Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Cliff Kincaid -- easily one of the dumbest men in the entire conservative wing of the country -- has another one of his patently irrational columns at the amusingly misnamed Accuracy in Media site. This time he's attacking those more libertarian-minded conservatives who are in favor of legalizing pot and/or all drugs. Speaking of Steven Chapman, he says:
"Mexico is the biggest supplier of cannabis to the United States," he writes. "Control of that market is one of the things that Mexican drug cartels are willing to kill for. Legalizing weed in this country would be their worst nightmare. Why? Because it would offer Americans a legitimate supply of the stuff."What he fails to realize is the fact that the Mexican drug cartels have already infiltrated the U.S. and are growing the "stuff" in the United States. Hence, legalization could have the effect of making these criminals into "legitimate" businessmen. "Big Marijuana" could join "Big Pharma" as another powerful special interest group.
The obvious answer is: so what? Yes, it could make those currently peddling an illegal product into a legitimate company selling a legal product, just as ending prohibition allowed some bootlegging operations to become legit businesses (though more likely the distribution would be done by already existing companies, most likely tobacco companies). But the question is, why is this a bad thing?
Has Kincaid not noticed that having legitimate businesses competing on the basis of quality, service and advertising is a hell of a lot better than having rival gangs compete for territory through mass violence? When was the last time a Budweiser distributor got into a turf war with a Miller distributor, leaving hundreds of people dead? It doesn't happen. But it happens all the time when a highly profitable product is sold on the black market.
Rather than legalization, the obvious answer is border control, including the building of a fence across the southern border of the U.S., and the eradication of the gangs and their crops in the U.S.
Translation: The obvious answer is to wave a magic wand and make the problem disappear. That was the obvious answer to alcohol a century ago too -- bring the power of government to bear and eradicate the bootleggers and there'll be no more demon rum. How'd that work out for us?
As long as you have demand, someone is going to supply it -- and the riskier you make doing that, the higher the price goes and the more profitable it becomes. The gangs that control drug distribution in this country are fueled by the huge amount of money they can make off it -- just like organized crime gangs were during alcohol prohibition.
Politics
Comments
we can assume learning from history is not Kincaid's long suit.
I'm in my mid-fifties and cannot remember a time when there wasn't a war on drugs or gang task forces. Anyone in law enforcement who says either of those efforts have been even a wee bit successful is insane or running for office.
Posted by: MikeMa | April 5, 2010 9:18 AM
Of course if pot was to be legalized, most people would grow their own pot or get it from their friends. Nowadays pot is so potent that a single plant, well-maintained in a sunny window is sufficient to satisfy the needs of most households.
The marijuana business would essentially disappear. This Kincaid is just spreading FUD.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 5, 2010 9:23 AM
But these are lawbreakers. Like amnesty for illegal aliens, or welfare for the lazy, people who don't respect the law and who don't work hard within the system should not be allowed to profit from their contemptible lifestyles. It would be unfair to me and all the law abiding, hard working, real Americans like me. Why should they get rewarded while I toil? It’s not fair! [stomps feet]
Posted by: Abby Normal (wearing stars and stripes overalls) | April 5, 2010 9:42 AM
Posted by: Jason Kuznicki | April 5, 2010 9:51 AM
Let's not forget what the booze industry would lose if pot were legalized. Or what the lumber, cotton, and oil industries would lose if industrial hemp were legalized.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | April 5, 2010 9:51 AM
Just reading the snips and not the full article, but if they are already growing it here and have infiltrated the US, what would a fence do?
Posted by: chris | April 5, 2010 9:51 AM
Then how about we work on reducing that demand? We should not be a society where taking mind-altering chemicals for recreational use is 'no big deal'. And yes, I do include alcohol in that. (Although, there are plenty of people that drink without ever getting a buzz, let alone outright drunk, so that does separate wine and beer from marijuana somewhat.)
Posted by: JasonTD | April 5, 2010 10:05 AM
Nonsense gingerbaker. People buy herbs, tomatoes and any number of other things they could grow at home.
Marlboro Greens will enjoy a nice market. A dominant marketshare from the get go. They have the capital to invest, the business acumen and the distribution.
Sorry Ed but BigTobacco is going to take the commercial pot market without much opposition. Boutique operations will be like microbrewerys at best...
Posted by: DrugMonkey | April 5, 2010 10:06 AM
Of course, legalization will not make the gangs immediately go away, just as ending prohibition did not end the Mafia. It will, however, inconvenience them.
Posted by: abb3w | April 5, 2010 10:06 AM
Kincaid is a socialist for opposing the free market capitalism of legalized weed.
Posted by: Rob Jase | April 5, 2010 10:11 AM
@MikeMa, #1: "Anyone in law enforcement who says either of those efforts have been even a wee bit successful is insane or running for office."
I'm reminded of an old joke phrase that goes, "When at first you don't succeed, redefine success." The efforts have been hugely successful -- at launching and maintaining political careers. At the original goal, not so much.
Posted by: Mystyk | April 5, 2010 10:13 AM
We should not be a society where taking mind-altering chemicals for recreational use is 'no big deal'.
Why not? What's inherently wrong with taking a mind-altering chemical (are you including caffeine)?
The majority of people who use drugs and alcohol do so without causing harm to themselves or others, so what's the problem, exactly?
Posted by: LJM | April 5, 2010 10:16 AM
Years ago I worked late evenings and drove home in a car that only had an AM radio. I used to listen to Larry King's radio program.
One night, he interviewed one of the "Drug Czars." They broke for commercial, and went to a commercial extolling the virtues of "the best part of waking up..."
On another occasion, a physician said that since the difference between vitamin requirements under normal circumstances and under stress was trivial, it was fraudulent to sell "stress vitamins." Guess what the very next commercial was for?
Larry King was a never failing font of irony if you knew what to listen for.
I am a home brewer, and I don't see much of a market impact on the brewing industry because of the tiny amount of beer that we home brewers don't buy. Maybe some increase in quality as part of the micro brew movement, but that may or may not be relevant.
That said, I would think that allowing people to grow their own so long as they don't sell it might be a good first step. Except that home marijuana growers would then have to defend themselves against the drug gangs.
Nevermind.
