B.O. Can You Hear Us Now?

[dales]

Stop the phony war on drugs.

Legalize it, tax it, and stop the insanity.

From the Huffington Post:

.Yes, It Is time for Pot Legalization, Mr. President

The Web is humming with stories and discussion from the aftermath of President Obama's response to questions about drug legalization during last Thursday's YouTube forum. While his words this time around are a bit more encouraging than previous signals from the administration, I would strongly suggest that we all, including the president, cut through the platitudes and get to the truth about marijuana prohibition.

If, as the president suggests, it is time for a "serious debate" about legalization, let's get to it, starting with a few questions that beg for truth:

Why, with record federal deficits and states teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, are we spending billions on yet another failed Prohibition that is accomplishing nothing other than making criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens and fueling drug cartels that threaten our fundamental national security? Is it not time to try something different?

Despite lip-service, about the need for treatment, harm-reduction and other strategies to address drug use as a health issue, why do the federal government's actual policies and budget still treat the situation as almost entirely a law enforcement problem? Let's end the unworkable marijuana prohibition and put our money where our mouth is. Let's solve the problems like border crime. We can do it with pot legalization.

We need to deal with some simple truths. How do we reconcile the fact, that in a supposedly free society, it is legal for a responsible adult to purchase and consume alcohol, while purchasing and consuming marijuana is a crime? I, along with millions of other Americans, are still waiting for a credible answer to that one.

Mr. President, I would suggest the debate has already begun, thanks for joining in. The Feds have been ignoring this issue for far too long.

[Gob]

Pretty sensible.

Wouldn't Mexico's economy crash if it were made legal though?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Mr. President, I would suggest the debate has already begun, thanks for joining in.

The debate was already going on back in 1976 when I graduated high school. I predicted back then that MJ would be legal by now (even long before now). Carnack I am not.

Wouldn't Mexico's economy crash if it were made legal though?

I don't know (maybe not now that the growers would have a viable (aka legal) economy for hteir crops. I would venture to guess fewer people would be dead.

[Econoline]

Last I heard, it was Congress--not the President--who had the power to pass or repeal laws, and all the Republicans in that body are busy making a big show of a useless effort to repeal the administration's baby steps toward a more rational health care system.

Why, with record federal deficits and states teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, are we spending billions on yet another failed Prohibition that is accomplishing nothing other than making criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens

Tackling unemployment by making millions unemployable makes perfect sense!

...and fueling drug cartels that threaten our fundamental national security?

Well, DUH! The drug cartels are the guys with the money, not the millions of unemployed/unemployable drug users!

"Follow the money..." (-- "Deep Throat" from All the President's Men) "...and then once you've got it cornered, do what the money wants, in exchange for a sizable campaign contribution." (-- Congress)

[rubato]

Pretty sensible.

Wouldn't Mexico's economy crash if it were made legal though?

What % of pot is imported from Mexico?

Its widely grown out here ...



yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Pretty sensible.

Wouldn't Mexico's economy crash if it were made legal though?

Short answer: No.

You've not been paying attention to the topics on CSB, just posting to antagonize, obviously.

[dgs49]

(a) I have read that the current MJ products are much stronger and potentially more "dangerous" than that which was peddled in my youth. Is this true?

(b) If MJ were legalized, would we not likely have the situation where the "legal" stuff is good, but the "better" stuff is still available from the Black Market? Just wondrin'?

(c) What about people who are in jail for minor MJ-related offenses? Are there any? Texas used to be notorious for locking people up for decades over petty schidt like this.

(d) Is legalization a victim of the political phenomenon of certain voters will become stridently single-issue when one of their personal hot buttons is pushed, and legalizing Pot may cost a politician a measurable number of votes - with no political upside? That is, very few people would vote FOR someone solely as a result of his or her position on Pot.

(e) Speaking pragmatically, this could be a giant windfall for Gub'mints. They could sell "Pot Licenses," in the same way that cab medallions are now sold in NYC. They could also tax and regulate the schidt out of it.

