yeah you totally pulled that one out of your ass..lol
Europe is definatley NOT following the U.S..lol get off in Memphis airport you feel like you are in Africa!
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Why cannabis legalization vs. decriminilization is disasterous for the global economy
yeah you totally pulled that one out of your ass..lol
Europe is definatley NOT following the U.S..lol get off in Memphis airport you feel like you are in Africa!
U
ureapwhatusow
A) Its a discussion regarding federal not state law
B) Its a discussion about the shift in market dynamics due to governmetn regulation
C) The state of california giving you rights that the feds wont support isnt keeping people out of prison, in fact its giving the feds legal standing (and thus jiustified due to the fact it doesnt recognize state law. if it was simply decriminilized and california had no record of ppl growing what proof does the feds have a crime is commited?
D) California will exeriece a reduced fiscal benefits as marijuana shifts form free to controled market
E) the void in the black market wil be filled by more progressive and most likely crimes that have victims such as a computer fraud.
HawaiianPunch
Member
It was explained to me that marijuana was prohibited because the Mexican workers, who were allowed to come into the USA to build the highways and road systems during the early 1900s, would smoke the stuff and become "lazy" and less "productive". Also, they didn't know how to get them out of the country once the work was done. Solution? Demonize marijuana so we can lock em up and make em slaves!
See, cars ARE bad for marijuana.
See, cars ARE bad for marijuana.
Koroz
Member
Care to point me to ONE federal bill introduced that shows legalization in any country has led to only government grown Cannabis?
You can't. Know why? Because you are making up hypothetical situations to prove a debate which has no basis of truth. I would be happy to debate with you, but the truth is neither of us know for sure what Legalization would do to the market we can only theorize.
Legalization would not lead to more crime. To try and say that because someone wouldn't be able to sell Marijuana illegally would then turn to computer crime, or that the lack of illegal drug sales would lead to more crimes in other areas is just rhetoric. There are so many factors as to WHY that isn't true I don't think I could list them all here. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say here.
Really? You have actual data to back that up? Are you saying that California has "lost" revenue over time from the legalization of Alcohol, because if so this isn't the case. They also would not have reduced fiscal benefits as Cannabis goes to a legalization based market. It would create new jobs, and a new tax base. The only industry that would be losing money is the private jail market, and the Prison Guard union. Both of which I could care less about.
As for the rest of your Bullet lists, they have already been discussed "ad nauseam" in this section of our great icmag, and I don't feel like regurgitating the same thing that has been said a hundred times over.
U
ureapwhatusow
Kron
the bottom line it a debate about the effect of free vs regulated markets not some converasations about the movement in california. it was purely economic but since your going to go outta your way to take my post outta context and come in here and tell me like it is ill tell you how i see it
obviously you didnt read anything cause i never said the government would grow the weed i said if it became legal CORPORATIONS WOULD LOBBY LEGALIZATION INTO THE HANDS OF CAPITAL WEALTHY ENTITIES
just like big pharma big tabacco
try making asprin and selling it, a substance from bark in our regulated economy with just a lil ambition and a dream
how long till you need a PHd to dispense weed? you dont think medical and pharmacy lobbies will push for regulations to keep us safe once its legal?
this wasnt a conversation about heady ol califonia and their weed "gold" rush
its about the global superpower the USA making it a regulated taxable controlable substance which changes the dynamics upon how it effect the market and how teh leading economic super power cant afford to fuck up any economic dynamics
wtf does your points about cali have to do with global economic woe?
and as far as weed losing its economic potency for the middle class? were the fuck is the relativity in regard to the meat of subject
legalization will be federaly limited to medical, its not going to be a free substance
but none of this is what the thread was meant to bear it was about simply the free market being the best economic
your so quick to jump on the change bandwagon have you considered the costs?
and what so wrong about there being no restriction or regulation of the weed whats so wrong wiht it being just free?
whats wrong with you people, why is it that you need to be told how why and what to grow?
