Cannabis Sativa Legalization

[Phi for All]

Well cars and legal alcohol have combined, in modern times, to create a rather large problem.

Perhaps the benefits of prohibition in modern times would greater than they were in the 20s given the number of cars on the road these days.

Most of the experts do not share your assumption. You assume there would be no alcohol available to drivers during a prohibition. Historically, the alcohol continued to flow, without regulation for purity or safety. There are more cars nowadays, and also lots more bathtubs for gin. Blind much?

 

I will give you one recent example that contradicts your assertion. In Australia the federal government whacked a large tax on alcopops (alcoholic soft drinks) and their consumption by teenagers dropped signficantly. So it is quite likely that increased cost, combined with restriction of supply, will have some impact the consumption of a variety of drugs.

Your demographic is skewed. Teenagers have limited funds. And do you know for a fact that your Ozteens didn't switch to something harder when the price of alcopops made alternatives more attractive?

[Santalum]

Most of the experts do not share your assumption. You assume there would be no alcohol available to drivers during a prohibition. Historically, the alcohol continued to flow, without regulation for purity or safety. There are more cars nowadays, and also lots more bathtubs for gin. Blind much?

 

 

Your demographic is skewed. Teenagers have limited funds. And do you know for a fact that your Ozteens didn't switch to something harder when the price of alcopops made alternatives more attractive?

 

Clearly there is no point in outright prohibition has been tried with alcohol and was not particuarly succesful. It may have limited alcohol consumption to some extent as clearly not all partakers were prepared to defy the law, but in the end it collapsed.

 

I reckon my idea of a government monoply with the sale of drugs so that they can control the prices, run illegal dealers out of business, restrict supply and maintain high prices could be worth a try. They could also bring pressure to bare on consumers to undertake rehabilitation etc.

[CaptainPanic]

I will give you one recent example that contradicts your assertion. In Australia the federal government whacked a large tax on alcopops (alcoholic soft drinks) and their consumption by teenagers dropped signficantly. So it is quite likely that increased cost, combined with restriction of supply, will have some impact the consumption of a variety of drugs.

Yes, so when something becomes unaffordable, people don't buy it. Makes sense.

 

But contrary to the alcopops, there is a thriving black market which can supply marihuana at competitive prices. And even though it is illegal, the laws of economics are still valid. A government can legalize weed, but if the taxes are too high, people will buy the illegal stuff.

 

Because the discussion about weed is out in the open in the Netherlands, I know (hearsay and media) that an evening smoking weed is a lot cheaper than an evening drinking alcohol (comparing an evening at home, the difference is even larger if you go out). So, small increases in the price are not likely to have a large impact, because the price of the weed is not really relevant compared to for example the snacks or the (soft)drinks you consume. And large increases in the price only drive people back to the criminals, who aren't exactly stupid and will try to be competitive with the legalized prices.

 

Of course, you can then crack down on the criminals even harder - but then you effectively solved nothing.

 

I sometimes wonder if the mafia has a lobby to keep weed illegal.

[Marqq]

Wait, so the correlation is bogus because you learned to stop before the onset of symptoms?

And the correlation between long term mental deficiency is bogus because it only happens in heavy users who you're inferring "probably didn't stop smoking anyway"?

Did you even read beyond the abstract of the other studies anyway?

And after all that refutation of scientific articles as bollocks we get a personal anecdote as proof of your position? You do understand how uncompelling that is right?

I never once refuted the articles, only that they said what you took from them. The correlation/causation with schizophrenia is bogus because all the test subjects were previously schizophrenic. This is not a 'link to schizophrenia/psychosis', but a study of the effects of THC (etc.) on people with schizophrenia. Is that clearer for you?

Chronic use impairs cognitive function permanently:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...95.2010.535505

That's quite a strong word, 'permanently'. Even more so when the three cited studies admit (in the abstracts) that testing was done on 'early abstinent' users of the drug. Are you a journalist? I ask because they, too, are able to read between the lines on the other side of the page from a from a work of fiction that just happens to be saying something that you want to say. Once again, not refuting the studies in the slightest; I'm not qualified to judge any more than the abstract (summary), but I won't add anything that's not being said. Instead, my bias has kept me from investigating and questioning the other half of the health argument in the disputed post.

