The general decline in standards today

[jamespowers]

This is another thing that sticks in the libertarian section of my craw.

Well, just plain stupidity like that bothers me.......

 

[LizzieMaine]

The logic of "legalizing marijuana will cause non-smokers to start smoking cigarettes" makes no sense. Furthermore, alcohol prohibition is no panacea either. There are legitimate concerns about both, particularly with legalizing marijuana. Pointing out those will go much further in supporting your argument than fear mongering.

Going back to this point, I didn't get the sense that Feraud was saying "legalizing pot would encourage tobacco consumption" at all. The point I thought he was making, and which I fully agree with, is that Big Tobacco is all set to step in if pot is legalized and completely dominate its marketing -- thus segueing gracefully from the sale of one form of poison, now socially and scientifically discredited, to another form of poison which carries a fake "healthy and natural product of the earth, heaven be blessed" market position already created for it by the cannabis true-believers. It's a perfect setup for them -- the market's all there, ready to be exploited for all it's worth. And as we all know, Philip Morris and his buddy R. J. Reynolds are past masters of the art and science of taking a mind-altering substance and "enhancing" it to be more and more addictive with every one you stick in your face. Just imagine the fun they'll have with another 25 million suckers, ready and eager to consume their "product."

Oh, but the legalization advocates declare, when legalization comes we'll just all grow our own, and never need support Big Bad Corporate America at all if we don't want to. Ah, clearly, the smokers of the Sacred Indian Herb have truly allowed the Blessed Fumes to cloud their perceptions if they think that PM and RJR will allow that to happen. Any federal legalization will guarantee that the big players in tobacco become the big players in marijuana, because there's never been a Congress yet that Big Tobacco couldn't buy off. Those who think otherwise need to put down the reefers, and take a deep breath of clear, cold air.

And when that happens, you'll have the same old underground network of pot growers and smugglers and dealers and cartels trying to Stick It To The Man, and all that tax revenue and all those empty jail cells and all those happy, open borders they promise us in their propaganda? Just another pipe dream, just another desperate fantasy cooked up by people who long ago lost their grip on reality.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Going back to this point, I didn't get the sense that Feraud was saying "legalizing pot would encourage tobacco consumption" at all. The point I thought he was making, and which I fully agree with, is that Big Tobacco is all set to step in if pot is legalized and completely dominate its marketing -- thus segueing gracefully from the sale of one form of poison, now socially and scientifically discredited, to another form of poison which carries a fake "healthy and natural product of the earth, heaven be blessed" market position already created for it by the cannabis true-believers. It's a perfect setup for them -- the market's all there, ready to be exploited for all it's worth. And as we all know, Philip Morris and his buddy R. J. Reynolds are past masters of the art and science of taking a mind-altering substance and "enhancing" it to be more and more addictive with every one you stick in your face. Just imagine the fun they'll have with another 25 million suckers, ready and eager to consume their "product."

I obviously read his post differently, but I agree...should marijuana become a legal product, someone is going to fill the role of "legitimate" supplier, and the existing tobacco companies are the most obvious. Should it become legal, will more an more people use it and become addicted? Absolutely. That's one of the specific sociologic points I think furthers the argument against it.

And when that happens, you'll have the same old underground network of pot growers and smugglers and dealers and cartels trying to Stick It To The Man, and all that tax revenue and all those empty jail cells and all those happy, open borders they promise us in their propaganda? Just another pipe dream, just another desperate fantasy cooked up by people who long ago lost their grip on reality.

A couple of question for you in response...first, do you think Prohibition is an accurate analogy to marijuana legalization? Secondly, do you think there is a significant existing underground network for alcohol (as there was during Prohibition), and if not, why would you project one for marijuana? Because it's in place now?

