Pot legalization could save US $13.7 Billion...

[Zwidmanio]

For all the creative thinking regarding the pro-legalization points, can anyone think of any negative externalities of decriminalizing a drug that delays thought processes, hinders critical thinking, slows reaction times and damages lungs?

I'm sort of on the fence myself, but any reasoned debate must acknowledge that decriminalization of weed will increase its use at least 300% across all populations, and that there will be societal ramifications.

If we're going to have a reasoned debate, I would like to begin with where exactly you're getting your information from. I would be happy to discuss potential negative consequences of decriminalization, but that seems like an unlikely figure.

We'd also have to discuss exactly how you're using the word "use" also. If you're referring to those that have tried marijuana, it's impossible. Studies put the percentage of U.S. adults that have tried marijuana at some point at roughly 42% (Wiki Answers puts it at 60%). For obvious reasons, it would be impossible for there to be a 300% increase in U.S. citizens that have tried marijuana unless it becomes compulsory and we really loosen up our immigration laws.

If you're talking about regular and semi-regular users, I'm still skeptical. Most countries that have tried legalization or tolerance of drug use have actually found that the percentage of those that use or try using drugs dropped. The Netherlands, for instance, reports that around 20% of their citizens have tried marijuana, as compared to our 42%. I also recall reading an article on Portugal's recent experiment with a policy of tolerance and treatment as opposed to a "war against drugs" that produced favorable results that are contrary to your assertion. You can make an argument for different cultural norms and influences, but it seems unlikely that any way you cut it we would get a "300% [increase] across all populations."

Just anecdotally, it seems that some people like it, some people don't. Plenty will try it, only a few will use it on a regular basis. I sincerely doubt that legalization would really make that much of a difference.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Not really aruging anyone here... whatever... but this point.... L.O.L.

How are those lock boxes working out ya???

Oh yeah, I know. It's sad what the pigs in Washington would do.

To me, I have no problem with it being legalized.

However....these overzealous claims of the benefits of how it's going to somehow save the earth and provide money for super trains, end poverty...etc. Save it.

You potheads just wanna get high.

And I'm ok with it. But don't feed me the bullsh*t.

Welll that makes perfect sense accept for the whole f*cking part where I haven't smoked weed this year, and can count the number of times I have done so on one hand. And if you've ever drank or smoked a cigarette, you've done something worse for you than marijuana. So cut it with the self-righteous bullsh*t patty.

Before you guys claim it's going to solve our economic problems....Just keep in mind what government does with the rest of our money already.

Another 13 billion to line some pockets. And they'll still bitch about the rich not paying enough taxes.....

Because the government would waste the money is a reason to keep it illegal? That makes no sense.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Well, Buster, that changes the entire discussion if you are doubling the rail for all HSR routes. I would not argue that is all bad, definitely better than 90% of what government spends money on. Just not convinced it is better than not spending the money and letting it stay in the private sector.

The government dishes out cash for public-private partnerships all of the time. This would be no different, a block-grant given to the states to award to a private developer and manager to operate.

Money is fungible and saying some special tax funds this project is a flawed premise, IMO. Just like the transportation funds of most states being raided repeatedly to balance budgets b/c gas taxes are lucrative and roads are easily neglected.

A fair point, but to be fair they neglect roads because we sprawled ourselves into oblivion.

Consider this....the "3C Plan," the plan connecting Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland with a passenger rail line had a price tag of $400 million. Pricey, to be sure. (and on top of that the plan was terrible and Kasich was absolutely right to veto it)

BUT, do you know how much just one interstate exchange costs? ~$250 million. So every time you see the yellow lines on Google Earth touch, that's $250,000,000 down the drain.

So let's not act like we aren't spending many many many many times over on roads. The system we have is so costly that it is stupefying.

Let me ask this now, how do you get to where you are going once you are in said city? Lack of population density is a major reason have rarely seen a rail proposal pass my smell test.

