Hacker News Reader

Comment by gopalv | Hacker News Reader

Ugh, is this going to look like Big Tobacco in 50 years?

Vice taxes and revenue streams to be kept alive for the district?

That's going to be such a kick-in-the-backside for everyone who just wanted to decriminalize it & stop putting people away for years.

View on HN

I don't believe it will be quite the same. Big Tobacco really profits off the fact that most people can't grow tobacco year round, and thus must purchase it at some point throughout the year. That basic fact is what ensures those companies never die. Tobacco was always grown outdoors, and there was never a need to research how to cultivate it clandestinely, be it indoors or small numbers.

On the other hand, pot can be grown in a computer case or a closet. It's been bred for almost 100 years (maybe more) to be grown out of sight and out of mind. Given a very small amount of research and learning, almost anyone on the face of this planet can grow a marijuana plant. It's called "weed" for a reason.

edit: In other words, it's not exactly the same thing as what big tobacco was doing, which is marketing products on a mass scale, all the while knowing the kind of health damage that such products caused. That is what people had problems with.

As far as easy to grow, I don't know, I don't have the greenest thumb in the world, but it's been pretty darn hard for me. Then if you start talking about real quality, as far as I've seen from some documentaries, it requires a lot of dedication and knowledge to get the kind of quality that I'd smoke consistently.

I guess my point is, practically speaking, I see 99% of people still buying it even if it's totally legalized and not taboo.

It's basically like brewing beer. It's a skill with labor, knowledge, and experience required to get the desired output.

Outdoor requires less moving parts. Still a lot of variables, especially considering you can drive to the store and have your pick ;)

I agree with this. You might be able to grow your own stuff with mediocre success, but most people will be a) too lazy to put in the effort and b) interested in higher quality and more variety than the backyard plot (or closet) is likely to produce.

You can grow your own tomatoes, too, but most people don't, and even those that do usually recover from the gardening bug after two or three seasons.

Also, I expect commercial growers will start using GMO and hybrids. You may in fact be unable to grow your favorite variety of pot because you can't get ahold of viable seeds for the strain you want.

I can brew my own beer relatively easily in the comfort of my own home, for the final price of less than $1 per beer in ingredients. I still buy much more beer at the store than I brew.

The point being that you have the option without facing felony conviction for exercising the option.

The point is not that there won't be a thriving marijuana industry because you can grow your own, but that the industry will not necessarily share the evils of the tobacco industry.

The beer industry is a good example. It's nowhere near as powerful or nefarious as Big Tobacco, and in fact the phrase "Big Beer" doesn't doesn't even exist. Beer companies tend to be fairly benign, while the tobacco industry is famous for stunts like marketing cigarettes to kids and trying to suppress anything that suggests their products are harmful or addictive.

So if the marijuana industry turns out like the beer industry, that will be a pretty good outcome, really.

Well, except for the whole distribution wars thing where there's this antiquated and unnecessary system of middle men that you must use by law and are used to keep the big players big and lock out the newcomers.

Alcohol companies in the UK have a sleazy reputation - marketin to under 18s; creating Vertical Drinking Establishments; selling alcohol at below cost; etc.

Any public health measures are rigorously campaigned against.

The all-party parliamentary beer group receives funding from the alcohol trade. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/regis...

(What's the largest uk appg?)

Hold up. "Big Beer" certainly does exist, and they are god-damn evil, at least here in Australia.

It is everywhere, and its name is AB InBev...One look at AB InBev's brands page[0] makes me glad I live in Michigan, where the craft brewing scene is amazing.

[0]: http://www.ab-inbev.com/go/brands/brand_portfolio/local_bran...

Technically, there are ways to prevent some of the harms of marijuana: Using e-cigarettes and using marijuana strains who mostly contain CBD(which generally has positive effects) and little THC(which creates feelings of paranoia and might have mental health risks) , so there are possible regulatory means to reduce lots of the risks without reducing tax revenue.

How can you know which strains contain more cannabidiol?

