With the push to legalize it in California, I am curious how many people would smoke it.

I did quite a bit as a teen, but quit because it just burned me out and made me paranoid, so I can only imagine those effects being a lot worse with almost 30 years gone by since I last did it. So really my only Dog in the fight would be the tax revenue it could generate.

Probably not. Wasn't really a fan of it.

I wouldn't, but my sister really need medical marijuana and now has to choose between getting the medical help she needs or keeping her family safe from legal consequences. So, I advocate it being legal for her sake (and others like her).

Depends how far the price drops, I did some as a teen but thats back when it was 40 bucks an OZ, what is it now like 1500-2000 an OZ????

I only smoke it periodically now, because it makes me super paranoid sometimes, and it's not often worth the risk of a bad time for me. This wouldn't change if it were legalized.

I've never smoked it, but if it were legally I might give it a try. Doubtful, but possible. Hard to say.

Depends how far the price drops, I did some as a teen but thats back when it was 40 bucks an OZ, what is it now like 1500-2000 an OZ????

Surprisingly, the price of weed has remained largely unchanged for like the last 20 years.

Surprisingly, the price of weed has remained largely unchanged for like the last 20 years.

Really? We need a plan to provide federal aid to pot dealers immediately. I mean...they arent even keeping up with inflation.

I've smoked marijuana in the past, never as a regular user. I've never once bought any myself - what little I've done myself has been other people's pot. If it were legalized and my work didn't care if I used it on my own time, I'd probably smoke it here and there, but I'm betting my usage would be pretty low.

About the only thing I really have any interest in when it comes to marijuana is sitting down with a really good CD and some headphones. All the rest, eh, doesn't really do much for me.

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

Probably would do it more if legal.

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

Never smoked. Never had any interest. But I have no qualms if people want to. Legalize it.

I don't think this applies to me (it's too late for me, save yourselves!), but I think it's an interesting question to those who abstain for purely legal reasons.

If you don't think you would try it on your own, imagine if it were legalized, and you went to a relaxed, casual party with your favorite friends, having fun and sharing drinks/conversation/BDSM. Someone lights up a joint and passes it around the room, when it gets to you, do you try it out, or do you pass it on?

I do it now, so yeah, guess that would continue if it were legalized.

I'd pass on it. I'm a little weary of making it legal as I've seen how it completely kills motivation on kids in the 16-22 age range. A bunch of kids on my baseball team in HS smoked it and ended up dropping off the team (one was really talented).

I guess I look at it like booze, but the fear of it being readily available for 15-20 year olds (like beer is now) would probably be enough for me not to be in favor of full legalization. I'd be completely fine with it being legal with a prescription. My concern is trying to minimize the use by kids under 20.

Depends how far the price drops, I did some as a teen but thats back when it was 40 bucks an OZ, what is it now like 1500-2000 an OZ????

And a banana costs $10, Mrs. Bluthe.

I just got done roasting five minutes ago.

As for the price question, we're usually running about $350 per ounce of higher quality stuff around here. From there the price goes to $50 per 1/8 ounce and $100 per 1/4 ounce.

Cheap shit varies. I don't like to fuck around with it, but $20 per 1/8 ounce is fairly standard. You can have all grades in between the cheap shit and the good shit.

To minimize legal risk, I have a group of friends, almost like an informal cooperative that will buy in bulk and distribute it among ourselves. Once I've got my stash home from picking it up, it never really leaves.

I've been smoking for 10 years now on a fairly regular basis so the effects are a lot less pronounced than it would be in even an occasional smoker. I feel pretty stoned for about 30 minutes before I feel fully functional.

I would for sure. I love having beers before I go out, when I get home from work, etc...

Would be nice to not have all the extra calories.

I would for sure. I love having beers before I go out, when I get home from work, etc...

Would be nice to not have all the extra calories.

Good point, except for the 6 slices of Pizza, 3 bags of Doritos and 2 quarts of Ben & Jerry's you would pound down after blazing. :)

Good point, except for the 6 slices of Pizza, 3 bags of Doritos and 2 quarts of Ben & Jerry's you would pound down after blazing. :)

carrots and celery my friend

I'd be completely fine with it being legal with a prescription. My concern is trying to minimize the use by kids under 20.

