The Audacity of Dope
February 12, 2009 4:26 PM Subscribe
With its $41 billion deficit spiraling out of control and federal judges ordering its prisoners released to relieve overcrowding, can legal marijuana save California?
No, but it can make the mayhem and destruction a lot more relaxing... that is, until the snack food shortages begin.
posted by Krrrlson at 4:28 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Krrrlson at 4:28 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't know about taxation. But I'd be fascinated to know how many prisons we could close, simply by releasing all non-violent offenders with a marijuana related conviction.
Close a school or close a prison. Something's getting shut down, guys.
posted by effugas at 4:30 PM on February 12, 2009 [6 favorites]
Close a school or close a prison. Something's getting shut down, guys.
posted by effugas at 4:30 PM on February 12, 2009 [6 favorites]
It won't save California. Only Meg Whitman can do that. But it would make things a lot more mellow.
posted by netbros at 4:32 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by netbros at 4:32 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes. It will save them. All of them. Saved. I promise.
posted by MeatLightning at 4:37 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by MeatLightning at 4:37 PM on February 12, 2009
Meg Whitman will not save California, but when she sells it to the highest bidder, nobody will be surprised.
posted by wendell at 4:41 PM on February 12, 2009 [8 favorites]
posted by wendell at 4:41 PM on February 12, 2009 [8 favorites]
It couldn't hurt.
posted by doctor_negative at 4:41 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by doctor_negative at 4:41 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
you're assuming someone would actually want to bid on California given it's situation.
posted by gyc at 4:44 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by gyc at 4:44 PM on February 12, 2009
I have a feeling that the next five to ten years are going to present the United States (and a lot of other countries where marijuana is currently illegal) with a very stark choice: money or puritanism?
I also have a feeling that money will start to win out if and when things start getting really tight.
posted by you just lost the game at 4:44 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
I also have a feeling that money will start to win out if and when things start getting really tight.
posted by you just lost the game at 4:44 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
I also have a feeling that money will start to win out if and when things start getting really tight.
Wait. We're talking about legalizing pot. Prostitution is down on Aisle 4.
posted by qvantamon at 4:46 PM on February 12, 2009
Wait. We're talking about legalizing pot. Prostitution is down on Aisle 4.
posted by qvantamon at 4:46 PM on February 12, 2009
This was mentioned a while back on Metafilter. Let US Pay Taxes is a web based plea from the pot growers of California to decriminalize pot and let them contribute to the states coffers. The numbers they provide might be a bit skewed, but they're interesting to ponder.
posted by JimmyJames at 4:53 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by JimmyJames at 4:53 PM on February 12, 2009
Why not instead sell California to Japan or Mexico or Saudi Arabia and use the sale money to save the rest of our nation?
posted by Postroad at 4:55 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by Postroad at 4:55 PM on February 12, 2009
Have you ever looked at your economy? Like, really, really looked at your economy? Whoa.
posted by mhoye at 4:56 PM on February 12, 2009 [15 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 4:56 PM on February 12, 2009 [15 favorites]
And keep out some of the drug cartel violence from Mexico that's in the news lately.
posted by thylacine at 4:58 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by thylacine at 4:58 PM on February 12, 2009
If releasing large numbers of prisoners saves the government money in the short term, it will do so at the expense of those prisoners and the communities into which they move. You can't just dump people back into society after taking away so much from them. It's not good for the people, and it's not good for their communities.
Proper reduction in the number of prisoners means a near-term increase in spending which eventually tails off in the very long term.
Also, the following paragraph is extremely dodgy in its use of math and authority to convince. Madsen Pirie would love the following packet of fallacies:
A national legalization effort would save nearly $13 billion annually in enforcement costs and bring in $7 billion in yearly tax revenues, according to a study by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron. Since California represents 13 percent of the U.S. economy, those numbers suggest the state could save $1.7 billion in enforcement costs and nab up to $1 billion in revenues.
posted by honest knave at 4:59 PM on February 12, 2009
Proper reduction in the number of prisoners means a near-term increase in spending which eventually tails off in the very long term.
Also, the following paragraph is extremely dodgy in its use of math and authority to convince. Madsen Pirie would love the following packet of fallacies:
A national legalization effort would save nearly $13 billion annually in enforcement costs and bring in $7 billion in yearly tax revenues, according to a study by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron. Since California represents 13 percent of the U.S. economy, those numbers suggest the state could save $1.7 billion in enforcement costs and nab up to $1 billion in revenues.
posted by honest knave at 4:59 PM on February 12, 2009
I'm not sure how any taxes could be collected for pot at all. I mean, you can grow the shit in your backyard with approximately 0 effort, right. The shit is a weed, after all. You don't pay taxes on your yearly dandy lion harvest do you?
posted by empath at 5:01 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by empath at 5:01 PM on February 12, 2009
California should separate and simply keep all the federal taxes its citizens pay. Cali's got a better shot at it than Quebec ever did, even sans les pure laines.
posted by GuyZero at 5:02 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by GuyZero at 5:02 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
I have an idea; we've seen them attempt many, many different tactics in the war on drugs all with the same end result; drugs are still readily available, and lots of people are in prison.
