I knew this was going to happen!

[Nate505]

The difference is 1) there's no demand for Ishtar; 2) there are no restrictions on buying it if one so desires; 3) there has never been moral opposition to it. Switch the comparison around to something that is very popular, but viewing it just might get you arrested, or perhaps cause division in a marriage, and those under 18 have a very, very hard time accessing it. Now take away a lot of those restrictions, especially something like pornography that in certain forms has been softened down to market to females. Also easily accessible by children/teens on the internet.

Really talking about two different animals here as porn isn't illegal (except in the case of involvement/viewership with minors). Weed IS illegal in most states. Take away the fear of arrest, fines, imprisonment, loss of job, and yes, LEGAL accessibility WILL drive demand. I don't use weed personally, but if I did, I would be much more likely to buy it without fear of consequence than I would if it still carries significant penalties if I'm caught buying or selling.

but I doubt if you decided to use weed it would be the availability driving the demand behind your use. It would be because you're curious or stressed or whatever.

Now coercive actions can lower demand, but that's highly artificial. Removing them just puts the demand back where it would naturally be in a free market.

The more amusing thing to me is all the people saying that with increased availability will come with increased use, yet all those same people claim they wouldn't use with the increased availability.

plus availability in and of itself doesn't lead to increased use. Otherwise Holland would have more use than the US.

Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[Beantown]

Chemical and psycological dependencies are too different things.

You arguments sound more like a personal problem than anything else.

Pornography has been compared to addictive drugs by doctors.

 

[Harambe]

Pornography has been compared to addictive drugs by doctors.

Compared to, but not the same.

 

[colton]

With weed and porn there is a demand, but increased availability doesn't drive it. If it did people with no interest in it, like you I'm wagering, would start buying it.

The situation is somewhat like Prohibition, wouldn't you agree? And people are generally agreed that Prohibition *did* cut down alcohol consumption. This article from the NY Times, for example, says

... alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

30-50% is pretty significant, I'd say. And then I believe it went back up by that same amount after Prohibition was repealed.

Why would marijuana be any different? I'd expect marijuana consumption to go up by about that same factor of 30-50% in states where it becomes fully legal.

Availability isn't the ONLY factor, but it absolutely will be a MAJOR factor.

 

[fishonjazz]

The situation is somewhat like Prohibition, wouldn't you agree? And people are generally agreed that Prohibition *did* cut down alcohol consumption. This article from the NY Times, for example, says


https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

30-50% is pretty significant, I'd say. And then I believe it went back up by that same amount after Prohibition was repealed.

Why would marijuana be any different? I'd expect marijuana consumption to go up by about that same factor of 30-50% in states where it becomes fully legal.

Availability isn't the ONLY factor, but it absolutely will be a MAJOR factor.

Didnt other crime go up though? (like possesion and distribution of alcohol)

 

[Beantown]

Compared to, but not the same.

But the point is they are both extremely addictive.....

Do you have a learning disability or something?

 

[Gameface]

Didnt other crime go up though? (like possesion and distribution of alcohol)

Prohibition had so many negative consequences, I'd say the gains in reducing the number of people who drank don't even come close to making up for it.

Corruption in the police, the courts and in politics.

Turning everyday street thugs into powerful forces within the community and many viewing them as esteemed figures instead of the low life criminals they were.

To me this is the biggest... average citizens scoffing at the law, seeing the law as irrelevant and relatively meaningless.

Giving people in the alcohol industry no legal recourse to settle conflicts, resulting in gang violence.

The people who continued to drink drank more.

It was no longer economically viable to make lower alcohol content beverages like wine and beer so hard liquor became the standard form of alcohol during and for decades after prohibition.

The quality and safety of alcohol went down considerably.

People lost their freedoms and spent time in jail and prison because of personal decisions about what they consumed.

The courts and prison system were burdened with prosecuting and housing people because of their personal consumption decisions.

Tax payers had to pay for it all.

edited to add

and prosecutions and convictions focused on poor people and minorities disproportionately.

 

[TroutBum]

...is that because you are champion at "pocket pool?"

I've been known to win a few trophies here and there.

Yea my wife doesn't like porn, and she's not lying to herself.

Right, she's just lying to you.

What the **** is wrong with you? You must be surrounded by some disgusting *** women in your life to believe that all women watch porn. I feel bad for you son.

There are plenty of board certified doctors out there who encourage pornography as healthy way to maintain vigor in married couples.

The situation is somewhat like Prohibition, wouldn't you agree? And people are generally agreed that Prohibition *did* cut down alcohol consumption. This article from the NY Times, for example, says


https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

30-50% is pretty significant, I'd say. And then I believe it went back up by that same amount after Prohibition was repealed.

Why would marijuana be any different? I'd expect marijuana consumption to go up by about that same factor of 30-50% in states where it becomes fully legal.

Availability isn't the ONLY factor, but it absolutely will be a MAJOR factor.

Alcohol was legal before it was banned, so people who loved it but couldn't get it - or didn't want to go to jail - just picked up the habit again when it was legalized. Weed, on the other hand, has never been legal. You won't see the major uptick in users like you did with alcohol. Also, back then there weren't tons of medical facts and propaganda telling you to not drink, so almost everyone did it. There's enough anti-weed **** going around that most people that have never tried it probably won't give it a go when it's legal, and the majority of the users will be the people that had already been using before. Time will tell, of course, but that's just like, you know, my opinion, man.

Do you have a learning disability or something?

This is so tragically funny and ironic.

 

[Nate505]

The situation is somewhat like Prohibition, wouldn't you agree? And people are generally agreed that Prohibition *did* cut down alcohol consumption. This article from the NY Times, for example, says


https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

30-50% is pretty significant, I'd say. And then I believe it went back up by that same amount after Prohibition was repealed.