WTF IS SO WRONG WITH FREE
the bottom line it a debate about the effect of free vs regulated markets not some converasations about the movement in california. it was purely economic but since your going to go outta your way to take my post outta context and come in here and tell me like it is ill tell you how i see it
obviously you didnt read anything cause i never said the government would grow the weed i said if it became legal CORPORATIONS WOULD LOBBY LEGALIZATION INTO THE HANDS OF CAPITAL WEALTHY ENTITIES
just like big pharma big tabacco
try making asprin and selling it, a substance from bark in our regulated economy with just a lil ambition and a dream
how long till you need a PHd to dispense weed? you dont think medical and pharmacy lobbies will push for regulations to keep us safe once its legal?
this wasnt a conversation about heady ol califonia and their weed "gold" rush
its about the global superpower the USA making it a regulated taxable controlable substance which changes the dynamics upon how it effect the market and how teh leading economic super power cant afford to fuck up any economic dynamics
wtf does your points about cali have to do with global economic woe?
and as far as weed losing its economic potency for the middle class? were the fuck is the relativity in regard to the meat of subject
legalization will be federaly limited to medical, its not going to be a free substance
but none of this is what the thread was meant to bear it was about simply the free market being the best economic
your so quick to jump on the change bandwagon have you considered the costs?
and what so wrong about there being no restriction or regulation of the weed whats so wrong wiht it being just free?
whats wrong with you people, why is it that you need to be told how why and what to grow?
WTF IS SO WRONG WITH FREE
Koroz
Member
huh? What makes you think I am jumping on the "change" bandwagon? Because I don't agree with you that Legalization is a bad thing compared to decriminalization?
As for your debate for the reasons against Legalization, Big Pharma produce big pharmacy products because the average person CAN'T produce things like Aspirin. You need to take a step back and think for a minute about what you are trying to compare.
You want to know the reason that tobacco for the most part is left to big business? The machines used to shred, press and make the tobacco and papers can only be bought in one place. Italy. Do you know how much these machines cost?
Thousands of dollars.
you are trying to compare a weed, which can freely grow in the wild with minimal interaction from humans to products that require a ton of money to produce. There is a simple flaw in your debate. Also, if you don't want to debate other aspects of your posts then don't post them. You can't tell me that people who were once selling weed, would then turn to computer crimes, or other criminal activity after its legalized then get mad when I counter your points.
You don't want to debate, you want people to agree with your points regardless of how wrong they are. Sorry I am not going to do that. You can't even get my name right, and it was the post right above yours. I am having a hard time figuring out of you are a serious poster or just a troll now.
As for my bringing up California, I guess I have to explain it to you in simple terms so you can understand it. California is a part of the US government, a part of the union, a state in the greater nation. It is a small subsection you can use to compare to the greater nations economy and affect that Cannabis would have on it.
One could argue that California would mirror what would happen in the US if Cannabis were legalized. You keep saying that it would destroy the economy, you keep talking about the increase in crime, and how other situations would arise from the lack of illegal Cannabis market like a rise in computer crimes yet you have no real basis for these statements. In fact the direct opposite has happened in California since the start of the heady "weed rush". Why do you think this would be different on a nation wide scale?
Lets use Alcohol as an example. There is still an illegal alcohol trade in this country. There are still illegal distilleries in the mid west who make moonshine whiskey. There are still private brewers, there are still small market brewers and there are big corporation brewers. There are imports, exports, and I can choose to brew my own, go down the street and buy the local brewery's beer or buy Miller who is produced by a large corporation.
Alcohol legalization didn't cause an economic downturn, in fact it caused an upturn. Cannabis would follow the same road.
As for your last two posts, try to hide the anti Obama speech a bit more. I didn't vote for him, I don't "love" him and this thread, including this forum aren't about him. Why try to use slight of word to try and imply that I or anyone else follow his beliefs?
K
kittykronic
KOROZ, you make some excellent points...checkmate!!!
U
ureapwhatusow
such hostility 
Your post is a little hard to make sense of.. especially the beginning.
There isnt going to be a winner here.. we all believe what we believe and wasnt the idea to open a discussion.. not start an arguement?
Your post is a little hard to make sense of.. especially the beginning.
There isnt going to be a winner here.. we all believe what we believe and wasnt the idea to open a discussion.. not start an arguement?
BurmeseDragon
Member
Well the only purpose to legalize would be to control the market. But they do a fair job doing that by having laws to trim the population. I really believe that most Governments are involved in trafficking in black markets. They use it to raise profits and to be involved in these organizations that are behind a lot of anti-Government actions. But for the most part, anti-Government actions are like fleas. They are just annoying and not a major threat a majority of the time. The Taliban was compared by a familiar lady to be worse than Nazi Germany, I find that hard to grasp myself. But groups like that, get so much money from black markets.
I think socially legalization needs cultural structure, not something to just be "bad" with. Advertising does a pretty lame job of having a culture of customers that have class. It seems that different classes of alcohol bring in different classes of users. Surely the cheap booze is associated with more social problems than the "good stuff".