Milwaukee really has no central districts. They spread the ballpark, basketball stadium and casino miles apart rather than leveraging all for an entertainment district. Businesses sprawl for a good 20 mile radius. You HAVE to have a car to live in that area to be marginally productive and congestion is so light that it would be extremely rare for a rail system to be faster than driving given all of the stops and transfers likely needed.

I know that is a light rail issue, not HSR but gets back to the issue of what you do once you are at this mid tier destination (mid tier in terms of both distance and size).

Here, this is the first valid point you've made. (so kudos, I mean it ) And this is the problem we face in America. We have sprawled ourselves out and it is killing us. It is killing us economically, socially, environmentally, fiscally, etc etc etc and everyone has their biggest beefs with it (e.g. liberals tend to care about the social and environmental aspects, those are secondary concerns are economic and fiscal in nature).

I've never been to Milwaukee, so I can't speak for them, but in Ohio Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland (and Toledo to a certain extent but their casino location was asinine) are making big strides forward with their density. The goal is to have HSR stop downtown and there be a hub that connects a grid of streetcars and whatnot. Essentially, the inter-urban system meets the intra-urban system.

Not having a car blows. No question about it. We need to plan cities for the people, and not the damn automobile. But what's the difference between flying in and not having a car and taking a HSR? HSR would be cheaper, and faster though.

All of this will take ~20 years to get into place, it won't be overnight. But this is only because we spent from ~1945-1990 de-urbanizing America with disastrous effects.

Another issue is political, how do you tell the tinier cities along the way that they don't get a train stop? You pretty much have to fly straight from St. Louis to Milwaukee with maybe one stop to make it worthwhile. It would still be more cost effective to subsidize airlines for short routes. Not that I am a fan of subsidies but I see benefit of government infrastructure projects, just can't get on board nationalizing railroads.

Well it's not nationalizing railroads. A public-private partnership is still private.

This question is easy to solve. "You are as important." Boom. Case closed. Not every city can have an international airport or a major league team. If you're not big enough, you're not big enough.

 

[RubberSoul]

Once drugs are legalized, use goes up at first bit then gradually decreases over time to a figure smaller than when it was illegal. This is due mostly to drugs losing the luster of forbidden fruit.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

M'kay? /thread

 

[BobD]

I don't know why I'm gonna post my opinion, I should just move on to the next thread....but no, I'm gonna be the unpopular guy.

I'm against the legalization of pot.

I suppose we could save a lot of money by not enforcing many different laws?

I admit I smoked pot and tried some other drugs when I was young but I quit because I didn't want to end up like the people I knew that did a lot of drugs.

I think legalizing pot might put us on a slippery slope.

I know alcohol is bad but geez, haven't you guys seen "Refer Madness"?

 

[BeauBenken]

I honestly think there's a very good amount of people who are against it. They just don't speak up because they think it's the unpopular thing to say like BobD says. This is an open forum and I know that I would LOVE to hear more from that side just because you never do.

I'm for the legalization of it. And no, I'm not a pothead. To me, a pothead is a reference to someone who has made a lifestyle out of smoking marijuana and to me that's just silly. I've got better **** to do and better **** to spend my money on, but once in a blue moon, if it's offered free of charge, I have nothing against partaking.

 

[InKellyITrust]

Another unpopular guy in the room here. I'm really against it and there's a reason why it's been illegal all this time.

One of my best friends started running around with the wrong crowd and starting smoking weed at least 3 times a day. He was the oldest of all of his siblings and it was really sad to see the impact that it had on them because they looked up to him so much like any sibling would do with an older sibling.

From my view, smoking weed can really bring out the immaturity in people. After awhile, people need to grow up at some point and care about things that really matter. Instead of taking time doing this stupid ****, people should be giving back to their communities and think about how their actions affect younger generations.

