Do you think marijuana is illegal still due to governments inability to profit off it

[CrystalLight]

I think that marijuana is the type of drug paralleling to nicotine and alcohol, minus the addiction factor. And if the government could find way to profit from it like they do the other two, then they would have no qualms legalizing it.

I also think that's the only real reason it hasn't been legalized yet, also due to the fact that the government controls a large part of the drug as well. If the US didn't want drugs in our country, I don't think it would happen. Due solely to how powerful our military is.

It's not hard to grow weed. It can be grown indoors under relatively simple circumstances and you don't need to grow 10 trees unless you plan on distribution. You could rotate out one tree a month, to keep you and a friend high for the month and then continue on doing so. Because of that, there isn't much way to profit from it. So that is why we're still fighting to have it legalized.

[Cy/MiG]

Well, in theory they WOULD profit off of it (I suppose).

Plus, they're already profiting from it through tax payers $$$ and tickets/fines of those caught and charged.

I don't think the government cares; they'll take their money any way they can get it.

[venray]

They could sell it and tax the hell out of it and it would be far cheaper to buy than it is now...if marketed properly it would sell fine as most people would be toolazy to grow there own if they wanted good quality,,,

:veryhappy

[Cy/MiG]

I also think that's the only real reason it hasn't been legalized yet, also due to the fact that the government controls a large part of the drug as well. If the US didn't want drugs in our country, I don't think it would happen. Due solely to how powerful our military is.

US Army/Air Force/Marines/Navy (including Gaurd and Reserves) don't stop drug trafficking (except perhaps the Navy...?).

It's mainly only the ATF, DEA and Coast Gaurd (perhaps CIA/FBI).

Military power doesn't really relate to the equation, lest we started a bunch of drug cartel wars.

It's not hard to grow weed. It can be grown indoors under relatively simple circumstances and you don't need to grow 10 trees unless you plan on distribution. You could rotate out one tree a month, to keep you and a friend high for the month and then continue on doing so. Because of that, there isn't much way to profit from it. So that is why we're still fighting to have it legalized.

The gov't would regulate how much people would grow.

I gaurantee this.

They'd create a new agency and then hire people to check everybody's homes to keep track of amount grown, etc (They already check power bills to find potential drug houses.)

Also, there would probably be a limit to how much you could carry.

'Free Drug Rules' (for Gonja) would/will probably NEVER come to pass in the US in my lifetime, if ever.

[Redmage]

I don't think government revenues are the main reason for marijuana to be illegal. Break it down and look at it.

Enforcing drugs laws costs billions. What sense would it make to SPEND money in order to prohibit something just because you can't make money off it? If you don't spend the money on enforcement then at least you'll still have that money.

In fact it wouldn't be all that hard to tax marijuana. Sure, people can grow it, but most users don't. They go out and buy it. People can and do make their own beer too; it's easier and faster than growing pot, in fact. But the homebrew hobby doesn't make any major dent in Anheuser-Busch's profits.

If pot were legal then home growing would be like home brewing, or home vegetable gardening. Some folks would do it for fun, but the vast majority would pay some commercial producer for a consistent, high-quality product. And the government would tax it.

Look back at the history of marijuana laws. It wasn't tax issues that led to those laws, and it's not tax issues that sustain them

[CrystalLight]

The gov't makes an assload of money off the taxes of the consumers and distributors for alcohol and tobacco. Through taxes, highway use tax, purchasing tax and so many other things that are involved in the cost of producing, shipping and purchasing alcohol and tobacco. This is an astronomically larger amount of money then is made off the tickets written for marijuana possession charges.

Not even getting into the legal cost of your average DWI or DWAI. The reason that the gov't can make this obscene amount of money is because alcohol and tobacco are legalized and governed. So to the fact that there is a bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. When they figure out how to reap the same benefits from marijuana, marijuana will be legalized.

US Army/Air Force/Marines/Navy (including Gaurd and Reserves) don't stop drug trafficking (except perhaps the Navy...?).

It's mainly only the ATF, DEA and Coast Gaurd (perhaps CIA/FBI).

Military power doesn't really relate to the equation, lest we started a bunch of drug cartel wars.



Exactly. *IF* the said agencies have the ability to say 'this person is bringing narcotics into our country in abundance, we need to stop that.' the full force of the US military, under authorization of the president, is at their disposal. *IF* they really wanted to stop drugs from coming into the country, they could stop them.

[Sandrock74]

As a non-pot smoker, I don't want people smoking dope driving on the roads with me. The same as I don't want drunk drivers on the road with me. I know frequent pot smokers and honestly, I don't see the advantage of making their getting high legal.

