NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard this on NPR today and found it really didn't surprise me all that much.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6193073.stm

"Marijuana 'top cash crop in US'

The report says 10,000 metric tons of marijuana are grown in the US
Marijuana is the top cash crop in the US, a report released on Monday says.
It says that despite intensive eradication plans, $35bn (£18bn) worth of the illegal drug is produced a year - more than corn and wheat combined.

The study was prepared by Jon Gettman, a public policy analyst who advocates reform of US marijuana laws.

Activists seeking the decriminalisation of the substance, say the report backs the need for change, a position rejected by government officials.

'Inherently harmful'

Using government reports, Mr Gettman estimates that 10,000 metric tons of marijuana are produced annually in the country.

"Marijuana has become a pervasive and ineradicable part of the economy of the United States," Mr Gettman - who has in the past campaigned for marijuana to be removed from a list of drugs considered to have no medical value - says in his report.

"The focus of public policy should be how to effectively control this market through regulation and taxation in order to achieve immediate and realistic goals, such as reducing teenage access."

The report was welcomed by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), which said it showed that "marijuana laws are a complete failure".

"Our nation's laws guarantee that 100% of the proceeds from marijuana sales go to unregulated criminals rather that to legitimate businesses that pay taxes to support schools, police and roads," said MPP executive director Rob Kampia.

But Tom Riley, a spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, rejected any economic arguments for legalising marijuana saying marijuana use was an "inherently harmful activity".

Tom Riley can reject all he want, but I think it still makes economic sense.

Legalise. Prohibition makes little sense, and clearly isn't doing anything that it was intended to do.

It'll never happen. The lumber and tobacco lobbies are simply too strong. *nod*

It'll never happen. The lumber and tobacco lobbies are simply too strong. *nod*

It's legal in California and even though that doesn't supercede fed law they don't appear to be interfering much. I know a few people with perscriptions - noe of whom need them and noen of whome are older than 30 - and they all seem to be getting their perscriptions filled and local cops honor the prescription card if you get caught with it.


...and tobacco companies already have their packaging designed. have for decades. :)

It's like in Afghanistan where the farmers don't bother growing wheat because they can only subsist if they grow opium.

...and tobacco companies already have their packaging designed. have for decades. :)

If/when legalization happens, I'll buy a pack of the Phillip Morris one's, not gonna smoke 'em, but just having 'em would be cool.

Well, it does have some medical value, bit in the end it is more harmful to the consumer than should be lawful. So, I feel it is good to outlaw it, and it is no suprise that it is worth more than wheat and corn, which are two of the most cheapest plants on the market.

Meaning, I want to see how it stacks against things like tobacco and wine grapes.

Not that the money being made is having a good purpose in the hands of criminals, it still seems to me that having legit buisnesses have control of a narcotic is interesting-

Mainly, it is my morals that things that detract from the health of someone as badly as narcotics should be able to be boughten just like that *snaps fingers*.

I am usualy in full support for a liberal market, but there is a time when not everything should be avaliable to anyone.

Also, when/if legalization occurs, the total value of the marijuana would plummet, as it would no longer be held sky-high by non-market forces.

What happened to the good old days when tobacco was the major cash crop in the US? Since then, we have become addicted to harder and harder drugs and become less "addicted" to religion.

Also, when/if legalization occurs, the total value of the marijuana would plummet, as it would no longer be held sky-high by non-market forces.

Hadn't thought of that. I'm not so sure it would decrease dramatically, however, as the line of products produced from Marijuana would increase, as also would demand.

Hadn't thought of that. I'm not so sure it would decrease dramatically, however, as the line of products produced from Marijuana would increase, as also would demand.

Black markets, though, almost universally operate at a much higher value than normal markets.

What happened to the good old days when tobacco was the major cash crop in the US? Since then, we have become addicted to harder and harder drugs and become less "addicted" to religion.

Wait... tobacco equals religion?

That's a new one. I mean, I know smoking plays a part in some religions, but I've never seen the two as a direct equivilant.

Is that what you were trying to say? That tobacco equals religion? I can't really think why else you would even bring religion up, especially after bringing tobacco up.

It'll never happen. The lumber and tobacco lobbies are simply too strong. *nod*

Lumber?

It's a terrible thing that the US produces that much marijuana.

It's cutting into our exports. British Columbia alone produces $10 billion worth each year - that makes it not only their biggest crop, but biggest industry of any sort (surpassing both tourism and forestry). If you guys keep growing your own, you won't want ours.

actually would it not increase in value? the crop that is. Smoking marijuana is only a part of it if it was legalised. Hemp paper is supposedly superior to normal paper, and makes very effective high quality ropes aswell.

Would'nt need to cut down forests down such, so also beneficial to the environment. seems like a win win to me

What happened to the good old days when tobacco was the major cash crop in the US? Since then, we have become addicted to harder and harder drugs and become less "addicted" to religion.

well that makes sense. everyone smoked cancer sticks and were good and religious (well taking something that can kill you probably does that). now they're taking something that cause mellowness and bliss and what happens? less religious.

Lumber?

In the early 20th century, a process was developed that made the production of paper from hemp cheaper than that from wood. The lumber industry didn't like that, so they pushed Congress to have marijuana illegalised.

Lumber?

Lumber. They're one of the big reasons it's illegal in the first place. Marijuana and it's illegal cousin, hemp make considerably better paper and numerous other products with far less resources and far less re-useable land than trees do. *nod*

In the early 20th century, a process was developed that made the production of paper from hemp cheaper than that from wood. The lumber industry didn't like that, so they pushed Congress to have marijuana illegalised.

Bah. Kind of makes you wonder "what if?" doesn't it?