 

I do certainly appreciate that you tried to offer both pros and cons of the health effects of marijuana usage. I apologize that I could offer no 'proof of my position' beyond the anecdotal; My position, "I can't confirm or deny the usefulness of marijuana as an antidepressant..., but I can VERY definitely say it's safer than celexa and effexor...", doesn't call for much support, though. You also said in your original post that proponents of legalization 'gloss over' those negative health effects, but I say investigate them. Read what the officials say instead of the supposed meaning reported by someone with an agenda. The health effect argument is moot, because the OP asks whether it should be legalized, not whether it's a silent killer or healthier than vitamin C. It's not extremely dangerous, and worse things are legal (tobacco and alcohol, along with prescription drugs, K2, and salvia). The real question is this: Does a government have the right to criminalize pot? Considering that most laws must prevent one citizen from causing harm/loss to another citizen, or prevent that citizen causing death to itself (argument for another thread!), I do not believe control of trivial drugs to be the responsibility of any government.

[Gonçalo Ferreira]

Thank you all for your participation, continue the debate!

[Moontanman]

Yes, so when something becomes unaffordable, people don't buy it. Makes sense.

 

But contrary to the alcopops, there is a thriving black market which can supply marihuana at competitive prices. And even though it is illegal, the laws of economics are still valid. A government can legalize weed, but if the taxes are too high, people will buy the illegal stuff.

 

Because the discussion about weed is out in the open in the Netherlands, I know (hearsay and media) that an evening smoking weed is a lot cheaper than an evening drinking alcohol (comparing an evening at home, the difference is even larger if you go out). So, small increases in the price are not likely to have a large impact, because the price of the weed is not really relevant compared to for example the snacks or the (soft)drinks you consume. And large increases in the price only drive people back to the criminals, who aren't exactly stupid and will try to be competitive with the legalized prices.

 

Of course, you can then crack down on the criminals even harder - but then you effectively solved nothing.

 

I sometimes wonder if the mafia has a lobby to keep weed illegal.

 

I would be amazed if they did not...

[Phi for All]

I reckon my idea of a government monoply with the sale of drugs so that they can control the prices, run illegal dealers out of business, restrict supply and maintain high prices could be worth a try.

The government doesn't need to monopolize anything. They can award charters to safely manufacture and distribute, and simply tax and regulate accordingly. I'm not sure I'd approve of this without some severe restrictions on normal market processes, like a curb or ban on advertising.

 

They could also bring pressure to bare on consumers to undertake rehabilitation etc.

A large portion of the taxes should be set aside for education, obviating much of the need for more expensive treatment. Avenues for rehabilitation are actually already in place, with courts requiring it for public intoxication offenses.

 

I sometimes wonder if the mafia has a lobby to keep weed illegal.

If they're smart they do. I just read where General Electric paid lobbyists $84M to get Congress to approve $8.4B in tax breaks for them. Lobbying can bring a greater return on investment than selling your actual products.

[Arete]

I never once refuted the articles, only that they said what you took from them. The correlation/causation with schizophrenia is bogus because all the test subjects were previously schizophrenic. This is not a 'link to schizophrenia/psychosis', but a study of the effects of THC (etc.) on people with schizophrenia. Is that clearer for you?

 

I, nor the studies cited, nor any of the multitude of studies easily available have outwardly stated - "marijuana will make you a schizophrenic." However, there is substantial evidence that THC and cannabonoids can aggravate psychotic/schizophrenic symptoms and/or trigger their onset in susceptible individuals. That's rather unequivocally describable as a 'link' between the drug and the disease.

 

That's quite a strong word, 'permanently'. Even more so when the three cited studies admit (in the abstracts) that testing was done on 'early abstinent' users of the drug. Are you a journalist?

 

Granted, the use of "permanent" is strong - how about "Heavy use of cannabis impairs cognitive function for a considerable period after ingestion"? No I am not a journalist.

 

My position, "I can't confirm or deny the usefulness of marijuana as an antidepressant..., but I can VERY definitely say it's safer than celexa and effexor...", doesn't call for much support, though.

 

On the contrary. While I intend in absolutely no way to try and belittle or trivialize your personal experiences - personal anecdotes are used heavily as "proof" of both the efficacy of alternative therapies like homeopathy and healing magnets - which I'm sure we will all agree are bollocks, and the associated evils of the "big pharma" drugs which they replace. When it comes to the efficacy and side effects of pharmaceuticals the invocation of personal experience is uncompelling and definitely calls for objective support.