 

[jamespowers]

Going back to this point, I didn't get the sense that Feraud was saying "legalizing pot would encourage tobacco consumption" at all. The point I thought he was making, and which I fully agree with, is that Big Tobacco is all set to step in if pot is legalized and completely dominate its marketing -- thus segueing gracefully from the sale of one form of poison, now socially and scientifically discredited, to another form of poison which carries a fake "healthy and natural product of the earth, heaven be blessed" market position already created for it by the cannabis true-believers. It's a perfect setup for them -- the market's all there, ready to be exploited for all it's worth. And as we all know, Philip Morris and his buddy R. J. Reynolds are past masters of the art and science of taking a mind-altering substance and "enhancing" it to be more and more addictive with every one you stick in your face. Just imagine the fun they'll have with another 25 million suckers, ready and eager to consume their "product."

And when that happens, you'll have the same old underground network of pot growers and smugglers and dealers and cartels trying to Stick It To The Man, and all that tax revenue and all those empty jail cells and all those happy, open borders they promise us in their propaganda? Just another pipe dream, just another desperate fantasy cooked up by people who long ago lost their grip on reality.

Yes, Big Tobacco is fully positioned to take fully advantage of the dope smokers. They are just so full on Cheech and Chong that they do not realize it. Making another smokeable product legal would play right into their hands and open a new market for them. I think I'll buy more stock.

The last paragraph is the most poignant. The dopers don't realize that they won't make it all nice and legal and cheap. There will be taxes---both state and federal---maybe even some local. It will cost more then than it does now! The illegal aspect of it won't go away either because that just adds an incentive to do more of the same illegal activity---just as they do with no tax label cigarettes. They steal them by the truckload and sell them off illegally. Imagine what it would be like transporting dope smokes...... You couldn't pay me enough.

 

[Feraud]

Apologizes if I was unclear a while back. I did not mean to imply that the mere legalization of marijuana will see a shocking increase in smoking. Make no doubt about it, for the reasons Lizzie clearly states someone will step in and control that market.

If anyone thinks cigarettes are poison just wait until you get that industry processed marijuana. Give it a few years and there will be a boatload of new diseases with everyone scratching their heads wondering why it's happening..

 

[jamespowers]

A couple of question for you in response...first, do you think Prohibition is an accurate analogy to marijuana legalization? Secondly, do you think there is a significant existing underground network for alcohol (as there was during Prohibition), and if not, why would you project one for marijuana? Because it's in place now?

Most definitely because it is place now. They have suppliers and pushers all set and ready.
Using the prohibition era as an example, many of the bootleggers became legitimate alcohol producers after they lifted prohibition. Many of the previously existing factories like Brown and Foreman opened up the NEXT day---with a full staff of people. Gee, I wonder where they found all those people so fast? lol lol lol

 

[jamespowers]

Apologizes if I was unclear a while back. I did not mean to imply that the mere legalization of marijuana will see a shocking increase in smoking. Make no doubt about it, for the reasons Lizzie clearly states someone will step in and control that market.

If anyone thinks cigarettes are poison just wait until you get that industry processed marijuana. Give it a few years and there will be a boatload of new diseases with everyone scratching their heads wondering why it's happening..

Nah, you will see ads like this with just a slight adjustment for the new product:


and even Santa will get in on the act getting stoned:


Babies too(all that teething you know):

 

[Feraud]

^ Absolutely! Throw a couple of hip celebrity weed smokes in the mix and you've got an ad campaign to make Don Draper envious.

 

[jamespowers]

^ Absolutely! Throw a couple of hip celebrity weed smokes in the mix and you've got an ad campaign to make Don Draper envious.

I am surprised we haven't see this coming out of Colorado lately.



Here is one we don't even have to alter much:

 

[Jack Savage]

I don't like it legalized. Opens the envelope wider for the kids to play with. But my opinion doesn't count, cause today anything you want to do is okay if the polls agree. And when they don't then you got to watch out. And its not their fault, its our fault. We voted them in.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Most definitely because it is place now. They have suppliers and pushers all set and ready.

But do you think the existing pushers and suppliers will still be illicit pushers and suppliers when consumers can walk into a grocery store and buy it legally?

 

[Stanley Doble]

But do you think the existing pushers and suppliers will still be illicit pushers and suppliers when consumers can walk into a grocery store and buy it legally?

