Colorado's Marijuana Banking Problem

[jbishop15]

18 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I seriously dislike this mindset. Legalize it because we can't stop people from doing it so let's make money off of it. Of all the reasons people use to justify legalization, this one bothers me the most.

What else can you do? You can't stop it; might as well use it to your advantage and also make sure that it has some semblance of oversight. Win-win.

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

I am firmly in the no drugs corner.. But people can do what ever they want as long as I don't have to deal with them.

Define "drugs"?

People take drugs legally all the time. And I don't just mean prescriptions… Caffeine is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. And you can get broader definitions than those, even… FOOD is a drug. Oxygen is a drug.

I have a degree in medicinal chemistry. I could make the argument that everything is a drug. Our own bodies produce "drugs."

[Abu3baid]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Define "drugs"?

People take drugs legally all the time. And I don't just mean prescriptions… Caffeine is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. And you can get broader definitions than those, even… FOOD is a drug. Oxygen is a drug.

I have a degree in medicinal chemistry. I could make the argument that everything is a drug. Our own bodies produce "drugs."

There is a very wide definition of drugs, but I hope I don't have to go into listing all the drugs I am against and the situations in which I am against them.

But I'm not against food, caffeine or oxygen.  I am against nicotine if you must know. :)

[billchao]

19 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

Having said that I do believe we lost the war on drugs a long time ago.  It is arguable that we ought to legalize all drugs and let people kill themselves if they choose to.  At least if it were legal we would make drugs very inexpensive (they are only expensive now because they are illegal) and no one would have to steal from or harm anyone to get their fix.  Getting organized crime out of the picture could not be a bad thing and as I say the laws are not keeping anyone from getting whatever drug they desire.

 

1 hour ago, jbishop15 said:

Legalize it and every other drug, far as I'm concerned. Doing that strips cartels of their power, brings revenue, and also stops putting non-violent users in jail, which is an alarming issue.

Amsterdam has the right idea on this sort of thing.

You guys are joking, right? There are so many drugs out there that all affect people in different ways; the only way to do it properly is to evaluate everything on an case-by-case basis. A number of drugs are not only highly addictive, but downright dangerous, and they're illegal because of public health concerns.

 

57 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

What else can you do? You can't stop it; might as well use it to your advantage and also make sure that it has some semblance of oversight. Win-win.

You can't stop it, but you don't want to encourage it. Making something illegal deters a % of the population from using. That alone is worth something.

I agree that the war on drugs is ridiculous, but de-criminalizing everything is not the answer.

[jbishop15]

9 minutes ago, billchao said:

 

You guys are joking, right? There are so many drugs out there that all affect people in different ways; the only way to do it properly is to evaluate everything on an case-by-case basis. A number of drugs are not only highly addictive, but downright dangerous, and they're illegal because of public health concerns.

 

You can't stop it, but you don't want to encourage it. Making something illegal deters a % of the population from using. That alone is worth something.

I agree that the war on drugs is ridiculous, but de-criminalizing everything is not the answer.

Except that by keeping these drugs illegal, you are actively aiding the cartels. They will sell hard drugs, and they will find buyers, and the only way to stop that violence is to remove the need for violence. This is not a war we can win.

[billchao]

3 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

Except that by keeping these drugs illegal, you are actively aiding the cartels. They will sell hard drugs, and they will find buyers, and the only way to stop that violence is to remove the need for violence. This is not a war we can win.

You really think we can end drug cartels and drug-related violence by legalizing drugs? They predominantly operate in the nations that produce these substances. There will still be fighting to control the supply of drugs flowing into the market. Diamonds are legal, yet there was huge controversy over blood diamonds. Just because you're selling a legal commodity doesn't remove the violence attached to it.

The consequences of legalized drug use will affect society a lot more than just drug-related violence.

[newtogolf]

Some of the most addictive drugs are legal (oxycodone) and act as gateway to heroin (more dangerous and even more addictive) because heroin is cheaper and easier to get.

There's no simple answer to the overall drug problem.  I'd lean towards legalizing all drugs, collecting taxes on them and at least ensuring the dosages and quality are known so people don't accidently kill themselves because the drugs weren't cut properly or were laced with foreign substances.

Back on topic with regards to marijuana, some states have made recreational use legal and those businesses pay taxes so therefore they should be entitled to the same rights as other legal businesses which means having the ability to get a bank account and establish investment accounts.

