That picture is from California.

None of my point was based on what the picture looked like - I didn't even open it.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

None of my point was based on what the picture looked like - I didn't even open it.

Awesome, I think I'll be taking that approach with your argument as well from now on.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Awesome, I think I'll be taking that approach with your argument as well from now on.

LOL, I think this is a good future tactic to take as well .

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by molson

1. You bought from Jimmy for years, he's not a stranger.
2. His stuff is better
3. You hate corporations
4. Because of local zoning laws, he's open at 2AM and the store isn't
5. He doesn't charge taxes
6. His stuff is direct from Mexico. The stuff at the store is from a nameless, evil corporation and they use fertilizer, hormones, and are destroying the genetic diversity of bananas.
7. His stuff is considered "cooler" in the druggie crowd.

Those are just a couple of reasons. I understand Europe, but like I've been saying in the healthcare threads, this ain't Europe, and the federal government DEFINITELY ain't a small European government. Again, in a few decades, a lot of those reasons go away, but there will still be a black market for a while.

1. Jimmy was my only decent option in the illegal world, now I am not restricted to Jimmy.
2. Not if Jimmy is in California where the medical stuff is said to be pretty damn good, and I would assume the same across the nation if legalized. (If you can assume, so can I).
3. I also buy my energy, food, and other essentials from them, so I don't really give a shit when I can buy weed with no concerns. How many major corporations jump in on this from day one anyways?
4. Dammit, he won't answer his phone at 2:00 A.M. 5 days of the week. Guess I will stop by the store in the morning when they open at 9.
5. But it costs about the same, and it's much easier to go get so it's worth it even if it is a little more.
6. The Mexicans love to use pesticides and other chemicals, and they grow a lot of it in this country already. I find this arguement horrible.
7. You are that intune with the "druggie crowd" to know they think his stuff is cooler? Sounds like a stretch to me.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Mexican weed is terrible.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Awesome, I think I'll be taking that approach with your argument as well from now on.

You have a really douchey tone, you should work on that.

I don't even know what your argument is - are you saying that every single marijuana sale in the U.S. will be legal the day after the drug is legalized?

[thesloppy]

Yeah, the whole Mexican weed example is NOT doing you any favors.

[molson]

I don't know where the "good" weed is - Mexico was a bad example.

I'm just saying that not everyone is going to want to buy their weed from RJ Reynolds. Some, SOME, SOME, SOME, SOME will still buy locally, outside the sphere of federal regulations and taxes. At least for a while.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

You have a really douchey tone, you should work on that.

I have. It works as intended.

I don't even know what your argument is - are you saying that every single marijuana sale in the U.S. will be legal the day after the drug is legalized?

Yup. Way to put it together.

[Danny]

I would not. I understand the negative effects of marijuana tend to be less than or similar in impact to alcohol in many research studies and I do drink socially occasionally. If both were legal I don't think it would be more against my spiritual or moral beliefs to do so, but there is still that mental stigma because it was illegal. That gives it a socialization factor. I've also never been drunk and don't like things that interfere with my personality or my ability to think. I've never done pot, but as far as I know if you do pot, you will get stoned, so it's not like alcohol where you can have a beer or fruity drink and have no effect from it. I also can't stand smoke like stuff in my lungs. I've never smoked a cigarette and I even hate incense.