The End of the War on Drugs and the Emergence of the Cannabis Industry
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Law enforcement eases up on suburban white kids in any case. Legalization will actually help the kids who are normally given more harsh punishments for possession. The fact that they will be given the most harsh punishment combined with the fact that marijuana is the drug of choice for the urban youth demographic is what leads to the disparities we see when we view amalgamations of the data.
Sadly, no - it will just change which drugs are used to vilify racial minorities and justify their incarceration.
I wish that weren't the case, but I've seen this pattern play out far too many times over the last century to think that it won't happen again.
FWIW: I used to work in drug policy reform, so while I won't pretend to know everything, I'm not just commenting as a casual observer, and I would love for history to prove me wrong this time.
EDIT: Since people seem to disagree, let's look at the history that brought us the initial criminalization of marijuana in the first place (profit-driven motives, capitalizing on xenophobia of Mexican immigrants), the criminalization of the opium trade (ditto, but for Chinese immigrants[0]), the criminalization of crack cocaine over powder cocaine (race-driven hysteria over the form of the drug perceived to be more "black"[1]), and so on, and so forth.
Or, if you want to extend this argument further, let's look at the pharmaceutical cycle. Not everyone knows this, but heroin was originally a trademark name for a drug. Furthermore, the reason that heroin was originally produced was in response to the use of morphine by (and I quote) "ruffians". Heroin was actually originally intended to be the less-addictive alternative. Take a look at who the so-called "ruffians" were, and you'll see this cycle continue all over again.
[0] we're talking just about the US, but you can extend this to former colonies as well if you want
[1] Look at the propaganda about crack that was coterminous with a peak in (powder) cocaine usage among the wealthy white demographics, and it becomes pretty clear.
I have no idea what this percentage is, but I'm guessing it's a sizable portion of the marijuana users.
Optimistic - people in mainstream society realise cannabis is not destroying society and slowly come to appreciate that alcohol is not the only drug, and that drugs (and drug users) aren't the devil. The edifice comes tumbling down and we start looking at drug policy (and our massive drug-related budget) in terms of harm reduction.
Pessimistic - the largest group of drug users is brought into the fold of the mainstream. The idea of 'hard' and 'soft' drugs is reinforced and users of anything other than cannabis and alcohol are pushed even further into the category of 'other'. Drug-war resources used against cannabis are diverted into continuing to make everything worse for everyone when it comes to all other drugs. Central and South America and West Africa continue to get torn apart by cartels feeding off Europe and North America's insatiable appetite for cocaine. Other parts of the world that have the raw materials for other drugs (sassafras, poppies) go the same way (if they haven't already). NPS with unknown health profiles continue to be churned out and consumed by the kiloton.
Unfortunately I think the pessimists probably have the right of this one for the next several years at least.
In some ways, it's funny that in our hyper-medicated age, that a stimulant and a heavy painkiller are still unspeakably taboo. I mean, every graduate school and Ivy League college in our country is awash with powerful stimulants (Adderall). It wouldn't surprise me if a properly controlled/dosed drug with coca extract in it could be more effective than amphetamines for attention issues. I never want to touch heroin, but with the abuse of prescription painkillers, criminalizing usage of one drug (and thus funding criminal networks) seems like a worse and worse strategy.
Largely like today, then. E.g. the largest gateway to heroin use is prescription opioids (which are far more expensive to buy on the black market than it is to buy equivalent doses of heroin from your friendly neighbourhood dealer; and in some countries heroin too is provided on prescription - e.g. in the UK, in addition to occasionally being made available to addicts, it is used as legitimate pain relief for post operative pain though I believe only for inpatient use)
The gateway drug theory has been discredited, doesn't stop right-wingers bringing it out at every opportunity though.
I can't understand this attitude. I had some problems because of alcohol and now abstain (and have for 10 years), but I'm not in favor of re-enacting prohibition. I'm totally fine with people drinking, it's just not a good idea for me. (btw, I don't use marijuana, either)
Make it legal / Ensure people know the risks / Do not create corporate entities who have taken investment and have a responsibility to shareholders to make money as that is bad.
I don't think smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco are good things, but I'd still rather have them be legal, warn others of the risk, and treat those that are harmed.