Posted by: BaldApe | April 5, 2010 10:46 AM
I cannot help but laugh my ass off at the notion that current cannabis farmers are suddenly going to have a legal business to run, should it be legalized. There are a few talented growers who might find work with Big Cannabis. But there are few illicit growing operations that are remotely big enough to contribute to or compete with a Philip Morris or R.J. Reynolds. And anyone who thinks that Big Cannabis won't spring up, ready to roll the day it is legal is fucking high.
I have to disagree with Chapman though. While it is entirely possible that cannabis would be grown in the U.S., Mexican cannabis farmers are already in a position to supply to a legal U.S. market.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 5, 2010 11:00 AM
We should not be a society where taking mind-altering chemicals for recreational use is 'no big deal'. And yes, I do include alcohol in that. (Although, there are plenty of people that drink without ever getting a buzz, let alone outright drunk, so that does separate wine and beer from marijuana somewhat.)
So...first you say we shouldn't say drug use is "no big deal;" then you say you're including alcohol in that analysis; then you make an exception for alcohol and say it's no big deal; then you try to separate weed from alcohol, but you can only separate it "somewhat." So what, exactly, are you left with after all that flip-flopping?
And what about the violence that results from our lame-assed (and unsuccessful) attempts to keep drugs illegal? Is that a "big deal" for you?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 5, 2010 11:01 AM
That's why we have a minimum drinking age, drinking and driving laws, "drink responsibly" ads, AA, and all the other myriad programs reminding us what that drinking can in fact be a big deal. Making marijuana legal would make it easier to deliver similar messages, establish more reasonable time and place restrictions, and make it easier for those with a problem to get help. Multiple studies have confirmed that making pot illegal hasn't really reduced demand. Meanwhile countries that have legalized it and treat it as a health issue have much lower rates of addiction and abuse. If reducing demand is really your goal, then the evidence points to legalization as your best course.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 5, 2010 11:05 AM
If growing pot becomes legal, then only legal people will grow pot... No, that's not right.
If pot growing becomes not criminal, then only pot growers will criminal not be....
If a potter grew pot in a pot how much pot could the pot potter pot, legally?
Damn, this bumper sticker rhetoric thing is harder than I thought.
Posted by: xebecs | April 5, 2010 11:14 AM
because no Mexican gangster could ever possibly be smart enough to find a way under, over, around, or through a simple physical barrier. riiight.
smuggling is not primarily a technological problem, ergo, it cannot be solved or prevented by technological means alone. hellfire, there are already tunnels under our southern border, dug purely for the convenience of the smugglers; other smugglers bring drugs in by the ton on single-use, almost-but-not-quite freakin' submarines. border fences are bad jokes.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 5, 2010 11:19 AM
While decades of American failure to control border has conditioned us otherwise, controlling the border is not a completely impossible task. It is just a matter how much effort you want to expend. Illegal immigration and drug trafficking rarely happens over the DMZ. To a lesser extreme, the Israelis have good control over their borders. Of course, the South Koreans and the Israelis have militaries dedicated toward national defense rather than overseas adventures, so they are better able to provide effective border control. There's nothing stopping the United States from putting troops on our borders other than a lack of will.
Posted by: History Punk | April 5, 2010 11:45 AM
History Punk - "...the Israelis have militaries dedicated toward national defence rather than overseas adventures..." those in Dubai excepted, apparently. ;) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | April 5, 2010 11:59 AM
I think you underestimate the power of marketing.
And DrugMonkey rightly points out that people buy tomatoes even though those are pretty easy to grow...
Posted by: James Sweet | April 5, 2010 12:00 PM
Unless I'm very much mistaken, larges sections of the US-Mexico border already have fences - some even have up to three. Smugglers of all kinds and illegal immigrants get through anyway.
Posted by: Zmidponk | April 5, 2010 12:09 PM
"When was the last time a Budweiser distributor got into a turf war with a Miller distributor, leaving hundreds of people dead?"
You, sir, just planted in my head the image of John McCain fighting in a bloody turf war to expand the territory of the Hensley clan. A ridiculous idea, I know, but on the other hand, the Hollywood movie based on it would have been awesome.
Posted by: Laurent Weppe | April 5, 2010 12:15 PM
And as a result Real Americans don't have as many of "those people" to denigrate when they gather for cocktails and cigarettes.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 5, 2010 12:23 PM
I like his herb analogy better, because herbs, like pot get harvested dry, don't take up much room and do not soon rot. And what is the total dried herb industry compared to the current pot industry - one ten thousandth?
What is the current home gardening industry compared to the either the dried herb industry or the pot industry? It's enormous compared to the dried herb industry, and likely comparable to the current pot market.
And pot is an extremely hardy and prolific plant, which also happens to be quite esthetically handsome. People will grow this stuff at home quite readily, especially if they have to pay exorbitant prices from Reynolds tobacco.
Will there be a commercial prepackaged market - of course. But it will be tiny compared to the current bucks being raked in since pot is illegal - which was my previous point. The economics of this would be tricky for corporations, and we all know that government would not be able to resist taxing the bejeesus out of it. Which will only encourage more people to raise their own.
Pot just doesn't glibly slide into tobacco, alcohol or home-grown tomato analogies as neatly as one might think at first blush.
Besides - the idea that this may actually happen in the US during our lifetimes? What was this guy smoking?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 5, 2010 12:38 PM
Those countries are all socialist. It's a point of honor to avoid their errors, but it's a moral obligation to avoid their successes.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | April 5, 2010 12:41 PM
Jason Kuznicki: "If this is what we should fear the most, then let's criminalize ordinary pharmaceuticals. It's better to have them sold by roving gangs than special interest groups."
While I do have a properly-functioning satire detector, this actually isn't a bad idea. The dynamics of drug prohibition tend to make prices go up since most of the drugs are natural (hence un-patentable) products that are essentially fungible, at least when separated by strength. By contrast, ordinary pharmaceuticals are currently price high due primarily to government-enforced artificially scarcity via patent laws and are more expensive to research for the same reason (66% of all research is aimed at finding close variants that get around competing patents; about 80% of all research costs of new drug compounds is aimed at finding all of the close variants ahead of time to stop competitors from doing this; without patents, companies would not do either of these things), so making drugs illegal would probably tend to make ordinary pharmaceuticals drastically cheaper (in fact, it will simultaneously make them cheaper for the reasons above and make them more expensive due to the risk of obtaining them, but assuming enforcement of the laws at the same level as current drug war enforcement, the drop would be the more significant factor), which in turn would mean that those who use violence to control turf would probably stay interested primarily in the currently-illegal drugs. Also, as the production of most modern pharmaceuticals requires chemistry (rather than agriculture), you'd probably see them produced in science labs rather than in heat-houses, meaning that the drugs would flow primarily from higher-income college towns instead of from lower-income ghetto neighborhoods, which again means that the new pharma trade would tend to be less violent than the existing drug trade.
