Marijuana

[Raza]

How do you reconcile the argument that legalized and taxed marijuana would create a new black market with the fact that all of the taxes and legal fees imposed on tobacco companies haven't resulted in a black market for cigarettes?

Because cigarettes are still cheap. 

Also, there are ways around it.  I know a guy who smokes and he lives in New Jersey, but he works in Delaware.  How many packs of cigarettes do you think he buys in New Jersey?  None.  He buys them all in Delaware and saves 20% or more.  Another friend of mine lives in Pennsylvania and works in New Jersey.  He buys his liquor in New Jersey because it's cheaper than buying in Pennsylvania (which may or may not be technically legal). 

[bing_oh]

IMO, among the people who are going to be using the big bad drugs (meth, etc), accessibility is not ever a problem. Excluding pills and coke, most drug addicts are poor people who are exposed to such things at a young, and always know a guy. Pot is different, in that all kinds of people use it. However, if you're a poor meth addict, it's almost certainly easier to get pot than if you're a rich professional. You're basically making the argument that if drugs were legal, Joe Schmoe would go out, buy some heroin, and become a hopeless addict.

I would argue that alcohol is so ingrained in our culture (and has been since forever, literally) that it makes a poor comparison to illegal drugs, which have only been around for 100 years or so.

But alcohol (sorry, but there are not other readily-available legal mind-altering drugs in the US to compare it to) seems to support the theory that legalization will result in at least some upspike in addicts who would otherwise never have tried the drug. Deny it as much as you like but there are some people out there who choose not to do various drugs not just because of the side-effects of the drugs but because of legal and social stygmas and repercussions. That's where the comparison to alcohol is relevant...it shows that, when a drug is more accessable and more culturally-acceptable, there is a wider instance of use and a wider instance of addiction because of that use.

[dazzleman]

There is a black market for cigarettes.  Stores get bootlegged cigarettes without the tax stamp and sell them at full price, keeping the tax rather than turing it over to the government.  And if you have the right connections, you can buy bootlegged cigarettes from the source without the tax.

[dazzleman]

It's also possible to order cigarettes over the internet from Indian reservations, since they're considered sovereign and don't charge the tax.

[Rupert]

But alcohol (sorry, but there are not other readily-available legal mind-altering drugs in the US to compare it to) seems to support the theory that legalization will result in at least some upspike in addicts who would otherwise never have tried the drug. Deny it as much as you like but there are some people out there who choose not to do various drugs not just because of the side-effects of the drugs but because of legal and social stygmas and repercussions. That's where the comparison to alcohol is relevant...it shows that, when a drug is more accessable and more culturally-acceptable, there is a wider instance of use and a wider instance of addiction because of that use.

I'm sure there would be some increase, but I think it would be pretty negligible. I don't thing that crank or meth are ever going to be culturally acceptable. People know what those drugs do to you.

[bing_oh]

I'm sure there would be some increase, but I think it would be pretty negligible. I don't thing that crank or meth are ever going to be culturally acceptable. People know what those drugs do to you.

What's a "negligible increase" for the average citizen when addiction rates and the associated problems do increase while politicians cut the number of LE for financial reasons as they're doing now?

And, as for hard drugs not becoming socially acceptable, there's already a segment of the population for which it is socially acceptable...and it's still illegal! You don't think that segment of the population could increase? And how about the "out of sight, out of mind" segments of the middle and upper classes who don't think there's a problem until it's laying on their front doorstep? Btw, you do realize that cocaine and opium were both socially acceptable as late as the late 1800's/early 1900's in the US, right?

[Tave]

Besides, you seem to be taking my response out of context.

Not at all.

Caddy made a comment about most pot users being "nice people" and I was responding to the fallacy of that statement.

And I was responding to the fallacy in your statement (i.e. just because some pot/alcohol users are losers, does not disprove the proposition that most pot/alcohol users are normal/nice people).

[bing_oh]

And I was responding to the fallacy in your statement (i.e. just because some pot/alcohol users are losers, does not disprove the proposition that most pot/alcohol users are normal/nice people).

Considering the number of total shitballs I arrest with pot on them, I think my experience would tend to show otherwise. Btw, I don't recall putting alcohol users in there...as I've already stated numerous times, there's a distinct cultural acceptability difference between alcohol and other drugs.

[Rupert]

And considering the number of upstanding citizens I personally know who haven't been arrested and smoke pot, I think my (and Tave's) experience would tend to show otherwise.

[Tave]

Considering the number of total shitballs I arrest with pot on them, I think my experience would tend to show otherwise.

No, your experience is with arresting shitballs, so it says nothing about not arresting non-shitballs.