Higher end strains, as found in dispensaries, are often bred for the desired balance of components, so you can just ask your vendor at the counter.

I don't know how well-tested these strains are (aside from, "puff... yeah, man, that's awesome"), but there has always been a desire in the medical marijuana market for selection based on this data which I'm sure carries over, so I suspect that now that it is legal in a couple of places, we'll begin to see Consumer Reports style testing. Hell, maybe even the Consumers Union, themselves, will get on the case.

Many of the California dispensaries publish the test results for CBD and THC. Or you can go by the strain: ones to look for include Harlequin and Cannatonic.

As an example, the website for Harborside Health Center currently lists three Harlequin varieties with CBD/THC of 5.2%/6.7%, 5.8%/5.6%, and 8.4%/6.9%. These THC levels are well below the other strains that run 15-25% THC.

You don't need the heavy hand of government for that. The market is taking care of it quite nicely. You can buy a variety of vaporizers on Amazon, and if you visit some dispensaries in California you'll find a few strains that are bred and tested to be rich in CBD and low in THC. I'm sure the same can be found in Washington and Colorado and other states with legal cannabis, medical or otherwise.

In some ways it does resemble a bribe in exchange for freedom. There's also an exchange of power, where they introduce various permits and licenses associated with regulating the industry.

I suspect that legalisation of weed is going to be a blip in history and they'll heavily tax it to phase it out. It just doesn't make sense to encourage people to breathe in smoke.

There's a big difference between something being legal and "encouraged".

You can still vaporize and eat edibles.

While I disagree that legalization will be "just a blip", it's interesting to note that the original law that prohibited marijuana in the US was actually a cleverly worded tax law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

Basically, marijuana was legal, but you were required to purchase a tax stamp (that was never issued) in order to prove that you had paid taxes on it.

There were many reasons for this, but one factor was that, at the time, the prevailing thought was that Congress did not have the authority to ban the possession of a substance outright within the states. (Even the 18th Amendment was actually carefully worded in a way such that it didn't technically prohibit all possession and sale of alcohol, the way people oftentimes think).

This (tax law) is also the same technique that the Obama administration has used to crack down on legal medical marijuana dispensaries, while still paying lip service to his promise not to[1].

(In the latter case, the tax laws are written in such a way that medical marijuana dispensaries are unable to deduct for normal business expenses that other businesses would be).

Al Capone was also convicted of tax evasion[2], as was Reuben Sturman[3]. Tax law can be used as a "politically correct" excuse to criminalize behavior that otherwise would be politically impossible to criminalize.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/harborside-health-c...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Sturman

Interestingly enough also the way (pre-ban) machine guns and grenades are managed by the feds. Legal, but expensive and time consuimg tax stamp required. Obamacare fines were also considered to be a tax. Taxation is limitless.

On Obamacare. My understanding is that the Obama administration originally tried to justify the law under the commerce clause, and when that failed used taxation as a (relativly) long shot strategy.

That is because Congress has enumerated powers, and the Commerce Clause was then accepted in the intended meaning of only controlling commerce with other countries, between the states, and with Indian tribes. Sales inside of a state are obviously out of the purview of that clause.

Today, of course, the Commerce Clause is interpreted insanely broadly to cover everything from civil rights to environmental protection. Worthy causes, to be sure, but not within the intended purview of, [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

My personal theory of the Commerce Power is that it can be seen as giving the federal government the power to regulate issues that could be described in economic terms as collective action problems. Eliminating infernal tariffs and trade barriers were of course the original animating rationale, but at root that's just one example of a collective action problem. I.e. it makes the country better off not to have internal trade barriers, but states have an incentive to erect trade barriers without some higher authority preventing them from doing so.

While the framers probably didn't fully understand the ramifications, I think the broad language of the Commerce Clause lends itself to a fair reading that Congress can act on matters in which individual states acting alone would face collective action or race to the bottom problems. So something like environmental regulations fits quite naturally into this framework. Pollution doesn't respect state bounderies and states face a race to the bottom problem in attempting to regulate it. Therefore Congress is empowered to act.

