BBC: Could legalising marijuana save the US economy?

BBC: Could legalising marijuana save the US economy?
Produced for the BBC by David Eckenrode.

OPINION OF AUTHOR: A world that welcomes cannabis, is going to be a more prosperous, and more peaceful; especially when you take organized crime out of the picture.

No.

It'll help, sure, among myriad other reasons to legalize it. But the economy's problems run too deep for anything to "fix" it. It'll be a slow climb at best, and even that'll take a lot more than some magic bullet like this, or even a budget overhaul.

In all rural areas of BC, Washington, Oregon and northern California, Marijuana is the economy and has been for decades.

Marijuana interdiction squads are much hated in an otherwise law and order oriented community, citizens band radio waves come alive as law enforcement convoys travel rural roads, local commerce is oriented towards harvest time payments on accounts.

Tax. The. Hell. Out. Of. It.

Keep independent growing of marijuana illegal, stiffen the penalties, triple them.

It's America's second largest cash crop, and that's with it being illegal. The Government revenue stream would be tremendous, every level of Government would get a huge piece of it. Would it fix everything, no, but it would help.

I'll take a pack of Two-Toke Menthol Light 100's in a box, please!

Oh, wait, you can't advertise cigarettes as Lights, anymore...

I haven't smoked of the reefer in over seven years, but I'd fire one up if it were legalized. I literally mean one. I don't actually like marijuana, but I'd have to do it once, legally.

The mass majority of quality bud in Seattle is already home grown and sold either through the dispensaries or through the "black market". Our medical law allows you to grow your own (way too much) and doesn't really keep track of where it goes. Sometimes you'll get something from Vancouver, BC - but seriously nine times out of ten it's grown locally.

There is no organized crime involved and hasn't been for at least the past 6-8 years, probably longer but I don't have personal knowledge before then.

Why do people think that if you legalize it then the indie grower is just going to stop? I'm not totally convinced they will, and I think that with the level of tax the government would pile on the profit level would still be there. I agree it would hurt Mexican O.C. in that it would not be as easy to stuff the channel with low-grade product when you could get legal stuff elsewhere without worrying about getting killed. But the small-time grower who prides himself on a quality product may well just keep growing.

One thing to remember is a pot smoker is never going to chain-smoke like a cigarette smoker, so production will be more of a boutique businesss rather than another RJR/MO.

I don't know why people think the taxes would be some big windfall....sure it would be extra revenue...but lets get real people the federal excise tax revenue in 2010 was about 70 billion....and that include taxes on gas, alcohol, coal, firearms, tobacco, transportation, communications ect ect.....if all of those Combined bring in 70 billion what do yo think marijuana will bring in? 5 billion? maybe 10? Don't get me wrong that's a lot of money....but we are staring at a 1 trillion dollar deficit...and 5 billion is a drop in the bucket...

Saying all that..... as long as there is an effective way to test whether not you are under the influence of marijuana while driving, like there is for alcohol....I say make it legal....

Quote: AZDuffman

One thing to remember is a pot smoker is never going to chain-smoke like a cigarette smoker, so production will be more of a boutique businesss rather than another RJR/MO.

In principle, I agree with you. Never is not a good word to use in this situation. SWIM (look it up on urbandictionary) smoked $40 worth every week while going to school and getting good grades, could have easily upped it to $80, or a quarter ounce, without any obligations.

I also think that high quality bud could be mass produced. Independent growers would sell their patented strains to corporations that would grow them on a grand scale. In my opinion, the corporatization of marijuana would make up for the taxation easily.

Quote: vert1276

we are staring at a 1 trillion dollar deficit...and 5 billion is a drop in the bucket...

The mid year estimate for 2012 has been upped to $1.2 trillion . By the time all the accounting is finished it might be $1.3 trillion like the previous two years.

-$1,412.7 billion - 2009
-$1,293.5 billion - 2010
-$1,299.6 billion - 2011
-$1,211.0 billion - 2012

Quote: ahiromu

I also think that high quality bud could be mass produced. Independent growers would sell their patented strains to corporations that would grow them on a grand scale. In my opinion, the corporatization of marijuana would make up for the taxation easily.

I still disagree here. Who makes better beer, the local brew-pup or InBev? Who has better produce, the farmer's market or Wal-Mart? Does the local baker shop have better bread than Wonder Bread?

What I do wonder is could pot be put into those roll-your-own cigarette tubes that were recently pulled from the market? I'm no pothead, but I could see people specializing in mixing pot with tobacco and in a ready-to-smoke package. If it would work.

