So When They Legalize Pot, Will You Buy??

[i'm flexible and 18]

Can't Hardly Wait!!

[Sean Archer]

Booze will be cheaper.

[i'm flexible and 18]

Booze will be cheaper.

Without boosh's drug war pot will be cheap cheap cheap!!

[tommie frazier]

i doubt it. I don't even drink much anymore. and plenty of types of booze are legal now and I don't bother buying them. not interested in the smell of the smoke, in general.

[Salzmann]

I really don't need something that makes me feel sleepy and incites me to consume mass quantities of junk food. But maybe every 6 months or so, just for fun, I'd plug in the Bose headphones, put on Led Zeppelin and toke up.

[Hugh Jass]

I really don't need something that makes me feel sleepy and incites me to consume mass quantities of junk food. bUt maybe every 6 months or so, just for fun, I'd plug in the Bose headphones, put on Led Zeppelin and toke up.


different weed does different things. I never get sleepy and hungry on mine! Just super....amorous!

[Sean Archer]

Is that college talk for horny?

[Hugh Jass]

Is that college talk for horny?

yup. well, college was 13 years ago for me, but yes, that's what I was talking about. Sadly, I never got busy even once during college.

[Keef]

No. Don't want to have to pay :smoke: rates for my life ins.

[A Real-Time Simulation]

I really don't need something that makes me feel sleepy and incites me to consume mass quantities of junk food. But maybe every 6 months or so, just for fun, I'd plug in the Bose headphones, put on Led Zeppelin and toke up.

:iatp:

[Loner]

I might try it just to see what it's like, never having had any(and actually not even really sure what it smells like) but probably not.

[Don McCain]

You'll know it when you smell it.

[dressed up like the Cure]

probably

[whisper]

Nope, not interested.

[2pac Fan]

YES, actually 60 hours weeks at work and these damn exams hasn't given me time to enjoy this in 5 months (thats depressing and even more depressing that I am in insurance and how far behind I am in studying, yay I have a job, I guess?). Back to the point, yes yes yes, assuming I get back to regular hours, hopefully, it can't last more than 3 months, right (about time to make this happen, can we say new yob?)

[MGN]

Yes. Yes I would.

[proof by exhaustion]

affirmative

[Schnook]

No. Don't want to have to pay :smoke: rates for my life ins.

Smoker
Non-smoker
Pothead

[MGN]

Smoker
Non-smoker
Pothead

Indeed, the life tables will bear this out I'm sure: chronic pot-smokers (potheads, for this study) will have similar mortality patterns to non-smokers due to reduction in stress. People who smoke both cigarettes and pot count as smokers. Just a hypothesis.

[Buck]

Don't do drug, man. It's not good for you.

[dressed up like the Cure]

Is pot bad for you?

[Hugh Jass]

Is pot bad for you?

Some people will say it is, as smoking anything isn't good for you. That's why I recommend a vaporizer. It puts the THC into a vapor and you inhale it, without carbon monoxide or any particulate plant matter.
It's by far better than alcohol, if you even really want to compare the 2. Less fighting, reduction of car accidents, better care of the liver, more creativity, better sex life, to name a few things off the top of my head.
As we've seen with Phelps (and others on this board who smoke and do well on actuarial exams and at work), the myth that pot "ruins your life" can be debunked.
Pot is only "bad for you" now in the sense that it is still illegal and it could get you into trouble with employment. Not in trouble because of any alleged effects on performance, but just that companies make you take a drug test before you get hired. These issues are artificial because they can be resolved with decriminalization.
The last anti-pot thing that I can think of now is the whole "gateway drug" issue. People will try other stuff anyways even if pot is legal. Not everyone who smokes pot does other drugs.

[Lucy]

different weed does different things. I never get sleepy and hungry on mine! Just super....amorous!
Interesting. Friend of a friend told me she could always tell when her boyfriend (who was generally a pot head) had abstained, because he was so much better in bed.

[Hugh Jass]

Interesting. Friend of a friend told me she could always tell when her boyfriend (who was generally a pot head) had abstained, because he was so much better in bed.

Ha!

I'm sure it varies by person. Sometimes getting thirsty is annoying. Anyways, to each their own. No one is trying to force anyone to do anything.

[dressed up like the Cure]

some people allege that pot can cause schizophrenic like effects

[Lucy]

Ha!

I'm sure it varies by person. Sometimes getting thirsty is annoying. Anyways, to each their own. No one is trying to force anyone to do anything.

Sure. I don't use pot, and probably won't if it becomes legal. But I'm in favor of it being regulated more like booze and less like heroin. It's sort of stupid that the most serious risk of pot use is the legal risk, not the medical or social risks.

[Hugh Jass]

some people allege that pot can cause schizophrenic like effects

Then those people shouldn't smoke it. They can't die from that. If anything, the experience should cause them to examine themselves and seek professional help if possible.