Naturally, removing the privileges granted to the pharma industry while keeping it legal would be better than removing the privileges in the process of making it illegal, but either one would be drastically better than our current system.
Posted by: Miko | April 5, 2010 12:42 PM
Gingerbaker -
What is the current home gardening industry compared to the either the dried herb industry or the pot industry? It's enormous compared to the dried herb industry, and likely comparable to the current pot market.
Where can I get what you've been smoking? Are you seriously trying to claim that more people grow their own fresh cooking herbs, than people buy dried (or fresh from the store) herbs? Seriously?
Then why is the cooking herbs market so fucking huge?
And pot is an extremely hardy and prolific plant, which also happens to be quite esthetically handsome. People will grow this stuff at home quite readily, especially if they have to pay exorbitant prices from Reynolds tobacco.
To put it bluntly, bullshit! Tomatoes are a hardy plant, yet people buy tomatoes rather than grow them. Broccoli is a hardy plant, yet people buy, rather than grow it. Lettuce, cabbages, peppers - there are a shit-ton of plants that are really easy to grow, yet there people go buying them instead. What the fuck exactly gives you the impression that people will grow pot, instead of buying it like everything else?
Pot is at least, if not more expensive now, than it will be when it is legal. If your assertion were correct, a hella lot more people would grow their own for personal consumption. Doing so would save them that money and lower their risk of getting busted, because they don't have to leave home to procure it.
Will there be a commercial prepackaged market - of course. But it will be tiny compared to the current bucks being raked in since pot is illegal - which was my previous point. The economics of this would be tricky for corporations, and we all know that government would not be able to resist taxing the bejeesus out of it. Which will only encourage more people to raise their own.
Tricky how exactly? Mass production drives the baseline price down to shit. Add a one hundred percent tax to the price and they could still sell it for a decent profit and for no more - probably less than it costs now. You are nothing short of fucking delusional if you think lazy U.S. Americans are about to start growing their own because it is legal.
Besides - the idea that this may actually happen in the US during our lifetimes? What was this guy smoking?
There are states - California at the fore - who are talking in relatively serious terms about legalization. There are conservative groups that support this, having figured out that right now we are providing health care, room/board and huge extraneous security costs to house people who are only in prison because drugs are illegal. More and more people are getting extremely angry about the money we waste at every level of government, fighting an absolute failure of a drug war.
I would argue that not only will we see cannabis legalized in the U.S. in our lifetimes, we will see many other drugs legalized as well.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 5, 2010 1:03 PM
I think you're way off with this assertion. Buying may necessitate being outside the house with contraband and interacting with another party, but growing requires an area that is dedicated 24/7 to illegal activity. Not to mention the smell.
I'm pretty sure that when talking about personal use quantities, it is far more risky to grow than to buy.
Posted by: James Sweet | April 5, 2010 1:08 PM
As someone who's been a regular marijuana smoker for 40+ years, I've spent a lot of time contemplating what a legalized market would look like, and I find myself disagreeing with both Ginger and Ed. The 'grow your own' option won't be convenient for most people -- see tomatoes -- but it will be common enough to make the 'tobacco company' option impractical.
To make my point, quick, without looking, tell me what brand of carrots, lettuce, celery, or tomatoes you have in your kitchen now, or bought last. I'm willing to bet that most of you can't tell me, even if you have cellophane packaged produce -- and if you buy them loose, the only way you could know is if you are there when they restock and see the crate. (And if you buy from a farmer's market, you can ingore 'branding' altogether.)
I expect legalized weed to follow the 'produce' model, with a lot of independent growers, roadside stands, farmers' markets, etc., and mega-company involvement only on the wholesale and distribution ends. (Amd maybe in importing, since some countries' products still have a reputation for quality -- ironically, "Mexican' does not and never had except for 'Acapulco Gold" but "Mexican" was synonymous with "crap" one step above 'home-grown' -- which was alwaus picked too early.)
And while iy may be apocryphal, the story of tobacco companies running marketing studies and discovering that there just wasn't enough profit in it to make it worth the effort is still a good explanation for why they have never funded a legalization program.
Posted by: Prip (aka Jim Benton) | April 5, 2010 1:10 PM
@Prup: The reason produce is like that is because there is no value added by processing. I may not be able to tell you what brand of tomatoes I have in my kitchen, but I can tell you what brand of tomato sauce is in my pantry.
So the question is... if marijuana were completely legalized, would people prefer to buy the mostly-unprocessed buds (after drying, of course, but that's not intensive processing), or would they prefer to buy pre-rolled joints? If the former, then you may be right.
Although... another aspect is that if it ever were legalized, it is likely to be heavily regulated and heavily taxed. So, in a thought experiment, let's say the federal government decreed that from now on, tomatoes would be subject to a 100% tax, each batch needed to be tested so it could be classified as having a certain level of lycopene in it, vendors would have to have mountains of paperwork showing that everything was being done on the up-and-up, etc... all of a sudden, it would be a lot harder to buy a tomato at a farmer's market.
Posted by: James Sweet | April 5, 2010 1:17 PM
chris "Just reading the snips and not the full article, but if they are already growing it here and have infiltrated the US, what would a fence do?"
It would keep out the...y'know...Mexicans.
Abby Normal "If reducing demand is really your goal, then the evidence points to legalization as your best course."
No way. The best course would be changing the anti-drug ads. Make the ones for kids "Your parents think drugs are cool" and the ones for adults "Your parents think drugs are cool". Nothing kills the desire for something faster than having an age group well above yours like it.
DingoJack "...the Israelis have militaries dedicated toward national defence rather than overseas adventures...' those in Dubai excepted, apparently. ;)"
They were on vacation. That's how hard the Israelis are.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 5, 2010 1:30 PM
Modusoperandi, that certainly explains why teens don't show much interest in getting a driver's license and a cool car.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 5, 2010 1:53 PM
Abby, it's not a rule. It's a rule of thumb.
