I think there could be a profit in selling to the teenagers if the skids that sell weed today (who don't take ID) go out of business.
On that note, I'm all for legalization, but I think it will cost us one of the most effective anti-weed messages you can get, which is having to meet people who sell it illegally. It has been a looooong time for me, but that was always an eyeopener when I was a youngster -- meeting the people who sold it and smoked a LOT of the stuff. Two or three guys hanging around playing Tony Hawk, one of them has dreads, there are two dogs on the floor, it stinks like weed and people who don't sleep in bedrooms, you just want to get out of there while thinking "goddamn I don't want to end up like these guys!".
It wasn't like that scene in Boogie Nights, but it was pretty grim.
Why do we need anti-weed messages? I think "Make your own choice when you're 18!" is sufficient. No teenager cares beyond that. You lived a weird after-school special lol.
FWIW, I've never had the experience you described. The three I've dealt with have all been nice, clean, middle class people.
Pot smokers are just as diverse as the average person. Members of MENSA and rocket scientists along with the greasy dreadlock guy. It's a drug that is not necessarily confined to a certain type of person or behavior.
I do suggest that the super creepy burnout would be a super creepy burnout regardless of marijuana, they'd just stink a little less. I've personally never seen an ambitious person go from normal to burnout stoner solely because of marijuana (one guy who took a u-turn in life did get heavy into it but his sister also died and that was the impetus for his downfall). I know several doctors that smoked way more pot than I did years ago, as well as several absolute burnouts I'd walk across the street to avoid.
The Following User Says Thank You to AcGold For This Useful Post:
Why do we need anti-weed messages? I think "Make your own choice when you're 18!" is sufficient. No teenager cares beyond that. You lived a weird after-school special lol.
FWIW, I've never had the experience you described. The three I've dealt with have all been nice, clean, middle class people.
Well, it was kind of a joke, but based in reality.
In my experience, unemployable morons sold weed to teenagers. Not exactly the cornball fiction of after school specials. Meeting them was enough of a turnoff to never become a stoner.
Sure, there are plenty of perfectly normal, responsible adults who buy and use marijuana, people I know who are more successful than me, and good for them, but dealing (no pun intended) with the scuzzy underbelly was enough to send me to the liquor store instead of the ####ty apartment full of deadbeats and tired dogs, and I've never looked back!
__________________
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
Well, it was kind of a joke, but based in reality.
In my experience, unemployable morons sold weed to teenagers. Not exactly the cornball fiction of after school specials. Meeting them was enough of a turnoff to never become a stoner.
Sure, there are plenty of perfectly normal, responsible adults who buy and use marijuana, people I know who are more successful than me, and good for them, but dealing (no pun intended) with the scuzzy underbelly was enough to send me to the liquor store instead of the ####ty apartment full of deadbeats and tired dogs, and I've never looked back!
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
So does this pretty muxh eliminate the drug dealing weed guy?
The main question here on the head, will the newly regulated marijuana system replace the currently robust and successful black market system.
I would imagine the only sane way to regulate it would be to ensure the regulated/allowable/taxable retail prices are competitive with the current black market prices. If weed becomes legal, and I'm used to buying it for say $200/ounce, and the govt wants to sell it at $300/ounce, I would continue to get it from the black market. So what would be the point of legalization? I don't see why the black market would necessarily shrink unless the regulated one can compete with it along price and quality lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
No, the market won't be huge. I don't see how they're going to undercut though.
Dispensary prices can be pretty low, and the quantities sold keep it that way.
I think it could be a multi-billion dollar industry. I think it's BC's second or third most valuable export... though obviously the govt isn't seeing much from that
The main question here on the head, will the newly regulated marijuana system replace the currently robust and successful black market system.
I would imagine the only sane way to regulate it would be to ensure the regulated/allowable/taxable retail prices are competitive with the current black market prices. If weed becomes legal, and I'm used to buying it for say $200/ounce, and the govt wants to sell it at $300/ounce, I would continue to get it from the black market. So what would be the point of legalization? I don't see why the black market would necessarily shrink unless the regulated one can compete with it along price and quality lines.
I think it could be a multi-billion dollar industry. I think it's BC's second or third most valuable export... though obviously the govt isn't seeing much from that
Further to your point is how much more will you pay for quality control and convenience.
