Put this in your pipe and smoke it!

[Stonehead]

Milton Friedman: Legalize It! -- Forbes.com

 

"...Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University, estimates that replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year. In response, a group of more than 500 distinguished economists -- led by Nobel Prize-winner Dr. Milton Friedman -- released an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for "an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition," adding, "We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods."

 

Costs of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis

 

Dr. Miron's full report, the open letter to public officials signed by more than 500 economists, and the full list of endorsers are available at http://www.prohibitioncosts.org.

[Billygoat]

About time

 

I read yesterday where tobacco related deaths totaled 440,000 last year and they are the number two cause of preventable premature death beahind obesity. Those tobacco executives/pushers going back to the beginning should be tried for murder.

 

Things are loosening up. I saw a guy just pufffing a fatty on the street in broad daylight Monday in Seattle

[chucK]

What a disconnected post.

 

You seem to be railing against the tobacco industry for making money selling a dangerous product, and at the same time cheering on the notion of creating another such industry.

[Ireneo_Funes]

Exactly.

[Billygoat]

No just juxtaposing what is a legal industry that causes way too much death and addiction against what is an illegal industry that only seems to cause death because it is illegal and the profits and susequent risks are high bringing the product to market.

 

If tobacco is allowed to be legal, so should marijuana.

[Stonehead]

The way I see it, is that all of us, this one great truth about life, is that all of us will die sometime. We don't know when or how but we will all die.

 

Two of the most dominant influences on death are genetics and behavior. Genetics is fixed upon conception; the dice are rolled. Behavior, on the other hand, is determined by choice. I wouldn't say all behavior is subject to the conscious process of decision because the environment is so influential in ways that subdue the autonomy of the individual but we often have the opportunity to change our lifestyle.

 

So anyway, the beauty of it all is that we could have the opportunity to choose to use or not, just as we have the opportunity to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or to gamble. It won't be a free-for-all. Put some social guidelines on its use such as restrict usage to adults

 

As I see it, the general public shuns indiscriminate drinking, gambling, etc. Most of us are responsible adults and condone responsible behavior (with some exceptions ). It seems these vices are somewhat a socially manageable behavior for society as a whole.

[Billygoat]

Exactly SH Well said.

 

Who out there can justify why Marijuana should stay illegal?

 

 

BTW: I don't even smoke it. I just find it silly that an adult can't toke up legally.

[chucK]

I think you're fooling yourself if you think that widespread legal MJ availibility would not cause death.

 

It may be true (and it may not) that pot smoking is less of a health hazard than cigarette smoking. The studies appear to indicate that pot is more detrimental per unit smoked, but probably the average pot smoker user would smoke less than the average cig smoker per day. But nevertheless, I think it's clear that smoking either stuff is not good for you in many ways.

 

Even if your assumption of lesser degree of risk from MJ is correct, calling for murder charges for tobacco industry execs in the same breath as extolling the virtues of corporate MJ campaigns is ridiculous.

[Stonehead]

I think you're fooling yourself if you think that widespread legal MJ availibility would not cause death.

 

It may be true (and it may not) that pot smoking is less of a health hazard than cigarette smoking. The studies appear to indicate that pot is more detrimental per unit smoked, but probably the average pot smoker user would smoke less than the average cig smoker per day. But nevertheless, I think it's clear that smoking either stuff is not good for you in many ways.

 

Even if your assumption of lesser degree of risk from MJ is correct, calling for murder charges for tobacco industry execs in the same breath as extolling the virtues of corporate MJ campaigns is ridiculous.

 

I would not go so far as to make direct comparisons with tobacco in an argument to justify usage. As far as causing death or leading to death, well, just about anything can be argued as such. For instance, a person could drink himself to death by consuming too much water.

 

I am approaching this from an economic standpoint and I believe it could be argued that the social impact could be better mitigated if marijuana were legal for adults and regulated.

[Billygoat]

Tobacco companies like American Spirit and Drum were never included in the lawsuits brought by consumers and States against the big American Tobacco Corps because they sell 100%straight tobacco, not engineered nicotine delivery devices that are designed to be addictive. plus, they never advertised to appeal to children in order to hook them for life. They, The big corps, knew what they were doing, hence the vitrol I have for them.

