Legalizing Marijuana back in limelight - Page 3 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

RubberDuck · 03-12-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

Yet a country such as the Netherlands that has done both is also in a recession and has a higher tax rate then Canada.

Weed is not legal in the Netherlands. It is tolerated and not criminal to posess small ammounts but it is not legalized.

Also, tax revenue from a few coffee shops is not going to keep their economy afloat.

Flames Draft Watcher · 03-12-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

Also, tax revenue from a few coffee shops is not going to keep their economy afloat.

Perhaps not but certainly the tourism in Amsterdam does have an effect on the economy and a lot of the tourism in Amsterdam is because of the red light district and the coffee shops.

When I was in Europe last summer it sounded like its cheaper for Brits to go party in mainland Europe for the weekend than it would be to stay in Britain and party. Amsterdam was overrun with tourists and the majority sounded to be British to me.

There's no way all those Euro's flowing in from the pot loving tourists doesn't help their economy and tourism.

How much more tourism would Vancouver get if it really was the Amsterdam of North America? I think you'd see a lot of Americans come and spend money just for the novelty of legally smoking and buying.

troutman · 03-12-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Perhaps not but certainly the tourism in Amsterdam does have an effect on the economy and a lot of the tourism in Amsterdam is because of the red light district and the coffee shops.

When I was in Europe last summer it sounded like its cheaper for Brits to go party in mainland Europe for the weekend than it would be to stay in Britain and party. Amsterdam was overrun with tourists and the majority sounded to be British to me.

There's no way all those Euro's flowing in from the pot loving tourists doesn't help their economy and tourism.

My wife and half her relatives are from Amsterdam. They all would be much happier without the coffee shops. Most find it a major nuisance and embarrassment. Another side effect is rampant bike theivery.

Rathji · 03-12-2009, 05:02 PM

I am against drug use in general, and I think this is a fantastic idea if they can figure out a way to test for driving high, which I had never considered until reading this thread.

Traditional_Ale · 03-12-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Anyways bottom line to me is that driving drunk worries me about 10 times more than people driving around high. It shouldn't be the main issue when talking about legalization.

???

I would think that the part of using any substance for entertainment (or hell, even medically) is how it might endanger others, not the user.

Like Norm said, we will never legalize coke, crack, meth, heroine/opiates for recreational use. They are psycho-addictive and physically addictive too, essentially making the user insane and psychotic.

Also, all the above substances would impair driving equal to or greater than even alcohol, and the most danger to others that comes from using substances recreationally is on the road.

Personally, I think that the "driving issue" should be front and centre of the pot legalization debate.

(Insert bong hit here...)

Actually, I hope it stays illegal. I like being able to smoke weed without endless commericals on TV and Radio and stuff about the dangers of toking and driving. And the day someone took my keys away for having a hoot I think I would try to flip, but probably just steal their chips instead.

(Insert another bong hit here...)

Uh...what was I talking about again?

4X4 · 03-12-2009, 05:25 PM

The more I think about it, the less I think that legalization will do anybody any good.

Casual pot smoker (less than 10 times per year)(me): the legal stuff would be "watered down". It aint hard to buy an eighth off a buddy and it lasts me forever. The very odd occasion that I want to have a hoot, I want to catch a good buzz. It'd be pretty lame if I had to smoke two or three times that amount to do it, not to mention pay more.

Regular pot smoker (every day): these are the ones that would actually hate it the most, though they tend to be the ones that push for it the hardest. Right now, in Canada, getting caught with anything less than half an ounce, undivided, will 9x/10 result in mere confiscation. Big deal.
Legalization would mean paying alot more and getting inferior product. Why would these people want that?

The small time dealer: would just move on to other drugs. You wouldn't be cleaning up crime, so no benefit to making this legal.

Big time dealer: hardened criminal with no regard for the law. Again, will move on to other illegal ways of making money.

Suave · 03-12-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

Weed is not legal in the Netherlands. It is tolerated and not criminal to posess small ammounts but it is not legalized.

Also, tax revenue from a few coffee shops is not going to keep their economy afloat.