 

You also said in your original post that proponents of legalization 'gloss over' those negative health effects, but I say investigate them. Read what the officials say instead of the supposed meaning reported by someone with an agenda.

 

I guess the proponents I was mainly considering are the politically active, organized bodies such as Norml. I may have been exposed to one too many housemates who spent a bit too much time on the bong touting cannabis as a side effect free perfectly natural wonder product. Which is infuriatingly false - it's a cocktail of psychoactive chemicals which the preferred and most widespread method of ingestion is to burn and inhale the smoke of. Of course the smoke (like the combustible byproducts of most organic matter) is going to contain carcinogens and toxins and the psychoactive components will have side effects in some individuals - that's a reality of almost every drug known to man.

 

Which brings us to this:

 

The health effect argument is moot, because the OP asks whether it should be legalized, not whether it's a silent killer or healthier than vitamin C. It's not extremely dangerous, and worse things are legal (tobacco and alcohol, along with prescription drugs, K2, and salvia). The real question is this: Does a government have the right to criminalize pot? Considering that most laws must prevent one citizen from causing harm/loss to another citizen, or prevent that citizen causing death to itself (argument for another thread!), I do not believe control of trivial drugs to be the responsibility of any government.

 

Which I completely agree with. All drugs have side effects and negatives. It doesn't take much of an overdose of paracetamol/acetaminophen to do irreversible liver damage - making in more than likely considerably more dangerous than pot - ban Tylenol? [/sarcasm]. However, cannabis is not side effect free. Claims of it being the "the safest [insert drug comparison here]" are misleading and for a certain subset of individuals it could present significant side effects. At least - in my mind is actually an argument for legalising it if control doesn't prevent people using it in the first place and will allow better study of those side effects.

[Santalum]

Yes, so when something becomes unaffordable, people don't buy it. Makes sense.

 

Or buy it less often at least.

 

But contrary to the alcopops, there is a thriving black market which can supply marihuana at competitive prices. And even though it is illegal, the laws of economics are still valid. A government can legalize weed, but if the taxes are too high, people will buy the illegal stuff.

 

Well that's the problem isn't it. Being illegal the crims can gouge consumers up to a point while providing an abundant supply.

 

I can't see there being any other viable solution other than governments taking control of the market and managing prices and supply with the aim of reducing consumption rather than maximising profit.

 

Most of the experts do not share your assumption. You assume there would be no alcohol available to drivers during a prohibition. Historically, the alcohol continued to flow, without regulation for purity or safety. There are more cars nowadays, and also lots more bathtubs for gin. Blind much?

 

 

Your demographic is skewed. Teenagers have limited funds. And do you know for a fact that your Ozteens didn't switch to something harder when the price of alcopops made alternatives more attractive?

 

Well as it turned out many apparently purchased spirits and mixed it with soft drink themselves.

 

But the fact remains that increasing price and decreasing affordability can modify behaviour.

 

Just look at smoking - draconian taxation and laws against smoking in restuarants, shopping cnetres and government buildings etc have combined to dramatically reduce smoking.

 

Perhaps if the government had whacked a large tax on spirits as well as alcopops then they would have been a little more successful.

 

In many cases parents either give their teens money to purchase alcohol or purchase it for them. So your assertion that teens have limited funds is not entirely correct.

 

The government doesn't need to monopolize anything. They can award charters to safely manufacture and distribute, and simply tax and regulate accordingly. I'm not sure I'd approve of this without some severe restrictions on normal market processes, like a curb or ban on advertising.

Very bad idea to put drugs in the hands of private enterprise if your aim is to reduce consumption and minimise harm to society.

 

Private enterprise ALWAYS aims to increase consumption and maximise profits regardless of the cost to society.

Alcohol, gambing, smoking,.........

[CaptainPanic]

Well that's the problem isn't it. Being illegal the crims can gouge consumers up to a point while providing an abundant supply.

 

I can't see there being any other viable solution other than governments taking control of the market and managing prices and supply with the aim of reducing consumption rather than maximising profit.

If weed is legalized, the criminals will soon be out of business. Isn't that good enough for a start?

The methods to realize both a minimized consumption and reduced criminal activity might be in conflict.

 

I would set only one of the two targets at first, and only aim for the second after a number of years.

