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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I dunno. I know people think we should heavily tax the sales of Marijuana but that would just give the cartels an opportunity to sell here. The last thing we need is to give the Cartels more money.

Ehh... not really. Most of the "dispensaries" around here are either grown in shop, or at the least grown "locally" by the store owners, according to my friend who now works in one

"Sin taxes" don't work because they decrease the behavior and perpetuate a black market. There are plenty of people buying weed from dealers even in places where it's legal and that will continue if the price from an illegal dealer is lower than that of a licensed shop. I'm not saying that licensed shops won't do a nice amount of business just that it won't wipe out illegal sales. People still sell cigarettes on the black market to avoid the high cigarette taxes and tobacco is locally grown and processed. If states want to make a lot of money from the sale of legalized weed they should keep the tax on it low and make money off of the volume of sales. I remember when Congress decided it would use cigarette tax money to help fund SCHIP but the problem with that is that with increased education and taxes fewer people are smoking so there's less revenue and increasing the taxes to get more just drives sales lower.

Just don't make the taxes cigarettes-excessive.

Shrugs... I'm in the camp of just regulating it like the other vices.

You'll never stamp out illegal sales (just look the the moonshiners).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
My younger brother is as close as I've ever seen to a weed addict.

He's been an everyday smoker since probably high school and he more or less can't function properly without it.

A friend of mine is the same. If not a chemical addition, it's clearly a dependence. Of course, that's nothing that's exclusive to weed.

 whembly wrote:
It's like my schadenboner won’t go down today after last night's election...

Do I need to see a doc?

Nah, you just need to see my Asian friend

It's a mental compulsion, like gambling.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's a mental compulsion, like gambling.

Yup and just like gambling if the state can make money off of it they'll legalize it and if the state can't monopolize it, like gambling, they'll just regulate and tax the gak out of it.

 streamdragon wrote:
DC is indeed interesting because of the whole "non-state" issue. Full on legalization with allowance for weed sale would make DC a huge amount of money from neighboring states, tourism (which is obviously a huge part of DCs economy already), and all the conventions and gatherings that happen in DC.

OMG the 2015 NOVAcon is going to be EPIC!!!!

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that one of the "good" flood gates that opens is in the Treatment options for addicts. Now, instead of treating someone who is addicted to Marijuana (really the THC as you point out) like a "dirty criminal", doctors and others involved in dealing with the issue can treat the addict like what they are: someone who is "sick" with a mental health issue.

Can't say I've EVER known a Marijuana addict.

Me either, but my statement was, I felt, more broad and generalized. Treat the addict like another Mental Health Patient, not a Criminal, and I believe (I could be very wrong here) that there will be more people seeking help for addiction. Whether it's weed, booze, sex, meth, internet porn; Doesn't matter, treat the mental health issues, and we're all the better for it.

 Nicorex wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
DC is indeed interesting because of the whole "non-state" issue. Full on legalization with allowance for weed sale would make DC a huge amount of money from neighboring states, tourism (which is obviously a huge part of DCs economy already), and all the conventions and gatherings that happen in DC.

OMG the 2015 NOVAcon is going to be EPIC!!!!

So... instead of BEERHAMMER... why not engage in BLAZEDHAMMER?!?!?

 whembly wrote:

 Nicorex wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
DC is indeed interesting because of the whole "non-state" issue. Full on legalization with allowance for weed sale would make DC a huge amount of money from neighboring states, tourism (which is obviously a huge part of DCs economy already), and all the conventions and gatherings that happen in DC.

OMG the 2015 NOVAcon is going to be EPIC!!!!

So... instead of BEERHAMMER... why not engage in BLAZEDHAMMER?!?!?

4 hours will feel like 15 minutes

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

My younger brother is as close as I've ever seen to a weed addict.

He's been an everyday smoker since probably high school and he more or less can't function properly without it.

If that is 'as close as' you've seen, what would it take for you to consider someone an actual addict?

I'm torn on this to be honest. My principles say that it's no business of the state what adults choose to put in their own bodies. And as someone who smoked a little dope in his university days it would arguably downright hypocritical of me if I didn't favour it's legalisation.

However I've know a few long term pot smokers and it's definitely had a detrimental effect on most of them. One good friend became violent and paranoid after a few years of heavy usage. I stopped speaking to him after he was arrested for attacking his girlfriend (who was a close friend of mine).

As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

At what point do we "make that decision" for the individual?

I see some people tossing around a little bit of misinformation in here. Just to clear some things up.

It is non addictive. (THC and other cannibanoids have been found to have no physical dependence, it is all mental, unlike Alcohol or Tobacco. This is non disputable. It is a fact.)

