[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

I think any rational legalization of pot would allow for small scale home production. I don't know about growing greenhouses full of it the way tomatoes and peppers are grown tho. I like the idea of sin taxes because it makes the users pay for the costs associated with their drug of choice.

Nobody grows greenhouses of tomatoes for their own use. We'd still prohibit trafficking under my scheme.

[Unsound]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It won't STOP it, but it's reasonable to presume that legalization will reduce drug crime by a similar degree that reversing prohibition in the 1920s reduced alcohol-related crime. Are you suggesting that legalizing alcohol didn't reduce the crime associated with the illegal liquor trade?

Pretty safe to say you won't get an answer to this one. The anti-legalizations folks never seem to have an answer to this one.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

I think any rational legalization of pot would allow for small scale home production. I don't know about growing greenhouses full of it the way tomatoes and peppers are grown tho. I like the idea of sin taxes because it makes the users pay for the costs associated with their drug of choice.

Nobody grows greenhouses of tomatoes for their own use. We'd still prohibit trafficking under my scheme.

So you would only allow growing for personal use, everything else is illegal? That won't make much of a dent in the market. Most people are not motivated to grow their own. Many aren't chronic users, many chronics couldn't have the energy or the place to do it.

[andyt]

Unsound Unsound:

Lemmy Lemmy:

It won't STOP it, but it's reasonable to presume that legalization will reduce drug crime by a similar degree that reversing prohibition in the 1920s reduced alcohol-related crime. Are you suggesting that legalizing alcohol didn't reduce the crime associated with the illegal liquor trade?

Pretty safe to say you won't get an answer to this one. The anti-legalizations folks never seem to have an answer to this one.

Yes, their claim is that gangs went into other things like drugs, which is true. I don't know what other things gangs could get into this time, since they're already pushing God's cornucopia of drugs now. White collar e-crime I guess.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

So you would only allow growing for personal use, everything else is illegal? That won't make much of a dent in the market. Most people are not motivated to grow their own. Many aren't chronic users, many chronics couldn't have the energy or the place to do it.

Most people aren't motivated to grow their own for three reasons:
1. If they get caught, they're in shit;
2. They're more likely to get caught growing, which exposes them to risk of being caught for 5 months rather than for 5 seconds when buying from a dealer;
3. They're worried about someone snatching their plants.
If everyone was allowed to grow it freely, all of those risks would be greatly reduced.

I'm not suggesting my system is perfect, but it's a much better system then either the current one or any proposal involving government distribution and taxation, such as with alcohol and tobacco.

[andyt]

I guess we could give it a try. As I said, even if they bring in govt distribution, they would be nuts not to allow small amounts to be grown at home. But, unless the US also legalizes, anything we do won't have much of an impact on crime.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

I think any rational legalization of pot would allow for small scale home production. I don't know about growing greenhouses full of it the way tomatoes and peppers are grown tho. I like the idea of sin taxes because it makes the users pay for the costs associated with their drug of choice.

If you really want to make users pay, you should be supporting a privatized medical system. That way, those that harm themsleves with their drug of choice pay, either directly, or through higher insurance. That way fat people, smokers, drinkers, pot smokers, etc, would be paying their own way.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

I think any rational legalization of pot would allow for small scale home production. I don't know about growing greenhouses full of it the way tomatoes and peppers are grown tho. I like the idea of sin taxes because it makes the users pay for the costs associated with their drug of choice.

If you really want to make users pay, you should be supporting a privatized medical system. That way, those that harm themsleves with their drug of choice pay, either directly, or through higher insurance. That way fat people, smokers, drinkers, pot smokers, etc, would be paying their own way.

Nah, spread the risk. But where it's possible, put back some of the costs on the user. I would tax high fructose corn syrup too.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

I don't give even half a shit about my "right" to smoke or your right to drink. I care about stopping the violence and the destruction to families caused by the drug war, and waking people up to the fact that the drug war does no good, only harm.

Nobody believes that.