How about this, we try legalizing it and just see what happens after a couple of years. I somehow doubt it could possibly get worse than things are now.
posted by quin at 5:03 PM on February 12, 2009 [3 favorites]
How about this, we try legalizing it and just see what happens after a couple of years. I somehow doubt it could possibly get worse than things are now.
posted by quin at 5:03 PM on February 12, 2009 [3 favorites]
> I'm not sure how any taxes could be collected for pot at all. I mean, you can grow the shit in your backyard with approximately 0 effort, right. The shit is a weed, after all. You don't pay taxes on your yearly dandy lion harvest do you?
people can grow lettuce, tomatoes, carrots, herbs, etc. all easily at home in their own container gardens, or even on a window shelf.
Yet they still buy it from a grocery store.
posted by mrzarquon at 5:05 PM on February 12, 2009 [11 favorites]
people can grow lettuce, tomatoes, carrots, herbs, etc. all easily at home in their own container gardens, or even on a window shelf.
Yet they still buy it from a grocery store.
posted by mrzarquon at 5:05 PM on February 12, 2009 [11 favorites]
also, 'ditch weed', which is still covering good chunks of PA near my college, is not even worth the effort to collect or smoke, since it is just simply the fastest growing of the crop, not the most cultivated (it grows wild from when there were hemp farms).
Also, most folks are smoking the hybridized, unfertilized, female plants (ie, the good shit). It becomes significantly much harder to keep your plants virginal if you just throw the seeds to the wind.
posted by mrzarquon at 5:09 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also, most folks are smoking the hybridized, unfertilized, female plants (ie, the good shit). It becomes significantly much harder to keep your plants virginal if you just throw the seeds to the wind.
posted by mrzarquon at 5:09 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
California should separate and simply keep all the federal taxes its citizens pay. Cali's got a better shot at it than Quebec ever did, even sans les pure laines.
Lincoln called and asked me to tell you that you're not invited for his birthday.
posted by qvantamon at 5:09 PM on February 12, 2009 [5 favorites]
Lincoln called and asked me to tell you that you're not invited for his birthday.
posted by qvantamon at 5:09 PM on February 12, 2009 [5 favorites]
I've never believed that California actually exists. It's a government-supported mass hallucination of a place where it's always sunny, everything's pastel-colored, everybody's blonde, healthy and half-naked and the 'hood has palm trees. So, as such, it can have all the weed it wants.
posted by jonmc at 5:11 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by jonmc at 5:11 PM on February 12, 2009
Lincoln called and asked me to tell you that you're not invited for his birthday.
California could join the G8 and would be big enough to push Italy out. Lincoln can put that in his hemp pipe and smoke it. Also, Lincoln would legalize pot.
posted by GuyZero at 5:14 PM on February 12, 2009
California could join the G8 and would be big enough to push Italy out. Lincoln can put that in his hemp pipe and smoke it. Also, Lincoln would legalize pot.
posted by GuyZero at 5:14 PM on February 12, 2009
If Prop 5 had been passed by the voters last year, even with the increased costs of providing substance abuse treatment to non-violent drug offenders, CA would have saved $2.5 billion in foregone prison construction. It also would have decriminalized marijuana possession, taking it from a misdemeanor to an infraction. Of course, the voters of CA didn't pass it, but it would have solved a number of the problems in which we now find ourselves. Keep an eye on the CA news for the next week, though...
posted by gingerbeer at 5:25 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by gingerbeer at 5:25 PM on February 12, 2009
This is an interesting article about the different trends that suggest a major change is coming in the War on Drugs.
I live closer to a "medical" pot dispensary than I do a liquor store. It's got a steady stream of customers despite heavy competition up and down Santa Monica Blvd. here in lovely West Hollywood, CA. California will be taxing the stuff something proper here in the next few years. Like someone said above, it's too much money to ignore much longer.
posted by Bookhouse at 5:28 PM on February 12, 2009
I live closer to a "medical" pot dispensary than I do a liquor store. It's got a steady stream of customers despite heavy competition up and down Santa Monica Blvd. here in lovely West Hollywood, CA. California will be taxing the stuff something proper here in the next few years. Like someone said above, it's too much money to ignore much longer.
posted by Bookhouse at 5:28 PM on February 12, 2009
"I mean, you can grow the shit in your backyard with approximately 0 effort, right."