 

Very bad idea to put drugs in the hands of private enterprise if your aim is to reduce consumption and minimise harm to society.

 

Private enterprise ALWAYS aims to increase consumption and maximise profits regardless of the cost to society.

Alcohol, gambing, smoking,.........

That can be regulated with tax to some extent. I don't think there is any particular benefit of having either free market alcohol (with tax!) or state owned alcohol shops. Examples of both exist in the world, and in all cases people still get shitfaced quite drunk.

[Santalum]

If weed is legalized, the criminals will soon be out of business. Isn't that good enough for a start?

The methods to realize both a minimized consumption and reduced criminal activity might be in conflict.

 

I would set only one of the two targets at first, and only aim for the second after a number of years.

It would certainly not be easy to strike the right balance and the government would have to be able to set prices very dynamically and be in constant contact with police as to where illegal supply is available.

 

That can be regulated with tax to some extent. I don't think there is any particular benefit of having either free market alcohol (with tax!) or state owned alcohol shops. Examples of both exist in the world, and in all cases people still get shitfaced quite drunk.

 

With drugs you would have to register your name to get them legally and I guess you could apply a monthly or weekly quota to each person. Once you go over you quota, you cannot purchase any more of a given drug.

[Phi for All]

Well as it turned out many apparently purchased spirits and mixed it with soft drink themselves.

So increasing the price actually turned the teens towards harder liquor, and allowed them to control how much alcohol was mixed with their "soft" drink. The decreased affordability actually modified their behavior by giving them motivation to drink stronger liquor, without the restraint pre-mixed alcopops imposes.

 

But the fact remains that increasing price and decreasing affordability can modify behaviour.

Yes, and probably more often in a very detrimental way.

 

Just look at smoking - draconian taxation and laws against smoking in restuarants, shopping cnetres and government buildings etc have combined to dramatically reduce smoking.

Shame on you for forgetting all the education that was also made available. With the last big push against smoking, people became aware for the first time that manufacturers were actually adding addictive substances into the product. It suddenly became more than just "it's bad for you".

 

Perhaps if the government had whacked a large tax on spirits as well as alcopops then they would have been a little more successful.

Punish everyone for a problem with teens? That might not be a popular choice, nor one that upholds individual rights.

 

In many cases parents either give their teens money to purchase alcohol or purchase it for them. So your assertion that teens have limited funds is not entirely correct.

Again, you're skewing the demographics, this time to include illegal behavior on the part of parents. Look, the idea obviously failed in this instance. It's a bad argument by itself, you should drop it.

 

Very bad idea to put drugs in the hands of private enterprise if your aim is to reduce consumption and minimise harm to society.

 

Private enterprise ALWAYS aims to increase consumption and maximise profits regardless of the cost to society.

Alcohol, gambing, smoking,.........

And that's why I said, very carefully, that I wouldn't sanction privatization without severe restrictions. But I agree that that's one slippery slope you can always count on to start sliding down. You'd have to constantly watchdog those corporations to make sure they didn't lobby to reduced those restrictions. And you'd have to start by killing the concept of corporate personhood, which I hope the American people will shortly realize is killing our country.

 

Actually, I'd rather see us take a lesson from Portugal. Take ALL the funds from the War on Drugs and use it for education and treatment. Don't legalize them, but stop jailing people whose only crime is having/using a personal stash of drugs. Education is the best solution for almost everything, and in this case it's the one that has the best chance of minimizing the dangers and the numbers of users as well as protecting individual rights.

[Moontanman]

I see lots of assumptions about cannabis being made here. Some of you seem to think that legalizing it will allow it to be better controlled which is probably true to some extent but then some go on to say the harm can be minimized as though cannabis is killing people and destroying lives everywhere. You are mistaking cannabis with alcohol, just like crime is more connected with drugs being illegal than with their real effects the worst thing about cannabis is getting caught with it.

 

Smoking pot doesn't affect your life in the same ways that alcohol or even cigarettes do. Pot, for the vast majority of people anyway, is not addictive in the same way that things like alcohol, nicotine, crack, or meth is. I've known a great many pot smokers and the worst effect it can have is the government ruining your life if you get caught. You can lose your job, jail time, a criminal record, but smoking pot in of it's self is relatively harmless.

