Skip to comments.CNBC's Marijuana Inc Video
Posted on 01/25/2009 10:28:56 AM PST by MAD-AS-HELL
No article just a video for those who didn't see it and might want to watch. If California wants a nice steady stream of income, they'd be smart to LEGALIZE POT. The efforts to eradicate not only aren't working but wasting a lot of money and time when our cops could be fighting REAL CRIME.
oops my bad...it’s through fancast not hulu...oh well...
Never did pot either. But I think it’s pretty common knowledge that the only reason pot is not legalized is because of the alcohol lobby.
With all of the drug violence in Mexico threatening to spill over into the US, I think it is time to reconsider the War on Some Drugs.
It would be nice if the financial crisis managed to get drugs legalized and taxed (therefore becoming a boon to government) rather than prohibited and interdicted (being a cost for government). But I doubt Our Fearless Leaders have the foresight and wisdom to do this.
i thought it was the paper and chemical industry that helped get hemp banned thus also hurting it’s sister marijuana.
Wow, it sounds like pragmatic Libertarians are surfacing on Freep!
I don’t smoke dope, but our laws against dope are silly and antiquated. And yes, it is a smarter way to fight the Mexican drug gangs.
Heroin and cocaine? Heroin is just bad and legalization will lead to increased number of addicts, crime to pay for it, government programs to take care of heroin addicts, etc. So, no.
Cocaine? Never done it. Don’t know if it is addicting. I hear about cokeheads, but don’t know if it is like heroin.
Frankly, I would rather have people driving cars on marijuana and coke (small amounts) that 6 shots of Black Jack with beer chasers!
But hemp will be useful for making clothing and for cellulosic biofuel production, though.
That too. I think a large problem with drug legalization has to do with the image of it’s proponents, they certainly do not help their cause.
Most politicians in the “District of Corruption” have committed far worse crimes than smoking pot.
Just how do you propose taxing an item for which there is an established tax free market which currently avoids the law? Why should pot dealers and growers start paying a tax? Who would collect the tax? What would be the penalties of selling untaxed pot?
I’ve never heard a reasonable explanation of how this would be done.
What about those that do marijuana and coke, AND the six shots of Black Jack with beer chasers. It's not as if marijuana users abstain from alcohol.
Didn't we have these same arguments about alcohol during Prohibition?
Finally a good idea. Also all illegal substances. Might as well legalize freedom too. Legalize all the stupid crap controlled by the stupid administrative preventive laws. Punish bad ACTIONS. Get the little jerks off our backs. Criminalize taxes and idiot government employees with too much time on their hands. The first thing to go...Dept of Education..2nd...EPA...Then...ATF...???
I lived 32 years in and around NYC and I have never witnessed the police wasting a lot of money fighting against marijuana yet you make it seem like that is about all they do.
The war on pot is a lost cause. Anyone with a closet can very easily grown a couple pounds in 60 days. Legalize it, tax it, billions upon billions in annual revenue. Ive lost friends to drinking and driving, numerous family members to cigarette related cancer, zero to to many joints.
I would put it in the addicting category. The thing is, not all people become addicted, be it cocaine or alcohol.
THC, which is the stuff in pot that produces the high, has a 3-day half life. That means that after smokeing pot and people begin to feel they are no longer high, but they are still impaired. That’s the danger in smoking pot. People who only smoke it on weekends are continuously impaired. That’s probably why they call it dope.
Same here. It may also be the only way to keep the economy afloat!
Well, I never stated that smoking the stuff is good or safe. I am just stating that I think it’s better to legalize it, regulate it and tax it. It’s a wild goose chase that only causes more harm keeping it illegal.
It would be implemented the same way the tax on whiskey was implemented back in the time of the whiskey-rebellion...
1) develop a “roadside test” like a Breathalyzer that will accurately measure pot in the system, AND come up with reasonable standards for acceptable legal levels.
2) Ban 3rd party lawsuits from injuries related to pot use.
ie...Suing the employer because an employee injured someone or himself while having pot in their system.
#1 Will be difficult and #2 will be impossible to get past the RAT controlled Congress.