If pot is legalized it will be taxed. If the tax is large enough crooks will sell illegal pot same as they do untaxed cigarettes and alcohol. The profit margin is in dodging the taxes.

 

[LizzieMaine]

But do you think the existing pushers and suppliers will still be illicit pushers and suppliers when consumers can walk into a grocery store and buy it legally?

There is a thriving bootleg tobacco market right now. By one estimate, around half the cigarettes sold in New York City are bootleg -- smuggled in from Indian reservations or from overseas in order to beat the heavy tobacco taxes. There is your answer to what the future would be like under pot legalization -- and the percentage of bootlegging would probably be much greater since it's a lot harder to actually grow and process tobacco than it is to grow and process marijuana.

To answer your previous question, I don't see alcohol prohibition as any kind of a legitimate analogy. Alcohol has been a part of Western civilization for as long as it's existed, for better or for worse, and it's also been recognized as a source of great harm for just as long. Prohibition wasn't cooked up by a bunch of old ladies in 1919 -- it was the logical product of a nationwide temperance movement that was nearly a century old by the time of the Volstead Act.

There is substantial evidence that Prohibition succeeded in reducing the use of alcohol in the United States, even after Repeal -- alcohol consumption in America didn't return to 1915 levels until the 1950s. That was its purpose, and by any unbiased account, it accomplished that purpose. The fact that it also led to an explosion in crime can be attributed to the fact that the Prohibition Bureau was woefully understaffed and underfunded for the entire tenure of its existence -- there were never more than 2300 Prohibition Agents on duty in the United States at any time during the life of the Volstead Act, in a nation of over 150,000,000 people.

Marijuana, despite the frantic claims that it was "widely used" n the United States before 1937, was nothing of the kind -- it was a fringe habit indulged in in portions of the Southwest, along the Mexican border, but most Americans had never heard of it at the time it was made illegal, hence the impact of the so-called "reefer madness" movement in the mid-thirties. If people before 1937 were widely using the stuff without harm, why would such campaigns have any effect on their views? The potheads can't have it both ways, although that never stopped them from trying.

Despite the claims of the pot lobby that hundreds of millions of Americans use the drug today, they'll also admit, when pressed, that this estimate includes everyone who ever tried it, regardless of whether they ever used it again or if they continue to use it today. This is the same logic that includes the likes of President Obama and Newt Gingrich on those ridiculous internet rosters of "Famous Pot Smokers."

If you press them, though, they'll admit that there are, in fact, no more than 25,000,000 or so people in the United States today who regularly use marijuana. Of these, no more than 115,000 are registered medical users -- so we have about 24.8 million recreational users in the country today. The population of the United States in 2010 was just shy of 308,000,000 people. That means about 8 percent of the total population are recreational marijuana users today. This is by no means an overwhelming majority of the population -- and nowhere near the percentage of Americans who drank alcohol in 1915, when the movement for Prohibition was peaking. Alcohol prohibition was a social experiment of sweeping significance, and it wasn't the abject failure they want you to believe it was. Marijuana prohibition is a reasonable precaution to keep a dangerous nuisance out of the greater body of the population. We should not allow the fevered caterwaulings of a small hard core of cultists to overwhelm our common sense.

 

[jamespowers]

But do you think the existing pushers and suppliers will still be illicit pushers and suppliers when consumers can walk into a grocery store and buy it legally?

Of course! They will undersell the grocery store or the Government Dope Store is more like it.
They already have supplies as it is. Legalization changes nothing. They still know the growers and importers. You think they will just dry up and blow away? :rofl: The dope dealers still have the infrastructure. More than what will start up after legalization. In the first place it will be just like the end of Prohibition----the demand will far outstrip supply---there they can make a killing by over charging and getting rid of old stock. Then later they will undercut the market---illegally or join it legally---just depending on what they feel like doing since they are already such fine upstanding citizens in our communities already.....