Lets see...
If you legalize MJ and tax the hell out of it, the cartels will drop the price to keep marketshare.
If you legalize MJ, and make it cheap, tax it according to strain, indicus, or sativa, or hybrid. The object is revenue at the expense of the cartels. That will get the cartels angry.
If you legalize MJ and tax it at all, people will still evade paying taxes, and the cartels get angry.
If you legalize MJ, and don't tax it, the Insurance Co's and the cops will get very busy processing accident claims, and the cartels will get angry over the increased competition. Not enough cops because they're processing the stoners.

I see no benefit, except for the Insurance industry {and maybe Frito-Lay ;o) }

The risks are the usual, the increased statistical chance that a stoner slams into you, your spouse, your car, your house, your kids... and the increased risk of an angry cartel and the violence associated with such cartels. Thank heavens for air-bags in cars, right?

torn between keeping it illegal so there would be less money for the government that could be put back into the economy instead or making it legal because people should have the right to do so.

Quote: AZDuffman

I still disagree here. Who makes better beer, the local brew-pup or InBev? Who has better produce, the farmer's market or Wal-Mart? Does the local baker shop have better bread than Wonder Bread?

You are 100% correct, there will ALWAYS be a market for specialty item. That doesn't escape the fact that Anheuser-Busch/InBev ALONE has a 50.9% market share of all beer sold in the US (wiki). Of course this is a different situation, but I think you're underestimating the demand of "good enough" cheapo products.

Quote: 98Clubs

Lets see...
If you legalize MJ and tax the hell out of it, the cartels will drop the price to keep marketshare.
If you legalize MJ, and make it cheap, tax it according to strain, indicus, or sativa, or hybrid. The object is revenue at the expense of the cartels. That will get the cartels angry.
If you legalize MJ and tax it at all, people will still evade paying taxes, and the cartels get angry.
If you legalize MJ, and don't tax it, the Insurance Co's and the cops will get very busy processing accident claims, and the cartels will get angry over the increased competition. Not enough cops because they're processing the stoners.

I see no benefit, except for the Insurance industry {and maybe Frito-Lay ;o) }

The risks are the usual, the increased statistical chance that a stoner slams into you, your spouse, your car, your house, your kids... and the increased risk of an angry cartel and the violence associated with such cartels. Thank heavens for air-bags in cars, right?

Simply put, giving people a legal alternative is better than nothing. I honestly believe that the vast majority of stoners would be willing to pay a premium to have serious chronic be purchased at a store at the drop of a hat. The fact that cigarette taxes can be avoided by buying cartons from Moldova for $3/pack (a friend does that) doesn't stop the vast majority of people paying a retarded $8/pack in Seattle.

Let's get one thing straight, the vast majority of stoners are already smoking weed by ignoring the laws or getting a medical card. A friend of mine in Cali walked into a Dr's office, said "I have social anxiety", paid his $75 or whatever, and was out of there with a card in less than 15 minutes. Marijuana is already legal in California. The kind of people that would "start" smoking if it became legal are the kind of people who don't smoke because it would affect their job or just because it's against the law. In my book, these people are responsible and not the types to be driving around high. Entirely conjecture on this one, but I believe the kind of people who would be a threat on the road because of marijuana are already out there doing it.

Quote: AZDuffman

What I do wonder is could pot be put into those roll-your-own cigarette tubes that were recently pulled from the market? I'm no pothead, but I could see people specializing in mixing pot with tobacco and in a ready-to-smoke package. If it would work.

They do this in the koffeshops (aka weed shops) in Amsterdam, the tobacco/weed hybrid cigs are very popular there.

City of Denver Warns Against Public Marijuana Smoking

Stupid liberals vote to legalize marijuana, yet public celebrations involving marijuana are still illegal. LOL!

buy a bag, and can't smoke it outdoors, jeez, stay home with the kids and smoke it... yeah right. Sounds like the legislators were drunk when that got passed.

Quote: AcesAndEights

They do this in the koffeshops (aka weed shops) in Amsterdam, the tobacco/weed hybrid cigs are very popular there.

Lotsa repeat customers because of the nicotine, right?

Uroquay, already an ex-patriate heaven, may boom since pot there is now 100 percent legal to grow buy sell possess or use as an adult.

It would save more than it brings in. Worth about the cost of Tomatoes. Tax things billionaires want and you're getting somewhere. Actually nothing will do any good because it's funny money and worthless accounting everywhere. to me its impossible without restarting over from zero. Just plain stupid thinking the general public can do anything financially at all last at the fountain. of make believe.

