[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

For what price? If you look at the medical marijuana regulated market, you can buy it for $5/gram -vs- the $15/gram black market price.

I'm glad you see that ending prohibition will reduce profit for gangs, that's a big step for you.

I never said it didn't. I just don't subscribe to this fantasy that it'll be the miracle cure to gang activity.

I don't know how much it'll sell for.

Curtman Curtman:

It happened with Alcohol. Prices dropped, tax revenue went from 0% to 9 billion dollars today.

Alcohol consumption costs the Canadian economy 14.6 billion per year.

I'm happy we make billions off of people's poor choices and then they sue us because we made the product legal to sell.

Curtman Curtman:

Regulation is the only tool we have to fight that. Liberals showed that lowering the price took gangs profit away. Enforcement is unable to cope with that problem either. Regulation is the only thing that has.

Where did the Liberals show this?

Curtman Curtman:

We'll need to figure out how much they used, how many of them continued on to use, and how many became habitual users. Then maybe we can extrapolate that number to non 15 year olds. We'll want to know how many 15 year olds live in Canada too.

I don't have an answer for you, but we can work this out if you want.

If you don't have an answer, perhaps you shouldn't comment on something you don't know anything about?

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I never said it didn't. I just don't subscribe to this fantasy that it'll be the miracle cure to gang activity.

I don't know how much it'll sell for.

Fair enough, I'm not sure anybody believes it's a miracle cure. I've never met anybody who did.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Alcohol consumption costs the Canadian economy 14.6 billion per year.

I'm happy we make billions off of people's poor choices and then they sue us because we made the product legal to sell.

Ok, now you're for alcohol prohibition? You believe that prohibition will make that go away?

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Where did the Liberals show this?

$1:

Against protests from health groups, Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced today that the Canada was slashing taxes on cigarettes to try to stamp out widespread smuggling from the United States, where taxes are currently about one-fifth as high.

A carton of cigarettes on which all taxes are paid costs upward of $44 in Canada, against as little as $15 to $20 for the contraband product. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of illegal cigarettes enter Canada every month, chiefly through Mohawk reservations that straddle the border with the United States in Ontario and Quebec.

According to law enforcement officials, the smuggling has attracted organized-crime gangs and increased violence in the area. It has also led to losses of millions of dollars of revenues from provincial and federal treasuries and created hardships for corner store operators whose livelihood depends to a large degree on the cigarette trade.

The main elements of the Chretien plan are: to reduce the current $16 a carton federal tax to $11; invite Canada's provinces, which like states in the United States levy their own taxes, to match the federal cut; set an $8 a carton export levy on Canadian-manufactured cigarettes that briefly enter the United States and then are usually spirited back into Canada, and strengthen enforcement of smuggling laws. The tax cuts go into effect at midnight tonight.

Usage and organized crime involvement went down despite lower prices.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

We'll need to figure out how much they used, how many of them continued on to use, and how many became habitual users. Then maybe we can extrapolate that number to non 15 year olds. We'll want to know how many 15 year olds live in Canada too.

I don't have an answer for you, but we can work this out if you want.

If you don't have an answer, perhaps you shouldn't comment on something you don't know anything about?

Perhaps you misread something that I said, and you're arguing something with yourself.

Curtman Curtman:

Now you're saying it will change that, and it will be more like what we have with booze where the gangs don't bother with it because the 12 year old to 18 year old [booze] market is very small, and the profit margin is low.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

Ok, now you're for alcohol prohibition? You believe that prohibition will make that go away?

Prohibition isn't even up for debate with respect to alcohol. It'll never happen. I hate the effect alcohol has on our society.

Curtman Curtman:

Usage and organized crime involvement went down despite lower prices.

Says who? The illegal cigarette trade is larger than it's ever been.

Curtman Curtman:

Perhaps you misread something that I said, and you're arguing something with yourself.

So the booze market is small (with nothing to back that up) but you and I both know that marijuana use is much higher among the under 19 crowd.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

Usage and organized crime involvement went down despite lower prices.

Says who? The illegal cigarette trade is larger than it's ever been.

So are taxes. This government doesn't understand regulation.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

Perhaps you misread something that I said, and you're arguing something with yourself.

So the booze market is small (with nothing to back that up) but you and I both know that marijuana use is much higher among the under 19 crowd.

I didn't comment on the marijuana market for kids until you asked. But only you know that, I don't think kids experiment more with marijuana than they do with alcohol. I think it's probably about equal.

I was only speculating why gangs aren't involved in alcohol sales, but thrive on marijuana sales, and why its not sold in schools, by kids.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Alcohol consumption costs the Canadian economy 14.6 billion per year.

I don't think so. First of all, that number was developed by an advocacy agency, so it's number are suspect right off the bat. Second of all, if you read the report, they make the assumption that any crime related to alcohol will disappear. That adds up to a staggering cost because alcohol is involved in a stupid number of crimes. It adds up to a good chunk of that 14.6 billion.

They make the old "correlation =- causation" error though (and these guys are supposed to be pros) adn assume that all those crimes would simply go away if alcohol were prohibitied.

In fact, as Prohibition in he US demonstrated, the level of crime went up in prohibition. Right across the board, just about every type of crime. So that "cost" can't be directly assocaited with alcohol.

Next up is the health costs, which is the other big chunk. Now what they do here is look for the costs of various pathologies associated with alcohol--liver cirrhosis, acute alcohol poisoning, alcohol-associated accidents, etc. And they add up the cost for those. It all seems to make sense. But upon closer examination you can see the flaw.