Besides, car ads never say "When you get your license, this is the ten year-old Taurus wagon with the shitty stereo, shimmy in the wheel and broken AC you'll borrow from your parents to drive to the shitty job at Domino's you'll need to pay for the gas to borrow the car". Truth in advertising, indeed.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 5, 2010 2:00 PM
In all seriousness, there have been a few anti-drug ads recently that might actually work... The ones that are like, "Yeah, pot won't ruin your life, you won't go crazy or anything... it's just kinda boring." heh....
Posted by: James Sweet | April 5, 2010 2:00 PM
Prup, you've nailed it. Big Pot might exist at some point, but it's not going to be the largest part of the market. James has got a good point in that buying a pack of joints would be easy, but to be honest, I think joint-smokers are a minority nowadays (and very few people would be pack-a-day jointers). A glass bowl or even better, a vaporizer, allows you to use small amounts at a time so you don't waste a bunch of it. In regards to processing, I would also point out that grinding up a bud and rolling joints is a LOT easier than cooking salsa (to use the tomato analogy). One more tomato thing: if I grow a few tomatoes in my yard, I probably wouldn't even come close to producing the number of tomatoes I actually consume, even if I were making my own processed stuff. A good marijuana plant can produce a fairly large amount of bud, so it's much more plausible to support yourself with a small grow than it is with other produce.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | April 5, 2010 2:08 PM
I recommend showing interviews with highly successful people who've used a lot of drugs - Bob Dylan, Keith Richards, Ozzie Osbourne...
Posted by: DaveL | April 5, 2010 2:17 PM
HistoryPunk: Yes, the DMZ works, for values of "works" that mean almost nobody gets to cross, ever. (A very occasional train crossing so people can see relatives they haven't been in the same room with in half a century is international news.) And it's something of a wildlife refuge.
Do you seriously think you're going to convince anyone to close the U.S.-Mexico border entirely? No foot crossings, no cars, no trucks, no shipping by land of any sort. You've just given up a good fraction of your winter and spring vegetable and fruit supply, along with more cheap clothing and other goods than you may realize.
Now, to enforce this, evacuate the land for a significant distance either side of the border.
Juarez is a mess right now, and that's bleeding over to El Paso--but if the people of El Paso thought just moving out was a viable response, they'd be going. You'd have to buy them out, and offer them somewhere to go. And at least part of San Diego and/or Tijuana. Don't assume that the entire shoot-on-sight zone will be in what is now Mexico: Mexico has little or nothing to gain from this plan, and I don't think the Mexican army wants the job "evacuate Juarez at gunpoint."
Posted by: Vicki | April 5, 2010 2:18 PM
Not a fair comparison because you fail to factor in the fact that the car gets you away from your parents and the things they like.
Posted by: History Punk | April 5, 2010 2:49 PM
"Do you seriously think you're going to convince anyone to close the U.S.-Mexico border entirely? No foot crossings, no cars, no trucks, no shipping by land of any sort. You've just given up a good fraction of your winter and spring vegetable and fruit supply, along with more cheap clothing and other goods than you may realize."
Nope. Nor did I argue for it. However, I am for an Israeli like system where the military watches the nation's borders. I favor it because it is effective (see Israel) and I suspect border patrol duty for the nation's military will damper foreign adventurism.
Posted by: History Punk | April 5, 2010 2:52 PM
Who would touch crappy Mexican swag when B.C. Bud and US grown are so much better?
Posted by: Seamus Ruah | April 5, 2010 3:17 PM
If pot is legalized, we will not have Mexican drug gangs with fertilizers, pesticides and automatic weapons in Sequoia National Park.
Posted by: Cynical | April 5, 2010 3:53 PM
Bah. That's trivial. For the real, persistent, goes back to before WWII answer to the popularity of cars with teens, I have two words for you:
Back seat.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 5, 2010 4:29 PM
D.C., that brings to mind another good idea. We should try to curb teen promiscuity by telling them how much we enjoy sex. I can see the ad campaign now, "Your parents love doing it." Put it on posters of with head shots of average people in their 40's making orgasm faces. That should keep the kids celibate... well forever probably.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 5, 2010 4:40 PM
Gingerbaker -
Where can I get what you've been smoking? Are you seriously trying to claim that more people grow their own fresh cooking herbs, than people buy dried (or fresh from the store) herbs? Seriously?
No, that wasn't my point. My point was that the dried herb market is tiny compared to the illegal pot market.
Then why is the cooking herbs market so fucking huge?
It's not.
And pot is an extremely hardy and prolific plant, which also happens to be quite esthetically handsome. People will grow this stuff at home quite readily, especially if they have to pay exorbitant prices from Reynolds tobacco.
To put it bluntly, bullshit! Tomatoes are a hardy plant, yet people buy tomatoes rather than grow them. Broccoli is a hardy plant, yet people buy, rather than grow it. Lettuce, cabbages, peppers - there are a shit-ton of plants that are really easy to grow, yet there people go buying them instead. What the fuck exactly gives you the impression that people will grow pot, instead of buying it like everything else?
Because you can grow an entire year's worth of pot on one plant that looks good in your living room. Anybody- even in a studio apartment in Manhattan. And you can't do that with vegetables.
Pot is at least, if not more expensive now, than it will be when it is legal. If your assertion were correct, a hella lot more people would grow their own for personal consumption. Doing so would save them that money and lower their risk of getting busted, because they don't have to leave home to procure it.
Now you're talking smack. There used to be a ton of people who grew their own - even when homegrown pot was crap. But now everybody knows someone who got caught, so the only people who grow it now are ridiculously careful and they charge a ton of money for it.
Will there be a commercial prepackaged market - of course. But it will be tiny compared to the current bucks being raked in since pot is illegal - which was my previous point. The economics of this would be tricky for corporations, and we all know that government would not be able to resist taxing the bejeesus out of it. Which will only encourage more people to raise their own.
Tricky how exactly? Mass production drives the baseline price down to shit. Add a one hundred percent tax to the price and they could still sell it for a decent profit and for no more - probably less than it costs now. You are nothing short of fucking delusional if you think lazy U.S. Americans are about to start growing their own because it is legal.