Honestly, fuck you. You're the idiot that thinks that it's better to jail people for weed than allow people to make their own decisions. Fuck you, Sudomal.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean anyone is encouraging it. Lots of things are legal that could possibly be dangerous. Guess in your opinion someone had better get that legislation ready to protect the ignorant masses, right?

I don't think Hacker News is any place for this level of discourse. Voice your arguments, but there is no need for personal attacks.

Marijuana is a drug that encourages people to be less political active(the "laziness" effect) . I would think governments would like such a thing in politically unstable times.

I don't think governments have big evil long-term schemes like this

You forgot your sarcasm tag, I hope.

Yes, governments are simultaneously short-sighted, cunning, inept, plodding, plotting, shambling, scheming and carry out very long-term schemes. But they're also short-sighted and can't do anything right. But also they do nothing unintentionally and 20 things don't go wrong with their schemes. And you can understand governments best by thinking of them as having the motives of a single person in your hunter-gatherer band, who is too greedy and too powerful who takes too much and doesn't give enough back. You can understand governments as you would by trying to read the motives of a single person, capable of thinking, coherency, making singular decisions, led by greed. Basically governments have all the properties of a action movie villain. Think of an action movie villain that isn't motivated by greed or power lust, just like every political villain from all time ever. Taking too much and not giving enough back; betrayal. Or, wait, was I talking about the Greek gods? The natural world can also be understood as reading the motives of a person with human emotions that never do anything by mistake. Think of a movie villain that was more or less accidentally carrying out their misdeeds, mostly coerced by circumstances, blundering along the way. That wouldn't be a very fun movie to watch. Villains always fully choose their evil, no circumstantial factors force their hand. Also Greek gods. And you can understand them by imputing their completely human motives; they always plot and scheme. You have to be able to guess the actions of the other members of your small hominid tribe. Every movie villain explains his motives and his long-winded scheme that would quickly fall apart in reality but that kind of realism wouldn't make a good movie. Political villains however, are often as hopelessly inept as incredibly as they are cunning and good at carrying out multi-generational schemes. Scheming and plotting like a person would. Like Lothar over there by the fire who doesn't give enough back from the hunt, or Runs with Horses over there who is amassing so many alliances as to be a possible threat to my alliances. Could he be planning to attack me, or take my stuff? Me, I care only about the tribe, for others in the tribe, the Real People we should care about, which also includes me of course. I've been doing a lot for the tribe lately. Could you help me tomorrow to rebuild my hut?

Maybe when you are high. I assume there are people that use it that aren't high ALL the time...

Right, so the protests of the 60s prove your theory right? It's not like Nixon started the war on drugs for the exact opposite reason, right?

And yet we build roads.

I think roads are entirely different.

> Vice taxes and revenue streams to be kept alive for the district?

In Colorado, the first $40M in taxes each year are required to be allocated towards school funding, per the state constitution.

The not-so-subtle goal is to make it politically painful to repeal this amendment, as any attempt to criminalize marijuana again can be spun as an attempt to cut funding for education.

> That's going to be such a kick-in-the-backside for everyone who just wanted to decriminalize it & stop putting people away for years.

But it's a big win for people who wanted true legalization and wanted to address the larger problems associated with the illegal supply of marijuana, such as drug cartels.

I think the concern was that we're just replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels.

The tax revenue thing is also kind of misleading. First, that number is apparently fixed (based on your wording, I'm not familiar personally), but the there is, presumably, no upper-bound on the actual revenues, so as revenues increase, a smaller percentage goes to education.

Second, vice taxes tend to be regressive, the poor pay a higher percentage of their incomes. Some of the "education lotteries" (state lotteries that benefit education) are basically mechanisms for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich(er). Poor people buy the lottery tickets and the tax revenues go to fund college scholarships for middle and upper-middle income kids. That's not socially healthy.

Given the two points above, there's a real danger that marijuana taxation will be used to transfer the overall tax burden from higher income people to lower income people.

> I think the concern was that we're just replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels.

