Need to generate new tax streams?? - legalise Cannabis

Macsimus

Ok, first up - mods if this is the wrong place to post this argument feel free to move me. Secondly, I am not 100% decided on this topic myself and merely propose it for discussion, so please keep it civil.

From a 'devils advocate' point of view:

Cannabis is widely available in Ireland and pretty much anyone who wants it can and does get it. I have no idea what the 'wacky tobaccy' market really is worth here in €'s, but it must be in the 00's of millions at least.

The war on drugs in the western world has long been a losing battle and if the US, with enormous resources at its disposal, cannot stem the tide then what hope have we here in 'little old Ireland'?

So if we cant beat them why shouldn't we tax them? The Gov could impose heavy duties on the imported drugs, followed by Vat on its sale, corporation tax on the companies selling/ distributing/ importing it and income tax on the jobs created by the industry.

By keeping it illegal we put the money straight into the hands of the Crime lords and murderers who do a very effective job of ensuring the supply is plentiful enough for all that want it. Demonizing its use only glamorizes it to our young people, seducing them by appealing to their rebellious tendencies.

Legalising it would also allow for a degree of regulation to apply to what is being sold - hopefully preventing the addition of toxic substances like engine oil and plastic to the product that is consumed here - for those of you who think users deserve what they get , I'll put it in terms you can associate with: this will save the health service and therefore the taxpayer, millions in the not too distant future.

I am not unaware of the dangers of Cannabis, and personally know diagnosed 'Paranoid schizophrenics', whose conditions have been attributed to Cannabis use, but I also know many more people who have the same problems from alcohol abuse, and would suggest that alcohol is a far more destructive force in our society than Cannabis ( due to the fact that alcohol causes violent tendencies and is physically addictive)

Effectively the issue is, that prohibiting it's sale is not working, so lets take the money out of the pocket of the gunmen and dealers and give it to Lenihan instead. Please Discuss...

cavedave

The amount of cannabis usage can be estimated from the amount of seizures "Cannabis resin valued at €48.7m was seized". Between 10% and 5% of all drugs are seized according to internationally agreed figures. So this means that the current cannabis market in Ireland is worth conservatively around 500 million Euro.
The costs of illegalality have to be high so I would estimate that you could easily tax at 50%. So you are looking at a tax take of 250 million euro from legalised cannabis. That would be with no change in current usage patterns.

What is likely to happen to usage patterns if it were legalised? If everyone spent their days sitting around stoned GDP would decrease.

I am unsure of the practicality of legalisation. Are there binding international pacts we have entered into that preclude it?

Macsimus

cavedave wrote: »

The amount of cannabis usage can be estimated from the amount of seizures "Cannabis resin valued at €48.7m was seized". Between 10% and 5% of all drugs are seized according to internationally agreed figures. So this means that the current cannabis market in Ireland is worth conservatively around 500 million Euro.
The costs of illegalality have to be high so I would estimate that you could easily tax at 50%. So you are looking at a tax take of 250 million euro from legalised cannabis. That would be with no change in current usage patterns.

What is likely to happen to usage patterns if it were legalised? If everyone spent their days sitting around stoned GDP would decrease.

I am unsure of the practicality of legalisation. Are there binding international pacts we have entered into that preclude it?

Cheers for that Cavedave. I think you are right in suggesting that the €500 million figure would be conservative - and when you say the tax take should be in the region of 50%, I would have envisaged that the duty alone would have been at least that high not to mention the vat, corpo tax and income tax it would also generate.

Im assuming your point on GDP was delivered tongue in cheek - in fairness, as pointed out in my original post, at the moment, legal or not, if you want it you can get it. So I cant imagine our GDP being decimated by hordes of stoners quitting their jobs and watching Judge Judy all day - the dole would never keep them in munchies anyway....

In relation to the practicality and reference to international pacts - I was going to mention this in the op as its a valid consideration. If it were to happen, there would have to be more of an international movement towards it - which I agree is unlikely as that is a political football few mainstream politicians would want to shoot with, regardless of how much common sense it makes.