Good luck with your new business venture then, marketing pot for shit prices when anyone can grow a years supply for the price of a bag of potting soil. Don't forget that it is going to be regulated once it is legal. You are going to have to provide a consistent product of proven strength and purity, and it will have to be distributed in such a way as to ensure taxibility, which probably means your buyers will be limited in number and they will be flooded with product. So much for profit levels. Who's delusional again?
Besides - the idea that this may actually happen in the US during our lifetimes? What was this guy smoking?
There are states - California at the fore - who are talking in relatively serious terms about legalization. There are conservative groups that support this, having figured out that right now we are providing health care, room/board and huge extraneous security costs to house people who are only in prison because drugs are illegal. More and more people are getting extremely angry about the money we waste at every level of government, fighting an absolute failure of a drug war.
Tell me something that hasn't been true for the past thirty years, and you might change my mind on the topic.
I would argue that not only will we see cannabis legalized in the U.S. in our lifetimes, we will see many other drugs legalized as well.
Well, we have a young hip black man for a President, a guy who ran with a slogan of "Change", and guess what - no frackin' way he is going to even bring it up. Pretty soon we baby boomers - the demographic who actually uses this stuff - will become marginalized out of political power. So, don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 5, 2010 5:16 PM
Many of you seem to think that all the pot smokers in the country are just like you - mostly privileged to some degree or another and inclined to maybe grow some with some friends. I hate to break it to you, but you are a fucking minority when it comes to pot smokers.
There are far more pot smokers out there who don't have the luxury of fucking around with that bullshit. They work long hours and dread the time it will take to break the shit up and get it into a pipe or rolled when they get home. It is all fine and good for those who have the time, energy and inclination to grow some or the money to buy it at the local farmer's market.
Like I said, you're a fucking minority. Not that there is anything against being a yuppie, but there are a lot more tokers out there who are not yuppies. Whether we are talking working poor, addict or lazy sodden bum - or for that matter, busy professional - there is a substantial market for mass produced weed. Urban legends about big business' disinterest notwithstanding.
Besides which, there are plenty of ways to process or just plain market the shit out of cannabis that are likely rather attractive to big business interests.
Vaporizing - Why the fuck would anyone waste time vaporizing huge piles of weed, when you can buy conveniently pre-sized and dose consistent discs of hash? Want to share with a friend, use a bigger disc. Just want a little buzz, break it at the score. Vaporizing plant matter sucks donkey balls, when compared to vaporizing good hash.
Ingestion - Cannabis butter, chocolates, brownies, bread, icecream - the possibilities are endless and as one with very extensive experience making - for example, all of the above - fuck that shit, go to the store and buy it already prepared.
Smoking out of a pipe - Nice jars of beautiful buds - select the strain you want, instead of growing several plants or sticking to one fucking strain. The shit is legal, who the hell wants to be so limited?
Smoking cigarettes - choose your strain, brand and possible flavorings.
Blunts - see above. Disgusting to me and probably many of you, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest this would be very popular.
Cigars - Cannabis leaf wraps, cannabinoid rich hash oil binder - badass motherfucking buds inside. This can be made at home if you have the press for the wraps, but it is a lot of work. And again, evidence would suggest that there would be a market for optional flavorings as well.
And just to reiterate the point...Why the fuck would people who can afford it, not want to take advantage of the literally hundreds of strains of cannabis? It isn't any different than alcohol and cigarettes. There are different options at every pricing level. You have your top shelf specialty buds - like some nice dank blueberry buds, a rich sativa that is absolutely perfect for a nice even burning joint or cannabis cigar. You have your midranges, like nice plump little indica buds - the perfect size to just pop into the bowl, without disturbing any of the crystals. Or your bottom end that is a little less carefully produced and contains the occasional seed if you buy it raw. -
And all that is just the actual bud you might buy - think of all the options for hash, food, hash oil extracts...There are too many options to list - options that make it very likely that there will be a huge market for Big Cannabis.
Seamus -
Crappy Mexican shwag is only crappy because it is compressed. Compressing it makes it oxidize badly and of course parts of compressed bales are compressed into very solid chunks of weed. There is a huge difference between smoking that Mexican "shwag" in Mexico, before it is compressed and smoking in the U.S.
If you live in a state that allows medical marijuana, or if you have some balls - raise some of seeds out of a bag of shwag.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 5, 2010 5:55 PM
Gingerbaker -
I am sorry I made the mistake of thinking you are rational. Obviously you live in a very special sort of world, where everyone has time and energy to grow their own herbs and apparently grow their own pot. In your little world, big businesses can't possibly figure out how to market fucking recreational drugs well enough to compete with a handful of DYIers. And in your little world, the economy is doing such a rip-roaring job that people aren't likely to put a little more momentum into the idea of clearing our prisons. Not to mention in your world, the president is apparently "hip."
Again, I would really love to get my hands on the shit you've been smoking.
I will admit that we are a long ways off from legalization, but it is unlikely we are nearly as far off as you think. While there may be a few less kids toking, than there were when you were young - there are also a lot less kids who could give a fuck about the legality of pot. Kids who are, many of them, rather aware that they are getting completely fucked. Kids who are, many of them, aware what sort of debt they/we are going to have to fucking deal with. And we are also aware that no matter how much we put into social security, it is unlikely we are going to get jack shit out of it, unless some serious changes are made.
With the economy, the debt and the fucking robbery of our social security, the fucking 'Boomers are leaving us, we are going to be looking for savings and tax revenue. While it may not happen in your lifetime, it is likely to happen in mine.
Oi, and that wasn't talking smack. I am sure that you had many friends who grew pot for personal consumption, until they were too afraid and unable to not talk about growing, so they quit. Many people don't have the fucking privilege to do that sort of shit. But those who do are taking virtually no risk, if no one knows they are doing it.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 5, 2010 6:12 PM
Gingerbaker "Pretty soon we baby boomers - the demographic who actually uses this stuff..."
And welders*1. And drywallers*2. And...the kids these days*3.
*1. I don't understand the connection, either.
*2. And if you've every drywall'd, you know why.
*3. With their rapping "music", hopping cars, misaligned baseball caps and baggy pants.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 5, 2010 6:12 PM
"There is a huge difference between smoking that Mexican "shwag" in Mexico, before it is compressed and smoking in the U.S.