Agreed, but legal cartels are (marginally) better in that they are forced to operate under the "light of day". This doesn't automatically solve all the problems in se, but it's an important step.

> First, that number is apparently fixed (based on your wording, I'm not familiar personally), but the there is, presumably, no upper-bound on the actual revenues, so as revenues increase, a smaller percentage goes to education.

Yes, I'm just pointing out that the motivation for the tax was not the same as the motivation behind your typical "vice taxes". It was proposed by the people who wrote Amendment 64 (proponents of legalization).

Naturally there's a tradeoff to be made, as you point out, but IMHO, it was a clever attempt to construct the amendment "defensively", to mitigate the risk of people trying to repeal it.

The size of the tax, and what to do with any excess revenues, are where one has to make a value judgement, and it really comes down to whether one thinks income should be redistributed from rich to poor, poor to rich, or neither. That's a separate discussion, though - I think almost anybody would agree that it's better to be debating the exact structure of the tax, than to be stuck debating whether or not we should force the drug trade to happen in a completely unregulated, untaxed, underground market.

Agreed, but legal cartels are (marginally) better in that they are forced to operate under the "light of day".

Plus, they have much less need to kill people and that.

And is cheaper and less people go to prison for Prohibition like laws.

I don't think you will find too much argument from people that want it legalized that they would not like marijuana taxed at a normal rate.

I just think that it is a battle to fight another day. It is hard to argue that the poor are worse off buying marijuana legally rather than illegally, especially when the prices start to fall below what you would pay on the streets which it will as soon as the supply is able to meet the demand. Supply is pretty low because the only companies who have licenses are medical marijuana companies that already had a license, more companies will become licensed soon.

Added to the fact that in Colorado I think anyone is currently allowed to grow a small number of plants for themselves without being licensed and they can end up not paying any tax.

> Supply is pretty low because the only companies who have licenses are medical marijuana companies that already had a license, more companies will become licensed soon.

It's also a high risk business. You might invest millions on growing a crop only for the Federal administration to change policies in a few years and come in and blowtorch your crop.

Why would they blowtorch it? Them there wouldn't be any evidence for the Federal indictment.

It's what they do with it. Storing hundreds of tons of weed plants isn't necessary if it's well documented.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/22/feds-destroy-1-billion-in-...

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/07/feds-raid-sanger-pot-farm-de...

Either way, you won't get it back and your investment is gone.

>I think the concern was that we're just replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels.

If that means fewer bear traps and less rat poison in our national parks, it's a win as far as I'm concerned.

>Second, vice taxes tend to be regressive, the poor pay a higher percentage of their incomes. Some of the "education lotteries" (state lotteries that benefit education) are basically mechanisms for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich(er). Poor people buy the lottery tickets and the tax revenues go to fund college scholarships for middle and upper-middle income kids. That's not socially healthy.

There's nothing wrong with taxing stupid.

Am I reading that correctly? You are saying that poor people are stupid?

I believe he's saying that the odds of winning the lottery and not in one's favor, so it's foolish to play.

People who buy lottery tickets specifically

The lottery is a voluntary tax on the numerically illiterate. Think of it this way: they graciously raise their own taxes to make up for the deleterious effect on society of remaining numerically illiterate. The money even goes towards preventing this condition in others.

Yes, the $2 a ticket costs is a sign of the incredible "numerical illiteracy" (the word is innumeracy) of lottery players.

That or they just 'waste' $2 on a long-long-long shot knowing that they won't win but don't care because, really, it's only $2 and how much does the average American pay for their coffee?

Now people who dedicate significant portions of their resources to scratch and lotto tickets have a different problem than either wasting $2 or innumeracy. It's called poor impulse control.

I agree with this.