Yes, long live a rational approach to drug policy. Portugal is heading in the right direction and is seeing great results.
Right, which is why I say it's going in the right direction. I think full legalization will provide the most benefits to society, but decriminalization of use is a good start.
But the short story is he developed schizophrenia. We're not sure if cannabis was a cause or a trigger or what, but he was a heavy smoker, and he had a history of theft, etc. linked to cannabis (much as he would have if he abused alcohol or other substances. But the schizophrenia angle was stressed by the mental health professionals that took care of him).
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/06June/Pages/Cannabis-use-geneti...
The war on drugs has caused more harm than the drugs would have themselves. Countless lives lost and trillions of dollars wasted. For what? More people than ever use the substances. The 'war' has kept the cartels in business, inflated their prices and degraded the quality of the product. The war on drugs hasn't progressed anything, only destroyed.
I'm curious: do you believe in a social safety net? Do you believe society has an obligation to ensure that everyone has their basic needs met?
If so, how do you reconcile that belief with the idea that individuals have no reciprocal obligation to society to abstain from using products that are harmful, and which cause addictions that hurt not only the individual users, but their families and loved ones?
I think individuals absolutely have an obligation to society (different, but similar to a family obligation), and just like if you have a family member who is off their rocker, the outcomes are generally better for everyone if we take care of the problem early and try and fix the root cause so they can get healthy again.
I sort of think of it as a bad analogy for the iterated snowdrift[0] where we can simply sit there and complain that the other person isn't doing their part, or we can continue to shovel and get the benefit ourselves. Best case we can induce them to help us with the shoveling, worst case the snow is cleared.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Iterated_...
As long as the existence of a safety net doesn't encourage people to use drugs (people who start using drugs like opiates are rarely thinking of the future at the time they start) then the two aren't really related issues.
To me, that reciprocal obligation is inconsistent with the premise that "should decide what to do with their own bodies." If drug use compromises your ability to be a productive member of society that can support and take care of family and neighbors, then it implicates your social obligation, and society has a right to tell you that you can't do it.
Of course, the fact that society has a right to make drugs illegal doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Too much of a lot of things is going to cause most of us problems. Alcohol, for example?
In moderation, it's an entirely different scenario.
With use out in the open, we can do education just like we do for other things people use out in the open. Given that scenario, perhaps you would have used differently.
I had a similar experience long ago. I used a little, liked it, then used a lot. Not good. While I am not sure I actually suffered any harm, I did see changes in what I do and how I do it. One nice thing about cannabis is a very large number of people are able to just walk away from it.
Which is precisely what I did. Literally no issues. I can't say that for other things, or I can't say that as easily. The trigger was a new career dangling out there, and if I was going to go for it, I needed to prioritize and just did.
Since then, some recreational uses are just fine. Very enjoyable, and being in Oregon, quite legal very soon.
For some time, I've been involved in the medical program helping some people close to me with various formulations and extractions. The differences are amazing, and in a few cases, not really addressed with the body of accepted treatments out there now. I see people living fairly well now, who really didn't before. That's worth some research to optimize.
Normalizing recreational uses seems a net gain good to me personally. I suspect some people will fall into bad patterns of use and may be impacted, but we can help them. A whole lot of other people will benefit by not having to make harsh choices to enjoy their lives in ways they find worth enjoying.
I can kill myself by overindulging in water, but that doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Maybe education and some common sense and people can enjoy the thing they like without causing permanent damage.
We have more socialism in the USA than many people realize and as long as I am paying taxes I'd prefer to not have to pay for unnecessary tragedies, second only to my wish to not fund the military and spies. We have to pay for quite a bit of emergency room care, social security death benefit, mental health or domestic violence counseling, etc. already due to the abuse of alcohol.
Except for the pill poppers, who could probably be managed better than they are now and a few other drugs that are in line with Marijuana...
Meth, for instance, greatly accelerates the damage of a number of degenerative diseases [e.g. HIV] on top of the more commonly discussed effects.
Pot is hugely prevalent in the black community. This is what I hate about the uber-politically correct attitudes popular here. If we weren't discussing legal pot, we would be discussing how illegal pot is ruining the black community. Now that we're legalizing pot, we can't just pretend this isn't a win for them. Hell, its a net win for every socio-economic group in my opinion.
