Ind. state senator wants study on legalizing pot

[Mrkeller]

It depends how you tend to the plant and what type of plant it is. 1.5 grams per doobie? Someone is rolling themselves a hogger. If you're growing the right kind of pot you shouldn't need nearly that much in one doobie.

With the stuff that goes around on the streets, 1.5 grams is about right. The less it's handled the better it is. What gets you high isn't the green leafy material. It's the small white "crystals". That's the THC. Those "crystals" are very fragile. Alot of them get broke of when compacted into bricks. Then the bricks are broken up into, usually, one pound bags. Then onto smaller bags. Alot of people usually end up handling the pot before it gets to the consumer. There for more and more of these "crystals" brake off making it less potent.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Further, what do you guys think the Cartels would do? I'm not buying that they would simply throw up their hands and say "curses, foiled again!" If they had something to move on to, which could make up lost profit (like the Mob when it went from alcohol to drugs), then them walking away seems plausible. But, I can't think of anything that would make up that loss in profit margin.

This is an interesting point: On one hand, the Cartel will not readily just throw up their hands and walk off. But, it if they extend their actions as to actively pursue people in the US (growers, agriculturalists, etc...) violently, particularly in the heartland of the US, there is a hefty price to be paid. It goes from the inefficient and horrendously corrupt Mexican police/military making token raids against Cartel members that they either suprise or are the "weak" ones. It goes to the US police forces pursueing creeps that threaten you for growing pot commercially. I see that as a bit of difference.

In Mexico, they are still king. In the US, RICO can kick their butt because they would not have a border and corrupt government to hide behind.

 

[lashicoN]

Nowhere did I say that pot wears on you physically. Mentally, yes it screws you!

And as far as taxing to hell, YES! They are taxing the hell out of tanning salons, because this is "bad for you." Marijuana is "bad for you", thus tax it too!

I got a feeling we are beating a dead horse though because it will never be legalized.


-MColford

Here are some figures that may change your opinion about marijuana being "bad" or "screwing" you mentally, because it simply isn't the case.

Few of the accusations about marijuana have ever been proven, even in the long-term effects. I'm not a scientist, though.

 

[kingnereli]

Give it up. It won't be legalized and it shouldn't be. Although I do get a kick out of big rants in threads like this about something that will not happen, at least in the foreseeable future. It's quite funny.

 

[machete]

Give it up. It won't be legalized and it shouldn't be. Although I do get a kick out of big rants in threads like this about something that will not happen, at least in the foreseeable future. It's quite funny.

people are going to look at comments like that and say---oh yeah??? how many people were killed by weed last year and how many are killed by guns???

you only think weed should be illegal because you were brought up in a bad time,,, if you were brought up in a time when guns were illegal,,youd say the same thing about legalizing guns...

theres a certain kinda thing that gets into peoples minds telling them they can tell other people what to do...we need to fix that if we want the human race to get better...

 

[lashicoN]

Give it up. It won't be legalized and it shouldn't be. Although I do get a kick out of big rants in threads like this about something that will not happen, at least in the foreseeable future. It's quite funny.

Spoken like a true Tory.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm noticing, that the arguments in favor of legalization entail growing govt or placing the product in the hands of big business. I think we all know how that works out.

 

[rambone]

I'm noticing, that the arguments in favor of legalization entail growing govt or placing the product in the hands of big business. I think we all know how that works out.

Big business, small business, backyard business... It doesn't really matter. Any of the above are better than propping up South American drug kingpins and all the smugglers in between. The only thing keeping the cartels in power is their constant cash flow from their over-priced imports. If people can grow their own plants, they won't go find Jose in the rough part of town, and therefore won't be putting money into the criminal underworld either.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Big business, small business, backyard business... It doesn't really matter. Any of the above are better than propping up South American drug kingpins and all the smugglers in between. The only thing keeping the cartels in power is their constant cash flow from their over-priced imports. If people can grow their own plants, they won't go find Jose in the rough part of town, and therefore won't be putting money into the criminal underworld either.

