Soda Bans ! - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

03/18/2013 06:17:53 PM · #76

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Ann:

Secondly, you're forgetting the part about enforcement. As an example, we've regulated alcohol for the past 80 years, and part of that regulation has been prohibition for minors. History (and common sense) has shown that if the regulations aren't enforced, that minors will drink anyway. History has also shown that strong enforcement of regulations does work, especially if the enforcement is focused on the people who are making money selling the regulated product, rather than the consumer. And we know for damn sure in the case of alcohol, that regulation works better than prohibition, which was an utter disaster. I would argue that regulation would work better than prohibition with most other drugs as well..

I'll use some hypothetical numbers to make my point. Let's say currently, while pot is illegal, there are a million minors who use it. We then change our policy and make it legal to purchase, but still illegal for minors. Do you think the number of minors using pot under the new system will go up, down, or stay the same? If your answer is up or stay the same then the follow up question is what have you gained with the regulation when it comes to use among minors?

The answer to THAT is "You're asking the wrong question!"

The real gain will be measured in decreased cost-to-society when we no longer have to imprison marijuana users or wage the hopeless war against them. The cost is HUGE, both in wasted dollars and wasted lives.

As far as use by minors is concerned, I don't see how it can go UP very much, since as far as I can see ANY minor who's so inclined can easily get ahold of weed...

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

03/18/2013 06:27:11 PM · #77

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The problem is that hypotheticals are so....hypothetical. I'm more interested in actuals, and you have to look at the whole ecosystem and all of the problems, not just one particular problem. There are 20,000+ drug related murders every year in Latin America. Our prisons currently hold 2.4 million people, the highest incarceration rate in the world, five times what it was in 1980, despite the fact that the crime rate for everything except drug offenses is down during that period. Over 50% of the inmates in the federal prison system are there on drug charges. If drugs were legal and regulated, the drug lords wouldn't have anything to kill each other over, and we wouldn't have a reason to spend such astounding sums of money on law enforcement and incarceration. So, my answer for you is, even if the number of middle class kids smoking pot goes up a tick, it's still worth it to end the rest of the carnage.

Anyway, look at Prohibition. You'll get all your answers there. The problems we were having then are the exact same problems we're having now, except that much of the production is now outsourced to other countries, so a lot of the carnage is outsourced as well.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

03/18/2013 06:51:50 PM · #78

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The answer to THAT is "You're asking the wrong question!"

Exactly, Robert. To YOU (and to others), I'm asking the wrong question. We view the issue through a different lens and that naturally produces a disconnect.

Listen, I understand your arguments and I'm really not any more for locking up pot smokers than you are. There are ways to manage this (eg. address the penal code) without going the full nine yards and legalizing.

Nobody is addressing what I think is important. I hold it as a significant harm when people (and families) are destroyed by something society has officially condoned. Ann mentions all the drug wars in Mexico etc (assuming that's all going to magically disappear if pot is legalized), but that is a choice made by people and is something society is not condoning. I agree there is harm there, but I place it in a different category. Can you at least understand this (even if you don't agree with it)?

I think the idea that the drug lords are just going to cease and desist if things are legalized is crazy. If there is good money to be made, it will be done. The only possible manner in which this will come to be is if drugs become as cheap as water and there is no profit in the business, but that's going to lead to a world of its own problems. Cigarettes are quite legal, but there is a huge black market for cigs in Canada because of the very regulation you guys mention. Buying black market cigs is cheaper than legal ones. A 2010 article quoted a stat that 40% of all cigs bought in Quebec are smuggled.

Keeping pot illegal is not a perfect system. BUT, I think legalizing is just trading one set of harms for another and I, personally, feel the new set has the potential to be worse and is, at the very least, an unknown compared to the known problems we currently have.

Message edited by author 2013-03-18 19:01:53.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

03/18/2013 08:31:09 PM · #79

I have another question. Should we go back to Prohibition? Why or why not? I personally see this discussion as a discussion on Prohibition.

Regardless...point by point.....

You'll have to correct me, Doc, because I think I'm reading you wrong, but I think you're saying that the pain of a middle class drug user's family is somehow more valid than the pain of the families of the millions that are in prison or dead in the drug war. The only difference I see is that your hypothetical legal drug user has a middle class family, and most of the victims of the drug war are often poor.

