DescentBB

The investment money is starting to flow, even hedge fund cash......smoke em if you have em.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/investo ... 8C11565189

They better pray the fed never stops looking the other way…

Oh, you can bet that they smell the green.....literally. If it was LEGAL, I'd gladly pay the taxes.

Speaking of taxes, my state just approved a 15% excise tax on the stuff...

If legalization succeeds it would be a devastating blow to organized crime, but by extension it would also be a severe blow to the prison industry (a massive private lobby) and probably police forces everywhere.

You have to step back and look at the big picture here, neither side of the "war on drugs" wants to actually win. Both sides benefit from the conflict, the prison industry remains exceptionally profitable thanks to big fat government contracts for uselessly locking up all these drug abusers, and the organized criminals supplying drugs benefit from the pressure on supply keeping prices high. The war on drugs isn't about right or wrong, it isn't about good or evil, it isn't about stopping crime, it is about money. The police and the criminals are just pawns in a well funded system that will do everything in its power to maintain the current arrangement.

So I do not see the legalization of marijuana happening any time soon, regardless of how big public support for it becomes.

Spidey wrote:They better pray the fed never stops looking the other way…

for revenue reasons, if no other, I predict it will be nationally legal in 5 years. And, why not, when 60% of the electorate supports the idea?

What a wonderful idea. Lets legalize another way to get lung cancer.

if you're smoking enough weed to induce lung cancer, you may have more issues that will do you in far quicker. Just my opinion.

for Woody.....an excerpt from an article I looked at, because I wondered about your point:


The findings in JAMA were hardly a surprise. Previously, the largest case-controlled study ever to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking reported that cannabis use was not associated with lung-related cancers, even among subjects who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints over their lifetime.

Summarizing the study’s findings in The Washington Post, lead investigator and pulmonologist Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA concluded, “We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use. What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.” The full study is available online.

More recently, this past May presenters at the annual meeting of the American Academy for Cancer Research reported that subjects who regularly inhale cannabis smoke possess no greater risk of lung cancer than do those who consume it occasionally or not at all — according to an analysis of six case-control studies, conducted between 1999 and 2012, involving over 5,000 subjects (2,159 cases and 2,985 controls) from around the world.

They concluded, “Our pooled results showed no significant association between the intensity, duration, or cumulative consumption of cannabis smoke and the risk of lung cancer overall or in never smokers.”

Most recently, an editorial in July published in the journal Annals of the American Thoracic Society concluded: “Cannabis smoking is not equivalent to tobacco smoking in terms of respiratory risk. … [C]annabis smoking does not seem to increase risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or airway cancers. In fact, there is even a suggestion that at low doses cannabis may be protective for both conditions. … This conclusion will affect the way health professionals interact with patients, parents with teenagers, and policy makers with their constituents. … Efforts to develop cleaner cannabinoid delivery systems can and should continue, but at least for now, [those] who smoke small amounts of cannabis for medical or recreational purposes can breathe a little bit easier.”

So Obamacare should pay for cannabis therapy since it has preventative qualities.
And there is the way to get these younger uninsured to sign up where before they had no motivation to do so....

Will Robinson wrote:So Obamacare should pay for cannabis therapy since it has preventative qualities.
And there is the way to get these younger uninsured to sign up where before they had no motivation to do so....

sarcasm noted, but funny!

I’m not so sure the revenue argument will persuade the feds to legalize, because the government already makes a fortune from pot being illegal, and the prison issue Krom mentioned…and because the shift from vice profits to tax revenues may not materialize, because a mature pot industry would most likely consist of small underground home growers. (much easier than brewing beer, for example)

Oh, and as bad as the Republican party is doing right now, conservatives still have some pull in the congress. (not so sure the Democrats will have the will to spend capital on the pot issue)

So there are some not so obvious things to consider.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So Obamacare should pay for cannabis therapy since it has preventative qualities.
And there is the way to get these younger uninsured to sign up where before they had no motivation to do so....

sarcasm noted, but funny!

but only half kidding. it sounds more legit than aroma therapy included in coverage.
I don't know the demographics of likely voters who smoke weed or are sympathetic to it, so the result of such a move might not provide a net-positive return for the proponents on election day but I bet it would bring all the weed smokers to sign up for ACA! And they might not even realize the web site is slow

How could they resist? Weed becomes legal AND a monthly supplement of high grade government sticky bud is free!
Shovel ready jobs too! Someone has to grow and distribute that stuff now that the cartel supply will be unwanted...

But that would only account for medical usage…most pot smoking is recreational.

(remember these are “healthy” people you are looking to entice)

The study cited a preventative quality for cannabis so everyone would benefit...sick and healthy. So, in theory, the policy could include a certain number of doses paid for...

Spidey wrote:But that would only account for medical usage…most pot smoking is recreational.

(remember these are “healthy” people you are looking to entice)

actually, as I read Wills point, he is suggesting it as preventative medicine, thus recommended practice for healthy people.

Right! So the government will start recommending the smoking of pot…that’s a real stretch.

I have things to say.