 

[HudsonHawk]

There is a thriving bootleg tobacco market right now. By one estimate, around half the cigarettes sold in New York City are bootleg -- smuggled in from Indian reservations or from overseas in order to beat the heavy tobacco taxes. There is your answer to what the future would be like under pot legalization -- and the percentage of bootlegging would probably be much greater since it's a lot harder to actually grow and process tobacco than it is to grow and process marijuana.

First, thank you for taking the time to respond.

Secondly, I've seen this scenario posited several times now...the notion that there's a thriving bootleg market for alcohol and cigarettes, and there may be. I've personally never seen, or even heard of, anyone I know purchasing bootleg cigarettes. I've seen the topic on shows like "Mobsters", but have never seen or met anyone who's bought them. On the other hand, I know people who buy marijuana regularly. Perhaps it's different regionally, depending on the amount of state tax. Around here, people just go to the reservation store and buy them for a significant discount. At any rate...I'm not denying it, but I'm skeptical it will be of the magnitude it is now.

There is substantial evidence that Prohibition succeeded in reducing the use of alcohol in the United States, even after Repeal -- alcohol consumption in America didn't return to 1915 levels until the 1950s. That was its purpose, and by any unbiased account, it accomplished that purpose. The fact that it also led to an explosion in crime can be attributed to the fact that the Prohibition Bureau was woefully understaffed and underfunded for the entire tenure of its existence -- there were never more than 2300 Prohibition Agents on duty in the United States at any time during the life of the Volstead Act, in a nation of over 150,000,000 people.

Agree on all accounts. Not to mention the Volstead Act, the statutory mechanism to enforce the 18th Amendment, was about as poorly written and unenthusiastically supported by law enforcement as it could be. I don't think people understand the magnitude of the alcohol problem prior to Prohibition. I highly recommend Daniel Okrent's "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" to anyone who wants a good summary. We really were a nation of drunks in the 19th Century.

 

[Stanley Doble]

It depends how high the taxes are and how hard it is to get cheap smokes. Indian reservations sell untaxed cigarettes for half price and "entrepreneurs" buy them by the case, take them back to the city and resell them.

Incidentally you may have bought untaxed cigarettes in a convenience store and never knew it. Do you always check for the tax stamp?

It is a billion dollar racket. Do a search and find out.

 

[HudsonHawk]

It depends how high the taxes are and how hard it is to get cheap smokes. Indian reservations sell untaxed cigarettes for half price and "entrepreneurs" buy them by the case, take them back to the city and resell them.

Incidentally you may have bought untaxed cigarettes in a convenience store and never knew it. Do you always check for the tax stamp?

It is a billion dollar racket. Do a search and find out.

I know it exists, there are bootlegs of just about every product imaginable. I'm just skeptical that it's a big enough problem to move the needle in terms of a reason to outlaw the product.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I know it exists, there are bootlegs of just about every product imaginable. I'm just skeptical that it's a big enough problem to move the needle in terms of a reason to outlaw the product.

How big does it need to be? What's the quota?

It's far from the only reason to keep "the product" illegal, and actually a rather minor one in my view. It's useful mainly as a response to the incessant pot-lobby shills who fill newspaper comment sections with "LEGALIZE IT AND TAX IT" as their parrot-like response to any discussion at all of the issue.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

The death penalty for tobacco use? This is the kind of rhetoric that gets you thrown into the "wingnut" category. There is all manner of scientific and sociologic evidence to support your position, but this does not advance it. In fact, it undermines it, and costs you a seat at the public and legislative discussion table.

Nope. Not advocating the death penalty for smoking pot. I am saying that if a person is to face a firing squad, then they can be offered to smoke a last smoke, choice of which pot or tobacco. I am however advocating the destructive conduct done by use of pot, can be as fatal as a firing squad.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I am surprised we haven't see this coming out of Colorado lately.



Here is one we don't even have to alter much:

Good choice of example...if the pot advocates use such ads, we have to view that although the great John Wayne was once all for supporting Camel non filters, it was that same product the eventually cost him his lungs and his life.