WHAT KIND OF CANNABIS LAWS SHOULD WE HAVE?
- Thread starter Sam_Skunkman
- Start date
Bumble Buddy
Active member
I picked legalize, but no Govt. regulation. It should be subjected to taxes, but no more than any other commodity/product like coffee or chocolate, not some special "drug" tax, which is what the tax/regulation option seems to imply to me.
My caveat on regulation is that I feel strongly that children should not be exposed to cannabis smoke directly or otherwise, also the question of cannabis intoxication and driving/heavy machinery/ other sensitive positions is a tough nut to crack... I don't have a good answer for that stuff... without accurate testing for acute intoxication, it'd probably be best to have such cases prosecuted only if it could be proven definitively (such as being seen by witnesses smoking a joint while driving and causing and accident, and the burnt joint found in the car) in general though, the Govt. should stay out of our personal affairs.
My caveat on regulation is that I feel strongly that children should not be exposed to cannabis smoke directly or otherwise, also the question of cannabis intoxication and driving/heavy machinery/ other sensitive positions is a tough nut to crack... I don't have a good answer for that stuff... without accurate testing for acute intoxication, it'd probably be best to have such cases prosecuted only if it could be proven definitively (such as being seen by witnesses smoking a joint while driving and causing and accident, and the burnt joint found in the car) in general though, the Govt. should stay out of our personal affairs.
Decriminalization, on a State by State basis is the best we will see...until the United Nations takes it off of their list--
That is why you don't, or won't hear any Presidential Candidates say they will change the Federal Law...they don't go much farther than saying they will stop the DEA raids--
No member of the UN can legalize Marijuana--
Can I hear a big, "Fuck the United Nations!!"
That is why you don't, or won't hear any Presidential Candidates say they will change the Federal Law...they don't go much farther than saying they will stop the DEA raids--
No member of the UN can legalize Marijuana--
Can I hear a big, "Fuck the United Nations!!"
can I suggests some of you guys get a little more informed about the debate, especially as some of you seem to think that genuine legalisation is somehow incompatible with your libertarian politics
the economist I mentioned above - Jeffrey Miron - is one of the foremost libertarian economists in the US - his book is published by the Independent Institute, a libertarian group...
the bottom line of his argument is that the safest policy on drugs is one which acknowledges the ability of the overwhelming majority of the population to make an intelligent, informed choice about the intoxicants they use
he has written an excellent short book explaining the failings of prohibition and examining in a very objective way the best alternatives -- he concludes that actual legalisation is the best alternative
I don't believe there is any such thing as "legalisation without taxation and regulation"
the correct phrase would be something like "depenalisation/decriminalisation with unregulated and unaccountable production"-
under such a policy, producers would have no legal framework within which to compete and resolve disputes... it would in that respect be no different from today's mafia smuggling, where the bottom line in any business rivalry is that a gun may be produced to settle a disagreement, rather than a lawyer...
homicide rates would be far higher, agricultural workers' rights would be nil - no unions, no way to defend their wages, and so on and so on
Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, by Jeffrey Miron
Joseph D. MacNamara, former Chief of Police of San Jose, California
"A powerful economic analysis…advances the only practical alternative to the present failed policies."
Margaret M. Russell, vice president, ACLU
"Legislators and other policy-makers would benefit from his non-politicized, non-moralistic approach; everyone can benefit from reading this important, insightful work."
Steven B. Duke, professor of law, Yale University
"Jeffrey Miron strengthens and enriches the case with his analyses of data from the prohibition era and from other countries"
John L. Kane, Jr., senior judge, U.S. District Court
"[T]he standard for judging all else in the field . . . has been needed for a very long time."
Book Description
A balanced and sophisticated analysis of the true costs, benefits, and consequences of enforcing drug prohibition is presented in this book. Miron argues that prohibition's effects on drug use have been modest and that prohibition has numerous side effects, most of them highly undesirable. In particular, prohibition is shown to directly increase violent crime, even in cases where it deters drug use. Miron's analysis leads to a disturbing finding-the more resources given to the fight against drugs, the greater the homicide rate. The costs and benefits of several alternatives to the war on drugs are examined. The conclusion is unequivocal and states that any of the most widely discussed alternatives is likely to be a substantial improvement over current policy.
