Legal Marijuana Would Be a Boon For Consumers

Search

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Jacob Sullum over at Reason.com delivers this smart essay in retort to Prohibitionist hand-wringing that "if Prop 19 passes in November, marijuana prices will plummet and use will increase"

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/28/these-buds-are-for-you


These Buds Are for You

Legal marijuana would be a boon for California consumers.



A group called Public Safety First warns that "the pre-tax price of marijuana could substantially decline" and "consumption of marijuana would increase" if Californians vote to legalize the drug in November.



Well, yes, that's sort of the idea.


Proposition 19, a California ballot initiative that would legalize cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal use while authorizing local governments to allow commercial production and sale, would move marijuana into a legal, regulated market, transforming criminals into consumers. Lower prices and increased use mean greater consumer satisfaction, something that should be welcomed rather than feared.


But Public Safety First, which is running the campaign against Prop. 19, is all about fear. Its website features photos of a doctor, a teacher, a judge, and a cop with joints dangling ridiculously from their mouths, suggesting prohibition is the only thing that prevents people from getting stoned at work. It says "bus drivers, forklift operators, hospital technicians, crossing guards who might be stoned could be coming to your community."


Yes, these people might be stoned, but that is true whether or not Prop. 19 passes. And even if marijuana disappeared tomorrow, all of these people could come to work drunk. Yet Public Safety First is not campaigning for a return to alcohol prohibition, because it understands that workplace intoxication can be addressed through less sweeping measures that do not penalize responsible consumers for the sins of a reckless minority.


If we remove the terror-tinted lenses of Prop. 19's opponents, we start to see the benefits of treating marijuana more like alcohol. A recent RAND Corporation study estimates that the retail price of legal marijuana would be less than one-fifth the black-market price. Based on numbers in the RAND report, that translates into annual savings of $5 billion or so for current consumers—money that would be available for other uses.


Some of those savings would be sucked up by sales and excise taxes on newly legal marijuana. The California Legislative Analyst's Office recently projected that "state and local governments could eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenues" as a result of Prop. 19.


Lower prices, greater convenience, and the elimination of legal risk can be expected to boost marijuana consumption. RAND considers it plausible that the number of current users would double, to about 4 million, or 14 percent of California's adult population. These new users also would receive a big consumer benefit, enjoying a wide variety of cannabis products that are worth as much to them as they are willing to pay—on the order of $1 billion a year.


Continuing to look at this from a consumer's perspective, we need to consider not just the law enforcement money saved by the state of California (around $300 million a year, according to RAND) but the arrest-related costs that pot smokers no longer have to bear.



About 75,000 people are arrested on marijuana charges in California each year, the vast majority for simple possession. While they typically do not spend much time behind bars, they face legal expenses and the lifelong handicap of a criminal record, costs that may dwarf the money spent on enforcement.


Those costs fall disproportionately on black people. A recent study by Queens College sociologist Harry Levine found that blacks in California's 25 largest counties are two to four times as likely as whites to be busted for marijuana possession, even though survey data indicate they are no more likely to smoke pot. The California NAACP cited these racially skewed numbers when it endorsed Prop. 19.


Public Safety First, of course, does not care what happens to pot smokers, whom it depicts as public menaces. But since research indicates that marijuana does not impair driving ability nearly as much as alcohol does, more pot smoking, if accompanied by less drinking, could actually improve public safety.



The legal availability of a less dangerous intoxicant would benefit the general public as well as consumers.


Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,696
Tokens
but I thought pot was already a "healthy" alternative? is it safe or not?
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
but I thought pot was already a "healthy" alternative? is it safe or not?

Compared to what?


---------------
Meanwhile, the pertinent issue for California voters has little to do with marijuana's potential efficacy and/or risks.

Rather, the vote has everything to do with who will be in primary control of commercial production and distribution within the state.

Opponents of Prop 19 are advocating that said control remain in the hands of criminal street dealers and the Mexican cartels. Voters are being presented with the opportunity to change that.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,696
Tokens
something is safe or not safe based on whether or not it's safe or not safe, not based on how it compares to something else

you cited an article, and the author concluded "The legal availability of a less dangerous intoxicant would benefit the general public as well as consumers". But I had heard that it was already safe, after all, nobody dies from it and it's not unhealthy, or something along those lines.

