Legalize it!

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Plus it makes people want more BBQ!
lol

Just joking friends
peace

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I don't smoke anymore simply because of the legal problems that it can cause. But, when I did smoke, I did it for the same reasons that I drank to get drunk (as opposed to drinking for just the taste). Basically, I had a better time smoking weed and watching a movie or just hanging out with friends than I did when I was sober. It's dumb, but that's kind of the point.

[pdid5000]

decriminalized yes, legalized no - they've had nothing but problems in areas like amsterdam where they've legalized it. heroin addicts there are buying legal weed and selling it for more to underaged kids. the same thing would happen here on a much larger scale. i think here in the u.s. if your caught with an ounce or less it should be a fine and thats it.

[Daseal]

I want some BBQ without beer or weed. Hurry up and open a joint in NOVA =p

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I want some BBQ without beer or weed. Hurry up and open a joint in NOVA =p

Soon my son....soon.

[Schneed10]

Unfortunately I had to be away from the computer from 5:15 until now, and was disengaged from the conversation, and now there are way too many points to counter. But I'll address a couple:

If you guys want to argue with me on economics, you're probably better off arguing with me on salary cap issues. Yes, weed can be grown in any moderate climate. Yes, it can be grown in a garage. But it can be grown much more cheaply in South America, where there is already infrastructure set up with vast fields used to grow the stuff. Here in the states we would require capital investment to clear fields, irrigate, plant, grow, and harvest. That requires money. We could use fields that we're already using for tobacco or any other crop, but the net effect on our GDP would be zero, as any revenues generated by the weed fields would be offset by the corresponding loss in revenues in tobacco.

The guy using hydrophonic lamps is using electricity to produce the pot, which isn't nearly as cost-effective as letting the sun shine on it. His cost per unit is much higher than South America's. But from an economic standpoint, I'm not interested in talking about the guys who would grow it in their garage, collectively they wouldn't produce enough weed to make a dent in the nation's demand. If weed became legalized, big business would take over and produce it in mass quantities. South America already has fields, equipment, irrigation, and the process set up to grow and produce the stuff at a marginal cost that is much lower than we could here in the US. One big reason: land in the US is much more expensive than in south America. We could generate pot here in the states for sure, but once Phillip Morris realizes that South America has them beat on labor costs (Columbians will work for 25 cents an hour), the cost of land, and the capital investments required, Phillip Morris will quickly decide not to push forward with a major pot-growing initiative. The nation will still end up importing most of it's pot, and as I said before, the trade deficit broadens, and the dollar weakens.

I don't care if you "buy it" or not, that's what would happen. Go find your friendly neighborhood economics professor and ask him. I know we have several guys around here with MBAs besides me, go ahead, do a SWOT analysis on the American pot industry assuming it were legal. There are too many barriers to entry to compete in a global market.

Secondly, Matty, I've seen recent information saying weed is being found with crystal meth scattered throughout. Crystal meth is made so cheaply (like out of Sudafed), dealers don't mind using it to lace. I'll try to find links because I know this statement is worthless without supporting documentation.

As for my problems with the healthcare system, and I have many given that I work for a chain of hospitals and see the whole gory picture, yeah there's something wrong with a family of 6 paying the same insurance premium as a family of 3. There are more people to cover, you should pay more if you're covering more people. Secondly, a non-smoker shouldn't have to pay as much as a smoker. Life insurance costs more if you smoke, why not the same for health insurance? Smokers are a bigger drain on the healthcare system's financial resources, why should I (a non smoker) get the same rates as him, thereby helping to bear the burden that people like him are causing?

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't care if you "buy it" or not, that's what would happen. Go find your friendly neighborhood economics professor and ask him. I know we have several guys around here with MBAs besides me, go ahead, do a SWOT analysis on the American pot industry assuming it were legal. There are too many barriers to entry to compete in a global market.