In the early 20th century, a process was developed that made the production of paper from hemp cheaper than that from wood. The lumber industry didn't like that, so they pushed Congress to have marijuana illegalised.

BLAST! :mad:

:p

:eek: Thats one "weedy" economy you got going on the other side of the pond.

It's a terrible thing that the US produces that much marijuana.

It's cutting into our exports. British Columbia alone produces $10 billion worth each year - that makes it not only their biggest crop, but biggest industry of any sort (surpassing both tourism and forestry). If you guys keep growing your own, you won't want ours.

Just can't stand being second best, eh? ;)

j/k :P

The price is artificially high, but not by all that much. Just like demand – it wouldn’t change much because it is so pervasive and easily available. Anyone can get it anywhere with a minimum of difficulty.

As far as the argument for legalization that hemp makes great rope/paper/whatever – it is complete bullshit. There are many hemp plants that are identical to marijuana in every way except for the THC content (the chemical that gets you high) and are thus perfectly legal.

Being considerably less harmful than tobacco, I do not see any reason why it should be illegal. If you want to argue about health reasons you should be spending much more time trying to ban tobacco.

The only thing prohibition did was to make sure a lot of money could be made by criminals, encouraging large illegal corporations (that’s what organized crime is when you get right down to it) rather than legit corporations who pay taxes and follow regulations.

BTW, I personally do not use any recreational drug and believe it is a foolish thing to do. I will however fight to defend your right to make your own choices.

actually would it not increase in value? the crop that is. Smoking marijuana is only a part of it if it was legalised. Hemp paper is supposedly superior to normal paper, and makes very effective high quality ropes aswell.

Would'nt need to cut down forests down such, so also beneficial to the environment. seems like a win win to meAnd it regrows much more quickly. Takes a lot longer for a decent sized tree to grow than a pot plant.

Lumber. They're one of the big reasons it's illegal in the first place. Marijuana and it's illegal cousin, hemp make considerably better paper and numerous other products with far less resources and far less re-useable land than trees do. *nod*And the oil companies. Hemp make a quality lubricant and has a lot of industrial uses now done by petro products.

Actually, there's emeging evidence that cannabinoids have great potential in the fight to cure cancer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/armentano-p1.html) as well. Why it remains illegal is betond reason at this point.

The US government uses hemp paper in money. It can't be that illegal.

i wonder - are there any countries whose 10 biggest industries don't contain illegal drugs, sex, or guns in some form?

i wonder - are there any countries whose 10 biggest industries don't contain illegal drugs, sex, or guns in some form?

The Vatican, maybe?

The short answer is likely, no. The sex trade is both the oldest, and most lucrative in the world. No way that isn't somehow a large part of every country in the world.

i wonder - are there any countries whose 10 biggest industries don't contain illegal drugs, sex, or guns in some form?Sex, violence and altering the consciousness have been mans favorite things since before fire was discovered. Will never change. They are fundamental to the species.

What happened to the good old days when tobacco was the major cash crop in the US? Since then, we have become addicted to harder and harder drugs and become less "addicted" to religion.

What does religion have to do with this topic? Also marijuana is not a hard drug. There is no need for it to be illegal.

actually would it not increase in value? the crop that is. Smoking marijuana is only a part of it if it was legalised. Hemp paper is supposedly superior to normal paper, and makes very effective high quality ropes aswell.


Of course, hemp itself is not banned, and is used for multiple things.

i wonder - are there any countries whose 10 biggest industries don't contain illegal drugs, sex, or guns in some form?

Crime is lucrative.

That's why I'm a bootlegger.

The vastly different levels of taxation on otherwise legal products often encourages rampant smuggling.

Tobacco into Ontario (from the US).

Liquor into British Columbia (from Alberta).

When will governments learn?

The vastly different levels of taxation on otherwise legal products often encourages rampant smuggling.

Tobacco into Ontario (from the US).

Liquor into British Columbia (from Alberta).

When will governments learn?We learn from history that we do not learn from history.

Crime is lucrative.

That's why I'm a bootlegger.Well, duh, otherwise it wouldn't be a crime... no... wait... Is it lucrative because it is a crime or is it a crime because it is lucrative... :confused:

We learn from history that we do not learn from history.

:p

going to have to sig this

Tom Riley, the public personality for the CTA - Central Tightwad Agency.

The vastly different levels of taxation on otherwise legal products often encourages rampant smuggling.

Tobacco into Ontario (from the US).

Liquor into British Columbia (from Alberta).

When will governments learn?

Unapproved OTC drugs into the US from Mexico.

It's a terrible thing that the US produces that much marijuana.

It's cutting into our exports. British Columbia alone produces $10 billion worth each year - that makes it not only their biggest crop, but biggest industry of any sort (surpassing both tourism and forestry). If you guys keep growing your own, you won't want ours.

American weed is superior IMO. The stuff I've seen from Canada has been really low quality.

Lumber. They're one of the big reasons it's illegal in the first place. Marijuana and it's illegal cousin, hemp make considerably better paper and numerous other products with far less resources and far less re-useable land than trees do. *nod*
I thought the illegality was pushed by the company who invented nylon. Hemp rope is stronger and more durable than nylon.
Only way they could see to get rid of it was by making mj illegal, and hemp by default.


I can't quite understand why the Lumber industry would be so against hemp.
You can get up to 3 crops a year from hemp - as opposed to 1 every 25-35 years for pine trees.
This would mean faster turnover and better cashflow for said companies.

