Posted on 04/05/2009 4:36:51 PM PDT by ChrisInAR
What do you talk about at lunch with Tom Tancredo? I thought I knew, but to my surprise (and relief), we spent much of the hour discussing the wisdom of legalizing drugs rather than rehashing our disagreements over illegal immigrants.
"The status quo isn't working," Tancredo says, meaning the war on drugs has failed — spectacularly. And while that's hardly a novel insight, most people who reach it don't take the next step of questioning the drug war itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
And I pointed that you were arguing semantics. Regulating a billion dollar commercial industry versus limiting the number of plants one can legally grow are two drastically different things, something we do now anyway.
My reference to taxation regarded the typical reason offered for legalizing marijuana, I did not ascribe it specifically to you.
And as for the Dutch, go to Holland, my friend. What you will find is that you can walk into these coffeeshops and buy marijuana, hash, and all sorts of teas and cakes and other consumable products that contain marijuana. You can buy seeds to grow your own. You can have marijuana and not worry one bit about being arrested. They've closed down some of the coffeeshops, but there are still plenty left and the marijuana laws and policies haven't changed. They did ban the sales of magic mushrooms and they are trying to stop some of the drug tourism and crack down on organized crime, but marijuana is still de facto legal there. And it hasn't hurt their culture, and it is still true that even though they've allowed for marijuana possession and sales since the Seventies a lower percentage of the Dutch smoke marijuana than Americans and several of their European neighbors who do not allow their people such freedom.
The Netherlands is a good example of why just letting people grow their own will not stop organized crime. They let people grow their own, and they allow for sales in these coffeeshops. They do not allow for commercial production though, so organized crime stepped in to supply these coffeeshops. They smuggle hash in. They produce marijuana on a comparatively large scale. They supply the coffeeshops and have made enough money to fund other criminal enterprises, such as exporting marijuana and producing and exporting drugs like Ecstasy. Their tentacles are getting into everything. Billions of dollars from the marijuana industry helps these groups grow into large and sophisticated criminal organizations.
We'd still have the same thing going on if we legalized possession of marijuana and growing a few plants but did not allow for commercial production and regulated sales of marijuana. The average pot smoker is not going to grow his own. The average pot smoker doesn't smoke enough pot to justify growing his own. He wouldn't even need that much pot. Most pot smokers only smoke a few grams per month, if they smoke that much. Some smoke more, some a lot more. Only the heaviest smokers can really justify growing their own, and a lot of them might not have anywhere to grow it, or they won't be able to be home enough to take care of it, and so on. It makes much more sense just to have a shop that's sort of like a liquor store where people can go in and pick up a very small amount of pot, a joint, a gram, something like that, or a little more if they want. If we tell people they can't have it unless they grow their own most of them will just buy black market pot, and if there is a black market you can bet your shirt organized crime will be heavily involved.
The government estimates that between 12,000 and 25,000 metric tons of marijuana are available on the market here in a given year. That's between 12 billion and 25 billion grams of marijuana. That's just a staggering amount. It is estimated that the Mexicans produced 15,500 metric tons of marijuana in 2007 and most of it came here. That's 15.5 billion grams and most of it came here. Ridiculous quantities of marijuana are consumed in this country every year. There are tens of billions of dollars to be made every year in our black market for marijuana. It's a huge business. Mexican drug trafficking organizations make most of their money from marijuana sales. We are not going to stop this massive illegal industry by letting those who want to grow a couple of plants. The only way we will take this money from organized crime is to allow for a legal marijuana industry, where commercial production is legal and the product can be sold from licensed shops.
Giving people the right and the power to control that right assumes personal responsibility. If a person chooses not to eexercise that right; that’s their choice, but creating an industry for the purposes of tax revenue or because people are too lazy is asinine. Now you’re saying that government is needed to make sure that marijuana is organic! If you think you’re making sense, you’re smoking too much pot.
We need less government, not more. If people can grow vegetables or flowers, they can grow marijuana. If you want to smoke it, grow it. You can’t sell it, transport it, distribute it or drive under the influence (all current laws). We currently distinguish between amounts grown for personal use and intent to distribute.