[CrystalLight]

I don't see the advantage of making their getting high legal.

I don't see an advantage of making it easier to drink and drive.

At least marijuana has been used and is still be used to help those with chronic pain, alongside just general enjoyment. Alcohol has no use what so ever. But yet it's legal. Because of how much money it brings in.

[Sandrock74]

Nothing wrong with them keeping it in the basement. No need for them to take it anywhere else. Also, not a one of them smokes for medicinal purposes...but I did vote to legalize pot for medical purposes in my state. But that leaves it under the supervision of a doctor and limits are placed upon it.

[slacker2114]

I think the reason pot is not legal is simply because a lot of people in gov't are making assloads of cash under the table from it. Granted, I have no real proof of that. I just trust my instincts and that's what they tell me.

How else can you justify making a plant that grows naturally indoors and out, with hundreds of uses, illegal? Yet alcohol, as Jo said, serves no real purpose and is basically destructive. Here's something for you: did you know alcohol is the only addictive substance where the withdrawl can directly kill you?

So that's my take on it. Someone in "authority" is making more money of it being illegal than if it were legal. It just makes sense to me.

[Redmage]

The reason that the gov't can make this obscene amount of money is because alcohol and tobacco are legalized and governed. So to the fact that there is a bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. When they figure out how to reap the same benefits from marijuana, marijuana will be legalized.Again, this just doesn't make sense.

First, pot is not one bit harder to regulate than alcohol is. Both are easily produced at home, but most people prefer the higher quality and simplicity of buying what they need from a commercial provider.

Do you know what the first comprehensive federal law to regulate marijuana was? The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. The goal of the law was to effectively ban pot by wrapping it in burdensome tax regulations. So there is no reason to suppose that these laws exist because it's hard to tax pot.

Second, I can guarantee that no one in government ever sat down and said "We're not making a cent on merijuana, so let's spend billions on it instead." What sort of sense would that make?

As I wrote up-thread, look into the motivations and justifications of the first marijuana laws. You'll find racism, xenophobia, corporate greed and conservative Christian moralizing, but you won't find taxation.

[AnnieHall]

I think it will become legal in my lifetime.

Just now on the news, in certain areas of the city and suburbs, if you are caught with less than an ounce, you won't get a criminal offense.

Their excuse for that is that it would allow less time wasted in courts over minor offenses.

It's already near legal in California, people are recognizing it's medicinal properties, and if you're visiting neighbors across the pond, the laws are even more lenient, from what I've heard.

I give it, at most, a few more decades, and you'll be able to buy a pack of joints, or some shit at the local 7-Eleven.

[sushi854]

Look back at the history of marijuana laws. It wasn't tax issues that led to those laws, and it's not tax issues that sustain them

While I would not completely discredit the idea that marijuana laws may be a bit more lax if there were a more uniform and reliable method of production and taxation, I agree with this statement for the most part. I personally feel that marijuana is illegal largely due to a prevailing societal taboo concerning its use, although this taboo seems to wane with each passing generation. Even though the 1937 act prohibiting marijuana use was titled the "Marijuana Tax Act," it was almost entirely racially motivated, as marijuana use in the early 20th Century was associated primarily with Mexicans and the jazz scene. Many mainstream white Americans had never even heard of the stuff. Harry J. Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics at the time, was even quoted as saying that "the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races." Contrast that with today, where marijuana enjoys much more pervasive use among a much more diverse population. While part of today's taboo is that it is more or less "kids stuff" to be outgrown after a period of experimentation in high school or college, it seems like perhaps more are less willing to give it up as they move on with their lives. I am 30 years old, and I have more than a few friends and acquaintances, all young professionals (teachers, lawyers, medical, business, etc) who enjoy the occasional (or slightly more than occasional) marijuana indulgence in the interest of relaxing or having a good time. I personally prefer a few drinks to the stuff, but really don't see its moderate use to be at all harmful. If this attitude prevails, who knows, the taboo concerning its use, and subsequently the laws prohibiting its use, might not.

[simulated]

I think it will become legal in my lifetime.

Just now on the news, in certain areas of the city and suburbs, if you are caught with less than an ounce, you won't get a criminal offense.

Their excuse for that is that it would allow less time wasted in courts over minor offenses.

It's already near legal in California, people are recognizing it's medicinal properties, and if you're visiting neighbors across the pond, the laws are even more lenient, from what I've heard.