Also Hemp adds nitrogen to the soil whereas pine trees deplete the soil of pretty much every nutrient and suck up 000's of gallons of water. Pine leaves are very acidic, which kills off any other plants - that's why a Pine forest floor is so devoid of flora. Only thing that can survive are gorse seeds. As soon as the pine trees are cut down, gorse sprouts up.
All of which means forestry companies have to spend a fortune on fertilizers and herbicides - things they wouldn't need to do with Hemp.

Well, duh, otherwise it wouldn't be a crime... no... wait... Is it lucrative because it is a crime or is it a crime because it is lucrative... :confused:

Lucrative because it's illegal.

I can sell Cerveza at half the price of Corona, at a higher quality, and make a tidy profit.

American weed is superior IMO. The stuff I've seen from Canada has been really low quality.

There are some truly beautiful stalks of marijuana on the interstates going through Arkansas. And I mean beautiful as in over ten feet high. With full buds.

American weed better than Canadian? Maybe, but really now.. it's the particular breed that makes it or breaks it. If you want weed that grows insanely tall the Aussies have also got you covered. Man it was a forest... a wonderful, magical, mystical, amazing forest.

At any rate, I've heard that you can legally grow up to 24 plants on your property in Alaska. I don't have the interest in checking as I live on the other side of the continent in Canada, but if so I am ridiculously jealous of Alaskans.

Where I am growing even one plant is a criminal offence punishable by prison time. Oh well... *whistles*

What happened to the good old days when tobacco was the major cash crop in the US? Since then, we have become addicted to harder and harder drugs and become less "addicted" to religion.
Hahaha

Marijuana is a hard drug?!

Marijuana is a harder drug than tobacco?!

Seriously, get your facts straight, tylenol is a harder drug than pot.

American weed is superior IMO. The stuff I've seen from Canada has been really low quality.
Yes, which is why BC pot has won several awards at the competitions in Amsterdam over the years...

The US government needs to make a choice. Ban all drugs or stop socializing healthcare. Their is no middle ground or we lose as a people.

Yes, which is why BC pot has won several awards at the competitions in Amsterdam over the years...

I think it's a supply problem. For some reason normal markets don't operate in this case, so people might not be able to get BCs finest.

your addictions to pot, cigarettes, alcohol, and many other drugs are not my problem until I have to pay for them. Since I live in the USA I am increasingly being forced to have my tax money used for others' medical bills. For that reason I am taking the position that all drugs should be banned. This frees up a lot of money for the economy (across the nation as well as in my own wallet).

your addictions to pot, cigarettes, alcohol, and many other drugs are not my problem until I have to pay for them. Since I live in the USA I am increasingly being forced to have my tax money used for others' medical bills. For that reason I am taking the position that all drugs should be banned. This frees up a lot of money for the economy (across the nation as well as in my own wallet).

If you regulate them you can tax them. Maybe even to an extent that some of that money can be used to, say, pay for pamphlets promoting abstinence, or lowering insurance premiums.

I can't quite understand why the Lumber industry would be so against hemp.
You can get up to 3 crops a year from hemp - as opposed to 1 every 25-35 years for pine trees.
This would mean faster turnover and better cashflow for said companies.

Also Hemp adds nitrogen to the soil whereas pine trees deplete the soil of pretty much every nutrient and suck up 000's of gallons of water. Pine leaves are very acidic, which kills off any other plants - that's why a Pine forest floor is so devoid of flora. Only thing that can survive are gorse seeds. As soon as the pine trees are cut down, gorse sprouts up.
All of which means forestry companies have to spend a fortune on fertilizers and herbicides - things they wouldn't need to do with Hemp.
That is exactly why they push for illegality. They were in the lumber industry, not hemp. The hemp market already had its players, and to switch one would have to start over with hemp which would be costly.

If you regulate them you can tax them. Maybe even to an extent that some of that money can be used to, say, pay for pamphlets promoting abstinence, or lowering insurance premiums.

But we have already tried that with tobacco and we are still down the hole by billions of dollars per year (never mind lives). None of these drugs has anything positive to offer society but promotion of debt, sloth, and ill health.

But we have already tried that with tobacco and we are still down the hole by billions of dollars per year (never mind lives). None of these drugs has anything positive to offer society but promotion of debt, sloth, and ill health.

Because you haven't taxed it enough. Tobacco is still pretty cheap in the US, that's why so much gets smuggled into Canada, so there's lots of room for taxes still.

Sure, smokers will complain, but they'll end buying the stuff anyway, that's why they're addicts. Maybe they'll have to work harder to pay for their addiction, that should take care of the slothness.

But we have already tried that with tobacco and we are still down the hole by billions of dollars per year (never mind lives). None of these drugs has anything positive to offer society but promotion of debt, sloth, and ill health.

Nothing to offer? Are you on crack? They can be incredible fun. If that isn't something that should be offered to society than XBOXes and TVs and toys should allbe banned too.

Because you haven't taxed it enough. Tobacco is still pretty cheap in the US, that's why so much gets smuggled into Canada, so there's lots of room for taxes still.

Sure, smokers will complain, but they'll end buying the stuff anyway, that's why they're addicts. Maybe they'll have to work harder to pay for their addiction, that should take care of the slothness.

I just do not believe in the concept of hurting the entire economy (by heavily taxing a group in the population) to take that money and redirect it to the very same problem that caused the money to be taken in the first place. Make it illegal and none of this is a problem. My adopted home state of NY is heading in the right direction on this.

Yes, which is why BC pot has won several awards at the competitions in Amsterdam over the years...

I'm speaking from personal experience. The stuff we get down here from out of country (Mexico and Canada) is really shite. It's basically shwag sprayed with all kinds of nasty shit to confuse drug dogs and packed into bricks.