As far as drug lords not going out of business when drugs are made legal...I have to go back again to the history books, to what happened at the end of prohibition. With alcohol legal, legitimate business people were back in business, and buyers were able to buy a legal and safe product for a lower price from Anheuser Busch instead of Al Capone. From that great, reliable source Wikipedia, "When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption) because of competition with legal liquor stores selling alcohol at lower prices."

Quebec's cigarette smuggling problem is a red herring. It is a problem of poorly written and enforced regulations. I suspect it would be much bigger problem if Quebec outlawed cigarettes entirely and started a "war on cigarettes".

kawesttex

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/18/2013 08:35:08 PM · #80

Just to throw something in there to think about. Not only would you save the money from incarceration but the gains in taxes due to regulation would be tremendous.

03/18/2013 08:41:41 PM · #81

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Nobody is addressing what I think is important. I hold it as a significant harm when people (and families) are destroyed by something society has officially condoned.

Society "officially condones" use of alcohol. I'm pretty sure more people and families are destroyed by alcohol abuse than marijuana abuse. Look, it just doesn't make SENSE. Ann said it very well in her latest post.

03/18/2013 09:15:55 PM · #82

Originally posted by kawesttex:

Just to throw something in there to think about. Not only would you save the money from incarceration but the gains in taxes due to regulation would be tremendous.

California produces about 19% of the country's food, but the biggest cash crop in the state does not add one cent to the tax revenues. The marijuana crop is valued at $13.8 billion annually, about double what our grape and produce crop sells for. It costs us about $1.87 billion to house prisoners for marijuana crimes. The cost of marijuana enforcement in California to be much smaller, perhaps in
the range of $280 â�� 370 million per year.

If California could save 2 billion a year in expenses, and then tax weed at normal state sales tax of 8% that is a shift to one state's revenues of 3.12 billion dollars per year: free up prison space and police resources. Add in a fat sin tax like we have on alcohol or cigarettes ( The government per-pack profit from cigarettes in 2011 was $3.68, or 66 percent of the cost of a pack of cigarettes) and that would be a serious boost to the state's economy. It would take a huge profit pool away from criminal gangs, and weaken their grip, the same way legal alcohol starved Al Capone.

41% of Americans use, or have used marijuana. Any law that is broken often enough degrades respect for laws in general. If a prohibition is not working, it ought to be eliminated.

03/18/2013 11:38:58 PM · #83

Instead of quoting everybody, I'll just try to respond in turn. I've enjoyed the civil nature of the debate and I'm working at not letting it get out of control. As soon as we start getting redundant, let's just call it a day.

Brennan (and others): I think the "but we could be making a lot of money" is a very distasteful argument. I would also think the typical liberal, which I know many of you are, would recoil at that argument utilized to defend many other topics. It's a pure "ends justify the means" argument and I don't generally go in for those. I've already agreed incarceration is crazy and I am on your side in this regard. There are other options for this problem (community service anybody?). Finally, and I feel this is a gimme, 100% of Americans have sped on the highways. I don't have to finish the thought for you...

Bear: Further up above I acknowledged the paradox of legal alcohol and illegal pot. It doesn't bother me. Gay marriage is gaining traction while polygamy still flounders in disapproval (haha, let's NOT go there). Does this mean we can't have one without the other? I don't find it a very serious argument to say, "many people have ruined their lives with alcohol and it's legal so it's only fair we legalize pot (and allow others to ruin their lives as well)".

Ann: Quebec's cigarette smuggling isn't a red herring. It's a cautionary tale. Maybe you have a great deal more faith in your government to "get it right" when it comes to regulation. I don't know what reason we'd have to offer that faith, but that may be a difference between us. You did get me wrong on the harm issue. I'll try to rephrase. If society has legalized pot and someone screws their life up because of their smoking, I feel I bear some societal blame for their pain. If society holds pot illegal and someone screws their life up because of their smoking, I feel I do not bear the same societal guilt. You may not hold the same distinction, but it means something to me.

03/19/2013 12:31:18 AM · #84

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Bear: Further up above I acknowledged the paradox of legal alcohol and illegal pot. It doesn't bother me. Gay marriage is gaining traction while polygamy still flounders in disapproval (haha, let's NOT go there). Does this mean we can't have one without the other? I don't find it a very serious argument to say, "many people have ruined their lives with alcohol and it's legal so it's only fair we legalize pot (and allow others to ruin their lives as well)".