I strongly believe people who put down the lottery just can't let go of their super-rational minds and just enjoy an irrational thrill every once in a while. Sure, the people who spend $100 a month on Lotto when they only make $400/mo... that's a bad decision. But just $2 once every couple of months when the jackpot is some insane number? Why not? It's just $2 bucks! Yes the odds of you winning are smaller than Plank Length[1], but just let yourself go every once in awhile and enjoy a thrill and imagine "What If...". The Lottery is not a scam; assuming you understand the chances of winning is as close to zero as can be without actually being zero. People actually do win & get the money. Now, if someone can prove to me that all the winners are fake and nobody ever gets any of this money... then that's another story.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

EDIT: Downvoted. Not surprised; I just tried to make an argument about letting go of rationality on HN. That's probably the most offensive thing I can say here. :)

I upvoted you, sometimes it's lonely being correct ;)

I was going to upvote you until I saw your edit about downvoting. I believe you should state your mind without concern for arbitrary internet points. If you express concern over these points, it weakens your perspective, in my opinion, and I am much less likely to award you those useless points.

Playing the lottery is stupid. To the extent that poor people are more likely to play the lottery, well, that's money they could have used to better their lot in life.

Buying a lottery ticket is no more irrational than buying a movie ticket. It buys you a little thrill -- the possibility that you may become rich.

No I don't think that works. Many people buy lottery tickets and really think they are going to win. Movie tickets to entice people with false hopes of riches. They also don't involve gambling addiction.

Buying a lottery ticket is rational if the cost of the ticket is offset by the relative increase in your pleasure that comes from dreaming of winning.

For example, if you gain >$price of a Powerball ticket worth's of entertainment from musing about how you'd spend the prize, it's a rational purchase.

On the other hand, buying two tickets isn't rational. You get no extra dreaming, and your expectation of winning hasn't moved essentially at all.

Not really. If you buy 10 tickets, you're buying an extra dose of thrill because you think "I bought ten, I got a better chance of winning".

My assertion is true even for people who understand probability, and thus won't get much thrill about multiplying ~0 by 10.

I just put a couple of bucks on a pool I made with my 5 closest friends, for one of the biggest jackpots ever, here in Brazil. We had loads of fun talking about it in the days leading up to the draw. We made fun of each others numbers (one of my friends chose a number that wasn't even part of this particular lotto, another chose the same number twice), and exchanged dozens of emails talking about what we would do and we also made lots of fun of each others choices. Overall we had a great time that we wouldn't have had, especially since now we don't all live in the same city. It was the best 10 bucks I spent this month, so far.

  > There's nothing wrong with taxing stupid.

If you're the type of person who doesn't mind people dying in the gutters, then sure, that's true. If you do mind, then taxing stupid is, well, stupid, because you just end up helping the stupid people out even more on the back-end, especially if the money collected from the stupid people doesn't get funneled directly toward helping them out.

Nonsense. If they don't spend it on lottery tickets they'll spend it on booze or drugs. Poor people are poor for a reason.

> I think the concern was that we're just replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels.

Just like how legalised gambling just made it legal for the mobs to run casinos?

Except that's not what happened. Investors came in, bringing real managers, real security, and real regulation. They turned the seedy, Las Vegas strip into Disneyland. And those old mob run casinos, you'll find their demolition videos on youtube.

I didn't say the methods used by the new cartels had to be identical to those used by the old. I also never said anything about criminals. You can have a perfectly law-abiding, non-violent cartel that is, nonetheless, bad for society.

> In Colorado, the first $40M in taxes each year are required to be allocated towards school funding, per the state constitution.

Won't this end up like lottery funding "education" in most states? [1] A guaranteed $40M in funding to schools means the legislature will simply reduce funding by $40M and move the balance around the general fund to other initiatives.

I'm not arguing additional tax money is bad, but we shouldn't pretend this will product a windfall of available money for the Colorado school systems.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/mega-m...

> I'm not arguing additional tax money is bad, but we shouldn't pretend this will product a windfall of available money for the Colorado school systems.

Nobody is - the point is that any attempt to repeal the law down the line can be viewed as a cut to the education budget.

The point of the clause is not to generate revenue for the school system; it's to create political friction against reversing the law.

Are you under the impression that attempts to cut education budgets, especially direct ones, always fail?

Legalizing marijuana won't get rid of drug cartels.

But it will reduce their profits, as they have to face competition.

