Watch: What a Legal Pot Economy Would Look Like

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not everyone. Ignoring the criminal elements, which we don't care about, the current medical marijuana growers are generally opposed to this, for the obvious self interest.

There are large warehouses that have been bought by investors just in case the bill passes. Some of these areas are the size of two football fields. Most of the small growers will disappear overnight. The pot counter-culture will change as business suits take control of the pot economy.

I think we'll have everything from bottom of the barrel Wal-Pot to quality hand-crafted stuff. And just like everything else, you will pretty much get what you pay for.

I'm thinking that Wally-Weed will be the quality stuff as compared to home-grown stuff for the same reason Napa valley vinifera produces the best cabernet vs. the best home-grown hybrids in Cali. Lots of money to throw into horticulture technology. It's a lot cheaper to buy a good BV wine for $60 a bottle than spending thousands of dollars and seven years minimum to get at best, too young vines that only produce a few gallons. A bit severe in the difference between the two plants, but. . .

Why would WalMart go ito the high end, or high quality, or artisan market on pot; when they have not done that with a single other item they sell?

Their approach, which they openly admit to, is to bring the cheapest possible products to market as possible. Even when they get involved with a reputable brand, they require the manufacturer to create special edition cheap knock-offs for them to sell.

Little known secret - Best Buy does the same thing for many of the products they sell. Check the model and version numbers very carefully. Often the 32" TV BB sells dirt cheap that appears to be the same as the one sold elsewhere is not quite the same.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually it rather is when you look at it from a logical standpoint.

Link

Quote

ABSTRACT
Background and objective: In contrast to the well-described effects of tobacco smoking upon pulmonary emphysema, with ∼15% of smokers being affected at the age of 65 years, the effects of marijuana smoking are rarely reported and poorly understood.

Methods: We report a series of 10 patients (mean age 41 ± 9 years, eight male, two female), who presented over a period of 12 months to our respiratory unit with new respiratory symptoms, and who admitted to regular chronic marijuana smoking (>1 year continuously). Symptoms on presentation were dyspnoea (n = 4), pneumothorax (n = 4) and chest infection (n = 2).

Results: High-resolution CT revealed asymmetrical, variably sized, emphysematous bullae in the upper and mid zones. However, the CXR was normal in four patients and lung function was normal in five.

Conclusions: Marijuana smoking leads to asymmetrical bullous disease, often in the setting of normal CXR and lung function. In subjects who smoke marijuana, these pathological changes occur at a younger age (approximately 20 years earlier) than in tobacco smokers.

From a Canadian study, the odds of developing COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)(defined by spirometric testing) were as follows :

Tobacco/marijuana smokers: 2.9:1
Tobacco only: 2.74:1
Marijuana only: 1.66:1

Ten patients and no control regarding the quantity or quality of marijuana ... very scientific.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

very scientific.

Compared to the OP and some of the posts in support? Absolutely.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nanook 1]

Quote

Why would WalMart go ito the high end, or high quality, or artisan market on pot; when they have not done that with a single other item they sell?

I didn't mean to say Walmart would sell it, I used them as a reference of mass distribution/production.

But yup, their stuff is total crap.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

very scientific.

Compared to the OP and some of the posts in support? Absolutely.

It doesn't take much science to make the observation that pot doesn't have the same addiction issues as nicotine. Or the same quantities. This is good for those users, since the legal issues make supply inconsistent. If pot withdrawal was as bad as it is for tobacco, we'd be seeing rampages all the time.

Evaluating long term effects is certainly harder to do in our climate where funding is only focused on the negative to promote policy. But it wouldn't surprise me that smoking is smoking, be it tobacco, pot, cigars, cloves, etc.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Ten patients and no control regarding the quantity or quality of marijuana ... very scientific.

Well, compared the four climate-change scientists he trusts that deny AGW, it's a step in the right direction.

OTOH, here's a study with 704 long-term users and 484 non-users by UCSD, concluding that marijuana has failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect on the neurocognitive functioning of users.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blucsd030628.htm

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Ten patients and no control regarding the quantity or quality of marijuana ... very scientific.