Tax revenue from marijuana, assuming it would bring in the same amount as cigarettes, would bring in $2.6 billion a year to the federal government (around 1% of revenue). Applying the numbers from the original post to Canada would result in $3.6 billion in revenue. Either way it would not help keep us out of recession or be able to eliminate the GST. Although if you looked at it from a revenue neutral position you could reduce the GST to 4.5%.

Traditional_Ale · 03-12-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

Tax revenue from marijuana, assuming it would bring in the same amount as cigarettes, would bring in $2.6 billion a year to the federal government (around 1% of revenue). Applying the numbers from the original post to Canada would result in $3.6 billion in revenue. Either way it would not help keep us out of recession or be able to eliminate the GST. Although if you looked at it from a revenue neutral position you could reduce the GST to 2.5%.

HAHAHA, thats a good one! What have you been smoking? Oh wait...

Agamemnon · 03-12-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4X4

The more I think about it, the less I think that legalization will do anybody any good.

Casual pot smoker (less than 10 times per year)(me): the legal stuff would be "watered down". It aint hard to buy an eighth off a buddy and it lasts me forever. The very odd occasion that I want to have a hoot, I want to catch a good buzz. It'd be pretty lame if I had to smoke two or three times that amount to do it, not to mention pay more.

I'm not sure where the evidence that the weed would be poorer is coming from. The government wouldn't be growing the weed, private growers would... same as now. In fact, private businesses would be eager to sell great product and low price, competing with other businesses doing the same. I think variety and quality will become more varied, which is totally key. Most people go to their one guy to get whatever he sells... NOW you can go to multiple places (stores) and pick from a selection. Sounds better to me.

Quote:

Regular pot smoker (every day): these are the ones that would actually hate it the most, though they tend to be the ones that push for it the hardest. Right now, in Canada, getting caught with anything less than half an ounce, undivided, will 9x/10 result in mere confiscation. Big deal.
Legalization would mean paying alot more and getting inferior product. Why would these people want that?

Not sure why weed would cost more... capitalism tends to provide decent competition/prices for goods like this. I can grow it in my closet, if quality was actually that reduced, and the price raised that much, it would be EXCEPTIONALLY easy for me to grow it in my closet/basement. Trust me. Put it this way, if beer was sold at liquor stores for $20 a can, but you can brew it at home for $1 a can... would you start brewing beer at home? I would.

Quote:

The small time dealer: would just move on to other drugs. You wouldn't be cleaning up crime, so no benefit to making this legal.

This is a strange point... there's no evidence to show that a pot dealer would move to coke/meth/heroin as a result of pot legalization. These are completely different drugs with different clientele, source, means of production/distribution, etc. It's not just switching from apples to oranges. There are few 'small time dealers' who get all of their income from selling pot... the one's I know all have jobs or go to school

Quote:

Big time dealer: hardened criminal with no regard for the law. Again, will move on to other illegal ways of making money.

Why bother, he can just expand his current (newly legalized) operation and make real money. Or he can go off and get in to different/harder stuff... it's not like the cops won't still be looking at those things. I doubt public demand for coke/ecstasy/meth go up as a result of pot legalization.

Thunderball · 03-12-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

They impair people in radically different ways. Alcohol significantly reduces reaction time, weed does not affect people in quite the same way. Also it has to be taken into account that regular marijuana users do not experience as much of an effect from the drug as someone who isn't a regular user.

Frankly from my extensive experience of being drunk, high and tired in various scenarios that have tested my reaction time and decision making my conclusion is that alcohol is far more impairing than weed for a regular user and being tired is arguably more impairing as well. One of the more interesting examples was when I used to play a lot of foosball (a game of pure reaction speed) with friends. We've played it all of us high, all of us drunk, some high some drunk, etc. You basically can't play it drunk at all your reaction time is so bad. High people were about as good at it as sober people. I'd rate being high as being about as impairing as talking on a cellphone while driving for a regular user.