Give it up, will never happen.
One thing that would keep use down even if it were legalized is the fact that employers could still test and refuse to hire people who do use. So that should still discourage many from using pot, even if it were legalized.
Maybe they should start with allowing offshore drilling for oil first.
How do you refuse to hire, or fire, someone for using a legal product? Unions will happily go along with that?
There are plenty of companies who refuse to hire tobacco users, and that has withstood legal challenges.
The reason they can refuse to hire people that smoke is because the anti-smoking Nazis are liberals.
The unions wont allow even the anti-smoking rules.
With each passing day, unions are becoming more and more irrelevant.
ZERO is going to change that. “Card check” ring a bell?
De-criminalizing MaryJ will relieve pressure on the court and jail systems, deprive law enforcement of cash and property seizures and generally force those two systems to find alternate means of funding or else reduce their staffs.
It’s never going to happen.
they’ll legalize pot WAY before they let those evil oil companies drill!
Oh, forgot to mention, there’s no qualitative test for pot intoxication as it stays in the urine for weeks. Companies open themselves up to liability hiring someone who tested positive to a legal substance and then causes an accident that could be blamed on that substance intoxication.
This will have to be resolved through the courts before legalization is allowed.
Horse crap, we did it after Prohibition with no problem at all.
“Just how do you propose taxing an item for which there is an established tax free market which currently avoids the law?”
The same way they do on alchohol. My sweetie & I make our own wine - legally. The amount we can produce is limited & we can’t sell it. But there are lots of dope-heads who don’t have a green thumb & would be just as happy to buy it as try to grow it. Better quality, too.
Legalizing makes sense even if they can’t tax it. At least we wouldn’t be paying for the cops to waste their time on it & we wouldn’t be locking up otherwise law-abiding folks who want a toke now & then.
In the State of Florida, no firefighter may use any tobacco product on or off duty. It's been that way for ten or fifteen years. Quite a few businesses refuse to hire smokers, with the justification that having a non-smoking workforce reduces their insurance rates.
That being said, speaking as someone who's worked emergency services danged near forever (31 years) I see little reason to keep marijuana illegal. No I don't smoke marijuana, although I used to.
I don't think I've ever been to a wreck where marijuana was a significant contributing factor. Cocaine? Yep. Booze? Close to 50% of all wrecks I've been to. Heroin? Not as much, but it's less common. Lots of heroin ODs, though, as a percentage of heroin users. Meth? They just fall apart right in front of you. Crack? Same as meth.
As to marijuana being a gateway drug, probably it is. Some of that, though, is that to get marijuana, you have to deal with the same people that are selling other drugs.
Right now, the Feds won't allow it to be legalized. If the Feds backed off, I think Washington, Oregon and California would legalize it, as well as some of the more libertarian states like Montana.
Nobody stays "impaired" for three days from smoking pot. Just because THC stays in your system for weeks before finally being untraceable, doesn't mean that there is any form of impairment. The "high" from smoking pot lasts a few hours at most, and that's only if it's really potent weed and the person smoking it has gone for many days without at toke. Even your choice of the word "impaired" is a misnomer. Having the munchies, getting into deep philosophical discussions about God, listening to music, and laughing at cartoons does not qualify as "impaired."
The metabolytes from THC, which is what they test for, have a long half-life in your system, but they aren’t THC any more.
Ahh, but you miss the point. Only a person who is totally hide bound and steep in their own self righteousness doesn't think legalizing drugs would totally take the money and the crime out of drugs, therefore ending a useless and, actually, harmful to some totally lawful citizens, WOD. The politicians of this country(not all, but a lot of them)don't want to legalize drugs because they get their cut. Why do you think Ramos and Compean went to jail? Because they hid a few shell casings? They only committed a couple of misdemeanors and ended up with 12 years in the slam because they shot one of the sacred cows of the Mexican and US politicans: A drug dealer.
Bush went along with it, why? Who knows, but the bottom line is: Until we get the politicians out of office who are getting their cut, we will continue to have drugs running across the border and continue to have our useless WOD. Take the money out of it and you will end it, just as repealing prohibition ended the vast majority of bootlegging.