Well, compared the four climate-change scientists he trusts that deny AGW, it's a step in the right direction.

Like the one that found the errors in the NASA GISS database?

Or the one that shows that over 90% of the US temperature stations have temperature errors due to siting issues of over 1 degree C?

Or the ones that are showing how CO2 is *STILL* rising and the temp anomaly is *STILL* dropping?

Yeah, I think I'll take the physical evidence over the 'models' that can't seem to match history, much less predict, thanks.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Meso 38]

From the study...

Quote

"This threshold is based on a finding by Aldington and colleagues12 that the effects on lung function of smoking 1 marijuana cigarette are equivalent to the effects of smoking 2.5 to 5 tobacco cigarettes."

Which I don't argue... But I know quite a few people who smoke 20-40 cigarettes per day. None of the 'stoners' I know smoke 10 joints a day.

As I stated in my post, it's not the direct danger of smoking that causes the problem. It's the high risk of addiction which leads to high usage, which makes the cigarette far more dangerous.

Quote

We report a series of 10 patients (mean age 41 ± 9 years, eight male, two female), who presented over a period of 12 months to our respiratory unit with new respiratory symptoms, and who admitted to regular chronic marijuana smoking

Great, so their study was based on a tiny group of people who they probably struggled to find. The biggest marijuana smokers I know, maybe smoke 3 joints a day, and less some days.

And with that I maintain that the average marijuana smoker, is doing far less damage than the average smoker.

I'm not arguing that both aren't bad for you, I never was. But cigarettes, due solely on their tendency to create addiction and the far increased general consumption pose a greater risk to ones health, especially cancer- than the average persons marijuana use would.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

From the study...

Quote

"This threshold is based on a finding by Aldington and colleagues12 that the effects on lung function of smoking 1 marijuana cigarette are equivalent to the effects of smoking 2.5 to 5 tobacco cigarettes."

Which I don't argue... But I know quite a few people who smoke 20-40 cigarettes per day. None of the 'stoners' I know smoke 10 joints a day.

I know stoners that smoke that much.

Quote

As I stated in my post, it's not the direct danger of smoking that causes the problem. It's the high risk of addiction which leads to high usage, which makes the cigarette far more dangerous.

And my post shows that there IS a direct danger from smoking marijuana, as well, and especially smoking marijuana AND tobacco.

Quote

Quote

We report a series of 10 patients (mean age 41 ± 9 years, eight male, two female), who presented over a period of 12 months to our respiratory unit with new respiratory symptoms, and who admitted to regular chronic marijuana smoking

Great, so their study was based on a tiny group of people who they probably struggled to find. The biggest marijuana smokers I know, maybe smoke 3 joints a day, and less some days.

Neither the people that conducted the study nor myself made the claim that the projections will hold true for all pot smokers - that's YOUR strawman.

Also, please note the bolded in red, above - these are from people that presented themselves to the respiratory unit with problems, not the researchers putting out an ad.

Quote

And with that I maintain that the average marijuana smoker, is doing far less damage than the average smoker.

Maintain all you want - the medical evidence shows that damage *does* occur.

Quote

I'm not arguing that both aren't bad for you, I never was. But cigarettes, due solely on their tendency to create addiction and the far increased general consumption pose a greater risk to ones health, especially cancer- than the average persons marijuana use would.

I don't disagree with the basic point - we all know that smoking can cause cancer. What I disagree with is the assumption that marijuana smoking does *not* cause cancer - there's no way to know or prove that at present.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

...
But people should have the right to smoke weed, it's so much healthier than cigarettes.

Are you sure you want to make that argument?
It's a thoughtless one.

Healthier???
You're kidding us, right?

What's so "healthy" about smoking pot?
Had you said, "less damaging" you would have had a topic for discussion.

Fortunately, the posters following all missed the point and took up discussion on the comparative damaging effects.

On top of that, your argument says the if Activity B is less damaging than Activity B then one should be able to do Activity B with impunity.
A very poor way to decide any issue.