Nothing to offer? Are you on crack? They can be incredible fun. If that isn't something that should be offered to society than XBOXes and TVs and toys should allbe banned too.

XBOXes do not cost tax payers billions of dollars in medical bills. TV's do not cause cancer. Toys do not (usually) cause car crashes, homeless addicts, or murder unless you are out trying to find a new wii for your little brother (:

I am not banning anything because it is fun. I am banning it because it so often ends up not being so fun. Economic ruin, mass death, and a degraded society is what all types of drugs leave in their wake. Ever see Requiem of a dream? I have. Ever stepped over a stoned addict living on the streets of Manhattan, amide the splender of a city that could be theirs for the taking if it wasnt for a drug? I do almost every day. Ever worked in a hospital where elderly patients have goo suctioned out of their jaw-less necks while horrified family weep for what they have lost to tobacco? I have. Oh but its fun! Right.

your addictions to pot, cigarettes, alcohol, and many other drugs are not my problem until I have to pay for them. Since I live in the USA I am increasingly being forced to have my tax money used for others' medical bills. For that reason I am taking the position that all drugs should be banned. This frees up a lot of money for the economy (across the nation as well as in my own wallet).

How are you forced to pay my medical bills? The good people at Aetna Medical Care take care of that for me.

All that potential tax revenue...wasted.


And America calls itself "capitalist". :rolleyes:

How are you forced to pay my medical bills? The good people at Aetna Medical Care take care of that for me.

Insurance rates. And after 2008 Hillarycare (oh my!).

All that potential tax revenue...wasted.


And America calls itself "capitalist". :rolleyes:

You are not getting it. Just because somthing yields tax revenue does not mean it is good. Many horrible things would yield billions in tax revenue but we do not try it. Your point is irrelevant. Many things matter more to the USA then capital.

Make it illegal and none of this is a problem.
Its illegal here and about as easy to get as food.

Insurance rates. And after 2008 Hillarycare (oh my!).

Hillarycare? What are you on about?

Its illegal here and about as easy to get as food.

Well I don't care. I just don't want to have to pay for it with my insurance.

your addictions to pot, cigarettes, alcohol, and many other drugs are not my problem until I have to pay for them. Since I live in the USA I am increasingly being forced to have my tax money used for others' medical bills. For that reason I am taking the position that all drugs should be banned.

The interesting thing is they are banned, yet that doesn't stop use. It does however ensure that the trade thereof is entirely in the black market, and thus funds crime. Meanwhile, the lack of tax revenue from them being illegal means there is less funding for either the police to fight [real] crime, or for paying for your healthcare when you choke on a chicken bone.

Also, since you might choke on a chicken bone, I don't want to have to pay for it. Therefore chicken should be banned! ;)

Thanks. That was fun. Let me know if you want to make any more anti-capitalist, anti-American arguments that I can laugh at.

Hillarycare? What are you on about?

My taxes going to pay for the medical bills of others. If you are old enough you might remember when she tried to push it in 93' and 94'. Complete and utter failure.

The interesting thing is they are banned, yet that doesn't stop use. It does however ensure that the trade thereof is entirely in the black market, and thus funds crime. Meanwhile, the lack of tax revenue from them being illegal means there is less funding for either the police to fight [real] crime, or for paying for your healthcare when you choke on a chicken bone.

Also, since you might choke on a chicken bone, I don't want to have to pay for it. Therefore chicken should be banned! ;)



Now you are comparing the cost and level of choking incidents to that of drug use as a sum total? Talk about a horrific and off base comparison. Their is none. I dont care, let the police and military blow up the stupid black market's boats. Or not! I don't care. As long as I do not have to pay for it.

You are not getting it. Just because somthing yields tax revenue does not mean it is good. Many horrible things would yield billions in tax revenue but we do not try it. Your point is irrelevant. Many things matter more to the USA then capital.

Yet your argument against it is based on capital spent on health care?
Wierd sort of arguement

My taxes going to pay for the medical bills of others. If you are old enough you might remember when she tried to push it in 93' and 94'. Complete and utter failure.

You're referring to socialized health care? I highly doubt we'll ever see a nationwide health care system in the US if thats what you're talking about. Even with a Democrat in the Whitehouse, and a Democratic Congress it would be too difficult to implement not to mention theres plenty of opposition to it.

Yet your argument against it is based on capital spent on health care?
Wierd sort of arguement

Right. We have a clear choice to make. If we continue to socialize health care we ban all recreational drug use.

You're referring to socialized health care? I highly doubt we'll ever see a nationwide health care system in the US if thats what you're talking about. Even with a Democrat in the Whitehouse, and a Democratic Congress it would be too difficult to implement not to mention theres plenty of opposition to it.

But like anything where that is the case......we will get a half assed version. I already resent insurance being what it is without the government messing with it (especially on the federal level).

You are not getting it.

Oh I get it.

Just because somthing yields tax revenue does not mean it is good.

Tobacco and Alcohol being good examples.

Many horrible things would yield billions in tax revenue but we do not try it.

True enough, but I think legalizing marijuana would rank pretty fucking low on the "horrible" scale.

Your point is irrelevant.

You have yet to make any statement that would refute my own. You fail.

Many things matter more to the USA then capital.

We're bitching constantly about money in this country, from the poorest migrant to the richest CEO, and you say there are things that matter more to the US as a whole.

I find your statement laughable.

Speaking of money...how about all the money we would save from...

A. Releasing all non-violent marijuana offenders from prison
B. Redirecting current police funding from marijuana law enforcement to the enforcement of laws regarding harder drugs that ACTUALLY KILL PEOPLE (cocaine, heroin, etc.)