Btw, I don't recall putting alcohol users in there...as I've already stated numerous times, there's a distinct cultural acceptability difference between alcohol and other drugs.

Regardless, it's a perfect example of why criminals aren't representative of society at large. The fact that a large number of criminals are alcoholics doesn't discount the far larger number of ordinary citizens who use alcohol responsibly.

And considering the number of upstanding citizens I personally know who haven't been arrested and smoke pot, I think my (and Tave's) experience would tend to show otherwise.

Well, to be fair, I never said one way or the other whether I believe most pot users are otherwise nice people. All I did was question Bing's assertion that since a lot of the people he arrests have pot on them, pot users are therefore not nice people.


I will say that, IMO, pot doesn't turn a nice person into a not nice person, which is really the more important point. After all, 99.9% of the people Bing arrests wear pants, but that doesn't mean that wearing pants turns someone into a bad guy (i.e. correlation = ! causation).

[BENZ BOY15]

That's the point I was making. Caddy made a generalization that pot users are generally "nice people." I countered with the observation that alot of very not-so-nice people I've arrested are pot users, nullifying his statement.

I disagree. Let's compare the accessablity of a legal mind-altering drug, alcohol, with the accessability of an illegal mind-altering drug, marijuana.

I can find alcohol sitting next to the milk and cheese at the grocery. I can pick it up at pretty much any gas station. I can name a half dozen establishments where I can get served alcohol by the drink in my town of less than 5000 people. You can't get much more accessable than that.

On the other hand, I'd need to have a "hook up" to find pot. I'd need to know who to talk to and have that person trust me to sell me marijuana.

Simply put, legality has controlled the accessability to the drug.

As for the assumption that illegality doesn't have an effect on the number of drug addicts, again I must disagree. Let me demonstrate my reasoning with simple questions...how many illegal drug addict do you think the average person knows? Now, in comparison, how many alcoholics do you think the average person knows? I'm betting the second number is the higher one. Why? Legality, accessability, and social acceptance.

Hate to break it to you, but it isn't that hard to find the "hook up." When I was in high school, it was easy to get both but getting weed was easier. Legality had and continues to have nothing to do with it. If you want it, you can find it....it ain't that difficult. And then of course if you wanted to go a legal route, one could always get a medical card and buy it legally. But given that the 'punishment' is a joke, people usually pass on that.

I mean, c'mon. If the soccer mom down the street can find the 'hook up', then anyone can.

[Tave]

The "legality encourages use" argument has a lot of logic but not much empirical support behind it. Prohibition showed us that alcohol use rates don't appreciably change when it is legalized or illegal; and after almost a century of outlawing marijuana, the government/society is no closer to getting rid of marijuana users than it was when it started. In fact I think the overall number has grown, but don't quote me on that.

Similarly, we see country after country which have decriminalized pot and have fewer users than we do! What's more, they didn't see the skyrocket in user rates that prohibition's supporters claimed would happen.



I think the answer to the "accessibility paradox" is pretty simple. Few people are hard narcotics addicts because few people have the desire to fuck with hard narcotics. Why should it be surprising that more people enjoy milder intoxicants.

Now granted, you can take boozing too far, and many do, but generally speaking, both the short term and long term effects of using alcohol, marijuana, or even tobacco are much less severe than, say, heroin. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that more people would tend to use the former, regardless of the their legality. And I think the evidence for this is pretty clear. Weed is a Schedule 1 drug, yet far more people use it than similarly, or even lesser, scheduled drugs. If legality had such an effect on usage, wouldn't  weed use be as small as heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine use?

[Rupert]

No, your experience is with arresting shitballs, so it says nothing about not arresting non-shitballs.

Regardless, it's a perfect example of why criminals aren't representative of society at large. The fact that a large number of criminals are alcoholics doesn't discount the far larger number of ordinary citizens who use alcohol responsibly.


Well, to be fair, I never said one way or the other whether I believe most pot users are otherwise nice people. All I did was question Bing's assertion that since a lot of the people he arrests have pot on them, pot users are therefore not nice people.


I will say that, IMO, pot doesn't turn a nice person into a not nice person, which is really the more important point. After all, 99.9% of the people Bing arrests wear pants, but that doesn't mean that wearing pants turns someone into a bad guy (i.e. correlation = ! causation).

Yeah, bing and I went through that, above.

[bing_oh]

Hate to break it to you, but it isn't that hard to find the "hook up." When I was in high school, it was easy to get both but getting weed was easier. Legality had and continues to have nothing to do with it. If you want it, you can find it....it ain't that difficult. And then of course if you wanted to go a legal route, one could always get a medical card and buy it legally. But given that the 'punishment' is a joke, people usually pass on that.

