[Apollo]

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml

I knew that cannabis was illegal under federal laws. What I did not know was that methamphetamine and cocaine, drugs that far exceed it in addictive potential and damaging side effects, are legal under certain circumstances. Perhaps ADHD patients will not get hooked on meth because of their different responses, but it can also be prescribed for obesity, which seems incredibly dangerous. This is a drug with arguably worse effects than heroin.

Cannabis, on the other hand, is less physically addictive than almost every other common drug that can actually produce withdrawals. But the DEA thinks it belongs in a category above meth.

Heroin is another illegal drug. It is very damaging and addictive, as would be expected from something with effects similar to morphine (which it metabolizes into). Yet it is banned, while its closely-related predecessor is legal and treated in an entirely different manner.

I could list many other problems with this, but then my post would be very long.

Anyway, I'm curious to know what other people think about this and drug prohibition in general. I personally think it will always be unsuccessful, as with alcohol prohibition.

EDIT: accuracy

[Bobboau]

it's almost as if it was decided as a function of politics rather than reason or something.

[watsisname]

But the DEA thinks it belongs in a category above meth.

That's pretty stupid.  Maybe they don't watch Breaking Bad.

[Apollo]

But the DEA thinks it belongs in a category above meth.

That's pretty stupid.  Maybe they don't watch Breaking Bad.

Cannabis is illegal because it doesn't have any medical usage*, but meth has some very limited applications that put it in a lower category.

*From their perspective, of course. I would put it in schedule IV or V, if I thought that kind of control was even useful.

[Scotty]

Amusing note: Cannabis is not completely illegal.  Medical marijuana has existed for years (if not decades), and the referendum to legalize recreational marijuana use in both Washington and Colorado passed (and the federal government has not told them no).

So, apparently the DEA can go **** itself when it comes to its categorizing as far as the rest of the country is concerned.

[Grizzly]

I'd think drug probihition is a bad idea in general. If you make something illegal, the price of it increases greatly, as it becomes a lot harder to obtain. If you legalize ALL THE DRUGS, you sweep the carpet from under drugs barons and, say, the Taliban (Who greatly profit from the drug trade, the hypocritical bastards).

Off course, legalizing ALL THE DRUGS is a bit extreme. The current dutch system is rather silly and broken (trading and consumption carries no penalty, but is still illegal technically) . Producing drugs is entirely illegal, and only very small productions won't get you prosecuted or fined), however, the idea is a good one in principle. Making drugs sellable under license (which is effectively what is happening now) is rather an effective measure of letting people experience drugs (because a lot of people want to do that for some reason) without doing it secretly, which tends to create certain... unsafe situations. These happen less when drugs are consumed in a room where they are sold by... experts, who have amuch better grasp of which quantaties are good and which ones are not.

[Apollo]

Amusing note: Cannabis is not completely illegal.  Medical marijuana has existed for years (if not decades), and the referendum to legalize recreational marijuana use in both Washington and Colorado passed (and the federal government has not told them no).

Fixed

So, apparently the DEA can go **** itself when it comes to its categorizing as far as the rest of the country is concerned.

At least in the realm of marijuana legalization. There are other illegal or prescription drugs with less damaging effects than ethanol, but it will likely take the larger society a long time to realize that.

[Apollo]

Speaking of that, I find the whole "drugs and alcohol" distinction dangerous. Alcohol is a moderately dangerous drug, and it deserves a certain degree of respect and caution. Calling it something different implies that it is somehow safer.

Drug abuse is as much about the user's behavior and mentality as the substance itself. Certain drugs are more addictive than others, but any of them can be used moderately--if they are only taken occasionally or semi-regularly. Similarly, using any addictive psychoactive drug on a daily basis will eventually result in some degree of dependence. As soon as someone loses their respect for a substance or tries to use it to hide from their emotions, it puts them at great risk for addiction. It doesn't matter how minor they think it is or how much willpower they have in other areas.

EDIT: I acknowledge that there are some drugs--such as inhalants and untested ones like spice--that are too dangerous and unpredictable for any sort of use.

