Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WHSJello

f*** swine flu, more important things

Recommended Posts

So California and other states are proposing more 'radical' plans to legalize marijuana. I know this because the only hip hop station (which sucks) in utah can't stop talking about it. Apparently it would put a 50$ tax per ounce, which isn't bad when you consider what the cut back would be once the government starts growing it. Obviouslly it would lose some of its mass appeal, but what ya'll thinking?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather the government run it than the corporations. At least we elect the government; imagine Philip Morris getting to sell marijuana full of free-market-chemicals just like cigarettes... And market it to children with fun package designs.

 

It should be legal for personal use, but not sale, just like sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i, for one, think both prostitution and pot should be legal... i also agree with snergy (surprise) on the taxation aspect of it...

 

also, i vote for next monday.

 

synergy: monday. everyone needs a pick-me up on monday.

Edited by Speedy Gonzales
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think the government would ever have charge of it without taxing? it seems sort of inevitable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weve been over this. nobody is gonna pay taxes on weed, its too easy to grow your ow.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weve been over this. nobody is gonna pay taxes on weed, its too easy to grow your ow.

people always say this, but i can't imagine it would be true. i know i'm way too lazy and busy to go learn how to grow weed, and i'm pretty sure most everyone else, except the people who are already growing, or thinking about growing, feels the same way. otherwise nobody would buy from drug dealers.

 

the real problem is how to tax sales that are already happening underground, since people could just keep conducting business as usual and therefore evade taxes. this definitely wouldn't be a problem in California though - there is already a network of legal dispensaries selling high-quality bud. either way i'd be totally be willing to pay a tax if it meant weed was legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would rather the government run it than the corporations. At least we elect the government; imagine Philip Morris getting to sell marijuana full of free-market-chemicals just like cigarettes... And market it to children with fun package designs.
I think it's funny how you want government to "run" it. Do you want them to produce it, too? (On a side note, that could set up a hilariously interesting showdown between the state and the federal government.) Or by "run" are you just talking about regulation?

 

It should be legal for personal use, but not sale, just like sex.
The sex analogy doesn't hold up.

 

Commerce is the fundamental building block of our social structure. Not everyone has the knowledge/time/land to grow their own marijuana. Then again, similar setbacks apply to people growing their own food or acting as their own plumbers, doctors and lawyers.

 

Could you imagine if other products were put in this "you can use/do this, but can't sell it." Televisions are controversial because they're bad for you (they lead to fat kids), so we won't criminalize them but you can't sell them. Go make your own TV.

 

And if you're banning sale, are you banning giving it away? Are you banning bartering? Maybe Joe has plenty of land, knows how to grow pot, and doesn't live near little kids. He can grow far more than he uses (maybe he doesn't smoke any, for that matter), but he can't fix a transmission or cut his own hair. Is it wrong for him to trade the fruits of his labor for a haircut or repair work on his car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Televisions are controversial because they're bad for you (they lead to fat kids), so we won't criminalize them but you can't sell them. Go make your own TV.
The most productive policy proposal ever offered on CX, and you're being sarcastic....damn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in case any of you were wondering. the food and drug administration already regulates a prescription drug which is the major active in pot, THC. no reason that the FDA cant regulate pot cigarettes, raw bud, or whatever other form and require purity levels free of additives at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in case any of you were wondering. the food and drug administration already regulates a prescription drug which is the major active in pot, THC. no reason that the FDA cant regulate pot cigarettes, raw bud, or whatever other form and require purity levels free of additives at the same time.

 

Could the bloated FDA bureaucracy be expected to handle this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people always say this, but i can't imagine it would be true. i know i'm way too lazy and busy to go learn how to grow weed, and i'm pretty sure most everyone else, except the people who are already growing, or thinking about growing, feels the same way. otherwise nobody would buy from drug dealers.

 

It's called "weed" for a reason; it grows anywhere with little to no attention. If you can't grow it yourself, there is something wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could the bloated FDA bureaucracy be expected to handle this?