 

[connor_in]

David Toma - The Truth about Drugs and Alcohol

This guy scared the crap out of me back in middle school...never touched drugs and never wanted too after that
(Note I am not making judgements on any side)

 

[Black Irish]

I'm generally in favor of legalization. I've got no use for pot, but I know plenty of people who smoke regularly and still lead productive lives. It's also hard for me to throw stones when I'm drinking a double whiskey and playing cards in the back room of a social club at 2 a.m. Pot is not health food and can abused, but it's not going to kill you if it is used in moderation.

BUT... I'm also not sold on all these supposed benefits we'll see with pot legalization. Sure, we will see a marginal drop in crime once it is legal, but that's just people who get busted for possession and never do anything else illegal in their lives. I'd bet plenty of pot busts come along with other compounding crimes (e.g. DUI, other drug possession, theft). Stupid irresponsible people are still going to do stupid things whether pot is legal or not.

On a larger scale, I don't buy that violent organized crime cartels are going to just go away with even wholesale drug legalization. We didn't eliminate organized crime with the end of Prohibition in 1933. The mob just moved into other areas.

Finally, I don't see these huge savings in money people talk about on the law enforcement end. Yes, there will be a more effective allocation of law enforcement resources, because cops won't have to enforce pot laws. But we won't have a big pile of cash to spend as a result of pot legalization. The DEA and police narcotics units will just focus harder on other drug crimes. Don't forget the black market, as others have pointed out. Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are legal to own, with restrictions, but we have an ATF Bureau. Don't think we won't still have a DEA even if all drugs are legal.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Another unpopular guy in the room here. I'm really against it and there's a reason why it's been illegal all this time.

That reason is because a lot of industries would lose money if marijuana were legalized. Tobacco, beer/wine/liquor, pharmacy, textile, etc etc companies would, at the very minimum, lose marketshare and as worst render their product inferior.

There is also the fear of people ending up like your friend. That isn't a shred of evidence that 1) it is commonplace or 2) marijuana causes it--your friend is probably just a loser.

One of my best friends started running around with the wrong crowd and starting smoking weed at least 3 times a day. He was the oldest of all of his siblings and it was really sad to see the impact that it had on them because they looked up to him so much like any sibling would do with an older sibling.

The key term is "wrong crowd." This is an anecdotal story and there are instances that run the gamut. My brother's roommate in college smoked weed every day, and graduated a year early and aced his exam to become an RN. A guy I work with smoked 3x daily at a minimum, and has a ~3.8 GPA in the pharmacy program here.

When alcohol was illegal, people had to typically hang around the "wrong crowd" to get access to it. If Marijuana were legal, you wouldn't need to run into the "wrong crowd."

Why do you think marijuana is a gateway drug? When you need to go to drug dealers, the likelihood of you trying the harder stuff is exponentially harder. If you could get cannabis from a store, you don't have contact with drug dealers.

From my view, smoking weed can really bring out the immaturity in people. After awhile, people need to grow up at some point and care about things that really matter. Instead of taking time doing this stupid ****, people should be giving back to their communities and think about how their actions affect younger generations.

Have you ever been drunk? If not, then your claim is legitimate. If yes, then this is complete hypocrisy.

 

[greyhammer90]

Another unpopular guy in the room here. I'm really against it and there's a reason why it's been illegal all this time.

One of my best friends started running around with the wrong crowd and starting smoking weed at least 3 times a day. He was the oldest of all of his siblings and it was really sad to see the impact that it had on them because they looked up to him so much like any sibling would do with an older sibling.

From my view, smoking weed can really bring out the immaturity in people. After awhile, people need to grow up at some point and care about things that really matter. Instead of taking time doing this stupid ****, people should be giving back to their communities and think about how their actions affect younger generations.

Sounds like your friend is an immature tool. I don't think weed does that.

 

[BeauBenken]

Another unpopular guy in the room here. I'm really against it and there's a reason why it's been illegal all this time.