Everybody dies. And most people cost the health care system a bundle on their way out as they try and keep you going for a while longer. So the question is not what alcohol diseases cost, but what they cost above and beyond a statistically "normal" death. This si something that researchers for advocacy agencies don't like to do. I don't know if it's been done with chronic alcoholics, but when you do it with smokers, their supposed "cost" to the health care system diminishes rapidly, sicne they die significantly younger. A very healthy person who lives to be over a hundred costs the system more than a smoker who kicks off at 65.

I'm not advoicating drinking or smoking. I am syaing that there costs are magnified by the nanny state crowd, so they justify telling other people how to live their lives.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

So are taxes. This government doesn't understand regulation.

Neither do you, it seems.

You claimed that usage and crime went down with Chretien lowered the tax on cigarettes. Taxes were lowered while crime and contraban have increased.

Wonderful policy.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't think so. First of all, that number was developed by an advocacy agency, so it's number are suspect right off the bat. Second of all, if you read the report, they make the assumption that any crime related to alcohol will disappear. That adds up to a staggering cost because alcohol is involved in a stupid number of crimes. It adds up to a good chunk of that 14.6 billion.

Sounds a lot like the pro-pot argument, doesn't it?

Why are those types of numbers acceptable to someone like you when it's a pro-pot agency pushing for legalization, but when it's an organization that deals with addiction and mental health, it's wrong? Who's going to publish real information about the harm of booze, the alcohol industry?

The thing is, there's numbers and dozens of references to other studies to go along with that particular study compared to the guess work and estimations from the pro-drug crowd.

The costs of alcohol-related harm
in Canada:
Š
-Totaled $14.6 billion in 2002.
Š
-Alcohol cost the Canadian economy
$7.1 billion in lost productivity due to
illness and premature death.
Š
-The cost in direct health care was
$3.3 billion and $3.1 billion in law
enforcement.

Regardless of which way we look at it, allowing Canadians to drink legally or not costs us more than we bring in, but at minimum, we have some money to help offset those costs.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Sounds a lot like the pro-pot argument, doesn't it?

Why are those types of numbers acceptable to someone like you when it's a pro-pot agency pushing for legalization, but when it's an organization that deals with addiction and mental health, it's wrong? Who's going to publish real information about the harm of booze, the alcohol industry?

The thing is, there's numbers and dozens of references to other studies to go along with that particular study compared to the guess work and estimations from the pro-drug crowd.

The costs of alcohol-related harm
in Canada:
Š
-Totaled $14.6 billion in 2002.
Š
-Alcohol cost the Canadian economy
$7.1 billion in lost productivity due to
illness and premature death.
Š
-The cost in direct health care was
$3.3 billion and $3.1 billion in law
enforcement.

Regardless of which way we look at it, allowing Canadians to drink legally or not costs us more than we bring in, but at minimum, we have some money to help offset those costs.

Who's going to publish real numbers? I don't know. But like I said, given that during prohibition, costs of enforcement increased signficantly, I'll need a stronger argument than what tehse guys have put together on the enforcement costs of pot.

One of the main drivers of prohibition at the time was how much it would reduce crime and enforcement costs. Didn't quite turn out that way.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

So are taxes. This government doesn't understand regulation.

Neither do you, it seems.

You claimed that usage and crime went down with Chretien lowered the tax on cigarettes. Taxes were lowered while crime and contraban have increased.

Wonderful policy.

If you think that prohibition of tobacco will solve tobacco addiction in Canada, you're mistaken. Contraban will increase with the taxation level. Prohibition sets the tax at 100%, which has proven to be a failure. We can manipulate the tax to discourage use or contraban. With prohibition we have no control.

[OnTheIce]

Contraband increased with lower taxes on cigarettes. How do you explain that?

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Contraband increased with lower taxes on cigarettes. How do you explain that?

Lets have some dodge to back that one up please.

[BRAH]

Make pot legal and tax it.

[jj2424]

BRAH BRAH:

Make pot legal and tax it.

Yeah tax it as much as cigarettes . I'm sure Curt and his buddies will quit growing their own...and selling it too.

[BRAH]

jj2424 jj2424:

BRAH BRAH:

Make pot legal and tax it.

Yeah tax it as much as cigarettes . I'm sure Curt and his buddies will quit growing their own...and selling it too.

Alcohol is more dangerous and has resulted in more deaths than pot will ever cause yet alcohol is legal so make pot legal and control it the same way.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Contraband increased with lower taxes on cigarettes. How do you explain that?

Lets have some dodge to back that one up please.

Coming from the guy that dodged a question twice....ironic.


http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/2011/contraband2010.pdf


and...

$1:

In February 1994, the federal government slashed tobacco excise taxes
and offered to match any provincial tax cuts up to $5 per carton (Canada,
House of Commons Debates, 8 February 1994; CRA, 1994; Dupuis, 1998). By
reducing the price of cigarettes, the government intended to reduce the profitability of contraband tobacco and thus eliminate the crime associated with
the black market.4 A marked decline in the volume of contraband seizures
following the tax rollback suggests that the repeal reduced contraband trafficking until the early 2000s (Cunningham, 1996; RCMP, 2010b).

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploaded ... n-canada(1).Pdf

So a couple years of less contraband seizures and we're back to to all-time highs.

[CanadianJeff]

jj2424 jj2424:

BRAH BRAH:

Make pot legal and tax it.

Yeah tax it as much as cigarettes . I'm sure Curt and his buddies will quit growing their own...and selling it too.

People make their own beer all the time so why not let people grow their own pot?

Besides something tells me I'd rather have a guy like Curtman running around with the stuff then the bloody Hell's Angels selling it.