Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jazz, it will hit the carrells right in the pocket book.
This will remove any incentive.
Some will still try to operate outside of the law and i'k sure that will come with it's own set of consequences
The LEGAL availability will drive down the price, and the NEW tax will drive it back up so there could still be a black-market demand. i guess we'll find out wouldn't we.
And with out a physical addiction it's easy to wait.
It didn't work in the Netherlands.
Especially when it becomes the target for taxation, whether taxes on the sales or the income from it.
The people cultivating it, trafficking it and selling it have done so under the table and against the law for so long, so what exactly will drive them to change? In fact they may even consider these pot shops a threat to their existence. The "carrells" as you call them(cartels to us sober people) are not going away.
I'm really rather surprised no one has mentioned Portugal. I've read numerous articles (here's one, supplied via Google, but I didn't double check any credentials as I'm just trying to introduce the idea here: Portugal Drug Policy: Decriminalization Works - Business Insider ) They are trying to address the drug problem with medical rehabilitation instead of punishment and it's actually working rather well for them, from what I have heard.
And by the way, Wanneroo, I think the main problem with Google research is that a lot of the anti-pot material available is from highly biased sources. I have done a lot of research myself on the subject because I've written 3 college papers on it, and my research had to be solid, with a myriad of properly documented references cited. One of my papers was intended to be an unbiased "pros and cons" of decriminalization. I had great difficulty with this, because all of the most intelligent arguments were in favor of decriminalization (which is really ironic, because I do believe that there is a causal relationship between use and lower intelligence in at least many cases.) All of the readily available anti-pot material was shallow government propaganda with no basis in fact. At the end of the day, the strongest argument against the substance that I could muster was my own anecdotal experience. Not so good for a collage paper, hm?
Another interesting exercise: while I know my own personal stance on pot (anti-use, but pro-choice) things get more clear when I ask myself how I feel about legalization in relation to my children. I have two sons, 11 and 13 years old. Do I want them heading into teenager-dom in a state where recreational weed is legal?
Yes. Absolutely.
Because I have faith in my ability to teach them the reasons that they should abstain. I talk and talk and never stop talking. They wish I would stop talking. It will never happen. I am the MOM! haha... (My husband wishes he could shut me up too sometimes lol) But, should all my best efforts to parent them fail, they will go into the decision knowing the facts. It won't just be "drugs are bad, mkay"--they might disregard the consequences and do it anyways, because teenagers do that, but they won't be ignorant. And if they obtain marijuana and smoke it with their friends, which would I prefer:
a.) they get it from a street dealer, a baggie full of vegetative matter of unknown origin and possibly laced with who knows what
or
b.) they get it (still illegally because of their age) from a source that ultimately obtained it previously from a store, because that's the easiest place...and therefore it is most likely not laced with anything.
And sure, as it passes through hands and makes its way to the underage, it could have additives put into it. But I consider it less likely. When somebody buys beer for his underage friends, he doesn't normally put PCP into it. Same-same with tobacco.
I don't consider the odds of my boys trying weed to be any higher or lower because of decriminalization. It is a decision they will have to make, to make responsible choices with all of the info they've been given...or to chance the consequences and try it anyways.
By the way, I'm a poster child for the "pot kills brain cells" argument. I took the SATs in 8th grade and 12th grade and my score went down significantly. BUT...was it a direct or indirect effect? I honestly think that maybe because I was lazy and demotivated due to habitual smoking, therefore skipped school, therefore lost/forgot information...that is more likely than simply killing off my grey matter in a direct causal relationship between smoking weed and lower test scores.
What is clear to me is that there are always going to be people that want to inject substances into their body that alter their state of mind. That said, we need to figure out ways to keep these people from injuring others by their behavior or forcing the costs onto others. I think that is fair enough and it's a fair trade. You take responsibility for what you do and pay for it. The potheads don't seem to agree, but to me as a society that is the path we need to pursue.
In regards to studies I first started learning about drugs and the effects of drugs on people 30 years ago when my dad would take me into the hospital on Saturdays to do his rounds and visit patients he had worked on in the ER. So I'm no neophyte that needs google or studies to have seen in my life many people on cannabis and what it has done to people. The potheads will always trot out studies and perhaps a compound in cannabis helps this or that, but it doesn't take away the other destruction it does. They will always rationalize their use, just as we see in this thread.
I'll make it clear again, if you want to smoke it, inject it, snort it, have at it. I'll be the first person to NOT stop you. Just don't smash into me on the road, expect me to pay for your medical treatment from your pot related health issues or shake me down in any other way.
Wanneroo what constitutes a 'pot head' to you? Are you calling anyone who uses cannabis a pot head, or are 'pot heads' the cannabis equivalent to alcoholics?
Do you consider someone who enjoys a glass or two of wine (or beer) with dinner to be an alcoholic?
Are the last three presidents of the USA and head of the DEA, Eric Holder, pot heads?