Also, different strains of the plant have different effects/strengths. I suppose that would be similar to the beer-wine-liquor progression.

It's analagous to people who exhibit negative behaviours when they consume alcohol, or people who have physiological problems with drinking- just don't do it anymore. It's not for them.

[Hugh Jass]

Sure. I don't use pot, and probably won't if it becomes legal. But I'm in favor of it being regulated more like booze and less like heroin. It's sort of stupid that the most serious risk of pot use is the legal risk, not the medical or social risks.

:tup:

I'm not familiar with heroin legislation, but I would be fine if pot were regulated like beer, in that I can do it myself.

[vividox]

I don't often pay attention to the news. The title of this thread is "When They Legalize Pot" so I have to ask: is this actually happening?

[Hugh Jass]

I have a feeling it's in regard to this, a thread from political about a week ago where CA is considering taxing pot to help fund its budget problems.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=159750&highlight=pot

[Gentle Giant]

I have a friend with a hookah. He only does tobacco, but he likes to share. If pot were legalized and he partook, I'd probably partake once or twice just for the heckuvit.

[Concerned Troll]

Ha!

I'm sure it varies by person. Sometimes getting thirsty is annoying. Anyways, to each their own. No one is trying to force anyone to do anything.

That's called cotton mouth, it's even worse when it feels like your throat is tightening.

[Concerned Troll]

I have a friend with a hookah. He only does tobacco, but he likes to share. If pot were legalized and he partook, I'd probably partake once or twice just for the heckuvit.

cool points=cool points+1

[punmanbowler]

I've never had the desire to try it. Never had the desire to try cigarettes either.

[Gary Wright]

Can't Hardly Wait!!

No, I'm sure it'll cost too much and it's just another way to waste time and get nothing done.

[Hugh Jass]

No, I'm sure it'll cost too much and it's just another way to waste time and get nothing done.

Not everyone is unproductive when they smoke. Just saying. Its relatively free if you could do it yourself legally.

[dressed up like the Cure]

true dat

[2pac Shakur]

No, I'm sure it'll cost too much and it's just another way to waste time and get nothing done.

So when you gonna quit posting?

[2pac Shakur]

I would probably quit smoking if it became legal.

[Concerned Troll]

I would probably quit smoking if it became legal.

Would you start cheesing?

[barry]

Sure. I don't use pot, and probably won't if it becomes legal. But I'm in favor of it being regulated more like booze and less like heroin. It's sort of stupid that the most serious risk of pot use is the legal risk, not the medical or social risks.


Another fine post by Lucy

[glassjaws]

Won't people just start growing it and nullify the advantages of taxing it to death?

[Hugh Jass]

well, they could legalize it and tax it for revenue. They could also make it illegal to do it yourself, similar to hard liquor so they could continue to generate revenue off of it. Sure they won't catch everybody, but most people are risk-averse and would just pay their taxes so they wouldn't get punished in one way or another.

[vividox]

well, they could legalize it and tax it for revenue. They could also make it illegal to do it yourself, similar to hard liquor so they could continue to generate revenue off of it. Sure they won't catch everybody, but most people are risk-averse and would just pay their taxes so they wouldn't get punished in one way or another.

Ditch weed is a lot easier to grow than making your own alcohol. A lot.

[Concerned Troll]

Ditch weed is a lot easier to grow than making your own alcohol. A lot.

But who wants to smoke dirt weed?

[vividox]

But who wants to smoke dirt weed?

People who don't want to pay for it.

[Concerned Troll]

People who don't want to pay for it.

Oh, actuaries.

[Hugh Jass]

Ditch weed is a lot easier to grow than making your own alcohol. A lot.

I was referring to the costs of getting caught not paying your taxes, not the costs of production. You'll get no argument outta me on that.

[DudeMan]

Some people will say it is, as smoking anything isn't good for you.

This is my stance. If it were legal, I may use it in cooking recipes on occassion. It all depends on the cost effectiveness though.

[Joe Blow]

I'd discuss it with my wife as I don't feel strongly enough about it to upset her. But that aside, I'd be interested in trying pot once if it were legal.

[Inconceivable]

Not really. Never tried the stuff and never really wanted to. Don't see that changing just because it's legal. I don’t drink a lot but one drink a day is good for you btw (at least if you're a man - women may want to skip it all together).

Anyhoo, I don't have glaucoma and I'm not stressed so no reason for me to do it.

[MGN]

Another fine post by Lucy

What exactly was wrong with that post?

[MGN]

No, I'm sure it'll cost too much and it's just another way to waste time and get nothing done.

:judge:

That's why god invented college.

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

No intention to smoke up if it's legel or illegal.