It's not reasonable to summarize my statement that way, though. It was a simple statement of fact. Prohibition was an attempt to stop the ruinous effects of alcohol, and the cost this visited on the populace was almost beyond calculation. The sham of prohibition had to be dropped, and we are a healthier society for it. Marijuana laws are the prohibition of our times, and the cost is incalculable. I don't believe you can justify this cost by some nebulous appeal to "saving" some unspecified number of hypothetical families while conveniently ignoring the devastating, and ongoing, cost to society of enforcing irrational and hopeless warfare against what is, at core, a relatively benign substance as mood-altering chemicals go.

Message edited by author 2013-03-19 00:32:01.

03/19/2013 12:46:18 AM · #85

Fair enough, but I feel to simply equate prohibition with our current laws is painting with very broad strokes. I realize our natural desire to compare the two, but it isn't necessarily so. I can only say that incarceration is not the answer so many times. Will anybody admit that there are ways to empty the jails without legalization?

I'll just throw in a comment on your last line. Personally, I feel that altering one's mind (not mood), is a poor way to live life. It "misses the mark". Alcohol, at the least, can be enjoyed for more than its mind altering properties. Pot, on the other hand, has no other redeeming factor. Perhaps an important difference, and perhaps part of the reason I find no need to legalize it. It has no redeeming benefit to society.

Message edited by author 2013-03-19 00:47:52.

03/19/2013 12:55:33 AM · #86

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's a pure "ends justify the means" argument and I don't generally go in for those. There are other options for this problem (community service anybody?). Finally, and I feel this is a gimme, 100% of Americans have sped on the highways. I don't have to finish the thought for you...

It is hardly a pure "ends justify the means" argument. The principal point is that marijuana is a huge industry. Did you get the part about it being twice the value of the grape and produce crops' value in California? Making it illegal is not working, it is just making the profits of a huge industry go to criminals. Laws prohibiting the use of marijuana have not worked: except to the benefit of the criminals who traffic in it and for the profits of the prisons industry who warehouse users. You may find allowing that to continue more "tasteful" than the appeal to normalizing the trade and fattening the tax rolls crass. I do not. It makes more sense to legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.

In 2009, 88% of marijuana arrests or 759 thousand were for simple possession, representing a jump from about a third to about a half of all drug abuse violation arrests over the last fourteen years. The fourteen-year average annual growth rate for marijuana arrests of +3.1% contrasts starkly to the negligible growth rates for total drug arrests and for all arrests.

The comparison to speeding on the highway is a classic riposte to the arguments put forward in the Hart side of the Hart-Devlin debate. Remember when the national speed limit was 55 mph? Can you guess why it was repealed? Not just because we all broke the law, but that it was putting people at risk when some people were driving 10 mph slower than the posted limits, and some were driving 30 mph faster. Granted it would be safer, and lower our national feul usage if we all limited our maximum speed to 55 mph, be we didn't, so we changed the law to something closer to normal behavior. Most people differentiate between speeding in a school zone, and on the freeway. Violating the law gets you a fine, not a prison sentence unless your speeding is considered a risk to public safety.

The fact that we all break some laws, sometime, is no reason to not look at commonly violated laws and examine if we need to change them. If people think the only reason to not do a thing is because it is illegal, it degrades respect for all laws. There ought to be a reason to make something illegal.

Message edited by author 2013-03-19 01:52:48.

03/19/2013 01:17:15 AM · #87

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Alcohol, at the least, can be enjoyed for more than its mind altering properties. Pot, on the other hand, has no other redeeming factor. Perhaps an important difference, and perhaps part of the reason I find no need to legalize it. It has no redeeming benefit to society.

There are legions who hold a different view. Business Insiders list of reasons why pot is good for you. But you are an MD, you must know about the medical benefits. as for the recreational usage, it is a staple of social interaction in many subcultures from musicians to roofers, and like alcohol, it is seen as a mild relaxant and social lubricator. About 14 million American use it regularly (despite it's illegality), while 15 million Americans now takes at least one drug to treat a psychological disorder, ranging from antidepressants like Prozac to anti-anxiety drugs like Xanax. Is Prozac really all that much better than weed?

That said, I don't use it, and encourage my daughter not to, not because it does not have any redeeming appeal, but simply because it makes you OK with being bored, sitting around doing nothing. And that is not healthy.

