Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:
If pot has to be heavily taxed to be supplied legally, it will create an illegal market for untaxed pot, just like there are for moonshine and cigarettes.

You mean...like the current black market for pot?
Or the illegal market for Cigarettes and Alcohol?

Oldgrue wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
If pot has to be heavily taxed to be supplied legally, it will create an illegal market for untaxed pot, just like there are for moonshine and cigarettes.

You mean...like the current black market for pot?
Or the illegal market for Cigarettes and Alcohol?

Hey without taxes on booze we'd never have had NASCAR.

Frazzled wrote:
Hey without taxes on booze we'd never have had NASCAR.

What Terrors of American Culture (tm) could we have with legal pot?? ALL the more reason!

Oldgrue wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Hey without taxes on booze we'd never have had NASCAR.

What Terrors of American Culture (tm) could we have with legal pot?? ALL the more reason!

Professional potato chip eating competitions?

"now eating for the Funyun team..."

It could work!!

Irony: If pot is illegal, and booze is legal....why are potheads funny, but alcoholics tragic?

Oldgrue wrote:"now eating for the Funyun team..."

It could work!!

Irony: If pot is illegal, and booze is legal....why are potheads funny, but alcoholics tragic?

No way, potheads lack the motivation for competition.

I second the stupid part.

I know alcoholics and stoners. Alcoholics when sober don't appear to have suffered IQ deficiencies due to their drinking.

Stoners sound and talk like their IQ dropped into the negative range even when they aren't high.

I can also drink one beer and not hold conversations with inanimate objects (one of the perks of working at Wally world was watching stoners baked off their asses talking to the potato chips). If I was to smoke 1 joint or 1 bowl I'd be conversing with things that don't move.

How again does alcohol make you stupid compared to pot?

I know alcoholics and stoners. Alcoholics when sober don't appear to have suffered IQ deficiencies due to their drinking.

Which is funny, because alcohol kills significantly more braincells than marijuana. It's significantly worse over the long term for you physically and mentally. What you're likely seeing is the difference between the average pothead and the average guy. Until both are legalized you're unlikely to see casual use cases that will satisfy your personal opinions with marijuana.

I can also drink one beer and not hold conversations with inanimate objects (one of the perks of working at Wally world was watching stoners baked off their asses talking to the potato chips). If I was to smoke 1 joint or 1 bowl I'd be conversing with things that don't move.

One beer is what? 2% alchohol? Try it after drinking a few shots of whisky. If you're going to compare at least compare actually usefully comparable amounts of the substances. One beer is little different than taking a single drag off of a joint.

How again does alcohol make you stupid compared to pot?

Use wikipedia or something. Find it out for yourself.

Fateweaver wrote:If I was to smoke 1 joint or 1 bowl I'd be conversing with things that don't move.

I'm sorry you feel you're susceptible to it.
However, I've seen drunks talk to lamps. Therefore, let's leave our anecdotes out of this.
You're safer to drive high.

Thus, when subjects experienced a social marijuana
“high,” they accumulated significantly more speedometer
errors on the simulator than under control conditions, but
there were no significant differences in accelerator, brake,
signal, steering, and total errors. The same subjects intoxicated
from alcohol accumulated significantly more accelerator,
brake, signal, speedometer, and total errors. Furthermore,
impairment in simulated driving performance
apparently is not a function of increased marijuana dosage or
inexperience with the drug.

I'm all for villifying an ugly weed. I think we should call a spade a spade though.

Edit: wait! I failed to touch on the 'stupid'.
As a purely non scientific example: http://www.darwinawards.com The involvement of alcohol markedly outstrips the involvement of 'drugs'

Oldgrue wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
If pot has to be heavily taxed to be supplied legally, it will create an illegal market for untaxed pot, just like there are for moonshine and cigarettes.

You mean...like the current black market for pot?
Or the illegal market for Cigarettes and Alcohol?

Pretty much.

There's no point in legalising something in such a way as to make it illegal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:I second the stupid part.

I know alcoholics and stoners. Alcoholics when sober don't appear to have suffered IQ deficiencies due to their drinking.

...

Clearly you've never met someone with Korsakow's syndrome.

Kilkrazy wrote:
There's no point in legalising something in such a way as to make it illegal.

Wait what?
So if we make it legal to use and possess, yet tax its sale and distribution... that's bad?

I don't see any statistics, or studies.

All I see is "I ONCE SAW THIS GUY, HE WASN'T AS DUMB AS THIS ONE POTHEAD"

The point of legalising something is to bring all of the distribution within government oversight in order to generate optimal tax revenues, maintain a level of quality, and avoid the social problems associated with making lots of citizens into criminals.

If you set the tax rate so high as to create a clear incentive to make an illegal, untaxed market, then you blow all these objectives.

I would call that bad.

Kilkrazy wrote:The point of legalising something is to bring all of the distribution within government oversight in order to generate optimal tax revenues, maintain a level of quality, and avoid the social problems associated with making lots of citizens into criminals.

