Legalize it!

I think that the examples you mentioned though require a lot more work than something as natural as marijuana. People don't really have a lot of access to making their own TVs and prescription drugs as much as they do to planting a lot of seeds.

Typically if you're considering the organic quality of pot itself, most people who buy produce, consider the "farmer's market"-type stuff to be superior, so while I think that big companies might compete, they'd also have some competition from home growers as well.

Well yeah, when you're talking about apples, anybody can grow an apple and sell it at a farmer's market, TMC. But there would be major government regulation on weed, just as there is for tobacco. Not anybody would be allowed to grow weed and sell it. I mean, we're talking about legalizing weed and everything, but that doesn't mean the government wouldn't watch its production like a hawk just as it does for tobacco. There would be strict government regulation and red tape, which would be a major barrier to entry for anyone but big business.

That's why you don't hear much about mom & pop ciggarrette makers.

Also, the farmer's market may have the best produce but Kroger and Wal-Mart are closer to the neighborhoods that has the largest buying power which means their produce generates more profit. People inherently seek out the most efficient method of expending energy/time/effort. We have a Wal-Mart 250 yards away from our house, literally. We also have a country store about 2 miles away that sells local fruit and vegetable produce that clearly are superior in quality. Wal-Mart's closer so I go there and buy a bag of apples so I can get back home and read this thread.




It's really disgusting how much time I spend on this site, btw.

I have snorted ketamine off of bathroom floors before. I also graduated first in my class in college. This is proof that drugs are not harmful. OWNED!

What a dismal understanding of supply and demand you have.

You say it's dismal, yet you proceed to confirm everything I wrote with regard to the drop in price due to the laws of supply and demand.

And you're right, since the act of growing a weed in your backyard is somewhat less complicated than micro brewing, that does make your comparison to Anheuser-Busch rather asinine.

If legalized, it would be American companies like Phillip Morris trying to grow it here in the states competing against Columbian growers who have much lower labor costs, lower costs of land, and require no new capital investment. The high supply of weed in the market, and increased competition between companies like Phillip Morris and overseas growers will push the price WAAAY down. Competition will push the price down so far that South American growers will be able to drop their prices below the point at which Phillip Morris could cover their costs. The South Americans would still turn a profit even on their lower margins, simply because the costs are so much lower. Phillip Morris's margin would be so bad they'd be forced out.

Exactly. Big Business may not rush to enter into the market for marijuana production. Since it's a weed, people don't have to be agriculture experts to grow it. More confirmations of my post. I guess "effing" business school isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The affect on our currency in the global market would not be anywhere close to being offset by savings on law enforcement and all that crap. The government wouldn't cut back costs on law enforcement, they'd just redirect their attention to other issues. The government doesn't have competition like business does; there's no incentive for them to cut police officers or border control agents.

I never said the government would "cut police officers or border control agents." Do you have any idea how much money the United States Government spends on the War on Drugs? I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but I can assure you the number contains lots of commas.

Is it your position that a redirection of resources away from the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration of marijuana users wouldn't make for a wiser and more effective use of available funds? The fact that they concentrate their attention on crimes that actually infringe on the rights of others as opposed to vice type crimes contradicts that argument.

Ask your econ buddies what the total effect would be on our currency. I'd bet the difference would be minimal. Our country's overall economic strengths in just about every other area would offset any decline that you speak of.

At some point, I guess I will come to the realization that arguing with someone who admits to not using logic and objectivity is a pointless waste of time.

As far as people saying weed should remain illegal because there isn't a way to test drivers for it, I respond to that by asking: is there a way to test to see if a truck driver is too tired to be driving; is there a way to test to make the Claritin and percocet that an old lady just took impair her driving; how can you test to see if someone got into an accident because they were looking at street signs or something stupid like that?
Personally, I don't think people should drive when they're high but I absolutely do not buy the argument weed should stay illegal because cops can't test drivers for it.

This seems like a weak protest, AMD. You're saying that since we don't test tired truck driver's or drugged out old ladies then we should also not test for all people who are high? There will be truck drivers and old ladies that will be in that group that are tested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. Truck driver's are regular everyday people like you and me and old ladies who have glaucoma may use it to relieve their ailments.

That line of reasoning also seems to indicate that we should also just do away with breathalizer's. How else is a police officer going to have scientific evidence that a person is under the influence of a motor-skill inhibiting or hallucinogenic drug other than testing for it?

Ask your econ buddies what the total effect would be on our currency. I'd bet the difference would be minimal. Our country's overall economic strengths in just about every other area would offset any decline that you speak of.
Don't forget the sharp increase in the U.S. demand for sour cream and onion chips with some dip, some beef jerky, some peanut butter. Häagen-Dazs ice cream bars, a whole lot, chocolate, gotta have chocolate. Some popcorn, red popcorn, graham crackers, graham crackers with marshmallows, the little marshmallows and little chocolate bars and for s'mores. Also, celery, grape jelly, Cap'n Crunch with the little Crunch berries, pizzas. Big pizza's with everything on 'em, with water, whole lotta water, and Funyons. (Great Movie)

This will surely impact the economy in a positive way.