It is though, an ostrich style approach to the problem.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

If we were first to move on this, it would make us a lot of money with tourism and so on a la amsterdam (it would do wonders for our green image).

If we sit around and wait for other countries to do it, the returns wont be there.

cavedave

Im assuming your point on GDP was delivered tongue in cheek

Vaguely. I do think you need to present evidence that legalising cannabis wont have a net negative effect on the economy. This comparison of usage in the Netherlands and the USA suggests not. Though the culture of the netherlands is different to here. The UK experience with changing the classification may be more informative

It is though, an ostrich style approach to the problem.

There are all sorts of political issues here. I think for this forum anyway it might be more interesting to concentrate on the economics of it though.

silverharp

Productivity would improve as all things being equal if all drugs were decriminalised then the dept of justice budget could probably be cut by more than 10%. plus associated crime would drop.

Macsimus

Sean_K wrote: »

If we were first to move on this, it would make us a lot of money with tourism and so on a la amsterdam (it would do wonders for our green image).

If we sit around and wait for other countries to do it, the returns wont be there.

Yeah the tourism boost is worth considering - however if we made a move without there being more support for legalisation globally, 'particularily in the US', we could become black sheep amongst our euro peers and potentially lose foreign investment.

cavedave wrote: »

Vaguely. I do think you need to present evidence that legalising cannabis wont have a net negative effect on the economy. This comparison of usage in the Netherlands and the USA suggests not. Though the culture of the netherlands is different to here. The UK experience with changing the classification may be more informative


There are all sorts of political issues here. I think for this forum anyway it might be more interesting to concentrate on the economics of it though.

The economist article is excellent- its incredible that the US spend 40 bn p.y. combating it and locks up 1.5 million of their own citizens every yr.

the wiki article on the uk experience isnt very illuminating though - it didnt show anything in the way of increased usage. It looks like they just bowed to international pressure, after being told they moved out of turn.

If though we are going to look at it purely from an economic pov then the argument for legalisation is surely irrefutable??

cavedave

it didnt show anything in the way of increased usage. It looks like they just bowed to international pressure, after being told they moved out of turn.

Reclassification seems to have been based on some not very scientific evidence on mental illness. Discussed here.

Evidence of UK usage is here. I am surprised at how wide usage in Ireland is.

If though we are going to look at it purely from an economic pov then the argument for legalisation is surely irrefutable??

Hmm well what are the costs and benefits?
Costs?-reduced productivity
-health costs
-signal costs (in the sense of slippery slope, giving kids bad lessons etc)
-moral costs (not even sure these have a economic measure
-Tourism (stags are bad but this is worse etc)
-increased justice costs (if other drugs became wder used, more people went mad etc)
-?

Benefits -Direct Tax
-Tourism
-reduced justice costs (not locking people up, not chasing after people etc)
-?

Current evidence says we don't prevent usage by non adults from legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.

Flamed Diving

Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that legalising a drug and taxing it, drives it out of the hands of dealers?

What if the legal version of the drug is more expensive than the 'illegal' version?

Would people not go for the better price?

cavedave

Flamed Diving

Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that legalising a drug and taxing it, drives it out of the hands of dealers?

Well it depends what you mean by dealers. Someone will always have to deal any drug. If by dealers you mean murdering tax dodgers yes there is evidence. The end of prohibition on alcohol in America provides this evidence.

What if the legal version of the drug is more expensive than the 'illegal' version?

Would people not go for the better price?

Well take cigarettes. People do seem willing to buy cheaper cigarettes of dubious legality. Imported cigs though do not involve the same level of worries about quality, or the same worries about arrest as 'really' illegal drugs.

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that legalising a drug and taxing it, drives it out of the hands of dealers?

What if the legal version of the drug is more expensive than the 'illegal' version?

Would people not go for the better price?

Given that drug dealing has up front marketing costs, loss leaders etc and other costs of acquiring new customers, it would seem that a registered addict scheme would attract their most profitable market segment and might undermine the business model?

Macsimus

cavedave wrote: »

Reclassification seems to have been based on some not very scientific evidence on mental illness. Discussed here.