You can. But, duuuuuuude, potheads are laaaaaaaazy, maaaaaaaaaaaaang.
posted by orthogonality at 5:29 PM on February 12, 2009
You can. But, duuuuuuude, potheads are laaaaaaaazy, maaaaaaaaaaaaang.
posted by orthogonality at 5:29 PM on February 12, 2009
I've never believed that California actually exists.
Hollywood's PR really DOES work!
posted by small_ruminant at 5:32 PM on February 12, 2009
Hollywood's PR really DOES work!
posted by small_ruminant at 5:32 PM on February 12, 2009
MetaFilter: Prostitution is down on Aisle 4.
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.
posted by vibrotronica at 5:47 PM on February 12, 2009
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.
posted by vibrotronica at 5:47 PM on February 12, 2009
Also, what the pot buying experience will be once it has been legalized, as told by Loquacious.
posted by mrzarquon at 6:02 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by mrzarquon at 6:02 PM on February 12, 2009
California already taxes marijuana.
posted by mullingitover at 6:03 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
Los Angeles City is gladly collecting sales taxes, employee taxes, income taxes and who knows what other revenue from medical marijuana clubs and yet the mayor is silent when it comes to protecting citizens who are medical marijuana patients or club owners.I think the appropriate response to the DEA raids is for the state to subtract the lost revenues from payments to the federal government.
posted by mullingitover at 6:03 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
I like alcohol (and tobacco, for that matter, sometimes) and do not care for marijuana, but I really do think it's madness that the weed has not been legalized, regulated, and the enormous resultant tax income been funneled into things like health care and other good works. It continues to mystify me, even in Canada, where decriminalization has been well underway for a while now.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:10 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:10 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've never believed that California actually exists.
Having lived there for five years, I can attest that it exists. However, it suffers from extremely short-term memory, therefore only today exists and tomorrow is imagined, and yesterday never happened.
But I do think if anyone should try it, CA should. And I will move back in an instant.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:16 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Having lived there for five years, I can attest that it exists. However, it suffers from extremely short-term memory, therefore only today exists and tomorrow is imagined, and yesterday never happened.
But I do think if anyone should try it, CA should. And I will move back in an instant.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:16 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Doing it the other way hasn't worked out long term, so it seems logical to try it out, at least.
posted by batmonkey at 6:27 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by batmonkey at 6:27 PM on February 12, 2009
Meg Whitman = John McCain. Legal bud... never happen. I'll bet a 50 sack on that.
posted by Flex1970 at 6:31 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by Flex1970 at 6:31 PM on February 12, 2009
You don't pay taxes on your yearly dandy lion harvest do you?
That's because my lions aren't quite dandy enough for California.
Me sad.
posted by mmrtnt at 6:44 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
That's because my lions aren't quite dandy enough for California.
Me sad.
posted by mmrtnt at 6:44 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah, my cynical side says you're right, Flex1970, but there is some hope. The 21st Amendment was passed in 1933. Roosevelt passed the Volstead Act earlier that year. Didn't take long once things got real tight economically for alcohol prohibition to become seen as unnecessary. I realize the prohibition of marijuana has been in effect much longer, in fact dating back to a little later in the same decade in which alcohol prohibition was repealed. But the arguments were purely racist-driven back then, and it was mostly popular with minorities. The Mexican nationals in Texas used to grow big fields of it, and the Anglo Texans mostly stuck to whiskey and tobacco, so it wasn't hard to stoke up some fear and make people think it was all those scary dark people going crazy on it and raping our white women. We now have an African-American president who admitted he smoked and inhaled, and most of the recent retirees have at least dabbled in it, and some actively smoke it, still. Things aren't looking as dire as they were a few years ago, at least from the standpoint of someone who wants to end the Drug War. Marijuana legalization may not happen, but it's not so far-fetched given the circumstances. Obama doesn't even need to lead the effort, but he does need to get the feds to step back from what the states are trying to do. A lot of the decrim efforts have been actively fought by various law enforcement branches of the fed, even though they're not supposed to engage in politics. He need to get the DEA/FBI to silently just ease up a bit on their efforts to quash medical marijuana and intervene in state politics, and let the states do their thing in this regard, and watch what happens ...
posted by krinklyfig at 6:56 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by krinklyfig at 6:56 PM on February 12, 2009
"Also, most folks are smoking the hybridized, unfertilized, female plants (ie, the good shit)"
Yeah, that's true today, but the '80s were pretty awful.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:04 PM on February 12, 2009
Yeah, that's true today, but the '80s were pretty awful.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:04 PM on February 12, 2009
Given that the stuff is a very hardy and swift-growing perennial weed, I've wondered on occasion if some altruistic anti-prohibitionists could just gather a whole lot of seeds, mix them in with lawn clippings, and drive along enough roads in uncovered utes with poor suspension to make the stuff basically "possessed" by default by everyone.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:08 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:08 PM on February 12, 2009
Wikipedia says Miron, the author of the Harvard report on which the numbers in the article are based, is a libertarian (true). Drug legalization is, of course, part of that party's platform. Just, you know, for full disclosure and all.
posted by IvoShandor at 7:08 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by IvoShandor at 7:08 PM on February 12, 2009
It continues to mystify me, even in Canada, where decriminalization has been well underway for a while now.
