Democrats want to Legalize Marijuana

[BugI02]

Sounds like a lot of work. Much more than people who partake of cannabis are willing to put in according to the government generated stigma. Does this relative lead an otherwise acceptable lifestyle? I'm not here, I'm hoping I might get you to see from a different perspective.

He's kind of an off-the-grid semi-recluse but he pays his own way. He's an extreme covidophobe, to the point of wearing a respirator to shop or pick up his mail and grows many of his own vegetables also. Not normal but he can still see it from where he is

Has a lot of health problems that no doctor can track down. He also smokes powerful weed all day every day. I tried to convince him to go on the wagon for a month to see if the nerve pain and muscle twitches would ease but that's not happening. I would like to convince him that to credibly say one is not addicted to something one should be able to quit it for a time, even if only to prove something to yourself

 

[phylodog]

Do you think the state could or would let you grow weed for commercial sale without at least some quality control? Who would foot the bill for that? Shouldn't it be the consumer, the beneficiary of legalization and said quality control

And the point is, many are using that tax revenue pie in the sky as a selling point for legalization - then it turns out they actually don't want to pay the taxes

I'm not opposed to taxes which go toward protecting the consumer from potential potency variances and the like but that wouldn't last a year and they'd be siphoning off the funds for pet projects while squeezing the office tasked with protecting the consumer until it becomes completely ineffective. Legal money laundering if you will.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

This whole argument is reminiscent of the 'communism fails because no one has done it right yet' canard

Moderate excise tax has been done before, alcohol, tobacco, etc. How many people do you know are going out and buying moonshine rather than a bottle at the grocery or liquor store? How many tobacco bootleggers do you know?

People in this thread are arguing that one of the benefits of legalization will be beaucoup tax revenue. California legalized it and taxed it at a rate that I guess they feel offers them sufficient return on their expenses/investment. That is everything you are wishing for, only now it isn't being done right [sound of goalposts moving] and that is why it isn't working out as promised

I haven't heard beaucoup tax revenue, but yes there is some. CA taxed it at a rate that they thought the market would bear, and what expenses/investment has CA done? They created a department to tax it. Wouldn't the license fees cover that, before the variety of taxes.

No one ever seems to consider that all the promises of the wonders of legalization were overblown as a strategy to enlist support - just another cynical manipulation by government to line connected pockets and leave the average Joe to deal with the fallout of living in Udopia

Line pockets? That would have been your state, you know the one that had a legalization bill so bad that even NORML came out against it. But most of the arguments for legalization aren't coming from the govt, it's coming from people and organizations such as NORML.

Much like gun restrictions don't deter criminals who don't obey the law anyway, cartels don't have to pay taxes or own the land they cultivate or care about anti-pollution restrictions or not kill innocent people who stumble upon their grow operations etc. They have no intention of obeying the law and only low level players are taking the risks. They will ALWAYS be able to undercut the states prices

IMO ALL of the selling points being preferred for legalization are pie in the sky. I present people with what figures I can dig up on such things as potential savings on incarceration (another vastly overpromised area) and they criticize the figures without offering anything concrete in refutation (with the notable exception of BBI)

See alcohol and tobacco. Why aren't the cartels running bottles of liquor or cartons of cigarettes?

Do you think the state could or would let you grow weed for commercial sale without at least some quality control? Who would foot the bill for that? Shouldn't it be the consumer, the beneficiary of legalization and said quality control

And the point is, many are using that tax revenue pie in the sky as a selling point for legalization - then it turns out they actually don't want to pay the taxes

How many other things are grown and/or produced for consumption that are sold commercially without govt mandated quality control? Herbal supplements come to mind. Along with a large chunk of what is sold at the local farmer's market and roadside stands. Why would MJ need to be any different?

And as for who should foot the bill for QC, the producers who would then pass it on to the consumers. Same as most QC.