I think this is a very valid concern, but advocates of legalization would argue that it would be much easier to restrict sales if those sales were controlled, like alcohol. Right now, most kids under 20 are likely getting their weed from other kids under 20. The hope (and certainly plenty of ideas get lost between hope and reality) is that would decrease with legalization and proper controlled sales.

Come to think of it, I'd probably give it a shot if it was baked into something. I don't care for smoking at all but do enjoy fine pasties.

Come to think of it, I'd probably give it a shot if it was baked into something. I don't care for smoking at all but do enjoy fine panties.

Hemp underwear, you may be on to something RM.

I'd pass on it. I'm a little weary of making it legal as I've seen how it completely kills motivation on kids in the 16-22 age range. A bunch of kids on my baseball team in HS smoked it and ended up dropping off the team (one was really talented).

I guess I look at it like booze, but the fear of it being readily available for 15-20 year olds (like beer is now) would probably be enough for me not to be in favor of full legalization. I'd be completely fine with it being legal with a prescription. My concern is trying to minimize the use by kids under 20.


I think even anti-drug groups concede that it is easier for kids to get marijuana that alcohol because the government at least has some regulations on alcohol. There have been plenty of studies that show this. To get beer you need to have a 21+ year old (or at least a fake id carrying) connection. To get weed you just buy it from some other kid.

And not to rag on you twice for the same post by why is weed illegal for me because someone else can't be a good parent? (not you, but your fear of kids under 20 means somebody isn't) Just make it legal for those over 18 and leave the good parenting or poor parenting to the individuals. Sorry but every law doesn't have to have mass restirctions for the children.

Someone lights up a joint and passes it around the room, when it gets to you, do you try it out, or do you pass it on?

I'd leave the room because pot smells vile.

I think this is a very valid concern, but advocates of legalization would argue that it would be much easier to restrict sales if those sales were controlled, like alcohol. Right now, most kids under 20 are likely getting their weed from other kids under 20. The hope (and certainly plenty of ideas get lost between hope and reality) is that would decrease with legalization and proper controlled sales.
I was able to get booze any time I wanted from the age of 15 to 21. Heck, some stores in the sticks of IL (where I grew up) sold it to me when I was 16 without checking ID. If pot was in every Circle K or convenient mart across the nation, I'd guarantee use by kids would skyrocket.

It's one thing to know a guy who know's a guy who can get you some weed. It's quite another to see it sitting there in every store on the corner. All it takes is an older cousin/brother and you can score pot like we used to score booze. Given Pot is currently illegal, I see no real reason to legalize it (ie, legitimize it) for non-medicinal purchase.

I think even anti-drug groups concede that it is easier for kids to get marijuana that alcohol because the government at least has some regulations on alcohol. There have been plenty of studies that show this. To get beer you need to have a 21+ year old (or at least a fake id carrying) connection. To get weed you just buy it from some other kid.

And not to rag on you twice for the same post by why is weed illegal for me because someone else can't be a good parent? (not you, but your fear of kids under 20 means somebody isn't) Just make it legal for those over 18 and leave the good parenting or poor parenting to the individuals. Sorry but every law doesn't have to have mass restirctions for the children.
I don't know, there was one guy in HS I knew that could score weed and he wasn't able to get much. I could get a bottle of beer any moment I wanted from 15 up. I have to think that the fact that beer was legal and pot wasn't is a big factor in that setup.

Many people on the coasts don't realize that pot isn't quite as easy to score in middle America. There are always people that can get it (if you really want it), but if you are a 17-year old kid in Waterloo, IL (where some family of mine lives), you will have a hard time finding pot on a random Friday night unless you are really dialed in with that crowd. Beer, on the other hand, is something you have to actually try and avoid as it's pretty much everywhere.

Just the chance that legalizing pot leads to the same situation is enough for me not to support it. Now, if it ends up being legal, I'm not going to go out and campaign against it - but I don't think I would vote for it.

It's one thing to know a guy who know's a guy who can get you some weed. It's quite another to see it sitting there in every store on the corner. All it takes is an older cousin/brother and you can score pot like we used to score booze. Given Pot is currently illegal, I see no real reason to legalize it (ie, legitimize it) for non-medicinal purchase.