If you live in a state that allows medical marijuana, or if you have some balls - raise some of seeds out of a bag of shwag."
Posted by: DuWayne | April 5, 2010 5:55 PM
Interesting, I had no idea it was that good...time to visit Mexico.
Posted by: Seamus Ruah | April 5, 2010 6:26 PM
Modus -
Welders are part of the blue collar demographic that makes decent money and runs into less drug testing issues.
You could add most of the unlicensed* building trades to that. With the caveat that unlike welders and a couple other trades, there is a really shitty workforce/work ratio in the building trades right now.
*As in no specific license needed for that particular trade - unlike plumbers, electricians and pipefitters...
Posted by: DuWayne | April 5, 2010 6:27 PM
DuWayne "Welders are part of the blue collar demographic that makes decent money and runs into less drug testing issues."
I say if you can run a good bead stoned, pot can't be that bad, and if you can weld aluminum (or any of the more exotic metals/alloys) stoned*, pot isn't an issue.
*A mediocre steel weld isn't a as strong or as pretty. A mediocre aluminum weld is a puddle on the floor.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 5, 2010 6:48 PM
"Obviously you live in a very special sort of world, where everyone has time and energy to grow their own herbs and apparently grow their own pot. "
1. Gardening is the number one most popular hobby in America. I know tons of ordinary people who grow tomatoes and perennial herbs. People LOVE to grow plants. Just look around you, or at the gigantic gardening departments in every kind of superstore.
2. Growing your own now means you have a lot more (a pound or more per plant) on hand at all times, so of course it's more risky than buying an ounce or less at a time.
3. Pot smokers and tobacco smokers are different populations with different sets of values. To some extent they are overlapping, but not as much as DM and others seem to think.
Posted by: Isabel | April 5, 2010 7:00 PM
Datum: today I brought a half-dozen seedling Armenian cucumbers to work and was mobbed -- they were gone in seconds. I've also unloaded flats of seedling okra, chiles, eggplant, and tomatoes.
The #1 non work-related conversational topic is gardening. It beats kids by a narrow margin, but whatever #3 is has been lapped so many times it's hard to tell.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 5, 2010 7:20 PM
I saw only one comment mention what to me has to be the reason MJ was, secretly and without involving Congress, moved into Schedule 1 of the drug classification scheme, thus making it illegal without exceptions: hemp. The drug market that ensued was an unintended consequence, though it was rapidly exploited for gain on both the illegal and legal sides of the equation. But it was hemp that was the motivation, and the big tree companies like those in the logging and cotton industries at the time. Hemp is cheap, renewable, versatile, and was competition for wood products like paper and cotton products. The psychoactive properties were a very minor component at the time, but were used to create the hysteria that allowed hemp to become outlawed along with it.
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | April 5, 2010 7:36 PM
I seem to be caught in the middle here ;) Look, growing your own pot is not as easy as some would like to make it. If you really are trying to get a large amount of bud per plant, it's not just in a pot in your living room. You have a special room with temp/humidity control, you have a large investment in proper nutrients and a real grow light, and you have to care for it not like a plant, but more like a pet. It's a fair amount of work and those who aren't already into plants, or those without the extra indoor space might prefer to just buy it. That said, while there may be a large business that's going to get into it, I think by far the markets will be largely local. As individual states legalize, their own markets will develop so they won't be crossing state lines. Eventually as it becomes more widely accepted you might find some common brands, but given how quickly pot degrades when stored and moved around, I think a lot of people will choose to buy locally so it's more fresh. Either way, it's a cash crop, and at least here in MI we have the right to farm on our lands, so I think those of you who think big business will take it over might consider that there'll be a lot of people who want to make a few extra thousand dollars on that basement room they weren't using anyway. Beats having renters, the plants are quiet and smell nice (unlike some renters).
Posted by: Rob Monkey | April 5, 2010 7:53 PM
"You have a special room with temp/humidity control,"
People can grow where they grow tomatoes - in the back yard or on the terrace. I know several medical users who do so, and they seem to enjoy it. Haven't heard any complaints.
"you have a large investment in proper nutrients"
???? How "large" are we talking here?
" and a real grow light"
the sun:)
", and you have to care for it not like a plant, but more like a pet."
What are you talking about? Please elaborate.
" It's a fair amount of work and those who aren't already into plants"
see #52 above. Do you think I made that up or something?
No one is saying there will be no market. Of course some people will buy it. Some will grow it. Some will grow and supplement by buying.
Posted by: Isabel | April 5, 2010 8:28 PM
The problem with these conspiracy theories is that are other big interests out there, who, if the ramblings about the miraculous properties of hemp were true, are more than able to combat "Big Tree," "Big Lumber," and "Big Cotton."
Posted by: History Punk | April 5, 2010 10:09 PM
History Punk, perhaps, but what about Really Big Tree?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 5, 2010 10:29 PM
I just got off the phone with a guy at Lowe's. I told him that I thought they should suggest to one of their suppliers that the world is now ready for the "Topsy Turvy THC" kit.
Posted by: democommie | April 5, 2010 11:08 PM
Well, for starters, here in MI you can't grow outside. It has to be within a closed locked facility. Understand that a lot of my comments are specific to the situation here in MI, where lights and such are entirely necessary. As for nutrients, it's on the order of a hundred or two per grow depending on whether you're doing hydroponics. If you want to produce all you need from a few plants, this is how it has to be done. How much trouble is it? Checking pH every day or two at least, trimming, cloning, feeding, etc., all add up to a 5-10 hours a week at least. Be aware though, I never said "nobody's going to grow." I'm just saying that much like gardening, it's not for everyone. Honestly, I don't think that if you're not into it at least partly as a hobby, you won't succeed.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | April 5, 2010 11:37 PM
Gardening is the number one most popular hobby in America. I know tons of ordinary people who grow tomatoes and perennial herbs. People LOVE to grow plants. Just look around you, or at the gigantic gardening departments in every kind of superstore.
And you know what totally outstrips the fucking garden centers? The fucking produce sections of grocery stores, not to mention the canned veggies. Ornamentals are by far the vast majority of plants grown by hobbyists and most of your hobbyists only have a few plants. There is absolutely no evidence in your statement that would indicate that a significant enough portion of the pot smoking population would grow their own, to offset big business interests in a legal cannabis industry.