About the Author
Jeffrey A. Miron is professor of economics at Boston University. His articles on drug policy have appeared in Social Research, Journal of Law and Economics, Boston Globe, and the London Observer. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
the economist I mentioned above - Jeffrey Miron - is one of the foremost libertarian economists in the US - his book is published by the Independent Institute, a libertarian group...
the bottom line of his argument is that the safest policy on drugs is one which acknowledges the ability of the overwhelming majority of the population to make an intelligent, informed choice about the intoxicants they use
he has written an excellent short book explaining the failings of prohibition and examining in a very objective way the best alternatives -- he concludes that actual legalisation is the best alternative
I don't believe there is any such thing as "legalisation without taxation and regulation"
the correct phrase would be something like "depenalisation/decriminalisation with unregulated and unaccountable production"-
under such a policy, producers would have no legal framework within which to compete and resolve disputes... it would in that respect be no different from today's mafia smuggling, where the bottom line in any business rivalry is that a gun may be produced to settle a disagreement, rather than a lawyer...
homicide rates would be far higher, agricultural workers' rights would be nil - no unions, no way to defend their wages, and so on and so on
Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, by Jeffrey Miron
Joseph D. MacNamara, former Chief of Police of San Jose, California
"A powerful economic analysis…advances the only practical alternative to the present failed policies."
Margaret M. Russell, vice president, ACLU
"Legislators and other policy-makers would benefit from his non-politicized, non-moralistic approach; everyone can benefit from reading this important, insightful work."
Steven B. Duke, professor of law, Yale University
"Jeffrey Miron strengthens and enriches the case with his analyses of data from the prohibition era and from other countries"
John L. Kane, Jr., senior judge, U.S. District Court
"[T]he standard for judging all else in the field . . . has been needed for a very long time."
Book Description
A balanced and sophisticated analysis of the true costs, benefits, and consequences of enforcing drug prohibition is presented in this book. Miron argues that prohibition's effects on drug use have been modest and that prohibition has numerous side effects, most of them highly undesirable. In particular, prohibition is shown to directly increase violent crime, even in cases where it deters drug use. Miron's analysis leads to a disturbing finding-the more resources given to the fight against drugs, the greater the homicide rate. The costs and benefits of several alternatives to the war on drugs are examined. The conclusion is unequivocal and states that any of the most widely discussed alternatives is likely to be a substantial improvement over current policy.
About the Author
Jeffrey A. Miron is professor of economics at Boston University. His articles on drug policy have appeared in Social Research, Journal of Law and Economics, Boston Globe, and the London Observer. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Sam_Skunkman said:
If the gov't takes control, one of the first things to be regulated will be potency.
It will be lowered of course, for our own good!
ngakpa said:
If anything, it would be the opposite.
Imagine companies being able to pump millions of pounds into research about cannabis! Private individuals and seed banks just dont have the same resources and facilities, potency would probably vastly increase. If there is a market for high grade cannabis, and companies are allowed to enter it, believe me they will.
Absinthe is illegal in most states, so is Everclear, I dont think Cosmic Giggles assumptions are all that off based. In my state you cant even buy a full bottle of licquor unless you buy it off the state. You also cant buy a single can of beer unless you are in a bar or in a beer distributor, no supermarkets, convenience stores. A restaraunt/bar cannot serve beer unless 30% of their sales are food, this law is supposed to be changing, not to mention you need a licquor license which they dont make many new ones of, you have to buy an old one off someone and they can go for $100k+ depending on how bad you want it. Up until recently you couldnt serve beer/licquor on Sundays unless you had 30% sales of food, I know I used to work in a bar and my boss used to have me ring up fake food so we could stay open on Sundays. You also cannot smoke inside a bar. The Licquor Control Board is pretty strict here. I can only imagine what the "Marijuana Control Board" would be like.
Last edited:
I am for any method that would allow me to grow my own personal garden, without any threat of legal hassles. Legal but unregulated = no permit needed, legal + regulated means I buy a permit. Whatever, a "provide your own" clause must be included in legalization, or it's a moot point to me + I'll just continue growing illicitly.
I am for either option - even a permit's cost would be way less than I spend on buying buds when grows don't work out. Anything to remove most of the money from the equation, as it is this that harbours all the problems associated with cannabis.
It's the money that causes the violence + problems, not the plant. Ppl say "Well, it's the risk factor" The answer? IMO remove the money market + the risk factor thru legalization. Who'd pay 10 a G or more when say, a $100 permit gets you a legal garden? (Edit: for 1 year, a yearly fee)
Not me, that's for sure...
Peace
I am for either option - even a permit's cost would be way less than I spend on buying buds when grows don't work out. Anything to remove most of the money from the equation, as it is this that harbours all the problems associated with cannabis.
It's the money that causes the violence + problems, not the plant. Ppl say "Well, it's the risk factor" The answer? IMO remove the money market + the risk factor thru legalization. Who'd pay 10 a G or more when say, a $100 permit gets you a legal garden? (Edit: for 1 year, a yearly fee)
Not me, that's for sure...
Peace
Last edited:
MoeBudz^420 said:I am for any method that would allow me to grow my own personal garden, without any threat of legal hassles. Legal but unregulated = no permit needed, legal + regulated means I buy a permit. Whatever, a "provide your own" clause must be included in legalization, or it's a moot point to me + I'll just continue growing illicitly.
I am for either option - even a permit's cost would be way less than I spend on buying buds when grows don't work out. Anything to remove most of the money from the equation, as it is this that harbours all the problems associated with cannabis.