[jbishop15]

36 minutes ago, billchao said:

You really think we can end drug cartels and drug-related violence by legalizing drugs? They predominantly operate in the nations that produce these substances. There will still be fighting to control the supply of drugs flowing into the market. Diamonds are legal, yet there was huge controversy over blood diamonds. Just because you're selling a legal commodity doesn't remove the violence attached to it.

The consequences of legalized drug use will affect society a lot more than just drug-related violence.

Yes. It will significantly reduce the violence. Look at Prohibition, and what rose out of that; it's the same principle. No need to have murder witnesses when when they haven't witnessed anything illegal.

[bubble]

I went to a french museum on alcohol. very interesting.

it's several hundred years of work for the government to control this drug tax wise and impose rules on production. furthermore this is only distilation, not all other easy alcohol fruit fermentation such as wine.  

I personally think alcohol is legal because it's a north hemisphere production and huge industry. this is not the case for many other less harmful drugs that are third world origin pretty much.

Then there was the high added value cotton industry versus the cheap hemp fiber problem 250 years ago.

 

 

 

[Jeremie Boop]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Some of the most addictive drugs are legal (oxycodone) and act as gateway to heroin (more dangerous and even more addictive) because heroin is cheaper and easier to get.

There's no simple answer to the overall drug problem.  I'd lean towards legalizing all drugs, collecting taxes on them and at least ensuring the dosages and quality are known so people don't accidently kill themselves because the drugs weren't cut properly or were laced with foreign substances.

Back on topic with regards to marijuana, some states have made recreational use legal and those businesses pay taxes so therefore they should be entitled to the same rights as other legal businesses which means having the ability to get a bank account and establish investment accounts.

Regarding Oxycodone, it's illegal to have it if you don't have a prescription. Unless I'm mistaken, it's a pretty serious thing to be caught with it. But, since we can't stop people from abusing let's just let everyone buy it, right? I mean that seems to be the mantra of a lot of pro legalization people. As for states making it marijuana legal, well, considering it is still illegal on a federal level then they just have to suck it up until that changes.

 

I really should know better to join these threads by now. I am very biased when it comes to these discussions about drugs. I'll leave it to those who are more impartial about the discussion

Edited November 14, 2015 by Jeremie Boop

[iacas]

6 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

There is a very wide definition of drugs, but I hope I don't have to go into listing all the drugs I am against and the situations in which I am against them.

But I'm not against food, caffeine or oxygen.  I am against nicotine if you must know. :)

You missed the point. Until you define "drugs" you cannot say you are against them.

You split the hair yourself: you're not against caffeine, but you are against nicotine. But are you actually against nicotine, or are you against the method by which it's delivered?

Caffeine:

• Increases blood pressure.
• Causes vasoconstriction.
• Creates chronic arterial stiffness.
• Affects gastrointestinal motility and acid secretion.
• Causes anxiety, jitteriness, insomnia, reduced coordination, etc.

Nicotine:

• Can enhance the performance of cognition, alertness, and focus.
• Increases blood pressure and heart rate.

Now that's not all of the effects of both, but… take wine for example. A glass of wine a day can be healthy… a glass of beer, not so much.

So, are you against the drug itself, or are you against the standard means by which it's administered? Are you for caffeine because you need your morning coffee, but against nicotine for the same reason you're against any of the things you've spoken out against here over the years?

Seems like an awfully fluid double standard you apply to something you can't even define.

[Patch]

8 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I seriously dislike this mindset. Legalize it because we can't stop people from doing it so let's make money off of it. Of all the reasons people use to justify legalization, this one bothers me the most.

Logic does thst sometimes.

[Abu3baid]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

You missed the point. Until you define "drugs" you cannot say you are against them.

You split the hair yourself: you're not against caffeine, but you are against nicotine. But are you actually against nicotine, or are you against the method by which it's delivered?

Caffeine:

• Increases blood pressure.
• Causes vasoconstriction.
• Creates chronic arterial stiffness.
• Affects gastrointestinal motility and acid secretion.
• Causes anxiety, jitteriness, insomnia, reduced coordination, etc.

Nicotine:

• Can enhance the performance of cognition, alertness, and focus.
• Increases blood pressure and heart rate.

Now that's not all of the effects of both, but… take wine for example. A glass of wine a day can be healthy… a glass of beer, not so much.

So, are you against the drug itself, or are you against the standard means by which it's administered? Are you for caffeine because you need your morning coffee, but against nicotine for the same reason you're against any of the things you've spoken out against here over the years?

Seems like an awfully fluid double standard you apply to something you can't even define.

