[Winstinology]

Or simply implement laws nationwide like we have up here in Alaska...

[modi123_1]

WolfCoder, on 29 Apr, 2009 - 01:13 PM, said:

modi123_1, on 28 Apr, 2009 - 01:53 PM, said:

...
You miss understood the point. Look - we see smokers treated as second class citizens because they chose to unlock the sweet sweet nicotine with a lighter... right? First hand, second hand, and now third hand smoke are all bad...

People smoking around other people is an entirely unrelated issue, if people smoke anything at all then secondhand smoke will be a problem. The issue is whether to legalize pot or not.

Second hand pot smoke has a lot to do with it. Legalizing it means the potheads don't have to hide in basements, back alleyways, or houses of ill repute. They can leave their ancient papasan thrones, come out into the sunlight and smoke on the corners, in bus stops, or outside bars.

Great.

With regular smokers I had only to worry about lung cancer, but with open air pot heads I have to worry about walking by and getting lung cancer *AND* a contact high. Stellar. Impair me a bit more why don't you. It blows that these "smoke free" concerts get me mildly baked while in the pit because a bunch of referheads cannot contain their addiction until after the show.

Let's not even start on what this might do to children.

The second hand issues of pot by themselves stand as reasons to keep it illegal let alone the moral decay and degeneracy that comes with it.

[Gloin]

What makes people think it would solve all problems if it was legalized but heavily taxed? Why would anyone except overclass punks buy the legal, heavily taxed pot when there's still illegal but considerably cheaper pot available on the other side of the street? I mean you don't have to pay tax on the black market.
The worst part is that the guys selling illegal MJ would be able to charge more than before as well, they're not stupid, why charge $100 when you can get $150 as the legally sold MJ cost $200.
And how would the officers of law possibly be able to distinguish between what pot is legally imported and what pot isn't?
Crimes related to marijuana would not likely decrease either. If prices go up, that only mean some people have to steal more to finance their habit. The only thing that would happen is some harmless addict would get to leave his cell and be out stealing your brand new TV instead.

modi123_1 already mentioned the second hand pot smoke so I won't go into that but only say I agree. If regular smokers ignore you when you ask them to put out their cigarettes, what do you think could be expected by someone smoking pot?

This post has been edited by Gloin: 29 April 2009 - 03:46 PM

[baavgai]

Gloin, on 29 Apr, 2009 - 03:53 PM, said:

What makes people think it would solve all problems if it was legalized but heavily taxed? Why would anyone except overclass punks buy the legal, heavily taxed pot when there's still illegal but considerably cheaper pot available on the other side of the street?

Weed is a weed. The cost of production is marginal, the markup is currently around 15 times the cost. ( Found that tidbit here; isn't google grand?) That's with basement growers dodging law enforcement. A tobacco company could doubtless produce the stuff for a pittance. The cost of a legal MJ cigarette should be significantly less than the traditional cancer stick.

Your assumption that it would be more expensive is absurd. However, to be reasonable, we can use US Prohibition as guide.

Again, with the google, The Economics of Prohibition (PDF):

Quote

The implied percentage increase in alcohol price, including the premium for breaking the law, decreased from 318 percent in 1921 to 171 percent of pre-Prohibition level in 1929.

That was the first hit, feel free to find someone you feel supports your view.

This post has been edited by baavgai: 29 April 2009 - 04:39 PM

[Gloin]

I'm basing the assumption on the fact that people consider that it should be heavily taxed. I have no clue what production costs would be, I only assume people think it would be expensive in order to return a large revenue from tax.


If you had a 13-14 year old son or daughter that smoked, would you prefer that he/she smoke tobacco or weed? Why one before the other?

[baavgai]

Gloin, on 29 Apr, 2009 - 06:01 PM, said:

If you had a 13-14 year old son or daughter that smoked, would you prefer that he/she smoke tobacco or weed? Why one before the other?

Obviously, neither. Hard to choose, really. Tobacco is far more addictive than weed, so weed is likely the safer bet. Doesn't help much in school, though. If they did smoke weed, I'd definitely prefer they got it at the store than from some questionable source in some back ally.

[Gloin]

So, is it tobacco or weed? Neither is not an option.

[KYA]

Gloin, on 29 Apr, 2009 - 05:32 PM, said:

So, is it tobacco or weed? Neither is not an option.

Both, if my kid wants to smoke I'll buy them their first pack or dime bag at 18 (or 21, etc...). then they can pay to keep up their habit.

[Gloin]

KYA, on 30 Apr, 2009 - 12:39 AM, said:

Gloin, on 29 Apr, 2009 - 05:32 PM, said:

So, is it tobacco or weed? Neither is not an option.

Both, if my kid wants to smoke I'll buy them their first pack or dime bag at 18 (or 21, etc...). then they can pay to keep up their habit.

I dunno about America but over here kids usually don't start smoking when they're 18, (or 21, etc...) they start at 12, (or 14, etc...)

[baavgai]

Gloin, on 29 Apr, 2009 - 06:32 PM, said:

So, is it tobacco or weed? Neither is not an option.

Sorry. By "weed is likely the safer bet" I meant to say; I choose pot for the fourteen year old.

This is based mostly on the physical danger of the substances in question. Tobacco is usually taken by users in huge quantities; constant habitual dosing every single day. Weed is more like alcohol for most users; taken in binge amounts at variable intervals. In terms of common recreational drugs, cannabis is probably the least dangerous. I believe alcohol is worse.

[Gloin]

ok

[Bort]

It has even been proven now that the long term 'permanent' damage weed does to you is not permanent after all. Granted, it does take a long time to repair, but it does repair it.

And I agree with Baavgai. As someone who has smoked both weed and tobacco, the tobacco is far more addictive, and causes more damage to your innards, so my vote would be for the weed. Also, it doesn't produce anywhere near as much tar as nicotine, so less chance of lung cancer from it.

About the only down side to weed is that people usually start taking it in college/uni which is when the short term memory effects it has cause the most problems.

'Man, was I meant to be in class today?'

Edit:

Argh, grammar monster strikes!

This post has been edited by Bort: 01 May 2009 - 03:52 AM

[firebolt]

Just to scare people.

[BigAnt]

Quote

If you had a 13-14 year old son or daughter that smoked, would you prefer that he/she smoke tobacco or weed? Why one before the other?

Neither. If I found them doing either thing they would be doing nothing but going to school and doing school work. No internet, video games, tv, no nothing.

Once they turned 18 they can do what they want but they would be out on the street in a ditch. If you live in my house you follow my rules or else you are not welcome anymore.

[firebolt]

*claps*