It would save more than it brings in. Worth about the cost of Tomatoes. Tax things billionaires want and you're getting somewhere. Actually nothing will do any good because it's funny money and worthless accounting everywhere. to me its impossible without restarting over from zero. Just plain stupid thinking the general public can do anything financially at all last at the fountain. of make believe.

Legalizing it and taxing it would all around be beneficial. Not only from the taxing of it but also stopping the countless dollars being spent to prevent it along with people serving time for minor offences. The money that was previously spent on combating it could be spent on strictly combating outside sources such as the cartels, but the cartels would not be entirely too much of a threat because if given two products 99% of the time someone will pick something that is all around better because let's face it if you had the choice of something brown, seedy, and smells horrible or something green, smells amazing, and looks worlds and away better. It would also more than likely decrease the usage, when Amsterdam legalized it usage spiked for a short time but then settled to a level of usage lower than when previously illegal. Good points were brought up though about testing for currently being high while driving etc. The greatest component against legalizing it though is the lobbying pharmaceutical companies that would lose business if it was legalized.

Quote: Transcend

Legalizing it and taxing it would all around be beneficial. Not only from the taxing of it but also stopping the countless dollars being spent to prevent it along with people serving time for minor offences. The money that was previously spent on combating it could be spent...

There are some good reasons for legalizing it, but this isn't one of them. How many times has the government promised to spend tax dollars on one thing, yet they end up wasting it on something else?

Yeah, pretty much every time!

During the run up to the 2010 election in which marijuana legalization was on the ballot in California, Altria took control of the web domain names AltriaMarijuana.com and AltriaCannabis.com. For those not in the know, Altria is the parent company of Phillip Morris, the manufacturer of Marlboro, Players, Benson & Hedges and many other popular brands of tobacco cigarettes.

I'd love it if tobacco companies got into the marijuana business and started selling & marketing it the same way they market cigarettes. The liberal reaction would be priceless. :)

Legalize it and we can stop wasting money on locking up people who smoked weed. Collect tax revenue and eliminate black markets. Also legalize prostitution. Get these things done in about 3 years so when I get out of the air guard I can have a weed and hookers party at my house. You are all invited of course. BYOW (bring your own weed) and BYOB (bring your own bitches)

"Legalize it and we can stop wasting money on locking up people who smoked weed" AGREE

"Collect tax revenue and eliminate black markets" CANNOT ELIMINATE BLACK MARKET IF TAXED

Make the mixture of marajuana and tobacco/nicotine and/or caffein ILLEGAL. Why?, Because cannabis by itself is not addictive physically, adding nicotine/caffein makes it physically addicting. People have the right when legal not to become physically dependant on smoking cannibis. I feel very certain that if the tobacco Co.s get into this, the tobacco/cannabis mixture is a sure bet. Ultimately, this has been my opposition to the legality of cannabis, because of the monster it can become when adding an addictive substance to it.

But if legalized in your area, twist a fatty for me. Just don't add the scourge of tobacco to it and ruin a perfectly good joint.

Quote: 98Clubs

"Legalize it and we can stop wasting money on locking up people who smoked weed" AGREE

"Collect tax revenue and eliminate black markets" CANNOT ELIMINATE BLACK MARKET IF TAXED

Make the mixture of marajuana and tobacco/nicotine and/or caffein ILLEGAL. Why?, Because cannabis by itself is not addictive physically, adding nicotine/caffein makes it physically addicting. People have the right when legal not to become physically dependant on smoking cannibis. I feel very certain that if the tobacco Co.s get into this, the tobacco/cannabis mixture is a sure bet. Ultimately, this has been my opposition to the legality of cannabis, because of the monster it can become when adding an addictive substance to it.

But if legalized in your area, twist a fatty for me. Just don't add the scourge of tobacco to it and ruin a perfectly good joint.

I don't know if I'm convinced its not addictive. A lot of things are addictive you wouldn't think were. Not that I care if it is or not.

I don't think it's addictive. Can't quote studies either way, but pure weed is not addictive.

It should be legal. We are wasting SO much money on finding it, arresting people with it, overcharging them for prison sentences we have to pay for, the whole thing; many billions of dollars on a losing drug war.

Go ahead and tax it. I think there'll still be a huge boutique market for the good, pure stuff. There's AB, then there's Sam Adams, Corona, Henry Weinhard, whatever. There's also MadDog 20/20, then there's Gallo, then high end wines. All of it has a multi-level market.