I give it, at most, a few more decades, and you'll be able to buy a pack of joints, or some shit at the local 7-Eleven.

The city of Santa Cruz passed an ordinance, if I recall correctly, making marijuana the lowest possible priority thing for a policeman to enforce. Basically, if a cop saw someone smoking pot and someone jaywalking, they'd ticket the jaywalker before they ticketed the person smoking.

[McNoodle]

In Canada they decided to grow it in a northern minesite for medicinal purposes but it backfired largely because the thc content was way lower than what people with chronic pain were used to buying on the street so it was relatively useless.

I don't foresee the States legalizing Marijuana anytime soon because they take such a hard line on any drugs. It seems they group them all together and are of the mindset that marijuana leads to acid, leads to cocaine, crack, heroin, meth etc... In some cases that is indeed true but that is based on the people's lifestyle decisions, not the drug itself.

[Deadsea7777]

I do not think it does anything to do with revenues, Redmage has a few very good links that show that is something else.

There is no great difference between mariguana and Alcohol.

But if you want to legalize mariguana and homosexuality together your political career may sink like happen with Michael Portillo in the UK.

[Dave2112]

Marijuana actually wasn't even made illegal until the 1920's, early 30's or so. Like cocaine, it was actually prescribed by some doctors for everything from pain relief to appetite enhancement. And as far as the "cash crop" idea...it was. In the days of the Revolutionary war era, the growth of marijuana padded many colonial pockets, including some of our founding fathers.

A major influence is the drug companies themselves. It's not so much the government, as much as government influence. Lobbying...same as always. Special interests. Marijuana is a drug that cannot be trademarked or patented. It's the same sort of philosophy and business practice that allows drug companies to "treat" illnesses like cancer without ever curing them. Why eradicate a malady that makes people dependant on your product when you can keep people alive but existing with that same dependance?

This is why we need an overhaul of the FDA. Two separate agencies. The FDA has far too much power, little actual oversight and is heavily influenced by both the pharmaceutical and food industries. It's about profit, nothing more.

There's also the religious angle. Very powerful church groups and religious lobbies have been successful in appealing to the "sensitivites" of the morally superior.

There's also an innacuracy about MJ as far as the "addictive properties". There are none. People enjoy it, to be sure....and many will do what they can to get it. But, pharmacologically speaking, marijuana is not an addictive substance. And, just to throw this in here as I've done before in other discussions on this topic...the whole "gateway drug" arguement is fallacy...a manipulation of "facts" and figures. How so?

Ok...when "polls" are taken and "studies" are done, the numbers are purposely skewed. Let's say you look at 100 users of recreational drugs of all kinds. Now, let's say 75 of those people use marijuana and nothing else. So, we have 25 who use harder drugs. This would lead you to believe that 75% of people just stick with weed. This does not serve the industry. So, here's how it's done. They take those 25 and ask how many of them HAVE used marijuana specifically. The number is usually around 20 or so, with very few exclusive to just hardcore drugs. Most people who are using cocaine, LSD, etc HAVE smoked marijuana in the past. That's all that's required to get a positive in this "research". So, they'll take those 25, 20 of which HAVE smoked MJ in the past and present it as "80% of people who smoked marijuana moved to harder drugs." It's a twisting of the numbers. Not "wrong", but wholly innacurate and very slanted and manipulated.

I can do the same thing to "prove" that 90% of all people into BDSM are into it because of tickling. How many people here are BDSM practitioners compared to the "just tickling" folks? A small number. BUT...if I were to poll those BDSM folks and ask how many of THEM are into tickling...the number would be high. I specifically choose to poll only BDSM practitioners on the TMF. We already know they're even here because tickling fits somewhere into their BDSM lifestyles, be it a primary or side-kink. So, with some careful wording, I can use the numbers to say that most people here will eventually be into BDSM, because "look where most of these people 'got started'."

Now, here's an interesting aside on this. Almost all studies that support the gateway lie are paid for by either grants from the government or the FDA itself or by the pharmacetical companies via thier own coffers. Look up some studies done independantly, with no influence. You won't find many published, as it takes money and influence to do that. But they are there.

So, basically...there are political and religious reasons marijuana is still illegal. It has little to do with taxation and little to do with addiction. It's mostly special-interest. Why have something virtually free that can increase appetite or dull pain when a $400-a-bottle drug can do the same thing?

[Mister Scruff]

OK, so I'm not a big fan of weed; I tried it when I was younger and it did nothing for me, however I'm a supporter of the movement to legalise it. It's a fucking plant for Christ's sake...