Growing your own now means you have a lot more (a pound or more per plant) on hand at all times, so of course it's more risky than buying an ounce or less at a time.
It is a virtually risk free venture, if no one fucking knows you are growing it. I know this because I have fucking done it and know a lot of people who did it for years, before medical cannabis was legal in their local. There is a hell of a lot less risk of getting busted, if your entire cannabis supply starts at home, never leaves home and you don't tell anyfuckingone you are growing it. It is that simple.
Pot smokers and tobacco smokers are different populations with different sets of values. To some extent they are overlapping, but not as much as DM and others seem to think.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything that anyone on this thread is talking about Isabel?
No one is saying there will be no market. Of course some people will buy it. Some will grow it. Some will grow and supplement by buying.
No. What several people are saying, is that there will be enough people growing their own, that it will offset big business interests in a legal cannabis industry. This, in spite of a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
What makes cannabis more special than any other consumer product? Why would it be that the vast majority of people buy, rather than produce their own consumer products - but these same people would turn around and not do that same thing with fucking weed?
And I hate to say it, but the poor - the demographic with the highest rate of substance use and abuse, are not all that likely to grow their own. They will buy it - much the way that they do now, spending rather substantial percentages of their incomes on it - much the way they do now. They will buy the cheaper shit available, but buy it they most certainly will. If for no other reason, than lack of a place to grow it.
Something many of the folks making this argument are failing to take into account is regulations. It is very unlikely that it will be legal to grow it just anywhere. It will have to be kept out of sight and reach of minors - which means if you have kids, you have to grow it somewhere they cannot get at it. And even if you don't, you either have to grow it indoors, or in a securely fenced back yard.
Of course if you have kids and don't happen to have an extra bit of apartment to set aside for growing away from the kids.
Or you have people arguing for a farmer's market/small farmer paradigm. Never mind that big agriculture outstrips small farms in every sector of the market - including organic fucking farming. And if it goes on a state by state basis, it is going to be hard going for farmers until federal laws are changed.
The fucking DEA still raids cannabis dispensories and coops in CA. Does anyone honestly believe they would leave non-medical growing operations alone? But say they do. Say there are small farms in various states. When it becomes legal nationwide, do you honestly believe that large agricultural interests are not going to snatch up everything they can?
And finally - if weed is legal, you are going to have people wanting variety. They want it with everything else - why should weed be any different? Do you think people will really want to make their own hash? Their own cannabis food? Fuck no - they will want to buy that shit, like they buy everything else. Even people who do grow their own are likely to want shit they don't grow. The people I know who brew their own beer - including people who brew a whole hell of a lot of it - still buy beer.
This is all more of the "cannabis is fucking magical" trope. Cannabis is not fucking magical. It doesn't cure cancer. It causes some harm - the level of harm depending on the person and their pattern of use. And no, it is exceedingly unlikely to magically diverge from U.S. American consumption patterns.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 5, 2010 11:53 PM
Pot is not comparable to fresh produce. It is very easily processed and stored for very long periods. And a few ounces can last the average user a year or more.
The difference with pot smokers that I was alluding to, DuWaynne, is they tend to be more health conscious (I know-I said there is overlap-calm down) and would not trust big tobacco to provide a pure product which they will be inhaling. Undoubtedly an underground, informal market will continue to exist, at least in CA if it's too highly taxed and controlled by big tobacco.
Many people collect the crystals when they clean the pot at harvest and use it like hash. Not hard. It's sold as kief (I don't know how to spell it).
My hope is that all this variety bullshit is a trend, I am not happy that they are messing with the plant's chemistry. Medical pot people are concerned about this. It's mostly made-up pretentious crap anyway- "I've got 'Purple Haze' which gives you a mellow buzz, 'Mango' which is more high energy blah blah" I can hardly tell the difference anyway.
When people brew at home or make wine do they need a separate locked facility? What a ridiculous requirement.
Posted by: Isabel | April 6, 2010 12:27 AM
Difficult to grow?
I just germinated the seeds, planted them in ordinary dirt and stuck it out on the deck. It grew like a weed. Didn't even have to water it much. With minimal care the crop lasted for about five years (several generations). What's the beef? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | April 6, 2010 12:40 AM
RE: #63 - ...or that's what a friend of a friend told me... ;) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | April 6, 2010 12:55 AM
The difference with pot smokers that I was alluding to, DuWaynne, is they tend to be more health conscious (I know-I said there is overlap-calm down) and would not trust big tobacco to provide a pure product which they will be inhaling.
Bullshit. Pure and unadulterated bullshit. There is absolutely zero evidence to support that assertion.
Many people collect the crystals when they clean the pot at harvest and use it like hash. Not hard. It's sold as kief (I don't know how to spell it).
That is not how one gets really good hash.
My hope is that all this variety bullshit is a trend, I am not happy that they are messing with the plant's chemistry.
They aren't messing with chemistry, they are doing the same thing that a lot of gardeners do. They are developing hybrids.
Medical pot people are concerned about this.
Except for those who actively engage in developing new strains. And those who happen to like different strains.
It's mostly made-up pretentious crap anyway- "I've got 'Purple Haze' which gives you a mellow buzz, 'Mango' which is more high energy blah blah" I can hardly tell the difference anyway.
What you can tell is fucking irrelevant. There are all sorts of people who can't tell the difference between Maxwell House, Starbucks and fresh home roasted coffee. That doesn't mean the differences don't exist and aren't rather significant to others. And like different coffees, the difference is most significant in the taste, with mostly minor differences in effect.
The caveat to that being there are sometimes rather significant differences in the length of and intensity of the buzz. Cannabis contains many more cannabinoids than THC and the combination of various cannabinoids can significantly affect the buzz.
The bottom line though, is that regardless of how you or some medical cannabis people you know feel about it, there are a lot of people who like variety. This doesn't mean that you can't grow whatever you like. This has no effect on your weed. If you don't like it, don't make hybrids and don't use hybrid strains. Grow your basic sativa or indica - that is entirely up to your preference.
When people brew at home or make wine do they need a separate locked facility? What a ridiculous requirement.