 

[kickbacked]

Much like gun restrictions don't deter criminals who don't obey the law anyway, cartels don't have to pay taxes or own the land they cultivate or care about anti-pollution restrictions or not kill innocent people who stumble upon their grow operations etc. They have no intention of obeying the law and only low level players are taking the risks. They will ALWAYS be able to undercut the states prices

The same can be said for avocados, yet we arent making them illegal and arresting anyone over them.

https://inteligencia.io/money/avocado-cartels/

 

[jamil]

It's the 'you're not doing it right' alibiing that seems parallel

Communism keeps failing not because it is an unworkable system but because it just isn't ever implemented correctly

Now, legalization is beginning to fail in many of its promised benefits and it isn't a systemic problem, it's because the states aren't doing it right

You can't see the similarity?

Works? Communism requires a dictatorship rule to even function. And, btw, communism does work...for the ruling class. It sucks for eveyone else. The point you're making is an oversimplification. What we're talking here is legalizing something that used to be legal and then was made illegal and not for the reasons you'd think. We're not talking about, 'oh, it hasn't worked because it's just not implemented correctly.'

If you want to talk about what predictably works or doesn't work, what happens to an industry that is taxed too heavily? Predictably, if there is an underground market possible, the market moves underground. MJ has a black market now because it's unavailable through legal means and there are plenty of illegal sources for it. So then if it's legal, but taxed to the point where it is still unobtainable for a lot of people, and the black market will be where people go.

The market for Alcohol is really pretty much the same in this regard. There's a market for alcohol and people will get it there if they can't get it legally. That was proven by history. If it were taxed so much that it's not affordable, the people who can't afford it will get it where it can be had affordably, whether it's legal or not.

 

[jamil]

Based on information from relatives in California, the quality and potency of the weed is much better and the price is still lower than it was for near same quality pre-legalization

It seems that some people want sinsemilla at ditchweed prices

Even at that, my relative takes advantage of the carve out for grow your own, has a sophisticated automated hydroponic system using LED grow-lighting and meets all of his own needs because he wants to know everything going into the plants is as organic and non-toxic as possible

He says personal growers can't buy seeds, though. State allows but does not encourage grow your own in that way. He buys his seeds from the EU

Organic weed. Non-toxic.

I dunno man. That just sounds hilarious. Sounds, very Californian. I mean. I guess the dose makes the poison.

 

[jamil]

Do you think the state could or would let you grow weed for commercial sale without at least some quality control? Who would foot the bill for that? Shouldn't it be the consumer, the beneficiary of legalization and said quality control

And the point is, many are using that tax revenue pie in the sky as a selling point for legalization - then it turns out they actually don't want to pay the taxes

Of course I would expect the state to regulate it if you're selling it. But who foots the bill? It's fair to tax the growers for the costs of reasonable regulation. And that cost, of course, as it is with many costs of doing business, is passed onto consumers.

I don't think the revenue pie in the sky is anything more than a selling point. And not really a very good one. Lottery tickets were supposed to be a boon for schools. Taxing river boat gambling was supposed to be a great source of revenue for the state. I dunno. Even if it were, that's not a reason I would support for doing something. The state can't spend my tax money right. Why would I expect it to spend that money well?

The only reason I support legalization is because first, the war on drugs has utterly failed, but most importantly the purpose of government is to protect individual rights and it's not government's place to tell people they can't use it. This should not be a power that government has.

 

[Rice2130]

Too much money being made for big pharma without it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I tried to convince him to go on the wagon for a month to see if the nerve pain and muscle twitches would ease but that's not happening. I would like to convince him that to credibly say one is not addicted to something one should be able to quit it for a time, even if only to prove something to yourself

Would you try to convince an epileptic to go off his meds for a month to, you know, "see if his seizures would ease"? Would you try to convince a schizophrenic to go off his meds for a month to "see if his psychotic episodes would ease"? Would you try to convince a diabetic to go off his insulin for a month to "see if his blood sugar would regulate itself"? I mean, those people should be able to quit their meds for a time to prove they're not addicted to them, right?

 

[BugI02]

Organic weed. Non-toxic.

I dunno man. That just sounds hilarious. Sounds, very Californian. I mean. I guess the dose makes the poison.