The city of Santa Cruz passed an ordinance, if I recall correctly, making marijuana the lowest possible priority thing for a policeman to enforce. Basically, if a cop saw someone smoking pot and someone jaywalking, they'd ticket the jaywalker before they ticketed the person smoking.

Sensible legislation in a US city? Whatever next!

Nothing wrong with them keeping it in the basement. No need for them to take it anywhere else. Also, not a one of them smokes for medicinal purposes...but I did vote to legalize pot for medical purposes in my state. But that leaves it under the supervision of a doctor and limits are placed upon it.

There's a lethal dosage listed for asprin and paracetamol yet you can buy them in most supermarkets; why would you need medical supervision to take a drug which is nigh-impossible to overdose on? What IS the lethal dose for marijuana, does anyone know?

There's also an innacuracy about MJ as far as the "addictive properties". There are none. People enjoy it, to be sure....and many will do what they can to get it.

Short of, y'know, illegal things. I know of no potheads who would resort to criminal activity purely to purchase weed. I know alcoholics who have burgled houses and stolen money from relatives to buy booze, but I've never seen a pothead do anything like that for want of a spliff.

And, just to throw this in here as I've done before in other discussions on this topic...the whole "gateway drug" arguement is fallacy...a manipulation of "facts" and figures. How so?

It's not so much a fallacy; in the usual sense of "gateway drug", that is using marijuana will somehow actively make people WANT to try harder drugs, it's complete bullshit. However, my mates and I started out smoking hash before getting into coke and ecstasy, because the people we were buying our weed off were also selling the harder stuff. So yeah, it IS a gateway drug if you look at it like that; however what would happen if it was legalised and regulated? The dealers would stop selling it because it'd be more trouble than it was worth, thus making it less likely that a user would be brought into contact with harder drugs whilst buying their weed.

I do not think it does anything to do with revenues, Redmage has a few very good links that show that is something else.

There is no great difference between mariguana and Alcohol.

But if you want to legalize mariguana and homosexuality together your political career may sink like happen with Michael Portillo in the UK.

Christian moralisers and small-minded cuntwits who like to believe everything they read in tabloids ended Michael Portillo's political career. Also what do you mean legalise "homosexuality"? Is it illegal? :-o

I think the reason pot is not legal is simply because a lot of people in gov't are making assloads of cash under the table from it. Granted, I have no real proof of that. I just trust my instincts and that's what they tell me.

Oh lol; it's stuff like this that makes me hate hippies xD

Yet alcohol, as Jo said, serves no real purpose and is basically destructive. Here's something for you: did you know alcohol is the only addictive substance where the withdrawl can directly kill you?

As far as I know you get the horrors from smack and jellies the same as you do from booze. You also get them from meth and crack to a much worse extent; although none of this changes the fact that DTs can kill you, and alcohol withdrawl can cause DTs...

[locker669]

It's illegal because there isn't a marijuana corporation giving money to cities and politicians. But there are corporations that will stop giving money to cities and politicians if it is made legal.

[Cy/MiG]

Exactly. *IF* the said agencies have the ability to say 'this person is bringing narcotics into our country in abundance, we need to stop that.' the full force of the US military, under authorization of the president, is at their disposal. *IF* they really wanted to stop drugs from coming into the country, they could stop them.

In (aboslute hypothetical) theory, yes the military could stop drugs from coming in.

But it won't... ever.

First, they would have to TRAIN every one of their personnel in said matters (drug seizures, water tactics, domestic raids, equipment, etc.). That's MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS of dollars.

Then you KNOW some folks (civilians) would cry foul (for legit and non legit reasons). Plus, it's not the active military (army/marines) nor the reserves to battle drugs.

Then consider the corruption entailed with the average Joe handling/seizing drugs.

Then finally consider the drug wars and massive foreign relations fiasco.

The US military will not intervene in drug matters.

They may be used to attack a foreign country for other reasons with drugs an underlying motive in the invasion, but the (majority of the) military will NEVER be used to inforce drug laws (except, like I said, the Coast Gaurd).

There will be no full-scale Contra-esque situations as far as I'm concerned.

The US gov't has SOCOM and Black Ops for a reason.

[Cy/MiG]

I think the reason pot is not legal is simply because a lot of people in gov't are making assloads of cash under the table from it. Granted, I have no real proof of that. I just trust my instincts and that's what they tell me.

How else can you justify making a plant that grows naturally indoors and out, with hundreds of uses, illegal? Yet alcohol, as Jo said, serves no real purpose and is basically destructive. Here's something for you: did you know alcohol is the only addictive substance where the withdrawl can directly kill you?