 

I don't want pot to be legalized so those poor unfortunate pot addicts can get help, that attitude is nothing but horse feathers. It's what the government has been telling us forever, pot, in the US, is listed the same as heroin, crack, or meth. Get caught and the government does everything in it's power to destroy you personally. Then they turn around and use that as examples of how pot ruins lives. It's propaganda at it's finest.

 

People should be able to grow their own, limits should be put on people who sell it but but for personal use I see no reason why you can't grow your own the same way you can make your own wine or beer.

 

Pot is not healthy, anyone who thinks it's completely harmless is deep in a river in Egypt but it is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol and not even close to being addictive like nicotine. Ruining peoples lives because they smoke is cruel and serves no purpose. And no smoking pot doesn't make you a loser, it doesn't keep you from working a job or anything else. it certainly doesn't make you a bad worker, alcohol and cigarettes take away far more in worker productivity than cannabis, the old adage that pot makes you stupid and unproductive is nothing but government propaganda...

[Santalum]

So increasing the price actually turned the teens towards harder liquor, and allowed them to control how much alcohol was mixed with their "soft" drink. The decreased affordability actually modified their behavior by giving them motivation to drink stronger liquor, without the restraint pre-mixed alcopops imposes.

Clearly a more comprehensive strategy is required that just lifting the prices. But reducing affordability of alcohol is as important in reducing alcohol consumption as it has been in reducing smoking.

 

Yes, and probably more often in a very detrimental way.

In this case and to some extent yes. I would have thought that even blind freddy could have predicted this.

 

Punish everyone for a problem with teens? That might not be a popular choice, nor one that upholds individual rights.

Well tough bloody titties. Alcohol consumption is not an essential component of personal freedom! And if curtailing a less important personal freedom means reduction in harm to society overall then do it!

 

Again, you're skewing the demographics, this time to include illegal behavior on the part of parents. Look, the idea obviously failed in this instance. It's a bad argument by itself, you should drop it.

 

No it is not. Apparently this is a signficant contribution to teen binge drinking......in Australia at least.

[Phi for All]

Clearly a more comprehensive strategy is required that just lifting the prices. But reducing affordability of alcohol is as important in reducing alcohol consumption as it has been in reducing smoking.

You reach a point of diminishing returns. Charge too much and the black market undercuts the price, smuggling to avoid the taxes. Prohibit the substance and the black market will charge what it can get. And we really should be talking about marijuana in this thread.

 

In this case and to some extent yes. I would have thought that even blind freddy could have predicted this.

Sorry if I misunderstood, Freddy. It just sounded like you were assuming the price increase behavior modification was only positive. Wizard's Second Rule: "The greatest harm can result from the best intentions." - Terry Goodkind

Well tough bloody titties. Alcohol consumption is not an essential component of personal freedom! And if curtailing a less important personal freedom means reduction in harm to society overall then do it!

I don't drink at all and I still consider that to be an affront to civil liberties. Can't we just tax it to cover the costs to the country? I'd like that better than trying to figure out which personal freedoms were "less important" than others. Or taxing everyone for problems caused by an identifiable segment of the population.

 

Do you think I should be taxed even though I don't drink? Is this an area where my money should be used because it means a "reduction in harm to society overall"?

 

No it is not. Apparently this is a signficant contribution to teen binge drinking......in Australia at least.

Really, Oz has no laws already in place for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?! For child abuse?! I'm sure you do. Wouldn't it be easier and more elegant to simply strengthen these existing laws?

[Santalum]

I don't drink at all and I still consider that to be an affront to civil liberties. Can't we just tax it to cover the costs to the country? I'd like that better than trying to figure out which personal freedoms were "less important" than others. Or taxing everyone for problems caused by an identifiable segment of the population.

 

Do you think I should be taxed even though I don't drink? Is this an area where my money should be used because it means a "reduction in harm to society overall"?

 

 

Really, Oz has no laws already in place for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?! For child abuse?! I'm sure you do. Wouldn't it be easier and more elegant to simply strengthen these existing laws?

 

If you don't drink then any taxation or curtailing of 'freedom to get drunk' will be of little concern to you.

 

As with any 'freedom', if the harm it causes to society at large is beyond a certain threshold then that freedom should and must be curtailed........some how. This is the difference between civil society and a lawless society like Somalia.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Santalum

[Phi for All]

If you don't drink then any taxation or curtailing of 'freedom to get drunk' will be of little concern to you.

