Medical Marijuana in CA, good/bad?

reply to post by leftyknew


Hmm interesting debate!

1. Am i getting this card from the government, and therefore couldn't this be traced, and eventually possibly used against me when i go to apply for a job or something.

This is a state sponsored program. So I doubt the fed would get the info. Secondly, In California, im pretty sure its illegal to "discriminate" against people who use pot medically, unless its for jobs like driving big rigs. But even then, if someone is so sick they need MJ, should they be driving a big rig anyways?

2. Am i now just purchasing this marijuana straight from the government rather than the government having to actually appear as if they are fighting a "war on drugs"

Your not buying it straight from the government. People grow it, sell it to clinics, and have their own little cexchange system. Its pretty much the same deal with tobacco. Your buying it with GOVERNMENT PERMISSION.

3. Is this legalization of medical marijuana a good thing, what could this do to society?

this is a very good thing! Increased tax revenue and jobs for the state.
People will smoke marijuana whether its legal or not, so we might as well be giving the profit to law abiding citizens, and not mexican drug/warlords or even worse, CIA drug spooks


and lastly, the brave new world topic. I have thought about this many times. I know many people who are very productive and successful and they smoke weed. I know a lot of dirtballs who dont do anything, except smoke weed.
Really, its the people, not the drug! And besides, havent you ever met the worst type of smoker? The crazy nut-job conspiracist ones? those are the worst. but back to my point, these people dnt seem to be giving up!

reply to post by zaiger


Then why hasn't this happened with tobacco?

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by zaiger

 

Then why hasn't this happened with tobacco?

It has. It is really hard to find little mom and pop stores selling tobacco they grow. It is a plant that anyone can grow but tobacco is grown and sold by big tobacco.

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Well that's not the problem with legalization, that is a problem with the government spending when they should be using money towards lowering the deficit.

Right but that kind of goes against the argument that legalization will help the budget problem.

Nobody needs to kill each other over weed if it's readily available in a store.

But money is available to all that want to work and people kill eachother over that. But this is another double standard of the pro-legalization arguments. So people who use pot are killing eachother for it?

[edit on 20-4-2010 by zaiger]

Yeah, those are criminals who kill over money. Prison is perfect for them, not for someone who grows and consumes cannabis.. it can be readily available in you're own home if it were legal.

ZAIGER ... READ THIS SINCE YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IT WHEN OTHER PEOPLE TELL YOU.... PROHIBITION CREATES CRIME.... (not only that, a prohibition will inflate prices also... )

Roughly speaking, therefore, there have been two periods with high homicide rates in U.S. history, the 1920-1934 period and the 1970-1990 period (Friedman 1991). Both before the first episode and between these two episodes, homicide rates were relatively low or clearly declining. Prima facie, this pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that alcohol prohibition increased violent crime: homicide rates are high in the 1920-1933 period, when constitutional prohibition of alcohol was in effect; the homicide rate drops quickly after 1933, when Prohibition was repealed; and the homicide rate remains low for a substantial period thereafter. Further, the homicide rate is low during the 1950s and early 1960s, when drug prohibition was in existence but not vigorously enforced, but high in the 1970-1990 period, when drug prohibition was enforced to a relatively stringent degree (Miron 1999).

Prohibitions raise supply costs because black market suppliers face legal punishments for manufacturing, distributing, and selling.

In addition to affecting price and quantity, prohibitions potentially increase violent and non-violent crime. Participants in an illegal trade cannot use the legal and judicial system to resolve disputes, so they seek other methods such as violence. Enforcement of prohibitions means reduced resources for enforcement of non-prohibition laws, which implies reduced deterrence of crime generally

Given the evidence that cirrhosis is a reasonable proxy for alcohol consumption, this implies Prohibition had little impact on the path of alcohol consumption.

The question raised by this result is why consumption did not fall more significantly, since conventional accounts suggest that alcohol prices rose by several hundred percent on average (Warburton (1932), Fisher (1928))

all from eh.net...

This isn't the first time zaiger's tried to make a case for "criminals are criminals."

What he does not get is there are millions of people in jail right now for nothing more than a cannabis charge of some sort.

No violence. No thieving. No killing... they didn't violate any other crimes and they are otherwise good people who broke the law on the books that says "it is illegal to grow cannabis."

A plant.

A plant that is less harmful than aspirin, caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco.

There's not one thing criminal about these people other than a decision greedy white dudes made in the 1930s.

--------------

some more dis-info I've got to address...

Prices will go DOWN. Not one thing that is necessary right this instant to get cannabis will magically change. There are growers, processors, distributors, salesmen, and an added factor that wouldn't be there if it were legalized and that is RISK.