Also, while drug use may not be good, it is far better than continuing to waste taxpayer money, and the time and effort of our law enforcement officials on failed policies that have NO chance of ever achieving their intended aims.

I fail to see how anyone can stand by the old "sin" and "health" arguments against drugs anymore. Even if one acknowledges the validity of these arguments, there is simply NO WAY that the drug policy of this or any country will elimnate, or even verifiably reduce the level of drug use.

Must we beat this dead horse till our stick breaks???

Right. We have a clear choice to make. If we continue to socialize health care we ban all recreational drug use.

But do the costs outweigh the taxable income? if so there would be a net capital gain even if some health risks were imposed

But in the end we cant just outright block things for health reasons ... There would be a tone of already legal non drug things that would have to go on the chopping block ... I dont think you could get people to buy into that

But in the end we cant just outright block things for health reasons ... There would be a tone of already legal non drug things that would have to go on the chopping block ... I dont think you could get people to buy into that

I know. Which is why we cannot socialize healthcare.

Right. We have a clear choice to make. If we continue to socialize health care we ban all recreational drug use.

Funny. In my country we have health care, yet we are far closer to legalizing drugs than you.

Nobody can argue that recreational drugs are a positive for society. Imagine if all of the money spent hurting people's health, family, and work went towards more noble endevours.

Funny. In my country we have health care, yet we are far closer to legalizing drugs than you.

Funny. In my country we have healthcare too.

Funny. In my country we have healthcare too.

No you don't. You have health don't care.

How are you forced to pay my medical bills? The good people at Aetna Medical Care take care of that for me.

The US taxpayer pays the medical bills of many people.
We spend billions of dollars on healthcare for the poor, so yes, my tax dollars go to pay for the hospital bills of some drug addict. Not to mention the direct cost to me is vastly inflated because the hospital has to make up the cost when someone without the means to pay gets treated (the hospital has to give care to the best of its ability, so if someone cannot pay, that bill is divvied up among the other patients).

So right there you have 2 direct ways of how my dollars are being spend on other people’s poor health choices. Not to mention to knock-on effects of increased crime due to drug addiction.

That being said… I fully support the total decriminalization of everything so long as the individual alone has to pay the cost of their choices. As soon as I have to pay out for his bills, his choices become my problem.

Nobody can argue that recreational drugs are a positive for society.
In moderation they can be. Regulating its use it would make it easier to prevent and treat abuse.

Imagine if all of the money spent hurting people's health, family, and work went towards more noble endevours.

There is always a more noble endeavor. We could be doing something productive right now, yet here we are, arguing uselessly on the internet.

No you don't. You have health don't care.

I worked in a hospital for 4 years I am pretty sure we have healthcare. Not everybody has insurance.....but I assure you we have plenty of healthcare.

I live in the biggest pot growing state in the USA ..Kentucky you'd think the stuff would settle the growers down and keep them mellow ..heck no they'll shoot ya if you accidently walk into there crops ...:sniper:

In moderation they can be. Regulating its use it would make it easier to prevent and treat abuse.



There is always a more noble endeavor. We could be doing something productive right now, yet here we are, arguing uselessly on the internet.

I don't think you are following me. It is probably my fault. Regulating cigarettes and alcohol has not solved the problems that they create...it has only served to make people like me responsible in a monatary sense for the misfortunes (government sponsered misfortunes) of others. As far as noble endeavours go....I think this is. I am sharpening my skills for future runs for office. (:

I don't think you are following me. It is probably my fault. Regulating cigarettes and alcohol has not solved the problems that they create...it has only served to make people like me responsible in a monatary sense for the misfortunes (government sponsered misfortunes) of others. As far as noble endeavours go....I think this is. I am sharpening my skills for future runs for office. (:

Of course it hasn't. Prohibition hasn't worked either. In fact, nothing can solve the problems they cause. You can only manage them and both prohibition and total legalization are too blunt to allow for any fine management. That's why I propose regulation, that would allow you to more finely control the problems they cause, invest more wisely and apply costs more fairly.

Of course it hasn't. Prohibition hasn't worked either. In fact, nothing can solve the problems they cause. You can only manage them and both prohibition and total legalization are too blunt to allow for any fine management. That's why I propose regulation, that would allow you to more finely control the problems they cause, invest more wisely and apply costs more fairly.

It works when it is enforced properly.

It works when it is enforced properly.

American History disagrees with you. Unless you're sugesting executing all drug offenders?

I worked in a hospital for 4 years I am pretty sure we have healthcare. Not everybody has insurance.....but I assure you we have plenty of healthcare.

Well you see, in my dialect of English, you don't have health care unless the government gives away health insurance to everyone.

It works when it is enforced properly.

And how many more of your tax dollars will have to be used for that?

Well you see, in my dialect of English, you don't have health care unless the government gives away health insurance to everyone.

Well that makes no sense at all to me. Sorry but your dialect is a fairly recent invention and your definition is not backed up by the one in the dictionary.

And how many more of your tax dollars will have to be used for that?

As many as is cost benefit effective.

As many as is cost benefit effective.

Regulation is much more cost-benefit effective than trying to enforce prohibition. You are complaining about having to pay the medical bills of these people, just wait when you get the bill for trying to stamp them out.

Well that makes no sense at all to me. Sorry but your dialect is a fairly recent invention and your definition is not backed up by the one in the dictionary.

When Canadians say health care, they mean a fully publicized health care system. Many Americans use it this way too (John Stewart comes to mind).

Regulation is much more cost-benefit effective than trying to enforce prohibition. You are complaining about having to pay the medical bills of these people, just wait when you get the bill for trying to stamp them out.

I see no reason to step up enforcement. Just keep them illegal.