(I'm done talking about economic impact since I really don't know enough about it... just thought I'd lighten the thread up)

Don't forget the sharp increase in the U.S. demand for sour cream and onion chips with some dip, some beef jerky, some peanut butter. Häagen-Dazs ice cream bars, a whole lot, chocolate, gotta have chocolate. Some popcorn, red popcorn, graham crackers, graham crackers with marshmallows, the little marshmallows and little chocolate bars and for s'mores. Also, celery, grape jelly, Cap'n Crunch with the little Crunch berries, pizzas. Big pizza's with everything on 'em, with water, whole lotta water, and Funyons. (Great Movie)

This will surely impact the economy in a positive way.

(I'm done talking about economic impact since I really don't know enough about it... just thought I'd lighten the thread up)

damn I'm hungry now

This seems like a weak protest, AMD. You're saying that since we don't test tired truck driver's or drugged out old ladies then we should also not test for all people who are high? There will be truck drivers and old ladies that will be in that group that are tested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. Truck driver's are regular everyday people like you and me and old ladies who have glaucoma may use it to relieve their ailments.

That line of reasoning also seems to indicate that we should also just do away with breathalizer's. How else is a police officer going to have scientific evidence that a person is under the influence of a motor-skill inhibiting or hallucinogenic drug other than testing for it?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't test people to see if they're DWHigh, nor am I saying that people who do cause accidents while high shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I don't see how this line of thinking has anything to do with getting rid of breathalizers, because they're a proven method of proving that a driver is too impaired to be behind the wheel.
Hell, if they develop a test to see if drivers were high they should use it. For now, they should probably just use the standard roadside test (walk the line; touch your nose; etc) that they use for drunk drivers.

What I am trying to say is that I find the whole "you can't test drivers to see if they're high, so weed should remain illegal" argument to be rather weak. What I meant by my examples is that there is no test to see if (for instance) a trucker caused an accident because he'd been on the road too long and he was too tired, or that the old lady on allergy meds was just as out of it as if she just took a couple hits off a bong. To me, these are very similiar to DWH and they also can't be tested for.

Why are people who smoke cigs assholes? and whats the difference of second hand bong hit smoke or other wise, seriously? And no, smoking shouldnt be banned in public, outside. But if they ever do, they need to also ban the following: dudes who wear their pants halfway down their ass, and cussing in public in front of little children, and white rapper wannabe thugs(posers) fat ladys wearing spandex, men who want their tongue and or belly button pierced, al sharpton, pantys on hot chicks in short skirts on windy days, sanjia, al gore, rude people in customer service............. i could go on forever, but i think you get the point.

People who smoke are not assholes. I smoked cigarettes for 6 years. It's the people who have no consideration for non-smokers, and smoke their cigarettes in places where non-smokers MUST be exposed to it -- like right in front of a door to a public building. How am I supposed to enter the building without breathing the smoke and negatively affecting my health?

If smoking pot were legal, I would approach it in the same manner. People need to respect the rights of others to be healthy.

As for the other things you mentioned, they do not adversely affect people's health. They are just inconveniences. You can't very well justify making a law against something because it is inconvenient. You can, however, justify making a law against something for health concerns -- like smoking in public.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't test people to see if they're DWHigh, nor am I saying that people who do cause accidents while high shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I don't see how this line of thinking has anything to do with getting rid of breathalizers, because they're a proven method of proving that a driver is too impaired to be behind the wheel.
Hell, if they develop a test to see if drivers were high they should use it. For now, they should probably just use the standard roadside test (walk the line; touch your nose; etc) that they use for drunk drivers.

What I am trying to say is that I find the whole "you can't test drivers to see if they're high, so weed should remain illegal" argument to be rather weak. What I meant by my examples is that there is no test to see if (for instance) a trucker caused an accident because he'd been on the road too long and he was too tired, or that the old lady on allergy meds was just as out of it as if she just took a couple hits off a bong. To me, these are very similiar to DWH and they also can't be tested for.

Okay, I gotcha. My whole contention is ensuring that the roads do not get any more dangerous than they already are. It's a safety concern I have for family. I, as an individual, am not all that particularly worried about anything happening. I've always had a "devil may care" attitude. But now that I'm married and with a 20 month old I always look for any potentially dangerous situations. I can't control the actions of a drunk driver nor a person who is high (or tired or drugged out). I can try to help pass legislature that puts into effect a screening process that law enforcement can use to help keep those irresponsible f*ckups off the street.

We're not going to be able to control every possible reason why a person is impaired but we can take preventative actions to reduce the potential for an even greater number of traffic accidents.