There is is still RISK involved in California and other med states. Sure there are caregivers... but I can tell you for fact that caregivers are not supplying the dispensaries. And I can tell you for fact that very few people sit down to process pounds of cannabis (they hire this job out).

The dispensaries that operate now charge about 10% below black market value. I honestly and truly believe this is only to save face and so that they can proudly proclaim "we sell our medicine to sick patients for cheaper than they get it on the black market!!" And sure they are non profit but you better believe the security guard is getting paid, the clerks are getting paid, the rents getting paid, and the owner is paying themself quite well. Even then there are still dispensaries that are being taken down for not scrubbing away all that profit! They're not charging $45 because they "have to" .. they're charging it because they can.... if the competitor is selling their item at $100 are you going to offer yours at $10?? NO, is the simple answer. You sell it for slightly less to keep your profits up (in dispensary case, it's not called profit it's called paycheck). That's pretty easy to grasp isn't it?

Let's take the actual bill AB 390 from California and see how this would work...

They want to treat it like alcohol, so it'll be sold at liquor stores. They are already covering costs (and making profits, or they wouldn't be operating still). So this removes the necessity to pay rent, employees, security (as all these expenses are covered).

Cannabis can best be compared to wine and tobacco in my next example here... there will undoubtedly be companies like big tobacco that purchase a license to grow and supply cannabis (anyone that can pay for it can, and it's not expensive). These are your Camels, Dorals, Lucky Strikes what have you of the cannabis market...

Smaller suppliers will also undoubtedly purchase a license to grow and supply cannabis ie American Spirits ie domestic brands of wine. The license isn't expensive.

Even SMALLER, NICHE suppliers will undoubtedly purchase a license to grow and supply cannabis ie. Napa Valley wine industry. The license isn't expensive.

There is going to be an absolute FLOOD of cannabis on the market.

- store overheard (of a cannabis only shop vs. liquor store)
- risk
+ demand
+ supply
=
lower prices

ask walmart lol

There was so much else wrong with zaiger in this thread but I've got to run for now and I'll come back and correct him later....

I will say this though... I'd love to see dispensaries sell it in bulk, as would a lot of patients I'm sure. Economies of scale tell us that it would obviously be cheaper this way. Under current law in California though, they CAN NOT. This is to discourage resale of the medicine. The stores, when this becomes legal, are obviously going to buy it in bulk and I can see them selling ounce packages (at the least). When was the last time you just bought an ounce of coffee? An ounce of sugar? An ounce of anything that you consume on a regular basis...? An ounce is TINY in this industrious, Cosco-type world of ours...

Fun fact... did you know under this prohibition cannabis is MORE EXPENSIVE per ounce than silver and saffron?!

foodies where you at... yup, worth more than SAFFRON! Thanks black market!!!!!!!!



edited for clarity

[edit on 23-4-2010 by ImaNutter]

As a native of the worst town in california, bakersfield, i think it is extremely improtant that we all get out there and vote for the legalization of marijuana.

here in bakersfield we have had alot of problems with the police wiping their asses with the constitution. When marijuana was made legal for medical uses, they taxed the clinics here $10 million dollars then shut them all down and sent them all to prison, under federal laws, with a promise that any new clinics that open up under state law will be shut down and the owners sent to prison.

thankfully our sheriff has been put back in his place and state law is being enforced, most of the clincs are now back open and running again.

i think it would be a great victory to the constitution and the pursuit of happiness if marijuana is legalized. however, im sure the sheriff will have a sh*t fit and go around town arresting all the people in town that look like smokers.

DOWN WITH DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, DEAMON OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

reply to post by ImaNutter

ZAIGER ... READ THIS SINCE YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IT WHEN OTHER PEOPLE TELL YOU.... PROHIBITION CREATES CRIME.... (not only that, a prohibition will inflate prices also... )

Pot was illegal durring that whole time to, so the whole argument does not really work. There were pretty much no drug laws in america in the 1700s but there was still crime.

What he does not get is there are millions of people in jail right now for nothing more than a cannabis charge of some sort.

Okay well you have jail and prison, short terms are carried out in jails there are people in there for speeding tickets too. People who go to prison for pot charges have a legal history, were distributing and had guns involved and the case was pled down for a max term of a lesser charge.
There are people in jails for DUIs where nobody was hurt, there are people in jail for stealing where nobody was hurt. You can make less of a law in your head all you want but it is still a law and people how do not follow it get treated like criminals.

A plant that is less harmful than aspirin, caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco.

Yeah i know it is harmless now but keep 2 things in mind. Well first would you let children and pregnant mothers use it? i mean nothing is wrong with it right? Tobacco was "harmless" for a long time (and they had "science" to back up their claims of it doing no harm to people and not being addictive), trust me as soon as the first big marijuana growers turn into financial giants people will be dragging them to court and suing over lung cancer and every other type of cancer there is. This would force regulation and prices would go up.