Why would marijuana be any different? I'd expect marijuana consumption to go up by about that same factor of 30-50% in states where it becomes fully legal.

Availability isn't the ONLY factor, but it absolutely will be a MAJOR factor.

Yes, I will concede the point that if you artificially reduce demand, in the case of prohibition by the way of the gun, that when that artificial restraint is lifted that usage will increase. But it has way more to do with the fact that there are no criminal sanctions on either the production or use, and the pent up demand finally has a supply to satisfy it. Availability in and of itself doesn't drive demand at all. Or at least I can't remember the time I wanted to do something or buy something just because it was there.

But the initial claim was that increased availability means increased use. I dispute that claim in general, other than the initial uptick in people who were afraid of getting arrested/fired/ostracized finally being able to do so without those consequences. There is plenty of proof of that it doesn't with another popular drug, tobacco. Buying tobacco was just as easy when I was in high school as it is now, and just as available. Yet usage keeps dropping. Part of it may be economics since tobacco costs rise with taxes and such, but I'd wager the big decrease is due to better education about the harm of smoking, and perhaps more importantly, the cultural stigma of tobacco use that has increased in the past 40 or whatever years.

But what I keep going back to is that people who make this claim will never admit that they are going to use. Which is sort of puzzling to me. If increased availability means increased use, how come it doesn't apply to you guys?

 

[Beantown]

Right, she's just lying to you.

My wife is the most innocent person you would ever meet, she would probably faint if she viewed porn. Now for Mrs. Tunafrontbum its probably and entirely different story.....

 

[TroutBum]

My wife is the most innocent person you would ever meet, she would probably faint if she viewed porn. Now for Mrs. Tunafrontbum its probably and entirely different story.....

Nikka, we don't have to watch it...


We make it.


And then watch it.





And then vow to go on diets.





Which we never do.

 

[Gameface]

Nate's post brings up an important question. Does legalization necessarily mean that companies can't drug test and screen for marijuana?

I think for most people workplace drug testing is a MUCH greater deterrent than legality.

How is this going to work in CO and WA? I imagine since it is still federally prohibited companies will continue to screen for it if they already were.

 

[Beantown]

Nate's post brings up an important question. Does legalization necessarily mean that companies can't drug test and screen for marijuana?

I think for most people workplace drug testing is a MUCH greater deterrent than legality.

How is this going to work in CO and WA? I imagine since it is still federally prohibited companies will continue to screen for it if they already were.

I doubt it. There are still many states where you can decline an employee's hire or they could be fired based on tobacco use.

I have a few smokers that work for me and its a pain in the ***.

 

[LogGrad98]

I doubt it. There are still many states where you can decline an employee's hire or they could be fired based on tobacco use.

I have a few smokers that work for me and its a pain in the ***.

Then they, and you, are doing it wrong.

 

[Beantown]

Then they, and you, are doing it wrong.

How is them smelling like **** and them being agitated all the time doing it wrong? I don't think there is anyway to fix that.


Not to mention the 20 breaks they take per day.

 

[8]

Beantown has people working for him?

*Preparing for neg*

 

[Gameface]

I doubt it. There are still many states where you can decline an employee's hire or they could be fired based on tobacco use.

I have a few smokers that work for me and its a pain in the ***.

I think that's a better way to handle it then prohibition.

 

[Harambe]

But the point is they are both extremely addictive.....

Do you have a learning disability or something?

The point I'm making, is on one hand you're fighting your mind. On the other hand, you're fighting chemicals your body thinks it needs. There's a big difference there. One you can trick yourself out of. The other causes you physical pain until your body gets it out of its system.

But since it's not conducive to your argument, you don't bother looking at it any differently.

The only problem with porn is its abuse. The same can be said of tobacco, weed, fast food, sugar, soda, cheese and religion. Should we ban these things as well?

 

[Bronco70]

Using prohibition as an argument to keep marijuana illegal... was that just an academic exercise, Colton? I hope so, because that's a horrible argument.

Organized crime is more tolerable than adults having the freedom to choose.

Uh.....


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[GVC]

Without enacting other policies to deter use, legalization/decriminalization of drugs should lead to an increase in use, at least in the short-run (all else equal). How this increase occurs is of some interest, perhaps. With legalization, changes in potential consequences (arrest, incarceration) and social norms should increase use at the extensive margin (new users). Legalization should also lead to some decrease in price (depending on the regulatory regime, and how resources are used to combat black market production and sales), which should increase use among current consumers (that is, at the intensive margin).

So what? Is use what we're most concerned about? What about problematic use/abuse (addicts) and youth consumption? Is the criminal law the best way to reduce the negative consequences of drug abuse (in either social or financial cost)?

This is what is most often missed in this discussion. Prohibition costs money...lots of ****ing money. Roughly half of all arrests in America are for marijuana-related offenses; ~90% of those arrests are for simple possession. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, estimates that the legalization of drugs would save state and federal governments $41.3 billion in enforcement, and potentially yield tax revenues of $46.7 billion. That ~$90 billion can be used to combat drug abuse, and the negative consequences of said abuse, in other ways. It can also be used to focus efforts on actually eliminating the black market, making the use of drugs safer, and more effectively keeping drugs out of the hands of minors.

While I'm not a fan of Glenn Greenwald's CATO Institute report on the effects of decriminalization in Portugal, there are a few key outcomes worth considering. While drug use has gone up (albeit at similar rates as in neighboring countries), use among youth and problematic users (addicts) has declined. Further, the prevalence of HIV, other diseases associated with injection, and drug-related deaths have declined. The policies/programs that led to these positive outcomes were/are not nearly as expensive as prohibition.

If the War on Drugs isn't working, shouldn't we try something else? Are issues of public health best dealt with using the criminal law?