I'll be honest and say that I really don't know nearly enough about the global market, but why isn't tobacco imported if such was the case.

It seems that the same logic should be applied there. Marijuana can grow in North Carolina... where there are plenty of tobacco farms.

Regardless, I really couldn't care whether or not pot was legalized. I just think that it highlights some inconsistencies in our legal system, especially for medical marijuana. My father passed away from brain cancer a number of years ago and suffered incredibly throughout the chemotherapy, with almost crippling nausea.

Marijuana has been known to work wonders for many symptoms of terminally ill patients and offensive to me that something like this cannot be offered medically.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

I'll be honest and say that I really don't know nearly enough about the global market, but why isn't tobacco imported if such was the case.

It seems that the same logic should be applied there. Marijuana can grow in North Carolina... where there are plenty of tobacco farms.

That's my whole point. We could grow pot in NC, but companies would have to either:

1) Buy more land for fields, raze them, fertilize them, irrigate them, plant and then harvest. This requires major capital investment (purchase of the land, contracting an agricultural engineering firm to raze, capital equipment to irrigate, engineers to design the irrigation, supplies to fertilize, etc).

2) Stop growing tobacco in existing tobacco fields and start growing weed there instead. This requires little capital investment but cuts into tobacco revenues. There would be a net zero incremental impact to overall revenues from the combined sale of weed & tobacco.

Tobacco isn't imported because we've had the infrastructure in place for tobacco harvesting since the 1800s. We make the stuff very cheaply, and then tax the living shitake mushrooms out of it.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

2) Stop growing tobacco in existing tobacco fields and start growing weed there instead. This requires little capital investment but cuts into tobacco revenues. There would be a net zero incremental impact to overall revenues from the combined sale of weed & tobacco.

Sounds like a fine idea...

Outlaw cigarettes, and legalize cigga-weed!

Also, smoking is on the decline... lots of farms are probably going to free up. There is ALOT of land out there. I'm no expert, and don't claim to be... but I'd be interested in seeking out the economic possibilities out there.

If there aren't any... than there aren't any. It would probably explain why marijuana hasn't been legalized yet.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Sounds like a fine idea...

Outlaw cigarettes, and legalize cigga-weed!

Also, smoking is on the decline... lots of farms are probably going to free up. There is ALOT of land out there. I'm no expert, and don't claim to be... but I'd be interested in seeking out the economic possibilities out there.

If there aren't any... than there aren't any. It would probably explain why marijuana hasn't been legalized yet.

Exactly.

Same reason we're in Iraq and not in Darfur: money.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

If you guys want to argue with me on economics, you're probably better off arguing with me on salary cap issues. Yes, weed can be grown in any moderate climate. Yes, it can be grown in a garage. But it can be grown much more cheaply in South America, where there is already infrastructure set up with vast fields used to grow the stuff. Here in the states we would require capital investment to clear fields, irrigate, plant, grow, and harvest. That requires money. We could use fields that we're already using for tobacco or any other crop, but the net effect on our GDP would be zero, as any revenues generated by the weed fields would be offset by the corresponding loss in revenues in tobacco.

The guy using hydrophonic lamps is using electricity to produce the pot, which isn't nearly as cost-effective as letting the sun shine on it. His cost per unit is much higher than South America's. But from an economic standpoint, I'm not interested in talking about the guys who would grow it in their garage, collectively they wouldn't produce enough weed to make a dent in the nation's demand. If weed became legalized, big business would take over and produce it in mass quantities. South America already has fields, equipment, irrigation, and the process set up to grow and produce the stuff at a marginal cost that is much lower than we could here in the US. One big reason: land in the US is much more expensive than in south America. We could generate pot here in the states for sure, but once Phillip Morris realizes that South America has them beat on labor costs (Columbians will work for 25 cents an hour), the cost of land, and the capital investments required, Phillip Morris will quickly decide not to push forward with a major pot-growing initiative. The nation will still end up importing most of it's pot, and as I said before, the trade deficit broadens, and the dollar weakens.