Agree that it should remain pure, not get mixed with tobacco or caffeine. If someone wants to mix it themselves, go for it.

It is not a gateway drug, except by its illegality; once a person has decided to enter the drug culture, it makes it easier to rationalize trying other illegal drugs, but pot itself does not create a craving for opiates or hallucenogens.

I don't think it seriously impairs driving; someone's going to have to prove that one.

JMHO. YMMV.

A positive benefit would be knocking out the dangerous "pseudo THC" market like Spice, K2, and other forms of wacky, inorganic synthetic cannabis, many of which are invented by John W. Huffman, an organic research chemist working for the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Somebody got wind or a hold of his work and files in the 2000's, and the Cracken was released...

Quote: Wiki/John Huffman

In the late 2000s, two of Huffman's cannabinoid compounds began being sold in Germany as marijuana alternatives known as K2 and Spice. "I figured once it got started in Germany it was going to spread. I'm concerned that it could hurt people," Huffman said. "I think this was something that was more or less inevitable. It bothers me that people are so stupid as to use this stuff". Huffman may have developed these compounds for scientific research, but now he gets blamed for its abuse. As JWH-018 is more potent and easy to make, Huffman believes it is a more widely used synthetic cannabinoid of the JWH series.

Better the natural stuff than this....

Quote: beachbumbabs

I don't think it's addictive. Can't quote studies either way, but pure weed is not addictive.

Some people can get habituated and become pot heads. I will say most people would rather have a pot head as a neighbor than a crack head, dope fiend, or raging alcoholic.

Quote: beachbumbabs

It should be legal. We are wasting SO much money on finding it, arresting people with it, overcharging them for prison sentences we have to pay for, the whole thing; many billions of dollars on a losing drug war.

Go ahead and tax it. I think there'll still be a huge boutique market for the good, pure stuff. There's AB, then there's Sam Adams, Corona, Henry Weinhard, whatever. There's also MadDog 20/20, then there's Gallo, then high end wines. All of it has a multi-level market.

I disagree that it would be a boutique market, I think it would be a huge market and a source of employment. Marketing execs would dream up catchy brand names: "Happy Papi," "Lucky Spliff," "Super Skunk,' "Buddha Time," etc....

I was referring specifically to the idea someone earlier suggested that cheap mass production would kill the quality weed market. I think it will not only prosper but thrive, much as you say; there's room for both.

I just want some consistency. Personally, I oppose it, but if it's gonna be made legal, don't be half-a***d about it. Go all the way, and let marijuana companies (and also tobacco companies, for that matter) advertise the same way that other types of companies are allowed to do.

I was psychologically addicted to marijuana for a lot of years. I had to make a choice when I got into gambling. At the time if you got caught with even just a roach it was a felony in Nevada. When you gamble for a living and get popped for something, in the eyes of the court, you have no job, no ties to the community. Bail is higher, fines are higher, jail time is longer. I went cold turkey.

A few years back Montana passed a medical marijuana law. It's a real joke. You go see certain doctors. "Doc, my leg hurts if I don't smoke pot." He writes you a prescription for marijuana. It put a lot of potheads in business. They go buy an ounce at the pot store, then break it down into grams and go through the bars selling it. Once I was dating a girl who had three sons in their early twenties. All three had marijuana cards. They were just potheads from hell.

A couple of years ago I went on a road trip with an AP friend who is psychologically addicted to marijuana. He smokes it from morning till night. So we're driving down the road. He lights up a joint. "Here, you want a hit?" he says. I hadn't smoked marijuana in fifteen years. I took a couple of hits. A few minutes later he asked me a math question about the play we were headed to. I pulled out my pocket calculator and stared at it. It was a simple equation but I couldn't formulate it in my mind. "Al" I said "Don't ever offer me any more of that crap. Keep it to yourself. I'm pretty good at gambling math. But two hits off that joint and I can't even tell you what two plus two is."

Pick Yer Poison.

Agree - I think "Medical MJ" sets up a bunch of low-level pot dealers for the non-medically licensed population.
What if you're applying for a job, and your MJ status comes up? Usage shouldn't be visible, if fully legal.

Also scary is calls for harder stuff to be legal. Meth, Coke, narcotics.....Darwin's survival of the fittest would go into overdrive.
I see the "ramp people" here in Vegas: standing on the ends of highway off-ramps with signs "Injured Veteran, please help." Should say, "Crippling addiction, please finance my next hit."