Well, I don't think we necessarily have to jump to weed being available on every corner, once it becomes legal. Surely, they could choose to regulate it more strongly than alcohol (dedicated weed shops, mandatory ID), and even most advocates wouldn't complain.

To piggyback off your analogy, I too was able to buy beer at the 'right' corner market, from pretty much my 18th birthday on. On the other hand, I wasn't able to get a drop of liquor until I was 21, as liquor can only be bought at state-run liquor stores in Oregon, which are highly regulated and very effective (to the point that everybody hates them). I would imagine that weed sales would be more like that model (which is already in place in California dispensaries), rather than a big weed display at 7-11.

Well, I don't think we necessarily have to jump to weed being available on every corner, once it becomes legal. Surely, they could choose to regulate it more strongly than alcohol (dedicated weed shops, mandatory ID), and even most advocates wouldn't complain.

To piggyback off your analogy, I too was able to buy beer at the 'right' corner market, from pretty much my 18th birthday on. On the other hand, I wasn't able to get a drop of liquor until I was 21, as liquor can only be bought at state-run liquor stores in Oregon, which are highly regulated and very effective (to the point that everybody hates them). I would imagine that weed sales would be more like that model (which is already in place in California dispensaries), rather than a big weed display at 7-11.

Ditto in Utah and they keep very inconvient hours too. I could only imagine something similar if Marijuana did become Legal, selling it in a 7-11 would not work at all.

Being one of the more active smokers here, of course I would. I'd like to think I am a very functional smoker, in that it actually enhances my ability to do certain things like monotonous or very endurance intensive labor. It certainly hasn't stopped me from getting promotions and raises, although I don't do it AT work..

And before that raises an alarm, I don't mean operating heavy machinery, just manual labor stuff.. Hands and feet. I find that my endurance and overall physical and emotional stress are reduced to the point that I could do whatever I am doing for long periods of time (like years of unloading trucks at a place like wal mart as I have done in the past, or producing music at home in my makeshift studio, or doing chores around the house) without fear of ever being "burned out" mentally or physically at all. In fact, if I could have smoked in school, I probably would have done my homework more often. I know that isn't really a good thing though, and I don't condone school age children toking up, just making an observation. I think it affects some people more positively than others.

What cracks me up is that the more we crack down on smokers, the more we wat to legalie marijuana

I'm not sure if I would or not. I tried it 2 or 3 times in my early twenties, and it was kind of fun, but it just seemed to be a different kind of lifestyle. I tend to 'tow the line' pretty straight in life, for the most part, so it was hard to get past the stigma.

That said, I truly believe it is no more dangerous than alcohol, which is legal and has little to no stigma at this point. So would the stigma go away on weed if its all the sudden legal? I mean, could I look my dad in the eye and say "I had a couple joints at a party last weekend" if he asked? What about my son? I don't know.

So that's my answer: I don't know. Which sadly has no option on the poll.

Not only would I not smoke it, I would start kicking people's asses for being stoned around me.

There's nothing funnier than beating the hell out of a bunch of stoners who can't even motivate themselves to defend.

No way I'd do it. I've worked with some moderate to heavy pot-smokers and their memory is shit. I mean, you tell them something and they'll forget it a short while later. Or you'll say "remember when I said this a week ago" and they'll give you a blank look. Or you'll try to explain something beyond a basic "look at this" and they'll just give you a blank stare. I know these people weren't the brightest, but I've never had that experience with anyone other than people who smoke marijuana.

dola...

So I don't sound like I'm just being a hater: I smoked more than my share of dope in high school and college. I don't have a problem with pot. I don't have a problem with people who smoke pot.

But as I've gotten older, I have zero patience and tolerance for stoned people who attempt to interact with me. I'd sooner beat you down than have to talk to you about your dumbass cosmic awakening.

I'd sooner beat you down than have to talk to you about your dumbass cosmic awakening.

I smoke pot all day long, and I couldn't agree more. Just because you like marijuana doesn't mean it has to be your identity. I know people who could bore me to death talking about wine, but at least they don't wear wine pants, wine shoes, wine backpack, put wine in their hair, and talk about the healing power of wine all day.