That doesn't really answer my question, and isn't really true. There are citizens who pay taxes to subsidize products they never use (subsidies they often don't even know about), or use a disproportionately low amount of. I'm asking if you think this should be such a case, where a subsidy should be attached to the sale of alcohol (and let's say marijuana too, if it's made legal) so that everyone's money can be used to help with a reduction in harm to society overall.

 

As with any 'freedom', if the harm it causes to society at large is beyond a certain threshold then that freedom should and must be curtailed........some how. This is the difference between civil society and a lawless society like Somalia.

Again, we aren't lawless, we have laws already in place that should deal with the teen binge drinking. Either the laws aren't being enforced, they have inadequate strength or they're aimed at the wrong people. In this case, I'd say the parents who supply illegal liquor to minors need to suffer more than those parts of society that aren't involved.

[Schrödinger's hat]

I've yet to see an argument against this strategy for reducing the harms associated with a drug, at least for things like alcohol/tobacco/marijuana which can be produced safely by an individual:

Legalize usage, ban sales.

Legalize small scale production for personal use, but have penalties for having more than is required for personal use.

Put restrictions on where the drug can be used and employ marketing towards socially stigmatizing excessive or habitual use.

Heavy penalties for large scale selling/transporting/storing

Testing/penalties for doing anything dangerous to others while impaired

 

This cuts out any incentive to market the drug, and makes it laborious to acquire (you have to grow/brew it yourself). At the same time, it limits the price that can be charged for it (if you charge too much, people will just grow it themselves), thus taking the bottom out of the black market. It also limits the involvement of people with large amounts of resources making the drug more addictive/stronger.

 

Testing for social security/welfare etc. looks good on paper, but should be examined thoroughly. If it costs more to do the test than the 'freeloaders' cost society, then what's the point? Also people turn to drugs when they are in a bad spot. Cutting off their money at this time could just make them take longer to recover (further burden on society) or turn to crime to pay for their habit (unlikely in the case of pot).

[Phi for All]

I've yet to see an argument against this strategy for reducing the harms associated with a drug, at least for things like alcohol/tobacco/marijuana which can be produced safely by an individual:

Legalize usage, ban sales.

Legalize small scale production for personal use, but have penalties for having more than is required for personal use.

Put restrictions on where the drug can be used and employ marketing towards socially stigmatizing excessive or habitual use.

Heavy penalties for large scale selling/transporting/storing

Testing/penalties for doing anything dangerous to others while impaired

 

This cuts out any incentive to market the drug, and makes it laborious to acquire (you have to grow/brew it yourself). At the same time, it limits the price that can be charged for it (if you charge too much, people will just grow it themselves), thus taking the bottom out of the black market. It also limits the involvement of people with large amounts of resources making the drug more addictive/stronger.

I would argue, in the case of marijuana, that you would eventually have people who were better growers than anyone else, and those who couldn't grow it (for whatever reason) would naturally gravitate towards them. Would your system allow one person to grow for 19 others as well, as long as the total didn't exceed the legal maximums for 20 people?

 

In the case of alcohol, I would argue that, while there are plenty of home brewers and vintners, distilling more aggressive spirits is not something I'd want the average scotch drinker to undertake. Perhaps a person would have to pass a certification test for a license to distill hard liquor, if you still think that's prudent?

 

There are already laws that restrict public intoxication and harming others while under the influence. Do you feel there would need to be more or stronger laws if pot were legal?

 

I think the best argument against your plan is that it still restricts what some don't want restricted, so it doesn't do much to end the motivation for a black market. I think there would be a LOT of people who have limited resources to grow/brew it themselves, and that sounds like demand for illegal distribution. I mean, marijuana is treated just like cocaine, crack and methamphetamine in the US, so how much more of a penalty are you going to impose? There are already too many people in prison for pot.

 

But I do like your emphasis on education against habitual use. If the US could spend the same amount of money on that as they do on prison for drug-only offenses, I think you'd see a dramatic decrease in the amount of unwanted effects from drug use.

 

Also people turn to drugs when they are in a bad spot. Cutting off their money at this time could just make them take longer to recover (further burden on society) or turn to crime to pay for their habit (unlikely in the case of pot).