Re: The organic illusion

Walk through the produce section of a Whole Foods. Look at the prices and then meditate upon the money that people will pony up for unproven, vague claimed 'benefits'
of organic everything

He gets street cred from me for being willing to do the work to grow his own, veggies and ... other stuff

 

[BugI02]

I don't think the revenue pie in the sky is anything more than a selling point. And not really a very good one. Lottery tickets were supposed to be a boon for schools. Taxing river boat gambling was supposed to be a great source of revenue for the state.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make

Because I personally disapprove of stoner tendencies, I put a worse face on it than a modern day rasta will, but they should stop blowing smoke up peoples ***es and just admit they want to use without any potential legal or societal downside. Nobody is buying the glorious future of overflowing pot money coffers or that the lion's share of the people who won't go to jail for dealing, or those who use at the risk of their livelihood, will somehow make better decisions and become assets to society. No one is believing (especially post vaccine debacle) that legalization will open up a cornucopia of new and better treatments for human ailments, developed by the pharmaceutical industry from psychoactive substances in the new age of Aquarius that legalization brings. No one who is doing OK as a regular user will stop and wonder if they could be doing even better without that daily spliff. See: high-functioning alcoholics

I will continue to believe that there is little upside, that people who want to use without legal and employment jeopardy should perhaps examine the reasons back of their cravings a bit more deeply

Others who are pro will continue to believe it is all upside and what could possibly go wrong

It either will get legalized federally or it will not and continue to be left, piecemeal, up to the states. Eventually, one side of the debate will be entitled to say 'I told you so' but it will likely be cold comfort

 

[BugI02]

Would you try to convince an epileptic to go off his meds for a month to, you know, "see if his seizures would ease"? Would you try to convince a schizophrenic to go off his meds for a month to "see if his psychotic episodes would ease"? Would you try to convince a diabetic to go off his insulin for a month to "see if his blood sugar would regulate itself"? I mean, those people should be able to quit their meds for a time to prove they're not addicted to them, right?

Your assumption that Gangans are sick and in need of medication (like your other examples) is acceptable to me

Your examples have a medically determined condition and were prescribed a medication that that condition responds to. My relative has a suite of symptoms that he did not have prior to moving to Cali and becoming a very heavy user that further cannot be traced to any medical condition via numerous trips to doctors and specialists. He has not been prescribed leaf for any of his symptoms

The scientist in me says change one thing about your lifestyle under very controlled conditions and see if perhaps correlation is indeed causation. If you cannot control use for a month, the corollary is that use indeed controls you. In 30 days or so he could determine whether heavy pot use plays a part in his symptom profile, or he could go with your advice and just rule that out without ever testing it

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Your assumption that Gangans are sick and in need of medication (like your other examples) is acceptable to me

Your examples have a medically determined condition and were prescribed a medication that that condition responds to. My relative has a suite of symptoms that he did not have prior to moving to Cali and becoming a very heavy user that further cannot be traced to any medical condition via numerous trips to doctors and specialists. He has not been prescribed leaf for any of his symptoms

The scientist in me says change one thing about your lifestyle under very controlled conditions and see if perhaps correlation is indeed causation. If you cannot control use for a month, the corollary is that use indeed controls you. In 30 days or so he could determine whether heavy pot use plays a part in his symptom profile, or he could go with your advice and just rule that out without ever testing it

So your contention is that the nerve pain and muscle twitches were brought on by weed and not alleviated by it? That's not how I interpreted what you said, but maybe I misunderstood you.

I ask, because pain relief and relief from spasms are two of the things that seem to have been helped in others by using weed.

 

[BugI02]

So your contention is that the nerve pain and muscle twitches were brought on by weed and not alleviated by it? That's not how I interpreted what you said, but maybe I misunderstood you.

I ask, because pain relief and relief from spasms are two of the things that seem to have been helped in others by using weed.

It isn't just my contention, it is the facts of this case. The symptoms he suffers only began and then worsened when he set up in his current location. I have tried to help him think through possible causes when conventional medicine drew a blank, to the point of having him test for valley fever and several tick-bourne diseases. He has had diagnostic testing up through CAT and MRI with no diagnosis

Eliminating pot use was far from my first choice as he has very real symptoms that interfere with his work and joy of living. In the absence of other hypotheses, I encouraged him to test his consumption as a possible contributor. So far he has resisted the idea, but I find it instructive that he will not even consider that there might be a level of THC that might be too elevated or too constant for his continued good health

 

[jamil]

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make

Because I personally disapprove of stoner tendencies, I put a worse face on it than a modern day rasta will, but they should stop blowing smoke up peoples ***es and just admit they want to use without any potential legal or societal downside.