 

absolutely. its not terribly difficult to accomplish that task of randomly testing the product using standard analytical techniques and determining whether the product is pure....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people always say this, but i can't imagine it would be true. i know i'm way too lazy and busy to go learn how to grow weed, and i'm pretty sure most everyone else, except the people who are already growing, or thinking about growing, feels the same way. otherwise nobody would buy from drug dealers.[.quote]

trust me, pot is way too easy to grow. any idiot can have few hydroponic plants going after just an hour or two of reading. the reason why people don't mass grow is because they don't have room for it, or are too scared to take the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called "weed" for a reason; it grows anywhere with little to no attention. If you can't grow it yourself, there is something wrong.

 

trust me, pot is way too easy to grow. any idiot can have few hydroponic plants going after just an hour or two of reading. the reason why people don't mass grow is because they don't have room for it, or are too scared to take the risk.

 

I'm sure it is easy to grow just a random marijuana plant. But wouldn't growing something quality take more time and effort? Either way, you'd have to read up on it, get the seeds and everything else you'd need, monitor it while it grows, and wait for it to get big enough. That's a time and labor investment, and some people (many people, I think), wouldn't be willing to make it. Because even if it's easy, it will never be as easy as walking into a store and buying it. Learning to fix simple problems with your car and computer is also easy, but many people would rather go to a mechanic or a tech place. Even more analagous, I have a friend who brews his own beer, and he swears it's easy - but no one else I know has followed his example.

 

I'll concede some people would start growing their own, because obviously some would - but people pay money for convenience, and store-bought weed would be convenient. People who suck at taking care of plants, lazy people, wealthy people who can't be bothered, occasional smokers who don't need a constant home-grown supply, people just getting into weed, etc. would all buy from stores. Besides, it's empirically proven that pot stores can earn money - look at the coffeeshops in Amsterdam and the dispensaries in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure it is easy to grow just a random marijuana plant. But wouldn't growing something quality take more time and effort? Either way, you'd have to read up on it, get the seeds and everything else you'd need, monitor it while it grows, and wait for it to get big enough.

Growing good pot is half luck, half genetics. Some chronic seeds can grow some retarded plants and some schwag seeds can grow fire. You can only really have large effects on quality when you grow hydroponically.(that's why hydropon bud is notoriously delicious)

It's easier with hydroponics because you can regulate temp, PH, nutrient levels - even individual nutrients easily compared to growing it in soil.

 

That's a time and labor investment, and some people (many people, I think), wouldn't be willing to make it. Because even if it's easy, it will never be as easy as walking into a store and buying it. Learning to fix simple problems with your car and computer is also easy, but many people would rather go to a mechanic or a tech place. Even more analagous, I have a friend who brews his own beer, and he swears it's easy - but no one else I know has followed his example.

I think you're right about the laziness, but really it's a lot easier than people think it is. I think a lot of it has to do with this idea that it's difficult to grow good smoke, and I'm not exactly sure where people get the idea. Yea, it's difficult to pull off growing some Cannibus Cup esque stuff, but most people's standards aren't even that high anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to everyone who says no one will pay taxes because they can just grow it: I'm sure that the inflated price buying through a long chain of drug dealers that most people pay is evidence that most weed consumers are either too lazy, don't have the know how, or don't have the location or time to grow weed themselves.

50 dollar tax per O is not that ridiculous and would probably make weed cheaper

 

and i agree with ankur, the FDA or the govnerment could easily regulate it. Before the war on drugs way back in the like 30s and around then people could by joints and other forms of marijuana completely legally. bring it back

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
absolutely. its not terribly difficult to accomplish that task of randomly testing the product using standard analytical techniques and determining whether the product is pure....
the government can't do anything right, especially simple tasks like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the government can't do anything right, especially simple tasks like this.

 

only if you're working for them.