 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
2,933
Tokens
It is safe 5000 years of use and never one death to be blamed on cannabis. It is now being shown through studies that the combination of thc and other canniboids actually help stop the growth of certain brain and neck cancers. As conservatives I don't see how they oppose legalization. Cut down on prision costs law enforcement cost let cops actually go after real bad guys like murders rapists and violent offenders don't even get me started on the personal freedoms that prohibition violates
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
W99: Something is safe or not safe based on whether or not it's safe or not safe, not based on how it compares to something else

B: A comparison is demanded because the very word "safe" is a subjective term.

----
W: you cited an article, and the author concluded "The legal availability of a less dangerous intoxicant would benefit the general public as well as consumers".

B: This is a reasonable submission by Sullum.

----
W: But I had heard that it was already safe, after all, nobody dies from it and it's not unhealthy, or something along those lines.

B: I of course have no idea what you "heard", who it was from, so can't offer any notable response to the above.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
If your standard for using the word safe is founded on the potential for lethal overdose, than of course yes - marijuana is 100% "safe".

However, given range of people, we will likely be offered a range of standards by which they would seek to measure the potential "safety" of using cannabis.

Once someone identifies the standards, "safety" can then be analyzed with reasonable accuracy.

---
But, as noted in Post #3, the issue for voters (and the topic addressed by Sullum's essay) is not the potential efficacy and/or risks of using cannabis, but rather - who will be in primary control of commercial production and distribution.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,696
Tokens
It is safe 5000 years of use and never one death to be blamed on cannabis.

link please

and did I ever say I was opposed to the legalization?

and, it appears the author cited must think something is presently not so safe. Unless you can tell me why he would otherwise conclude

"The legal availability of a less dangerous intoxicant would benefit the general public as well as consumers".

are you saying that when he says "less dangerous", he really means it's not dangerous to begin with?

 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,696
Tokens
If your standard for using the word safe is founded on the potential for lethal overdose, than of course yes - marijuana is 100% "safe".

However, given range of people, we will likely be offered a range of standards by which they would seek to measure the potential "safety" of using cannabis.

Once someone identifies the standards, "safety" can then be analyzed with reasonable accuracy.

---
But, as noted in Post #3, the issue for voters (and the topic addressed by Sullum's essay) is not the potential efficacy and/or risks of using cannabis, but rather - who will be in primary control of commercial production and distribution.

define "less dangerous"
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
In the context of Sullum's essay, marijuana is a less dangerous intoxicant than "alcohol".*

The reason we can confidently draw that inference is because at this time, alcohol is the most popular intoxicant used by adults not only in California, but nationwide and worldwide. So it would be the most likely inferred "compared to what" which I posed in previous post

And remaining within that context, he also specifies that "legal availability" of less dangerous intoxicants is preferable not only for the welfare of the general public, but most certainly for consumers.
---------
*If you personally happen to be uncertain of the lead claim, I'm not sure what else I have to offer.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
The drug alcohol as most commonly consumed by North Americans has it's own range of potential risks that must be reviewed to better define their level of safety in consuming them.

For the most simple table of comparisons, we can line up wine, half-strength beer, full strength beer, extra strength beer, ales, liquers and up the range of various liquors depending on strength.

If we stay solely within the above range of products wec an agree that "legal availability to less dangerous intoxicants" (from the above range) such as wines and half strength beer are good for the general public and for consumers alike.

This in contrast to an imaginary market where say, only 151Rum and Everclear were legally available, with all others illegal.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,696
Tokens
I see what he's saying now

"smoke more pot, drink less, society will be better off"

that's a stretch, or at least a very big assumption, but that's his argument







in all seriousness, I just can't make those type of arguments, or take them serious. I'm not sure that will help with the legalization process.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
37,214
Tokens
When National health care kicks in they are going to say we are not covering any of the ill effects from Tobacco,Booze,Drugs including pot & Obesity..We'll just simply let you die...That will stop a lot of people in their tracks & force them to live healthier lives & drop their bad habits...
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,696
Tokens
When National health care kicks in they are going to say we are not covering any of the ill effects from Tobacco,Booze,Drugs including pot & Obesity..We'll just simply let you die...That will stop a lot of people in their tracks & force them to live healthier lives & drop their bad habits...

or some of us may just choose to die

:)
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
W99: I see what he's saying now

"smoke more pot, drink less, society will be better off"

that's a stretch, or at least a very big assumption, but that's his argument

B: If you're troubled by the thesis statement that cannabis use is less dangerous to both the community and to the consumer than is alcohol use, I can see why you might perceive his conclusions as shaky.