It's the money that causes the violence + problems, not the plant. Ppl say "Well, it's the risk factor" The answer? IMO remove the money market + the risk factor thru legalization. Who'd pay 10 a G or more when say, a $100 permit gets you a legal garden? (Edit: for 1 year, a yearly fee)
Not me, that's for sure...
Peace
Id be all for that, paying for a permit to be able to grow, I just think when the actual federal government gets into legalizing it, they are gonna lock it down. No growing allowed(personal growers will be chased like Kentucky Moonshiners), you buy it off who they say is allowed to sell it(probably the tobacco companies or whoever has enough lobby money to give the senators), and a regulation on the potency levels. A republican majority will probably never pass it to be legalized, a democratic majority might but here comes a ton of bureaucracy(aka congressional committees, a whole new department of the government to deal with marijuana, and then what will the individual states do?) to go with it.
Keep searching your pack of Marlboros for a tobacco seed, lemme know if you find any.
But like Sam said, its better than what we have now, Id rather have it the way I described above even if it is a guess although I think an educated one than the way we got it now with close to a million people locked up for it a year.
RottenDawg
Member
ngakpa said:
Friend, do 'ya grow fruit or vegetables in your backyard/garden? No one taxes or regulates those and that is exactly what I'm talk'n about. Let me do my thing and keep your nosy over controlling asses out of my business. Looks pretty simple and straight forward to me...
ngakpa said:
LAWYER! Those legal thieves!! Man you are way out there friend. I'll take my chances with my firearm LONG before any asshole legal thief Lawyer gets involved. Lawyer, unbelievable, those pieces of shit! If the Lawyers were out to help anything but their pocket books they would be getting paid the same as any other public servant. The garbage collector comes to mind here. Certainly a more valuable and useful service than an asshole Lawyer.
ngakpa said:
Are you talk'n about all the illegals in California? They have NO rights in this country and DO NOT BELONG HERE! Why don't you just disclose that you want America abolished... Man we sure do not see eye to eye. Hope your on the east coast, Must be 'cause you sure don't have a Californians mentality. This is why I predict a new American civil war sooner than later, this kind of ass backwards mentality.
I want full adult legalization with medical usage available for those under 18. If you sell it, you pay the usual taxes- just like any other commodity! Basic produce rules apply to commercial growers- clean product, worker sanitation, etc. No taxing for home grown- personal use. Treat it like we do tomatoes.
Can you imagine "12:01" on the day cannabis is legalized? I did.....and I wrote about it. Take a peek into the near future!
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=96362
Granny
Can you imagine "12:01" on the day cannabis is legalized? I did.....and I wrote about it. Take a peek into the near future!
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=96362
Granny
DoubleJ said:
You misread me mate - I was saying there would be the whole range - from extremely strong cannabis to extremely mild cannabis
Rotten Dawg - well done at doing a great job of misunderstanding what I wrote... I am not pro-lawyers, or anti-lawyers for the matter - does that make sense to you?... and just to say it for the third or fourth time - I am also advocating that people be allowed to grow for themselves...
sorry to say it but I really don't have the time pointing out the many inconsistencies implicit in your views - merely that in the set-up you are advocating ultimately the massive demand for cannabis would be supplied through organisations which needed to use violence in order to protect their operations - since they are not subject to, nor able to have recourse to, the law -
by the way getting a permit in order to grow would be effectively legalisation
I am advocating that personal growers be able to grow reasonable amounts for themselves without a permit - just as in the UK you can make homebrew beer and grow your own tobacco without a permit...
Last edited:
What facts, you're comparing apples and oranges?ngakpa said:
Alcohol of almost any percentage has always been culturally accepted, whereas cannabis is viewed as a 'very dangerous DRUG' who's potency is increasing, rather than remaining stable and capable of being regulated.
CosmicGiggle said:What facts, you're comparing apples and oranges?
Alcohol of almost any percentage has always been culturally accepted, whereas cannabis is viewed as a 'very dangerous DRUG' who's potency is increasing, rather than remaining stable and capable of being regulated.
Well for cannabis to be legalised in the first place, there would have to be a big shift in opinion from policy makers, so the current hysteria we have about 'GM super evil skunkweed' and the like would be irrelevant.
Decriminalized....or....DEATH PENALTY!!!!! That'd keep it exciting.
ngakpa said:
It means the market would have to be self-regulated. Just like what happens with lawyers, accountants, etc.
The self-regulation would be defined/enforced by "Cannabis/Grower/Smoker Associations" all over the world, and we may even end up having a "World Cannabis Organization."
Yeah, go on, ngakpa, just disclose it, you can't hide it forever you East Coast traitor!RottenDawg said:
I do wonder how some members here actually manage to feed themselves, or do they loosen the straitjacket for a bit to let them do that?
Here's an option not on the list: Legalise but not for SFB American fektards, as it clearly does them far more harm than good. LOL