Evidence of UK usage is here. I am surprised at how wide usage in Ireland is.


Hmm well what are the costs and benefits?
Costs?-reduced productivity
-health costs
-signal costs (in the sense of slippery slope, giving kids bad lessons etc)
-moral costs (not even sure these have a economic measure
-Tourism (stags are bad but this is worse etc)
-increased justice costs (if other drugs became wder used, more people went mad etc)
-?

Benefits -Direct Tax
-Tourism
-reduced justice costs (not locking people up, not chasing after people etc)
-?

Current evidence says we don't prevent usage by non adults from legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.

The Irish usage is higher up the table than I thought it would be at 6th but the actual % who had used it was much lower than I thought at 7.91% - I'd imagine the usage in younger demographic cross sections would be significantly higher and would be 35% + in the 15 - 40 age group.

I'm not sure about your cost benefit analysis though:

Reduced productivity ( assumes legalising it will significantl increase usage + that those who use it will be less productive - no real eveidence of this and the legal cannabis trade itself would increase gdp and increase wealth to a small degree)

Health costs (again assumes legalising it will significantly increase usage + doesnt take into account that if the product were regulated then producers are less likely to add harmful additives like engine oil & plastic to add bulk so it could in fact reduce the health costs)

Moral Costs - ( I dont see what Cannabis use has to do with morality)

Tourism - worse than stag parties??? - definitely wouldn't agree with that suggestion - the chances of trouble/ violence from a group of drunken stags is much higher than from a similar bunch of stoner tourists

Increased court costs - (again there is no definitive evidence that harder drugs would become more widely used)

Signal Costs - there is an argument here - but lots of kids also start experimenting with cannabis precisely because it is illegal and they see using it as an expression of their rebelliousness

On the benefits side you left out:
- job creation
- regulated products with less harmful substances added
- Increased proportion of Garda resources going into the fight against hard drugs and violent crime
- Young people have less need to be introduced to street dealers who may encourage them to try harder drugs later
- Benefits to the producing countries
- Taking their largest source of income away from criminals - possibly reducing the worrying rise in gun crime on our streets
- people who may have ended up selling drugs (because it is profitable and easy) may end up as upstanding tax paying members of society
- other medical uses for cannabis could be explored

A lot of the points against legalisation dont take into account that Cannabis is already, pretty much as widely available now as it would be if it were legalised - in reality everyone knows someone who could get it for them if they wanted to

nesf

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that legalising a drug and taxing it, drives it out of the hands of dealers?

What if the legal version of the drug is more expensive than the 'illegal' version?

Would people not go for the better price?

It depends on whether you tax it to the hilt or not. A moderate tax system will make it unprofitable for illegal groups, though this also depends on the penalty system.

i.e. Look at cigarettes in this country. Taxes to the hilt. The fines and penalties for selling illegal cigarettes are tiny in comparison to any other "drug". Combine the two and you're just begging people to start importing them illegally.

thecornerboy

Some of the nonsense and logic mangling that takes place when ever this comes up is worrying and sad. Stop stretching for spurious reasons to oppose making it legal.

Anybody who wants to smoke that type of stuff is doing so. It's readily available. If the Government wants to make the stuff legal and the State to shoulder charge illegal, non-tax paying dealers out of the way and organise a distribution program then of course is a significant tax and employment benefit to the State. The existing cost of the illegal drugs MAY, depending on a an individual's circumstances in each case, mean people generally smoke less, it stands to reason. A correct balance would need to be struck between ensuring it's not so cheap as to be an extremely attractive proposition for young people but not so expensive to drive people into illegal dealers. If the legal supply was the dominant supply it would end a revenue stream for a lot of criminals and gang activity would lessen. Police and customs activity in stopping illegal shipments getting on to the street would need to remain high, any shipments they stop would have a direct financial benefit to the State in the form of increased tax revenues and making the illegal stuff prohibitively expensive to import, eventually importing illegal stuff would practically die out.