Until Harper got in power. He set things back. Jackass.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:35 PM on February 12, 2009
Until Harper got in power. He set things back. Jackass.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:35 PM on February 12, 2009
Here's my idea: Sow marijuana (and coca and opium poppy) on public land, and let those who want to buy a license like the ones issued by state game and fish offices, let there be a bag limit and a window of time in late summer/early fall, and let them harvest their own. There will be poachers but just as hunters and fishers will happily report illegal hunting and fishing to authorities, so too would the stoners act to protect legal access to their shit.
And, just for the sake of irony, the initial sowing of seeds could be done by convicts. Street sale of cocaine and heroin should remain illegal.
posted by Restless Day at 8:03 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
And, just for the sake of irony, the initial sowing of seeds could be done by convicts. Street sale of cocaine and heroin should remain illegal.
posted by Restless Day at 8:03 PM on February 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
aeschenkarnos, sort of like hallucinogenic mushroom spores in chainsaw lubricant?
posted by Ritchie at 8:09 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by Ritchie at 8:09 PM on February 12, 2009
Obama Makes a Good First Step on Medical Marijuana -- Here's What He Should Do Next
posted by homunculus at 8:19 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by homunculus at 8:19 PM on February 12, 2009
Given that the stuff is a very hardy and swift-growing perennial weed, I've wondered on occasion if some altruistic anti-prohibitionists could just gather a whole lot of seeds, mix them in with lawn clippings, and drive along enough roads in uncovered utes with poor suspension to make the stuff basically "possessed" by default by everyone.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:08 PM on February 12 [+] [!]
Isn't that the plot of Johnny Appleweed?
/can't make myself watch it
posted by Thoughtcrime at 8:20 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:08 PM on February 12 [+] [!]
Isn't that the plot of Johnny Appleweed?
/can't make myself watch it
posted by Thoughtcrime at 8:20 PM on February 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
Article: Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps has made marijuana a popular topic.
Yeah, I always figured these guys were Olympic swimming aficionados...
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:23 PM on February 12, 2009
Yeah, I always figured these guys were Olympic swimming aficionados...
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:23 PM on February 12, 2009
Joke aside: Would you rather your kids lose five school days a year or live with the legalization of something your next door neighbor's doing already? False dichotomy? Sure. But there's plenty of genuine suffering in the world (and in California) a heavily-taxed cash crop could help solve...
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:26 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:26 PM on February 12, 2009
dandy lions San Francisco? I'm not clever enough to come up with a joke here but I'm also kind of anticlever so meuh grunt meuh never mind shouldn't post/ˆhˆhˆh
posted by christhelongtimelurker at 9:03 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by christhelongtimelurker at 9:03 PM on February 12, 2009
Why not instead sell California to Japan or Mexico or Saudi Arabia and use the sale money to save the rest of our nation?
Because without us, the rest of this country would suck both ass and balls.
posted by the_bone at 10:03 PM on February 12, 2009 [3 favorites]
Because without us, the rest of this country would suck both ass and balls.
posted by the_bone at 10:03 PM on February 12, 2009 [3 favorites]
Yeah, California could survive without the rest of the USA much better than the rest of the USA could survive without California. Just sayin'.
posted by Justinian at 11:52 PM on February 12, 2009
posted by Justinian at 11:52 PM on February 12, 2009
America is an interesting country because
1) Lots of people smoke weed, at least occasionally.
2) Probably a large majority of the population has smoked it at least once.
3) Yet it will never, ever be legal under any circumstances.
Just look at the uproar over Michael Phelps. Dude is an olympic-All-American superstar who took a hit from somebody's bong at a college party, is now being dropped from commercial sponsorships like a hot rock, may end up not competing in the 2012 olympics and is even the subject of a criminal investigation.
This is not a rational response, even for a "role model" like Phelps. We, as Americans, want to be able to occasionally smoke weed, get drunk and have illicit sex, (and do all three in copious amounts) but are outraged -- outraged!, I say -- when others do so publicly.
I'm personally willing to bet that we, as a country, would rather close down schools and hospitals than deal with our real addiction: a morbid desire to punish others for our own self-perceived sins.
posted by Avenger at 12:56 AM on February 13, 2009
1) Lots of people smoke weed, at least occasionally.
2) Probably a large majority of the population has smoked it at least once.
3) Yet it will never, ever be legal under any circumstances.