So that's my take on it. Someone in "authority" is making more money of it being illegal than if it were legal. It just makes sense to me.

You're probably onto something, but then why is alcohol legal?

I guarantee you they could make more money off it being illegal than legal (espescially based on what you just said).

[Cy/MiG]

A major influence is the drug companies themselves. It's not so much the government, as much as government influence. Lobbying...same as always. Special interests. Marijuana is a drug that cannot be trademarked or patented. It's the same sort of philosophy and business practice that allows drug companies to "treat" illnesses like cancer without ever curing them. Why eradicate a malady that makes people dependant on your product when you can keep people alive but existing with that same dependance?

This is why we need an overhaul of the FDA. Two separate agencies. The FDA has far too much power, little actual oversight and is heavily influenced by both the pharmaceutical and food industries. It's about profit, nothing more.

Now, here's an interesting aside on this. Almost all studies that support the gateway lie are paid for by either grants from the government or the FDA itself or by the pharmacetical companies via thier own coffers. Look up some studies done independantly, with no influence. You won't find many published, as it takes money and influence to do that. But they are there.

So, basically...there are political and religious reasons marijuana is still illegal. It has little to do with taxation and little to do with addiction. It's mostly special-interest. Why have something virtually free that can increase appetite or dull pain when a $400-a-bottle drug can do the same thing?

I think you hit a large nail with an even bigger hammer.

It's primarily about 'special interest'/corporate profit.

Very well said.

[Redmage]

I think the reason pot is not legal is simply because a lot of people in gov't are making assloads of cash under the table from it. Granted, I have no real proof of that. I just trust my instincts and that's what they tell me.The truth about drugs and government money is a little simpler than that. Sure, there are a few people on the take, but not nearly as many as you probably think.

However, drug enforcement is a huge business. The DEA, FBI, and local agencies get a lot of taxpayer dollars to fight pot. The actual cops and the people who run these agencies don't see that money themselves, but budgets take on a life of their own in government. In the simplest possible terms, a lot of people in government base their paychecks on drug enforcement money.

If pot were legal then we wouldn't need as many cops. The DEA would lay off hundreds. Ditto the FBI. We'd need fewer prisons, and the prison lobbies have a lot of influence with state governments.

If you want to "follow the money" then that's where it leads. It's not that people are taking money under the table. It's just that once you start any big government program it becomes very hard to stop it, because people fight to keep their jobs with those programs.

[jaba]

Sure is nice to have a steadfast, principled, consistent stance on the marijuana issue from our leader, right? :cool2:



National Organization for the reform of marijuana laws

Presidential Candidate Barack Obama Backs Federal Decriminalization -- “I think the war on drugs has been a failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws.”

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7499

January 31, 2008 - Washington, DC, USA


Washington, DC: A newly discovered video of a 2004 appearance at Northwestern University by Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, in which he calls for the federal decriminalization of marijuana, was posted online today by The Washington Times. In that appearance, Obama states, "I think the war on drugs has been a failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws." Obama continued, saying that while he supported decriminalization, he did not support the full legalization of marijuana.


In contrast, Senator Obama appeared to oppose decriminalization in a 2007 Democratic primary debate when MSNBC moderator Tim Russert asked candidates who opposed then-candidate Senator Chris Dodd’s support of decriminalization to raise their hands.

In the video, Senator Obama is seen hesitantly raising his hand halfway before quickly lowering it again.




But....wait..... :yowzer:


National Organization for the reform of marijuana laws

Obama Campaign Retracts Statement Supporting Decriminalization

February 8, 2008 - Washington, DC, USA

Washington, DC: Senator Barack Obama’s campaign backed away from statements made last week affirming the Senator’s support for decriminalizing marijuana, after being confronted with inconsistencies in his past and present campaigns on the issue by the Washington Times.



A spokesman for Obama’s campaign blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the inconsistencies, and said that while Obama does not support decriminalization, "we are sending far too many first-time, nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws."

da is he or isnt he dance?.... :rolleyes:


The Washington Times:

Obama flip-flops on pot

Jennifer Haberkorn

Thursday, January 31, 2008

in MSNBC's Oct. 30 presidential debate, Mr. Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare that he opposed decriminalizing marijuana.


But as a U.S. Senate candidate, Mr. Obama told Illinois college students in January 2004 that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession, a debate video shows.

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama said during a debate at Northwestern University.

"But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."


When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations to the Times in less than 24 hours.