>I don't think it's addictive. Can't quote studies either way, but pure weed is not addictive.
Addictive is a meaningless term. Caffeine is addictive for a great many people as if having orange juice for breakfast. Obviously these are mild desires but they do depend upon the substance. Tobacco executives stand up and say nicotine is not addictive after they've been shown a film of someone kicking a heroin habit. Its a matter of scale.

>It should be legal. We are wasting SO much money on finding it, arresting people with it, overcharging them for prison sentences
>we have to pay for, the whole thing; many billions of dollars on a losing drug war.
Before you call it waste you have to ask the cops who retire after twenty years on full pensions and the contractors who built those jails or the guards that staffed them, the counselors and shrinks that provide "treatment", the army of drug diversion real estate owners who get 300 percent of fair rent rate for drug free housing, etc.

>Go ahead and tax it. I think there'll still be a huge boutique market for the good, pure stuff.
There has been a boutique market for decades. The entire province of British Columbia is behind a great product. You think the owner of a helicopter is going to leave it fully fueled and unlocked at night if he thought the thief might be selling a bad product? Canadians tend to have good business values.

>Agree that it should remain pure, not get mixed with tobacco or caffeine. If someone wants to mix it themselves, go for it.
One of the major complaints about smokers these days are the Egyptian cigarettes and the various knockoffs from London that have tobacco and enough perfume to drown a hookah user. However, impure "pot" usually involves deceitful substitutions, such as oregano, not flavorings or additives.

>It is not a gateway drug, except by its illegality; once a person has decided to enter the drug culture, it makes it easier to
>rationalize trying other illegal drugs, but pot itself does not create a craving for opiates or hallucinogens.
True. Pot use tends to be social and personal, harder drugs tend to be for the strung out types with a few exceptions such as heroin for weight loss obsessed models, heroin chic party girls and the like.

>I don't think it seriously impairs driving; someone's going to have to prove that one.
Sleep deprivation and carbon monoxide impair driving, not the "pot".

An interesting scenario is playing out in Josephine County, Oregon. Its mostly federal forest land and the county refuses to impose high taxes in order to pay for ridiculous drug laws. So they released all prisoners, made the sheriff's department open only MthruF for normal business hours, and announced that freedom from taxation is what everyone had fought for. They would not support an upper class of high paid drug cops. They will not tax residents into a state of poverty to support stupid laws that skew incomes. They have volunteer fire and ambulance departments, their SAR missions have always been Volunteers. If you want to live a rural lifestyle you are welcome to but if you want to go around tearing up pot farms and trying to fill their local jail with people whose sole problem is poverty you can go live elsewhere.

As for saving the economy, that is not "pot".... .gambling is supposed do that!! LOL.

Quote: FleaStiff

>I don't think it's addictive. Can't quote studies either way, but pure weed is not addictive.
>I don't think it seriously impairs driving; someone's going to have to prove that one.
Sleep deprivation and carbon monoxide impair driving, not the "pot".

Marijuana itself is not addictive but that is not to say someone cannot be addicted to it, but that is the truth with anything as any gambler may know. It all depends on the person, if they have an addictive personality then sure they can be addicted to it because that is what they believe and their mind is programmed that way, but another way is it can become habitual like smoking tobacco you tend to always do it after a certain thing happens, drink your morning coffee have a smoke, get done with a romp in the bedroom have a smoke etc. It can become something you are accustomed to, but if you have a strong fortitude quitting won't be a problem because by itself it is not Physically addictive. Anything can be abused by the wrong person.

I also believe mixing it with other things would be a terrible idea, from caffeine to tobacco. Adding a known addictive substance to a known nonaddictive substance is just a bad idea. They say smoking cigarettes is harder to quit than heroin, do you really want that added to your marijuana? Also the taste of today's marijuana that is grown correctly can be absolutely divine who would want to go and ruin that with tobacco?

As for driving, I still believe it is a bad idea to smoke and drive, not to say I haven't done it in my youth, but I now realize what a terrible idea that was. It does slow your reaction times down and may cause you to focus on not the proper things while driving which can be harmful to yourself, passengers, and other motorists. I will say this though I would rather drive next to someone that is high vs drunk any day of the week. People who smoke and then drive or smoke and drive tend to be more cautious for the fear of getting caught, which should always remain there because people will always smoke and drive like they will always drink and drive, but hopefully the threat of getting punished for it will at least make them a more cautious driver. I know someone is going to chime in and say something about why can't you use that argument for drinking and driving, because in my personal opinion the impairment caused by being drunk vs high is just not comparable.