Just watch a few episodes of "The Joy of Painting", and it'll be like getting buzzed for free (since it's on PBS).

I love you Bob Ross.

No way I'd do it. I've worked with some moderate to heavy pot-smokers and their memory is shit. I mean, you tell them something and they'll forget it a short while later. Or you'll say "remember when I said this a week ago" and they'll give you a blank look. Or you'll try to explain something beyond a basic "look at this" and they'll just give you a blank stare. I know these people weren't the brightest, but I've never had that experience with anyone other than people who smoke marijuana.
As long as we're simply going off of small-sample personal experiences here, the majority of my friends that are/have been regular pot-smokers are highly motivated, very successful people with great memory.

I've never smoked it, but if it were legal, I might give it a try. Doubtful, but possible. Hard to say.

Pretty much my answer, too.

As long as we're simply going off of small-sample personal experiences here, the majority of my friends that are/have been regular pot-smokers are highly motivated, very successful people with great memory.

I know a couple of very successful executives who smoke regularly as well as a couple of people who are just barely functioning. I don't think dope changed the trajectories of any of those people. Another small sample.

Considering I've never puffed a cigarette, I doubt I'd try marijuana.

Just don't find it appealing.

I don't think dope changed the trajectories of any of those people.
Bingo. I find it interesting how people who would normally be expected to espouse the "personal responsibility" ethos seem to suggest that people who smoke marijuana fall under some kind of spell, and that it's the marijuana that changes them and not decisions that these people make of their own accord.

I'm not going to dispute the idea that using marijuana might make it easier for some people to fall into a pattern of less motivation in their lives, but I don't for a second believe it causes everyone to use it to become demotivated slackers - the responsibility still lies primarily with the individual.

Just like some people can't handle drinking responsibly, some people can't handle smoking pot responsibly.

As long as we're simply going off of small-sample personal experiences here, the majority of my friends that are/have been regular pot-smokers are highly motivated, very successful people with great memory.

Fair enough. I have very limited experience with pot, so being around my former co-workers is the only experience I have. It was the eerie similarities between them that really stuck with me. I know it's a small sample size, but having worked with them for over a year, it is a small sample size that will always stick with me.

Bingo. I find it interesting how people who would normally be expected to espouse the "personal responsibility" ethos seem to suggest that people who smoke marijuana fall under some kind of spell, and that it's the marijuana that changes them and not decisions that these people make of their own accord.

I'm not going to dispute the idea that using marijuana might make it easier for some people to fall into a pattern of less motivation in their lives, but I don't for a second believe it causes everyone to use it to become demotivated slackers - the responsibility still lies primarily with the individual.

Just like some people can't handle drinking responsibly, some people can't handle smoking pot responsibly.

I agree with this assessment too. I would never say I get any benefit out of marijuama, outside of plain ol' enjoyment, but I don't think marijuana necessarily makes you lazy or unmotivated, any more than lazy, unmotivated people tend to appreciate the effects of marijuana. I would also argue that those type of folk who are immediately recognizable and grab your attention as typical 'pot-heads', typically aren't the heavy regular users, who are more likely to manage the effects with almost no visible signs, blend in a lot easier, and are much less likely to be intent on announcing their usage to you.

Many people on the coasts don't realize that pot isn't quite as easy to score in middle America.

Oh goodness, this is so false. I am born and raised and still live in a small town in Wisconsin and have never had problems finding it since I've been 15. Yeah, maybe a dry spell here or there.

Last I knew, the number one cash crop of Kentucky was marijuana. Kentucky feeds middle America's hunger for marijuana quite well.

I'd pass on it. I'm a little weary of making it legal as I've seen how it completely kills motivation on kids in the 16-22 age range. A bunch of kids on my baseball team in HS smoked it and ended up dropping off the team (one was really talented).

I guess I look at it like booze, but the fear of it being readily available for 15-20 year olds (like beer is now) would probably be enough for me not to be in favor of full legalization. I'd be completely fine with it being legal with a prescription. My concern is trying to minimize the use by kids under 20.