1) there are reasons beyond just the people who want legalization so they can smoke it themselves. Like I’ve been saying, I am an advocate for legalization but I personally don’t like the stoner culture either, and I don’t like using substance that alter my state of mind. That goes for drugs or alcohol. I think the best argument against criminalization is, you shouldn’t have that power to control what other people do even if it is harmful to the people who use it.

2) societal downside of what some think are immoral behaviors isn’t always a good reason to make something illegal, especially given the colossal failure of the temperance movement. The pulpit, dot orgs, and the town square are the places to advocate for what you think is moral behavior when it comes to vices.

Nobody is buying the glorious future of overflowing pot money coffers or that the lion's share of the people who won't go to jail for dealing, or those who use at the risk of their livelihood, will somehow make better decisions and become assets to society. No one is believing (especially post vaccine debacle) that legalization will open up a cornucopia of new and better treatments for human ailments, developed by the pharmaceutical industry from psychoactive substances in the new age of Aquarius that legalization brings. No one who is doing OK as a regular user will stop and wonder if they could be doing even better without that daily spliff. See: high-functioning alcoholics

I will continue to believe that there is little upside, that people who want to use without legal and employment jeopardy should perhaps examine the reasons back of their cravings a bit more deeply

Others who are pro will continue to believe it is all upside and what could possibly go wrong

The upside is personal liberty. Because it’s none of yours or my business what other people do.

It either will get legalized federally or it will not and continue to be left, piecemeal, up to the states. Eventually, one side of the debate will be entitled to say 'I told you so' but it will likely be cold comfort

Since you brought up federal laws I’ll take the opportunity to rant a bit about that. I don’t think the constitution grants the federal government power to ban it wholesale. They knew this at the beginning of the last century, which is why they had to change the constitution to grant the federal government power to ban alcohol.

It absolutely should be left to the states because the fed doesn’t have the power outside of the judicial branch granting it because that’s the outcome they personally wanted. And as far states having that power, prohibition has proven absolute folly. So I’d advocate that free minded states end the retarded prohibition.

 

[BugI02]

I will buy the Freedom! 'argument' in abstract, while again mentioning that there are lots of things we are not free to do and smoking dope was not high up on my list of ones that need addressed immediately

I would just be happier if the new Rastas would drop all the bull**** snake oil salesmanship and just say that it would let them get high without giving up their job (provided they don't need a clearance) or going to jail as well as let those in pain acquire and experiment with THC based relief

It ain't gonna empty out the prisons or cause those with criminal tendencies to turn over a new leaf or provide copious tax monies to address the problems legalization will cause. It won't suddenly stimulate massive new research on natural substances for pain relief or anti psychosis or any of the host of other claimed therapeutic benefits

In my personal opinion, the lion's share of those who want it legalized should just take a hard look at what the real reasons are, but I get that it isn't a good look

 

[phylodog]

People have been using cannabis for thousands of years. The stigma and BS surrounding it are relatively new. The government who convinced people that cannabis was the devil is the same government that convinced millions that Covid came from a bat, was gonna kill us all, they magically a perfectly safe vaccine in 1/16th the normal amount of time and more people voted for the clown in office than any other candidate in U.S. history, including Obama.

If cannabis were going to be the downfall of this country it would have happened decades ago.

 

[jagee]

...In my personal opinion, the lion's share of those who want it legalized should just take a hard look at what the real reasons are, but I get that it isn't a good look

I already said, I'd rather smoke a bowl than drunk. Either way, I'm knowingly consuming a 'mind altering substance'. I'd rather not have the hangover the next day...but here I am, hungover and tired.

 

[jamil]

I already said, I'd rather smoke a bowl than drunk. Either way, I'm knowingly consuming a 'mind altering substance'. I'd rather not have the hangover the next day...but here I am, hungover and tired.