The problem with weed vs booze is, you smoke
weed with the sole purpose of getting intoxicated.
You usually don't drink to get intoxicated. A beer
while mowing the lawn is not mowing the lawn in
an altered state of consciousness. Smoking reefer
and doing it, is. They aren't even close to being the
same thing.

Intoxication: Stupefaction by the action of a chemical substance.

If you don't experience this stupefaction with a few
hits of weed, you keep going until you do. Only an
alcoholic does this with booze, casual drinkers do
not.

Quote: EvenBob

The problem with weed vs booze is, you smoke
weed with the sole purpose of getting intoxicated.
You usually don't drink to get intoxicated. A beer
while mowing the lawn is not mowing the lawn in
an altered state of consciousness. Smoking reefer
and doing it, is. They aren't even close to being the
same thing.

Intoxication: Stupefaction by the action of a chemical substance.

If you don't experience this stupefaction with a few
hits of weed, you keep going until you do. Only an
alcoholic does this with booze, casual drinkers do
not.

This is true but there is also the casual smoker vs the one looking to be very intoxicated by it as there is drinking. There will always be varying degrees, but like I stated personally I would rather be on the road with someone high vs drunk, this is solely from an experienced personal stand point. If we could have it where no one drove impaired that would be great, but that will never be the case.

Granted there is a multitude of ways to use marijuana and different types, all of which impair you differently. Depending on the strain and type of ingestion its effects could very greatly. An indica vs a sativa will have completely different effects when smoked, then there is all the says to ingest it, from a tincture to eating it. Marijuana is fat and alcohol soluble (don't think I spelled that correctly) meaning the active chemicals in it will bind to those molecules, but only certain ones which then causes the effect to be different. Legalizing marijuana is a long way off because there are many active chemicals in it besides the best known THC, there are also a myriad of chemicals known as cannabinoids or CBN/CBD which still need to be researched more to know how they interact with the body.

In the end though this is not only about smoking marijuana though because the plant it self has a plethora of uses. The left over hemp makes better quality paper than trees do with less chemicals used in the process along with it being a much easier renewable resource. Plastics can be made from it, beauty products are made from it, etc. It would completely change the layout of the economy because its uses are so varied and it would hurt a lot of current businesses in the US. It is a double edged sword, it brings a lot of good with it but it will also cause current manufactures and the like problems competing or converting. There are many industries against it for this reason. Overall in the end it would end up being a positive, but it is like the electric car that positive will not be realized in the near future. Yeah you use less gas and make less pollution but your car also cost more up front and in our lifetime I don't see it changing anything about pollution.

I am for the legalization but it is a long way off and will be a very delicate process because of all the aspects of our current economy that it will ultimately have an effect on.

Quote: Transcend

I stated personally I would rather be on the road with someone high vs drunk,.

Apples and oranges. You can't compare a person
who's high to a person who's drunk. The guy would
have to be wasted on weed, then it would be a
fair comparison. Wasted, like when all you can do
is stare at the TV and lose track of time. You want
to ride with that guy?

Quote: EvenBob

Apples and oranges. You can't compare a person
who's high to a person who's drunk. The guy would
have to be wasted on weed, then it would be a
fair comparison. Wasted, like when all you can do
is stare at the TV and lose track of time. You want
to ride with that guy?

Like I said varying degrees there comes a point when their intoxication will intersect and I would prefer to drive with neither, but good luck getting the high person to get off the couch and go do anything, someone at the same level intoxication will either be falling all over possibly vomiting or they will think they can do anything, someone high will just be too lazy to do anything. You are right though there comes a point when I would rather not be around either.

I'm totally lost in these discussions because it would never occur to me that taking a drug should be a crime, wouldn't even cross my mind.

But how do I know the criminalization regime is morally bankrupt? Because to make it more attractive, they call it a war. War on Drugs.

If it's a war, it must be a good thing.

Quote: Transcend

Like I said varying degrees there comes a point when their intoxication will intersect

But the person on weed is intoxicated no matter what
stage he's in. His consciousness has been altered,
that's the point of it. The guy who had one beer
is not in that category. Nobody smokes reefer without
wanting to physically feel the effects of it. Not so with
a light drinker.

Quote: EvenBob

The problem with weed vs booze is, you smoke
weed with the sole purpose of getting intoxicated.
You usually don't drink to get intoxicated. A beer
while mowing the lawn is not mowing the lawn in
an altered state of consciousness. Smoking reefer
and doing it, is. They aren't even close to being the
same thing.