Just look at the uproar over Michael Phelps. Dude is an olympic-All-American superstar who took a hit from somebody's bong at a college party, is now being dropped from commercial sponsorships like a hot rock, may end up not competing in the 2012 olympics and is even the subject of a criminal investigation.
This is not a rational response, even for a "role model" like Phelps. We, as Americans, want to be able to occasionally smoke weed, get drunk and have illicit sex, (and do all three in copious amounts) but are outraged -- outraged!, I say -- when others do so publicly.
I'm personally willing to bet that we, as a country, would rather close down schools and hospitals than deal with our real addiction: a morbid desire to punish others for our own self-perceived sins.
posted by Avenger at 12:56 AM on February 13, 2009
but are outraged -- outraged!, I say -- when others do so publicly.
I think if anyone were outraged it would be because he admitted to breaking the law, not because he admitted smokin' herb. I mean, shit, Obama admitted smoking, and didn't he win some big contest or something?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:26 AM on February 13, 2009
I think if anyone were outraged it would be because he admitted to breaking the law, not because he admitted smokin' herb. I mean, shit, Obama admitted smoking, and didn't he win some big contest or something?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:26 AM on February 13, 2009
Yet it will never, ever be legal under any circumstances.
I don't really care about marijuana either way, but this is kinda stupid. They said the same thing about a black man being President as recently as two or three years ago.
posted by DU at 5:38 AM on February 13, 2009
I don't really care about marijuana either way, but this is kinda stupid. They said the same thing about a black man being President as recently as two or three years ago.
posted by DU at 5:38 AM on February 13, 2009
Replace a giant expense with the legal trade of a crop that's always in demand? It's just crazy enough to work.
posted by EatTheWeek at 7:02 AM on February 13, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by EatTheWeek at 7:02 AM on February 13, 2009 [3 favorites]
shit..somehow i forgot the quote:
Because without us, the rest of this country would suck both ass and balls
posted by spicynuts at 7:41 AM on February 13, 2009
Because without us, the rest of this country would suck both ass and balls
posted by spicynuts at 7:41 AM on February 13, 2009
The depression could be a good thing for us here in middle America. Street performers are the ONLY reason to envy big cities. When our midwest crew was working in California one season, I worked with a great High School junior wit. He said he heard that if there was ever an earthquake, the cows would get in a circle and he intended to get in the middle of that circle. I just think small town middle America is safer in a crises.
Also the government will have to stop riots by either beating or sedating the population. A good solution might be the rationing of weed by the cops to the more aggressive members of our society. They could finally be peace officers and the bullies would finally have friends. Knowing our corprotocracy, I suppose someone will want to dose the water supply and make our brightest, most easily bored kids even dumber than feeding them Ritalin.
This was a wonderful dream I had.
posted by Bitter soylent at 8:51 AM on February 13, 2009
Also the government will have to stop riots by either beating or sedating the population. A good solution might be the rationing of weed by the cops to the more aggressive members of our society. They could finally be peace officers and the bullies would finally have friends. Knowing our corprotocracy, I suppose someone will want to dose the water supply and make our brightest, most easily bored kids even dumber than feeding them Ritalin.
This was a wonderful dream I had.
posted by Bitter soylent at 8:51 AM on February 13, 2009
The thing about economic and taxation arguments for pot legalization is that while it would be in the economic interests of the public, it would go against the economic interests of law enforcement, prisons, pharmaceutical companies, the alcohol industry, etc.
The first two are obvious but I'll explain the last two.
There's a tendency for some stoners to overhype the medical benefits of pot (also the various benefits of industrial hemp) but it really does function pretty impressively as medicine.
Specifically, it's well known that it's effective as a pain reliever (myself and many stoners I know will take a hit rather than an aspirin or Tylenol unless sobriety is required - costs more but it works much better and faster), a sleep aid, an anti-emetic (nausea) and an anti-wasting medication. I'm also aware of a lot of promise as a treatment for autoimmune disease. It's probably a better psychiatric drug than a lot being used today, though everything gets a lot iffier in the mental health domain.
As for alcohol, while they're pretty dissimilar drugs, at a broad level they're both relaxing mildly euphoric inebriants that can serve similar purposes and weed use tends to partially displace alcohol use. A beer or two goes nice with your weed but if you're relaxing with a few bowls you're a lot less likely to put away a six pack or a fifth than if you were just drinking, and enough people consciously prefer weed over alcohol for health reasons. Anheuser-Busch was a big supporter of anti-illegal-drug PSAs until that hypocrisy got called out. (On the other hand, craft beer and stoners seem to go together in my experience, but in America the "alcohol industry" and decent beer have nothing to do with each other.)