One of my best friends started running around with the wrong crowd and starting smoking weed at least 3 times a day. He was the oldest of all of his siblings and it was really sad to see the impact that it had on them because they looked up to him so much like any sibling would do with an older sibling.

From my view, smoking weed can really bring out the immaturity in people. After awhile, people need to grow up at some point and care about things that really matter. Instead of taking time doing this stupid ****, people should be giving back to their communities and think about how their actions affect younger generations.

Like I said in an earlier post, it's stupid to make a lifestyle of it. If you're too busy getting high to be productive in your life, you're ****ing up, but that isn't the drug's fault, it's yours.

 

[ACamp1900]

To me, I have no problem with it being legalized.

However....these overzealous claims of the benefits of how it's going to somehow save the earth and provide money for super trains, end poverty...etc. Save it.

You potheads just wanna get high.

And I'm ok with it. But don't feed me the bullsh*t.

Actually agree with this in total... I don't really care either way on the main issue... but the pot heads that talk like it's good for you because it's "from the earth" and harmless... yeah, beyond stupid... no matter what happens on this issue, I'm very much over hearing the pot heads talk about how no harm can come from inhaling smoke that changes your brain, respiratory and circulatory system's functionings.... I'm sure there are benefits somewhere, just like recent studies showing a glass of beer is good for you... but yeah, beer drinkers know better than to constantly try to sell it as a "good" habit...

 

[BeauBenken]

Actually agree with this in total... I don't really care either way on the main issue... but the pot heads that talk like it's good for you because it's "from the earth" and harmless... yeah, beyond stupid... no matter what happens on this issue, I'm very much over hearing the pot heads talk about how no harm can come from inhaling smoke that changes your brain, respiratory and circulatory system's functionings....

If there are potheads that seriously think it won't harm you at all, they're idiots. Completely.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Another unpopular guy in the room here. I'm really against it and there's a reason why it's been illegal all this time.

One of my best friends started running around with the wrong crowd and starting smoking weed at least 3 times a day. He was the oldest of all of his siblings and it was really sad to see the impact that it had on them because they looked up to him so much like any sibling would do with an older sibling.

From my view, smoking weed can really bring out the immaturity in people. After awhile, people need to grow up at some point and care about things that really matter. Instead of taking time doing this stupid ****, people should be giving back to their communities and think about how their actions affect younger generations.

I'm probably, at the moment, against legalization as well. There are many people now who, as a practical matter, don't smoke it because either (a) it's illegal, or (b) you don't know anyone who sells it. I know because me and many of my friends consider ourselves in this very category.

So, remember when you were, like, 14 and you knew you could always score beer just by asking a homeless guy? Now make that weed, and instead of Mr. Homeless only being able to carry two 12 packs, he can literally carry as much as you can afford.

Hence my belief that, upon being able to buy it in, say, liquor stores, marijuana consumption will be skyrocket at least 1000%. I just think people underestimate how much the "War on Drugs" constrains supply and accessability.

And can anyone really argue, with a straight face, that such increased use won't have detrimental effects on the economy? The increased use by bus drivers and taxi drivers alone will be enough to cause a material spike in auto-insurance rates. Obviously I can go on but you get the picture...

 

[greyhammer90]

I'm probably, at the moment, against legalization as well. There are many people now who, as a practical matter, don't smoke it because either (a) it's illegal, or (b) you don't know anyone who sells it. I know because me and many of my friends consider ourselves in this very category.

So, remember when you were, like, 14 and you knew you could always score beer just by asking a homeless guy? Now make that weed, and instead of Mr. Homeless only being able to carry two 12 packs, he can literally carry as much as you can afford.

Hence my belief that, upon being able to buy it in, say, liquor stores, marijuana consumption will be skyrocket at least 1000%. I just think people underestimate how much the "War on Drugs" constrains supply and accessability.