I’ve been to Amsterdam, got mugged there in fact. The Dutch tightened their drug laws because they regret the effect that they have had on their culture. Most Dutch who I know don’t associate with the drug culture that’s been cultivated in Amsterdam. The tourists love it though, hence the problem. But again, whether someone chooses to grow their own is their choice. Faced with legally growing your own or jail time, most people here in the states will grow their own. It’s an easy choice. Heavy users would certainly opt in, and the casual user could partake in social situations in private, reducing the demand for foreign and domestic sources of marijuana. Local supply, local demand. If a pothead can’t buy into that concept, pot is the least of his or her problems.
The most sure fire way to kill the drug trade is to reduce to demand, give people the power and the right to do it. More government and more taxation is not the answer.
Okay.
“If a person chooses not to eexercise that right; that’s their choice, but creating an industry for the purposes of tax revenue or because people are too lazy is asinine.”
The purpose of the industry is not tax revenues. Taxes are a given though. The government taxes everything. They regulate everything too and regulation costs money. People who choose to partake in marijuana should bear the costs of that regulation. The way it is now the government blows billions of dollars a year of our money trying in vain to enforce the ban on marijuana. Those who smoke marijuana aren't paying any of that except for the tiny minority who are fined, and their arrests and the prosecution of their cases probably costs more than the fines they pay.
And having a legal industry is not “creating” an industry. There is already a massive marijuana industry. It's just an illegal industry run largely by organized crime instead of a legal one run by tax paying law abiding Americans, an industry run by the bad guys instead of the good guys. We wouldn't be creating an industry if we legalized production and sales. We'd be taking this massive and highly profitable industry away from the bad guys.
“Now you’re saying that government is needed to make sure that marijuana is organic!”
I never said that. All I'm saying is that we'd end up with the same types of regulations we'd have on other agricultural products meant for human consumption. As it is they'll discover these big grows by Mexican organized crime in our national forests and find all sorts of pesticides and whatnot that are not made to be used on plants intended for human consumption. Some pot probably would be certified organic, and people who choose organic product would probably pay a premium for that. I don't think the government should require organic pot though. Commercial marijuana producers should have the same sorts of standards required of them that other producers of products meant for human consumption have.
“We need less government, not more. If people can grow vegetables or flowers, they can grow marijuana. If you want to smoke it, grow it. You can’t sell it, transport it, distribute it or drive under the influence (all current laws). We currently distinguish between amounts grown for personal use and intent to distribute.”
Why do you object to having a commercial marijuana industry so much if you do not care if people grow their own and smoke it? What you are proposing is still big government. They're still going to be busting anyone carrying pot. They're still going to have to be out there making sure people aren't growing more than they need for their own personal use. They're still going to be busting the majority of pot smokers who will just buy from the black market. We're still going to be putting a lot of people in prison. All of this takes up the time of our police, our jails, our court systems. It's all very expensive and it is all very much “big government.”
“The Dutch tightened their drug laws because they regret the effect that they have had on their culture.”
You are making that up. I've been to the Netherlands four times. Most of them are fine with their drug policies. The marijuana polices haven't changed their culture. They're still the same pragmatic and tolerant people. They'd have the drugs whether they had their current policies or not, just like we have them. They know that.
“Faced with legally growing your own or jail time, most people here in the states will grow their own.”
Where has this ever happened? It was legal to possess it in your home and grow your own in Alaska for years, yet they still had a thriving black market. Anywhere people can grow their own they still have a thriving black market. It takes months to grow pot. It's not so easy. It's not so easy to have vegetable gardens either and only a very small minority vegetable eaters have those. Only a small minority of pot smokers will grow their own. It would be bigger than the small minority who grow their own in this country now, but it's still going to be a small minority. There are several places in the world where it is allowed now, or has been decriminalized and the cops don't bother people who do it. In every instance only a small minority of pot smokers actually grow their own, and that's exactly what what happen if we legalized growing a few plants for personal use here.
“Heavy users would certainly opt in, and the casual user could partake in social situations in private, reducing the demand for foreign and domestic sources of marijuana.”
I think it would probably cut into the big business of marijuana selling by organized crime some, both because people would be sharing what they grow, and because many would be selling it as long as the prices stay high.