As for health issues, I'm fairly certain that if you smoked buds instead of the dark, brown crap they call hash it would be far less harmful to your health. I must try to find something on that but I'm pretty sure that is the case. The distribution program could also strongly encourage people to smoke it without tobacco from a bong device or similar. Alcohol consumption would be impacted too, people would drink less.

As for moral issues, it's wrong to criminalise young people who smoke hash or weed, making it impossible for them to get certain jobs and to travel to certain countries. Everybody from Barack Obama, to Bill Clinton, to David Cameron, to Brian Cowen has admitted smoking the odd joint in their youth. You're not a criminal for having smoked a joint, despite what the law says.

Other benefits I can think of off the top of my head is less violence on our streets through less alcohol consumption (A&E wouldn't be as big a disaster zone), Garda resources being freed up, court resources being freed up. It would also create a clear division for young people between legal and illegal drugs, young people would stop having contact with drug dealers who sell hash and then go on to sell them ecstasy and cocaine. You might also find a drop in usage in other drugs as a result of legalising marijuana. International precedents are useful when analysing it but each country is different and each implementation is different.

I'm not a free-the-weed hippy type. If it became legal I would be in favour of it remaining strictly prohibited outside of private settings which would limit any explicit drugs tourism, sold in strictly controlled circumstances (perhaps through the pub trade who to be fair are quite responsible when it comes to serving minors and drunks these days) and would hope that legalisation would be accompanied by a strong social campaign aimed at reducing usage of it.

When you look closely there are financial benefits to us all and health benefits to the population by legalising the stuff. The bottom line is that prohibition does not work at all. The sad part is it will not happen here or around the world for decades, what politician wants to touch the subject? Our spineless lot certainly won't.

Flamed Diving

nesf wrote: »

It depends on whether you tax it to the hilt or not. A moderate tax system will make it unprofitable for illegal groups, though this also depends on the penalty system.

i.e. Look at cigarettes in this country. Taxes to the hilt. The fines and penalties for selling illegal cigarettes are tiny in comparison to any other "drug". Combine the two and you're just begging people to start importing them illegally.

And which tax approach do you think would be applied in this fine country?

Exactly.

Also, I happen to think that Amsterdam is one of the most disgusting cities I have been to in Europe. It could be very pretty if it wasn't for all the people, staggering around, stoned (not just on weed) off their face. The whole place has a very seedy feel to it, and that coming from me says a lot. :pac:

Anyway, this is dangerously veering into a politics discussion.

Empirics, anyone? Stats? Historical data?

cavedave

thecornerboy Some of the nonsense and logic mangling that takes place when ever this comes up is worrying and sad. Stop stretching for spurious reasons to oppose making it legal.

The evidence says you need a disenting voice in any debate to reduce conformity bias. Check out the Asch experiments and particularly Allens work with an incompetant dissenter. So no I wont stop stretching spurious reasons as even someone saying "no it isnt" is useful to prevent group think.

The evidence shows that making a drug illegal tends to make people take less of it.

it does nto reduce harm caused by the drug to the same extent though.

thecornerboy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Also, I happen to think that Amsterdam is one of the most disgusting cities I have been to in Europe. It could be very pretty if it wasn't for all the people, staggering around, stoned (not just on weed) off their face

Amsterdam's seediness is not down to people smoking weed.

Flamed Diving

thecornerboy wrote: »

Amsterdam's seediness is not down to people smoking weed.

Ah, right. I should have realised that all that hoor-riding was resulting in the gaunted, pale-faced, wide-eyed, skinny freaks I saw on every corner.

Remember kids.

Say no to hoors.

thecornerboy

cavedave wrote: »

The evidence says you need a disenting voice in any debate to reduce conformity bias. Check out the Asch experiments and particularly Allens work with an incompetant dissenter. So no I wont stop stretching spurious reasons as even someone saying "no it isnt" is useful to prevent group think.

The evidence shows that making a drug illegal tends to make people take less of it.

it does nto reduce harm caused by the drug to the same extent though.

That was 90 years ago. Your graph also says alcohol consumption is declining, is that down to prohibition too? I've also read reports that contradict your graph. Let's say alcohol consumption per capita did drop during Prohibition, what happened to usage during the highest 20% of alcohol consumers? Did their consumption go up or down?