[whisper]

some people allege that pot can cause schizophrenic like effects

I'm sure that there is a small subset of the populace that will react badly to pot. Granted - you can say that about most things.

[dressed up like the Cure]

I'm sure that there is a small subset of the populace that will react badly to pot. Granted - you can say that about most things.

My understanding is that "skunk" weed (meaning weed with extremely high THC content) has been associated with such mental stuff.

[Hugh Jass]

My understanding is that "skunk" weed (meaning weed with extremely high THC content) has been associated with such mental stuff.

I've "heard" that, too. Like I posted earlier, these effects (if they ever happen to someone) won't last forever and that person can simply not partake anymore or go for schwaggier bud. The person won't die or go "insane." The unfortunate person who experiences this should stop smoking and if possible, see a mental health professional. I doubt that getting high will be the first time these people have had a panic attack.

[barry]

What exactly was wrong with that post?

My post was not intended to come off as sarcastic.

[whisper]

I've "heard" that, too. Like I posted earlier, these effects (if they ever happen to someone) won't last forever and that person can simply not partake anymore or go for schwaggier bud. The person won't die or go "insane." The unfortunate person who experiences this should stop smoking and if possible, see a mental health professional. I doubt that getting high will be the first time these people have had a panic attack.

I'm a strong drug legalization supporter - so the fact that there could be this reaction is no big deal to me.

My point was that people have reactions to wheat, peanuts, etc. Its almost likely that there will be a small portion of the populace that will react badly to pot. Its no big deal, something to be anticipated.

[Hugh Jass]

I'm a strong drug legalization supporter - so the fact that there could be this reaction is no big deal to me.

My point was that people have reactions to wheat, peanuts, etc. Its almost likely that there will be a small portion of the populace that will react badly to pot. Its no big deal, something to be anticipated.

That's true. I'm "nut" sure if the panic attack is an allergy thing or not. But yeah, I think it should be known to all potential users that there is the risk of an unpleasant experience. Unlike peanut allergies and such, the effects of a "bad pot experience" will wear off after a couple of hours. Other allergies can be deadly. Maybe pot is deadly to some people, like those that have an allergy to peanuts. I've never heard of that, though.

[Concerned Troll]

That's true. I'm "nut" sure if the panic attack is an allergy thing or not. But yeah, I think it should be known to all potential users that there is the risk of an unpleasant experience. Unlike peanut allergies and such, the effects of a "bad pot experience" will wear off after a couple of hours. Other allergies can be deadly. Maybe pot is deadly to some people, like those that have an allergy to peanuts. I've never heard of that, though.

I think those bad experiences are caused by what the smoker is doing, if not laced weed.

[Hugh Jass]

I think those bad experiences are caused by what the smoker is doing, if not laced weed.

I really doubt there's laced weed, but if there is, that'd be another advantage of legalizing it.

I agree with what you said about "what they're doing." But I think the larger part of the problem with bad experiences using MJ is due to the users brain chemistry. The "setting" is important, too; do something nice and calm and mellow out.

[Gary Wright]

So when you gonna quit posting?

ES.

[Gary Wright]

Not everyone is unproductive when they smoke. Just saying. Its relatively free if you could do it yourself legally.

Can you distill your own liquor? That's very low cost.

The government will have no interest in making it cheap or allowing you to grow and smoke your own.

Pot smokers are better off now where the government says it's illegal and doesn't want to get too involved in it, because once they realize they can make money off of it (and more than just seizing cash from border towns), pot smokers are f____d.

[Hugh Jass]

Can you distill your own liquor? That's very low cost.

The government will have no interest in making it cheap or allowing you to grow and smoke your own.

Pot smokers are better off now where the government says it's illegal and doesn't want to get too involved in it, because once they realize they can make money off of it (and more than just seizing cash from border towns), pot smokers are f____d.

1) can I? Sure. The cost is low enough for me. I don't it because I don't want to get caught and I'm not happy with the way it tasted. Maybe I could practice more.
2) I don;t see how pot smokers are f**d, just they have to pay taxes on it. I'm not a big fan of that either, but I don't see how they'd be worse off than they are now. I'm for being able to do things my way on my land without the gubmint getting involved. I realize that the gubmint probably won't agree with that and they wil try to tax it. But for your regular pot smoker, the availability would increase. Another benefit is that we won't be paying tax money to jail/prosecute people for this silliness. The tax dollars associated with mJ get spread over non-pot smokers; if people don't like the tax, they can simply not smoke.

[2pac Shakur]

Can you distill your own liquor? That's very low cost.

The government will have no interest in making it cheap or allowing you to grow and smoke your own.

Pot smokers are better off now where the government says it's illegal and doesn't want to get too involved in it, because once they realize they can make money off of it (and more than just seizing cash from border towns), pot smokers are f____d.