 

I agree, tho, that chronic use of anything is not good. Even chronic use of cams is not good. One should always throw in a hex or two to stay sharp...

[Stonehead]

The history of our country is largely a history of social experiments. The costs and benefits are evident with the passage of time. Often when the costs appear to outweigh the benefits, then change is propagated.

 

Freedom of choice, consumer choice especially, is consistent with our heritage, even if that choice leads unfortunately to illness and/or death. Should I regulate entirely my brother's behavior because I know what is best for him? Don't each of us have the responsibility to choose which of the alternatives that are available?

 

I realize these are chemical substances, some of which are addictive to certain individuals. Therein, lies the crux of the problem. But, are all of us who use these substances, are we alcoholics or nicotine fiends?

[archenemy]

I realize these are chemical substances, some of which are addictive to certain individuals. Therein, lies the crux of the problem. But, are all of us who use these substances, are we alcoholics or nicotine fiends?

 

This brings up your earlier discussion about genetics vs. choice. For some folks who didn't fare well in the genetic lottery, their inherited predisposition toward addiction makes some behaviors less of a choice. But should drugs or alcohol be outlawed just becuase some people get addicted? Tough choice.

[Dave_Schuldt]

This is very good news! The debate, however, will contuiue to be on an emotional level with mega doses of fear. The forces of evil can't be defeated with facts alone.

[j_b]

Nobel Prize-winner Dr. Milton Friedman

 

there is no such thing as a nobel prize in economics.

 

" The prize was tacked on to the original awards in 1969 as a marketing ploy on behalf of Sweden's central bank."

http://www.unifr.ch/econophysics/comments/13PRIZ.html

[Camilo]

Nobel Prize-winner Dr. Milton Friedman

 

there is no such thing as a nobel prize in economics.

 

" The prize was tacked on to the original awards in 1969 as a marketing ploy on behalf of Sweden's central bank."

http://www.unifr.ch/econophysics/comments/13PRIZ.html

Who gives a shit? That's like saying there is no Snowboarding as an Olympic sport because it was added later.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I realize these are chemical substances, some of which are addictive to certain individuals. Therein, lies the crux of the problem. But, are all of us who use these substances, are we alcoholics or nicotine fiends?

 

This brings up your earlier discussion about genetics vs. choice. For some folks who didn't fare well in the genetic lottery, their inherited predisposition toward addiction makes some behaviors less of a choice. But should drugs or alcohol be outlawed just becuase some people get addicted? Tough choice.

 

Yeah, right, tough choice - we need to save people from themselves.

[j_b]

Who gives a shit? That's like saying there is no Snowboarding as an Olympic sport because it was added later.

 

well, there is little doubt that snowboarding is a sport, but what is economics?

 

"The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiology or medical works by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."

 

extract from Nobel's will

[Fairweather]

[iain]

You have to consider all the hidden costs of making mj legal.

 

For instance, the state would have to double the amount of road signs to account for all the people getting lost out on the roads. The financial blow to the DOT would be tremendous.

 

On the flipside, Taco Bell sales would be through the roof, providing a boost to the local economy.

[Fairweather]

Drivers stopping at green lights would cripple our transportation system.

[Jake]

Jack in the Box would clean up too with all the late night business.

[Dave_Schuldt]

So you think more people would smoke pot it were legal? I think it would be about the same. What about drug testing?

[iain]

More people would smoke pot if it were legal. Then again, who's to say who's smoking pot right now? Hard to say.

[Camilo]

Supreme Court just ruled that the Feds can arrest Oregon medicinal marijuana users regardless of State Law. Lame . So much for small government, eh?

[Alpinfox]

It was a pretty interesting Sup Court decision (6-3) The dissenting votes - those saying that state drug law should trump federal law - e.g. the justices who are "down with the herb" were O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, and Rehnquist! Maybe ole' Rehnquist has a little greenery loaded in his "chambers" to help him with his ailments these days?

 

Basic story