I mean, c'mon. If the soccer mom down the street can find the 'hook up', then anyone can.

Your experience in high school (in California, none the less) isn't really a good comparison. When you're talking about scoring alcohol or weed in HS, you're effectively comparing one prohibited substance to another, which doesn't have anything to do with my argument (legal vs illegal).

And, just for the record, no matter how easy it might be for the local soccer mom to find a "hook up" for her weed, she still has to find one! My "hook up" for alcohol is the cashier on register 5 at Wal-Mart.

[bing_oh]

No, your experience is with arresting shitballs, so it says nothing about not arresting non-shitballs.

Ah, but I do have contact with a wide swath of the population, not just shitballs. That means that, generally, I probably have contact with a higher percentage of the population, both shitball and average joe, than most people because of my line of work.

[bing_oh]

The "legality encourages use" argument has a lot of logic but not much empirical support behind it. Prohibition showed us that alcohol use rates don't appreciably change when it is legalized or illegal; and after almost a century of outlawing marijuana, the government/society is no closer to getting rid of marijuana users than it was when it started. In fact I think the overall number has grown, but don't quote me on that.

Similarly, we see country after country which have decriminalized pot and have fewer users than we do! What's more, they didn't see the skyrocket in user rates that prohibition's supporters claimed would happen.

Prohibition isn't an effective argument in the case of marijuana because Prohibition turned a formerly-legal (and widely-used) substance into an illegal one. It is far harder to remove a right already given than it is to keep something illegal that has long been that way.

And, drug use tends to fluctuate with the mood of the country as well as the "flavor of the month" syndrome according to potency and price.

Comparing the US with other countries is always a tricky subject because of cultural and legal differences. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison and tends to lead to false assumptions. What happens when you legalize drugs in Europe tends to be very different than when you'd legalize them here because of those differences.

I think the answer to the "accessibility paradox" is pretty simple. Few people are hard narcotics addicts because few people have the desire to fuck with hard narcotics. Why should it be surprising that more people enjoy milder intoxicants.

Now granted, you can take boozing too far, and many do, but generally speaking, both the short term and long term effects of using alcohol, marijuana, or even tobacco are much less severe than, say, heroin. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that more people would tend to use the former, regardless of the their legality. And I think the evidence for this is pretty clear. Weed is a Schedule 1 drug, yet far more people use it than similarly, or even lesser, scheduled drugs. If legality had such an effect on usage, wouldn't  weed use be as small as heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine use?

Oh, I dunno...the long term effects of hard alcohol or tobacco users (our two legal drugs) is pretty dramatic and no less nasty than the end effects from heroin or meth. I don't know if you've ever seen somebody die slowly from lung cancer but I have and it's no prettier than watching a herion user die with a needle in his arm.

Btw, drug scheduling isn't according to potency or danger or nasty side effects. Drug scheduling is according to medical usefulness and potential for abuse.

[Rupert]

Ah, but I do have contact with a wide swath of the population, not just shitballs. That means that, generally, I probably have contact with a higher percentage of the population, both shitball and average joe, than most people because of my line of work.

But do you search every average Joe to see if they're carrying pot?

[bing_oh]

But do you search every average Joe to see if they're carrying pot?

No more than I search every shitball to see if they're carrying pot.

[dazzleman]

Psilos, are you a regular joe or a shitball?  After you answer, I'll tell you my vote...

[Rupert]

Shitball, I hope.

[dazzleman]

[rohan]

No, your experience is with arresting shitballs, so it says nothing about not arresting non-shitballs.

Ok non-shitballs.   I have arrested in my career 3 teachers a couple firemen and a few laywers.  Ok- never mind about the lawyers.....  As coincidence would have it all of them happened to have pot on them or in their car and they were all assholes to us.  just sayin.....  




edit- actually the teachers were way beyond assholes.

[Tave]

Prohibition isn't an effective argument in the case of marijuana because Prohibition turned a formerly-legal (and widely-used) substance into an illegal one. It is far harder to remove a right already given than it is to keep something illegal that has long been that way.

And, drug use tends to fluctuate with the mood of the country as well as the "flavor of the month" syndrome according to potency and price.

Comparing the US with other countries is always a tricky subject because of cultural and legal differences. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison and tends to lead to false assumptions. What happens when you legalize drugs in Europe tends to be very different than when you'd legalize them here because of those differences.

Well yes, there are many differences which cloud the comparison, but at the end of the day, it's still a comparison. Actually it's more than one. It's a whole collection of comparisons which, when looked at in their totality, start to paint a compelling argument.