[Scooter]

(a) I have read that the current MJ products are much stronger and potentially more "dangerous" than that which was peddled in my youth. Is this true?

Pot, and other illegal drugs, are far stronger than they used to be. This is a direct consequence of criminalization and the continuous stepping up of the war on drugs. As the risk of seizures increases, producers must increase the concentration of active ingredient in their products so that they can ship less volume and maintain their profits.

More dangerous? In some cases. It is far easier to overdose on heroin than on laudanum and the other less potent opiates which it replaced as a result of criminalization. But it remains well nigh on impossible to OD on pot. Not being able to regulate the types of pesticides being sprayed on pot crops, however (because it is illegal to grow) does make it dangerous.

(b) If MJ were legalized, would we not likely have the situation where the "legal" stuff is good, but the "better" stuff is still available from the Black Market? Just wondrin'?

With legalization comes the ability to regulate, which would mean being able to mandate proper labelling of the amount of active ingredient in the product, as well as the presence of any additives or contaminants. It would also bring the power to inspect the entire growing and production process.

(c) What about people who are in jail for minor MJ-related offenses? Are there any? Texas used to be notorious for locking people up for decades over petty schidt like this.

Still happens. Kids get incarcerated for possessing pot and come out hooked on heroin and infected with HIV and Hepatitis C they got from dirty needles and getting raped. Great countries we live in, huh?

(d) Is legalization a victim of the political phenomenon of certain voters will become stridently single-issue when one of their personal hot buttons is pushed, and legalizing Pot may cost a politician a measurable number of votes - with no political upside? That is, very few people would vote FOR someone solely as a result of his or her position on Pot.

If it happens in Canada, it will be the courts that force the issue, as they have already begun to do on some of the peripheral issues such as medical marijuana and safe injection sites. Don't know enough about the U.S. political climate and public opinion on the subject to know where a legislative or judicial solution is more likely.

(e) Speaking pragmatically, this could be a giant windfall for Gub'mints. They could sell "Pot Licenses," in the same way that cab medallions are now sold in NYC. They could also tax and regulate the schidt out of it.

To say nothing of the billions upon billions that would be saved in the justice and correctional systems. Oh yeah, with the added bonus of breaking the back of organized crime.

[Long Run]

(b) If MJ were legalized, would we not likely have the situation where the "legal" stuff is good, but the "better" stuff is still available from the Black Market? Just wondrin'?

With legalization comes the ability to regulate, which would mean being able to mandate proper labelling of the amount of active ingredient in the product, as well as the presence of any additives or contaminants. It would also bring the power to inspect the entire growing and production process.

Also, the vast majority of users would like to not be breaking the law, so they would accept the legal product that is maybe not quite as good as an illegal product. Just as most of us are happier to have well regulated beer, wine or harder alcohol, rather than take our chances on some black market stuff.

[Big RR]

(b) If MJ were legalized, would we not likely have the situation where the "legal" stuff is good, but the "better" stuff is still available from the Black Market? Just wondrin'?

With legalization comes the ability to regulate, which would mean being able to mandate proper labelling of the amount of active ingredient in the product, as well as the presence of any additives or contaminants. It would also bring the power to inspect the entire growing and production process.

Also, the vast majority of users would like to not be breaking the law, so they would accept the legal product that is maybe not quite as good as an illegal product. Just as most of us are happier to have well regulated beer, wine or harder alcohol, rather than take our chances on some black market stuff.

I would also think so long as the legal stuff was fairly "good" in the opinion of those who use it, they would not really seek out the illegal stuff. Other than the areas where moonshine is common (and part of the local culture),there really isn't much of an alcohol black market, even though some alcohol products (like absinthe until recently) are still prohibited.

[Scooter]

There is also the question of why a producer of the "better stuff" would want to confine themselves to the black market rather than peddle their product to the vast majority of users who would prefer to buy their stuff legally.