Ever heard of cocaine?

I'm not sure of your point. Cocaine does have legal uses, especially with ENT doctors/surgeons, who use it as an effective anaesthetic.

But the profit margins in the illegal drug market is largely because of the risk involved. Facing legal competition, which does not have to include that risk in its price, is effectively creating a market where legitimized producers have an extreme advantage.

Drug cartels have a myriad of other products, cocaine being one if them. All of their products are commodities worth multiples of their weight in gold. Taking marihuana away from them is not going to make as substantial hit to their profits as you suggest.

That means we should be legalizing cocaine as well, not that we shouldn't be legalizing pot. And reducing the profits (and thus power) of drug cartels a small amount is still substantially better than not reducing them at all (doubly so if it's something we want to do for other reasons as well).

Edited to add:

Also, while I have no idea as to the veracity, Wikipedia says that over half the cartels' revenue comes from marijuana, and links http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1269781... in support.

Given the high fixed costs (salaries, bribes, infrastructure) of maintaining a criminal network, I expect that cutting revenues almost in half would be a tremendous blow to their profits.

You said legalizing marijuana, not all drugs. and legalizing all drugs is much, much different issue. There is a big difference between legalzing just marijuana versus all drugs. I don't think the profits would be reduced at all, simply replaced by other products.

"You said legalizing marijuana, not all drugs."

Well, it wasn't me who said it in the first place, but that aside...

"legalizing all drugs is much, much different issue."

I'm not sure I agree - this is arguably the first step on that path (if we wish to continue down that path). I agree that there will be different outcomes.

That said...

"I don't think the profits would be reduced at all, simply replaced by other products."

I'm not sure you understand how business works. For that to happen, someone needs to start purchasing substantially more cocaine and methamphetamine. If the cartels are capable of making that happen, why aren't they making it happen now?

I think I do k ow how it works; I'm not sure you know how black markets, particularly those based on drugs. If you feel there is any lack of demand of cocaine or meth I guess you are free to believe it.

More than doubling your revenues on an existing product is never easy. Doubling production won't do it, because those most willing to pay will be satiated and it won't command the same price. Also, cocaine involves more processing and coca plants grow more slowly and need more space than cannabis, so even doubling revenues isn't going to double profits. It also takes a good year before coca plants can be harvested - and retooling a supply chain can always be expensive. Meth might be easier, but still suffers from the same market depth issue, and still involves building out more infrastructure, which is still expensive. It's also likely to raise the costs of precursors, which will again limit profits.

I really don't see that any of these considerations are any different due to it being a black market - if you think they are, explain why.

I am also not sure of your point.

Why not? Legalising drugs destroys every single element which supports violent paralegel cartels.

1) It eliminates legal risk, so drug production becomes instantly a much more lucrative activity, enticing more people to do it.

2) Profits are reduced as the market becomes more competitive.

3) The cartels are unable to pursue their "normal" extralegal means of suppressing competition, because the parties they might seek to suppress now have legal access to state protection.

4) In a competitive, legal market, the successful firms will be the ones which offer the best product - the firms with the best drugs, the highest standards of quality and ethics, the nicest stores, and the best customer service. Why buy from dodgy drug-dealers when you can walk into a beautiful store and get great customer service?

In short term yes, cartels may attempt to protect their monopoly, but in the long term, legalisation dooms them as cultural dinosaurs unable to compete in the new legal, open market.

Edit: This analysis depends upon low taxation. High taxation will still incentivise extralegal selling, but it probably makes the black market a bit safer regardless.

Drug legalization isn't the problem, corruption is. When the cartels can buy any officer and government official in Mexico, legalization will only give them more power.

"4) In a competitive, legal market, the successful firms will be the ones which offer the best product - the firms with the best drugs, the highest standards of quality and ethics, the nicest stores, and the best customer service. Why buy from dodgy drug-dealers when you can walk into a beautiful store and get great customer service?"

Really? So Walmart and Amazon have the highest standard of quality and customer service..really??????