And can anyone really argue, with a straight face, that such increased use won't have detrimental effects on the economy? The increased use by bus drivers and taxi drivers alone will be enough to cause a material spike in auto-insurance rates. Obviously I can go on but you get the picture...

Annual Cannabis percentage of population marijuana usage by country:
Cambodia: 3.5 percent (Legal)
Ecuador: .7 percent (Legal)
Mexico: 1 percent (Legal)
Netherlands 5.4 percent (Legal)
Switzerland: 3.4 percent (legal)
Uruguay: 6 percent (legal)
USA: 13.7 percent (Illegal)

But all of this is besides the point.... MY point is that if the government is going to make something illegal, they need to have a pretty airtight reason to do that. Here's my example:

Lets say the government outlaws funnel cakes (or ice cream, or candy bars, or soda). They decide that funnel cakes, having no nutritional value, only make people fat which also leads to them being lazier people which feeds our nations obesity epidemic. Would you be ok with this? And how would you feel about the people who stick up for this law by saying, "I'm against the legalization of funnel cakes because it's bad for you, and more people will eat them if they're legal."

As to your "kid outside of a gas station" example, your language is alarmist at best... "He can carry as much as you can afford?" If this is true, why dont I see more homeless guys coming out of the local gas stations with 5 pound bags of tobacco under their arm? It wouldn't work that way. This attitude is one that annoys me the more that I read. Legalizing marijuana wouldn't put the country in some sort of a drug induced high. Life would go on just as before, except the people that wanted to voluntarily partake in a mostly harmless, mostly non-addictive drug would have the opportunity to do so in a safe, legal manner. Just as we should all have the right to do with any of our own personal vices.

And BTW I've only smoked pot once... meh. I prefer beer.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Hence my belief that, upon being able to buy it in, say, liquor stores, marijuana consumption will be skyrocket at least 1000%.

Where do some of you come up with these OUTRAGEOUS statistics?

 

[Buster Bluth]

^^
Well put. But I'd add a few things:

1) if you don't know someone who would know how to get you marijuana, then you don't know your friends well enough.

2) 30% of college kids use marijuana fairly regularly. It being illegal is not a deterrent, not at all. In fact, a disproportionate amount of marijuana arrests are of black people.

3) So, you're worried about kids being able to get weed more easily. That is almost certainly true (although it's readily available in every school in the country. Literally 99% of schools have kids smoking weed...it's hard to make a situation worse when it's already widespread...). BUT, you can, as a suspicious parent (or via school policy) test your kids and find out easily. Be a good parent and you're kid won't end up a druggie.

 

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

For all the creative thinking regarding the pro-legalization points, can anyone think of any negative externalities of decriminalizing a drug that delays thought processes, hinders critical thinking, slows reaction times and damages lungs?

I'm sort of on the fence myself, but any reasoned debate must acknowledge that decriminalization of weed will increase its use at least 300% across all populations, and that there will be societal ramifications.

As opposed to what?

What changed my mind on pot legalization was this: my ex husband was abusive. Very abusive. He split my head open with an acoustic guitar once. One night while we're separated he came back to the house and 911 recorded me screaming and him trying to wrestle me to the ground and strangle me. He was taken to jail for his THIRD offense of domestic violence which made it a felony. Prior to me meeting him in 1999 and 2000 he was arrested twice for beating up his then girlfriend. The prosecutors assistant made my ex a deal...go to anger management a second time and serve probation and he'd avoid jail if he'd take the plea deal. So he did.

On the day he was sentenced, a man was also being sentenced for possessing an 8th of an ounce of weed (which ain't a lot). My ex was sentenced to anger management and 2 yrs probation. The guy with the pot got 90 days in jail, 5 yrs probation, and a 3500 dollar fine. Who did the pot head hurt? No one. Does the pot heads wife have to suffer with physical injuries from his actions all her life? Does she have to suffer the psychological damage or live in fear over his actions? No. That guy was pulled over for a busted tail light and the cop could smell his weed and searched the car.
I've also seen many peoples lives change who had cancer and started smoking medical.

