Bad things that could happen if marijuana was legalized?

Page 2 of 3 [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,231
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 Jul 2012, 5:17 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
why should anyone with a backache be stopped from accessing marijuana?...it works great as a painkiller for backaches.


So does hydropmorphone. But we don't go handing out prescriptions for that on demand. Which does rather suggest that medical arguments for or against legalization are rather futile, because at the end of the day, a determination about prescription drugs is a decision between a doctor, a patient and a pharmacist.

I am not persuaded that medicinal use of marijuana is particularly effective except in a fairly narrow set of circumstances. The psychotropic and immune system impacts are such that I would generally look to other therapies before considering marijuana for most patients of mine. I don't doubt its effectiveness, but I do question whether it is a best choice in most clinical cases.



Well with all due respect I think hydromorphone is probably more dangerous and addictive then marijuana....I am guessing it's an opiate and well as much as I love how opiates feel marijuana is certainly the safer alternative.

And be as not persuaded as you want but what do you think would be more effective in most clinical cases, opiates? Maybe it can have negative impacts on the immune system......well opiates are easier to over-dose on and can be highly addictive, tylenol causes liver damage and asprin things blood I thought. Any drug is going to have possible negative side effects but they still have their uses, and some still have pleasant effects.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,231
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 Jul 2012, 5:18 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Marijuana gets legalized: people keep smoking marijuana


Even if it doesn't, people keep smoking it.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

10 Jul 2012, 7:04 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
:roll: remember the faulty background knowledge I mentioned in the OP? I said BESIDES smoke inhalation (which can, another word for sometimes, cause cancer) what are some long term effects of using marijuana?


My medical view is that the big one is immune suppression. There are two primary sites for cannabinoid receptors: neurons and leukocytes. Prolonged exposure to cannabinoids--whether infused, ingested or injected--can diminish immune response both to infection and to neoplasia.

Also, I think that you are missing an essential issue around organized crime involvement post-legalization. Legal producers are compelled to comply with regulatory requirements: employment standards and taxation being principal among them. Illegal producers need comply with neither, and that means that even in a legal growing environment, why would any of today's industrial producers seek to go legal? They are already producing on an industrial scale, so clearly the threat of legal sanction does not present an impediment. So why would you suddently start paying your workers by cheque, submitting source deductions, paying Worker's Compensation premiums, and all of the other regulatory impositions on employers? Why would you start paying taxes on your profits?

The illegal producers will continue to produce illegally, and they will be readily able to undercut the legal producers on price. The only market for legally produced marijuana will be the pharmaceutical market.

As for medical marijuana, why would you pay three times the price for prescription pot at a pharmacy, when you can go to a dealer down the street or down the hall who will sell you a bag?

Legalization will not get organized crime out of the production and distribution of marijuana, and it will not lead to new tax revenue for government. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be legalized--but let's disabuse ourselves of these as affirmative reasons for doing so.


anyone that ever grew a plant would tell you that the financial investment is close to zero, the only reason there is even a buisness is because its illegal and you pay pushers for that risk.(realistically we are talking a sales price of 50-150x the cost of making and transporting, depending on strain, sometimes more)
i agree you wouldnt be able to conquer them on price alone but there is a point where people would rather pay a little more to avoid associating with criminal elements, it might be 20% but if thats only 20% of 5 bucks most wouldnt care.
taxes would have to be used as a way to mitigate the costs in healthcare and social work, i dont think there would be more, i do like t he idea of having a net zero financial impact however, set the taxes after that.

oh and all it takes is a look at the cigarette smugling around the world, it happens, but most people still buy them at the local shop as far as i know)


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 177
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

10 Jul 2012, 7:15 pm

Image


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Jul 2012, 7:43 pm

Oodain wrote:
anyone that ever grew a plant would tell you that the financial investment is close to zero, the only reason there is even a buisness is because its illegal and you pay pushers for that risk.(realistically we are talking a sales price of 50-150x the cost of making and transporting, depending on strain, sometimes more)


A casual grower has minimal investment. But a grow-op has a huge price (which is why they make so much effort to steal electricity), and an outdoor operation requires a significant amount of land.

The individual growers with a few pots or a backyard plot don't even come close to supplying the North American market. We have thousands of hectares under cultivation just for legal, industrial hemp production, let alone the land that is illegally used for cultivation of cannabis.

