4 ms·

Legalize, educate, regulate, tax and treat abuse as a medical problem. Subsidize the medical treatment and sponsor research for mitigating abuse from the tax r

Legalize, educate, regulate, tax and treat abuse as a medical problem. Subsidize the medical treatment and sponsor research for mitigating abuse from the tax revenue. People will pay obscenely high taxes on this stuff if it’s made legal. Dismember the government apparatus setup to deprive so many of their liberties.

grogenaut 9y ago
We've got some non trivial percentage of America hooked on legal opioids as an experiment. That's going well. Seems smart to get another good pct hooked on h. And before you say the price will drop... My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle. So let's get everyone hooked and in debt, seems like a different route to the same place. They won't be in jail but they'll be struggling financially just the same. But they'll at least get treatment. Which we can also charge for. Apparently I've angered the libertarians who can't concieve of Any bad consequences to anything. Look I Live in Seattle and don't see any bad side to the mj legalization currently. I also think we should have heroin treatment in many areas. And opioid. Doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy h when you hit 18. I know plenty of people who use alcohol and mj responsibly. Many who don't. I have anecdotal data on opiods and lots only know one person who used h personally and that didn't go well. More for meth, most had some pretty severe problems before or because of it. But apparently I can't disagree with you, only the pure ideals are acceptable.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  Prison is pretty life destroying pretty much anyone not a danger to others would be better off outside a cell. Also poor people generally aren't poor because they smoke too much marijuana it's not even remotely addictive like that.
- RickS 9y ago
  > My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle I'm a Seattle resident. No way that's correct. The pot is way, way cheaper. Using fairly "middle class" products, percentage of a $15-20 gram that has intoxicating value is lower in dollar value than a draft beer ($6). Even focusing strictly on value products, there's no single-unit alcohol product (40oz, tall boy, etc) that can compete against the common $3 preroll.
  - buttcoinslol 9y ago
    You can get 37.5 ounces of Four Loko for $3 (1.5 cans), at 12% ABV you're getting 4.5 ounces of ethanol which is equivalent to 9 1.5 oz 80 proof shots. This will absolutely destroy you compared to a half gram preroll joint filled with shake.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle." What "intoxicating amount" would that be? A single beer might get a teetotaler drunk, while it might take a six pack or more to get an alcoholic drunk. The same goes for smoking cannabis. One hit might get someone with no tolerance high, but someone with a high tolerance might need much more. That doesn't even begin to take in to account all of the different varieties of cannabis or different types of alcohol, which could have quite varied potencies. You can actually kind of compare different alcohols by the percentage of pure ethanol in them, and with cannabis you can compare the percentage of THC, but there are so many other compounds in cannabis that can have an effect on your intoxication that they're really difficult to compare in a standardized way. Even when sticking to one particular alcohol or cannabis variety prices vary tremendously based on brand and where they're bought (ex: a beer at the grocery store will cost much less than one at some trendy bar, a mass-produced generic beer vs some hand-made microbrew, etc). When I hear such comparisons I really have to question what they're actually comparing and why they're comparing it and not something completely different. For alcohol vs cannabis prices, I struggle to understand how there can be any comparison. "So let's get everyone hooked and in debt" How many people go in to debt buying legal cannabis? If money's such a problem for them, it's trivial to just grow your own for free: it's a weed. Anyway, if your goal is to keep people from going in to debt, the last thing you should be for is prohibition, which astronomically increases the cost of drugs far past their legal price. "Doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy h when you hit 18." Well, whether you think you should be able to or not, you can. Making drugs illegal has flatly failed to stop their availability. Like it or not, if you want them, it's not hard to get them. The question is whether the state should continue to spend billions ruining people's lives by throwing them in jail or outright killing them during raids, breaking up families, propping up organized crime with illegal drug profits, corrupting the judicial and political system, etc. To me it doesn't make sense, especially as it's so ineffective or even counterproductive (as people are drawn to the forbidden) in preventing drug use.
philliphaydon 9y ago
Abuse as a medical problem??? No way. You do not allow people to take a harmful substance then say “oh and if you get sick we will pay for it”.
- acct1771 9y ago
  Sugar, etc
  - philliphaydon 9y ago
    So people in America used to cook with lard. Until someone said “oh no lard is bad people are getting fat” so they banned lard. And everything tasted like shit so they substituted lard with sugar. Now America is one of the fattest nations on earth. Go figure.
- godzillabrennus 9y ago
  People already take it. People already get sick. Tax payers already pickup their healthcare bills.
  - philliphaydon 9y ago
    And that is wrong. The west is backwards in this regard. In the UK, Australia, NZ, you can get paid with tax payers money for choosing to not work... So someone works hard to fund your life. Someone works hard to pay your bills for your choice to smoke. Someone works hard to pay your bills for your choice to do drugs and get addicted.
    - godzillabrennus 9y ago
      It’s not always that simple. The opioid epidemic is largely because people use legal pain killers as a gateway drug. Think about it from an investment perspective. The addict has typically had some semblance of public education. That cost tax payers money. Let’s call it $40k over 18 years (12 grades). That investment needs to be recouped by society for it to pay off. Now this person has gotten addicted to drugs. We could do nothing and they might commit crimes to fund their habit and hurt innocent people but then we have to imprison them at great cost to society and we lose more potential tax revenue and productivity from the potential loss of life of victims. We could leave the addicts alone and hope they die peacefully from their addiction, knowing we lose the investment (not to mention it calls into question our morality for letting someone die when we have the resources to save them). In reality though addicts get more desperate as they get more addicted and are more likely to turn to crime. We could be proactive and imprison them at great cost to society for being addicts. During which time they gain an education of criminal behavior that helps them fall deeper into criminal activity to support their addiction. Or we could realize that we just need to treat addicts as medical patients who can be rehabilitated if given proper treatment. This costs society money up front but helps rehabilitate addicts so they can become productive citizens again. This is not revolutionary.