[Gob]

Isn't it amazing that EVERY reasonably intelligent person I (and probably you) know, is FOR legalisation, yet the politicians still refuse to go with the best knowledge?

[Andrew D]

(b) If MJ were legalized, would we not likely have the situation where the "legal" stuff is good, but the "better" stuff is still available from the Black Market? Just wondrin'?

With legalization comes the ability to regulate, which would mean being able to mandate proper labelling of the amount of active ingredient in the product, as well as the presence of any additives or contaminants. It would also bring the power to inspect the entire growing and production process.

Also, the vast majority of users would like to not be breaking the law, so they would accept the legal product that is maybe not quite as good as an illegal product. Just as most of us are happier to have well regulated beer, wine or harder alcohol, rather than take our chances on some black market stuff.

I would also think so long as the legal stuff was fairly "good" in the opinion of those who use it, they would not really seek out the illegal stuff. Other than the areas where moonshine is common (and part of the local culture),there really isn't much of an alcohol black market, even though some alcohol products (like absinthe until recently) are still prohibited.

As far as I recall, California's legallization initiative -- which was narrowly defeated due, in my opinion, in large part to the unwise decision to put it on the ballot in a non-presidential-election year -- did not distinguish stronger from weaker marijuana. A RAND study in 2010 concluded that "[t]he only scenario where legalization in California could substantially reduce the revenue of the [Mexican] drug trafficking organizations is if high-potency, California-produced marijuana is smuggled to other U.S. states at prices that are lower than those of current Mexican supplies," indicating both that "high-potency, California-produced marijuana" was within the scope of the legalization initiative and that people would still buy inferior Mexican marijuana if it were cheaper than superior California marijuana.

(I have to wonder about the cheaper part: If Mexican marijuana is one-third the price of Californian marijuana, but it takes four times as much Mexican as Californian marijuana to get stoned, which is really the cheaper?)

If a legalization regime were to limit the potency of legal marijuana so as to exclude a substantial fraction of Californian marijuana from the legal market -- which I think would be a stupid way to proceed; a statement of the legal marijuana's THC content could (and, I presume, would) be required on the product label -- there would still remain the issue of people's growing marijuana for themselves. Although the Supreme Court, via some intellectual backflips, held that homegrown medical marijuana can be prohibited under Congress's commerce power, I have difficulty seeing how marijuana grown and consumed on private property and never bought or sold constitutes or contributes to any black market.

[dgs49]

Don't most states allow privateers to make their own wine - up to a finite amount - but not sell it?

Isn't there a guy in Toronto who has a mail order business selling MJ plants? (Off the topic, I know).

[rubato]

(a) I have read that the current MJ products are much stronger and potentially more "dangerous" than that which was peddled in my youth. Is this true?

Pot, and other illegal drugs, are far stronger than they used to be. This is a direct consequence of criminalization and the continuous stepping up of the war on drugs. As the risk of seizures increases, producers must increase the concentration of active ingredient in their products so that they can ship less volume and maintain their profits.

Absolutely, positively, definitely false.

Pot got better for the same reason that American beer got better when we started paying attention to it and the same reason as when Americans started cycling in significant numbers Americans made the biggest improvements in bicycles and why we started making wine better than the French back in the 1970s.

Making things that you like better is fun. Growing pot is fun.

Pot genetics were very crude 'back in the day' and we made huge advances very quickly with just a little selective breeding and optimizing growing conditions. A lot of the improvement was done by the end of the 1970s although that may not have been reflected in what was commercially avail for some time later on.

Pot is not more 'dangerous' now than it ever was, you just need a lot less to get high. On the whole stronger pot is better for you physiologically speaking because you inhale less smoke and inhaling smoke os per se not really good for you.

(Speaking as someone who quit smoking pot many years ago)

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Negative, 'skunk' is much more dangerous, which has been verified;




This is about 57 minutes in total and you have to view it in four parts, but it's a British scientific study of how stronger marijuana, AKA Skunk is much more detrimental to users.