Cocaine use rocketted during the 80s and 90s, do we attribute this to the fact that prohibition increases usage? Like you're saying a decline in alcohol usage was the result of prohibition.

Besides that you're comparing apples with oranges. Let's agree for a second that prohibition would probably put a big dent in alcohol availability, it's a matter of logistics. How much illegal alcohol can criminals import? How much demand would they be able to satisfy? But an ounce of marijuana would satisfy a moderate user for many months. Where as a pint of beer weighs about a pound. You cannot compare the two because of the simple matter of logistics. Prohibition also saw a spectacular rise in organised crime. The legacy of which is still around almost 90 years later. We have it in Ireland today.

Statistics and precedent can tell you something I'm sure but I'm sceptical if an example involving a completely different substance almost a century ago in a country 3,000 miles away can tell you an awful lot.

One fact nobody can escape is this: cannabis and marijuana is freely available today.

thecornerboy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ah, right. I should have realised that all that hoor-riding was resulting in the gaunted, pale-faced, wide-eyed, skinny freaks I saw on every corner.

Remember kids.

Say no to hoors.

Lol. Reefer Madness revisited! Weed drives you to become a sex crazed beast, or vice versa. Why is it that people who don't understand the first thing about the subject always like to give their opinion. There are many drug addicts in Amsterdam, they are not like that because they smoke weed. They were heroin addicts you were seeing.

cavedave

Your graph also says alcohol consumption is declining, is that down to prohibition too? I've also read reports that contradict your graph. Let's say alcohol consumption per capita did drop during Prohibition, what happened to usage during the highest 20% of alcohol consumers? Did their consumption go up or down?

No its not. Please cite these reports. The highest 20% seem to have drank as much (given the cirrosis of the liver figures) but they would have drunk worse alcohol with dangerous methanols and other alcohols in it.

Cocaine use rocketted during the 80s and 90s, do we attribute this to the fact that prohibition increases usage? Like you're saying a decline in alcohol usage was the result of prohibition.

Could you please provide a citation that prohibition increases usage? It seems intuitive that an easier to get higher quality lower cost substance that does not sponsor murder would increase usage.

One fact nobody can escape is this: cannabis and marijuana is freely available today.

This is true but we don't legalise everything that is inevitable.

Flamed Diving

thecornerboy wrote: »

Lol. Reefer Madness revisited! Weed drives you to become a sex crazed beast, or vice versa. Why is it that people who don't understand the first thing about the subject always like to give their opinion. There are many drug addicts in Amsterdam, they are not like that because they smoke weed. They were heroin addicts you were seeing.

thecornerboy...

It was you I saw, wasn't it? I guess the corollary I implied in my last post that I now need to spell out in black & white is that by legalising drugs in a country you are likely to attract more drug-takers.

Maybe all of your buddies are innocent, exclusive weed-smokers, but pretty much every single person I know who takes/has taken weed, also takes a few others too. Although few make it as far as heroin, a combo (and/or) of weed/pills/coke/speed/LSD is more than enough to produce a wide-eyed, gaunt, bumbling freak. I have seen more than enough of them, in my time.

But sure, I don't know what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:



I really need to ask what this thread has to do with economics, at this stage.

meboloxitis

Personally I think it would be an excellent idea to legalise cannabis.
Not only would it create jobs (coffeshops) it would also IMPROVE our declining year on year tourism figures. The tax revenue would be through the roof as I believe the government would tax this like the old reliables, tobacco & alcohol (the Legal Accepted Drugs!)

I do believe that this should be strictly regulated & available to over 21's only.

I had to laugh with one posters opinion that this would create a seedy society... total nonsence. I have been all over Holland and in Eindhoven & Rotterdam the coffeshops are quiet & very friendly and they have a very strict ID policy. There are no sex shops & red light districts either!
Amsterdam is totally different though, but don't forget people choose to go there & that environment is why they go there!!

Another area to look at is cannabis for medicinal purposes. What about providing a pain relieveing drug like cannabis rather than a cocktail of pharmacutical pills. Canada has approved Cannabis for medicinal purposes & they seem to be doing ok.