Anyways the simplistic association that some people make that driving drunk = driving high is far from the truth. I think extensive studies would back this up as would the personal experience of those who have both drank and smoked in various scenarios. And then of course there are just horrible drivers out there who in their normal state are more "impaired" driving. We could just as easily talk about higher standards for driving tests if you really care about reducing the potential for accidents.

Anyways bottom line to me is that driving drunk worries me about 10 times more than people driving around high. It shouldn't be the main issue when talking about legalization.

Well, extensive evidence has also proved that alcohol affects people differently. One study I read (using a driving simulator) claimed that ~20% of people don't significantly lose motor function/co-ordination. Despite this, ~80% of people do, and many people who may think they are in the 20%, aren't. However, while being able to successfully guide a simulated car doesn't mean their judgment isn't diminished. So, despite that, drunk driving laws are essential.

Anecdotally, people can tell stories about Great Uncle Jethro who lived to be 103, and smoked like a chimney, and how their buddy drank 5L of beer in an hour... and it may be true, but its not indicative of a general trend. Marijuana has proven psychoactive and physiological side-effects. As bad as some ######bag that drank a 40 of scotch and decided to drive home? Doubtful, but chemicals affect people in different ways.

As for your point on cellphone usage while driving being equivalent to high driving... there is a reason many jurisdictions are considering a ban on cellphone driving or making it mandatory to use a handsfree device. Its dangerous too because too many people can't multitask while driving and they lose concentration/reaction time. Maybe quite a few of us can talk and drive, but too many can't, and hence, we might have to change the law.

Point is, if approved, like alcohol, it would be a controlled substance with rules and guidelines, because of potentially hazardous side-effects. That means having to be able to detect concentration levels and having a rough ability to determine intoxication. Being moderately safer than driving drunk doesn't mean its safe at all. You're right though, some people sober are more dangerous than some people impaired, and that is a failure in our licensing procedure.

Thor · 03-12-2009, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calculoso

Where as now it wouldn't happen because they aren't allowed to grow it at all...

C'mon. That's the whole problem. Where there's a rule, there's someone who will break it. We'll see even more grow-ops than we have now because they can "legally" sell it. There will be no drop in police fees because they'll still have to sniff out the *still* illegal grow-ops.

I've known a few friends in the last 15 yrs who grow, one that did it for almost 6yrs.

The profit margin if legalized goes way down, right now its profitable and thats why you see home growers, besides the home growers who just grow enough for themselves and friends.

Once legalized, the price and quantity available makes home growing drop dramatically, especially if you know anyone who's grown, the cost of materials, electricity bills, pain of doing it in your own home..

It will happen just like alcohol prohibition when it ended, the home brewers lasted for many years after legalization but it dropped dramatically over the first 5 years to what we see today, hobby beer brewers.

Same thing will happen with pot, the effort reward to grow pot at home will be so much less after legalization that it will drop drastically.

flamingchina · 03-12-2009, 06:56 PM

The Economist had a number of articles on the prohibition of drugs in last weeks issue.
http://www.economist.com/printeditio...TOKEN=36198268 is the main one.

calculoso · 03-12-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i see your point, but when was the last time you heard about an illegal beer brewing operation?

When was the last time that you heard about a house having to be condemned due to brewing beer?

Traditional_Ale · 03-12-2009, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calculoso

When was the last time that you heard about a house having to be condemned due to brewing beer?

This comment reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer is the Beer Baron. Ever notice how the Simpson basement was as small or large as needed?

Stranger · 03-12-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

This comment reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer is the Beer Baron. Ever notice how the Simpson basement was as small or large as needed?

I love that episode.

Homer: " Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems."

Ain't that the truth.

4X4 · 03-12-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'm not sure where the evidence that the weed would be poorer is coming from. The government wouldn't be growing the weed, private growers would... same as now. In fact, private businesses would be eager to sell great product and low price, competing with other businesses doing the same. I think variety and quality will become more varied, which is totally key. Most people go to their one guy to get whatever he sells... NOW you can go to multiple places (stores) and pick from a selection. Sounds better to me.