grogenaut 9y ago

We've got some non trivial percentage of America hooked on legal opioids as an experiment. That's going well. Seems smart to get another good pct hooked on h. And before you say the price will drop... My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle. So let's get everyone hooked and in debt, seems like a different route to the same place. They won't be in jail but they'll be struggling financially just the same. But they'll at least get treatment. Which we can also charge for. Apparently I've angered the libertarians who can't concieve of Any bad consequences to anything. Look I Live in Seattle and don't see any bad side to the mj legalization currently. I also think we should have heroin treatment in many areas. And opioid. Doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy h when you hit 18. I know plenty of people who use alcohol and mj responsibly. Many who don't. I have anecdotal data on opiods and lots only know one person who used h personally and that didn't go well. More for meth, most had some pretty severe problems before or because of it. But apparently I can't disagree with you, only the pure ideals are acceptable.

michaelmrose 9y ago
Prison is pretty life destroying pretty much anyone not a danger to others would be better off outside a cell. Also poor people generally aren't poor because they smoke too much marijuana it's not even remotely addictive like that.
RickS 9y ago
> My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle I'm a Seattle resident. No way that's correct. The pot is way, way cheaper. Using fairly "middle class" products, percentage of a $15-20 gram that has intoxicating value is lower in dollar value than a draft beer ($6). Even focusing strictly on value products, there's no single-unit alcohol product (40oz, tall boy, etc) that can compete against the common $3 preroll.
- buttcoinslol 9y ago
  You can get 37.5 ounces of Four Loko for $3 (1.5 cans), at 12% ABV you're getting 4.5 ounces of ethanol which is equivalent to 9 1.5 oz 80 proof shots. This will absolutely destroy you compared to a half gram preroll joint filled with shake.
pmoriarty 9y ago
"My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle." What "intoxicating amount" would that be? A single beer might get a teetotaler drunk, while it might take a six pack or more to get an alcoholic drunk. The same goes for smoking cannabis. One hit might get someone with no tolerance high, but someone with a high tolerance might need much more. That doesn't even begin to take in to account all of the different varieties of cannabis or different types of alcohol, which could have quite varied potencies. You can actually kind of compare different alcohols by the percentage of pure ethanol in them, and with cannabis you can compare the percentage of THC, but there are so many other compounds in cannabis that can have an effect on your intoxication that they're really difficult to compare in a standardized way. Even when sticking to one particular alcohol or cannabis variety prices vary tremendously based on brand and where they're bought (ex: a beer at the grocery store will cost much less than one at some trendy bar, a mass-produced generic beer vs some hand-made microbrew, etc). When I hear such comparisons I really have to question what they're actually comparing and why they're comparing it and not something completely different. For alcohol vs cannabis prices, I struggle to understand how there can be any comparison. "So let's get everyone hooked and in debt" How many people go in to debt buying legal cannabis? If money's such a problem for them, it's trivial to just grow your own for free: it's a weed. Anyway, if your goal is to keep people from going in to debt, the last thing you should be for is prohibition, which astronomically increases the cost of drugs far past their legal price. "Doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy h when you hit 18." Well, whether you think you should be able to or not, you can. Making drugs illegal has flatly failed to stop their availability. Like it or not, if you want them, it's not hard to get them. The question is whether the state should continue to spend billions ruining people's lives by throwing them in jail or outright killing them during raids, breaking up families, propping up organized crime with illegal drug profits, corrupting the judicial and political system, etc. To me it doesn't make sense, especially as it's so ineffective or even counterproductive (as people are drawn to the forbidden) in preventing drug use.

philliphaydon 9y ago

Abuse as a medical problem??? No way. You do not allow people to take a harmful substance then say “oh and if you get sick we will pay for it”.

acct1771 9y ago
Sugar, etc
- philliphaydon 9y ago
  So people in America used to cook with lard. Until someone said “oh no lard is bad people are getting fat” so they banned lard. And everything tasted like shit so they substituted lard with sugar. Now America is one of the fattest nations on earth. Go figure.
godzillabrennus 9y ago
People already take it. People already get sick. Tax payers already pickup their healthcare bills.
- philliphaydon 9y ago
  And that is wrong. The west is backwards in this regard. In the UK, Australia, NZ, you can get paid with tax payers money for choosing to not work... So someone works hard to fund your life. Someone works hard to pay your bills for your choice to smoke. Someone works hard to pay your bills for your choice to do drugs and get addicted.
  - godzillabrennus 9y ago
    It’s not always that simple. The opioid epidemic is largely because people use legal pain killers as a gateway drug. Think about it from an investment perspective. The addict has typically had some semblance of public education. That cost tax payers money. Let’s call it $40k over 18 years (12 grades). That investment needs to be recouped by society for it to pay off. Now this person has gotten addicted to drugs. We could do nothing and they might commit crimes to fund their habit and hurt innocent people but then we have to imprison them at great cost to society and we lose more potential tax revenue and productivity from the potential loss of life of victims. We could leave the addicts alone and hope they die peacefully from their addiction, knowing we lose the investment (not to mention it calls into question our morality for letting someone die when we have the resources to save them). In reality though addicts get more desperate as they get more addicted and are more likely to turn to crime. We could be proactive and imprison them at great cost to society for being addicts. During which time they gain an education of criminal behavior that helps them fall deeper into criminal activity to support their addiction. Or we could realize that we just need to treat addicts as medical patients who can be rehabilitated if given proper treatment. This costs society money up front but helps rehabilitate addicts so they can become productive citizens again. This is not revolutionary.