[MP-Ryan]

Use of any drug, IMHO, should not be illegal.  Production/distribution of certain narcotics/etc should, but I think we'd find far fewer social problems if use was treated as a recreational/medical/addictions issue rather than criminalized.

Cannbis in particular should be legalized similarly to alcohol and regulated, sold, and taxed.  Washington and Colorado have the right idea, and I hope to hell that Canada follows their example in the near future.  We spend far too much time, money, and police resources trying to deal with a substance that isn't much more harmful than alcohol biologically, and is considerably less harmful socially.  If we want to put the drug lords out of the marijuana business, the fastest and cheapest way is just to legalize it.  The price will plummet so quickly that it will essentially put organized crime out of [that] business.

Drug policy in North America generally is one of the most nonsensical policy developments in that region.

[SpardaSon21]

Washington's cannabis laws are pretty awful, though.  Only a licensed grower can produce it, then it gets sold to a licensed distributor with a 25% tax, then sold to a licensed retailer with a 25% tax, then sold to the consumer with yet another 25% tax, plus any additional sales taxes.  And those 25% taxes are not value-added, but for the full price each time.

[SypheDMar]

Which is still better for Washington if decriminalized cannibis is cheaper than illegal ones.

1. Less incentives for people to buy illegal marijuana because of cost.

2. Depending on how much more expensive decriminalized weed is, consumers may still opt choose it since decriminalized weed won't get you thrown in jail.


Typing this out got me thinking about one important question. How does the state know if a consumer bought it from a licensed grower or not? If the weed is indistinguishable, then there isn't any incentive to buy legal marijuana at all.

[Scotty]

Aside from publically supporting a legal grower (and by extension legal marijuana as a concept), putting that money into the legitimate economy, and not breaking the law?

You're right.  I see no incentives at all.

[SpardaSon21]

No offense, but that's a total taxation of at least 75% of the value, before any other additional sales taxes.  Legal marijuana will be expensive in Washington, and I'm thinking a few growers may decide they can get thicker profit margins with some off-the-books backdoor deals, which since they aren't being heavily taxed, are probably going to be cheaper than buying the legal marijuana.  Sure, that would be illegal, but since when has that ever gotten in the way of people trying to make a buck?

[Bobboau]

because it basically has the material cost of grass, if they charge the same as street value, but without the risks of getting caught it'll still be profitable. and now potheads do not have a reason not to rat out illigals.

[Phantom Hoover]

Which is still better for Washington if decriminalized cannibis is cheaper than illegal ones.

which, when it's going through three layers of heavy taxation, is a questionable assumption

[SypheDMar]

Aside from publically supporting a legal grower (and by extension legal marijuana as a concept), putting that money into the legitimate economy, and not breaking the law?

You're right.  I see no incentives at all.

That's exactly what I said!

[Scotty]

Which is still better for Washington if decriminalized cannibis is cheaper than illegal ones.

which, when it's going through three layers of heavy taxation, is a questionable assumption

Is it really?  Does anyone here have an actual knowledge of how much it costs to produce and sell a given unit of marijuana, and compare that to both the "street price" and the legitimate price?

Until then, it's an assumption either way, and neither is more valid than the other.

[Aardwolf]

@SpardaSon21: uh... applying a 25% tax at three points in the chain isn't the same as applying a 75% tax... it's 1.25³ = 1.953125 = 95%

Uh... Wait what??? That's worse.

[Phantom Hoover]

no, that's not how it works; the tax doesn't (directly) compound like that: there's a 25% tax on the price of the cannabis at every stage of the exchange. of course you're going to have to up prices to account for that tax, so doubtless it is significantly more than 75%.

[SpardaSon21]

Did you miss the part where I said "at least 75%"?  I know I was lowballing it because I didn't want to say it was that bad and actually be wrong.

So, I figure with the massive taxes and the costs of the government red tape, there's still going to be one hell of a black market, and I think black market prices will actually decrease as legal growers start diverting some of their product out the backdoor where its easier for them to make a profit.