There's not one thing criminal about these people other than a decision greedy white dudes made in the 1930s.

1930s? Try 1906-1930. The major anti-pot laws were started because mexicans used it and people were using cheap mexican labor. Now keep in mind this was durring the great depression so people were trying to make the plant used illegal so they could free up jobs for americans. Sounds greedy i know but that is the way it was.

The dispensaries that operate now charge about 10% below black market value. I

Yeah but you are leaving a very importiant part out. Those dispensaries have to operate on a not for proffit basis. So that 10% will go right back to black market valueif it becomes legalized.

This isn't the first time zaiger's tried to make a case for "criminals are criminals."

I know it is so much better than the criminals are not criminals argument.

Originally posted by zaiger
Pot was illegal durring that whole time to, so the whole argument does not really work. There were pretty much no drug laws in america in the 1700s but there was still crime.

lol I'm starting to question your debate skills zaiger...

The study shows that Prohibition leads to, and creates, more crime. Do you debate this? If you do, please point out specifically which factual statistics you disagree with lol

Okay well you have jail and prison, short terms are carried out in jails there are people in there for speeding tickets too. People who go to prison for pot charges have a legal history, were distributing and had guns involved and the case was pled down for a max term of a lesser charge.

You're oblivious to the judicial system too? Damn. Everything you write is at best your ignorance shining through, or at worst a bold faced lie.. It is called Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. Look it up, buddy. And yes, I accept your apology for posting disinformation!

There are people in jails for DUIs where nobody was hurt, there are people in jail for stealing where nobody was hurt. You can make less of a law in your head all you want but it is still a law and people how do not follow it get treated like criminals.

The driver threatened the life of others when he operated his vehicle under the influence.

The thief hurt the profit margin of the store and all the employees along the way that got the item to the store.

The pot grower paid for his electricity, smoked in his bedroom at nighttime before he went to sleep, and never smoked before work...

^^^^^ in a MMS state, #3 gets the worst penalty lol

The undeniable fact that pot laws are founded on racism and greed are not in my head. This is a fact that exists in our shared reality. I fear for what goes on in YOUR head when you can't even own up to simple facts about our world such of these.

Yeah i know it is harmless now but keep 2 things in mind. Well first would you let children and pregnant mothers use it? i mean nothing is wrong with it right? Tobacco was "harmless" for a long time (and they had "science" to back up their claims of it doing no harm to people and not being addictive), trust me as soon as the first big marijuana growers turn into financial giants people will be dragging them to court and suing over lung cancer and every other type of cancer there is. This would force regulation and prices would go up.

lol So that's why prices are going to go up now?

Chew on this one... they've been trying to DEMONIZE cannabis (in stark contradiction to the tobacco scenario) and what did they come up with? Anti-carcinogenic... neurogenesis... zero link to cancer.... government studies come back saying "it's not that bad really, we should remove penalties."

The only plausible comparison you can draw between the tobacco studies and cannabis studies were the cannabis studies where the government gave rhemus monkeys brain damage from oxygen deprivation lol

But otherwise, what you're proposing is a logical fallacy.

Someone sued McDonalds because they had hot coffee... what does this tell you? People sue for stupid crap all of the time.

The cannabis movement is not responsible for, and has never been responsible for, the lazy looking for a handout. The honus is NOT on the cannabis movement or cannabis industry to make these people good and honest people.... nor should it ever be.

But somehow you're trying to make that into one of your talking points? The more we talk, the less you have to talk about zaiger... lol

1930s? Try 1906-1930. The major anti-pot laws were started because mexicans used it and people were using cheap mexican labor. Now keep in mind this was durring the great depression so people were trying to make the plant used illegal so they could free up jobs for americans. Sounds greedy i know but that is the way it was.

1930s is when the Federal hammer came down. Sounds greedy? How about because it was.... how about racist too? Sounds like honorable laws I want to uphold...

Yeah but you are leaving a very importiant part out. Those dispensaries have to operate on a not for proffit basis. So that 10% will go right back to black market valueif it becomes legalized.

I mentioned that. It's called getting a nice paycheck. Non profit doesn't mean free labor. Instead of Oakland Dispensary X finishing in the green by 2 million for the fiscal quarter to go the CEO coffers or general fund or whatever, they finished at $0 in the green and everyone got paid handsomely. That's a "non-profit-" business.

Goes back into the black market? lol Quote the rest of that argument you left out and get back to me...

I know it is so much better than the criminals are not criminals argument.

Then why are you failing so badly?