Hard drugs, I agree, have a much greater potential to exceed recreational use. I wouldn't say that pot smokers turn to pot when they're in a bad spot, though. Most people I know who partake do it recreationally, just like the people who have a couple of beers at home in an evening. I don't think those people are harming anyone enough to warrant government intrusion.

[Santalum]

That doesn't really answer my question, and isn't really true. There are citizens who pay taxes to subsidize products they never use (subsidies they often don't even know about), or use a disproportionately low amount of. I'm asking if you think this should be such a case, where a subsidy should be attached to the sale of alcohol (and let's say marijuana too, if it's made legal) so that everyone's money can be used to help with a reduction in harm to society overall.

Alcohol tax is usually built into the price of the alcoholic beverages. If you do not buy alcoholic beverages then you do not pay the tax.

 

Again, we aren't lawless, we have laws already in place that should deal with the teen binge drinking. Either the laws aren't being enforced, they have inadequate strength or they're aimed at the wrong people. In this case, I'd say the parents who supply illegal liquor to minors need to suffer more than those parts of society that aren't involved.

Since teenage binge drinking is a major problem, any current laws are doing a poor job and more is required.

 

There is little point in puting a child in a discount candy store and telling them that they are not allowed to buy any lollies.

 

Therefore a requirement for reducing teenage binge drinking would be to both increase the prices of alcohol and reduce the number of liquor stores, and both would not do many aldults any harm either.

 

Currently for drugs, the crims are running the lolly stores. So some how we have to remove the incentive for them to run their lolly store and at the same time reduce the supply of drugs. Clearly law enforcement alone is a total failure.

[Moontanman]

Alcohol tax is usually built into the price of the alcoholic beverages. If you do not buy alcoholic beverages then you do not pay the tax.

 

 

Since teenage binge drinking is a major problem, any current laws are doing a poor job and more is required.

 

There is little point in puting a child in a discount candy store and telling them that they are not allowed to buy any lollies.

 

Therefore a requirement for reducing teenage binge drinking would be to both increase the prices of alcohol and reduce the number of liquor stores, and both would not do many aldults any harm either.

 

Currently for drugs, the crims are running the lolly stores. So some how we have to remove the incentive for them to run their lolly store and at the same time reduce the supply of drugs. Clearly law enforcement alone is a total failure.

 

 

I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Are you saying that the availability of cannabis should be curtailed or that the availability of alcohol should be curtailed as well or are you talking about hard drugs?

[Phi for All]

Alcohol tax is usually built into the price of the alcoholic beverages. If you do not buy alcoholic beverages then you do not pay the tax.

Usually, yes, but not always, and that's why I asked. Here's a link to some of your own government's alcohol subsidies, given to everyone from restaurants to liquor stores to hotels. Many people who stay at a hotel or go to a restaurant DON'T drink alcohol, but their taxes subsidize it. And even Ozzies who never set foot in a liquor store are paying taxes to help make them more profitable.

 

Since teenage binge drinking is a major problem, any current laws are doing a poor job and more is required.

More laws? Isn't it easier to give existing laws bigger teeth?

 

Therefore a requirement for reducing teenage binge drinking would be to both increase the prices of alcohol and reduce the number of liquor stores, and both would not do many aldults any harm either.

It's clear you think people in general need to stop being able to easily obtain alcohol. If you get your way, what's to stop you from doing the same thing to anything else you think is bad for everyone? A heavy tax on bacon might unclog some arteries but there are lots of folks who don't abuse their pig privileges, yet the tax penalizes them too.

 

And don't forget that too much of a price hike invites the criminal element to come in and undercut the market price. Clearly, raising prices and closing a percentage of the liquor stores has it's limitations, just like law enforcement. Even together, you're still missing some elements that would more precisely address the actual problem of teen binge drinking.

[Santalum]

I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Are you saying that the availability of cannabis should be curtailed or that the availability of alcohol should be curtailed as well or are you talking about hard drugs?

 

 

Both.

 

I can only speak for Australia but.........

 

Alcohol is too freely available legally and is too inexpensive.

 

Other drugs are too freely available illegally if not too inexpensive.

 

The alcohol problem could be addressed by restricting the number of liquor licences issues and renewed. This would force up prices and hopefully force people to travel further to purchase alcohol and both would reduce consumption to some extent.

 

The only way that similar control could be applied to other drugs is to first make them legal and use market methods to make it unprofitable for criminals to produce and distribute them.

[Moontanman]

Both.