In my opinion Ireland would be capable of pulling this off but I can't ever see it happening in my lifetime! It is a shame though because I feel that that pro's outweigh the con's but our politicians just don't have the balls for real change!

Flamed Diving

meboloxitis wrote: »

Personally I think it would be an excellent idea to legalise cannabis.
Not only would it create jobs (coffeshops) it would also IMPROVE our declining year on year tourism figures. The tax revenue would be through the roof as I believe the government would tax this like the old reliables, tobacco & alcohol (the Legal Accepted Drugs!)

I do believe that this should be strictly regulated & available to over 21's only.

I had to laugh with one posters opinion that this would create a seedy society... total nonsence. I have been all over Holland and in Eindhoven & Rotterdam the coffeshops are quiet & very friendly and they have a very strict ID policy. There are no sex shops & red light districts either!
Amsterdam is totally different though, but don't forget people choose to go there & that environment is why they go there!!

Another area to look at is cannabis for medicinal purposes. What about providing a pain relieveing drug like cannabis rather than a cocktail of pharmacutical pills. Canada has approved Cannabis for medicinal purposes & they seem to be doing ok.

In my opinion Ireland would be capable of pulling this off but I can't ever see it happening in my lifetime! It is a shame though because I feel that that pro's outweigh the con's but our politicians just don't have the balls for real change!

Glad to have provided you with merriment.

So, these people go their for the environment, which is created by the environment that they themselves create by their presence?

Well, that's what happens when you create a haven for taking drugs.

Also, if one city (lets say Galway) goes to the dogs as a result of this, would that be acceptable?

It would be a big shame if we ended up with an Amsterdam-like city in Ireland.

thecornerboy

Could you please provide a citation that prohibition increases usage?

It's called irony.

It seems intuitive that an easier to get higher quality lower cost substance that does not sponsor murder would increase usage.

I agree completely except for the higher usage part. It's already freely available. The kids sell it 50 yards away from my house. I can shout to them at lunchtime and get some if I so wanted (I actually don't smoke it although I did when I was younger). You're also implying that somebody having the odd joint on the weekend is a terrible thing. Higher quality substance would reduce medical implications. The cost has to be set to avoid certain problem but I also agree that the State should stop sponsoring murder and legalise the stuff.

thecornerboy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

thecornerboy...

It was you I saw, wasn't it? I guess the corollary I implied in my last post that I now need to spell out in black & white is that by legalising drugs in a country you are likely to attract more drug-takers.

We're talking about legalising marijuana, taking it out of the hands of criminals, ending tens of thousands of young peoples contacts with illegal drug dealers who will ALSO sell them cocaine and ecstasty, creating a massive tax stream for the State and reducing medical and law enforcement costs in the process. In Amsterdam, people are not strung out on weed. If heroin, crack and so on was not freely available in Amsterdam you would not see the junkies. Meboloxitis made the point that other cities in Amsterdam don't have the same problems but yet weed is sold there.

Maybe all of your buddies are innocent, exclusive weed-smokers, but pretty much every single person I know who takes/has taken weed, also takes a few others too. Although few make it as far as heroin, a combo (and/or) of weed/pills/coke/speed/LSD is more than enough to produce a wide-eyed, gaunt, bumbling freak. I have seen more than enough of them, in my time.

Most people I know who smoke weed would never ever touch harder drugs. Or if they did, they have stopped now but continue to smoke weed. I know people who take all sorts of chemicals but never smoke weed. They don't like it. There is a crossover, no doubt, but don't tar every person who has ever toked on a joint (like say Obama, Clinton, Cowen) as some sort of drug crazed, sex crazed "freak". It's just not true.

But sure, I don't know what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:

You don't, you're making inconsistent connections between weed and everything bad you see in the Universe. All my mates who would use cocaine also drive cars. Therefore cars are the problem surely.

cavedave

The kids sell it 50 yards away from my house. I can shout to them at lunchtime and get some if I so wanted (I actually don't smoke it although I did when I was younger).