Intoxication: Stupefaction by the action of a chemical substance.

If you don't experience this stupefaction with a few
hits of weed, you keep going until you do. Only an
alcoholic does this with booze, casual drinkers do
not.

Towards the end of my use, probably three years or so, I smoked like your lawnmower man. I see no difference in weed use than alcohol use from this standpoint. One can have a nip "just to feel it" same as one can have a beer at the game or wine at dinner. One can toke a joint to completely relax same as someone can down a sixer all to himself. Or one can blast off with the 4' bong to completely remove himself from reality same as someone can drink an entire fifth at one gulp.

I see no difference.

On the topic of addiction, there seems to be a lot of confusion. Some are using the term "addiction" when what they're referring to is actually "dependency", which, while they sort of go hand in hand, aren't the same thing.

Addiction is psychological, a process of the mind. It usually refers to a compulsion that leads to a negative result. Often times it has nothing to do with any sort of chemical stimuli whatsoever. It's safe to say I'm addicted to hockey and fishing. Plenty here are probably addicted to gambling. One member just revealed an addiction to food. Shopping, sex, exercise, computer use, all of these can be addictive. Addictions aren't always negative, and are often referred to as a "serious hobby" or "passion" when they're not. It's usually only when the results go negative that it's labeled with that buzzword "addiction".

The easiest test for addiction or compulsion is to quit doing whatever you suspect to be addicted to and pay mind to how you react. I am passionate about video games, but when I'm in a spot that I can't play (a vacation, perhaps), I don't even think about it. However, if something comes up where I'm unable to make a hockey game, I get very agitated indeed. I play with 102* fevers, broken bones, concussions, and am constantly disobeying doctors orders, to my own detriment. That is addictive behavior.

Dependency is a physiological reaction. This is the chemical stuff - caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, opioids, cannibinoids, etc. This is what makes you feel like shit when it's taken away. Your mind changes, it actually changes, to work while under the influence from these substances. It becomes tolerant, and it becomes dependent. Some of these substances change the mind to prioritize them over food, over sleep, over drink, over the very things that give you life. If you take them away, your brain can revolt the same as if you starve yourself, or prevent it drink, or prevent it sleep.

Addiction and dependency can exist separate from each other. I am absolutely dependent on opioids. It is impossible to not be based on the amount I've been taking them over the last decade. However, there is no addiction mechanism present whatsoever. When I need to stop, usually when my tolerance becomes high enough they cease to work, I stop, and I have no problem staying stopped for however long I need. I get some withdrawal symptoms because of the dependency, most notably "the itches", but not an ounce of compulsion to start again. I am not addicted.

"Weed isn't addictive" is one of the greatest lies ever told. Chemically, maybe not. Perhaps one won't become dependent on it. But "addicted", psychologically hooked by the balls? Oh, yes indeed. Of all my detoxes off of all the stuff I've done, weed was by far, by FAR the worst. Mostly this was because all of the other stuff I was merely "dependent" on. I had physical reactions to coming off them, but I've lived in pain for every second of my last 14 years or so. Having "different pain" is almost refreshing, and was no problem. Weed I was psychologically addicted to, and my entire mind revolted. Losing my mind wasn't something I reacted well to, and it was abject misery for a long damn time because of it.

Quote: Face

"Weed isn't addictive" is one of the greatest lies ever told.

You can be addicted to anything. My mom was
addicted to sugar and died from it. I have an
older friend who sneaks off to the store a
couple times a week and eats a pound of candy
in the front seat of his car. He can't quit, he's
totally addicted to the sugar high. People are
addicted to sex and running and the internet.

People who say weed isn't addictive have idea
what they're talking about.

Quote: gpac1377

I'm totally lost in these discussions because it would never occur to me that taking a drug should be a crime

Technically speaking, "taking" a drug isn't the crime.

I used to be one of the "weed isn't addictive at all, shut up" people. However, I've got to admit now that it's a little more complicated than that. Can you die from quitting cold turkey? No. Will you get the shakes or any notable physical ailment? No. However, depending on the duration of being a daily smoker, you will have a tough time falling asleep in addition to finding normal life boring. Those are the two most notable "symptoms". As mentioned, almost anything can be abused, and it is my opinion that marijuana is not on the level of harder drugs that people get sent to rehab for - I'm sure marijuana rehab exists but... lol. Every single smoker I know has quit cold turkey multiple times in their lives.

I'm happy that marijuana has finally gotten the opportunity to be legal. Now all we need to do is get it off of the fucking schedule list, or at least from being a schedule 1 drug.