I don't buy weed anymore but I can guarantee that if I was able to roll up to my local weed dispensary on a Friday night at 930pm and pay $80 for a qtr instead of $60 from my usual weed guy but be guaranteed instant service with amazing choice and great quality, that I wouldn't even hesitate.
On the other hand if I'm forced to drive half way across the city because there are only a few dispensaries and they are only open a few hours and that $20 premium becomes a double in price or even a $40 premium, then I'm probably not gonna bother with the legal stuff. I don't care how good it is, if I have to pay too much and drive too far I'm not gonna bother.
Interesting article on driving while high. I'll be honest part of the reason I'm posting, other than it is relevant, is that it follows exactly what I've been preaching for years regarding driving while high.
Quote:
Nine states, including some that have legalized marijuana for medical use, have zero-tolerance laws for driving and marijuana that make not only any presence of THC in a driver's blood illegal, but also the presence of its metabolites, which can linger in a driver's bloodstream for weeks after any impairment has dissipated.
That makes no sense, said Mark A. R. Kleiman, a New York University professor specializing in issues involving drugs and criminal policy. "A law against driving with THC in your bloodstream is not a law you can know you are obeying except by never smoking marijuana or never driving," he said.
Quote:
The problem is that determining whether someone is impaired by marijuana, as opposed to having merely used the drug, is far more complex than the simple and reliable tests that have been developed for alcohol impairment.
The degree to which a driver is impaired by marijuana use depends a lot on the individual, the foundation said. Drivers with relatively high levels of THC in their systems might not be impaired, especially if they are regular users, while others with relatively low levels may be unsafe behind the wheel.
Quote:
In addition, frequent marijuana users can exhibit persistent levels of the drug long after use, while THC levels can decline more rapidly among occasional users.
Quote:
Studies show that using marijuana and driving roughly doubles the risk of a crash, Kleiman said. By comparison, talking on a hands-free cellphone while driving — legal in all states — quadruples crash risk, he said. A blood alcohol content of .12, which is about the median amount in drunken driving cases, increases crash risk by about 15 times, he said.
Driving with "a noisy child in the back of the car" is about as dangerous as using marijuana and driving, Kleiman said.
Interesting article on driving while high. I'll be honest part of the reason I'm posting, other than it is relevant, is that it follows exactly what I've been preaching for years regarding driving while high.
The problem is that determining whether someone is impaired by marijuana, as opposed to having merely used the drug, is far more complex than the simple and reliable tests that have been developed for alcohol impairment.
The degree to which a driver is impaired by marijuana use depends a lot on the individual, the foundation said. Drivers with relatively high levels of THC in their systems might not be impaired, especially if they are regular users, while others with relatively low levels may be unsafe behind the wheel.
Seems like a good reason to not allow it.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Yeah, I'm a regular user and, while I agree with everything in that article, we shouldn't allow people to drive under the influence of it for the reason's listed (tolerance).
That said, I doubt there are many newcomers who would drive while stoned. And they definitely need to find a better test than that.
Was there something in the article that made you think it was in favour of people driving under the influence?
The point of the article is that current methods being used in jurisdictions where marijuana is legal (or at least medicinally legal) are woefully inadequate and that it requires a unique approach that differs significantly from our traditional alcohol testing.
I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing with...
Was there something in the article that made you think it was in favour of people driving under the influence?
The point of the article is that current methods being used in jurisdictions where marijuana is legal (or at least medicinally legal) are woefully inadequate and that it requires a unique approach that differs significantly from our traditional alcohol testing.
I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing with...
I am not disagree.
I didn't state I was disagreeing.
You posted the article to generate discussion, no?
My contribution was that I don't think they should allow driving under the influence.
There are posters on here that have posted before that that driving while stoned isn't a deficit.
So calm it down.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Last edited by undercoverbrother; 05-10-2016 at 02:53 PM.
You posted the article to generate discussion, no?
My contribution was that I don't think they should allow driving under the influence.
There are posters on here that have posted before that that driving while stoned isn't a deficit.
So calm it down.
I bet if you smoked some weed you'd be calmer...
You quoted me saying "i don't know" then proceeded to say that you thought (all?) driving while high should be outlawed. Read to me like you were disagreeing with something.