Just to play devil's advocate here. We have a lot of kids in that 16-22 age range who are on some pretty scary depression and anxiety medicaitons. If weed helps get kids off that stuff, isn't it a plus for them too?

Oh goodness, this is so false. I am born and raised and still live in a small town in Wisconsin and have never had problems finding it since I've been 15. Yeah, maybe a dry spell here or there.

Last I knew, the number one cash crop of Kentucky was marijuana. Kentucky feeds middle America's hunger for marijuana quite well.
Just because someone motivated to find pot can do so doesn't make it easily accessible. If I had to call a guy who then called a guy to get a can of beer every time I wanted to drink in HS, I would have done it a heck of a lot less than I did. Legalizing pot both improves access for average kids and legitimizes its use by kids.

Why do you think 50% of teens regularly drink alcohol compared to only 18% of teens use pot? I guess the fact that one is illegal has nothing to do with it...:rolleyes:

Just to play devil's advocate here. We have a lot of kids in that 16-22 age range who are on some pretty scary depression and anxiety medicaitons. If weed helps get kids off that stuff, isn't it a plus for them too?
I'm not against marijuana use with prescription, I think it should be allowed then.

Once again, 50% of teens drink and only 18% use pot. Do we really want to see that 18% turn into 50% just so some middle-aged people can feel better about their 2-3 time a week weed use? Most adult people who want to smoke weed can do so fairly easily right now without much of a fear of going to jail. Once it's legalized, access to teens becomes infinitely easier and now we've opened a whole new can of worms to deal with.

If 50% of teens were using pot now, I'd say we may as well just legalize it to make the process safer. But, with such a low number, it seems like taking a chance that the numbers will rise from 18 to 50 after it's legalized is way too much of a gamble for me to take.

Finally, I agree with what many (like dawgfan) have said about adults using weed without any major issues. I know some people who smoke and they are very smart/successful/motivated. I also know a lot of people who drink alcohol who are very successful. However, I also know a lot of teens who have screwed their life over by drinking and I don't feel the need to see the number of teens who use pot (most often irresponsibly and before they are ready) double or triple to match alcohol.

Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean we should legalize pot. There are a lot of very dangerous aspects to underage drinking that cost numerous lives a year. We have the ability to prevent that with pot, yet (for some reason) people still want to legalize/legitimize it for teens.

Just because someone motivated to find pot can do so doesn't make it easily accessible. If I had to call a guy who then called a guy to get a can of beer every time I wanted to drink in HS, I would have done it a heck of a lot less than I did. Legalizing pot both improves access for average kids and legitimizes its use by kids.

Why do you think 50% of teens regularly drink alcohol compared to only 18% of teens use pot? I guess the fact that one is illegal has nothing to do with it...:rolleyes:

What on earth are you talking about here? I'm hitting on your point that somehow there were geographical differences in accessibility. That's not true.

My point was that access is very limited to teens (especially those not on the coasts). Nationally, 18% of teens use pot (it's much higher in California/New York than in midwestern states). Nationally, 50% of teens drink (with no real difference between middle america and the coasts).

I feel that some who are in the west coast on this board think weed is a lot more accessible to teens than it actually is (because the teen % is higher in california than nationally). If weed was easy to get, a heck of a lot more than 18% of teens would be using. Just like if beer was illegal, a lot less than 50% of teens would be drinking.

My point was that access is very limited to teens (especially those not on the coasts). Nationally, 18% of teens use pot (it's much higher in California/New York than in midwestern states). Nationally, 50% of teens drink (with no real difference between middle america and the coasts).

I feel that some who are in the west coast on this board think weed is a lot more accessible to teens than it actually is (because the teen % is higher in california than nationally). If weed was easy to get, a heck of a lot more than 18% of teens would be using. Just like if beer was illegal, a lot less than 50% of teens would be drinking.

But it's more to do with the attitudes in middle America than it is the accessibility. I will agree there is a more lax attitude about it on the coasts but that does not at all mean it is hard to come by. Teen drinking, while most would not like to admit it, comes with a lot more relaxed attitude. If little Sally gets caught drinking, it's chalked up to teens just being teens. But if little Sally gets caught smoking a joint she's turning into one of them dopers you see on that television show Cops.