“Just how do you propose taxing an item for which there is an established tax free market which currently avoids the law? Why should pot dealers and growers start paying a tax?”
The tax would be collected the same as on alcohol. Remember prohibition? They weren’t paying tax then, but they are now.
The free production of marijuana will bring down the price of it considerably. It will also reduce the crime associated with it.
“Companies open themselves up to liability hiring someone who tested positive to a legal substance and then causes an accident that could be blamed on that substance intoxication.”
Then don’t hire them if they screen positive. You don’t have to.
I’m for making it legal and taxed, but would not hire anyone who had it in their system when tested. I bought a company once who had an employee practically put his eye out with a screwdriver when he was high on MJ at work. We hadn’t tested existing employees yet.
Needless to say, he was not invited back to the party.
“I bought a company once who had an employee practically put his eye out with a screwdriver when he was high on MJ at work.”
What an incompetent. Eye work takes a socket wrench.
Same way it's done with tobacco. Because it would be legal, the price, including taxes, would be way lower than it is today. Comparable to cigarettes.
And after a while, no more worries about pot smugglers.
1) develop a roadside test like a Breathalyzer that will accurately measure pot in the system, AND come up with reasonable standards for acceptable legal levels.”
Alcohol was relegalized without a roadside test. There are several drugs for which they do not have roadside tests to indicate that one has had enough of the particular substance. In fact, alcohol is the only drug for which we have set maximum levels that one can have in his blood and drive. People get DWIs for all sorts of different drugs though, including marijuana, even though they don't have have some test that can determine intoxication or that one has ingested enough to become intoxicated. If the officer feels that a person is intoxicated, he might have the person blow in his portable breath test, but he's certainly going to try to ask the appropriate questions and have the person do field sobriety tests. Now they are training officers to be drug recognition experts, DREs, who can not only recognize impairment but they are pretty good at guessing which drug someone is impaired on. These tests are usually recorded on video now and those suspected of driving while intoxicated on something other than alcohol are required to have blood or urine screens done. At court the judge (or jury) will listen to the testimony of the officers involved, including the DRE who did the special tests if it is someone other than the arresting officer. The court will watch the video tapes and they'll look at the drug screen results. They'll convict almost every time, just like they do with alcohol DWIs. Most people will go ahead and plead guilty because the potential punishments are always a lot worse than what people are offered in plea negotiations and most don't want to risk taking the case to trial and getting a harsher sentence for wasting the court's time. It happens all the time already.
I think most people who want to smoke pot are already smoking it. If they're the kind of jerks who would get really stoned and drive, they're already doing it. The precious few who want to smoke pot but don't because it is illegal and not because of all the other good reasons not to smoke pot have already shown that they are law abiding people with some self control. They're probably less likely to do things like smoke pot and drive than those who already smoke it.
“2) Ban 3rd party lawsuits from injuries related to pot use.
ie...Suing the employer because an employee injured someone or himself while having pot in their system.”
That's nonsense. We haven't done that for alcohol, and it's a lot more prone to causing accidents than pot. It impairs people more.
“Give it up, will never happen.”
I bet it does happen. I doubt it happens anytime soon, but I could see it happening in fifteen or twenty years, maybe sooner, maybe a little later. The percentage of people who think it should be legal and regulated similar to alcohol has been steadily growing over the years. The most recent surveys put the percentage for legalization at around forty percent and since the nineties it's been increasing by about one point a year on average. Sooner or later the majority will be for it and we'll start hearing a lot more serious talk about legalization from Washington. I think we'll need to see a change of the guard up there though to people born in the second half of the 20th Century. Right now our most powerful lawmakers tend to be people in their late sixties and seventies who came of age before marijuana use took off in this country and they tend to be more strongly opposed to it on average than younger folks. When most of these geezers are replaced I don't think it will be long before we see marijuana become legal. By then the majority will probably be for it. We'll probably have millions of old retired people that smoke pot that we don't really want to arrest (we have a couple of hundred thousand of those 65 and older now according to government stats but that number is growing and will explode as Baby Boomers retire). The whole debate is going to change over the next couple of decades. It's changing now.