As far as "right"...there's precious little that we in the U.S.A. have rights to exercise. Smoking anything is not one of them...regardless of the legality of it all.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Meso 38]

Healthier and less damaging are essentially the same things. Semantics.

You're nit-picking at phrasing.

Something doesn't have to be 'healthy' for it to be healthier... It's exactly like saying something expensive is cheaper than something else that is more expensive.

"oh no you can't say it's cheaper, because that amount is too high! They're both expensive! You can say it costs less, but not that it's cheaper"

(If you want more analogies showing that healthier and less damaging mean the same thing just shout)

The reason they all did that is because they knew that exactly what I was saying and didn't feel the need to delve into the words chosen.

Quote

On top of that, your argument says the if Activity B is less damaging than Activity B then one should be able to do Activity B with impunity. A very poor way to decide any issue.

I`ll assume there was meant to be an activity A in there.

And in that case, yes. When looking at health issues alone (since that was what I addressed in my post) How does it make sense for one thing to be legal (along very similar lines) and then another thing which is almost the exact same activity to be illegal? If cigarettes had been illegal too for the past however long, there would be the same smuggling/dealing issues with it that there are with marijuana.

You're right though, how else would police keep their quotas up if it weren't for all the possession arrests.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

Which I don't argue... But I know quite a few people who smoke 20-40 cigarettes per day. None of the 'stoners' I know smoke 10 joints a day.


I know stoners that smoke that much.

And you will know a lot more when the price for weed plummets when it is legally mass produced.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[Meso 38]

Unless you're talking about chronic, weed is definitely not cheap.. In fact it's probably about the same price as cigarettes.

It's about R30 - R40 for a banky here ($5-$7), which is the same as a 20 pack of cigarettes. (And that's not the cheapest).

Chronic on the other hand is a whole different story.

Side Note: I have not touched tobacco, marijuana for 6 years. I hate both with a complete passion. I'm just fighting the irregularities in the system.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

On top of that, your argument says the if Activity B is less damaging than Activity B then one should be able to do Activity B with impunity.
A very poor way to decide any issue.

Absolutely.

The degree to which an activity is damaging to you should never be used as a reason to prevent you from doing it. The business of Government should not be to save you from yourself.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Unless you're talking about chronic, weed is definitely not cheap..

I thought "chronic" usually referred to the good (expensive) stuff?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And my post shows that there IS a direct danger from smoking marijuana, as well, and especially smoking marijuana AND tobacco.
...
Neither the people that conducted the study nor myself made the claim that the projections will hold true for all pot smokers - that's YOUR strawman.
...
Maintain all you want - the medical evidence shows that damage *does* occur.

That's a lot of flip flopping for a single post. This certainly isn't a strawman - this is exactly what your argument is about.

Virtually anything is harmless in excessive quantity. People die from excess water consumption, and some of these are very healthy people. Eating a little liver is good for you, eating a lot can give you gout. And yeah, smoking weed all day and never leaving the couch is really not good for you. But what does that really have to do with the subject?

I live in a sea of casual pot use in SF. You can routinely smell it in public, or down the hallway at my apartment building. Most of these people seem to hold down well paying jobs, or they wouldn't be able to live in the City.

That said, as DiverMike alludes, with legalization we may see more stoner types. This is true if the typical moderation is driven by scarcity of pot, rather than by willful choice. I have no insight in the matter to answer on that.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Enforcement of marijuana prohibition laws consumes California’s police and court system resources, and has a devastating disproportionate impact on communities of color. In 2008 alone, California police made 60,000 marijuana possession arrests, the majority of them young men of color. The arrests don’t indicate actual marijuana usage. A new report from the Drug Policy Alliance reveals distinct racial disparities in California arrests for low-level marijuana possession. Data in the report reveal that African Americans in California are more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, but more white youth use marijuana than black youth. Other reports, including a study out of Seattle, show that whites sell drugs at similar — and possibly higher — rates than African Americans.

In Los Angeles County alone, the marijuana possession arrest rate of African-Americans is more than 300 percent higher than the same arrest rate of whites, although blacks made up less than 10 percent of the county’s population, according to the DPA report.