 

[Zwidmanio]

I don't necessarily agree that legalization would make it so much easier for a kid to get weed than it is now. Generally, all a kid has to do is ask the right person/dealer at their school. I'm sure most have them. In comparison, if they want alcohol they have to go find that homeless person, or some other adult, that is willing to go to the store for them.

By forcing weed to remain on the black market you make it that much harder to regulate. We have to realize that kids will get their hands on pretty much whatever they want, legal or illegal, if they want it bad enough. If that's the case, I'd rather have it regulated and with the revenue headed to legitimate sources, not drug cartels.

I also wanted to add that a large part of the problem is the hysteria and misinformation surrounding the debate. Hyperbole comes from both sides, but the anti-legalization arguments are oftentimes sadly misinformed. Already in this thread I have seen claims that marijuana use will increase by between 300%-1000%, which is virtually impossible.

This hysteria is the reason why, as pointed out above by k1ssme, that violent offenders can a lighter sentence than somebody convicted of possession. Violent offenders have been released from prison after serving less time than some convicted solely of marijuana possession because of mandatory sentencing.

Hmm, prisons are full? Let's release the rapist so we'll have room for this pothead. In addition, this country is wasting so much money running around trying to bust potheads and their dealers when nearly all studies show that treatment is the more effective method to curb drug abuse.

We've created the demand in Central and South American countries, which has made the market extremely lucrative, we've flooded Mexico with our money and our weapons, and then we demand other countries do something about it and allow us to run quasi-military operations on their soil. How does any of this make sense?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...

As to your "kid outside of a gas station" example, your language is alarmist at best... "He can carry as much as you can afford?" If this is true, why dont I see more homeless guys coming out of the local gas stations with 5 pound bags of tobacco under their arm?...

Dude, homeless guys buy cartons for kids all the time...you're just not going to buy an ounce of pure tobacco, if you're a high schooler, beceause, well, high schoolers aren't pipe smokers and there isn't a secondary market for tobacco in the schools like there is for weed. Upon decriminalization the "homeless guy" can both serve as a retailer to kid-consumers, and a wholesaler to kid-dealers.

And when dealers' costs decrease, the prices fall, (which will also be aided by increased competition) and more is consumed just on a pure price-reduction basis (not to mention the fact that people will be more comfortable smoking it post-"legalization").

Where do some of you come up with these OUTRAGEOUS statistics?

It don't come up with it from anywhere, because it's not a stat, it's called speculation, because we don't actually know how much more will be consumed. Hence the preface that it was "my belief".

As opposed to what?...

As opposed to a positive externality -- for example, based on your experience, we might conclude that increased marijuana consumption would reduce violence.

I don't have very reliable stats regarding the legalized K2/spice/synthetic marijuana, because nobody really does, but my understanding is that it is/was in very high demand, and use skyrocketed in just a few years it was on the market. This clearly shows the pent-up demand for a legal cannabinoid.

And this is stuff you can't even grow -- you have to make it in a damn laboratory. But people were still willing to pay roughly $30 for a small bag, so if we lower the price point and provide a better product (i.e., weed), not to mention the fact that this new weed won't be cloaked under legal uncertainty the way that K2 was, that should give you an idea of how much more marijuana will be consumed upon decriminalization.

Futhermore, unless you're prepared to make a case that synthetic marijuana is "better" than regular weed, this Spice/K2 phenomenon totally belies any claim that "anyone who wants weed will get it" or "people don't care whether pot's legal or not", because why else would people be buying it?

Look, at the end of the day, I probably can get on board with "legalizing it". But in advancing the cause you're all just going to have to put forth more nuanced arguments than "everybody smokes weed -- you just don't know your friends like I do" or "people who want it find it anyway".