Take money from the Cartels (75% of Marijuana in Colorado must be grown on the premises of the dispensary)

Lower Prescription Drug Deaths (Studies have shown that deaths by Prescription Drugs have dropped since Marijuana has been legalized, it is a painkiller and you cannot OD on it!)

People will save money! (Thanks to the current prohibition, people are paying more than double in states where it is still illegal compared to Colorado)

Taxes! (Colorado has put taxes on Marijuana that directly go to Drug Addiction Treatment as well as the Educational system)

Not a single person has ever died from over consumption of Marijuana! (Not one)

People argue about "stoned drivers" being on the roads and killing people. (http://theleafonline.com/c/science/2014/05/driving-stoned-studies-suggest-no-significant-change-in-driving-performance/ The joke about a stoned driver just driving slower than normal is, true!)

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

Oooh! ooh! I got this one. This is how I justify that position. You can take Marijuana out of the equation and add Gambling, Sex, Exercise, or whatever you want! This was going to happen to them regardless of what was put in front of them.

 CptJake wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

My younger brother is as close as I've ever seen to a weed addict.

He's been an everyday smoker since probably high school and he more or less can't function properly without it.

If that is 'as close as' you've seen, what would it take for you to consider someone an actual addict?

I should have been more clear that I am making assumptions considering that we are both adults and only hang out occasionally. I base this off of the limited time I spend with him and things that he says. However, I will say that I know he treats it as an after work activity; he doesn't go to work baked out of his mind (I know this mainly because we worked together for almost 10 years).

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

What psychological harm would you be speaking of?

It looks like for the most part attitudes about this are high here on dakka.

*que laughter*

 Daemonhammer wrote:
It looks like for the most part attitudes about this are high here on dakka.

*que laughter*

I guess you could say that popular culture is weeding out old objections to marijuana legalization and the electorate is eager to blaze a trail to a new normal.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
it is all mental

So it can be addictive, just not physically. Of course at that point we are also talking about things like Video Game or Sex addiction, and I don't see either of those being banned any time soon. There are some complex cultural and psychological issues tied up with it in the USA. A lot of Stoner Culture (or whatever one wants to call it) is tied up in the social reaction and laws and I think if you take those away and make it as normal as getting a beer a lot of the problems and attitudes would disappear.

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

At what point do we "make that decision" for the individual?

If it were up to me, I would not have the Gov't making that decision. Folks want to destroy themselves with pot, booze, sex, gambling, whatever I could care less as long as no one expects my tax dollars to go towards unscrewing the mess they make of themselves and their families/lives. I am all for freedom of choice and zero freedom from consequences.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I see some people tossing around a little bit of misinformation in here. Just to clear some things up.

It is non addictive. (THC and other cannibanoids have been found to have no physical dependence, it is all mental, unlike Alcohol or Tobacco. This is non disputable. It is a fact.)

Pot is addictive. You would be right in that it isn't chemically addictive, but I haven't seen anyone make the claim that it is in this thread.

Pot is extremely easy to form a dependency on with extended use, though. Technically, anything can create a dependency with habitual use- video gaming to eating food -but like any mind-altering substance, the simple fact that it's something you can use to quickly alleviate stress or tension means that it's very easy to regulate your emotions around it.

I don't think its something worth holding against the drug, because people do the same gak with food and booze, but I know quite a few people who've become totally obsessed with pot. To the point where their memory is crap and they're totally unreliable.

It's really sad to watch the process, honestly.

Indeed. Mental addictions are just as bad as chemical addictions. Worse actually because treatment is more difficult.

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

At what point do we "make that decision" for the individual?

At the point the government deems them a danger to themselves and others. That's why the gov bans lots of things, to do its job, i.e. protecting its citizens. Sometimes is protecting the citizens from themselves, such as in cases of dangerous drugs and suicide.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

At the point the government deems them a danger to themselves and others. That's why the gov bans lots of things, to do its job, i.e. protecting its citizens. Sometimes is protecting the citizens from themselves, such as in cases of dangerous drugs and suicide.

Just how does the gov't protect people from suicide via banning? Heck, how does it protect people from suicide at all? And why should it be a Gov't function at all? What do they do, imprison the corpse?

The government has an obligation to step it when people present a danger to others. They don't have an obligation to protect people from themselves, though. If I want to eat cheeseburgers until my arteries clog and my heart stops, that's my right. If I want to jump off a bridge or ruin my life smoking crack or drinking alcohol, that's my right.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I dunno. I know people think we should heavily tax the sales of Marijuana but that would just give the cartels an opportunity to sell here. The last thing we need is to give the Cartels more money.