Speaking for myself and drawing on my personal experiences not only using virtually every notable intoxicant available, but - more important - also my almost 12 years working in drug treatment and recovery settings with people who likewise used (and often AB-used) every notable intoxicant available: It is inarguable that the use of cannabis carries far less risk to human beings than does the use of alcohol.

Thus the posed theme of "Cannabis use increases and alcohol use decreases" translates very easily to a net benefit to not only the community but to those who consume intoxicants.

That noted, it does not then lead to any absurd suggestion that "since alcohol use carries more risk, we should make IT illegal".

Criminally prohibiting ANY intoxicant that is in significant demand instantly creates a long list of dangerous consequences to both individuals and to the community at large.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
in all seriousness, I just can't make those type of arguments, or take them serious. I'm not sure that will help with the legalization process.

As I've now noted twice, Sullum is not writing to "facilitate" (or for that matter to inhibit) the legalization process.

He's merely positing as to the inevitable consequences that will follow the passage of Prop 19

If he, or I, or anyone else wish to "help the legalization process" we would spend little time talking about the potential efficacies and/or the potential risks of the substance in question.

Rather, we would - as the backers of Prop19 are doing - focus on comparing the differences between having in-demand intoxicants be accessible legally or having in-demand intoxicants illegal to be accessed.

We'll ruefully note that Prohibitionists by and large fail to understand this.

So they try and derail the most pertinent question (legal vs illegal production & distribution) with long, boring discussion of "how dangerous marijuana is to use!"

In doing so, they shoot themselves in the foot, because if in fact an intoxicant is "dangerous to use", it is increasingly urgent that it's commercial production and distribution be reasonably controlled.

Prohibitionists believe that in-demand intoxicants they perceive as "dangerous" are best controlled by criminal cartels, street dealers and other organized crime.

Those of us seeking to change the law believe that in-demand intoxicants are best controlled by a reasonable combination of government and private business regulation.

It is between those two points of view that California voters will choose this coming November.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,696
Tokens
I would say being intoxicated is being intoxicated, drawing from my own experiences

I think it's kinda silly to argue that being stoned is safer than being drunk

does pot ever make you smarter? or more alert? healthier?

if you want to argue that alcohol is legal and cigarettes are legal so pot should be legal, I've made that argument myself. But I don't tend pretend it's about healthier lifestyle choices,
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,696
Tokens
Yeah....Barman would rather die than quit smoking pot Im sure of it...Get ready to pee in a cup...Drug tests will be mandatory to be covered...

I was speaking for myself.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
W99: I would say being intoxicated is being intoxicated, drawing from my own experiences

I think it's kinda silly to argue that being stoned is safer than being drunk

B: You're expressing yourself honestly, which is fair enough.

Those who have studied not only the physiological effects, but the psychological effects created from the use of various intoxicants can demonstrate there's actually a wide range of difference.

Most notable...but certainly not an all-inclusive list:

Alcohol has anesthetic properties which in sufficient quantity quite simply shut down the central nervous system.

For most people that shutdown begins after just a couple drinks, in that many routine physical aches and pains no longer reach the brain. If ingestion continues, other parts of the CNS also begin to disengage - notably physical motor control, hand to eye coordination, ability to walk etc

Often in the same time frame, the ability to "think before you speak" is greatly hampered as well.

Given sufficient ingestion in a short enough time period, an alcohol user will physically and mentally collapse - aka "pass out".

They are not "asleep" per se. Rather, their CNS has been shut down so far that further conscious and voluntary behavior is impossible.

---
Cannabis users can also "overdose". But the principle effects are psychological, not physiological. The one exception to the latter is that many users commonly find themself sleepy and will often elect to fall asleep. Literally.

This is distinct from "passing out" in an alcohol overdose, when the central nervous system has shut down.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,106,780
Messages
13,438,957
Members
99,339
Latest member
billcunninghamhomeloans
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com