I'm sure you are right about that. Look at the medical marijuana dispensaries in California and the coffeeshops in the Netherlands. People with medical marijuana cards are allowed to grow their own, yet these dispensaries are doing gangbusters business even though they sell super expensive pot, often 420 or $30 a gram, hundreds of dollars an ounce. In the Netherlands people are allowed to grow five plants for personal use, yet their coffeeshops that are allowed to sell marijuana do gangbusters business. Hardly anyone grows their own. A smaller percentage of their population than ours smokes it too, even though it's illegal here.
Americans consume an awful lot of marijuana. More marijuana is consumed in this country than all other illegal drugs combined. According to the last estimate from our government that I saw there are between 12,000 and 25,000 metric tons of marijuana available in this country every year. If the actual number is closer to the high end of that, most is produced here. If it's closer to the low end, most is produced in Mexico. According to our Office of Drug Control Policy Mexican drug trafficking organizations make around $13.8 billion a year selling drugs to Americans, about $8.6 from marijuana alone. That's about 62% of their gross sales to Americans. They gross about $3.9 billion from cocaine, the second most popular drug. Their net proceeds from marijuana are probably much higher than 62% of their total proceeds from drug sales to Americans because they are only the middlemen for cocaine which must first be purchased and smuggled from South America before it is smuggled into this country.
If we legalized marijuana and allowed American farmers with permits grow it and allowed for it to be sold from licensed shops, similar to the way we regulate alcohol, it would be a devastating blow to Mexican organized crime. We'd be taking their cash cow from them. It would be a devastating blow to other organized crime groups operating within our borders that derive a substantial portion of their income from marijuana sales. With large farms growing it like we grow other crops, the wholesale cost of it would be a fraction of what it is today. The only thing that could keep prices anywhere close to current prices would be taxes and regulatory costs. People aren't going to want to buy it on the street and most won't want to go to the trouble of growing their own. They'll want to go to nice clean shops where they can select from a wide variety of quality product and tax paying law abiding citizens will be making the money from it and paying taxes on what they make. We'll save a fortune that we are currently spending trying in vain to keep up this ban, and we'll bring in billions in tax revenues that we aren't getting now on all the many billions of dollars worth of marijuana being consumed in this country every year.
“Legalizing makes sense even if they cant tax it.”
I agree with that too, but I think the government can and will tax it when it finally is legalized. Being legal the actual cost of this stuff will be far lower than it is today. There will be a lot of room for taxes before they get so high that it will encourage a black market or encourage that many to go to all the trouble of spending months growing their own. It wouldn't take long before those that smoke it will have their favorite kinds they like to pick up at the “pot store.” They won't want crappy homegrown or something grown in the woods by criminals who treat it with God knows what kind of toxic chemicals. Given the choice, most will buy it from the store, just like most buy their booze and smokes from the store.
>That's nonsense. We haven't done that for alcohol, and it's a lot more prone to causing accidents than pot. It impairs people more.<
It doesn't matter that the pot caused, or didn't cause, the accident. If it was in their system it gives a lawyer the legal opening to sue the employer.
The reason you see all the companies going to zero tolerance drug policies is because the liability insurance companies charge them a fortune if they don't have one.
The difference with alcohol is you can smell it on their breath and see rather easily if someone had too much. That isn't the case with pot, plus there is a cheap, instant test for alcohol.
I couldn't care less that someone smokes pot at home on the weekend but the company insurance policy demands that you have zero tolerance rules. The reason is lawsuits. You may not like that fact, but it's still a fact.
Which takes more time and effort....making alcoholic beverages, or sticking a couple seeds in the ground? If it were legal every garden and flower bed would have pot plants growing in it. Pretty hard to regulate and tax something that would be growing EVERYWHERE!
A lot of companies would probably still test for marijuana and not allow pot smokers to work for them even if it was legal. We see the same thing already with cigarette smokers. There are companies now that won’t let cigarette smokers work for them even if they only smoke when they are off the clock and away from company property. Courts have backed the businesses on this. I imagine we’d see the same thing with marijuana if it was legal.