Dola

And to make it clear, I would MUCH rather see teens smoke marijuana than drink alcohol. If I had to choose one, obviously.

I'll admit I chose both, and alcohol had much more negative consequences than marijuana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Probably would do it more if legal.

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

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

Mmmmm, smoked trout.... :D

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

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

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

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

Wade sticks exclusively with crack.

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

Wade sticks exclusively with crack.

Note he says nothing about injected drugs. :D

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

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

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

Come on? Made up statistics? If I had my choice between numbers you made up and numbers I make up I'd take my numbers.
The 50% and 18% was based on a study from 2004. Here's one from 2007:

Alcohol & Drug Use - DASH/HealthyYouth (http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/alcoholdrug/index.htm)

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

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among youth in the United States.9 Current marijuana use decreased from 27% in 1999 to 20% in 2007.
Basically as laws tighten (zero tolerance for booze and harsher penalties for underage drug use between 1999 and 2007), use goes down. So, if we roll back these laws, it would stand to reason that use will go up by teens.

Essentially saying teens have access to alcohol already why the hell do we want to give them access to marijuana is a weak argument. Its less damaging to people's health than options teens have widely available to them so its hard to argue that keeping it illegal keeps teens safe.
What you're basically saying is that because teens can have access to a grenade launcher, we might as well provide them access to sidearms because they are no more dangerous than a grenade launcher. My point would be to try and limit the access to firearms for teens, regardless of what they can get now.

If you want to go that route I'd argue that getting teens away from the sketchy guys who sell weed now lessens the chance of them having harder drugs readily available and pushed onto them. Not to mention takes huge cuts out of money used to fund gangs.
I agree there. But the numbers say only 20% of teens use pot. If you legalize it, that number will shoot up. And, given the tax proposals on pot, chances are it will still be cheaper to buy it from these "sketchy guys" who don't report taxes. So, there's a decent chance that not only will this 20% double once it's legal, but there will be even a higher demand for the cheaper options through street pushers (esp in the inner cities where pot use is much higher).

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's capitalism at work, no?

harsher penalties for underage drug use between 1999 and 2007

Huh?


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

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

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

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

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

Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's different. Marijuana isn't alchohol.

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

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

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

It's different. Marijuana isn't alchohol.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

That is a fundamentally flawed assumption. Just about any and all models of legalization will tell you the price of marijuana is likely to drop with legalization.
The problem with pot is the options available. There are going to be quality constraints and health restrictions on the legal stuff that black market people don't have to adhere to. Add in taxes and the legal stuff will end up costing in the mid-range (as a guess). Well, kids aren't going to have $200 to blow on pot so they will look for cheaper options (which most dealers will be more than happy to supply).

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

The proposed taxes are not doubling or tripling the price, and are less than that of beer or cigarettes. Look at it from the other end, why is a wholeseller going to sell to some sketchy street dealer for a reduced rate, and let it trickle down through the street networks, when he could likely sell it to the government in bulk, at their own convenience, and actually likely make MORE money since it's going through far less hands?
The networks are already there and they are not going away over night. Now, over 5-10 years, I could see the black market taking a hit as pot becomes more mainstream and cheaper legal options appear. Initially, the only difference I see is that pot is now legitimized as a party option to kids and that many kids with cash will have better access to pot than they probably did before.

And I've brought it up in the other marijuana thread, but I think non-users are making a stretch to equate shopping at a store, with going to your local dealer. Your local dealer is not always conveniently located, doesn't always answer the phone on your schedule, doesn't necessarily give you full weight of whatever you pay for, does not necessarily always have top quality product, and does not always have a variety of products. If you can offer just one of those things consistently, people would flock to you
This is my point. If you have a good dealer, odds are you won't change to get marginal quality "legal" stuff. If you don't have access to a dealer, you will be more apt to try it if it's legal. It's almost the worst of both worlds. Poor kids will continue to use and pay $20 for their cheap stash. Middle/upper middle income kids who hadn't been exposed to pot will now have more options to try it. And, if they like it, they will start seeking out higher quality or lower cost options on the street if they have means.

