9 ms·

This is a good thing. If it becomes legalized, it becomes commoditized and pushes the small basement operations out because it is no longer profitable. In the

This is a good thing. If it becomes legalized, it becomes commoditized and pushes the small basement operations out because it is no longer profitable. In the end, prices are lower, crime is reduced, and the consumer and general public benefit from safer product and reduced crime.

fjabre 16y ago
Completely agree. The only issue I have is I don't want to see Philip Morris buy up all of NoCal and force everyone out of business. I think good growers will still be able to demand a premium for their marijuana no matter what happens in November.
- illumin8 16y ago
  Good point; the best growers will always have a market for their product. NorCal is a lot like Napa Valley... some of the best wines in the world, if you know what I mean.
  - WiseWeasel 16y ago
    The prostitutes? They're nothing to write home about.
- muhfuhkuh 16y ago
  Philip Morris makes tobacco a commodity. They'll surely treat cannabis the same way: grown outdoors with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, irradiated (not that that would matter, I guess, but it will be), sprayed with preservatives and who know what the hell else, etc. The good growers will do so in climate-controlled, forced-flowering, sea-of-green indoor operations using massive lighting arrays and "low rider" hybrid strains that produce gigantic buds with amazing crystals. It'll be like comparing "two buck chuck" wine at Trader Joe's to a Lafite Rothschild or Screaming Eagle. Most people won't care, but there is a market for the latter like you wouldn't believe.
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    Yep, I think marijuana would more closely resemble the beer and wine industries than cigarettes given the differences from one strain/grower to another. It wouldn't surprise me if PM became the Budweiser of the group, but that wouldn't push out the Sierra Nevadas. It would just make them have to be better.
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      "It would just make them have to be better." The best weed on the market is already close to being as good as it's going to get. The real trick is going to be establishing brands with reasonably consistent quality. Right now even if you only go to the dispensaries with the highest Yelp ratings, it's still hit or miss on any given strain. What I think you will see though is that people who smoke Philip Morris weed will start getting cancer, in the same way that smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes. (Because of all the chemicals, the filters, and the fact that they're grown in radioactive soil w/ fertilizers that bind to uranium.)
      - abstractbill 16y ago
        ...smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes... I would be very surprised to find out this is true. Do you have a citation?
        Alex3917 16y ago
        I'm sure there are better sources, but here is the first one I could find from Wikipedia: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 Also, about the uranium, the typical smoker gets the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays per year from smoking American cigarettes: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html Which probably explains why even today smokers in countries that don't use American cigarettes don't have anywhere near the same increase in lung cancer risk.
mattmaroon 16y ago
There's also the tax revenue. I'd assume some of the money made from the illicit trade is laundered, but from my pro poker days I can tell you for sure that much of it is not. Even the people making, for instance, $200k per year are probably at most laundering (and therefore paying tax on) half of it.
- fexl 16y ago
  I've heard this argument before: It's OK as long as someone with nothing to offer except a jail cell gets a piece of the action.
  - nooneelse 16y ago
    Could you perhaps state your criticism a little more clearly? I'd hate to ridicule it without more certainty that I understand it.
    - fexl 16y ago
      Some people argue that owners of certain plants should be allowed to sell their property, but only on the condition that they give a portion of the proceeds to other individuals who demand it by threat of force.
ErrantX 16y ago
For the most part I agree with your arguments, except: crime is reduced I'm not so sure that is the case (well, apart from the fact that selling the drug would no longer be illegal :)). It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway. But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D
- pyre 16y ago
  > It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway. That depends on what you mean by 'crime due to people taking the drug.' How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit. > But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D True, but then it would no longer be 'pot-related crime' where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.' You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit. We still have to account for potential taxation etc. so the price might not go right down. Secondly there will certainly be more users and possibly people using more of the drug. With all that said I highly doubt there is a meaningful statistic for pot abusers causing crime; it's just not the profile of the drug. You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another. Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :) where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.' So then it becomes "crack is destroying our society" - there will always be people saying these things. Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our society". I guess pot is more widely lambasted due to being illegal (and possibly due to the fact it tends to inhibit abusers interactions in a much more noticable way) In this situation I would probably support legalization; if you look at the drugs profile in the area most of the production is from small/medium gangs and individuals. The legal trade has changed that profile even more. The major stumbling blocks I feel exist generally for legalization of pot is that in other areas larger, more dangerous drugs gangs exist and I a) don't think we should give into them and b) don't imagine they will let us take a lucrative industry from them without a fight.
anamax 16y ago
> If it becomes legalized, it becomes commoditized and pushes the small basement operations out because it is no longer profitable. In the end, prices are lower, crime is reduced The small basement operations aren't part of the crime problem (ignoring the illegality of marijuana itself).