I just don't think there is a need for me to define drugs in the context that I put it.  Would it be better if I said I am against recreational drugs?  Then went ahead and said that I don't include caffeine in that category, and also excluded nicotine and said I'm just against the way it is administered and not nicotine specifically?

Aren't we just getting too nit picky here? Is it really a double standard to say that I am against morphine when used by someone that doesn't need it vs. when it is used by someone who just had a surgery?  I don't think so.

Anyway, I still voted that Marijuana should not be made legal across the nation... Last thing I need is to give a legal way for my son to go buy and use marijuana.  If he goes and finds it illegally so be it, there is still some sort of deterrent from doing so (i.e. fear of getting caught up with the law, ect..)

[iacas]

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

I just don't think there is a need for me to define drugs in the context that I put it.

Then you're still missing the point.

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

Aren't we just getting too nit picky here? Is it really a double standard to say that I am against morphine when used by someone that doesn't need it vs. when it is used by someone who just had a surgery? I don't think so.

I don't think so. The point I was making is that you're not taking a medical approach to this at all - you're only looking at marijuana's history. Some have made the case (I'm venturing into devil's advocate territory a bit here, as I don't care that much about this) that while wine and alcohol in general is legal, marijuana can be less detrimental to tasks like driving a car. One is legal; the other is not. Eyed, man, do yourself a favor and step outside the viewpoints in which you've been indoctrinated. Every one of these discussions seems to yield an incredibly shallow response from you… a response you can't back up because it's just the way it is for you or something. You said before that you were against legalizing drugs. Define "drugs" please? Is alcohol a drug? Nicotine? Steroids? All of them are used medically, too… as is marijuana.

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

Anyway, I still voted that Marijuana should not be made legal across the nation... Last thing I need is to give a legal way for my son to go buy and use marijuana.  If he goes and finds it illegally so be it, there is still some sort of deterrent from doing so (i.e. fear of getting caught up with the law, ect..)

I don't know how to respond to that. What??? Smoking (cigarettes) is legal and I fully expect that my daughter will not smoke. She knows the difference between "legal" and "right" or "good for you." Ditto drinking - I expect her to drink responsibly. There are plenty of times when what's legal/illegal and what's right/wrong are misaligned for any given individual.

[ghalfaire]

20 hours ago, bubble said:

I personally think alcohol is legal because it's a north hemisphere production and huge industry. this is not the case for many other less harmful drugs that are third world origin pretty much.

Actually alcohol is legal today because our government made alcohol illegal from 1920 until 1933.  It was a period that organized crime controlled the supply and made millions selling bootleg booze. There was enough of the population that wanted legal alcohol that organized crime stepped in and took over and made millions.  There also were several bloody gunfights between the G men and the various crime families and between the crime families themselves over territory.  But it was an age of much violence to control the production, distribution and sale of alcohol products.  Sound familiar?  Well in 1933 the Government then abolished the law prohibiting manufacture and sale of alcohol in the USA.  That is where we are today with respect to alcohol.  Certainly not a perfect solution but no questions it is the lesser of two imperfect solutions.  So I submit that is experience that says if we make drugs legal in the USA it will dramatically reduce violence and we well treat addicts like addicts and not like criminals. It is not a perfect solution but certainly better than what exists today.

 

[turtleback]

20 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Regarding Oxycodone, it's illegal to have it if you don't have a prescription. Unless I'm mistaken, it's a pretty serious thing to be caught with it. But, since we can't stop people from abusing let's just let everyone buy it, right? I mean that seems to be the mantra of a lot of pro legalization people. As for states making it marijuana legal, well, considering it is still illegal on a federal level then they just have to suck it up until that changes.

 

Of course I can turn it around and say that you are saying that since we cannot stop some folks from abusing it let's take it away from everyone.

And I follow this issue closely and I have NEVER herd ANYONE make the argument that we should make it legal because people abuse it.  Unless by abuse you mean just use.

 

 

10 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

Anyway, I still voted that Marijuana should not be made legal across the nation... Last thing I need is to give a legal way for my son to go buy and use marijuana.  If he goes and finds it illegally so be it, there is still some sort of deterrent from doing so (i.e. fear of getting caught up with the law, ect..)

Sorry, buddy, a terrible argument since, in the legal states, it would still be illegal for your son (assuming he is a minor) to buy or possess marijuana.