 

I can only speak for Australia but.........

 

Alcohol is too freely available legally and is too inexpensive.

 

Other drugs are too freely available illegally if not too inexpensive.

 

The alcohol problem could be addressed by restricting the number of liquor licences issues and renewed. This would force up prices and hopefully force people to travel further to purchase alcohol and both would reduce consumption to some extent.

 

The only way that similar control could be applied to other drugs is to first make them legal and use market methods to make it unprofitable for criminals to produce and distribute them.

 

Trying to control behavior the ways you are suggesting will only serve to drive the problems under ground, assuming that it is a problem for everyone makes criminals out of ordinary people and unfairly stigmatizes them. These mistakes have been made in the past and our present problems are at least partly the result of those mistakes, repeating them will not make them the right thing to do....

 

You nor anyone else can legislate morality nor can you control behaviors just because you don't like them.

 

Yes, alcohol and drugs should be kept away from children, convincing adults that is a good idea will not happen by restricting what adults can do... The key is to convince adults that keeping drugs and alcohol from kids is good idea. Trying to make things too expensive via taxation is not the way to go, it just drives the trade underground and you loose any control...

 

I think the most important thing is to make people responsible for their actions, not many years ago you could get drunk and drive down the road an kill a dozen people because you lost control and the law would set you free because you were too drunk to be responsible for your actions. people were given a pass because they were drunk, it took many years but that attitude has gone away and now people don't look at drunk driving as a harmless thing to do. In fact it has become despicable behavior and it is no longer allowed and punishment is handed out to people who drink and drive whether or not they cause cause harm to others. You need to convince people their behavior is wrong not force them to conform to your ideals...

Edited February 24, 2012 by Moontanman

[Santalum]

Trying to control behavior the ways you are suggesting will only serve to drive the problems under ground, assuming that it is a problem for everyone makes criminals out of ordinary people and unfairly stigmatizes them. These mistakes have been made in the past and our present problems are at least partly the result of those mistakes, repeating them will not make them the right thing to do....

 

I have not the faintest idea how you have jumped to this conclusion.

Legalising drugs is hardly making users criminals, quite the opposite in fact.

 

And alcohol consumption and supply is already quite heavily regulated in Australia at least - againts the law to drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.05% or greater, not allowed to sell alcohol without a liquor licence, not allowed to purchase alcohol below the age of 18............

 

 

All that we are talking about is adjusting that regulation to effect a decrease in overall alcohol consumption but particularly that of teenagers for whom it is against the law any way to purchase alcohol.

 

 

You nor anyone else can legislate morality nor can you control behaviors just because you don't like them.

 

Yes, alcohol and drugs should be kept away from children, convincing adults that is a good idea will not happen by restricting what adults can do... The key is to convince adults that keeping drugs and alcohol from kids is good idea. Trying to make things too expensive via taxation is not the way to go, it just drives the trade underground and you loose any control...

 

Well I beg to differ.

 

Morality around alcohol consumption is already legislated up to apoint and rightly so.

 

It is against the law to be drunk in public and you can be arrested for disturbing the peace while drunk, you are not permitted to have any open alcoholic beverages while driving, liquor sellers are not permitted to sell alcohol to intoxicated patrons, on new years eve in Melbourne it is illegal to carry any alcoholic beverages on the street and the police will confiscate them and empty them on to the street.............

 

When the lowest common denominator in society become too numerous and detrimental to wider society then it becomes necessary to legislate some minimum moral standards. Those that maintain minimum moral standards without legislation are rarely effected signficantly by such legislation and it is only society's scum that complain loudly when it IS implemented.

 

 

I think the most important thing is to make people responsible for their actions, not many years ago you could get drunk and drive down the road an kill a dozen people because you lost control and the law would set you free because you were too drunk to be responsible for your actions. people were given a pass because they were drunk, it took many years but that attitude has gone away and now people don't look at drunk driving as a harmless thing to do. In fact it has become despicable behavior and it is no longer allowed and punishment is handed out to people who drink and drive whether or not they cause cause harm to others. You need to convince people their behavior is wrong not force them to conform to your ideals...

 

Yes. And a good way to do that is to legislate minimum moral standards around alcohl consumption so that the police have the power to arrest them when they step outside of acceptible public behaviour. Also restricting and reducing liquor licences so that they find it harder to access alcohol in the first place.