Ehh... not really. Most of the "dispensaries" around here are either grown in shop, or at the least grown "locally" by the store owners, according to my friend who now works in one

"Sin taxes" don't work because they decrease the behavior and perpetuate a black market. There are plenty of people buying weed from dealers even in places where it's legal and that will continue if the price from an illegal dealer is lower than that of a licensed shop. I'm not saying that licensed shops won't do a nice amount of business just that it won't wipe out illegal sales. People still sell cigarettes on the black market to avoid the high cigarette taxes and tobacco is locally grown and processed. If states want to make a lot of money from the sale of legalized weed they should keep the tax on it low and make money off of the volume of sales. I remember when Congress decided it would use cigarette tax money to help fund SCHIP but the problem with that is that with increased education and taxes fewer people are smoking so there's less revenue and increasing the taxes to get more just drives sales lower.

Let big business run it. They'll knock the price down through economy of scale. Once the might of American Farmers kicks in, we'll curb stop those cottage industry players. AMerica Hurr!

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

At what point do we "make that decision" for the individual?

If it were up to me, I would not have the Gov't making that decision. Folks want to destroy themselves with pot, booze, sex, gambling, whatever I could care less as long as no one expects my tax dollars to go towards unscrewing the mess they make of themselves and their families/lives. I am all for freedom of choice and zero freedom from consequences.

Wait, so you asked someone how they can justify something like weed being legal and then said if it was up to you the government would not be making that decision? Are you for or against weed being legal?

 Frazzled wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I dunno. I know people think we should heavily tax the sales of Marijuana but that would just give the cartels an opportunity to sell here. The last thing we need is to give the Cartels more money.

Ehh... not really. Most of the "dispensaries" around here are either grown in shop, or at the least grown "locally" by the store owners, according to my friend who now works in one

"Sin taxes" don't work because they decrease the behavior and perpetuate a black market. There are plenty of people buying weed from dealers even in places where it's legal and that will continue if the price from an illegal dealer is lower than that of a licensed shop. I'm not saying that licensed shops won't do a nice amount of business just that it won't wipe out illegal sales. People still sell cigarettes on the black market to avoid the high cigarette taxes and tobacco is locally grown and processed. If states want to make a lot of money from the sale of legalized weed they should keep the tax on it low and make money off of the volume of sales. I remember when Congress decided it would use cigarette tax money to help fund SCHIP but the problem with that is that with increased education and taxes fewer people are smoking so there's less revenue and increasing the taxes to get more just drives sales lower.

Let big business run it. They'll knock the price down through economy of scale. Once the might of American Farmers kicks in, we'll curb stop those cottage industry players. AMerica Hurr!

This^^, even if they sell a pack of "Marlboro Green" for 20 or even 40 bucks a pack (that come to 2-4 bucks a gram) you are still undercut the street dealer so much it will not be worth it for them.

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

At the point the government deems them a danger to themselves and others. That's why the gov bans lots of things, to do its job, i.e. protecting its citizens. Sometimes is protecting the citizens from themselves, such as in cases of dangerous drugs and suicide.

Just how does the gov't protect people from suicide via banning? Heck, how does it protect people from suicide at all? And why should it be a Gov't function at all? What do they do, imprison the corpse?

They stop people from committing suicide. I don't think it against the law, per-say, but you will be stopped if possible. You are extrapolating from my statements wrongly.

Your statement doesn't leave a whole lot to extrapolate.

How does the Government stop people from committing suicide?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I see some people tossing around a little bit of misinformation in here. Just to clear some things up.

It is non addictive. (THC and other cannibanoids have been found to have no physical dependence, it is all mental, unlike Alcohol or Tobacco. This is non disputable. It is a fact.)

Pot is addictive. You would be right in that it isn't chemically addictive, but I haven't seen anyone make the claim that it is in this thread.

Pot is extremely easy to form a dependency on with extended use, though. Technically, anything can create a dependency with habitual use- video gaming to eating food -but like any mind-altering substance, the simple fact that it's something you can use to quickly alleviate stress or tension means that it's very easy to regulate your emotions around it.

I don't think its something worth holding against the drug, because people do the same gak with food and booze, but I know quite a few people who've become totally obsessed with pot. To the point where their memory is crap and they're totally unreliable.

It's really sad to watch the process, honestly.

So wait, I am confused. Are you saying Pot is addictive or it is not addictive. Because Pot is addictive in the same way that literally anything else in the world can be addictive. It is all about Mental Illness and not about the substance itself. So I mean, Pot itself isn't addictive, people just become addicted to it.

As for the whole "their memory is crap and they'e totally unreliable" I am going to call bullcrap on that. Studies have shown that marijuana does not cause drops in memory at all. Also, I have many friends who smoke daily and they are some of the most reliable people I know. In fact, 4 of them banded together to buy me a car for Christmas when my current one quit on me. Nice guys!

It is all about the user. Not the drug. Which means, Pot is not addictive. But instead, people with a predisposition to mental illness can become addicted to it.