Uruguay to legalize and sell cannabis

It is often recanted that if either tobacco or alcohol were to be the "new" drug then they would be banned in much the same way as cannabis is. One truth with tobacco and alcohol is that they've been around for long enough in common use for governments to have worked out that they are a very good source of income, despite the ongoing health care costs associated with them both.

The thing is, both tobacco and alcohol have been demonstrated to be quite effective killers -- this is important, especially when we know we have to kill off the poor and elderly as quickly as possible in order to balance government budgets. <smile>

The same truth can't be said for cannabis can it?

Oh, how little you know Sarge. Nobody has ever thought of me as a liberal hippie. And I can't afford to smoke enough pot to be labelled as a chronic smoker. I don't know you personally but I'd be curious to know whether you are a consumer of alcohol and if so how much?

Oh, how much I know.
Chronic is slang for weed.
Too bad you missed the sarcasm. It's ok for the well-to-do to smoke it, but not for the lower class. Remember, it'll be a gateway drug for them, sending in them into wild rages!
Guess your high school was one of the few that lacked the cliques, jocks, preps and heads? (Heads = potheads.) Except the jocks were smoking it, too. Such irony. Again, you missed the sarcasm.

As for my ccnsumption of weed: none. EVER.
Alcohol? Prolly far less than you and the average person.

Bob, given the laws in this country it is probably not safe to state one's views for some people. Face it there are many who feel it is their duty to persecute those who advocate any use of pot.
____________

Sarge, that alcohol *and* smoke tobacco is likely off mark. Back in the day, I inhaled -- but NEVER had a cigarette. I suspect I have company from back then and today. It has been a VERY long time since I inhaled -- though when going through chemo 7 years ago, my oncologist did suggest it might be a useful option.

For further elaboration: what's the best estimate of the true percentage of those who use marijuana that do not also drink alcohol and smoke Philip Morris' tobacco cigarettes? I will bet it is close to 0%. So, it might be a good idea to drop the false di/trichotomy.

Sarge, your argument is that by legalizing weed, the use rates will soar. That is an opinion.

Of course, by making it legal, we will depopulate jails and we know all those convicts are terrible drivers.

Sure, the sin tax will sound great to a lot of us.
Except that you probably really do not want to be around the chronic users of the chronic. Right? At best, they might serve as a source for jokes, regarding their lack of self-control.
At worst, we'll find out that when they drive impaired, they'll cause accidents, too. Then, despite the money raked in from the sin tax and the libertarian point of view, when one of those accidents draws you or a relative, loved one or friend in as collateral damage, then you'll be screaming.

Sarge, notice my use of tense there -- none of that set of former presidents would run today (two being deceased). For what it's worth, Nixon at one point in an interview said that he tried it.

But surely Richard & Ronald abstained? Maybe even Jimmy and GHW?

Dave, I agree with most of this -- aside from the DNR comment -- which I'd submit would be useful in many cases (not just for drug overdoses). Note, a DNR wouldn't matter for most drug use scenarios -- just severe overdoses (or stupid first timers who don't have a clue).

The thing is, a very large piece of our health care costs are due to a lack of advanced directives being in place and/or if in place, not followed, resulting in heroic interventions and invasive support which rarely has a good outcome.

a) I don't think marijuana smokers can be classified as 100% drinkers and smokers. I think people of all lifestyles and walks of life are equally as likely to have "partaken".

b) Gary: I think it's ridiculous that you think someone who has "partaken" should have to sign a DNR. Really? If that's the case then I'd argue everyone who wants to have a beer better be signing the same damn DNR.

c) Taxation is fine. The government loves making sin tax, and from what I understand it's huge money for them. Why would they not want another thing to tax?

d) Countries where marijuana sale is legal have no higher incidence of hard drug addiction or crime than countries where it is illegal.

e) States where it is legal do not seem to be reporting any trend of problems stemming from the sale and use of marijuana

f) I personally believe alcohol is a far greater threat to public health. FAR greater.

Gary, I pretty much agree with you on this one -- though more of the health care cost is at other end of life scenarios as well where an advanced directive should apply. If marijuana joined tobacco and alcohol in the list of 'regulated and taxed, but legal' and required a *conditional* DNR -- it would be along with tobacco and alcohol though, right. After all, tobacco and alcohol cause a lot of lingering death, and alcohol certainly causes a fair amount of 'wrap around a pole' scenarios.

b) Gary: I think it's ridiculous that you think someone who has "partaken" should have to sign a DNR. Really? If that's the case then I'd argue everyone who wants to have a beer better be signing the same damn DNR.

I believe there is a misunderstanding here. Not just weed. Heroin, oxycontin, morphine, cocaine, crack, ice, angel dust, E, LSD, mushrooms, GHB, etc. I said any drug. Got a prescription? no DNR needed. Medical weed is a different discussion.

I believe a significant fraction of those who would abuse these drugs if they were freely available would be persons who could never afford the medical care that their abuse would be expected to cost society. Advanced life support is very costly. A fair trade off, make it legal, pure and available, but society isn't going to save you when you OD or wrap your car around a telephone pole.

Well, I didn't put a time limit on it -- wouldn't be instantaneous upon legalization. But I suspect some states, in a budgetary move would press to reduce the population sooner rather than later.

Just how many folks are in jails and prisons for violation of alcohol and tobacco illegal trafficking? It isn't zero of course, but I suspect it isn't all that large either.

Understand, for the municipalities, state as well as the Federal government - prison populations cost a lot of money (a LOT of money for most states), and of course enforcement of 'drug war' laws also costs a lot of money. It becomes a major budget issue, via regulation and taxation, what is currently a major drain on budgets becomes a revenue source.

Of course, by making it legal, we will depopulate jails...

I dunno about that. People that are in jail far pot related offenses I would believe were people in possession of very large amounts, at a time when it is illegal to do so (currently). If they change any laws I don't think any existing sentences should be thrown out. I still think even if use was made legal, with or without a prescription, there would still be laws preventing people from trafficking large amounts, unless of course doing it within the rules of the system (regulation, taxation, permits, etc).

Legalize all drugs--natural and unnatural. If capitalism can't handle the demand, it should be taken over by the government at all levels. Free chemicals for everybody.

The U.S. needs this right now.

Not to worry Guy, if it is bad for people and/or the environment, oligarchic capitalism will provide it readily.

Legalize all drugs--natural and unnatural. If capitalism can't handle the demand, it should be taken over by the government at all levels. Free chemicals for everybody.

The U.S. needs this right now.