When Canadians say health care, they mean a fully publicized health care system. Many Americans use it this way too (John Stewart comes to mind).

ah, a euphamism. So I guess if Jan slept with Peter she would use her right of choice whether she had healthcare or not.

(So if Jan had sex with Peter she would abort the baby whether she had insurance or not).

I HATE euphamisms.

I see no reason to step up enforcement. Just keep them illegal.


But the thing is, enforcement now is ineffective. We spend million (Billions) of dollars in taxpayer money a year on jailing nonviolent drug offenders, most often for simple posession, not dealing or trafficking (at least...that is true of marijuana, and I assume other drugs). And yet, it makes no dent in the amount of drugs used and how accesible they are. Indeed, if I recall correctly, bot drug use and availability have gone up in recent years.

But the thing is, enforcement now is ineffective. We spend million (Billions) of dollars in taxpayer money a year on jailing nonviolent drug offenders, most often for simple posession, not dealing or trafficking (at least...that is true of marijuana, and I assume other drugs). And yet, it makes no dent in the amount of drugs used and how accesible they are. Indeed, if I recall correctly, bot drug use and availability have gone up in recent years.

I support my money going towards those things, not paying for people's addictions.

I see no reason to step up enforcement. Just keep them illegal.

And deny them medical attention? Then soon you will have an even bigger public health care problem as people grow sicker and addiction levels remain the same.

If only people just dropped dead from one instant to the next. But they don't, instead they get progressively worse and worse putting a dent on the economy. Plus, even addicts get genuinely sick, sometimes of things not related to their addiction, would you deny them care even then? How would you tell between a related and an unrelated condition? Doctors could, but often not right away.

Now, if there was a way to reduce abuse, distribute costs more fairly, and allow authorities to keep better control. Hmm...

And deny them medical attention? Then soon you will have an even bigger public health care problem as people grow sicker and addiction levels remain the same.

If only people just dropped dead from one instant to the next. But they don't, instead they get progressively worse and worse putting a dent on the economy. Plus, even addicts get genuinely sick, sometimes of things not related to their addiction, would you deny them care even then? How would you tell between a related and an unrelated condition? Doctors could, but often not right away.

Now, if there was a way to reduce abuse, distribute costs more fairly, and allow authorities to keep better control. Hmm...

I would not deny anybody medical attention. I just don't want to pay for it. Its called "personal responsibilty". I do not resent things that keep me safe like prisons and military force. I do resent things that pick my pocket to sustain a problem like socialized health insurance, social security, and the awful graduated income tax.

ah, a euphamism. So I guess if Jan slept with Peter she would use her right of choice whether she had healthcare or not.

(So if Jan had sex with Peter she would abort the baby whether she had insurance or not).

I HATE euphamisms.
I'm lost. Totally utterly lost. Assuming heath care means public health care is the same as abortion how?

I support my money going towards those things, not paying for people's addictions.

Okay, but the thing is, you are most likely paying more than you would have to pay if these drugs were legalised, regulated, and taxed. THe reason for this is that regulation ensures purity and lowers chances of abuse/allowing harmful drugs to minors (street dealers don't check ID), which in turn lowers the costs for health to you the tax payer, as there are less overdoses, and so forth. Also, the money made from the sale would go, instead of to a black market, to the government, which can then pour that money into drug education and anti-drug campaigns much like anti tobacco/alcohol ones today, paying (to an extent) for problems related to addiction and drug use, and fund schools and the police force, at less cost to you.

Once again, legalisation of drugs (particularly [for the most part] unharmful ones such as marijuana; indeed, one could use the proceeds from marijuana tax to fight other drugs use, if cocaine, heroin, etc. were to remain illegal).

Sorry if the post was long/rambling/incoherent, but I am in an altered state.

I would not deny anybody medical attention. I just don't want to pay for it. Its called "personal responsibilty". I do not resent things that keep me safe like prisons and military force. I do resent things that pick my pocket to sustain a problem like socialized health insurance, social security, and the awful graduated income tax.

I appreciate that. The thing is that there are always going to be people who are unable to pay for the medical care they need, not all of them addicts or illegals. Therefore you have to find a way to get at least some of the costs redistributed so that addicts pay more of their fair share, in this case through taxes.

Illegals are trickier, though, but that's a different discussion.

I'm lost. Totally utterly lost. Assuming heath care means public health care is the same as abortion how?

The thinking goes that if you don't have to pay for an abortion then everyone is going to have one. Heck! Even two! In fact, I wish I was a woman so I could take advantage of the deal.

I'm lost. Totally utterly lost. Assuming heath care means public health care is the same as abortion how?

I made a point about euphamisms being extremely lame that went over your head.

The thinking goes that if you don't have to pay for an abortion then everyone is going to have one. Heck! Even two! In fact, I wish I was a woman so I could take advantage of the deal.
I see. IIRC, there are no abortion laws (outside standard modical operation laws) here in Canada. Yet there are babies. How could this be?

Sorry if the post was long/rambling/incoherent, but I am in an altered state.

hahaha:D

You made Pius XII laugh.

I made a point about euphamisms being extremely lame that went over your head.

Still, sounds like nothing but a slipperly slope to me.

I appreciate that. The thing is that there are always going to be people who are unable to pay for the medical care they need, not all of them addicts or illegals. Therefore you have to find a way to get at least some of the costs redistributed so that addicts pay more of their fair share, in this case through taxes.

Illegals are trickier, though, but that's a different discussion.

I know full well how expensive this stuff can be. But it comes down to personal responsibility. I could get into my larger ideology on taxes, government spending vs. private charities, etc. but I won't bore you with that.