At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting his 2004 statement was correct.

Then after the Times posted copies of the video on its Web site today, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use.


huh? :idunno:


Huffington Post Feburary 1, 2008:

Reverse: Obama Camp Now Says He Opposes Pot Decriminalization

Barack Obama, the senatorial candidate of 2004, might have a bone to pick with Barack Obama, the presidential candidate of 2008.

Videotapes of debates and speeches that were obtained by The Washington Times show that Mr. Obama took positions during his Senate campaign on nearly a half-dozen issues ranging from the Cuba embargo to health care for illegal aliens that conflict with statements that he has made during his run for the White House.


Is our president elect woozy from the chronic smoke, or the forward reverse back flips? :p

[tickleboynyc]

i'll give you my two cents'worth...

i think an additional reason for the powers-that-be not to legalize pot is because of its usefulness as a tool of political oppression.

how many liberals, progressives, activists, etc smoke pot? quite a few. or at least someone they know does.

so there's your perfect weapon to silence them. stalk them, wiretap, entrap them, whatever it takes, then raid say a meeting of anti-war protesters because you 'suspect there might be drug use going on'. chances are <I>someone</I> will have pot on them. and bingo.

you destroy that person's life, discredit their organisation, threaten them with jail, criminal record, etc in exchange for information about their organisation...the possibilities are endless.

because when ANY illegal drug is involved, even pot, your constitutional rights pretty much go out the window.

[MrMacphisto]

I think that marijuana is the type of drug paralleling to nicotine and alcohol, minus the addiction factor. And if the government could find way to profit from it like they do the other two, then they would have no qualms legalizing it.

I also think that's the only real reason it hasn't been legalized yet, also due to the fact that the government controls a large part of the drug as well. If the US didn't want drugs in our country, I don't think it would happen. Due solely to how powerful our military is.

It's not hard to grow weed. It can be grown indoors under relatively simple circumstances and you don't need to grow 10 trees unless you plan on distribution. You could rotate out one tree a month, to keep you and a friend high for the month and then continue on doing so. Because of that, there isn't much way to profit from it. So that is why we're still fighting to have it legalized.

I would argue this is a lot of the reason, but there is another factor.

Marijuana is competitive with alcohol and tobacco. Breweries and tobacco companies don't want the competition legalized because it would draw from their own markets.

I guarantee you that the only way marijuana will ever be legalized for recreational use will involve setting up a permit system much like the one in place for tobacco.

If a bunch of Congressmen proposed a system of permits for growing and selling marijuana and taxing it to fund infrastructures connected to rehabilitation of its abuse and offered the permits to Big Tobacco, it would be legalized in a matter of weeks.

It's not just a matter of the government wanting control -- corporations want it too.

[Redmage]

I would argue this is a lot of the reason, but there is another factor.Why do you think this is part of the reason at all?

[cabalist]

I also doubt that the "tax question" has anything to do with it. I can't think of any way it would be substantially different from alcohol or tobacco in that sense, those two substances themselves hardly resembling each other. I agree with Red that it's mainly that anti-drug repression has become an entrenched big business. And when it's government bureaucracy type business, there's few things more resistant to change.

For the same reason you'll rarely if ever hear drug rehab program administrators etc. suggest that drugs should be legalized, as they "capture" many "involuntary" clients when courts offer "rehab" as alternatives to jail or prison. So while some people might regard them as "experts" with regard to the safety or dangers of drugs, they too have an obvious financial interest. (Although I did personally know one rehab administrator in my college days who at least "hinted" that he actually favored legalization, or at least "decriminalization", of a number illicit drugs.)

[MrMacphisto]

Why do you think this is part of the reason at all?

The government? Because they want power. One of the easiest ways to control people is through chemical dependence. If marijuana was harder to grow and easier to control, by extension, the government could more easily supply people with it without much competition.

[Redmage]

The government? Because they want power. One of the easiest ways to control people is through chemical dependence. If marijuana was harder to grow and easier to control, by extension, the government could more easily supply people with it without much competition.And yet they don't ban alcohol, which is no harder to make and no easier to control.

And marijuana use does not lead to chemical dependence. Alcohol use does.

It doesn't seem to add up.

[MrMacphisto]

And yet they don't ban alcohol, which is no harder to make and no easier to control.

And marijuana use does not lead to chemical dependence. Alcohol use does.

It doesn't seem to add up.

They tried to ban alcohol. It didn't work. When a product has such a tremendous demand (and has already established itself as a major product), you really can't control it much.