The significant racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests have serious consequences, for young men of color in particular. The impact of a misdemeanor conviction for marijuana possession creates barriers to finding a house, a job, and even a school loan.

We need a solution that will work. By regulating and taxing marijuana for adults, Proposition 19 is a step in the right direction.

http://blogs.alternet.org/aclu/2010/08/03/moving-towards-rational-marijuana-policy-california-aclu-affiliates-endorse-prop-19/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Meso 38]

Quote

***Unless you're talking about chronic, weed is definitely not cheap..

I thought "chronic" usually referred to the good (expensive) stuff?


Meant to say "which is definitely not cheap"

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

***Unless you're talking about chronic, weed is definitely not cheap..

I thought "chronic" usually referred to the good (expensive) stuff?


Meant to say "which is definitely not cheap"

Oh, sorry... Guess I should have figured that out from the rest of your post, but I thought you were saying that cigarettes are not cheap either (and they probably don't seem cheap to someone who chain smokes)... OK, nevermind.

[FlyingFrank 0]

Another thought that nobody has mentioned yet is how much safer places like Arizona and Southern Texas will be. I have been to El Paso, TX many times, and the Mexican city Juarez is litterally across the river. So far, 20,000 people have been killed in the past few years due to drug cartel violence. When the day comes where American farmers grow American weed and sell to American consumers, then violence like this in other countries will decrease significantly. The problem with the war on drugs isn't with places like Colombia or Mexico, it's the USA creating such a high demand for these drugs. If pot gets legalized, I wouldn't smoke just because it's legal, but it would create such a huge tax revenue for the state, decrease violence, and get rid of a bunch of thug drug dealers off the streets.

Some people spend their whole lives afraid to die that they never truly live.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Another thought that nobody has mentioned yet is how much safer places like Arizona and Southern Texas will be.

Not in this thread, but it's a point I and others have recently made in other threads, although in remarks that I think were posted before you joined the site.

Quote

I have been to El Paso, TX many times, and the Mexican city Juarez is litterally across the river. So far, 20,000 people have been killed in the past few years due to drug cartel violence.

Interestingly enough, According to FBI crime statistics, El Paso is the second-safest city in the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10779151

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

When the day comes where American farmers grow American weed and sell to American consumers, then violence like this in other countries will decrease significantly.

I have wondered about this, and I'm not sure if this would be the case. Maybe so, but... It could just be that we'll see a huge increase in other (harder?) drugs coming across the border, with the violence continuing.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have wondered about this, and I'm not sure if this would be the case. Maybe so, but... It could just be that we'll see a huge increase in other (harder?) drugs coming across the border, with the violence continuing.

only if there is demand. Otherwise, the price plummets, and the incentive to kill each other to sell it goes with it.

The pot is a gateway drug theory doesn't stand well to scrutiny, and a big part of how it could have been true is the pot dealer would also have other drugs. With people no longer relying on such people for their weed, that connection goes away.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I have wondered about this, and I'm not sure if this would be the case. Maybe so, but... It could just be that we'll see a huge increase in other (harder?) drugs coming across the border, with the violence continuing.

only if there is demand. Otherwise, the price plummets, and the incentive to kill each other to sell it goes with it.

I was thinking along the lines of some of the other drugs being less readily available at the moment, and therefore some people not using them for that reason. If they suddenly became more available (due to more coming across the borders), perhaps a lot more people would use them. But I really have no idea...

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply anything about pot being a gateway drug. Though I do think that the illegality of it (not the drug itself) tends to make it a gateway drug, for the reason you mentioned (pot dealers possibly having other drugs). Plus, I think that once people try pot, especially if they have been drunk on alcohol before, they realize that the legal status of drugs has nothing to do with the actual safety of the drugs and therefore might be more inclined to try other illegal drugs.

[normiss 622]

"The pot is a gateway drug theory doesn't stand well to scrutiny, and a big part of how it could have been true is the pot dealer would also have other drugs."

I'm floored that people still believe this crap.