[DerbyX]

QBall QBall:

DerbyX DerbyX:

You can certainly QC the product. Tea is just dried plant leaves also as is tobacco.

You don't burn tea leaves to use it.

So? You burn tobacco too. The issue is quality control. You certainly can QC pot.

[QBall]

DerbyX DerbyX:

QBall QBall:

DerbyX DerbyX:

You can certainly QC the product. Tea is just dried plant leaves also as is tobacco.

You don't burn tea leaves to use it.

So? You burn tobacco too. The issue is quality control. You certainly can QC pot.

No one smokes weed for it's smooth flavour. If pot didn't have THC do you think anyone would want to touch the stuff? All anyone cares about is the THC, so why would you want to QC the stuff except to ensure the THC level is high (pardon the pun)? If anything I'm sure if it was legalized the government would enact regulations to limit the THC level in the producer's product. I assume the stuff grown for the government right now has QC measures in place, yet I've read many articles who say the stuff is crap.

[Robair]

QBall QBall:

DerbyX DerbyX:

So? You burn tobacco too. The issue is quality control. You certainly can QC pot.

No one smokes weed for it's smooth flavour. If pot didn't have THC do you think anyone would want to touch the stuff? All anyone cares about is the THC, so why would you want to QC the stuff except to ensure the THC level is high (pardon the pun)? If anything I'm sure if it was legalized the government would enact regulations to limit the THC level in the producer's product. I assume the stuff grown for the government right now has QC measures in place, yet I've read many articles who say the stuff is crap.

Cigs are all about smooth flavour? Huh. I figured it was the nicotine.

[DerbyX]

Plenty of alcohol is hard to drink yet people do.

The fact remains that you can QC the stuff. Quality in THC content is one issue. Buds, stems, leaves is another. Presence of seeds.

All of it is simply not an argument in anyway against legalization.

[QBall]

Robair Robair:

QBall QBall:

DerbyX DerbyX:

So? You burn tobacco too. The issue is quality control. You certainly can QC pot.

No one smokes weed for it's smooth flavour. If pot didn't have THC do you think anyone would want to touch the stuff? All anyone cares about is the THC, so why would you want to QC the stuff except to ensure the THC level is high (pardon the pun)? If anything I'm sure if it was legalized the government would enact regulations to limit the THC level in the producer's product. I assume the stuff grown for the government right now has QC measures in place, yet I've read many articles who say the stuff is crap.

Cigs are all about smooth flavour? Huh. I figured it was the nicotine.

I don't recall ever seeing a cigarette or cigar ad or hear anyone who smokes tobacco state how good the nicotine is.

[QBall]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Plenty of alcohol is hard to drink yet people do.

The fact remains that you can QC the stuff. Quality in THC content is one issue. Buds, stems, leaves is another. Presence of seeds.

All of it is simply not an argument in anyway against legalization.

People only drink that stuff to get buzzed i.e. old school absinthe, grain alcohol, native's superjuice, etc. No one ever advertises how yummy the stuff is because it's vile.

No one said QC is a reason not to legalize it, however saying that legalizing is going to be a tax windfall therefore legalize it is a pipedream (okay, that pun was intentional) at best. No one is going to pay way more for the same stuff or worse. The day, the wekk, the month, the year, the decade after pot is legalized orgnized crime is still going to be there because there will always be a market for cheap pot.

[Robair]

QC the stuff, regulate it, it's another argument FOR legalizing it. You can control what goes in there. If you buy the wrong stuff now, god knows what you'll get mixed in with it.

[hurley_108]

QBall QBall:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Plenty of alcohol is hard to drink yet people do.

The fact remains that you can QC the stuff. Quality in THC content is one issue. Buds, stems, leaves is another. Presence of seeds.

All of it is simply not an argument in anyway against legalization.

People only drink that stuff to get buzzed i.e. old school absinthe, grain alcohol, native's superjuice, etc. No one ever advertises how yummy the stuff is because it's vile.

No one said QC is a reason not to legalize it, however saying that legalizing is going to be a tax windfall therefore legalize it is a pipedream (okay, that pun was intentional) at best. No one is going to pay way more for the same stuff or worse. The day, the wekk, the month, the year, the decade after pot is legalized orgnized crime is still going to be there because there will always be a market for cheap pot.

Organized crime is involved in selling everything below market price from tobacco to car steros.

[DerbyX]

QBall QBall:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Plenty of alcohol is hard to drink yet people do.

The fact remains that you can QC the stuff. Quality in THC content is one issue. Buds, stems, leaves is another. Presence of seeds.

All of it is simply not an argument in anyway against legalization.

People only drink that stuff to get buzzed i.e. old school absinthe, grain alcohol, native's superjuice, etc. No one ever advertises how yummy the stuff is because it's vile.

