Petition Drive Challenges Medical Marijuana Ban
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/us...ty.html?ref=us

Note: November 3, 2011

Really?

yes ban medical marijuana and let big pharma get more profits from synthetic THC :nope:
They did this in Germany, so the health insurances pay crazy sums of money for an extract of a plant that grows everywhere at nearly no costs.

Hey Vendor, as a LEO from a country with one of Europe's strictest policy regarding pot: what is your stance on the whole thing?

One thing is for sure, I trust marihuana more than the pills I get regarding to my asthma

I disagree with drugs, with certain exceptions, and they are only medical, after having worked with SNOA (Swedish Narcotics Officers Association), a time for drug control at various levels (such as heroin, cocaine, for example), my position is clear ,I not wanting the availability of it, but as everyone knows, this is not the case, then it must be one or preferably several steps ahead, when it comes to strangle the supply and access.

http://www.drogfritt.eu/sida6.html

The good sheriff misses the whole point. Those problems are all the direct result of the drug being illegal, not the drug itself. If anything he should be advocating its full legalization if he wants to eliminate those problems.

Legal crops are just not grown in secret patches and fields by criminal cartels. When will we learn the lessons of Prohibition?

:agree:

Legalized and controled (and taxed). But this is one crop that shouldn't be free marketed. I believe in the healing powers of marihuana when it is in small quantities, but I also see these potheads in my village where they fry their brain out daily

There is a significant risk to first let it go free, and then have it checked by taking to the tax on it ... there are many difficulties with this type of management, and authorities have been difficult enough to overcome this, we must ensure the consistency of such a scenario, and the implications.

Even if it is legalized, I don't think it would provide all the tax revenue and reduce that much crime like the pro weed people claim

After all, most of the marijuana legalization people just want to get high
its not like they are willing to pay 50% more from a legal source, nor is it possible for them to get prescriptions


Even if it is legalized, I believe the underground drug trade in marijuana will not go away

You're right, not if those claims are based on the black market price. Still tobacco cigarettes cost, what, a quarter a pack to make? They're getting about 8 bucks a pack around here with all the sin taxes the government has imposed and the illegal cigarette trade is still only a tiny percentage of total sales.

I do. I believe the underground drug trade would disappear completely with legalization. After all we're talking about a weed that grows naturally in all 50 states. Why would anyone pay a criminal cartel large amounts of money for something that they can grow for free in their own back yard?

Basic drug economy: Except for the obvious supply/demand relation, the price is made significantly by the fact that a drug goes through many hands till it reaches the consumer, and an "illegality surcharge", which represents the risks that the sellers/smugglers have - the latter defines the huge margins and is the most important price factor.

So if you legalize it, it would become significantly cheaper, this is where a sensible taxation (:rotfl2: as if there was ever any) could come into play. An example: the glorious and wise government of Germany raises tobacco taxes on a yearly base. However if draw a diagram, with tax level and tax revenue, you get a curve. At one level, the revenues decrease, as it becomes more profitable to smuggle untaxed cigs which lead to less tax income.

If the price after taxation would be reasonable, nobody would buy from illegal sources, not only regarding the legal risk but also regarding the health risk. Yes, even weed gets cut with toxic substances, for example lead dust to increase the weight.

And I'd prefer to have Philip Morris making their profits with Marlboro Green than supporting (more;)) criminal organizations, like the Cartels or the Taliban.

The argument that people only smoke to get stoned is void. Most people here certainly know alcoholics, the guy who starts the day with a hit from the bong is the same guy who opens his first beer after getting up. However there is also a drinking culture that exists. A culture to have a wine with diner or a glass of whisky to relax after work. Same goes for weed, just like people have a few beer to have a little buzz, people smoke for recreation, for this little buzz. It is not a drug like heroin that is only made for a total bang.


^
:hmmm: first you show a sensible view of the death penalty, now this: I'm concerned are you becoming a lefty?
Seriously, I am pleasantly surprised. :up:

There are those among us who are on the right of some issues and the left of others. We're called "independents". We also don't support parties.

But drug and alcohol prohibition is classic socialism. True capitalists would never be so anti-commerce. :up:

Some would seem to support pot parties. :DL

It seems that for the first time in younger history a majority of Americans are for a legalization of marijuana:

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/620...mwwmfbuo9q.gif
source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/Re...Marijuana.aspx


haha, touché!
*runs to the post office and tries to stop the parcel with red socks(1) he sent to August*

On the other hand, Alcohol was incredible cheap in the Eastern bloc countries and one of the few goods that were always and plenty available. Guess the governments feared rough drunks less than people starting a booze riot. :DL

(1)=red sock is a German expression for closet Commies :)