“Local supply, local demand.”
The high demand will remain. If local suppliers can supply that demand there won't be so much demand for pot brought in from other places. You are dreaming though if you think there won't be marijuana selling going on. A small percentage of pot smokers will grow it. The rest will mooch pot from those who grow it whenever they can and they'll buy it went they can't get it free, and they'll pay good money for it too, especially if it's good. We'll have a lot more indoor grown product on the market, and there will still be pot dealers who either get their supply from several homegrowers producing only small amounts, or just buy from a regular source that will probably be supplying them pot from the Mexicans or some other organization that produces and distributes it on a larger scale. And people will still buy Mexican, because it's cheap. Prices of the potent indoor grown stuff will drop some because so much will be being grown, and we'll just have a thriving black market with the same low grade Mexican and more of the potent stuff at better prices than we see today.
“If a pothead can’t buy into that concept, pot is the least of his or her problems.”
All you have here is a concept, and it is flawed.
“The purpose of the industry is not tax revenues. Taxes are a given though. The government taxes everything. They regulate everything too and regulation costs money. People who choose to partake in marijuana should bear the costs of that regulation. The way it is now the government blows billions of dollars a year of our money trying in vain to enforce the ban on marijuana. Those who smoke marijuana aren’t paying any of that except for the tiny minority who are fined, and their arrests and the prosecution of their cases probably costs more than the fines they pay.
And having a legal industry is not “creating” an industry. There is already a massive marijuana industry. It’s just an illegal industry run largely by organized crime instead of a legal one run by tax paying law abiding Americans, an industry run by the bad guys instead of the good guys. We wouldn’t be creating an industry if we legalized production and sales. We’d be taking this massive and highly profitable industry away from the bad guys.”
By legalizing personal use and cultivation, you shift the illegal activity to a legal one, and more importantly localize supply negating the need for other sources. Creating a “government regulated industry” when you can simply endow people with a personal right and get out of the way is misguided. BTW, a similar bad guy argument is also used for the tax code, that we catch the “bad guys” through tax evasion and therefore must keep the convoluted tax code.
“I never said that. All I’m saying is that we’d end up with the same types of regulations we’d have on other agricultural products meant for human consumption. As it is they’ll discover these big grows by Mexican organized crime in our national forests and find all sorts of pesticides and whatnot that are not made to be used on plants intended for human consumption. Some pot probably would be certified organic, and people who choose organic product would probably pay a premium for that. I don’t think the government should require organic pot though. Commercial marijuana producers should have the same sorts of standards required of them that other producers of products meant for human consumption have.”
Oh great, let’s recreate our flawed agricultural system for a previously illegal crop, you’re batting a thousand buddy. Will we subsidize it too? We need personal rights and personal responsibility with government simply protecting those rights, not more government control and bigger government. You either believe in these tenets or you don’t.
“Why do you object to having a commercial marijuana industry so much if you do not care if people grow their own and smoke it? What you are proposing is still big government. They’re still going to be busting anyone carrying pot. They’re still going to have to be out there making sure people aren’t growing more than they need for their own personal use. They’re still going to be busting the majority of pot smokers who will just buy from the black market. We’re still going to be putting a lot of people in prison. All of this takes up the time of our police, our jails, our court systems. It’s all very expensive and it is all very much “big government.”
I’m not proposing big government at all. I’m proposing personal rights and responsibility. Marijuana possession arrests would disappear taking pressure off the legal system, foreign and domestic demand would drop and law enforcement could focus their efforts on harder drug interdiction with a smaller budget. We have current laws that are being enforced, but the focus will change dramatically. There is a distinction already made between personal use and intent to distribute. Empower people with rights and create local demand and local supply.
“You are making that up. I’ve been to the Netherlands four times. Most of them are fine with their drug policies. The marijuana polices haven’t changed their culture. They’re still the same pragmatic and tolerant people. They’d have the drugs whether they had their current policies or not, just like we have them. They know that.”
Not making anything up. They changed the number of cafes and their proximity to schools for a reason. Drugs have definitely had an impact on their culture as drug use has risen. Anyone with half a brain can see that there is a clear drug culture in Amsterdam. I’ve lived with people from Holland and the majority of them are hard working people who want nothing to do with the drug culture. As cool as you may think Amsterdam is, it’s not something we want here in this country.