 

FDA is actually quite good at doing their job. they are a little slow with applications, but very good on enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
only if you're working for them.

 

FDA is actually quite good at doing their job. they are a little slow with applications, but very good on enforcement.

 

what are you, high?

 

check out how poorly they're regulated existing drugs:

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa527.pdf

 

The FDA approval process, while streamlined in recent years, still requires many years of rigorous testing before a drug or medical device can receive approval. There has been a decades-long debate over whether the FDA approval process achieves the appropriate balance between minimizing the risks associated with early introduction of potentially hazardous pharmaceuticals and giving patients ready access to needed pharmaceuticals. Critics of the FDA approval process argue that even with recent reforms, the process is far too expensive and lengthy, leading to concerns that it may be either inhibiting innovation or at least delaying life-saving medications from getting quickly to market. In this view, the principal costs of the process relate to the amount industry must pay to get through the process and the avoidable mortality and morbidity that result from lags in the approval process. The theoretical benefits of FDA regulation lie in protecting the public from potentially hazardous drugs and from squandering resources in purchasing drugs that either do not work, are unsafe, and/or do not represent good value for the money. The most thorough empirical analysis I was able to locate was by Dale H. Gieringer, who systematically calculated both the number of lives lost due to FDA-imposed delays and the estimated annual number of lives saved due to keeping unsafe drugs such as Thalidomide off the market.51 In a typical decade, he estimated the average cost of FDA delays at between 21,000 and 120,000 lives and the average benefits of FDA regulation (relative to the approval process in foreign countries) at between 5,000 and 10,000 lives per decade. Over a 30-year period, the ratio of drug-related disabling injuries to deaths was 18,000 to 5,100. Using these figures as a starting point and then making reasonable adjustments to reflect subsequent improvements in the process that have led to shorter delays, the lost lives were multiplied by $4.4 million apiece; this reflects the value of a statistical life based on numerous labor market studies showing that workers collectively demand this amount in higher compensation in order to accept jobs whose risk collectively results in one extra death.52 The value of each drug-related disabling injury is assumed to be equal to 10 percent of the loss attributable to each death. Combining these estimates, I conclude that FDA regulation imposes an annual cost on society of $49.0 billion and annual benefits of $7.1 billion (see Table 5). The lion’s share of this cost represents the value society places on the net number of lives that are lost while waiting for better pharmaceuticals to be approved (after subtracting the number of lives saved by FDA safety regulation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Where are people getting the idea that the government would grow pot en mass from???

 

2) Obviously in a world of legal pot many people will grow their own, just like many people brew their own beer in the squo, but there's no reason to believe growing your own will trade off with purchasing taxable weed as well. Plus, obviously no closest growers will be able to match the quality of top shelf premium corporate grown bud. There's no reason to believe the market will be too thin for marijuana taxes to be profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what are you, high?

 

check out how poorly they're regulated existing drugs:

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa527.pdf

 