Because there's no way in hell it wouldn't be regulated by potentcy. Just like smokes and booze.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Not sure why weed would cost more... capitalism tends to provide decent competition/prices for goods like this. I can grow it in my closet, if quality was actually that reduced, and the price raised that much, it would be EXCEPTIONALLY easy for me to grow it in my closet/basement. Trust me. Put it this way, if beer was sold at liquor stores for $20 a can, but you can brew it at home for $1 a can... would you start brewing beer at home? I would.

Taxes. Do you think the government would just legalize it and let capitalism decide the prices? The taxes would be similar to tobacco. There's a reason nobody grows their own cigarettes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

This is a strange point... there's no evidence to show that a pot dealer would move to coke/meth/heroin as a result of pot legalization. These are completely different drugs with different clientele, source, means of production/distribution, etc. It's not just switching from apples to oranges. There are few 'small time dealers' who get all of their income from selling pot... the one's I know all have jobs or go to school

Clearly you run in similar circles as I do. You know a few small time dealers. Don't tell me that any one of them would just simply resort to putting in more hours at the post office to supplement the income they earn from selling weed. We all know that they sell it to pay for their own habit, and/or to make a few extra bucks. If they're already inclined to break the rules "a little bit", what makes you think that legalizing pot is going to cause these folks to just suddenly get a job at the local gas station to supplement their income?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Why bother, he can just expand his current (newly legalized) operation and make real money. Or he can go off and get in to different/harder stuff... it's not like the cops won't still be looking at those things. I doubt public demand for coke/ecstasy/meth go up as a result of pot legalization.

Compete with the government? Are you kidding? That's worse than competing with the mafia.

Traditional_Ale · 03-12-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger

I love that episode.

Homer: " Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems."

Ain't that the truth.

Yup.

My official beer for the 2008-2009 season...Yukon Red. Formerly Arctic Red. DE-LICIOUS!!!!

C_of_Red28 · 03-12-2009, 08:47 PM

Even if they legalize it Organize Crime will still sell it and use it in drug trafficking.... Organize Crime are stealing tobacco and selling it.. as well as prescription drug.... the best way to solve this solution is stiffer penalties... Marihuana is worst for you then tobacco and effect your short term memory.. could you imagine how many impaired drivers we would have if it was legalize..its already bad enough.. Stoners just need to grow up..

4X4 · 03-12-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_of_Red28

Even if they legalize it Organize Crime will still sell it and use it in drug trafficking.... Organize Crime are stealing tobacco and selling it.. as well as prescription drug.... the best way to solve this solution is stiffer penalties... Marihuana is worst for you then tobacco and effect your short term memory.. could you imagine how many impaired drivers we would have if it was legalize..its already bad enough.. Stoners just need to grow up..

Are you sure marijuana hasn't affected your short term memory? It does a f*** load less harm than alcohol ever did or ever will. But legalization? At this stage of the game? Waste of time. It does no good for anyone. Stoners, non-stoners, government, anyone.
Legalization of pot would result in the gov't collecting money off the backs of docile folks that just like to have a hoot. And I can guarantee that the tax dollars collected would NOT be put towards fighting wars on drugs or anything else. Just be another way for the government to tax the layman. And if the layman doesn't understand that, well, lets just legalize it and tax the hell out of those hippies.

HOZ · 03-12-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

Its interesting that major networks in the US are talking about the possibility of legalizing pot, even though its a long shot at best outside of maybe California.

On CNN today a Harvard Professor who just wrote a book about the drug war said that the US per year would save about 44 billion from policing/prosecuting/imprisoning people, and another 33 billion from tax revenue. 77 Billion per year from just Marijuana.

Not to mention how many minor offenders with possession, even people in jail for being arrested with a bong would be out of prison, they shouldn't be in jail for such a ridiculous small offense. There was a kid in Texas recently arrested for possessing a bong, and was sentenced to 3 yrs!

Parallels are being brought up to the great depression where they removed prohibition to help stimulate the economy, maybe this opportunity could at least allow California to move forward.

Too bad the Conservative government seems totally dis-interested in going to the decriminalization plans from the Chretien government.

With Cocaine being cheaper than a pint of beer this is not even on my radar anymore!