Anybody putting Marijuana on the ballot in Ohio soon? (Wilmington: movers, to buy)

[woxyroxme]

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

The only difference between '1975 pot' and 'today pot' is that one toke replaces more than one joint. Today pot >> 1975 pot from a dose of THC standpoint.

This is not necessarily true either, the commercial street weed is no more potent now than the stuff I smoked in the 70s, the potent stuff comes from unpollenated female plants grown indoors.

[lewimaech235]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

This is not necessarily true either, the commercial street weed is no more potent now than the stuff I smoked in the 70s, the potent stuff comes from unpollenated female plants grown indoors.

Exactly. From an illegal standpoint, drugs have evolved into some seriously dangerous ones from its earlier counterparts. Another trick dealers use would be making drugs that are classified as 'illegal', you know. Drugs are all around. good and bad. A recreational pot state has to control where its pot is being sold.

[IsSomeoneWatching]

Once some the non progressive states like OH and PA vote for it we will have it made. For the last 40 years or so these states have voted themselves out of good jobs. Still today they complain that there is no real work to be had. Well now is their chance to buck the system and start a new industrial spirit. And finally stop listening to the sound bite reports from the so called media.

[lewimaech235]

Originally Posted by IsSomeoneWatching

Once some the non progressive states like OH and PA vote for it we will have it made. For the last 40 years or so these states have voted themselves out of good jobs. Still today they complain that there is no real work to be had. Well now is their chance to buck the system and start a new industrial spirit. And finally stop listening to the sound bite reports from the so called media.

There are a lot of jobs in Ohio, especially if you're in the city. The rural areas are a little depressed in terms of real work I will say that, but not all of Ohio. They could add more with recreational marijuana stores. That is true.

[Wilson513]

Legalization has nothing to do with jobs except that it may reduce employment. The Colorado phenomenon is a one-off. People moved to Colorado to stay high. No one is moving to Ohio to stay high.

And, a population of folks has a certain amount of $$ to spend on recreation. It can be a restaurant night, the movies, an amusement park, concert, liquor or pot. And, legalization simply shifts the spending on recreation to recreational drugs. There is no new money in the system to expand employment by persons spending what they would have spent for a night out on pot. In fact, due to the high product cost/labor ratio for pot, meaning that less employees are needed for the same spending on pot than for a restaurant, employment will go down. Further, the State will take a bigger bite of tax out of pot spending than restaurant or other recreational spending and that money is into the black hole of government waste.

So, sorry to disappoint, but as much as I support legalization of all things, employment is not a benefit to be expected.

[lewimaech235]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Legalization has nothing to do with jobs except that it may reduce employment. The Colorado phenomenon is a one-off. People moved to Colorado to stay high. No one is moving to Ohio to stay high.

And, a population of folks has a certain amount of $$ to spend on recreation. It can be a restaurant night, the movies, an amusement park, concert, liquor or pot. And, legalization simply shifts the spending on recreation to recreational drugs. There is no new money in the system to expand employment by persons spending what they would have spent for a night out on pot. In fact, due to the high product cost/labor ratio for pot, meaning that less employees are needed for the same spending on pot than for a restaurant, employment will go down. Further, the State will take a bigger bite of tax out of pot spending than restaurant or other recreational spending and that money is into the black hole of government waste.

So, sorry to disappoint, but as much as I support legalization of all things, employment is not a benefit to be expected.

It is expected because someone has to run the operating, and there you have it, jobs.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by lewimaech235

It is expected because someone has to run the operating, and there you have it, jobs.

How silly. Who do you think is currently getting that pot money that consumers are expected to spend? I'll tell you: restaurant workers, bar personnel, amusement employees. So, when pot workers are hired, restaurant servers will lose their jobs. Unless, of course, you are proposing that the government pay for the pot and then it will be government workers who will lose their jobs. Or, maybe the pot will be purchased with the rent money or the grocery money or the car payment. Then other bad things will happen. Or, maybe pot smokers have a lot of extra cash sitting around that is just sitting in savings accounts doing nothing.

They should teach economics in high school.

[lewimaech235]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

How silly. Who do you think is currently getting that pot money that consumers are expected to spend? I'll tell you: restaurant workers, bar personnel, amusement employees. So, when pot workers are hired, restaurant servers will lose their jobs. Unless, of course, you are proposing that the government pay for the pot and then it will be government workers who will lose their jobs. Or, maybe the pot will be purchased with the rent money or the grocery money or the car payment. Then other bad things will happen. Or, maybe pot smokers have a lot of extra cash sitting around that is just sitting in savings accounts doing nothing.

They should teach economics in high school.

How silly. That makes no sense at all. Those employees will not lose their jobs at all. It's a building, and they need employees. Your logic is just inductive jargon, and I have taken economics. No offense, but it's likely I have a higher education than you do. I'm working on a doctorate degree right now, and I know for a fact what you are saying is wrong. Look at some statistics in Colorado.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by lewimaech235

How silly. That makes no sense at all. Those employees will not lose their jobs at all. It's a building, and they need employees. Your logic is just inductive jargon, and I have taken economics. No offense, but it's likely I have a higher education than you do. I'm working on a doctorate degree right now, and I know for a fact what you are saying is wrong. Look at some statistics in Colorado.

See above. People moved to Colorado to stay high. No one is moving to Ohio to stay high.

And, I can safely assume that your doctorate will not be in economics. I have undergraduate degrees in both accounting and economics.

[lewimaech235]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

See above. People moved to Colorado to stay high. No one is moving to Ohio to stay high.

And, I can safely assume that your doctorate will not be in economics. I have undergraduate degrees in both accounting and economics.

It doesn't. Either way, what you're saying doesn't really make that much sense. I don't think anyone gets what you're saying by "People moved to Colorado to stay high." It doesn't compute with no jobs. What are you trying to say? Right now, my logic stands.