 

[greyhammer90]

And when dealers' costs decrease, the prices fall, (which will also be aided by increased competition) and more is consumed just on a pure price-reduction basis (not to mention the fact that people will be more comfortable smoking it post-"legalization").

You missed the point of my argument. My point is that you need to give me a reason for it to be illegal. I think it makes sense that if there is an argument over whether or not something should be illegal, the burden of proof is on the person arguing that it should be criminalized. You need a reason to make something illegal, and it needs to be something that all but proves that the substance is a danger to the general public. Your only reasoning (thus far) is that it should be illegal because more people will use it if it's legal. My answer is... "So?"

Too long; didn't read version: I shouldn't have to explain why something should be legal. You should have to explain why it shouldn't be.

 

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

I just feel like pot is not a big deal. When you've seen things I've seen from pain killers and alcohol, I think your opinion might change. I'd be more afraid of your neighbor with a secret Percocet addiction than I ever would be of a pot head.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Dude, homeless guys buy cartons for kids all the time...you're just not going to buy an ounce of pure tobacco, if you're a high schooler, beceause, well, high schoolers aren't pipe smokers and there isn't a secondary market for tobacco in the schools like there is for weed. Upon decriminalization the "homeless guy" can both serve as a retailer to kid-consumers, and a wholesaler to kid-dealers.

But you can test kids for marijuana use! They can't hide it like tobacco or alcohol!

 

[Zwidmanio]

Dude, homeless guys buy cartons for kids all the time...you're just not going to buy an ounce of pure tobacco, if you're a high schooler, beceause, well, high schoolers aren't pipe smokers and there isn't a secondary market for tobacco in the schools like there is for weed. Upon decriminalization the "homeless guy" can both serve as a retailer to kid-consumers, and a wholesaler to kid-dealers.

The problem with your hypothetical is that real world experience has not provided any evidence to show that what you fear might occur. It seems that you're worried about homeless guys providing bags of weed for high school dealers. I'm sure it happens here and there, but is there widespread use of homeless people to supply teenage alcohol wholesalers? The alcohol marketplace is probably most similar to what a weed marketplace would be, and I have seen absolutely no evidence that homeless men would all of a sudden become drug kingpins preying upon high schoolers.

It don't come up with it from anywhere, because it's not a stat, it's called speculation, because we don't actually know how much more will be consumed. Hence the preface that it was "my belief".

And when dealers' costs decrease, the prices fall, (which will also be aided by increased competition) and more is consumed just on a pure price-reduction basis (not to mention the fact that people will be more comfortable smoking it post-"legalization").

See, that's the problem with your arguments, pure speculation without any evidence or experience to back them up. Not trying to be d!ckish, because I do appreciate you standing up and voicing an unpopular viewpoint, but bring something a little stronger than unfounded speculation.

Ex. your speculation that drug use would increase due to legalization. Earlier in the thread I mentioned two specific examples where the opposite happened in countries adopting a tolerant attitude towards marijuana use. Somebody later provided even more statistics showing that in countries that adopted policies of tolerance towards personal marijuana users, the rate of usage dropped and they have levels of marijuana use far lower than ours in the U.S. These are facts and experiences from which we can draw reasonable inferences of what might happen if we adopted similar policies. Not mere speculation based upon personal viewpoints.

As opposed to a positive externality -- for example, based on your experience, we might conclude that increased marijuana consumption would reduce violence.

I don't have very reliable stats regarding the legalized K2/spice/synthetic marijuana, because nobody really does, but my understanding is that it is/was in very high demand, and use skyrocketed in just a few years it was on the market. This clearly shows the pent-up demand for a legal cannabinoid.

And this is stuff you can't even grow -- you have to make it in a damn laboratory. But people were still willing to pay roughly $30 for a small bag, so if we lower the price point and provide a better product (i.e., weed), not to mention the fact that this new weed won't be cloaked under legal uncertainty the way that K2 was, that should give you an idea of how much more marijuana will be consumed upon decriminalization.

