Regulate Marijuana Like Wine (interesting article)

by sabastious 87 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sabastious

  DGP the medicinal purposes of Marijuana are a huge part of this discussion. If you don't want to bring it up, fine, but don't minimize it's CORE involvement in this discussion. Decision is all about risk vs reward, in the end. And that's your debate position: that the risk of Marijuana's legalization isn't worth the reward. If the risk can be evidenced to outweigh the reward than you are correct in your position, hence the debate.

  Then there is this book you refer to, which I cannot understand, of where you staunchly disagree with it's author by the second chapter. So, this author believes that if Marijuana was legal that drug cartels would start exporting it like hell and getting rich. You mean they would start to do REAL business? Have to set honest prices that somone would pay? Because that's what they would hit when the passed the border into the legal US weed market.

  First off they are already rich and are growing in their perspective countries with weed the way it is now. It's THOSE countries governments that need to twist the cartels arms and it doesn't appear that that is happening. Forcing REAL commerce is a solution causer MORE than a problem causer. No drugs should be illegal they should be CONTROLLED. Government leaders need to put their thinking caps on and stop sleeping with the enemy.

  Your argument, dgp, is a red herring fallacy. The negative "effects" of the legalization of marijuana in third world drug countries cannot rightly be considered of merrit to the United States of America. If my neighbor who abuses his wife and kids came to me and said that there is even one scanario where I am responsible to change my life because of the repercussions of his ghastly actions I would put a ring mark on his forehead.

  Those countries have POLITICAL issues and until those issues are resolved internally their citizens will continue to be stripped of their most basic human rights. There are many organizations that have erected themselves in opposition to the real effects of such tyranny and corruption. You have to take on the problem at the HIVE, not kill single bees pollinating flowers. Maybe the legalization of weed will not lower your crime, but surely it will be a step in the right direction.

  -Sab
• 

  dgp

  Sabastious:

  The negative "effects" of the legalization of marijuana in third world drug countries cannot rightly be considered of merrit to the United States of America.

  I will say that I resent the notion of "third world drug countries". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it suggests that there is something inherently wrong with the countries; that is to say, with everyone living there. To this day, it's only minorities that are engaged in the drug trade in the Third World. Now, a minority of 100,000 in a country of 110 million, like Mexico, still means that you have to fight an army, you know?

  Canada is now the biggest producer of designer drugs. Does it qualify as a "drug country"? What about traditional consumer countries, like the United States? Do they qualify as "drug countries"?

  When I was a kid, a few people did drugs. Marijuana and cocaine existed, and so did mushrooms, datura, whatever. But it was not a big business because there were not many buyers from those. We drug country people did not make that heavy use of them, you know? That changed when marijuana and cocaine became articles in high demand in the United States.

  Andean Cocaine: the Making of a Global Drug, by Paul Gootenberg.

  http://www.amazon.com/Andean-Cocaine-Making-Global-Drug/dp/0807859052/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1325891176&sr=8-6

  Beyond that, I realize that the medical aspects of marijuana are part of the debate. My point, which you have manifested beautifully, is that the results of such legalization on third parties, whatever they can be, those are of no consequence. In other words, "I will do what I think is right for me, and if that results in misery elsewhere, well, morally I don't have to care".

  One fine day, I spoke to a fine American man who enlightened me as to why Americans have "the right to bear arms". It is not a common thing to think, but one day America was a weak country and the fact that every farmer could be counted on having a musket was a big thing to consider before invading that country. That is what the man said; whether this is correct or not, I don't know. But that is the reason why Americans had the right to have weapons.

  Now that America is far from being a weak country, Americans still have the right to buy and own weapons. The fact that many of those weapons end up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels seems to be of no consequence, as is the fact that it is Americans who buy and illegally sell those. "I am doing what the law allows me to do. It is not my problem if those weapons end up in somebody else's hands". Beautiful.

  Ever heard of "Operation Fast and Furious"? American government officials gave weapons to Mexican drug cartels because they wanted to "track" the weapons. Many were used in killing Mexicans. Two Americans died. My last news about the thing was that there was an inquiry into the death of the two Americans.

  How I wish we were part of the considerations.
• 

  thetrueone

  Yeah I think its time to make Marijuana legal and controlled just the same way alcohol is.

  The black market for Marijuana is damaging and dangerous toward the general public and costly.

  The product could actually make money for the public by drawing taxes from it, like alcohol .

  The public consumption of alcohol and tobacco caused much more harm to people than what Marijuana could ever possibly achieve.

  If that is the case then why let this happen when you don't have to have this happen.