If buying marijuana at a dispensary would be akin to buying cigarettes at a 7-11, then buying from a dealer is akin to buying cigarettes from a dude on the street, except he's only got one pack of Pall Malls, and one pack of Camel Menthols, and when he shows them to you, they're both open, crumpled up in a wad and several cigarettes have already been removed, then after you buy them, he expects you to give him a couple more for the road, and hang out at his house for a couple hours. The suggestion that stoners would prefer the latter to the former is ridiculous to anybody who actually goes through the process on a regular basis.
Right now, people drive 40 minutes in Arizona to Indian Reservations to save the tax money on cigarette purchases. If there was a similar setup (or even a "Black Market" for smokes) in other states, I'm pretty sure people would flock to that as well. The network isn't there for cigs and booze like pot. If it did exist and people could pay less or get better quality smokes, human nature would be for many people to use it.

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

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

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

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

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

Consider these points regarding downloading music:

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

Buying weed from some smuggler would:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PSSST! That picture is from California.

PSSST! That picture is from California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mexican weed is terrible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have. It works as intended.

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

Yup. Way to put it together.

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

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

Certainly nobody's going to argue that point. Which begs the question, why were you?

Certainly nobody's going to argue that point. Which begs the question, why were you?

I never did. Everyone's jumping over me when I suggest that anyone might have the slightest reason to buy or sell illegally. If you recall, I was in favor of legalizing. I just pointed out a couple of the concerns, and people freak out on me.

Litterally, if you look back in this thread, all I did was answer the question, posed twice, why anyone would every buy illegally again. And the responses to that were more about why everyone, or the majority of people would stay legal.

For the record, the discussion (in this and the other thread) had already tended toward whether there would be any substantial financial benefit to legalization, because of the already existing underground network (which I think is ludicrous). If your contention was merely that there is an underground network, and some people will continue to use it (which I think is completely logical), you should've separated yourself from that first, very similar, and already ongoing argument....I certainly didn't (and my apologies for riling you up).

My concern is 100% on use in by ages 15 to 21. If a process for legalization could occur and still keep teen pot use in the 20% range, I would be 100% for it. I'm thinking there is probably a way to do that but the odds that we are careful enough during the process to get to that point seem very slim.

Once someone is an adult, I think they should be able to smoke pot if they choose and that's why I am so conflicted on this. It's like my "parent side" and "libertarian" side are at complete odds. Maybe we can legalize medical marijuana, begin setting up the legal channels for production and that will allow us to really take a bite out of the black market once it eventually does become legal.

In the end, as with many things involving kids, I guess good parenting is the only way to deal with this issue. I just still get a little worried when I see that 20% of teens use pot and 50% drink booze. I think it's inevitable that once pot is legal, that number is going to get a lot closer to the alcohol one and I don't think that's going to help us out as a society. But, I think it's more a question of "when" than "if" with this issue.

My concern is 100% on use in by ages 15 to 21. If a process for legalization could occur and still keep teen pot use in the 20% range, I would be 100% for it. I'm thinking there is probably a way to do that but the odds that we are careful enough during the process to get to that point seem very slim.

Once someone is an adult, I think they should be able to smoke pot if they choose and that's why I am so conflicted on this. It's like my "parent side" and "libertarian" side are at complete odds. Maybe we can legalize medical marijuana, begin setting up the legal channels for production and that will allow us to really take a bite out of the black market once it eventually does become legal.

In the end, as with many things involving kids, I guess good parenting is the only way to deal with this issue. I just still get a little worried when I see that 20% of teens use pot and 50% drink booze. I think it's inevitable that once pot is legal, that number is going to get a lot closer to the alcohol one and I don't think that's going to help us out as a society. But, I think it's more a question of "when" than "if" with this issue.


This is a valid concern and there's really not much to go on other than what we think may happen and using the few places that have legalized marijuana as an example.

FWIW, the Netherlands handles Marijuana similar to how we handle alcohol here and their use among high school aged kids is estimated to be around 9%.

This is a valid concern and there's really not much to go on other than what we think may happen and using the few places that have legalized marijuana as an example.

FWIW, the Netherlands handles Marijuana similar to how we handle alcohol here and their use among high school aged kids is estimated to be around 9%.

I would be interested in before/after data for countries that legalize marijuana after it had illegal for 50+ years, if something like that was out there.