Futhermore, unless you're prepared to make a case that synthetic marijuana is "better" than regular weed, this Spice/K2 phenomenon totally belies any claim that "anyone who wants weed will get it" or "people don't care whether pot's legal or not", because why else would people be buying it?

Look, at the end of the day, I probably can get on board with "legalizing it". But in advancing the cause you're all just going to have to put forth more nuanced arguments than "everybody smokes weed -- you just don't know your friends like I do" or "people who want it find it anyway".

I don't think she was trying to make the point that marijuana use would lead to reduced violence. For me, her story was meant to highlight the fact that our law enforcement and penelogical resources could be far better used addressing other societal ills instead of marijuana users.

And lastly, I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with the last few paragraphs. I don't know too much about it, but from what I'd read, K2 is nothing like marijuana despite how it was marketed. Once again, I don't think price and availability will have that much to do with the market for marijuana. Bud Light is cheap and alcohol is legal. This in no way has ever influenced me to the point where I partook in such a product.

Just because it's available and cheaper, does not necessarily lead to increased usage or abuse.

 

[BobD]

A couple of questions for any experts we might have out there.

If pot were made legal, could employers still drug test and refuse to hire people that use it?

Is there a way to determine without a doubt if someone is currently under the influence of pot or just the old fashioned drug tests to determine if they have used it within the last week or so? ....if there isn't, then people like pilots, bus drivers, train engineers, and truck drivers etc. could be stoned at work.

Does a state have the ability to legalize pot? Doesn't it have to be done at the federal level?

 

[BobD]

As opposed to what?

What changed my mind on pot legalization was this: my ex husband was abusive. Very abusive. He split my head open with an acoustic guitar once. One night while we're separated he came back to the house and 911 recorded me screaming and him trying to wrestle me to the ground and strangle me. He was taken to jail for his THIRD offense of domestic violence which made it a felony. Prior to me meeting him in 1999 and 2000 he was arrested twice for beating up his then girlfriend. The prosecutors assistant made my ex a deal...go to anger management a second time and serve probation and he'd avoid jail if he'd take the plea deal. So he did.

On the day he was sentenced, a man was also being sentenced for possessing an 8th of an ounce of weed (which ain't a lot). My ex was sentenced to anger management and 2 yrs probation. The guy with the pot got 90 days in jail, 5 yrs probation, and a 3500 dollar fine. Who did the pot head hurt? No one. Does the pot heads wife have to suffer with physical injuries from his actions all her life? Does she have to suffer the psychological damage or live in fear over his actions? No. That guy was pulled over for a busted tail light and the cop could smell his weed and searched the car.
I've also seen many peoples lives change who had cancer and started smoking medical.

I'm sorry to hear the crap you had to go through. A real man will catch up to your ex one day and teach him a lesson....men that abuse women and children are cowards and the scum of this earth. I hope your in a much better place now.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If pot were made legal, could employers still drug test and refuse to hire people that use it?

They probably couldn't get away with asking about marijuana use on applications/ refusing to hire for that reason, but they could absolutely fire people for showing up to work under the influence (just as they can with alcohol now).

Is there a way to determine without a doubt if someone is currently under the influence of pot or just the old fashioned drug tests to determine if they have used it within the last week or so? ....if there isn't, then people like pilots, bus drivers, train engineers, and truck drivers etc. could be stoned at work.

THC is easier to detect and measure than alcohol.

Does a state have the ability to legalize pot? Doesn't it have to be done at the federal level?

Officially? No, states can't legalize pot while it remains illegal on the federal level due to the Supremacy Clause. Unofficially, they can achieve something close to legalization through various loopholes (medical marijuana, etc.) Many states have already done this.

 

[Irish Fam]

How would they test to see if someone is currently under the influence of marijuana? I was always under the impression that they could only detect if it is in someone's system... where in some cases can show up from weeks ago