more than 850,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana in 2010 alone, 88 percent for mere possession.

850,000 Americans arrested. Most of them black. Because everybody knows black people smoke soooooooooooo much more weed than white people.

neanderthal dream wrote:

More than anything, Tuesday's election was the triumph of potheads to do whatever they feel like in the name of freedom. And I disagree with that stance, as I've outlined before. Freedom should not mean freedom from responsibility.

OK, you sound like a reasonable fellow. I don't think that we agree and I'm not sure that we will. But help me understand where you are coming from a little bit better. Let me focus on the bolded text. What do you mean by this? What responsibility are you referring to as it relates to smoking pot?

Truth in advertising: I am not now, have never been and have no intention of ever being a pot smoker. But I generally think, to each his own.

From my perspective (and I could be mistaken but this is how the argument has been presented to me) the ones who are really pushing for decriminalization in Washington have pushed it through solely for the sake of "freedom." The "we live in a free country so I can do whatever I want" approach.

They aren't interested in regulating pot. They aren't interested in educating others about pot. They aren't interested in providing the state of Washington with tax revenue. They just want to be able to smoke and not go to jail for it (which is fine, I agree that you shouldn't go to jail for possession, but that's another side of the debate). They want freedom, not the responsibility that comes with freedom.

They attached regulation, taxation, education, etc. to the campaign so that it would get passed.

Now, what I mean by freedom from responsibility is that they don't want the state to actually discourage its use. Are we all agreed that marijuana is not a harmless drug? That we don't want our children using it? That seems to be the theme I've heard from the non-users. So, if we're going to have the state regulate it, let's tax the hell out of it in order to discourage its use. Make it more costly legalized than it was on the black market. Does anybody see anything wrong with that? I'm honestly interested to hear this point debated, because I see it as the one huge positive of decriminalization.

You know who doesn't want to see that happen? The potheads. The people who pushed this initiative through.

That's what I mean. They want freedom. Not the responsibility that comes with it.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

jdmd wrote:

The deal is because the things I like to do aren't illegal and haven't been shown to be a burden on our society. I really don't understand your question. My activities are legal, pot is not.

How is using marijuana a burden on society? More than alcohol?

I live in a major city on the west coast of the US (3 guesses where) where it appears marijuana laws are not enforced. When you have to smell it from passersby literally every day along the main thoroughfares, it does become a real annoyance. It doesn't smell nice, and a lot of the potheads don't shower/take up space on the street begging for money.

You don't care for ignorant arguments? You completely missed the point he made about laws.

"...but it's impossible to law. And yes, pot"...is also impossible to outlaw- see the current expensive failures of the last 3 decades of the War On Drugs

I think the status quo in Oregon right now is pretty decent. Pot is illegal but its punishment is minor. I think its just a petty misdemeanor for small possession and generally the police do not pursue it (Unless maybe you are black). In essence you are virtually free to do it as long as you are behind closed doors and keeping the peace. Its not even that serious for small dealers of it. But somebody from Oregon correct me if they think I'm wrong.

neanderthal dream wrote:

They attached regulation, taxation, education, etc. to the campaign so that it would get passed.

Here's why I can't believe you are still bitchin' It has all the elements you are talking about.

So, if we're going to have the state regulate it, let's tax the hell out of it in order to discourage its use. Make it more costly legalized than it was on the black market. Does anybody see anything wrong with that?

Yes, basic economics are that if you tax it so highly that it is more expensive than on the black market then you will continue ot have a robust black market. That means you will still have to put money into policing. You will still be enriching violent drug cartels. You will have less ability to control quality and safety. You will have less money for education and treatment.

OK, I think I see what you are saying. I can't really speak for those who you refer to as 'potheads', only for myself. To me, treating pot in a similar manner to how tobacco and alcohol are currently treated would be an improvement on the status quo.

One important note that should be obvious from a simple economics/human nature perspective is that the idea that we can/should tax it to the point that it becomes more costly than it was on the black market is simply impractical. As soon as you do this - as soon as the cost of legal pot becomes substantially higher than pot on the black market - people will turn to the black market and we will have accomplished nothing. Of course, make it legal and this problem would probably self correct. Large corporations selling pot and making large dollars from these sales would make sure that tax laws do not put them out of business.

Personally, I think that having Philip Morris grow and sell pot, while not particularly appealing, is a whole lot more appealing than having the Mexican drug cartels turn our southern neighbor into a failed state largely on the back of the money that could otherwise be going to some combination of Philip Morris and Uncle Sam.

Relative to alcohol, weed is still cheap. At $500/oz, which is equivalent to 15 bottles of Grey Goose Vodka, you could get high 100x (assuming one solid bonghit gets you high).

The economics at this level are good to great. If you opened, "The Bonghit Bar" and people paid $10/bonghit, everybody would make money.

Pot has been socialized in a certain way, so almost all of us consider it to have a "fringe" or "radical" element to it. IF it becomes mainstream, then all of our perceptions of it will change.

When the first, "Dope Millionaire" moves into your neighbourhood, your perceptions will change even further. Just as porn millionaires are considered legit,so too will weed kings.

As long as there is an active effort on the part of government to discourage use, and funnel money into education, the term, "responsible pot use" will not sound silly.

Sounds like you know far more about this than I do but reading your post I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Was there a point? Or just a collection of random facts/opinions?

Thanks.

- the economics of weed vs alcohol work. Bar owners, consumers, tax authorities - everybody wins

- As people start to make serious money (in public, rather than like Gus Fring), and as the socialized aspects of our consumption change, it will go from an underground concept to much more mainstream.

I should stop using the word "pothead," too many negative connotations. Apologies to you connoisseurs or cannabis.

I don't think the black market would continue as long as we kept taxation reasonable. Look at the tobacco industry. In Washington, a pack costs around $10, where it could be sold for what? $3 or $4? Yet there's not much of a black market surrounding tobacco, at least as far as I know. I'm assuming tobacco and marijuana are similar in costs of production. But maybe a tobacco black market would emerge if we jacked the price to $50/pack.

I think, and again I could be wrong here, that prices would have to be pretty darn steep before a pot black market developed under legalization. Yes, the end-user would have incentive to find it as cheaply as possible, BUT who is going to take the risk to grow it illegally when a perfectly safe alternative exists? I don't it would happen unless the financial rewards were large enough, meaning a large enough discrepancy between legal and black-market prices.

I think it would have been easier to just vote for a change in the penalties for possession. I would have voted for that.

There is a huge black market running cigarettes from Virginia to New York and other parts of the Northeast.

There is already an existing black market for marijuana that has infrastructure. The legal market will have to undercut that black market to decrease it.

To the delusional marijuana supporters out there that cling to the absurd notion that marijuana is completely harmless...

Please Google "Joseph Beer"

I'm glad. I can't stand the smell of weed.

Obama's War on Weed wrote:

While more states legalized cannabis, the Obama Feds are hauling people to jail at record levels!!

Media silent and covering for their Messiah once again, even as he tosses them in jail!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-nadelmann/obama-marijuana_b_1546921.html