The idea about spreading pot seeds everywhere, playing Johnny Appleweed or whatever, doesn't really work. Pot needs to be taken care of to be smokable. You'd get a generation of shitty seed-filled weed and if the growing conditions allowed for subsequent generations they'd get even worse as the genetics shift back towards maximising survivability in the wild rather than maximising quality in cultivation. Pot plants already grow wild in areas suited for it - stoners won't touch the stuff, but the DEA is happy to spend your tax dollars cutting it down and every year when they announce how many billions and billions of pot plants they saved America from something like 95% of that is this inconsequential feral pot.
posted by Sockpuppet For Naughty Things at 10:36 AM on February 13, 2009
The first two are obvious but I'll explain the last two.
There's a tendency for some stoners to overhype the medical benefits of pot (also the various benefits of industrial hemp) but it really does function pretty impressively as medicine.
Specifically, it's well known that it's effective as a pain reliever (myself and many stoners I know will take a hit rather than an aspirin or Tylenol unless sobriety is required - costs more but it works much better and faster), a sleep aid, an anti-emetic (nausea) and an anti-wasting medication. I'm also aware of a lot of promise as a treatment for autoimmune disease. It's probably a better psychiatric drug than a lot being used today, though everything gets a lot iffier in the mental health domain.
As for alcohol, while they're pretty dissimilar drugs, at a broad level they're both relaxing mildly euphoric inebriants that can serve similar purposes and weed use tends to partially displace alcohol use. A beer or two goes nice with your weed but if you're relaxing with a few bowls you're a lot less likely to put away a six pack or a fifth than if you were just drinking, and enough people consciously prefer weed over alcohol for health reasons. Anheuser-Busch was a big supporter of anti-illegal-drug PSAs until that hypocrisy got called out. (On the other hand, craft beer and stoners seem to go together in my experience, but in America the "alcohol industry" and decent beer have nothing to do with each other.)
The idea about spreading pot seeds everywhere, playing Johnny Appleweed or whatever, doesn't really work. Pot needs to be taken care of to be smokable. You'd get a generation of shitty seed-filled weed and if the growing conditions allowed for subsequent generations they'd get even worse as the genetics shift back towards maximising survivability in the wild rather than maximising quality in cultivation. Pot plants already grow wild in areas suited for it - stoners won't touch the stuff, but the DEA is happy to spend your tax dollars cutting it down and every year when they announce how many billions and billions of pot plants they saved America from something like 95% of that is this inconsequential feral pot.
posted by Sockpuppet For Naughty Things at 10:36 AM on February 13, 2009
I <3 the Sockpuppet for Naughty Things!
posted by schyler523 at 10:39 AM on February 13, 2009
posted by schyler523 at 10:39 AM on February 13, 2009
shit..somehow i forgot the quote:
MAYBE IF YOU WEREN'T SO HIGH
But the underlying point is true...and as something I was reading just last night points out, it's been true for 160 years: the U.S. needs California more than the other way around.
posted by kittyprecious at 10:58 AM on February 13, 2009
MAYBE IF YOU WEREN'T SO HIGH
But the underlying point is true...and as something I was reading just last night points out, it's been true for 160 years: the U.S. needs California more than the other way around.
posted by kittyprecious at 10:58 AM on February 13, 2009
Bitter soylent: "Street performers are the ONLY reason to envy big cities."
Well that and culture, dining out, employment prospects (the last small town I lived in is now grappling with 24% unemployment), shorter commutes, and a more diverse peer group.
imho, and this is coming from one of the largest cities on the west coast, the street performers here are crap and most 'performances' amount to 'hey, give me some of your money.' The exception to this is the cat psychic on Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade, and the ever-present b-boy crews.
posted by mullingitover at 11:28 AM on February 13, 2009
Well that and culture, dining out, employment prospects (the last small town I lived in is now grappling with 24% unemployment), shorter commutes, and a more diverse peer group.
imho, and this is coming from one of the largest cities on the west coast, the street performers here are crap and most 'performances' amount to 'hey, give me some of your money.' The exception to this is the cat psychic on Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade, and the ever-present b-boy crews.
posted by mullingitover at 11:28 AM on February 13, 2009
You can. But, duuuuuuude, potheads are laaaaaaaazy, maaaaaaaaaaaaang.
Man, if there's one thing on this earth that a stoner is willing to invest his time, money and ingenuity in doing, it's procuring the dankest weed possible.
Really, though, this sort of stereotyping has been by far the greatest success -- probably the only success -- of the prohibition movement. After all these decades of propagandizing, much of America seems pretty firmly convinced that anyone who enjoys weed is incapable of being a hard-working, goal-oriented, productive person. Which means that any hard-working, goal-oriented, productive person who enjoys weed is very unlikely to advertise that fact, which of course reinforces the stereotype. So when someone like Michael Phelps is actually caught doing it... well, that sound you hear is cognitive dissonance fucking America in both ears.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 11:30 AM on February 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
Man, if there's one thing on this earth that a stoner is willing to invest his time, money and ingenuity in doing, it's procuring the dankest weed possible.