So for me it is about effecting the cultures within society, some cultures can handle any drug and others cannot. Perhaps if only the finest was legal, than there would be far less problems. I am a bit feeder as far as income goes, but I only like to drink very quality alcohol. I smoke the finest tobacco and I am only interested in the best ethnogens I can get my hands on.
Schwagg is not a classy herb!
I think socially legalization needs cultural structure, not something to just be "bad" with. Advertising does a pretty lame job of having a culture of customers that have class. It seems that different classes of alcohol bring in different classes of users. Surely the cheap booze is associated with more social problems than the "good stuff".
So for me it is about effecting the cultures within society, some cultures can handle any drug and others cannot. Perhaps if only the finest was legal, than there would be far less problems. I am a bit feeder as far as income goes, but I only like to drink very quality alcohol. I smoke the finest tobacco and I am only interested in the best ethnogens I can get my hands on.
Schwagg is not a classy herb!
U
ureapwhatusow
well thanks for the hug and im of the same ilk and if im being outta line i will give you 1001 appologies
most my threads are about peace love and understanding
but i do know that after 25 years of puffing that i can do the same thing, go off on a tangent that isnt necessarily realtive or reasonable to the grand scale but make sense at the time, and i can be relentless when it comes to making an arguemnt
but i also take a step back and look at what i say and to and if i fuck up and do things the wrong way i man up, appologize, make reconciliations.
So ill go reread what you wrote and try to be real realtive to your perception if you go back and reread the whole thread and try to understand mine
as far as the government, weed and freedom. nobody stopping me from bieng free as long as this life is paid wiht my blood sweat and tears
I've sat here and read and read - but finally have to speak up. Here's my 2 cents...
I just can't understand why some ppl think that if legalized, corps will gain 100% control of cannabis. Now what I'd like to know is:
Just how da heck could they ever do that when they can't even control/eradicate it when it's 100% ILLEGAL! No way, jose - way too many seeds in private hands, easy to make as well, and if they were to try that after legalizing - the blackmarket and hidden grows would just take over once again.
Quoted from "The Union"... "Legalization makes it a legal product available to adults - not an unregulated market. Under decriminalization it's still a "no-no" to society, and does not address the problems of organized crime". You are allowed to posess a certain amount but not to produce or sell it - so where did it come from then??
My opinion - Legalize, and stop the crime associated with the $$. I'll admit I do have to buy sometimes (and it sucks) - but I sure wouldn't under a legalized scenario... ie) AB-390.
A "personal garden" clause is important, as legalization without a personal garden clause would not fly IMO. I'd be 1st in line to get that paper making me legal, and would camp outside the door if necessary!
The sooner the better IMO, much better to grow 'em legally in the yard/greenhouse under a NV videocam for security from theft - than hafta tromp thru the bush fighting heat, terrain, thorns and insects - just to be ripped off by rippers or leo, animals/insects dig/eat em, too wet/dry or to wind up with mediocre results due to low-maintenance.
I anxiously await that joyful day - hopefully it won't be too much longer in coming.
Peace
I just can't understand why some ppl think that if legalized, corps will gain 100% control of cannabis. Now what I'd like to know is:
Just how da heck could they ever do that when they can't even control/eradicate it when it's 100% ILLEGAL! No way, jose - way too many seeds in private hands, easy to make as well, and if they were to try that after legalizing - the blackmarket and hidden grows would just take over once again.
Quoted from "The Union"... "Legalization makes it a legal product available to adults - not an unregulated market. Under decriminalization it's still a "no-no" to society, and does not address the problems of organized crime". You are allowed to posess a certain amount but not to produce or sell it - so where did it come from then??
My opinion - Legalize, and stop the crime associated with the $$. I'll admit I do have to buy sometimes (and it sucks) - but I sure wouldn't under a legalized scenario... ie) AB-390.
A "personal garden" clause is important, as legalization without a personal garden clause would not fly IMO. I'd be 1st in line to get that paper making me legal, and would camp outside the door if necessary!
The sooner the better IMO, much better to grow 'em legally in the yard/greenhouse under a NV videocam for security from theft - than hafta tromp thru the bush fighting heat, terrain, thorns and insects - just to be ripped off by rippers or leo, animals/insects dig/eat em, too wet/dry or to wind up with mediocre results due to low-maintenance.