No one said QC is a reason not to legalize it, however saying that legalizing is going to be a tax windfall therefore legalize it is a pipedream (okay, that pun was intentional) at best. No one is going to pay way more for the same stuff or worse. The day, the wekk, the month, the year, the decade after pot is legalized orgnized crime is still going to be there because there will always be a market for cheap pot.

Actually it will be a tax windfall. Tax on something that previously wasn't taxed thats used like pot is? Plenty. Savings from not only less policing but less court costs and less jail costs? Plenty there also.

Organized crime is in it for the money. Legalizing it does in fact affect their bottom line. A lot of recreation users (and they account for a great deal) would very likely buy from small time dealers or better yet buy from specialized shops similiar to how alcohol is sold in Ontario.

We would also lead the way and show the US that decriminalization/legalization is a better way. Dealing with the other problems is far better done with education rather then legislation also.

[dino_bobba_renno]

romanP romanP:

Okay. If we're going to use that definition of addiction, then everything from potato chips to video games should be illegal.

It's not about what should be illegal or not, you stated that mj wasn't addictive and that's simply not the case. Just because something doesn't cause a physical dependency doesn't mean that it can't be addictive because addiction is a mental condition not a physical one.

Ask anyone who’s been through treatment. People who simply dry out and don’t follow up with counseling or support groups will all most all ways relapse. Why? Because they’re treating the symptom and not the problem.

On the issue of should something being illegal because it causes physical dependancy, well I think we're a little late for that. There's caffine, nicotine, alcohol, over the counter drugs ........etc, etc. Where should we start?

[dino_bobba_renno]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The m edical definition of addictionis like the UN definition of genocide. It's been inflated to the point of being meaningless. By the above marijuana would certainly be addictive, but then so would hamburgers, chocolate, coffee, gambling, sex and internet chat rooms.

So who's definition should we go by then? Yours?

[dino_bobba_renno]

QBall QBall:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

It would probably work simply for the reason that it would be more accessible and legal of course. I think it would be comparable to bootlegged smokes, ya sure they're cheaper but it's an inconvenience to go through the hassle of buying them.

Except now you're asking the dealers, "Hey now that it's legal would you be so kind as to get a business license, rent a store space, pay for insurance, fill out tax forms, submit returns and subject yourself to federal, provincial and municipal laws and regulators and in the end be severely undercut by the guys who continue to sell illegally?" The current distribution network is well established, so people who want it know where to get it becasue dealers set up in areas where people want it. Marijuana stores (legitimate ones) that set up are going to have to compete with dealers to operate who just down the street. Because of anti-smoking campaigns the demand for cigarettes is going down (slowly), so demand is too sporadic for a smuggled cigarette dealer to set up in many areas, thus the inconvenience factor keeps that trade down.

Well I don't know about you but personally I think it's a heck of a lot easier to go down to my local 7-11 and buy a pack of smokes than it is to call a dealer and buy a 1/2. With the dealer you have to wait, then he doesn't show up, then you call again, then he tells you he's tapped until Monday ............ If pot was marketed and sold the same way as tobacco you can bet your ass dealers would lose business. Did people continue buying off bootleggers after prohibition ended?

Besides the idea isn't to legalize dealers, it's to legalize pot or to decriminalize it in some form and hence get rid of the criminal involvement, same as prohibition.

[CanadianJeff]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

romanP romanP:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

well point in case I've got one big concern before I'd ever back legalized weed and that's knowing what effects it has on a pregnant woman and those with other common conditions such as bipolar and attention disorders.

It gets them baked.

Obviously but THC which can cause short term memory lag attaching the the brain centers of a still developing fetus could have other things it could do. For ill or good. It's worth some investigation.

[CanadianJeff]

romanP romanP:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Ronin your not seriously going to stand there and start arguing that Stoned drivers are not a concern because we should be worried about people driving on cough syrup......

Ronin.. heh. I am indeed a masterless samurai.

No, I'm arguing that worrying about people driving under the influence of anything is what we should worry about, not just marijuana or alcohol.

$1:

If you legalize a drug used as a social high of course more people are going to be driving after using it.....

No more than people who already smoke drive while high.

Opps sorry that's a pretty bad typo. You are most totally not a samurai hehe.

I present to you the equation I don't think you quite get.

if let's say..20% of people who get stoned drive while stoned and 3000 people smoke pot then 600 people drive while high.

now let's say we legalize pot and more people light up because they can get clean cheap weed at the pharmacy.

So now we have 6000 people smoking pot and let's assume that we have the same 20% of people driving while stoned. That means 1200 people are now driving while stoned and that means more drivers on the road under the influence. That's my argument. It's very simple math.

[Lemmy]

[q