The broader point is that your argument isn't based on any comparison, flawed or not. All you're offering is "common sense," which in the absence of any supporting evidence, as well as contradictory evidence (some more tenuous, some less), is just as likely to lead to false assumptions as my argument.

Oh, I dunno...the long term effects of hard alcohol or tobacco users (our two legal drugs) is pretty dramatic and no less nasty than the end effects from heroin or meth. I don't know if you've ever seen somebody die slowly from lung cancer but I have and it's no prettier than watching a herion user die with a needle in his arm.

Dying is never pretty. The operative point is it's going to take years, most likely decades, of abusing those substances to kill you, while a heroin or cocaine user can die in a single dose.

In hindsight, my mention of "long-term effects" was misguided, but I still stand by my general statement: relatively few people are hard drug addicts because relatively few people have any desire to mess with hard drugs.

Btw, drug scheduling isn't according to potency or danger or nasty side effects. Drug scheduling is according to medical usefulness and potential for abuse.

Oh, I know exactly what the scheduling system is used for. My point wasn't that it singles out more or less dangerous drugs, my point was that it indicates the relative level of legality of a given drug.

Substances which are lower than schedule 1 are not totality illegal; more precisely they are restricted. Going off your assumption--that legality has a huge impact on use--one might expect to find that drugs lower on the scheduling list--those that are only illegal under certain circumstances--would be abused more often than drugs which are totally illegal, because society condones the limited use of one, and completely prohibits any use of the other.

[bing_oh]

Well yes, there are many differences which cloud the comparison, but at the end of the day, it's still a comparison. Actually it's more than one. It's a whole collection of comparisons which, when looked at in their totality, start to paint a compelling argument.

The broader point is that your argument isn't based on any comparison, flawed or not. All you're offering is "common sense," which in the absence of any supporting evidence, as well as contradictory evidence (some more tenuous, some less), is just as likely to lead to false assumptions as my argument.

Compelling to you, perhaps, but much less to me. Being on the pointy end of the spear changes ones perception, I suppose.

And, actually, my comparisons have been primarily been in regards to the problems associated to the already legal mind-altering drug in the US...alcohol...and the potential for problems by legalizing additional mind-altering drugs. As for common sense, I happen to actually like common sense. I wish more people had it and applied it. Things might go a little smoother if they did.

Dying is never pretty. The operative point is it's going to take years, most likely decades, of abusing those substances to kill you, while a heroin or cocaine user can die in a single dose.

In hindsight, my mention of "long-term effects" was misguided, but I still stand by my general statement: relatively few people are hard drug addicts because relatively few people have any desire to mess with hard drugs.

Apparently you've never seen anybody die of alcohol poisoning...

Oh, I know exactly what the scheduling system is used for. My point wasn't that it singles out more or less dangerous drugs, my point was that it indicates the relative level of legality of a given drug.

Substances which are lower than schedule 1 are not totality illegal; more precisely they are restricted. Going off your assumption--that legality has a huge impact on use--one might expect to find that drugs lower on the scheduling list--those that are only illegal under certain circumstances--would be abused more often than drugs which are totally illegal, because society condones the limited use of one, and completely prohibits any use of the other.

Actually, given the extent of the abuse of prescription drugs in this nation, I could argue that your statement it true...

[Rupert]

Common sense is neither common, nor correct.

[bing_oh]

Common sense is neither common, nor correct.

Well, at least we agree on one thing...common sense isn't common.

[BimmerM3]

Ah, but I do have contact with a wide swath of the population, not just shitballs. That means that, generally, I probably have contact with a higher percentage of the population, both shitball and average joe, than most people because of my line of work.

Yeah, but the average joes who smoke pot don't go around advertising it, particularly to law enforcement officers.

What happens when you legalize drugs in Europe tends to be very different than when you'd legalize them here because of those differences.

Um, there tends to be no difference at all because, to my knowledge, we tend to have never legalized a major illegal drug (except alcohol, but you already pointed out that it doesn't count for this argument). In other words, that's a completely bullshit argument.

Well, at least we agree on one thing...common sense isn't common.

Actually, Rupert is correct. You know all those studies that are done where people read the results and say, "Well no shit. That's common sense." They do those studied because actually quite often, they get results that are contrary to what's considered "common sense." When common sense is frequently and scientifically disproved, it no longer becomes a valid argument.

[Rupert]

If we all just went by common sense, we'd still believe that the planet is flat and is the center of the universe.

[hotrodalex]

If we all just went by common sense, we'd still believe that the planet is flat and is the center of the universe.

Well you're common sense is wrong, then.

Common sense says that since you can sail around the world, it is not flat.

[Rupert]

No, no one would have ever done that, since common sense said that would be impossible ('cause the Earth is flat, eh).