fjabre 16y ago

Completely agree. The only issue I have is I don't want to see Philip Morris buy up all of NoCal and force everyone out of business. I think good growers will still be able to demand a premium for their marijuana no matter what happens in November.

illumin8 16y ago
Good point; the best growers will always have a market for their product. NorCal is a lot like Napa Valley... some of the best wines in the world, if you know what I mean.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  The prostitutes? They're nothing to write home about.
muhfuhkuh 16y ago
Philip Morris makes tobacco a commodity. They'll surely treat cannabis the same way: grown outdoors with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, irradiated (not that that would matter, I guess, but it will be), sprayed with preservatives and who know what the hell else, etc. The good growers will do so in climate-controlled, forced-flowering, sea-of-green indoor operations using massive lighting arrays and "low rider" hybrid strains that produce gigantic buds with amazing crystals. It'll be like comparing "two buck chuck" wine at Trader Joe's to a Lafite Rothschild or Screaming Eagle. Most people won't care, but there is a market for the latter like you wouldn't believe.
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  Yep, I think marijuana would more closely resemble the beer and wine industries than cigarettes given the differences from one strain/grower to another. It wouldn't surprise me if PM became the Budweiser of the group, but that wouldn't push out the Sierra Nevadas. It would just make them have to be better.
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    "It would just make them have to be better." The best weed on the market is already close to being as good as it's going to get. The real trick is going to be establishing brands with reasonably consistent quality. Right now even if you only go to the dispensaries with the highest Yelp ratings, it's still hit or miss on any given strain. What I think you will see though is that people who smoke Philip Morris weed will start getting cancer, in the same way that smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes. (Because of all the chemicals, the filters, and the fact that they're grown in radioactive soil w/ fertilizers that bind to uranium.)
    - abstractbill 16y ago
      ...smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes... I would be very surprised to find out this is true. Do you have a citation?
      - Alex3917 16y ago
        I'm sure there are better sources, but here is the first one I could find from Wikipedia: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 Also, about the uranium, the typical smoker gets the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays per year from smoking American cigarettes: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html Which probably explains why even today smokers in countries that don't use American cigarettes don't have anywhere near the same increase in lung cancer risk.

mattmaroon 16y ago

There's also the tax revenue. I'd assume some of the money made from the illicit trade is laundered, but from my pro poker days I can tell you for sure that much of it is not. Even the people making, for instance, $200k per year are probably at most laundering (and therefore paying tax on) half of it.

fexl 16y ago
I've heard this argument before: It's OK as long as someone with nothing to offer except a jail cell gets a piece of the action.
- nooneelse 16y ago
  Could you perhaps state your criticism a little more clearly? I'd hate to ridicule it without more certainty that I understand it.
  - fexl 16y ago
    Some people argue that owners of certain plants should be allowed to sell their property, but only on the condition that they give a portion of the proceeds to other individuals who demand it by threat of force.

ErrantX 16y ago

For the most part I agree with your arguments, except: crime is reduced I'm not so sure that is the case (well, apart from the fact that selling the drug would no longer be illegal :)). It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway. But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D

pyre 16y ago
> It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway. That depends on what you mean by 'crime due to people taking the drug.' How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit. > But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D True, but then it would no longer be 'pot-related crime' where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.' You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit. We still have to account for potential taxation etc. so the price might not go right down. Secondly there will certainly be more users and possibly people using more of the drug. With all that said I highly doubt there is a meaningful statistic for pot abusers causing crime; it's just not the profile of the drug. You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just be replaced by another. Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :) where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all this crime.' So then it becomes "crack is destroying our society" - there will always be people saying these things. Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our society". I guess pot is more widely lambasted due to being illegal (and possibly due to the fact it tends to inhibit abusers interactions in a much more noticable way) In this situation I would probably support legalization; if you look at the drugs profile in the area most of the production is from small/medium gangs and individuals. The legal trade has changed that profile even more. The major stumbling blocks I feel exist generally for legalization of pot is that in other areas larger, more dangerous drugs gangs exist and I a) don't think we should give into them and b) don't imagine they will let us take a lucrative industry from them without a fight.

anamax 16y ago

> If it becomes legalized, it becomes commoditized and pushes the small basement operations out because it is no longer profitable. In the end, prices are lower, crime is reduced The small basement operations aren't part of the crime problem (ignoring the illegality of marijuana itself).