The FDA approval process, while streamlined in recent years, still requires many years of rigorous testing before a drug or medical device can receive approval. There has been a decades-long debate over whether the FDA approval process achieves the appropriate balance between minimizing the risks associated with early introduction of potentially hazardous pharmaceuticals and giving patients ready access to needed pharmaceuticals. Critics of the FDA approval process argue that even with recent reforms, the process is far too expensive and lengthy, leading to concerns that it may be either inhibiting innovation or at least delaying life-saving medications from getting quickly to market. In this view, the principal costs of the process relate to the amount industry must pay to get through the process and the avoidable mortality and morbidity that result from lags in the approval process. The theoretical benefits of FDA regulation lie in protecting the public from potentially hazardous drugs and from squandering resources in purchasing drugs that either do not work, are unsafe, and/or do not represent good value for the money. The most thorough empirical analysis I was able to locate was by Dale H. Gieringer, who systematically calculated both the number of lives lost due to FDA-imposed delays and the estimated annual number of lives saved due to keeping unsafe drugs such as Thalidomide off the market.51 In a typical decade, he estimated the average cost of FDA delays at between 21,000 and 120,000 lives and the average benefits of FDA regulation (relative to the approval process in foreign countries) at between 5,000 and 10,000 lives per decade. Over a 30-year period, the ratio of drug-related disabling injuries to deaths was 18,000 to 5,100. Using these figures as a starting point and then making reasonable adjustments to reflect subsequent improvements in the process that have led to shorter delays, the lost lives were multiplied by $4.4 million apiece; this reflects the value of a statistical life based on numerous labor market studies showing that workers collectively demand this amount in higher compensation in order to accept jobs whose risk collectively results in one extra death.52 The value of each drug-related disabling injury is assumed to be equal to 10 percent of the loss attributable to each death. Combining these estimates, I conclude that FDA regulation imposes an annual cost on society of $49.0 billion and annual benefits of $7.1 billion (see Table 5). The lion’s share of this cost represents the value society places on the net number of lives that are lost while waiting for better pharmaceuticals to be approved (after subtracting the number of lives saved by FDA safety regulation).

 

that is so out of context of what i am talking about... and its nonresponsive and irrelevant.

 

let me elaborate on what is plainly obvious in my previous post... the FDA is a little slow on applications, but good on enforcement. growing pot would be ENTIRELY an enforcement issue. growers would need to submit samples for analytical testing and provide internal controlled documentation showing purity and quality standards. this is not very costly AT ALL in the grand scheme of things.

 

pot wouldnt NEED an application like a drug application. do you think kelloggs waits ten years before the FDA approves their new strawberry flavored rice crispies?! LOL.

 

but if you want to have a debate about the FDA, let me know... im down. how about another round on pharma? i am always game for that one. i'm batting a 1.000 on that...

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Growing is incredibly easy. If you can plant an herb garden you can uh, well, grow herb. It's just that it could be right there in the garden next to the tomato plants. (ok, so you might want to keep them on the other side of the fence.)

 

2. Sure it may not all be top notch chronic. This isn't a bad thing. So it's not as POTENT as the pros. The level of THC has apparently skyrocketed since Woodstock, so it ain't your dad's bud anymore. Maybe getting back to a little smooth low level high would mitigate any potential problems from excessive intoxication.

 

3. I'm buying stock in twinkies and doritos.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Variety, quality, and ease would be the main reasons for purchasing pot from a legal (i.e.: taxpaying) supplier. Yes, people can grow weed, but having a catalog available of different types of pot each with different quality highs would be largely appealing. Even if I were able to grow my own, I'm not going to plant 30 different varieties. Also, legalization would likely entice new users (I don't think this is necessarily bad) who would rather purchase it through those suppliers than through informal sources or growing their own. I can brew my own beer, grow vegetables and herbs, and maybe even distill my own vodka (well, moonshine isn't exactly legal), but I don't because it's easier to buy that shit.

 

And, yeah, okay, I guess we could have the tax debate, but the only way that it is ever going to be legalized within the span of a generation is if the government can tax it. I'd much rather have a sales tax on a luxury good than some other tax funding a violent enforcement regime that just pummels the shit out of the lower classes with bogus charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Sure it may not all be top notch chronic. This isn't a bad thing. So it's not as POTENT as the pros. The level of THC has apparently skyrocketed since Woodstock, so it ain't your dad's bud anymore. Maybe getting back to a little smooth low level high would mitigate any potential problems from excessive intoxication.

I've heard this before, but I'm really unsure what "excessive intoxication" means with weed. No one can overdose on it, and the most annoying things I've seen involve high folks either talking too much, being paranoid (solved with legalization), or attempting to replicate the TV stoner stereotype. The worst thing I can imagine would be driving, but that's a problem faced by the SQ anyway. Could you expound on what "potential problems" might result from the current potency of marijuana? (To be clear, I'm not attacking your arg, I am just curious)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...