Quote: Face

On the topic of addiction, there seems to be a lot of confusion. Some are using the term "addiction" when what they're referring to is actually "dependency", which, while they sort of go hand in hand, aren't the same thing.

Addiction is psychological, a process of the mind. It usually refers to a compulsion that leads to a negative result. Often times it has nothing to do with any sort of chemical stimuli whatsoever. It's safe to say I'm addicted to hockey and fishing. Plenty here are probably addicted to gambling. One member just revealed an addiction to food. Shopping, sex, exercise, computer use, all of these can be addictive. Addictions aren't always negative, and are often referred to as a "serious hobby" or "passion" when they're not. It's usually only when the results go negative that it's labeled with that buzzword "addiction".

The easiest test for addiction or compulsion is to quit doing whatever you suspect to be addicted to and pay mind to how you react. I am passionate about video games, but when I'm in a spot that I can't play (a vacation, perhaps), I don't even think about it. However, if something comes up where I'm unable to make a hockey game, I get very agitated indeed. I play with 102* fevers, broken bones, concussions, and am constantly disobeying doctors orders, to my own detriment. That is addictive behavior.

Dependency is a physiological reaction. This is the chemical stuff - caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, opioids, cannibinoids, etc. This is what makes you feel like shit when it's taken away. Your mind changes, it actually changes, to work while under the influence from these substances. It becomes tolerant, and it becomes dependent. Some of these substances change the mind to prioritize them over food, over sleep, over drink, over the very things that give you life. If you take them away, your brain can revolt the same as if you starve yourself, or prevent it drink, or prevent it sleep.

Addiction and dependency can exist separate from each other. I am absolutely dependent on opioids. It is impossible to not be based on the amount I've been taking them over the last decade. However, there is no addiction mechanism present whatsoever. When I need to stop, usually when my tolerance becomes high enough they cease to work, I stop, and I have no problem staying stopped for however long I need. I get some withdrawal symptoms because of the dependency, most notably "the itches", but not an ounce of compulsion to start again. I am not addicted.

"Weed isn't addictive" is one of the greatest lies ever told. Chemically, maybe not. Perhaps one won't become dependent on it. But "addicted", psychologically hooked by the balls? Oh, yes indeed. Of all my detoxes off of all the stuff I've done, weed was by far, by FAR the worst. Mostly this was because all of the other stuff I was merely "dependent" on. I had physical reactions to coming off them, but I've lived in pain for every second of my last 14 years or so. Having "different pain" is almost refreshing, and was no problem. Weed I was psychologically addicted to, and my entire mind revolted. Losing my mind wasn't something I reacted well to, and it was abject misery for a long damn time because of it.

Excellant explanation. Soome folks after a back injury (several I know personally) have lived with opioid dependency. Part of withdrawl is "rebound pain" along with the described dependency withdrawls (DT's and other things). A few people I know have gone through this hellish state for nearly a week, but got past it. My own brother went through detoxification/withdrawl from cocaine and alcohol. This was difficult to witness at various stages, let alone experience.

Psychologically addictive and physically addictive are old-fashioned terms indeed. But it serves the purpose of allowing the inexperienced person the idea that some addicting substances create a physical need (dependency), that is a much more difficult to break than a pyschologic desire to repeat a habit. I agree fully with Face "Weed is not addictive" is a very big lie.

IMHO Face's expeiences are different than most people I know, with addiction/dependency probs. Most had an easier time with psychological than dependent. Everyone's experience will be different than everone elses. I guess it depends upon the stonger(est) influences in the brain.

Quote: ahiromu

I'm happy that marijuana has finally gotten the opportunity to be legal. .

It won't last. The weed abusers will ruin it for
everybody. Just like drunk drivers have raised
everybody's car insurance rates, the weed
abusers will find a way to ruin it for the rest
of us.

Quote: EvenBob

It won't last. The weed abusers will ruin it for
everybody. Just like drunk drivers have raised
everybody's car insurance rates

Oh boy, I didn't even think about that one. You're absolutely right.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Oh boy, I didn't even think about that one. You're absolutely right.

Of course. Ever been around some guy who's
babbling drooling paranoid wasted? Now we'll
have 15 year old's wandering the streets and
stores in this condition and it will get real old
real fast. Giving a drug this intoxicating to young
people, with no chance of punishment, is a recipe
for disaster.

weed is good. government is bad. its as simple as that.

laws arent put in place to protect people. laws are put into place to hurt people. think about it.