Have you used drugs such as coffee, aspirin, alcohol? What about prescription meds? Any ever?
Also can you be specific as to the 'pot heads' cases your 'doctor' dad treated. Since it's a non toxic plant (it's impossible to die from overdose and does not damage your liver or give you cancer) I'd like to know exactly how they got to the ER?
Just don't smash into me on the road, expect me to pay for your medical treatment from your pot related health issues or shake me down in any other way.
It is my opinion that you are being "shaken down" (along with all of the other taxpayers) far more when you're covering the cost of prosecution and imprisonment for those arrested on MJ charges when it's illegal.
Think about it. Not only is some dude arrested, tried, and jailed on your dime, but then when he loses his job at McDonald's and is away in jail, and later can't get work because of his record, you also get to feed his baby-mama and his kids. Meanwhile, you might have started this sad story with some loser who just liked to smoke up on his own time and his own dime...you've ended it with a dude who very well may become a serious criminal after his time in jail. It might not have been a great situation to begin with, but prohibition didn't make it better.
(Of course I'm speaking to the worst of stereotypes, I know that there are many kinds of smokers out there, and many are highly functional people and all of that.)
Point being, in this guy's case, he wouldn't make a choice about whether to do the drug based on whether it is legal. He'd do it anyways. And when he gets out of jail, he's going to do it some more. Your prohibition has done no good here. I'm just saying.
I'll fight against weed when somebody comes along and says I have to smoke it. Otherwise, nobody's messing with my right not to, so I'm good. I'm also OK with other people making choices in their lives that differ from my own. I'm not threatened by that.
It is my opinion that you are being "shaken down" (along with all of the other taxpayers) far more when you're covering the cost of prosecution and imprisonment for those arrested on MJ charges when it's illegal.
Far more money is wasted on enforcement and incarceration for this soon-to-be extinct "crime" than any amount of imaginary money spent providing imagined medical treatment in regards to marijuana use.
".....the use of tyranny to strip individual freedoms and liberties away....." Which exactly?? Isn't prop 64 expanding individual freedom? I never understand how regulating drugs so we wont kill OURSELVES is Ok with conservatives.. but regulating gun ownership so we wont kill EACHOTHER is the worst thing imaginable. And regulating women's reproductive choices is OK with them and regulating who can marry whom is OK.... its completely BASS ACKWARDS from their 'small government- individual liberty is the hallmark of freedom.. blah blah" BS rhetoric.... what total crap. Please stay out of my business.
In regards to studies I first started learning about drugs and the effects of drugs on people 30 years ago when my dad would take me into the hospital on Saturdays to do his rounds and visit patients he had worked on in the ER. So I'm no neophyte that needs google or studies to have seen in my life many people on cannabis and what it has done to people. The potheads will always trot out studies and perhaps a compound in cannabis helps this or that, but it doesn't take away the other destruction it does. They will always rationalize their use, just as we see in this thread.
Are you sure those patients were actually high on cannabis, or was your dad just telling you that to scare you into not using it? I mean, seriously, my husband is a critical care and ER nurse and has worked at 6 different hospitals across this country over the last 10 years. He has never had a patient come to the hospital for complications because they were high on weed. He's dealt a ton with meth heads, heroin, and alcohol, but never marijuana. And this is in the present time, with THC levels that are much higher than they were 30 years ago. I'd really like to know how he managed to see so many patients high on cannabis during that time? Seems like your stretching it to me (or you were lied to for good intentions).
Are you sure those patients were actually high on cannabis, or was your dad just telling you that to scare you into not using it? I mean, seriously, my husband is a critical care and ER nurse and has worked at 6 different hospitals across this country over the last 10 years. He has never had a patient come to the hospital for complications because they were high on weed. He's dealt a ton with meth heads, heroin, and alcohol, but never marijuana. And this is in the present time, with THC levels that are much higher than they were 30 years ago. I'd really like to know how he managed to see so many patients high on cannabis during that time? Seems like your stretching it to me (or you were lied to for good intentions).
".....the use of tyranny to strip individual freedoms and liberties away....." Which exactly?? Isn't prop 64 expanding individual freedom? I never understand how regulating drugs so we wont kill OURSELVES is Ok with conservatives.. but regulating gun ownership so we wont kill EACH OTHER is the worst thing imaginable. And regulating women's reproductive choices is OK with them and regulating who can marry whom is OK.... its completely BASS ACKWARDS from their 'small government- individual liberty is the hallmark of freedom.. blah blah" BS rhetoric.... what total crap. Please stay out of my business.
Yes! Ass backwards is the BIG LIE methodology of the GOP these days ... demand small govt out of one side of their lying mouths, then insert a big govt nose into YOUR bedroom, YOUR doctor's office, and in the case of VA, into YOUR vagina if you want a procedure. And they wonder why they lost. Again. Hah!
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