I don't care if you "buy it" or not, that's what would happen. Go find your friendly neighborhood economics professor and ask him. I know we have several guys around here with MBAs besides me, go ahead, do a SWOT analysis on the American pot industry assuming it were legal. There are too many barriers to entry to compete in a global market.

You and your economics buddies are a little off. You're forgetting one of the most basic fundamentals of economics -- supply and demand. The cost of marijuana today is reflected in its illegal status. Remove the Black Market implications and the price goes down. I don't need econ professors for that; it's common sense.

And why do you assume people will go out and buy imported marijuana when they can easily grow it on their own? Is it your contention that the sun doesn't shine in the Northern Hemisphere enough to adequately address the demand for the marijuana?

If you're as versed in economics as you say, you of all people should realize that consumers will seek out the least expensive route for the products they want. That's where competition comes in. If Big Business decides to enter into this market, they're going to have to compete with the people who just as easily grow it in their living room. In fact, I would submit that not as many "Big Business" entities would even bother to compete when the cards are stacked against them like that.

Even in your scenario, clearing fields, putting up massive capital amounts to
devote to new products; any weakening of the dollar could be negated once all of the resources relegated to law enforcement, source interdiction operations, court costs, Coast Guard-border enforcement and customs enforcement are removed since it's no longer illegal to consume or possess.

Since you've already admitted to throwing logic and reason out the window with this issue, I suppose it's pointless to argue further. As long as the pharmecutical companies have a stranglehold on the politicians, the GDP and the strength of your dollar will be safe.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You and your economics buddies are a little off. You're forgetting one of the most basic fundamentals of economics -- supply and demand. The cost of marijuana today is reflected in its illegal status. Remove the Black Market implications and the price goes down. I don't need econ professors for that; it's common sense.

And why do you assume people will go out and buy imported marijuana when they can easily grow it on their own? Is it your contention that the sun doesn't shine in the Northern Hemisphere enough to adequately address the demand for the marijuana?

If you're as versed in economics as you say, you of all people should realize that consumers will seek out the least expensive route for the products they want. That's where competition comes in. If Big Business decides to enter into this market, they're going to have to compete with the people who just as easily grow it in their living room. In fact, I would submit that not as many "Big Business" entities would even bother to compete when the cards are stacked against them like that.

Even in your scenario, clearing fields, putting up massive capital amounts to
devote to new products; any weakening of the dollar could be negated once all of the resources relegated to law enforcement, source interdiction operations, court costs, Coast Guard-border enforcement and customs enforcement are removed since it's no longer illegal to consume or possess.

Since you've already admitted to throwing logic and reason out the window with this issue, I suppose it's pointless to argue further. As long as the pharmecutical companies have a stranglehold on the politicians, the GDP and the strength of your dollar will be safe.

What a dismal understanding of supply and demand you have.

Yes, marijuana is priced the way it is because it's illegal. The fact that it has to be smuggled keeps the supply in check, consequently price stays high. You drop the prohibition, suddenly it will arrive in the states via vast shipments from south America. Likewise, we'd be able to grow our own in mass quantities. The price will come down because the market will be flooded with weed.

The guy growing his own in his garage is no competition for big business. That's like saying Anheuser-Busch and Miller have to compete with guys who brew their own beer at home, it's just asinine.

If legalized, it would be American companies like Phillip Morris trying to grow it here in the states competing against Columbian growers who have much lower labor costs, lower costs of land, and require no new capital investment. The high supply of weed in the market, and increased competition between companies like Phillip Morris and overseas growers will push the price WAAAY down. Competition will push the price down so far that South American growers will be able to drop their prices below the point at which Phillip Morris could cover their costs. The South Americans would still turn a profit even on their lower margins, simply because the costs are so much lower. Phillip Morris's margin would be so bad they'd be forced out.