This is not a zero-investment industry. This is a $7billion dollar industry--in this country alone. And no one is going to give up that money without a fight.

Quote:
i agree you wouldnt be able to conquer them on price alone but there is a point where people would rather pay a little more to avoid associating with criminal elements, it might be 20% but if thats only 20% of 5 bucks most wouldnt care.
taxes would have to be used as a way to mitigate the costs in healthcare and social work, i dont think there would be more, i do like t he idea of having a net zero financial impact however, set the taxes after that.

oh and all it takes is a look at the cigarette smugling around the world, it happens, but most people still buy them at the local shop as far as i know)


I would be astonished if legal producers can sell at only a 20% markup.


_________________
--James


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

10 Jul 2012, 10:09 pm

Taco Bell would have to stay open all night.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Jul 2012, 10:22 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Marijuana gets legalized: people keep smoking marijuana


Even if it doesn't, people keep smoking it.


Exactly. Since people who want reefer will get it (one way or another) then legalize the business. Tax the transactions. Get the criminals and the corruptors of law out of the loop.

ruveyn



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

11 Jul 2012, 1:10 am

visagrunt wrote:
Oodain wrote:
anyone that ever grew a plant would tell you that the financial investment is close to zero, the only reason there is even a buisness is because its illegal and you pay pushers for that risk.(realistically we are talking a sales price of 50-150x the cost of making and transporting, depending on strain, sometimes more)


A casual grower has minimal investment. But a grow-op has a huge price (which is why they make so much effort to steal electricity), and an outdoor operation requires a significant amount of land.

The individual growers with a few pots or a backyard plot don't even come close to supplying the North American market. We have thousands of hectares under cultivation just for legal, industrial hemp production, let alone the land that is illegally used for cultivation of cannabis.

This is not a zero-investment industry. This is a $7billion dollar industry--in this country alone. And no one is going to give up that money without a fight.

Quote:
i agree you wouldnt be able to conquer them on price alone but there is a point where people would rather pay a little more to avoid associating with criminal elements, it might be 20% but if thats only 20% of 5 bucks most wouldnt care.
taxes would have to be used as a way to mitigate the costs in healthcare and social work, i dont think there would be more, i do like t he idea of having a net zero financial impact however, set the taxes after that.

oh and all it takes is a look at the cigarette smugling around the world, it happens, but most people still buy them at the local shop as far as i know)


I would be astonished if legal producers can sell at only a 20% markup.


one of the reasons for stealing electricity is the lowered chance of detection, today though many people use leds at the specific wavelengths absorbed, a tenth of the energy right there.
but even with HPS and metal halides you are still only at around 1/50 of sales price if unprocessed.

you are right a 20% markup might not do it, here i have taken the scenario as equal profits and 20% taxation which is simplistic to say the least.

my main point though was that there comes a price difference where people simply dont care and would rather pay the extra instead of the hassle of finding someone smuggling it in, then comes the loss of revenue due to people growing it themselves, at small scale, effectively eliminating them from the equation.
again take a look at cigarette smuggling, according to the theory that people always buy where its cheapest, this would mean that there would be only a minor part of the population that use legal ways of obtaining it, or alcohol for that matter, it simply doesnt chime with reality on its own.
yes it happens, will we ever be able to stop it? probably not, do we reduce the effect? who can say.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


legomyego
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 313

11 Jul 2012, 2:00 am

for every illegal drug there is an equally potent drug or even more potent drug used in general medicine.
(fentanyl is more powerful then heroine....by alot.....).......heroine was once common practice...
(methamphetamine is prescribed though not in crystal form)
(Speed is adderall....)



Species5618
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 55

11 Jul 2012, 4:08 am

Coming from a country (Netherlands) where marijuana is actually legal (where, it's not really legal, but it is official government policy not to enforce the law in certain situations, it's complicated), I can't really see any major issues with legalizing it. Marijuana usage in the Netherlands is lower than in surrounding countries and also harddrug usage is equal or lower. Of course, a lot of people do try marijuana once or twice, but the number of repeat-users seems to stay low. And since there's a clear distinction between "allowed" (marijuana) and "not allowed" (heroin, cocaine, etc...), marijuana isn't really a gateway-drug in the way it is in other countries where the same guy that sells you pot has contacts for the more serious stuff.