Not to mention suburban white kids weren't getting shit from the cops to begin with. They were getting breaks or their parents' wealth and influence kept them out of trouble if they did actually run afoul of the law.
> 80-90% want to keep everything else illegal. That is a problem.
No its not. Strongly physically addictive drugs cause social harm. We're not legalizing heroin or cocaine or meth. The number of people who consider those drugs harmless that need to be made legal immediately are a tiny extremist minority with zero political power. That's the system working the same way its working now to make pot legal because attitudes have changed greatly in the past few decades.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out with things like MDMA and psychedlics, but we need to make baby steps first with pot. Pretending legal pot is bad policy just because you can't buy a gallon of liquid acid at Walmart is asinine. I think so many internet commentors have internalized negativity for things like upvotes and attention that they literally cannot applaud a good thing when its happening. Its sad to see all these sour attitudes here at HN and reddit. The realistic alternative here isn't some paradise of legal everything; its more drug war nonsense. This is our first step to stop the drug war. It should be applauded as such.
All that is happening, essentially, is that marijuana is being reclassified as a new form of alcohol. That makes it okay with conservatives, who are okay with alcohol, by and large.
So, nothing is really changing.
The WOD will end when you can legally get any substance you want. Including any legitimate pharmaceutical, without a damned prescription.
In the U.S., money talks. And it's loud. If the figures showing up from the states of Washington and Colorado (there are others) are good and they mean people are making boatloads of cash with that crop, legalization will spread like wildfire. It is one of the good aspects of a more deregulated market after all.
This is true literally everywhere in the world. Some places may be more up front about it and others may try to hide it more, but in the end, everyone is subject to the same constraints of economics.
That should have read: "Money talks everywhere, but even more so in the U.S".
For example, in the decades preceding Prohibition, 30-40% of the federal government's income came from excise taxes on alcohol: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-taxes-enabled-alcohol-proh.... Prohibition overnight eliminated that revenue. The government gave up a lot of money to indulge moralistic fervor.
My guess is that the money will go into building a few solid brands. I wouldn't be surprised if edibles were the focus here, too - they're much easier to make at scale than by individuals, a lot of people probably prefer eating to smoking, and they provide a lot of opportunity for brand differentiation.
(And this is not down to lack of access - despite never having tried cannabis, I'd have no problem getting hold of some today if I suddenly decided I had to try it, which shows just how much of a total failure criminalisation of it has been)
I definitively agree with you. There'll be plenty of people who'll want to grow their own, but also plenty of people like me or somewhat more interested, that'd be interesting in trying or indulging in it now and again, but who's not interested in tending for a plant (just like I'm not growing my own vegetables...), not interested in smoking, and not interested enough to pay attention to how to find a good quality product, who'd prefer to be able to just recognise a large brand that'd be a sign of sufficient quality and trust.
For that kind of market segment price matters less than recognition - I'd happily pay a "not having to spend time researching what to look for on the internet" premium of 100% or more if I at some point decide to try, the same way I drink alcohol so rarely that when/if I do I stick to a handful of well known brands that I'm comfortable with.
This keeps getting brought up, and I'm not really saying there's not a good business here, but the economics are vastly different. A tomato plant might save you $3 and provide you with a meal or two. If states aim to keep prices near current street prices, a good harvest from a few plants could provide north of $500 worth of value for a minimal outlay of money (quite possibly nothing) and little work.
Like a "Get Baked with Betty Crocker" product line.
Far easier to by a pack of joints or brownies just like normal brownies or cigarettes.
I also think there is money to be made in things like coffee shops, Amsterdam style.
Is there any truth behind this rumor?
However I have definitely heard lots of conspiracy-theory type stuff coming from the more crunchy end of the pro-pot spectrum. Some of them even actively resist legalisation because they don't want 'corporations' involved in the trade.
Personally, I think the greater virtue is getting rid of our terrible laws and war on drugs, we can sort out marketplace ethics later.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/18/government.marijuana.gar...
now that the whites have changed the rules, all big entrepreneurs in this area are white. note also which states have started this.