I anxiously await that joyful day - hopefully it won't be too much longer in coming.
Peace
U
ureapwhatusow
such hostility
Your post is a little hard to make sense of.. especially the beginning.
There isnt going to be a winner here.. we all believe what we believe and wasnt the idea to open a discussion.. not start an arguement?
i hate to argue
its a protracted arguement but my hope was to give a third dimension
many responces i got where negative an non productive and attacked me personally
there are many who understand the perspective even if they dont agree
in fact id love to hear any counter econimc viewpoints to so i coudl feel good about legalization vs decrim from an global economic standpoint
but the basis of any discussion is absorbing information and reflecting it
if this was done this thread woudlnt be to where to is
imo it a macro economics concept that is too obtuse for most so they dismiss it as eccentric and undermine my efforts to express myself
in an economic discussion id love to hear some realtive economic points? go off topic, talk to me in a condesending manner im gonna giveit back the same way it came
why shed water like a duck when i can swim like a fish?
Koroz
Member
the problem is ureap...
you went off on the tangents into other subjects that weren't economic based, when people responded to those you got upset and said people aren't staying on topic.
Here is a hint. If you want your topics to stay on topic, then you as the topic creator should also stay on topic. You can't bring multiple topics into a single view and then get mad when people retort the views that you yourself brought up.
I also said in my very first post. I AGREE if they were to decriminalize Cannabis in a way where it was not still "a crime" to use it then fine, I don't need "legalization". But they don't. Its still considered a social "stigma" to smoke in states where its decriminalized because you are still a criminal for doing so, all decriminalization does is remove the penalty of jail time for small amounts and instead fines the user.
As I said in my previous posts. If they were to remove all stigma, fines and jail time and call it "decriminalization" then fine. But the won't. Nor will either form of removing penalties cause an economic downturn like you are saying it will. It will put it in the hands of more people who want to smoke but don't because its illegal, or looked down upon, and it will create more business and revenue because it will no longer be a black market product.
you went off on the tangents into other subjects that weren't economic based, when people responded to those you got upset and said people aren't staying on topic.
Here is a hint. If you want your topics to stay on topic, then you as the topic creator should also stay on topic. You can't bring multiple topics into a single view and then get mad when people retort the views that you yourself brought up.
I also said in my very first post. I AGREE if they were to decriminalize Cannabis in a way where it was not still "a crime" to use it then fine, I don't need "legalization". But they don't. Its still considered a social "stigma" to smoke in states where its decriminalized because you are still a criminal for doing so, all decriminalization does is remove the penalty of jail time for small amounts and instead fines the user.
As I said in my previous posts. If they were to remove all stigma, fines and jail time and call it "decriminalization" then fine. But the won't. Nor will either form of removing penalties cause an economic downturn like you are saying it will. It will put it in the hands of more people who want to smoke but don't because its illegal, or looked down upon, and it will create more business and revenue because it will no longer be a black market product.
U
ureapwhatusow
its not about removing fines and penalties its about burdeoning a existing segment of the economy that is functioning effectively
i suggest we make weed free WITHOUT changing its influence on the market
I believe I can show this cause and effect using similiar econimic scenrios we have experienced
It will put it in the hands of more people who want to smoke but don't because its illegal, or looked down upon, and it will create more business and revenue because it will no longer be a black market product
So can i derive from this that the costs of legalization are worth it so people who arent getting high now can get high? and that if the government says it ok the whole world will buy into it? And that if the illegality is removed that everyone wont start smoking and embracing the herb?
if its not legal i aint smoking??
since it generates more Agricultural GNP revenue in its current market
it wont generate MORE revenue (perhaps in short term "weed goldrush" terms) it will SHIFT revenue
in short term gold rush analogy it will be like video stores it will cause a short term small businesss boom that will evolve into big business entites
good bye local video store hello netflix
as far as effecting the economy i dont think you have really given it as a great deal of thought as the social benefits
I dont think there is a threat to the socail benefits of weed being decriminilized vs made legal
and why do you think they are going to make it to get high without medical cause? does this exist in america?
the only semi-legal mom med use liberties i can find are under decrim liek that in NY
i cant find for non medical users in amnerica any movement that has legitimate opportunity to make it past senate and house
U
ureapwhatusow
I've sat here and read and read - but finally have to speak up. Here's my 2 cents...
tyvm for taking the time
I just can't understand why some ppl think that if legalized, corps will gain 100% control of cannabis.