  There are organized gangs in my home town Vancouver that are shooting and killing one another openly in public for

  Territorial rights for the sale of this product.

  The fact is the people who are involved in trafficking and cultivating Marijuana do not want it legalized because that would let

  big corporations like the tobacco industry open to produce their own, dramatically reducing the wholesale value of Pot.

  Something people aren't aware of.
• 

  dgp

  The true one:

  What would prevent the gangs in Vancouver from taking control of the sale of marijuana, once it became legal? Do you think they wouldn't want it legalized?

  The profit wouldn't necessarily go down. Much of the drug money is spent in bribes. For obvious reasons, much of the drug has to travel in a way you cannot call "bulk." The economies of scale of shipping one big container full or marijuana would compensate for a lot of trouble.
• 

  thetrueone

  What would prevent the gangs in Vancouver from taking control of the sale of marijuana, once it became legal?

  Do you think they wouldn't want it legalized?

  Because there would be so much of it the value would decrease substantially.

  Of course the producing and distribution would have to be closely monitored much

  like alcohol., also it would have to be grown indoors under inclosed security.

  Right now pot is sold for @ $200.00 an ounce, once it is legalized you could see in it government run Liquor stores for less than $40.00 an ounce.

  The growers could still make a profit on the wholesale level and the sellers would be able to mark it up 100%.

  If a person could buy good quality pot for that price, there is no way any illegal distributer could survive.

  Taking the product out the black illegal market has advantages for much of the the general population.
• 

  thetrueone

  At the same time the known harder drugs like heroin, cocaine, Meth etc. any cultivation or distribution should have the laws/penalties

  increased to deter people form selling those drugs. Weak drugs laws are redundant and don't work its as simple as that.

  Why is it that some East Asian countries have little drug problems in their countries ?

  It's because of their severe penalties for drug trafficking .
• 

  dgp

  I meant to ask what would prevent today's illegal seller from becoming tomorrow's legal seller.
• 

  thetrueone

  There would have to be a licensing board to screen and evaluate each individual or company .

  If an individual had no prior criminal record, he could become a candidate for licensing .

  Again this goes down to the free market, so companies like the big tobacco producing companies

  might get in on the business end of things. Persoanlly I think it would be nice to go to the local liquor store and while

  I'm there picking up a case of beer, also pick some smooth smoking pot for cheap.

  Think of the cultivation and distribution of pot in the same vein as cigarette production and distribution.

  Why are most illegal drugs so enticing to sell or traffic right now and why organized criminal gangs are fighting one another

  and the answer of course is the money, big un-taxed money I might add.

  Its become a similar situation of what happen in the early 1920's when Prohibition started.

  The under ground black market for liquor created murderous gangsters like Al Capone trying to control the booze market for himself.
• 

  sabastious

  Beyond that, I realize that the medical aspects of marijuana are part of the debate. My point, which you have manifested beautifully, is that the results of such legalization on third parties, whatever they can be, those are of no consequence. In other words, "I will do what I think is right for me, and if that results in misery elsewhere, well, morally I don't have to care".

  Your argument is not flawed because you are wrong, per se, but because it is too specific of an argument for such a wide spread decision. It's not that people who make these large decisions don't care about the people they affect. That's what politics are legislature are for: to lighten the load of the people (allegedly!). In almost all cases when a "load is lightened" on an array of groups that another array of groups are simultaneously adversely affected. You seem to imply/assume that this phenomenon can somehow be averted. Like I have said all along, it's a risk vs reward argument in the end for the decision makers. My vantage point is as selfish as your vantage point.

  What if some person from another country besides you or I came in the thread and said that if you fought to keep Marijuana from becoming legal that his kid would slowly and painfully die. Then he accuses you of murder because you have an opinion of keeping Marijuana illegal. His argument would also be flawed and his kid's blood would be on no one's hands but maybe the government that he resides within. We are friends, DGP, I wish no ill upon you, but unfortunately there is a REAL border between us.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Ever heard of "Operation Fast and Furious"? American government officials gave weapons to Mexican drug cartels because they wanted to "track" the weapons. Many were used in killing Mexicans. Two Americans died. My last news about the thing was that there was an inquiry into the death of the two Americans.

  Heads should roll for the treachery that this fiasco proves exists within Washington, DC. It's an embarrassment and what's worse is that our fearless leader, Obama, declared the border "safe" and joked about putting a mote between US and Mexico. Then we "accidently" give them an exorbitant amount of untrackable personal weaponry.... ugghhhh. I just woke up here dude, just like I woke up in the Watchtower, lol.

  -Sab