Forums | MacLife

more or less wrote:

so, you think we would have as many DUI's if prohibition continued?  keep in mind, my point is predicated on the reality of how it would likely be regulated...

Dunno. Could go either way, really.

more or less wrote:

well,

i'd love to see a comparison of DUIs deaths versus a hypothetical continuatuation of prohibition.  also, keep in mind that was a restriction of an existing freedom.  you have not had a right to smoke pot.

also, the amount and cost of regulation, consider MADD and whatnot, to get us to this point of "lesser DUI rates" is rather high.  i just don't think pot is worth all that.

and it has been fairly decriminlized already.

Has it?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

more or less wrote:

well,

i'd love to see a comparison of DUIs deaths versus a hypothetical continuatuation of prohibition.  also, keep in mind that was a restriction of an existing freedom.  you have not had a right to smoke pot.

also, the amount and cost of regulation, consider MADD and whatnot, to get us to this point of "lesser DUI rates" is rather high.  i just don't think pot is worth all that.

and it has been fairly decriminlized already.

Has it?

arrest rates have nothing to do with the laws becoming laxer.  keep in mind i live in california.

Last edited by more or less (2005-03-04 8:46 pm)

matt wrote:

more or less wrote:

well,

i'd love to see a comparison of DUIs deaths versus a hypothetical continuatuation of prohibition.  also, keep in mind that was a restriction of an existing freedom.  you have not had a right to smoke pot.

You have not had a right to smoke pot?

Marijuana was legal in the United States until the early 20th century(1937), as were opium and cocaine.

that was pretty much hemp, and far cry from what we have today.  whats the increase in THC content....

like 400 times what it was?

thus, my points about regulation come back into play.  what you want, versus what you would get are huge discrepencies.

and i dont know about you, but i was not smoking pot in 1936.. were you?

Last edited by more or less (2005-03-04 8:57 pm)

KingFred wrote:

The only real difference legalizing pot would do is 1) drop the price and make it less profitable for it to be grown and shipped by Big Time Organized Crime (mostly your biker gangs, if the stories are to be believed)

the market and the corps will determine price.  how do you know what the price would do or be?  and it would be taxed to smurf from the get-go.

i see no real differnce between RJR and a street gang.  only that one has liability protection.

KingFred wrote:

2) allow all those people who are already doing it illegally to do it legally. This great "panic" about the world suddenly turning into a pot-head Utopia is pretty much just some more FUD in the same vein as Reefer Madness.

okay, carnac.

KingFred wrote:

Would there be a spike in use when it was made legal? Of course. Would the spike continue? I doubt it.

that'll get some legislation passed!

KingFred wrote:

People who don't want to do it now would continue to not want to do it.

stunning.

KingFred wrote:

People who want to do it now can do it anyway, it's just more expensive and slightly difficult to get, but hardly impossible.

however, you have already acknowldged the obvious fact that is usage would increase bigtime.  get some Greens at the 7-11, are you kidding?  it would go through the smurfing roof.

i'm sure the cops will dig it.  whats the ratio of drug related battery and theft?  what will it be then?

KingFred wrote:

[... edited styer rant...]it's been said by many here and elsewhere before and I'll repeat it once more: make pot legal and you kill the illegal pot trade.

wrong.  moonshine is even still a problem.  alcohol and tobacco fraud from china is one of the greatest "problems" in our trade relations/  budweiser has had to come out with a bottle with a hologram on it to try to tackle this.

kiss paper labels good-bye.

maybe we whould legalize opium, help out the afghani's? 

KingFred wrote:

You also take pot away from dealers who'll also push other harder drugs (though frankly, I've known very few pot dealers who did that) which can't be anything but better.

again, this is predicated on street pot being decriminalized... the ONLY REASON prohibition was ended has more to do with Mr. Anheiser Busch then your local user wanting his freedom.

i think pragmatism dictates its best to just keep things as they are, and slowly continue to decriminalize the possession.  three strikes for light possession must not happen.  your perspective seems disconnected with the likely reality, imho.

and btw, MADD has 17,000 related DUI deaths in 2003.  figure maybe 60% were "caused" by the "I" - that'd be 10,000 deaths.  that is not a small figure, imho.  i won't even bother with other crimes under the influence or to support drug habbits.

just because they are legal, does not mean people will stop becoming addicted and doing some stupid illegal smurf.  more users, more stupid smurf happens.

Last edited by more or less (2005-03-04 9:06 pm)

more or less wrote:

that was pretty much hemp, and far cry from what we have today.  whats the increase in THC content....

like 400 times what it was?

Ahh the old increase in THC defense. If you are talking about the commercial brick weed from Mexico then I call bullsmurf, now if you are talking about Indoor/Hydro then I can believe it. So tell me what does it really do besides get you a better high?