Marijuana usage is going to happen, whether you allow it or not and since it's a fairly innocent drug, it's much better to keep the whole trade exposed to daylight, where it can be monitored and, if necessary, regulated.



Last edited by Species5618 on 11 Jul 2012, 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,231
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 Jul 2012, 9:34 am

legomyego wrote:
for every illegal drug there is an equally potent drug or even more potent drug used in general medicine.
(fentanyl is more powerful then heroine....by alot.....).......heroine was once common practice...
(methamphetamine is prescribed though not in crystal form)
(Speed is adderall....)


Well I thought methamphetamine and amphetamine which I thought adderall was were a bit different...and I always thought methamphetamine was the worse one. Though according to what I've looked up they have very similar side effects and effects in general.



WorldsEdge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 458
Location: Massachusetts

11 Jul 2012, 10:22 am

legomyego wrote:
(fentanyl is more powerful then heroine....by alot.....).......heroine was once common practice...


Once upon a time Heroin was actually a trademarked name, like Aspirin. Bayer sought (and received) trademark status for both in 1898....

Quote:
Other companies took note, and Bayer followed by registering Aspirin and Heroin in 1898, names with far more resonance to this day than acetylsalicylic acid or diactylmorphine. The basis for both of these painkillers had first been created close to fifty years earlier so Aspirin and Heroin were new social rather than pharmaceutical creations.

from [url=http://www.amazon.com/Pharmageddon-David-Healy/dp/0520270983/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342018060&sr=8-1&keywords=pharmageddon"]Pharmageddon (amzn link)[/url], David Healy, p. 25 (2012)


Pity the Amazon link skips the page I'm quoting from. :( Still, it is kind of amusing that the name Heroin is a pure invention, done simply to differentiate it from its (generic?) competitors. And I guess the name as a "social creation" has been wildly successful if nothing else. Though I doubt the good folks at Bayer point to it as one of their accomplishments.

Quote:
(methamphetamine is prescribed though not in crystal form)
(Speed is adderall....)


I'm not saying adderall isn't an amphetamine, since it obviously is. But I'm also pretty sure Adderall doesn't have any "methyl" type stuff in it, which I thought was the reason you could get so high so quick off crystal meth. And to go further out on a limb/parade my ignorance I also thought the amphetamines in Pseudoephedrine are different from the ones in Adderall. Though, even if they are, that might mean beans in terms of ultimate affect on the body, I guess. But, maybe not. Given the high level of knowledge on this board, hopefully somebody will mosey by and point out the errors in this paragraph.

World's Edge - popping 30 mg Adderall XR daily since 2010 :)


_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell


Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

11 Jul 2012, 12:17 pm

The Enterprise will be abandoned.

Image



pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

11 Jul 2012, 12:45 pm

Let's see, possible negatives from legal marijuana:
...yes, cartels would lose a source of income and will increase other activities to make up for that. But I don't think they would lose as much as people think. Most of the black market cannabis trade is on a level small scale grower, frequently direct to user, or maybe 1-2 also small scale middle men. Most of the US weed is grown here and smoked here.

Pot is much more bulkier than other drugs and there isn't as much of a profit in international smuggling or long distance domestic transport. Anyhow, mexican weed is crap.

...law enforcement agencies would have to find other excuses to lobby for inflated budgets.

...the prison industry would lose money from no longer housing people who aren't hurting anyone.

...The alcohol industry might lose a handful of drinkers to cannabis (but if they we're smart, they would start selling REAL 'bud')

...the pharmaceutical industry could lose profits, especially those who make ibuprofen, aspirin & other minor pain killers.

...if you are a teenager, weed might actually be a little tougher to obtain.

...on the health front, the consumption of Frito-Lay & Hostess snacks would skyrocket, resulting in more weight gain & acne.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005


lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,690
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?

11 Jul 2012, 1:00 pm

We'll become a nation of potheads. That alone is disgusting enough.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,231
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 Jul 2012, 1:03 pm

lostonearth35 wrote:
We'll become a nation of potheads. That alone is disgusting enough.


Well be that way, but maybe a nation of potheads would be a better alternative to a nation of alcoholics and binge drinkers. But whatever, to each their own.