You should be able to choose to do either. It’s not my or Bug’s or the government’s or anyone else’s business.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Not really. Decriminalization usually refers to making possession a simple misdemeanor as opposed to a felony. Legalization means no penalty whatsoever.

Close. Most if not all places simple possession is a misdemeanor where it is illegal. Decriminalization reduces it to an infraction. Parking/seat belt/spitting on the sidewalk ticket territory.

Based on information from relatives in California, the quality and potency of the weed is much better and the price is still lower than it was for near same quality pre-legalization

It seems that some people want sinsemilla at ditchweed prices

Wait, the product is cheaper and better than before. But it's still cheaper to buy it illegally? Sounds like to me that means the taxes and regulations are to much. How many people still bought bathtub gin after the 21st Am? How many people do you know now that buy moonshine, and buy it because it's cheaper?

1) there are reasons beyond just the people who want legalization so they can smoke it themselves. Like I’ve been saying, I am an advocate for legalization but I personally don’t like the stoner culture either, and I don’t like using substance that alter my state of mind. That goes for drugs or alcohol. I think the best argument against criminalization is, you shouldn’t have that power to control what other people do even if it is harmful to the people who use it.

I'll ask you a question. What is the stoner culture? Is it similar to the alcoholic culture? The nicotine user culture?

Also why do you differentiate between alcohol and other intoxicating drugs? .

I already said, I'd rather smoke a bowl than drunk. Either way, I'm knowingly consuming a 'mind altering substance'. I'd rather not have the hangover the next day...but here I am, hungover and tired.

That brings up a question. I've heard arguments that legalizing MJ would result in lower worker productivity. What % of that would be mitigated by less hangovers? No recent experience, but 20+ years ago I could get stoned and wake up and go to work with no after effects. Can't say the same with alcohol.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make

Because I personally disapprove of stoner tendencies, I put a worse face on it than a modern day rasta will, but they should stop blowing smoke up peoples ***es and just admit they want to use without any potential legal or societal downside. Nobody is buying the glorious future of overflowing pot money coffers or that the lion's share of the people who won't go to jail for dealing, or those who use at the risk of their livelihood, will somehow make better decisions and become assets to society.

First question. What are "stoner tendencies"?

Overflowing pot money coffers? Do you disagree that legalizing it and just having it taxed at a normal sales tax like any other good would not raise tax revenue? Overflowing? Probably not.

You seem to think that no user is an asset to society. The vast majority of those that I know use are, same with users of alcohol. They wake up, go to work, pay their bills, read a bedtime story to their kids and kiss them good night, etc.

No one is believing (especially post vaccine debacle) that legalization will open up a cornucopia of new and better treatments for human ailments, developed by the pharmaceutical industry from psychoactive substances in the new age of Aquarius that legalization brings. No one who is doing OK as a regular user will stop and wonder if they could be doing even better without that daily spliff. See: high-functioning alcoholics

Big money pharmaceutical, maybe maybe not. I could see it happening but I'd say probably not, but smaller players, yes. See Charlotte's web as an example. The strain of MJ not the book.

In your opinion are most alcohol users alcoholics? IME no. I've seen no difference in MJ users, yep some are worthless, most are just regular joes who go to work everyday and take care of their family.

I will continue to believe that there is little upside, that people who want to use without legal and employment jeopardy should perhaps examine the reasons back of their cravings a bit more deeply

Others who are pro will continue to believe it is all upside and what could possibly go wrong

Depends on your definition of little. For some people having a shotgun or rifle with a barrel to short under current definitions without having to jump through multiple hoops is little, same with a host of things.

Nah, not all upside. But far from the doom sayers all downside either. My prediction would be pretty much life as normal.

It either will get legalized federally or it will not and continue to be left, piecemeal, up to the states. Eventually, one side of the debate will be entitled to say 'I told you so' but it will likely be cold comfort

Even if legalized federally it will still be left to the states or more local. Liquor laws for example, I've been in dry counties, a county that only allowed beer sales on Sunday no wine or hard alcohol, etc. Or we could start with firearm laws. Or knife laws. Or...