• Pot is a drug. If it is going to be legal it needs the same strict regulations as other drugs. At the very minimum there needs to be some way to gauge the dose and at maximum a list of all active and non-active compounds.
• Lung cancer, along with most cancers, have a strong genetic component. The WHO recently issued a statement saying the greatest health risk in the world right now is air pollution. Smoking weed may or may not be as harmful as smoking, but it certainly doesn't translate to clean air no matter its legal status.
• Speaking of legal status, it will only work if 1) the consumer doesn't see an outrageous price increase and 2) the new weed industry can line the pockets of fat-cats better than the current system. Unfortunately for our idiotic country, the ethics of marijuana use have no bearing whatsoever on their legality.
• Speaking of ethics, I think it should be legal but highly frowned upon. While there may be some benefits for some people I don't believe any general statement about weed being good or bad is possible. Proponents of marijuana use often cite, fallaciously, that weed is "natural" and better for you than other drugs. This is complete nonsense. And if you are so interested in "natural" and "healthy" why the hell are you doing drugs?

I am generally ambivalent to the whole legal pot discussion. But if the nightmare known as alcohol is going to be legal, then pot might as well be too -- as long as the same level of regulation, tolerance, and education is applied.

beats a transvaginal ultrasound........
Anyway, back to the original topic: I still think the revenue involved will outweigh all of the very valid points made here in the thread to counter that. While, yes, there is big money in prisons, we come back(again) to the changing demographics of the nation. With non-whites making up a huge chunk of the people in those prisons on drug charges, that industry is set for a scaling back at the polls. Second, despite other reasons to cite the 'war on drugs' as a money-maker for the government, a 10% excise tax on an estimated $60-100 Billion dollar commodity is a LOT of money, especially, if you factor in income taxes on the growers and others working to package and sell the stuff. Finally, the numbers will just keep rising, generationally, so, if you currently see 60% of the public in favor, shortly it will grow to 70, then 80, and at some point(I know not where) the number will reach a critical mass. Now, if those hotbeds of 'conservatives' want to resist, they won't be able to do so at the Federal level, but could prohibit, just as some states and counties still do with alcohol. Still, I think the trend is clear, and that opinion would seem to be backed up by huge amounts of 'conventional' investment capital pouring in.

vision wrote:I have things to say.

• Pot is a drug. If it is going to be legal it needs the same strict regulations as other drugs. At the very minimum there some way to gauge the dose and at maximum a list of all active and non-active compounds.

I can see it more like alcohol, which has non of the strict listing requirements, but DOES have both age and motor vehicle restrictions

[*]Lung cancer, along with most cancers, have a strong genetic component. The WHO recently issued a statement saying the greatest health risk in the world right now is air pollution. Smoking weed may or may not be as harmful as smoking, but it certainly doesn't translate to clean air no matter its legal status.

all cancers have TWO components: A genetic component, which determines propensity, and a triggering component, which causes the specific development and immune susceptability. I suspect that the studies are showing that cannabinoids might hinder the latter process, but maybe, they are supressing gene expression in the first.

[*]Speaking of legal status, it will only work if 1) the consumer doesn't see an outrageous price increase and 2) if the new weed industry can line the pockets of fat-cats better than the current system. Unfortunately for our idiotic country, the ethics of marijuana use have no bearing whatsoever on their legality.

see the tobacco industry for your model. In fact, I have long heard that the major tobacco players are raring to go, once marijuana is legal. As for price increases, the tobacco model shows how that works.......incrementally.

[*]Speaking of ethics, I think it should be legal but highly frowned upon. While there may be some benefits for some people I don't believe any general statement about weed being good or bad is possible. Proponents of marijuana use often cite, fallaciously, that weed is "natural" and better for you than other drugs. This is complete nonsense. And if you are so interested in "natural" and "healthy" why the hell are you doing drugs?[/list]

because, since the beginning of mankind, natural inebriants have been both sought out and used. Hence, mental alteration, self-medication or whatever one wishes to label it could easily be seen as normal, natural and healthy. As with ANYTHING, from alcohol to drugs to food to exercise, moderation is the key to observe.

woodchip wrote:What a wonderful idea. Lets legalize another way to get lung cancer.

Two words. Pot brownies!

I jealous of TC's proximity to the emerald triangle, brownies no less! People who smoke pot don't care if it's legal or not, the only way I would be happy is If you could grow 2-3 plants for yourself. Then all conflict would be gone for me. I have never found a dealer I liked or had respect for.

hell, flip, wait until you can buy it at the strip mall down the street!!

I still think Georgia is much less progressive enough for outright legalization yet, but the last few years I have noticed the police turning an eye. Honestly, I am almost more content with that than outright legalization. You get to see cause and effect over time while retaining recourse.

flip wrote:I jealous of TC's proximity to the emerald triangle, brownies no less! People who smoke pot don't care if it's legal or not, the only way I would be happy is If you could grow 2-3 plants for yourself. Then all conflict would be gone for me. I have never found a dealer I liked or had respect for.

I'm close, but it's still illegal in Oregon. I'd have to use it in Washington, but I think a trip up there just to take a toke would be a waste of time since I'd have to wait for quite a while just to get sober again to drive back home.