The affect on our currency in the global market would not be anywhere close to being offset by savings on law enforcement and all that crap. The government wouldn't cut back costs on law enforcement, they'd just redirect their attention to other issues. The government doesn't have competition like business does; there's no incentive for them to cut police officers or border control agents.

Where the eff did you go to business school?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

What a dismal understanding of supply and demand you have.

You say it's dismal, yet you proceed to confirm everything I wrote with regard to the drop in price due to the laws of supply and demand.

And you're right, since the act of growing a weed in your backyard is somewhat less complicated than micro brewing, that does make your comparison to Anheuser-Busch rather asinine.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

If legalized, it would be American companies like Phillip Morris trying to grow it here in the states competing against Columbian growers who have much lower labor costs, lower costs of land, and require no new capital investment. The high supply of weed in the market, and increased competition between companies like Phillip Morris and overseas growers will push the price WAAAY down. Competition will push the price down so far that South American growers will be able to drop their prices below the point at which Phillip Morris could cover their costs. The South Americans would still turn a profit even on their lower margins, simply because the costs are so much lower. Phillip Morris's margin would be so bad they'd be forced out.

Exactly. Big Business may not rush to enter into the market for marijuana production. Since it's a weed, people don't have to be agriculture experts to grow it. More confirmations of my post. I guess "effing" business school isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The affect on our currency in the global market would not be anywhere close to being offset by savings on law enforcement and all that crap. The government wouldn't cut back costs on law enforcement, they'd just redirect their attention to other issues. The government doesn't have competition like business does; there's no incentive for them to cut police officers or border control agents.

I never said the government would "cut police officers or border control agents." Do you have any idea how much money the United States Government spends on the War on Drugs? I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but I can assure you the number contains lots of commas.

Is it your position that a redirection of resources away from the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration of marijuana users wouldn't make for a wiser and more effective use of available funds? The fact that they concentrate their attention on crimes that actually infringe on the rights of others as opposed to vice type crimes contradicts that argument.

Ask your econ buddies what the total effect would be on our currency. I'd bet the difference would be minimal. Our country's overall economic strengths in just about every other area would offset any decline that you speak of.

At some point, I guess I will come to the realization that arguing with someone who admits to not using logic and objectivity is a pointless waste of time.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Ask your econ buddies what the total effect would be on our currency. I'd bet the difference would be minimal. Our country's overall economic strengths in just about every other area would offset any decline that you speak of.

Don't forget the sharp increase in the U.S. demand for sour cream and onion chips with some dip, some beef jerky, some peanut butter. Häagen-Dazs ice cream bars, a whole lot, chocolate, gotta have chocolate. Some popcorn, red popcorn, graham crackers, graham crackers with marshmallows, the little marshmallows and little chocolate bars and for s'mores. Also, celery, grape jelly, Cap'n Crunch with the little Crunch berries, pizzas. Big pizza's with everything on 'em, with water, whole lotta water, and Funyons. (Great Movie)

This will surely impact the economy in a positive way.

(I'm done talking about economic impact since I really don't know enough about it... just thought I'd lighten the thread up)

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

If you're as versed in economics as you say, you of all people should realize that consumers will seek out the least expensive route for the products they want. That's where competition comes in. If Big Business decides to enter into this market, they're going to have to compete with the people who just as easily grow it in their living room. In fact, I would submit that not as many "Big Business" entities would even bother to compete when the cards are stacked against them like that.

You're right in one sense but you're also forgetting about brand recognition. If Philip Morris starts package and distribute marijuana and spends its resources on advertising then people will generally tend to buy their product over the unknown dude with the cheap packaging and inferior looking product image. You can use tv's, shoes, over-the-conter drugs and just about any other product as an example. In the end Big Business wins out just about everytime. If the little guy is showing impressive sales success with a superior product then Big Business simply "makes him an offer he can't refuse" and buys the product. A good example of that would be Cisco Systems.