If you set the tax rate so high as to create a clear incentive to make an illegal, untaxed market, then you blow all these objectives.

I would call that bad.

It certainly would be if thats what they did. No proposal I have ever seen has looked like that though, so it's a moot point.

Originally I responded to Fateweaver's proposal of a tax rate of 30 to 40%. After that I responded to people's responses to my my response.

Not to mention even taxed highly if the cost of a joint or pack of joints or whatever is cheaper than it's street equivalent the theory is that the sale of marijuana outside the legal channels will drop.

After all, most people if they can get something cheaper will take the cheaper option so long as it satisfies them the same.

Kilkrazy wrote:Originally I responded to Fateweaver's proposal of a tax rate of 30 to 40%. After that I responded to people's responses to my my response.

A tax rate percentage is entirely dependent on a base cost. Something I don't remember seeing.

It's all relative.

If you can buy 20 joints for $10 on the black market or for $14 on the legal market, someone is going to reckon it's worth the risk of a tax evasion charge to supply the black market.

If the 20 joints are $10 on the black market and $10.20 on the legal market. very few people would bother to take the risk to make 20 cents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just look at the actual existing markets in drink and cigarettes to see how it works.

If you can buy 20 joints for $10 on the black market or for $14 on the legal market, someone is going to reckon it's worth the risk of a tax evasion charge to supply the black market.

Yep. But then you essentially just admitted that the market forces themselves would relegate most dealers and distributers to joblessness.

I fail to se your point.

If the 20 joints are $10 on the black market and $10.20 on the legal market. very few people would bother to take the risk to make 20 cents.

Cool beans. No plan I've seen stated end market counter prices so you're arguing imaginary things.

Just look at the actual existing markets in drink and cigarettes to see how it works.

The almost total lack of an underground liquor and cigarette business agrees more with other people than you. Regardless, this entire argument is pedantic and circular since we're discussing imaginary things outside of the context of reality.

Shuma wrote: The almost total lack of an underground liquor and cigarette business agrees more with other people than you. Regardless, this entire argument is pedantic and circular since we're discussing imaginary things outside of the context of reality.

Homebrew booze and snouts? No there isn't a big market, but I get the impression KK was talking about cheap foreign booze/tabs sold on the black market. That is massive here, 'specially cigs.

Albatross wrote:

Shuma wrote: The almost total lack of an underground liquor and cigarette business agrees more with other people than you. Regardless, this entire argument is pedantic and circular since we're discussing imaginary things outside of the context of reality.

Homebrew booze and snouts? No there isn't a big market, but I get the impression KK was talking about cheap foreign booze/tabs sold on the black market. That is massive here, 'specially cigs.

Sounds like a regional thing there, it's quite tiny here. America isn't nearly so fragmented in that regard as europe though, so thats likely the direct cause. A benefit of a singular government I suppose.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Shuma wrote: The almost total lack of an underground liquor and cigarette business agrees more with other people than you. Regardless, this entire argument is pedantic and circular since we're discussing imaginary things outside of the context of reality.

Homebrew booze and snouts? No there isn't a big market, but I get the impression KK was talking about cheap foreign booze/tabs sold on the black market. That is massive here, 'specially cigs.

Sounds like a regional thing there, it's quite tiny here. America isn't nearly so fragmented in that regard as europe though, so thats likely the direct cause. A benefit of a singular government I suppose.

Yeah, it's largely down to the fact that booze/cigs are way cheaper on the continent than they are here. Most of my mates who smoke buy dodgy cigs - I haven't bought a pack from an actual shop in years and years. I once worked for a nightclub that bought it's spirits exclusively on the black market. True story.

ShumaGorath wrote:

If you can buy 20 joints for $10 on the black market or for $14 on the legal market, someone is going to reckon it's worth the risk of a tax evasion charge to supply the black market.

Yep. But then you essentially just admitted that the market forces themselves would relegate most dealers and distributers to joblessness.

I fail to se your point.

If the 20 joints are $10 on the black market and $10.20 on the legal market. very few people would bother to take the risk to make 20 cents.

Cool beans. No plan I've seen stated end market counter prices so you're arguing imaginary things.

Just look at the actual existing markets in drink and cigarettes to see how it works.

The almost total lack of an underground liquor and cigarette business agrees more with other people than you. Regardless, this entire argument is pedantic and circular since we're discussing imaginary things outside of the context of reality.

It's not imaginary in Europe. Historically smuggling booze has been big business, and there are still booze and cigarette smugglers in various areas -- e.g. Kent and Naples. Rationing also caused wide-spread low-level black market crime.

It depends on the tax level. People don't bother with stuff which has low tax on or which is widely and cheaply available. That's basic economics.

My point is that government needs to judge the right level of taxation to maximise the revenue, and minimise the social ill-effects of crime.

Surely you would not say that the level of tax has no relation to the propensity of people to avoid the tax?

Wrexasaur wrote:

sebster wrote:I haven't seen the aggression, but there is growing evidence that it links to several mental disorders.