Nobody believes that a pot smoker is pushing forward for legalization to be a crime fighter.

To make matters worse, legalization won't stop crime or violence associated with drugs.

It won't STOP it, but it's reasonable to presume that legalization will reduce drug crime by a similar degree that reversing prohibition in the 1920s reduced alcohol-related crime. Are you suggesting that legalizing alcohol didn't reduce the crime associated with the illegal liquor trade?

Precisely.

Curtman says he wants to "stop" violence associated with the drug trade. I'm sure he doesn't mean stop it completely as you'll never stop it....you may make a dent for a period of time until the new thing comes along and they're back fighting for turf.

Growing up in Toronto, I saw the evolution of street gangs selling all types of products. Acid, cigarettes and marijuana. Hell, even when they ran low on acid, they cut up construction paper, soaked it in lawn fertilizer and sold it to kids.

In the end, decriminalization will do nothing in terms of gang involvement. It'll just free up the time spent by the police and courts working with those on simple possession charges.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Precisely.

Curtman says he wants to "stop" violence associated with the drug trade. I'm sure he doesn't mean stop it completely as you'll never stop it....you may make a dent for a period of time until the new thing comes along and they're back fighting for turf.

Growing up in Toronto, I saw the evolution of street gangs selling all types of products. Acid, cigarettes and marijuana. Hell, even when they ran low on acid, they cut up construction paper, soaked it in lawn fertilizer and sold it to kids.

In the end, decriminalization will do nothing in terms of gang involvement. It'll just free up the time spent by the police and courts working with those on simple possession charges.

Of course thugs are always going to attempt thuggary. But we know that between 60 and 80% of their revenue comes from marijuana. Cutting that out, plus the relief on courts and police that you mentioned, certainly seems to justify changing the laws.

[andyt]

What exactly is it the gangs will get into that can replace pot as such a huge income source? When alcohol was outlawed they got into drugs in a bigger way, now there's not much room to expand there. If they're selling fake drugs in any quantity, it wouldn't take long for that market to dry up. They might get more into white collar and e-crime, but they're moving in that direction already, legalization or no. I think legalization here and in the US would make a big dent in gang profits on an ongoing basis, which will eventually lead to a reduction in gang activity, and less guns and hard drugs brought into Canada.

But, as has been pointed out, we'd better hope the US doesn't legalize any time soon - it would be a big hit for Canada's export business, especially in BC. Towns hit hard by the slow lumber industry would be in serious trouble.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Of course thugs are always going to attempt thuggary. But we know that between 60 and 80% of their revenue comes from marijuana. Cutting that out, plus the relief on courts and police that you mentioned, certainly seems to justify changing the laws.

Again, decriminalization won't have that effect. Will it make a dent, perhaps...but I think the dent will be marginal at best.

We won't have a sudden influx of people rushing to turn their basement pantry into a personal grow up. In my opinion, you will still have the majority of pot users looking to get their weed from the same guy that's been selling it to them all this time.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Again, decriminalization won't have that effect. Will it make a dent, perhaps...but I think the dent will be marginal at best.

I don't advocate decriminalization. I'm for all-out legalization. But either way, we'll never know the effects without trying. I think 60 - 80% reduction in gang revenues qualifies as more than a "dent".

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

We won't have a sudden influx of people rushing to turn their basement pantry into a personal grow up. In my opinion, you will still have the majority of pot users looking to get their weed from the same guy that's been selling it to them all this time.

That guy who's selling it for, say, $100/ounce, is going to have a tough time getting that for it once it can be had for $1 a seed, which yields a pound. But again, we'll never know if don't try. Logic seems to dictate trying a change.

[Scape]

Do gangs run booze?

No.

Why?

No profit in it.

Why?

It's legal.

Remove the profit and you remove the gangs.

[andyt]

Scape Scape:

Do gangs run booze?

No.

Why?

No profit in it.

Why?

It's legal.

Remove the profit and you remove the gangs.

According to OTI they do and make big profits, same with cigs.