Gummint doesn't make money off it now?
Is the war on drugs free?
Prison?

[Gary Wright]

1) can I? Sure. The cost is low enough for me. I don't it because I don't want to get caught and I'm not happy with the way it tasted. Maybe I could practice more.
2) I don;t see how pot smokers are f**d, just they have to pay taxes on it. I'm not a big fan of that either, but I don't see how they'd be worse off than they are now. I'm for being able to do things my way on my land without the gubmint getting involved. I realize that the gubmint probably won't agree with that and they wil try to tax it. But for your regular pot smoker, the availability would increase. Another benefit is that we won't be paying tax money to jail/prosecute people for this silliness. The tax dollars associated with mJ get spread over non-pot smokers; if people don't like the tax, they can simply not smoke.

What gets you in more trouble - having a small potted doob plant or having a small still?

What is the cost of production for cigarettes compared to the tax burden?

[Gary Wright]

Gummint doesn't make money off it now?
Is the war on drugs free?
Prison?

Gummint makes less off of it than they would a legalization and tax. They wouldn't have to do either of those two things that you've mentioned and try to justify them cost-wise if they could just harvest money off the top and prosecute and fine anyone who didn't play into their revenue generating game.

First thing to do when you need an extra few bucks in the budget - increase the pot tax - 10 times in a row. The majority isn't going to do it, so they'd be fine with the tax increase.

[MGN]

Gummint makes less off of it than they would a legalization and tax. They wouldn't have to do either of those two things that you've mentioned and try to justify them cost-wise if they could just harvest money off the top and prosecute and fine anyone who didn't play into their revenue generating game.

First thing to do when you need an extra few bucks in the budget - increase the pot tax - 10 times in a row. The majority isn't going to do it, so they'd be fine with the tax increase.

I actually sort of disagree with this. There's a huge risk premium built into the price of the product now that would likely be replaced with taxes, so I'm guessing that on the whole prices would actually be stable. There was a great forbes article about 5 years ago about the economy of pot that had some fun stories about the risks people would take to get it over the border and the compensation they got for it.

[Hugh Jass]

What gets you in more trouble - having a small potted doob plant or having a small still?

What is the cost of production for cigarettes compared to the tax burden?

Maybe our definitions of F___d are different; F____d to me means severe financial woes, imprisonment, death, sickness, pain and suffering.
Under the current setup, growers face a huge risk if caught. But they get to smoke at a very low cost. Under legalization, the huge risk of losing all your possessions and jail time are removed and they still get to smoke for free. That's good. BUT, as you pointed out, they'll have to pay taxes on it. That's bad. Sure, depends on the size of the tax, but overall I'd say they come out better than the current situation. And throughout, I'm not talking about commercial growers, I'm talking about people who just grow for personal consumption.
For just users, under the current setup, they face a slap on the wrist and possibly some pretty sizeable legal fees. And they face scarcity issues. More often than not, the weed is just confiscated if they get in trouble. And they pay X for their weed. Under legalization, they won't have to face the scarcity issues and available quality will go up and they won't get in trouble. That's good. But, they'll have to pay (1+Y)*(x), where Y is the % tax. That's a bad thing. But how bad? I don't think it falls under my "f_____d" category. If Y is too high, some current users may switch to growing due to savings from perhaps different tax laws regarding growing and purchasing and economies of scale.

I agree that for every pack of cigs, a huge portion is taxes. But is that bad? Are tobacco smokers "f____d"? No, but I'd like taxes in general to relax and also cut some stupid funding that exists due to the existence of these tax revenues.

[Hugh Jass]

I actually sort of disagree with this. There's a huge risk premium built into the price of the product now that would likely be replaced with taxes, so I'm guessing that on the whole prices would actually be stable. There was a great forbes article about 5 years ago about the economy of pot that had some fun stories about the risks people would take to get it over the border and the compensation they got for it.

excellent point. I wish I included it in my previous post.

[whisper]

I agree that for every pack of cigs, a huge portion is taxes. But is that bad? Are tobacco smokers "f____d"? No, but I'd like taxes in general to relax and also cut some stupid funding that exists due to the existence of these tax revenues.


IMHO, I think the branding will hurt smokers more than the taxes. Compared to cigarettes, I'm certain the branding costs per cigarette is much more than the tobacco cost. I think taxes are between the two.

So, I see the same structure for pot.

[Hugh Jass]

IMHO, I think the branding will hurt smokers more than the taxes. Compared to cigarettes, I'm certain the branding costs per cigarette is much more than the tobacco cost. I think taxes are between the two.

So, I see the same structure for pot.

Sure. Valid point. Here's a sample of how it'll look:


http://www.seethru.co.uk/funny_stuff/images/drugs_cannabis.jpg

[dressed up like the Cure]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18836822/detail.html#-