“Where has this ever happened? It was legal to possess it in your home and grow your own in Alaska for years, yet they still had a thriving black market. Anywhere people can grow their own they still have a thriving black market. It takes months to grow pot. It’s not so easy. It’s not so easy to have vegetable gardens either and only a very small minority vegetable eaters have those. Only a small minority of pot smokers will grow their own. It would be bigger than the small minority who grow their own in this country now, but it’s still going to be a small minority. There are several places in the world where it is allowed now, or has been decriminalized and the cops don’t bother people who do it. In every instance only a small minority of pot smokers actually grow their own, and that’s exactly what what happen if we legalized growing a few plants for personal use here.”
Legalization reduces illegal activity, that’s a fact. BTW, cigarettes are legal and there is a black market for cigarettes, same with alcohol. Again, you’re using the lazy defense, people won’t do it, so let’s accommodate them. At the very least, foreign demand would be replaced by local grow houses, which is preferable to foreign sources. However, we can make the laws stronger against distribution. The people I know who smoke, would grow their own. You sound a little like a gay marriage proponent. It’s not enough to have a right to a civil union, you want it to be endorsed by the state as a legal enterprise equal to other commercial endeavors.
I think it would probably cut into the big business of marijuana selling by organized crime some, both because people would be sharing what they grow, and because many would be selling it as long as the prices stay high.
“The high demand will remain. If local suppliers can supply that demand there won’t be so much demand for pot brought in from other places. You are dreaming though if you think there won’t be marijuana selling going on. A small percentage of pot smokers will grow it. The rest will mooch pot from those who grow it whenever they can and they’ll buy it went they can’t get it free, and they’ll pay good money for it too, especially if it’s good. We’ll have a lot more indoor grown product on the market, and there will still be pot dealers who either get their supply from several homegrowers producing only small amounts, or just buy from a regular source that will probably be supplying them pot from the Mexicans or some other organization that produces and distributes it on a larger scale. And people will still buy Mexican, because it’s cheap. Prices of the potent indoor grown stuff will drop some because so much will be being grown, and we’ll just have a thriving black market with the same low grade Mexican and more of the potent stuff at better prices than we see today”.
Whether demand stays high or not doesn’t matter, what matters is that local supply satisfies that demand so that there is no demand for Mexican drug cartels’ product and we can get away from the war on drugs. Strengthen laws against selling and distribution and people will grow their own. They’ve been given what they want, the right to smoke it legally. Will people share? Sure, but law enforcement can focus its efforts in the right place and we can relieve pressure on our system; which we all want.
“All you have here is a concept, and it is flawed.”
Giving people personal rights predicated on personal responsibility is never flawed. This is Free Republic by the way.
This argument is pointless. Legalizing possession and allowing people to grow a few plants would be better than what we have now. It would allow more freedom. It would cut into the black market some and would hurt organized crime some because production and sales would become more localized negating some of the need for product brought in from somewhere else. It would help with some of the problems. It wouldn’t work like you think it would, but there is no convincing you of that and it’s not worth it for me to continue to try.
As well they should..
Ping
ping! Lots of decent working folks, in jail, losing their homes, not what I would call moral..
It has been said of George Washinton in History that:
“Washington and his fellow planter/presidents Tom Jefferson and James Madison would be astonished to hear that hemp is illegal. These early chief executives would certainly have told President Obama that a re-legalized cannabis crop would mean billions of dollars in desperately needed farm revenue throughout the United States.
As for smoking, I know of no significant communication among the Founders extolling their “great weed.”
But in one of his meticulous agricultural journals, dated 1765, Washington regrets being late to separate his male hemp plants from his females. For a master farmer like George, there would be little reason to do this except to make the females ripe for smoking.
The medicinal uses of cannabis were known to the ancient Chinese. Thousands of years later, it’s inconceivable American growers would not indulge in its recreational powers.
From Thomas Jefferson’s autobigraphy
“Some of my finest hours have been spent sitting on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see.” - Thomas Jefferson
“
No wonder the constitution is written with divine providence, a different perspective is not always a bad one..is it..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.