The kids sell the equivalant of moonshine most likely. Highly compressed high potency poor quality stuff. Possibly mixed with other dangerous chemicals.

You're also implying that somebody having the odd joint on the weekend is a terrible thing... The cost has to be set to avoid certain problem but I also agree that the State should stop sponsoring murder and legalise the stuff.

I am but thats a political/moral opinion of mine. I do not see how the state are paying for the murder of people like Veronica Guerin. They may do enforcing laws that make such acts more likely but they are not paying for it in the same way an illegal drug user is.

Flamed Diving

thecornerboy wrote: »

We're talking about legalising marijuana, taking it out of the hands of criminals, ending tens of thousands of young peoples contacts with illegal drug dealers who will ALSO sell them cocaine and ecstasty, creating a massive tax stream for the State and reducing medical and law enforcement costs in the process. In Amsterdam, people are not strung out on weed. If heroin, crack and so on was not freely available in Amsterdam you would not see the junkies. Meboloxitis made the point that other cities in Amsterdam don't have the same problems but yet weed is sold there.



Most people I know who smoke weed would never ever touch harder drugs. Or if they did, they have stopped now but continue to smoke weed. I know people who take all sorts of chemicals but never smoke weed. They don't like it. There is a crossover, no doubt, but don't tar every person who has ever toked on a joint (like say Obama, Clinton, Cowen) as some sort of drug crazed, sex crazed "freak". It's just not true.



You don't, you're making inconsistent connections between weed and everything bad you see in the Universe. All my mates who would use cocaine also drive cars. Therefore cars are the problem surely.

You know, I'm the bigger fool for getting involved in this debate.

If you oppose the idea of legalised drugs, then you are labelled as 'not know what you're on about'. As if I am some innocent evangelist who has never even seen a joint.

Again, I question what this thread has to do with economics. It belongs in politics.

thecornerboy

cavedave wrote: »

The kids sell the equivalant of moonshine most likely. Highly compressed high potency poor quality stuff. Possibly mixed with other dangerous chemicals.

I've already made that point myself. The resin is horrible stuff. Weed is a bit different in that regard. Again, legalising it and introducing medicinal quality stuff has clear health benefits for
users over the resin muck.

I am but thats a political/moral opinion of mine. I do not see how the state are paying for the murder of people like Veronica Guerin. They may do enforcing laws that make such acts more likely but they are not paying for it in the same way an illegal drug user is.

If I drive a car am I supporting America's war in Iraq? If I buy a Dell flat screen monitor am I supporting oppression in China? Where does causality end? I was in Las Vegas this year, maybe I'm supporting the Mafia too. Perhaps the real immorality here is criminalising people who like to smoke the odd joint. People who would gladly buy it from a legal source and contribute to society by buying it (through supporting employment and paying tax on their recreational activities) but who can't. Weed would have far less health implications than alcohol for society and if it became more prevalant (as you say it would when legal) would result in less violence, less alcohol consumption and would keep kids away from other illegal drugs like cocaine and ecstasy. Smoking it itself is surely harmful I agree, particularly with tobacco but eliminating tobacco from the equation and moderating consumption is very achievable.

thecornerboy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You know, I'm the bigger fool for getting involved in this debate.

If you oppose the idea of legalised drugs, then you are labelled as 'not know what you're on about'. As if I am some innocent evangelist who has never even seen a joint.

You get labelled as that when you spout nonsense that's easily refuted.

Again, I question what this thread has to do with economics. It belongs in politics.

One of the biggest problems with boards.ie is the locking of reasonable discussions on a subject just because it hasn't stuck rigidly to the original topic or forum category. People need to lighten up a tad bit.

Time Magazine

thecornerboy wrote: »

One of the biggest problems with boards.ie is the locking of reasonable discussions on a subject just because it hasn't stuck rigidly to the original topic or forum category. People need to lighten up a tad bit.

And another problem is when forums get filled with stuff that doesn't interests their members.

This is no longer about the potential for tax revenues versus the costs of enforcement.

If you're of the lightened-up side of things, you won't mind me moving this.