03/19/2013 01:25:58 AM · #88

I have to say I was only using your words. You said if a prohibition is not working it needs to be eliminated. I fail to see how, taken at face value, that wouldn't apply to speed limits. Feel free to qualify, but then we need to be able to qualify when it comes to pot as well.

I was suddenly struck by something in your argument. It seems you (and others) make the assumption that the consumers are mainly normal Americans who are functioning members of society while the producers are all "criminals" (your word). Why is this? Why can't the average grower of pot be a middle class guy who does nice things for neighbors? Because it doesn't support the argument. No, the average nice guy smoker is being unfairly made into a pariah by the government while the profits are all going to the evil, kitten-stomping scumbag.

BTW, my narrative about the 55mph speed limit is different. It was passed during the oil crisis years of the Carter administration to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and was done away with as soon as reasonable. If your argument was correct, we would expect a clearly detrimental safety record during these years and the reality is the data is unclear.

03/19/2013 01:27:47 AM · #89

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

That said, I don't use it, and encourage my daughter not to, not because it does not have any redeeming appeal, but simply because it makes you OK with being bored, sitting around doing nothing. And that is not healthy.

There. We can agree and end with a handshake. :)

03/19/2013 02:38:10 AM · #90

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You are confabulating regulation and prohibition. We prohibit things that we all agree are bad, like killing. We regulate things that can be dangerous, like car speed or milk. I would like to move prohibited behaviors that not all of us agree are bad into the regulated behaviors column.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why is this? Why can't the average grower of pot be a middle class guy who does nice things for neighbors? Because it doesn't support the argument. No, the average nice guy smoker is being unfairly made into a pariah by the government while the profits are all going to the evil, kitten-stomping scumbag.

How on earth can the "niceness" of the users or suppliers influence the argument? Plenty of small growers are decent people, I happen to know 2 people who grow. The fact that they are nice does not change the fact that they don't pay sales tax,engage in an illegal activity for a living and the lack of regulation in the growing creates risks to society that are there only because it is an underground economy, be it damage to National Parks or making it more dangerous to rent out a house. And of course the big suppliers are nice folks like the Sinaloa Cartel .

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

BTW, my narrative about the 55mph speed limit is different. It was passed during the oil crisis years of the Carter administration to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and was done away with as soon as reasonable. If your argument was correct, we would expect a clearly detrimental safety record during these years and the reality is the data is unclear.

When did we stop being dependent on foreign oil again? I must have missed the news. As far as lives saved, they averaged 4,000 fewer fatalities a year "During the first year there was a drop of almost 17 percent in fatalities after the speed laws were reduced to 55 miles per hour," studies showed that the national speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day. The simple fact is, it was a good idea, that reduced our oil consumption and saved lives, yet we got rid of it because we didn't like it and it was routinely ignored. And the Carter administration did not pass it, it began in 1974 under the Nixon administration.

Message edited by author 2013-03-19 02:45:22.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

03/19/2013 10:56:47 AM · #91

Yes, your are right. Nixon, not Carter. You'll have to forgive me as I hadn't been born yet. ;). But you can't really say on one hand it was more dangerous because of the differential speeds but on the other hand it saved lives.

Well, we have two incubators in WA and AZ and we'll see how it goes. Nobody answered my question of how to enforce DUIs. If the thinking heads of DPC can't come up with the answer, I'm guessing they are in trouble. :)

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/19/2013 11:48:22 AM · #92

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

it would need to be refined.

right now you are given a field sobriety test and/or a breathalyzer. its pretty obvious in a field test if you are unfit to drive a breathliyer only tells the cops how far over the limit you are.

since the cops wont be chasing around petty criminals then can focus on keeping the roads safe.

Message edited by author 2013-03-19 11:49:23.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

03/19/2013 12:37:15 PM · #93

Originally posted by mike_311:

breathliyer only tells the cops how far over the limit you are.

Actually the breathalyzer sets you up for a different charge. DUI versus DWI. You can be charged with Driving Under the Influence no matter if you are over the legal limit or not, if you are driving badly and the officer thinks it is due to whatever is in your system. On the other hand, no matter how well you are driving, if you have over a certain level of intoxicants in your system Driving While Intoxicated is a crime. They are often charged together, but are separate charges; DUI is observational, DWI is chemical.(I sat on a DUI/DWI jury so I learned more minutia on this than I hope to ever need.)