Really, though, this sort of stereotyping has been by far the greatest success -- probably the only success -- of the prohibition movement. After all these decades of propagandizing, much of America seems pretty firmly convinced that anyone who enjoys weed is incapable of being a hard-working, goal-oriented, productive person. Which means that any hard-working, goal-oriented, productive person who enjoys weed is very unlikely to advertise that fact, which of course reinforces the stereotype. So when someone like Michael Phelps is actually caught doing it... well, that sound you hear is cognitive dissonance fucking America in both ears.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 11:30 AM on February 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
Jury nullification at work in marijuana, gun cases
posted by homunculus at 12:39 PM on February 13, 2009
posted by homunculus at 12:39 PM on February 13, 2009
>can legal marijuana save California?
This doesn't seem like an effort that's going to cross the Great "Can/Will" Divide.
>I'm personally willing to bet that we, as a country, would rather close down schools and hospitals than deal with our real addiction: a morbid desire to punish others for our own self-perceived sins.
Yeah, exactly.
Of course, I've been proven wrong on the political front-- to my great pleasure-- more than once over the last year, and it'd be nifty to be surprised about this, also.
posted by darth_tedious at 1:24 PM on February 13, 2009
This doesn't seem like an effort that's going to cross the Great "Can/Will" Divide.
>I'm personally willing to bet that we, as a country, would rather close down schools and hospitals than deal with our real addiction: a morbid desire to punish others for our own self-perceived sins.
Yeah, exactly.
Of course, I've been proven wrong on the political front-- to my great pleasure-- more than once over the last year, and it'd be nifty to be surprised about this, also.
posted by darth_tedious at 1:24 PM on February 13, 2009
Very Important Potheads
The list includes Richard Branson, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, William F. Buckley, Marcel Proust, Oliver Sacks, and Sam Donaldson.
Yah, a buncha losers, all of 'em, right?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:40 PM on February 13, 2009
The list includes Richard Branson, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, William F. Buckley, Marcel Proust, Oliver Sacks, and Sam Donaldson.
Yah, a buncha losers, all of 'em, right?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:40 PM on February 13, 2009
Think of all the wars Republicans could start if we legalized pot and taxed it? You'd think they would jump on this bandwagon.
posted by zzazazz at 7:36 AM on February 14, 2009
posted by zzazazz at 7:36 AM on February 14, 2009
empath said: I'm not sure how any taxes could be collected for pot at all. I mean, you can grow the shit in your backyard with approximately 0 effort, right. The shit is a weed, after all. You don't pay taxes on your yearly dandy lion harvest do you?
Well...yes and no. Just like any crop, the quality depends on soil, temperature, genetic strain, yadda, yadda, yadda. Plus, there's only a small amount of the plant that is the really good stuff...the red-haired buddy of stoner mythology. Add to that the amount of time it takes to grow a plant to the bud stage, and you realize that most people aren't going to be any more willing to grow good weed than they are willing to grow good tobacco.
But pop down to the smoke shop and pick up some primo? Huge market for that. Huge.
The conservatives should absolutely be behind a legalization movement. From a financial standpoint, it would be a free market bonanza. Small growers could generate all kinds of business opportunities; greenhouse manufacturers, fertilizers, grow lights, employees, packaging, licensing...it's a freaking business bonanza. And, from a true conservative standpoint, the government doesn't need to be in the business of playing Nanny. But then...trying to find a real conservative in the Republican party is like trying to find a cognac in an MD20/20 bottle.
The thing that rarely gets mentioned is that with privatized prisons, the powers that be are never going to let legalization get passed. There's more money in imprisoning stoners, and stealing their houses, cars, and bank accounts than the privateers could make if the drug was legal and taxed.
Society would win if pot was legal, but the profiteers control the market...and they have nothing to gain by letting society flourish.
posted by dejah420 at 7:26 PM on February 14, 2009 [2 favorites]
Well...yes and no. Just like any crop, the quality depends on soil, temperature, genetic strain, yadda, yadda, yadda. Plus, there's only a small amount of the plant that is the really good stuff...the red-haired buddy of stoner mythology. Add to that the amount of time it takes to grow a plant to the bud stage, and you realize that most people aren't going to be any more willing to grow good weed than they are willing to grow good tobacco.
But pop down to the smoke shop and pick up some primo? Huge market for that. Huge.
The conservatives should absolutely be behind a legalization movement. From a financial standpoint, it would be a free market bonanza. Small growers could generate all kinds of business opportunities; greenhouse manufacturers, fertilizers, grow lights, employees, packaging, licensing...it's a freaking business bonanza. And, from a true conservative standpoint, the government doesn't need to be in the business of playing Nanny. But then...trying to find a real conservative in the Republican party is like trying to find a cognac in an MD20/20 bottle.