"Why buy from dodgy drug-dealers when you can walk into a beautiful store and get great customer service"

Because money talks. The government will tax and regulate drugs. Many users will not want to pay a higher price for a lower quality product (quality might be THC levels, etc).

Why go to dodgy virus-laden websites to download software and music when you can go into a beautiful store with great customer service?

I'm all for the legalization of MJ, but I feel like common sense goes out the window in any of these discussions.

If the community is all about stopping the violence, why not boycott all cartel grown drugs?

Walmart and Amazon are hyper-efficient organisations that are able to deliver extremely low-cost goods. Hence their popularity. If ultra low prices are what consumers want, then what's to stop someone attempting to sell marijuana that cheaply? Again, not really a vicious cartel's forte. A cartel's forte is violently excluding competitors to maintain high profit margins in a market hidden from normal legislative balances.

As long as all the growing takes place within the legalisation territory (i.e. nothing is sourced from illicit operations in foreign nations) then I see no reason why violent organisations would dominate legal trade of psychoactive substances.

why not boycott all cartel grown drugs?

Because Bayer and Amazon can drive the bastards out of business much faster, simply by being better organized.

Are you under the impression that legalizing marijuana means legalizing all drugs? There are many other illegal drugs worth many times their weight in gold. So you get rid of marijuana as a means of income; this is no big deal to cartels.

I'm not under that impression. But yes legalising all drugs would destroy the cartels. Hopefully one day when society comes to its senses...

Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk.

The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen.

Fun somewhat-related fact that I learned last week: a one hour hookah session typically equates to a 5 to 10-pack cigarette equivalent.

Your last statement sounded weird to me. The matching figure from here:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobac...

would be the volume of smoke inhaled (hookah session = 150 cigarettes). Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that.

Given that hookah smoke feels significantly more mild and moist than cigarette smoke, volume alone is likely a poor measure of health impact.

OT: "Hookah is also called [...] hubble-bubble [...]"

Citation needed.

They provide a citation!

There are multiple uses of it in Google search results.

So they did! Their first citation [1] from the American Lung Association even takes it a step further:

"Other common names for waterpipes include [...], and hubbly-bubbly."

They even cite a study entitled "Hubble-bubble (water pipe) smoking: levels of nicotine and cotinine in plasma, saliva and urine". [2]

This rabbit hole goes deep!

[1] http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/slati/Trendalert_Waterpipes....

[2] Shafagoj YA, Mohammed FI, Hadidi.KA., Int J of Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002 Jun; 40(6): 249-55.

> Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that.

This known carcinogen should be treated with respect, even when taken by alternative routes, until there is data demonstrating that the cooling mechanism actually improves safety.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I have managed to eschew tobacco since forever and plan to continue doing so.

My main intent was to save every other person that did a double take the trouble.

The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter and not the nicotine, so it wouldn't be surprising if marijuana were in the same ball park of dangerousness.

Related is the danger of smoke from ordinary wood fire, see: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion

>The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter...

I don't think you can say that at all. Of course burning plant matter produces carcinogens, but studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk. There have been some studies that show that smoking tobacco and marijuana together increases cancer risk beyond that of tobacco alone.

Smokeless tobacco causes mouth and throat cancers, so something is going on with tobacco itself (or something else common to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco).

There is some evidence that radioactive carcinogens found in tobacco play a part in cancer risk.

> studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk

There is epidemiological evidence that marijuana smoking is associated with lung cancer. "Greatly" is subjective so I can't really comment on that.

http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php

"findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use,"

"In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared to the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco."

By greatly, I meant as bad as tobacco which dramatically increases the risk of lung cancer.

The previous poster was commenting on the health risks of tobacco being caused entirely by burning plant matter. However, the evidence suggests this isn't true.

October 2013: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283

> "In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared to the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco."

Yeah, I think mostly this comes down to the above discussion of "greatly" -- marijuana seems to have some correlation with lung disease and cancer, but it seems to be less than tobacco.

Even if this were true, even heavy pot smokers inhale far less plant material than your average cigarette smokers.

> Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk.

Knowledge is potentially unbounded, but I wouldn't say we "lack" anything. Marijuana is probably the single most well-studied substance on the planet. Most FDA-approved drugs have gone through only a fraction of the level of study and testing that marijuana has.

> The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen.

I've done a lot of research on this topic; unfortunately it's on another hard drive at the moment, but thankfully it's a very easy topic to research yourself.

Marijuana itself is not carcinogenic - in fact, it has cancer-fighting properties in some cases, and could be used as an aid in treating cancer directly, not just symptomatically. Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer.

Interestingly, there have been a number of studies on heavy marijuana users (who smoke marijuana), and by and large, they have failed to conclude that even moderately heavy use of (smoked) marijuana can be linked to lung cancer. This phenomenon is well-known enough that it has spawned its own set of associated explanatory theories, and studies investigating those.

Obligatory XKCD disclaimer: https://xkcd.com/882/

> Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer.

I would like to see a citation of a study that is powered to detect population-level effects which demonstrates that claim.

As an aside, I'd also like to see solid data on vapor form tobacco. There is not a definitive study at this point to demonstrate safety or clearly delineate the risk. It would be nice the be able to give meaningful guidance to patients on the topic of marijuana and tobacco, but right now I believe the most accurate and responsible thing to say is "I don't know."

I've been in the vapor scene for a while, I'm starting to hear a few horror stories about liquid build up in the lungs. My guess is over use but its something to watch for.

Regarding pot not causing lung cancer I can't really argue, emphasima on the other hand is a very real thing. While this is anecdotal, my mother is a nurse in a country town where there are a lot of weed only life long smokers and most of the old boys are starting to show up in hospital with emphasima.

My understanding was that there is about 10 cigarettes worth of tar in a similarly sized joint.

I have heard the old wives story about weed doesn't cause cancer many times. Never have I found any study pertaining to it. Or have I been shown any proof. The idea that there is no carcinogens created from burning plant material of any kind is laughable to me. The amount is questionable only maybe.

As from personal experience, heavy daily usage is certainly detrimental to health and breathing capacity.

There is a lot of misinformation out there take my views and others with a grain of salt.

Disclosure, ive always been a staunch legalisation supporter. Never been a fan of decriminalization.

Edit, and no I dont smoke anymore.

>My understanding was that there is about 10 cigarettes worth of tar in a similarly sized joint.

That may be true, but how much does your average pot smoker actually smoke in a day? My dad was a two-pack-a-day cigarette smoker, which is forty cigarettes. I have yet to run into someone who smokes four cigarettes worth of pot in a day, and while I'm sure they must exist from what I can see the average is more like an amount similar to the tobacco you'd find in a quarter of a cigarette.

It helps that marijuana is not addictive in most of the population.

For those interested, to expand on the above. Physically its not addictive in any of the population, if you are predisposed to addictive tendencies you can very easily build up a pschological dependency which isn't totally hard to break but there is about 8 days worth of withdrawals to go through, the first 4 or so which can be pretty emotionally intense.

Average school boy stoner or graduated professional and functional addict? There is a bit of a difference. The majority of full time stoners, not exactly functional usually dealers could easily smoke 10-20 ciggarette sized joints in a day. A functioning addict could smoke 4-5 a night. Schoolboy stoners might smoke 2-3 a day.

4-5 a night is very common, at least where I've come from. I'd say about as common as someone who drinks 4 beers in a night after work. Not the total norm but not crazy or anything either.

Don't forget that edibles are very popular too.

Eh, I think it's looked at as a compromise by people moreso than a vice tax. I would compare this to alcohol regulations before tobacco.

Most of us just want to be able to have a joint on the front porch and not be arrested; the tax revenue is just a necessary evil in this case.

I think the concern, though, is that governments now have a stake in seeing it continues to be sold. Incentives can be powerful things, and I'm not sure in this case they're good.

It won't work for pot like it does tobacco. If they tax it too high people will just grow it at home, illegal or not. This doesn't work for tobacco, which would require a small field to grow your own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com