I was not making a commentary about abortion. I was demonstrating how stupid euphamisms are. "choice", "slept with" "healthcare"

and so on.

Once again, legalisation of drugs (particularly [for the most part] unharmful ones such as marijuana; indeed, one could use the proceeds from marijuana tax to fight other drugs use, if cocaine, heroin, etc. were to remain illegal).
A progressive govt could even consider opening clinics where hardcore drug addicts can go to to get their herion fix.
Been tried in other countries and it helps everyone. The addicts get good quality stuff, and support/counselling etc. They're then able to maintain and sort their life out.
Less cost to the taxpayer due to less hospitalisations. Less crime cause the addicts don't need to steal to pay for their addiction.

Only people who lose out are the scum selling the stuff to them.

But as I said, it takes a progressive-thinking govt to do such a thing.

A progressive govt could even consider opening clinics where hardcore drug addicts can go to to get their herion fix.
Been tried in other countries and it helps everyone. The addicts get good quality stuff, and support/counselling etc. They're then able to maintain and sort their life out.
Less cost to the taxpayer due to less hospitalisations. Less crime cause the addicts don't need to steal to pay for their addiction.

Only people who lose out are the scum selling the stuff to them.

But as I said, it takes a progressive-thinking govt to do such a thing.


Yeah, only a true progressive would supply addicts with hard narcotics. Spare me.

I was not making a commentary about abortion. I was demonstrating how stupid euphamisms are. "choice", "slept with" "healthcare"

and so on.
OK. I understand your point. But a euphemism is a gentler way of saying something bad. Works quite well with you abortion example. However, it doesn't quite fit the health care is assumed to be public as you say the same words (just not all of them), and public health care is considered an exceedingly good thing.

OK. I understand your point. But a euphemism is a gentler way of saying something bad. Works quite well with you abortion example. However, it doesn't quite fit the health care is assumed to be public as you say the same words (just not all of them), and public health care is considered an exceedingly good thing.

Point taken. You see, I should explain....I really just have a pet peeve with inaccurate descriptions. Health care is not the same as health insurance. Many people get health care who have no "healthcare". Its just wording.

We are both on the same wavelength now so I think we have this resolved. :D

Point taken. You see, I should explain....I really just have a pet peeve with inaccurate descriptions. Health care is not the same as health insurance. Many people get health care who have no "healthcare". Its just wording.

We are both on the same wavelength now so I think we have this resolved. :D

OK. Now back to the issue....

I know full well how expensive this stuff can be. But it comes down to personal responsibility. I could get into my larger ideology on taxes, government spending vs. private charities, etc. but I won't bore you with that.

And who is trying to deny personal responsibility? The amount of what your responsibility should be commensurate to the consequences of your actions. Marijuana doesn't carry that much in the way of consequences which could be easily offset with taxes. Even people addicted to harder drugs can be made to pay through higher premiums in their insurance, just like smokers, regular drinkers, and overweight people do.

But as long as those substances are illegal this will be difficult to implement.

My bottom line, I will pay through the nose for enforcement but not other people's medical bills. I also resent having my insurance increased.

Mind you, heavy drinkers and heavy smokers actually save the government money. So maybe we should wise up and let people get to the marijuana too.

The nice thing about people with unhealth lifestyles is they don't tend to live until their 90s, using up social security and medicare.

The nice thing about people with unhealth lifestyles is they don't tend to live until their 90s, using up social security and medicare.
Everyone should be shot at 65!

And who is trying to deny personal responsibility? The amount of what your responsibility should be commensurate to the consequences of your actions. Marijuana doesn't carry that much in the way of consequences which could be easily offset with taxes. Even people addicted to harder drugs can be made to pay through higher premiums in their insurance, just like smokers, regular drinkers, and overweight people do.

But as long as those substances are illegal this will be difficult to implement.

Higher premiums would fix that. But if it is government sponsered insurance that would violate the equal protection clause, no?

Mind you, heavy drinkers and heavy smokers actually save the government money. So maybe we should wise up and let people get to the marijuana too.
.

Can you source that claim?

Yeah, only a true progressive would supply addicts with hard narcotics. Spare me.

They don't get only narcotics. They also get monitoring, counseling and help to overcome their addiction and get them back to a full productive life. For many it works, for many it doesn't but you don't have them roaming the streets committing crimes to get their next fix. And they can still be made to pay through some kind of voluntary work. You already know where they are.

Everyone should be shot at 65!

:eek:

They don't get only narcotics. They also get monitoring, counseling and help to overcome their addiction and get them back to a full productive life. For many it works, for many it doesn't but you don't have them roaming the streets committing crimes to get their next fix. And they can still be made to pay through some kind of voluntary work. You already know where they are.

And the government does this more efficiently then a private charity how?

:eek:
Except you. ;)

Higher premiums would fix that. But if it is government sponsered insurance that would violate the equal protection clause, no?

I don't know how it works in the government. But equality works when circumstances are the same, and the health circumstances of a person living a healthy lifestyle and an addict are different; so you should be able to charge them different, even if it's government sponsored.

Except you. ;)


Well, I won't have to worry anyway until about 2052.

I don't know how it works in the government. But equality works when circumstances are the same, and the health circumstances of a person living a healthy lifestyle and an addict are different; so you should be able to charge them different, even if it's government sponsored.

I agree with you completely. Sadly, my Supreme Court and I rarely agree.

And the government does this more efficiently then a private charity how?

Perhaps it doesn't, maybe private charity is the way to go, but while it remains illegal no one can do it.

Perhaps it doesn't, maybe private charity is the way to go, but while it remains illegal no one can do it.

Yeah, I know, I was just wondering.

Can you source that claim?