The problem is in order for this to fly, again IMO, you'd have to legalize all drugs. Marijuana sales aren't the only issue here. Cocaine, heroin, and a variety of more profitable drugs peddled by the cartels has a big hand in this. It's marijuana that funds the distribution and manufacture of those drugs.

From a purely Libertarian pov, legalizing all drugs would be ideal, but I doubt our nation would be ready for such an undertaking.

 

[rambone]

The problem is in order for this to fly, again IMO, you'd have to legalize all drugs. Marijuana sales aren't the only issue here. Cocaine, heroin, and a variety of more profitable drugs peddled by the cartels has a big hand in this. It's marijuana that funds the distribution and manufacture of those drugs.

From a purely Libertarian pov, legalizing all drugs would be ideal, but I doubt our nation would be ready for such an undertaking.

From what I have read and what I believe, the overall decriminalization of all drugs would be the ideal scenario. There are plenty of examples of how decriminalized drugs does not turn a country into chaos. Portugal recently (2001) decriminalized all drugs, and they have several years of data that proves that the move was a success. The cost of government is less for avoiding enforcement costs, court costs, and prison costs. Overall drug usage rates actually fell to one of the lowest rates in the EU. Deaths from drug overdose has fallen. Its a very interesting topic. I think the financial aspect alone is more than enough to convince me that decriminalizing is the right path. We can't keep borrowing from China in order to lock up people with plants in their possession.

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies

 

[kingnereli]

people are going to look at comments like that and say---oh yeah??? how many people were killed by weed last year and how many are killed by guns???

you only think weed should be illegal because you were brought up in a bad time,,, if you were brought up in a time when guns were illegal,,youd say the same thing about legalizing guns...

theres a certain kinda thing that gets into peoples minds telling them they can tell other people what to do...we need to fix that if we want the human race to get better...

Are you aware that it is possible for a person to look at this issue reasonably and critically and draw the conclusion that I have. Are you seriously suggesting that people that disagree with you do so because they're programed that way in their upbringing? That's laughable.

 

[kingnereli]

Spoken like a true Tory.

How you can read that post and conclude that I am an 18th century British loyalist is beyond me?

 

[1911Shooter]

Make it legal and Tax it and pay off some dept.

 

[Cherryspringer]

It would seriously make a lot of money for our state. It would cut costs by astronomical measusures (law enforcement), and take revenue away from criminals.

 

[machete]

Are you aware that it is possible for a person to look at this issue reasonably and critically and draw the conclusion that I have.

no,,,im not... i think theres something that aint totally right when someone tells other people what to do when its got nothing to do with them...

Are you seriously suggesting that people that disagree with you do so because they're programed that way in their upbringing?

not on everything,,,i dont like tofu,,,some do... but on liberty questions,,,theres almost always only one right answer,,,and if someone aint totally in favor of liberty,,,someone,,,could be anyone,,,along the way did something wrong to the kid...

 

[jsharmon7]

If it didn't pass in California of all places, it won't pass here. Why waste the money doing studies?

 

[kingnereli]

no,,,im not... i think theres something that aint totally right when someone tells other people what to do when its got nothing to do with them...

That, my friend, is a misrepresentation of the argument. It may not have anything to do with me but it very likely involves someone who can't do anything about it.

not on everything,,,i dont like tofu,,,some do... but on liberty questions,,,theres almost always only one right answer,,,and if someone aint totally in favor of liberty,,,someone,,,could be anyone,,,along the way did something wrong to the kid...

That is an interesting theory. It's simplistic to attempt to explain away opposing viewpoints as some sort of childhood brainwashing, but it is interesting.

The problem with liberty is that people of your political persuasion have a bloated sense of it. They stump for rights that, constitutionally or otherwise, don't exist, they cry police state, big government, unconstitutional and more when something happens simply if they don't like it. I'm not afraid of the anarchist accusation. It's as if it is stimulating in some way to have something to rail about even if it is senseless. There is a difference between advocating small, unobtrusive government and worrying about things like druggies and model airplanes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If it didn't pass in California of all places, it won't pass here. Why waste the money doing studies?

ding! we have a winner...