I used technology as an example since it is a big variable in todays economy
but there is a trend (lets look at home depot for example) for small business to innovate a industry such as home improvement, hardware store on every corner, and this trend continues until big entites see the prospect of profit and use thier capital strengths to corner the market (aka home depot)
I feel there an imbalance between the amount of GNP small busniess contributes and controls vs big corporate america. if we look back at previous cycles i the economy we will find this to be a constant
right now corporations cannot legaly profit form weed but once its legal they can
that will be all the motivation they need. there is a great book about governmetns being influenced for profit che ckout hte emporer wears no clothes
Now what I'd like to know is:
Just how da heck could they ever do that when they can't even control/eradicate it when it's 100% ILLEGAL! No way, jose - way too many seeds in private hands, easy to make as well, and if they were to try that after legalizing - the blackmarket and hidden grows would just take over once again.
Great Question read below for more
Quoted from "The Union"... "Legalization makes it a legal product available to adults - not an unregulated market. Under decriminalization it's still a "no-no" to society, and does not address the problems of organized crime". You are allowed to posess a certain amount but not to produce or sell it - so where did it come from then??
The government knows it cant erradicate the backmarket and it doesnt want to
if they kill a percentage of the global economy for good or bad it hurts us
they only use it as a tool to fuel the economy
THE DRUG WAR WAS A WAY FOR REAGAN TO POLARIZE A PEOPLE AND ECONOMY WITHOUT KILING FORIEGN NATIONALS
BUT INSTEAD BY ENSLAVING AMERICANS
it was a genius way to kick start the economy but the victums are ourselves
My opinion - Legalize, and stop the crime associated with the $$. I'll admit I do have to buy sometimes (and it sucks) - but I sure wouldn't under a legalized scenario... ie) AB-390.
me either its too free to be truely legal
A "personal garden" clause is important, as legalization without a personal garden clause would not fly IMO. I'd be 1st in line to get that paper making me legal, and would camp outside the door if necessary!
i would wholeheartly agree but i am afraid that a legalization bill could be changed and modified after we made it legal, and in the process we woudl lose rights over time as those wiht the capital to influence the government for control of the revenue from marijuana do just that
in todays day and age is greed not the most rampant detriment we face in society? you think its going to stop existing caues its made legal? i think we at best stand to have a temporal period where we willhave rights and then they will fade
just like gun laws A BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
but times change peopple change
The sooner the better IMO, much better to grow 'em legally in the yard/greenhouse under a NV videocam for security from theft - than hafta tromp thru the bush fighting heat, terrain, thorns and insects - just to be ripped off by rippers or leo, animals/insects dig/eat em, too wet/dry or to wind up with mediocre results due to low-maintenance.
I anxiously await that joyful day - hopefully it won't be too much longer in coming.
ThanK You thats some real honesty there, motivation to grow wihtout fear, even if its taxes is a real arguement
i believe that the intangibles have value
stress is deadly its a bad for us
i dont think we will get that form legalization
shit oxycoton is legal and its killing more people than weed AND its a black market item people are going to jail for
whos making money on that one?
less ppl die from illegal herion than government regulated opiates and the only ones making money are big pharma
i dont see how decriminilization doesnt achieve the same freedoms as legalizations without the same costs
if its freee peopple will still pay not every one has a green thumb its jsut not gonna be controlled by them but by us
Peace
Decrim does not do the same thing as legalization because under decrim it is still an offense. Decrim was planned here under Chretien until the USG/Walters put the kybosh on it, and I followed it with great interest.
I call it "the Great Almost" - but it did not allow cultivation, just posession of certain amounts (I forget how much it was, an oz maybe) and fines instead of court/jail/crim. record for minor cannabis offenses.
In a decrimed scenario, you might not go to jail for it, but society still says "no" to it...
Legalization means that society has finally accepted cannabis for what it is - the safest therapeutically active substance known to man. I am for whatever will give me that greenhouse without fear of arrest. Call it what you will, I call it legalization...
Peace
I call it "the Great Almost" - but it did not allow cultivation, just posession of certain amounts (I forget how much it was, an oz maybe) and fines instead of court/jail/crim. record for minor cannabis offenses.
In a decrimed scenario, you might not go to jail for it, but society still says "no" to it...
Legalization means that society has finally accepted cannabis for what it is - the safest therapeutically active substance known to man. I am for whatever will give me that greenhouse without fear of arrest. Call it what you will, I call it legalization...
Peace
Last edited:
Cudos