Link it please, no offense or anything, but 99% of what I have seen is next to meaningless.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

The more links about it, the less can be misunderstood, so add them up.

Yeah, I know there is ongoing debate on the issue. I don’t really know where the science is at, but I do know that a correlation between marijuana and psychosis matches with my the experiences I’ve had with friends.

For me, those experiences plus the on-going debate leads me to think it’s quite likely there’s something there. Note that I don’t think it is enough to justify making the drug illegal, though.

Da Boss wrote:Marjuana is also dangerous if you have any sort of heart condition or are on any sort of heart medication, can be grown with poisonous pesticides and not properly treated, and can cause drug induced psychosis and paranoid schizophrenia in people with a predisposition.
Hash can be cut with all sorts of things, too.

The dangers of unknown production methods and the possibility of containing other drugs are an argument to legalise and regulate.

If people are using it and suffering from pesticides or other drugs being added, then what’s needed is to bring in quality control from a regulatory body. That’s only possible if the drug is legal.

Guitardian wrote:umm... NO

The only reason pot is expensive is because of risk. It grows just like tobacco. Think a pack of joints versus a pack of cigs x2 cost because of tax, and that's still an awful lot cheaper for potheads than 3 joints for $20. Win-Win.

Nah, the cost of production isn’t that big a factor. Alcohol is only expensive because the market is geared to what we’re willing to pay - get a pint in the pub and maybe 10% of the cost is actually in the production of the beer. But we’re willing to pay $10 for a pint, so the industry builds up around providing beer at that price.

If marijuana were made legal you’d see the same thing, there’d be a minority growing their own pot, like you get a minority brewing their own beer, but mostly you’ll see people falling into the same demographics as beer, cost focus, quality focus, prestige focus…

It depends on the tax level. People don't bother with stuff which has low tax on or which is widely and cheaply available. That's basic economics.

Actually tax level is irrelevant when there is no base cost to discuss. This is the same argument as before. You're discussing how heavy the ship can be without running aground when we don't even know what the ship is.

My point is that government needs to judge the right level of taxation to maximise the revenue, and minimise the social ill-effects of crime.

Surely you would not say that the level of tax has no relation to the propensity of people to avoid the tax?

I would. The end consumer doesn't actually care where his money goes. The consumer only realistically cares about the price. Whether that price is delegated by taxation or profiteering is meaningless in his decision to go outside the normal means of procurement. No one tries to "avoid" the tax. They try and avoid the price increase that tax theoretically dictates, but that is no different than avoiding an expensive product that is expensive for any other means. With substances that are illegal outside of normal avenues the consumer is typically willing to pay extra for the legality and safety the comes in lie with such. Europes problem in this regard is its own, and as fragmented as europe is it's unlikely to change.

Tax avoidance is a crime so people have to take that into account not simply the price factor.

Kilkrazy wrote:Tax avoidance is a crime so people have to take that into account not simply the price factor.

What exactly are you arguing here? I agree that overtaxation to the point of creating black markets is bad. But so is building a ladder to the sun and trying to climb to venus. We know. It's obvious. These are very clear and obvious points.

sebster wrote:Yeah, I know there is ongoing debate on the issue. I don’t really know where the science is at, but I do know that a correlation between marijuana and psychosis matches with my the experiences I’ve had with friends.

For me, those experiences plus the on-going debate leads me to think it’s quite likely there’s something there. Note that I don’t think it is enough to justify making the drug illegal, though.

I have known many people that have smoked pot on a regular basis; the ones that were crazy, started that way.

There may be a correlation, as any drug could act as a trigger to deeper issues. I just don't see any reason why the same people that had issues with marijuana, wouldn't have much the same issues with any other drug; using them as self-medication.

I would like to note that prescribing marijuana to treat mental disorders, sounds quite dubious.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Tax avoidance is a crime so people have to take that into account not simply the price factor.

What exactly are you arguing here? I agree that overtaxation to the point of creating black markets is bad. But so is building a ladder to the sun and trying to climb to venus. We know. It's obvious. These are very clear and obvious points.

Since you agree with me there is no argument.

Wrexasaur wrote:I have known many people that have smoked pot on a regular basis; the ones that were crazy, started that way.

There may be a correlation, as any drug could act as a trigger to deeper issues. I just don't see any reason why the same people that had issues with marijuana, wouldn't have much the same issues with any other drug; using them as self-medication.

I would like to note that prescribing marijuana to treat mental disorders, sounds quite dubious.

Fair enough, different personal experiences different resultant beliefs. I don't think marijuana is enough to cause extreme medical problems by itself, I smoked it for a reasonable time and apart from that one time I blacked out and woke up covered blood I turned out sane enough. I also think it is very hard to seperate cause and effect (people with issues are more likely to use marijuana and other drugs), but I can't dismiss the idea that dope may exacerbate mental issues, because of the experiences of a few friends.

But again, I'd like to point I don't believe that means it needs to remain banned. There are legal drugs which can increase problems of other drugs - alcohol can be used to self-medicate depression and make it a lot worse, for instance.