Marijuana is very addictive for certain people. The difference is the prevalence for addiction. Alcoholism is somewhat genetic. There isn't much of a significant genetic tendency for addiction to marijuana. Yet... if marijuana was harder to grow, then the government could more easily set up a corporate arrangement like the one I presented. That would provide more incentive for legalization.

[Redmage]

They tried to ban alcohol. It didn't work. When a product has such a tremendous demand (and has already established itself as a major product), you really can't control it much.Exactly. So how is marijuana (which has a history of use dating back thousands of years and is widely used today) different from alcohol?

Marijuana is very addictive for certain people. The difference is the prevalence for addiction. Alcoholism is somewhat genetic. There isn't much of a significant genetic tendency for addiction to marijuana.There isn't much of a tendency for addiction to marijuana in any form, for any reason. Certainly there's no evidence (and I mean none whatsoever) for this "chemical dependence" you proposed being significant enough to make it a policy issue.

Yet... if marijuana was harder to grow, then the government could more easily set up a corporate arrangement like the one I presented. That would provide more incentive for legalization.Again, alcohol is no harder to produce than pot. In fact it's easier. Yet there is still a corporate incentive because, easy as it is, people still prefer to buy it from a professional.

The same is true of pot, BTW.

[MrMacphisto]

Exactly. So how is marijuana (which has a history of use dating back thousands of years and is widely used today) different from alcohol?

It's different because marijuana never fully established itself as part of our economy and culture.

There isn't much of a tendency for addiction to marijuana in any form, for any reason. Certainly there's no evidence (and I mean none whatsoever) for this "chemical dependence" you proposed being significant enough to make it a policy issue.

I think you'll find that the number of potheads out there contradicts this.

Besides, this seemed pretty interesting: http://www.addict-help.com/marijuana-addiction.asp

Again, alcohol is no harder to produce than pot. In fact it's easier. Yet there is still a corporate incentive because, easy as it is, people still prefer to buy it from a professional.

The same is true of pot, BTW.

There isn't that incentive if you figure in the competitive product argument I mentioned.

[cabalist]

Besides, this seemed pretty interesting: http://www.addict-help.com/marijuana-addiction.asp

How is this program funded, I wonder? Presumably they're not just doing it for fun? I suspect a selfish motive.

[Redmage]

It's different because marijuana never fully established itself as part of our economy and culture.So?

I think you'll find that the number of potheads out there contradicts this.Really? Just how many people are addicted to marijuana - according to non-biased sources?

Besides, this seemed pretty interesting: http://www.addict-help.com/marijuana-addiction.aspIt's interesting that a company that makes money off treating addictions tells people that they are addicted? Is that surprising somehow?

Try the National Academy of Science instead: MARIJUANA AND MEDICINE: Assessing the Science Base (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376)

Page 6: "A distinctive marijuana withdrawal syndrome has been identified, but it is mild and short lived."

Page 95 shows that 9% of Marijuana users show symptoms of dependence at any time during their history of use, compared to 32% for tobacco, 23% for heroin, 17% for cocaine, and 15% for alcohol.

Page 98: "although few marijuana users develop dependence, some do. But they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs."

So, again, I don't see chemical dependence as a realistic policy factor in banning marijuana. Alcohol is easier to make and more addictive, but it is not illegal.

There isn't that incentive if you figure in the competitive product argument I mentioned.You don't understand. Corporate producers of marijuana already exist and are highly profitable. They just aren't legal. The idea that it's so easy to produce privately that there's no corporate profit motive is refuted by everyday reality.

[MrMacphisto]

So?

Well, I figured it was self-explanatory. Breweries and tobacco companies are established industries with established markets. They have enough political power to keep their products legal. There's no equivalent lobby or industry powerful enough to support legalization.... yet.

Really? Just how many people are addicted to marijuana - according to non-biased sources?

I'm just asking... don't you know anyone that has been addicted to pot? I do.

It's interesting that a company that makes money off treating addictions tells people that they are addicted? Is that surprising somehow?

Try the National Academy of Science instead: MARIJUANA AND MEDICINE: Assessing the Science Base (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376)

Page 6: "A distinctive marijuana withdrawal syndrome has been identified, but it is mild and short lived."

Page 95 shows that 9% of Marijuana users show symptoms of dependence at any time during their history of use, compared to 32% for tobacco, 23% for heroin, 17% for cocaine, and 15% for alcohol.

Page 98: "although few marijuana users develop dependence, some do. But they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs."