 

1 hour ago, ghalfaire said:

 

Actually alcohol is legal today because our government made alcohol illegal from 1920 until 1933.  It was a period that organized crime controlled the supply and made millions selling bootleg booze. There was enough of the population that wanted legal alcohol that organized crime stepped in and took over and made millions.  There also were several bloody gunfights between the G men and the various crime families and between the crime families themselves over territory.  But it was an age of much violence to control the production, distribution and sale of alcohol products.  Sound familiar?  Well in 1933 the Government then abolished the law prohibiting manufacture and sale of alcohol in the USA.  That is where we are today with respect to alcohol.  Certainly not a perfect solution but no questions it is the lesser of two imperfect solutions.  So I submit that is experience that says if we make drugs legal in the USA it will dramatically reduce violence and we well treat addicts like addicts and not like criminals. It is not a perfect solution but certainly better than what exists today.

 

Not to mention all of the violence and corruption we have exported to the drug-producing nations.  And the moral corruption in our own agencies as they increasingly adopt a "whatever it takes" approach.  

[billchao]

1 hour ago, ghalfaire said:

So I submit that is experience that says if we make drugs legal in the USA it will dramatically reduce violence and we well treat addicts like addicts and not like criminals. It is not a perfect solution but certainly better than what exists today.

It will reduce some violence at the cost of increased users, which has serious implications I don't think you're considering.

Heroine, crack-cocaine, crystal-meth, etc. , all are highly addictive and destroy not only the lives of its abusers, but their families as well. These people can stop functioning as part of the society and become problematic, often resorting to committing crimes to pay for their addiction. Some end up dying from drug overdose.

It sounds nice to say we should treat them as addicts, which I assume you mean they should be given treatment, but then you're also placing a huge financial burden on the state for medical care to those who cannot afford it.

This of course all hinges on the assumption that drug related violence will end if drugs are made legal, which I don't think it will. Organized crime didn't end when Prohibition ended.

I think the pro-legalization side of this debate tends to look at things from an academic pint of view and I wonder how many of these people have been around or have been affected by drug addiction. Increasing the number of potential addicts is not something I would ever propose as a possible solution to this problem.

[Jeremie Boop]

19 minutes ago, billchao said:

It will reduce some violence at the cost of increased users, which has serious implications I don't think you're considering.

Heroine, crack-cocaine, crystal-meth, etc. , all are highly addictive and destroy not only the lives of its abusers, but their families as well. These people can stop functioning as part of the society and become problematic, often resorting to committing crimes to pay for their addiction. Some end up dying from drug overdose.

It sounds nice to say we should treat them as addicts, which I assume you mean they should be given treatment, but then you're also placing a huge financial burden on the state for medical care to those who cannot afford it.

This of course all hinges on the assumption that drug related violence will end if drugs are made legal, which I don't think it will. Organized crime didn't end when Prohibition ended.

I think the pro-legalization side of this debate tends to look at things from an academic pint of view and I wonder how many of these people have been around or have been affected by drug addiction. Increasing the number of potential addicts is not something I would ever propose as a possible solution to this problem.

Just to touch on the teaching them as addicts and get them treatment. I will tell you that you can't force an addict to stop doing drugs. You can force them into programs but if they aren't ready to quit then they'll just return to their habits once released. This is something people tend to forget, or not think about, if they don't know anyone who is an addict. Which is why I'm very biased in these conversations, because I do know someone who is an addict and I've seen what happens.

 

29 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Of course I can turn it around and say that you are saying that since we cannot stop some folks from abusing it let's take it away from everyone.

And I follow this issue closely and I have NEVER herd ANYONE make the argument that we should make it legal because people abuse it.  Unless by abuse you mean just use.

 

I figured using the word abuse wouldn't really convey the mind frame I have. I simply mean you can't stop people from using something even though they know it's illegal you just make it legal. And not really because it's the right thing to do, but because money. And trying to say let's make a legal pain killer illegal because people use them illegally isn't the same thing as making something legal that's illegal.

 

16 hours ago, Patch said:

Logic does thst sometimes.

In my eyes, it's not logic, it's selling out in basically the literal sense. Can't stop it, let's just make money off of it. It strikes me as defeatist and opportunistic.

 

 

In the end, how I feel doesn't matter, the trend is for the acceptance of legalization. In a nation where people tend to go to excess with almost anything I just don't like it. But, let's face it, I don't have to like it do I? If the majority want it, typically, the majority get it. And if it will make money, more times than not, it will end up happening. I only hope that it doesn't set a  precedence, and/or follow other people's thoughts to legalizing other much more harmful drugs. 

As I state previously, I'm very biased here, I won't apologize for it. When you have family members who destroy their lives and hurt their family and friends because of their drug abuse and addiction it tends to give you a different view on things.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Jeremie Boop