 

[rich8483]

I'm noticing, that the arguments in favor of legalization entail growing govt or placing the product in the hands of big business. I think we all know how that works out.

??? as a libertarian, i dont want to grow government. legalizing this takes power AWAY from them. dea in particular. i was also not one that yelled "tax it" i have no idea why it should have a higher tax than anything else. cigs shouldnt either. encouraging people to not buy certain products by using a sin tax is bull****. why should it matter to the gov what they do.

and again as a libertarian, why do i have to be against big business? thats a liberal idea that big biz is "keepin' us down maaan" if a man can start a business, grow, become successful and become the next nike or whatever, more power to him. (i hope thats me some day) if i dont like his business - simple, i wont do business with him.

 

[rich8483]

omg, where do i start?
Ok back...

Alcohol has been a staple of American culture (referencing it's intoxicating properties) from colonial times. It's hard to convince Americans to accept outlawing a substance that, to this day, the vast majority of Americans have grown up with. Hell, Jesus drank alcohol. That fact, alone, in a strongly Puritanical society makes it difficult to demonize the substance.
Marijuana on the other hand, though used for a variety of industrial purposes, had never, up until very recently been a preferred choice for "leisure." bull****! the instant someone found out you could smoke it, they passed a law? no. its recorded use goes back to 7000BC and its been legal even in this country up until about 1910.

Secondly, alcohol had legally (before Prohibition) be produced and distributed in massive amounts here on our own shores. All of the major brewers, didn't simply "pop up" after prohibition. They always existed, and once prohibition hit, they simply diversified, waiting for the day when they could produce again.
In the meantime places like Canada and Mexico, where alcohol was still produced legally, filled the gap. and likewise before marijuana was prohibited, the census bureau recorded over 8300 hemp plantations. a plantation being defined as at least 2000 acres. yeah smokeing was one of the uses. i know i know, not the only use.

Why is that important you may ask? Well, it's simple. When prohibition was repealed, the engines of legal manufacturing needed little more than a dusting off to start catering to the needs of the general public. This is where alcohol prohibition and marijuana legalization widely diverge.
There are no commercial means of production, of marijuana, in the United States. you mean dirt, tractors and rain? by me there is quite a few fields that have not been plowed for atleast two years b/c of the economy. if given the opportunity, im sure those guys would get to work. The vast majority of marijuana, is imported from S. America (where it is illegal too). I'm sure I don't need to illustrate the types of people that a running marijuana production, down there. Let's just say that they are the worst type. do i also have to point out that if it were made legal, all aspects of it could be out in the open. i dont know why we could not place orders over the phone for a shipment of weed from places where it is already legal and growing, THE NEXT DAMN DAY AFTER ITS LEGALIZED.

Marijuana is the cash crop for the cartels. They own the means of production. The Mafia conversely, had no hand in the actual manufacture of Alcohol. If they had, it's debatable that their power would have ever waned. That said, if marijuana is made legal, how is it to be produced on massive scales? mostly like other crops. And if it is, guess whose pocket your taking money out of? Yep, the Cartels. the ones that wouldnt exist in the first place if it werent prohibited? I don't know about anybody else, but I don't see guys making billions in drugs walking away from the business. IMO, at the very least, if Americans are going to start producing and selling marijuana locally, they're going to have to "pay" to do it.... and I'm not talking about the govt. they make fences. and i read the BoR monday and it still had the 2A.


Cliffs
-Jesus drank alcohol, but never a blunt... society approves you can drink a blunt?
-Cartels control production of marijuana, Mob never controlled production of alcohol
-Cartels shakedown American "growers" if legalized, to protect their interests - ok, seriously, stop and think about this one for a second time now in your post. shake them down how? blackmail maybe? oh, no that wont work b/c everything they are doing is above board. all they could do is threaten direct personal violance. against a large company??


when have you seen someone shake down say a furniture company by the amish for money so they can operate smoothly? WTF?

.