So, again, I don't see chemical dependence as a realistic policy factor in banning marijuana. Alcohol is easier to make and more addictive, but it is not illegal.

Good points... I'll concede that it's less addictive than various other substances that are legal.

You don't understand. Corporate producers of marijuana already exist and are highly profitable. They just aren't legal. The idea that it's so easy to produce privately that there's no corporate profit motive is refuted by everyday reality.

Well, on the flipside, wouldn't you say that these producers are powerful enough to keep their products illegal? For example, given the criminal syndicates that traffic things like pot, it's in their best interests to keep it illegal so they can charge more.

[Redmage]

Well, I figured it was self-explanatory. Breweries and tobacco companies are established industries with established markets. They have enough political power to keep their products legal. There's no equivalent lobby or industry powerful enough to support legalization.... yet.It's difficult for such an industry to arise, since even cultivating ordinary hemp is illegal in the US. And hemp does and did have a major industry behind it (it was used for rope and fiber throughout the US).

None of this has anything to do though with the US government criminalizing pot because they couldn't make money off it.

I'm just asking... don't you know anyone that has been addicted to pot? I do.I've never personally known anyone who exhibited severe withdrawal symptoms when deprived of marijuana. I've known far more people who get antsy and irritable when deprived of their daily caffeine. And I've known a number of alcoholics.

I'll concede that it's less addictive than various other substances that are legal.Which leads us back to wondering why pot is not legal. But the threat of chemical dependency, or the use of dependency as a means of social control, can't be the reason.

Well, on the flipside, wouldn't you say that these producers are powerful enough to keep their products illegal? For example, given the criminal syndicates that traffic things like pot, it's in their best interests to keep it illegal so they can charge more?Certainly. I don't know of any proof, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that lobbyists for drug cartels try to influence Congress to keep pot illegal. Again, though, that's not the government acting against pot for profit reasons.

Even corporate interests don't make a lot of sense - at least not in the way many people think. Marijuana was used medically for decades before it was banned (so was heroin). Big companies like Bayer were in the business of making and selling purified forms of what we now consider illegal drugs. The American Medical Association initially opposed banning marijuana, but relented under pressure from the Federal government. So it's not as though big medical companies have no interest in pot because they couldn't sell it. They have sold it in the past.

The corporate motives were less direct. William Randolph Hearst had a lot of money invested in growing wood for newsprint. Hemp became a threat to that as the technology for making paper out of hemp fibers became cheaper. Not surprisingly Hearst was leading the charge against pot by means of lobbyists, lurid news stories, and editorials in the newspapers he owned.

[MrMacphisto]

So, basically, it was a combination of Hearst and religious nuts in the beginning, and now it's probably criminals.

[Redmage]

So, basically, it was a combination of Hearst and religious nuts in the beginning, and now it's probably criminals.Initially it was Hearst (and similar corporate interests), conservative Christians, and American xenophobia and racism.

Even the name "marijuana" was chosen because it's not an English word (like "hemp"). Early efforts to ban pot referred to it by its Mexican name, or called it "Indian Hemp," to bolster the impression that it was used mainly by non-whites and foreigners. A large part of early anti-pot propaganda emphasized its alleged "effects on the degenerate races." The stories (even in testimony before Congress) claimed that "marihuana" made Negroes and Hispanics more difficult to control, and that if it was allowed to spread to good white women it would corrupt them into things like interracial sex.

Today, criminals are part of what keeps pot illegal. This might or might not include direct lobbying by drug cartels - as I said I know of no proof of that. But certainly the fact that pot is illegal means that the people who grow it, sell it, and use it are criminals. They tend to be violent, and so pot is often at the center of violent crimes such as gang turf wars. So naturally people believe that pot use causes crime, when it's just "when pot is illegal, only criminals will have pot."

Another part of the equation is bureaucratic inertia and the tendency to protect one's budget. A lot of people are employed by government in the service of drug enforcement. Those people get a paycheck every week because pot is illegal, and they know it. So they do everything they can, be it legal, illegal, or unethical, to keep pot illegal and keep their budgets fat.

After all, who does Congress turn to when it wants information on the risks of drug use? Why, the DEA of course. No Director of Drug Enforcement is going to say to Congress, "You know, this stuff isn't really that bad. You ought to legalize it and have me cut my agency by a third."

Likewise pot is classified at the same level as heroin: "No legitimate medical use." But those who want to establish legitimate medical uses need to do research, and research requires access to supplies of legal marijuana. The DEA decides who does and does not get such access, and it's very rare for the DEA to hear about a medical pot study that it considers worthwhile.