The Governmental Composition of the Insurance Costs of Smoking
W. Kip Viscusi
Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Oct., 1999), pp. 575-609

The Governmental Composition of the Insurance Costs of Smoking
W. Kip Viscusi
Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Oct., 1999), pp. 575-609

Darn, don't own that one. Thats what you get for trying to be helpful I guess. ;)

High there everyone.

I have decided.....to break up this "debate" I will use some icons that I rarely use. :fluffle:

:upyours:

:rolleyes:

That was fun.

Except you. ;)


elitist!

My bottom line, I will pay through the nose for enforcement but not other people's medical bills. I also resent having my insurance increased.

*FLUSH*

elitist!

Am not!

I have decided.....to break up this "debate" I will use some icons that I rarely use. :fluffle:

:upyours:

:rolleyes:

That was fun.

:fluffle:

My bottom line, I will pay through the nose for enforcement but not other people's medical bills. I also resent having my insurance increased.

My taxes going to pay for the medical bills of others.

Then you should be for banning all unhealthy forms of food. No more cookies, cakes, ice cream, fried food, food with trans fat, candy, burgers, pizza, etc...

After all, you're paying through the nose for other people's healthcare there too. (Just look at the obesity problem plaguing the US, and how many heart attacks, strokes, and diabetes treatments we have going on.)

But we have already tried that with tobacco and we are still down the hole by billions of dollars per year (never mind lives). None of these drugs has anything positive to offer society but promotion of debt, sloth, and ill health.

Unhealthy food also promotes all of those things. Especially the ill health part. Therefore, we should ban all unhealthy food.

Funny. In my country we have healthcare too.No you don't. You have health don't care.


He's right. You only really get healthcare if you're wealthy enough to afford it, otherwise you're fed scraps of it at best.

Talking about drugs being a plague upon society, and then ignoring the seniors who have to choose between taking their medicine and eating doesn't quite add up. Neither does it for families that can't afford vaccinations, much less a doctors visit. Really, does our health system actually care? Not unless there's money to be made or a PR move.

Am not!


too good for Burger King onion rings too!:eek:

Legalise. Prohibition makes little sense, and clearly isn't doing anything that it was intended to do.

^ what he says.

if you want to control a substence, prohibition ensures it stays within the realm - and control of - the criminal distribution network.
bringing the substance into ordinary society under managable rules and regulations, such as taxation, or even controlling supply of the substance (as the british government is currently considering doing with heroin) makes the substance instantly far more controllable.

A progressive govt could even consider opening clinics where hardcore drug addicts can go to to get their herion fix.
Been tried in other countries and it helps everyone. The addicts get good quality stuff, and support/counselling etc. They're then able to maintain and sort their life out.
Less cost to the taxpayer due to less hospitalisations. Less crime cause the addicts don't need to steal to pay for their addiction.

Only people who lose out are the scum selling the stuff to them.

But as I said, it takes a progressive-thinking govt to do such a thing.

its a bloody good idea and should really be extended with all narcotics to (nearly) cut the criminal element out, as well as free up the police's time and efforts to more serious offences (no longer wasting time with possession) and make it possible, through information, warnings, and even possibly testing, to end the "gateway drug" effect that dealers and pushers are so keen to employ to make more money.

Illegal drug money = well funded criminals
Legal drug taxes = well funded government

Legalise, I'd rather the lesser of two evils have the money.

Illegal drug money = well funded criminals
Legal drug taxes = well funded government

Legalise, I'd rather the lesser of two evils have the money.
Indeed.

I'm ever-impressed by how profoundly stupid American people must be to completely ignore the Prohibition era in history. We've already tried banning a substance that everybody is using, and how did it work out? Well, we made mobsters richer than they've ever been, and we increased the deaths from using that very same substance, and we increased the rates of substance abuse! Wahoo!!!! Let's do it again!

Indeed.

I'm ever-impressed by how profoundly stupid American people must be to completely ignore the Prohibition era in history. We've already tried banning a substance that everybody is using, and how did it work out? Well, we made mobsters richer than they've ever been, and we increased the deaths from using that very same substance, and we increased the rates of substance abuse! Wahoo!!!! Let's do it again!

True. Unfortunately I don't see Marijuana (or drugs in general) becoming legalized in the US in my lifetime due to the fact that the federal government has conducted a smear campaign against Marijuana use for the greater part of the 20th century. This in my opinion has done irreversible harm to public opinion on drug use. Unless something drastically changes with our culture (unlikely), or the government decides its futile to legislate the citizenry's morality (even less likely) we will never see legalized drug use in the United States. A shame really...

American weed is superior IMO. The stuff I've seen from Canada has been really low quality.
It depnds who grew it. The Canadian government cultivated several crops of marijuana some years ago as part of a pilot project testing legalisation, but the stuff they grew was widely viewed as the worst marijuana ever produced. And a lot of it "went missing".

Whereas, BC Bud's street price in California rivals that of powder cocaine.

I guess the IRONY of the US paying OTHER countries TRILLIONS not to grow coca and poppy plants etc...is lost on the home crowd.:p :D

American weed is superior IMO. The stuff I've seen from Canada has been really low quality.

nederhash FTW!

nederhash FTW!

Pft!

It depnds who grew it. The Canadian government cultivated several crops of marijuana some years ago as part of a pilot project testing legalisation, but the stuff they grew was widely viewed as the worst marijuana ever produced. And a lot of it "went missing".

Whereas, BC Bud's street price in California rivals that of powder cocaine.
Lol. The mounties here (in BC), grow there own crop on a yearly basis to approximate the THC in marijuana for court cases (as it takes a while to do). They claim to be fairly close, but a bit short.