In the end, as with many things involving kids, I guess good parenting is the only way to deal with this issue. I just still get a little worried when I see that 20% of teens use pot and 50% drink booze. I think it's inevitable that once pot is legal, that number is going to get a lot closer to the alcohol one and I don't think that's going to help us out as a society. But, I think it's more a question of "when" than "if" with this issue.
I don't doubt that teen use of marijuana would go up if it were legalized. But I suspect that teen intoxication is closer to a zero sum game than you are implying - I'd bet that if marijuana were legalized, teen use of it would increase but teen use of alcohol would decrease. I don't know that it would be a perfect correlation - perhaps overall teen intoxication would increase - but I have little doubt that some teens that drink would switch to smoking out if it were legal.

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

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

I don't see why the locally grown, high quality marijuana would be outside the influence of federal regulations and taxes. There will most certainly be heavy penalties for the unlicensed cultivation. There would still be local growers growing high quality pot within the framework of regulations.

To me the biggest factor in favor of this theory as that growing marijuana legally and out in the open will increase supply to the point that it won't be worth it to avoid the regulations and taxes (ie: legal stuff will flood unlicensed stuff out). Being able to cultivate in an orderly fashion much like we grow other crops will increase yields exponentially, whether you are growing commercial weed for a large corporation or growing some high quality stuff for the local coffee shop.

I also doubt that potency will be regulated. Properly grown marijuana for human consumption doesn't necessarily vary all that much in THC content. There is some variability in strains, no doubt, but I think what you all are thinking of is low potency pot laced with seeds. That's simply the result of poor cultivation techniques. Differences in potency of higher end pot are overblown. I do know some simple techniques to extract some VERY VERY potent stuff from already good stuff (keef collection). Otherwise most of the differences in strains are largely taste.

I also doubt that potency will be regulated. Properly grown marijuana for human consumption doesn't necessarily vary all that much in THC content. There is some variability in strains, no doubt, but I think what you all are thinking of is low potency pot laced with seeds. That's simply the result of poor cultivation techniques. Differences in potency of higher end pot are overblown. I do know some simple techniques to extract some VERY VERY potent stuff from already good stuff (keef collection). Otherwise most of the differences in strains are largely taste.
Not to mention the fact that there is already the example of alcohol. While regulations vary from state to state and municipality to municipality, you can buy alcohol in forms ranging from dilute (Busch Lite) to very potent (Bacardi 150). Where you can buy them varies, but you can buy them. In a few locations you can even buy pure alcohol (Everclear).

Places that dispense alcohol for consumption on site (i.e. bars, taverns, restaurants) are obligated to show some common sense in dispensation, i.e. don't serve those that are obviously quite drunk.

Why wouldn't whatever variation there is in the potency of marijuana be similar?

For the record, the discussion (in this and the other thread) had already tended toward whether there would be any substantial financial benefit to legalization, because of the already existing underground network (which I think is ludicrous). If your contention was merely that there is an underground network, and some people will continue to use it (which I think is completely logical), you should've separated yourself from that first, very similar, and already ongoing argument....I certainly didn't (and my apologies for riling you up).


The underlined was stated in the following context:

ORIGINAL RESPONSE to my point about police using it as an excuse to put gang members in jail.
Using it as a reason to put "real assholes" in prison when many, many more are put in jail strictly because of it doesn't make it ok.


MY RESPONSE to this

That wasn't my contention...it was a statement supporting my contention that there is no substantial financial benefit for the government to legalize it.


Maybe I should have used the word "law enforcement" instead of government...but "substantial financial benefit" was in the context of putting people in prison for pot...to which I stated many pot arrests are likely the "easiest" thing to snare a known gang member or other troublesome criminals with.

Would you smoke Pot if it was legalized?

Definitely not.

I would brew it into a tea. Also, look for my new show, Cooking with Mary Jane, coming to cable at some point.

2. Not if Jimmy is in California where the medical stuff is said to be pretty damn good, and I would assume the same across the nation if legalized. (If you can assume, so can I).

Just anecdotally, the person I get my marijuana from gets it directly from someone with a license to grow medically in California. It is indeed pretty high quality.