I expect operating a vehicle for marijuana intoxication will be charged the same way we charge for the various other intoxicants you can't drive while under the influence of;
Sleeping pills such as Sonata, Ambien and Halcion
Stimulants
Sedatives
Prescribed narcotic like Codeine or medicine containing amounts of Codeine
Prescribed pain medicine such as Duragesic, Vicodin and Oxycontin
Common over the counter liquid like NyQuil or TheraFlu
Allergy pills such as Benadryl
Medication to treat diabetes like Amaryl, Insulin and Glucotrol
Not to mention illegal drugs.
None as easy to test for, yet just as dangerous as alcohol in the system.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

03/19/2013 01:00:19 PM · #94

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ann: Quebec's cigarette smuggling isn't a red herring. It's a cautionary tale. Maybe you have a great deal more faith in your government to "get it right" when it comes to regulation. I don't know what reason we'd have to offer that faith, but that may be a difference between us. You did get me wrong on the harm issue. I'll try to rephrase. If society has legalized pot and someone screws their life up because of their smoking, I feel I bear some societal blame for their pain. If society holds pot illegal and someone screws their life up because of their smoking, I feel I do not bear the same societal guilt. You may not hold the same distinction, but it means something to me.

Quebec's cigarette smuggling is indeed a cautionary tale about the ills of bad regulation, but it still has nothing to do with prohibition. I still argue that Quebec would be a lot worse off if they completely outlawed cigarettes.

As far as the second part of your argument, "If society has legalized pot and someone screws their life up because of their smoking, I feel I bear some societal blame for their pain," I think we'll have to agree to disagree. As a recovering alcoholic, I do not blame society for my past problems, any more than I give society credit for my recovery, and I don't for a second believe that outlawing alcohol (or drugs) would make my life, or anyone else's, better in any meaningful way. Alcoholics and drug addicts will find a way, whether it's legal or not.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/19/2013 01:24:12 PM · #95

I haven't read the whole discussion and it seems to have veered off into drugs (big surprise, lol) but to bring it back to portion sizes/self control, look no further than this study:

Bad popcorn in a big bucket

On topic, I currently am in the Dominican Republic staring at a 14 oz bottle of coke I only drank half of, and wishing it was even smaller. I hate to waste, I was just so desperate for something cold to drink and they had nothing else.

But if it was up to me, I'd ban plastic too and go back to the old days of reusing glass bottles. They still do it with beer in Germany and I think it's a great system.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

03/19/2013 01:33:43 PM · #96

the problem it we'd have broken glass all over the place from the lazy asses who cant wait to find a trash or recylcing can.

03/19/2013 02:42:10 PM · #97

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by mike_311:
breathliyer only tells the cops how far over the limit you are.

Actually the breathalyzer sets you up for a different charge. DUI versus DWI. You can be charged with Driving Under the Influence no matter if you are over the legal limit or not, if you are driving badly and the officer thinks it is due to whatever is in your system. On the other hand, no matter how well you are driving, if you have over a certain level of intoxicants in your system Driving While Intoxicated is a crime. They are often charged together, but are separate charges; DUI is observational, DWI is chemical.(I sat on a DUI/DWI jury so I learned more minutia on this than I hope to ever need.)

I expect operating a vehicle for marijuana intoxication will be charged the same way we charge for the various other intoxicants you can't drive while under the influence of;
Sleeping pills such as Sonata, Ambien and Halcion
Stimulants
Sedatives
Prescribed narcotic like Codeine or medicine containing amounts of Codeine
Prescribed pain medicine such as Duragesic, Vicodin and Oxycontin
Common over the counter liquid like NyQuil or TheraFlu
Allergy pills such as Benadryl
Medication to treat diabetes like Amaryl, Insulin and Glucotrol
Not to mention illegal drugs.
None as easy to test for, yet just as dangerous as alcohol in the system.

How does this work again? The cop pulls you over because you seem to be erratic in your driving. He asks you if you've taken anything and you say, "no". How are you going to be guilty of a DUI instead of some version of negligent driving? If you are driving under the influence I would think you would need to be able to say what that influence was? Maybe I'm not up to snuff on the legal finery of such charges. Think about an 80 year old swerving on the road. Are they swerving because they are old (and shouldn't be driving) or because they took benadryl or because they were smoking pot? I don't think the cop can just make that call if they have no actionable evidence.