The thing that rarely gets mentioned is that with privatized prisons, the powers that be are never going to let legalization get passed. There's more money in imprisoning stoners, and stealing their houses, cars, and bank accounts than the privateers could make if the drug was legal and taxed.
Society would win if pot was legal, but the profiteers control the market...and they have nothing to gain by letting society flourish.
posted by dejah420 at 7:26 PM on February 14, 2009 [2 favorites]
homunculus, the Phelps thing has gone off the deep end. (Erm, no pun intended.) Even my ancient great aunt, a conservative southern christian woman said, and I quote "Well, how ridiculous is it that they're hounding this poor boy? Government should just go back to it being legal and taxed. Why, my Daddy grew hemp for the military during WWII." She still has marijuana tax stamps from the 40s.
posted by dejah420 at 12:34 PM on February 15, 2009
posted by dejah420 at 12:34 PM on February 15, 2009
She still has marijuana tax stamps from the 40s.
Cool!
posted by homunculus at 10:48 AM on February 22, 2009
Cool!
posted by homunculus at 10:48 AM on February 22, 2009
California would become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana for recreational use under a bill introduced today by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco.
posted by homunculus at 3:50 PM on February 23, 2009
posted by homunculus at 3:50 PM on February 23, 2009
> "An analysis by the agency concluded the state would collect $1.3 billion a year from tax revenues and a $50-an-ounce levy on retail sales if marijuana were legal."$50/oz in taxes? Just how expensive *is* life in CA?
/me thinks about reconsidering his plans to move out there
posted by simoncion at 12:33 AM on February 25, 2009
From the Board of Equalization press release, based on their analysis:
Legalization of marijuana would cause its street price to decline by 50 percent.
This 50 percent decline in price would lead to an additional consumption of 40 percent.
The imposition of the proposed $50-per-ounce levy would lead to reduced consumption of 11 percent.
posted by gingerbeer at 5:06 PM on February 25, 2009
Legalization of marijuana would cause its street price to decline by 50 percent.
This 50 percent decline in price would lead to an additional consumption of 40 percent.
The imposition of the proposed $50-per-ounce levy would lead to reduced consumption of 11 percent.
posted by gingerbeer at 5:06 PM on February 25, 2009
Calif. Legislator Proposes Legalizing Pot - "A California legislator proposed legalizing the sale of marijuana, saying the plan would generate over $1 billion annually for the state" [by stu woo! just sayin' :] cf. viz.
posted by kliuless at 8:08 PM on February 25, 2009
posted by kliuless at 8:08 PM on February 25, 2009
Here's the actual legislation in pdf form. There are a few issues with the language that will get amended in committee, but otherwise what you see there is what you get. I'm working on this for my job, and can link other commentary and so on if anyone is interested.
So far, the media coverage has actually been pretty accurate, aside from a little "will no one think of the children!??!" screaming from the usual suspects.
posted by gingerbeer at 8:33 PM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
So far, the media coverage has actually been pretty accurate, aside from a little "will no one think of the children!??!" screaming from the usual suspects.
posted by gingerbeer at 8:33 PM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
if anyone is interested
*raises hand*
i'm interested! link other commentary pls :P
posted by kliuless at 8:42 PM on February 25, 2009
*raises hand*
i'm interested! link other commentary pls :P
posted by kliuless at 8:42 PM on February 25, 2009
Here's the google news summary of all the coverage.
The Nate Silver piece you linked to is one of the more interesting things out there, in my opinion. Calitics' comments on it. LA Times editorial.
MPP's take on it. DPA's. There's a start. I can post more later.
posted by gingerbeer at 9:00 PM on February 25, 2009
The Nate Silver piece you linked to is one of the more interesting things out there, in my opinion. Calitics' comments on it. LA Times editorial.
MPP's take on it. DPA's. There's a start. I can post more later.
posted by gingerbeer at 9:00 PM on February 25, 2009
huh, 84-16 so far for marijuana inc :P thanks!
now if it could only be processed into ethanol...
posted by kliuless at 9:34 PM on February 25, 2009
now if it could only be processed into ethanol...
posted by kliuless at 9:34 PM on February 25, 2009
> From the Board of Equalization press release, based on their analysis:
This is why I'm poor... I can't read. Thanks for the clarification.
posted by simoncion at 3:17 AM on February 27, 2009
This is why I'm poor... I can't read. Thanks for the clarification.
posted by simoncion at 3:17 AM on February 27, 2009
« Older Kingsford goes to the beach. | Bishop Richard Williamson in his own words Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tepidmonkey at 4:28 PM on February 12, 2009 [3 favorites]