Honestly? I think it is rather unfortunate that there is a need to keep plants away from minors. I expect that in a great many cases it really wouldn't matter. I also think that the reasoning behind keeping plants locked away from minors should apply to alcohol, because kids are far more likely to get into mom and dad's booze, than they are to get into their weed.
As a general rule, I think our culture in the U.S. has a rather fucked up attitude about kids and drugs. The way we deal with this is directly responsible for the rather serious problems we have with substance abuse among minors - something that directly correlates to serious substance abuse issues in adulthood. But that is all irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In every state that has legalized medical cannabis, the rules governing growing are the same. I see no reason this would change upon across the board legalization.
DJ -
Your friend is correct, it is really easy to grow weed. Unless of course you want seedless, in which case you have to either hold onto them long enough to sex your plants, or you need to clone. And if you want to grow for specific yields and potency, you need to strictly control the environment and trim regularly.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 6, 2010 8:16 AM
Duwayne (bowing to the superior knowledge of your 'friends', natch) - couldn't one clone by cutting (my 'friend' wants to know) ;) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | April 6, 2010 9:27 AM
***A few things in this post that need clarification. I apologize that I don't know how to do the italicized thing...
Pot is not comparable to fresh produce. It is very easily processed and stored for very long periods.
***Yes and no. I have a 'friend' too. Processing is most definitely a labor-intensive effort. Especially if you're growing any type of weight. There's trimming the unused leaf from the buds...hours worth of work per plant, hanging the buds to dry, which takes space and produces A LOT of odor, there's jaring the buds to cure. Then there's opening the jars and turning the buds and rejaring. That takes a month or so. One plant...sure not a big deal, but for a person growing for himself and friends, it's not as *easy* as one might suspect. Also, the one-plant grow is just not reality. First, if you start with one plant, it may turn out to be a male and thus produce no worthwhile smoke-able bud. Second, without proper care, a female seed thrown into a pot will produce buds of limited quality. While it may be easy to grow weed, it's difficult to grow high-grade cannabis. You don't just toss a bag seed in your garden and out pops AK47. Genetics and proper care are the difference between good and bad marijuana. Additionally, this is a reason that most *smokers* avoid pot from Mexico. The product is generally mass-produced from seed. While this does have some advantages, it also greatly increases the risks of producing a hermaphrodite (male and female plant) that bears seeds and thus, less THC. Furthermore, insufficient and inferior fertilizers are used. A top grower will exercise quality and care that is simply not there in large Mexican grow ops. That weed is for the kids and economically challenged.
And a few ounces can last the average user a year or more.
***Well, this is a pretty low estimate in my opinion, and the logic doesn't make sense. Would a micro-brewer take the time to make a quality beer that he or she drinks once a month? If you're taking the time to grow, then you're probably more than a "casual user," and would require more than a few ounces year. Especially if you're kind enough to share. :)
The difference with pot smokers that I was alluding to, DuWaynne, is they tend to be more health conscious (I know-I said there is overlap-calm down) and would not trust big tobacco to provide a pure product which they will be inhaling. Undoubtedly an underground, informal market will continue to exist, at least in CA if it's too highly taxed and controlled by big tobacco.
***I agree with this. Microbrews vs Budweiser. Also, many growers are quite conscious of organic vs non-organic product. Ultimately, if legalized, I think there will be talented growers who "go legitimate" and attract a clientele. Furthermore, there are international companies that exist now, ship to the US, and would be happy to expand their presence in the US market. But of course, there will always be an underground market.
Many people collect the crystals when they clean the pot at harvest and use it like hash. Not hard. It's sold as kief (I don't know how to spell it).
***Just to clarify, you make bubble-hash at harvest from the sugar leaves, trimmings, and small buds. This is a process that involves, ice, water, and sieving. Generally the buds are too wet at harvest to collect keif. This process happens as the bud dries, as you handle it, and as you break it up for smoking. When you collect the keif, you can press it together to oxidize it, and then it IS hash.
My hope is that all this variety bullshit is a trend, I am not happy that they are messing with the plant's chemistry. Medical pot people are concerned about this. It's mostly made-up pretentious crap anyway- "I've got 'Purple Haze' which gives you a mellow buzz, 'Mango' which is more high energy blah blah" I can hardly tell the difference anyway.
***This is a bit of a generalization, and if true, I feel sorry for your inability to distinguish strains...you're missing a real nice part of the experience. Re: medical people being concerned, I have seen no evidence of this and would ask you to provide some. The medical marijuana industry is directly responsible for much of the cross-breeding and refinement of the product over the last 10 years. It's the reason why there are different types of high (sativa v indica, different potency levels, different textures and smells and tastes. I honestly am not sure why you would view that as a negative.
When people brew at home or make wine do they need a separate locked facility? What a ridiculous requirement.
***As a requirement, yes. As a practice for a good grower, it's not ridiculous at all.
Posted by: Isabel | April 6, 2010 12:27 AM
Posted by: Terry | April 6, 2010 10:33 AM
Jeezuz fuck people how lazy can you get?? Sexing your plants is hard?
I understand the process. Many of my friends are growers! They ALL enjoy it.
And DuWaynne, you are an ignorant, pompous ass. Go fuck yourself, you fucking moron.
We are not talking about Maxwell House. But once you have a good product, all the little subtleties are often imaginary. And some of the fragrances are downright offensive.
Blind tastings always show up the pretentious wine industry.
Terry, one medical grower was mentioning to me that there is some concern that some cannaboids are being bred out of some strains, that may have important activities. He predicts a trend of breeding them back in. I will ask him about it.
And yes I know all about the sativa vs indica thing. In excruitiating detail. I think it is a marketing tool as much as anything.
Posted by: Isabel | April 6, 2010 12:02 PM
Are... are people actually getting angry in a convo about what a hypothetical legal pot market in the US would look like? Especially since the pattern of legalization is, itself, hypothetical? (A top-down nationwide legalization would likely yield a more corporate interstate commerce model, while a state-by-state legalization pattern would be more likely to produce a local-market phenomenon.)
Can't we all just agree that the Drug War is stupid, stupid, stupid and focus energy on that, and let economics determine the rest?
Posted by: Freemage | April 6, 2010 12:04 PM
Freemage "Can't we all just agree that the Drug War is stupid, stupid, stupid and focus energy on that, and let economics determine the rest?"
This page amuses me. Too much arguing about being for drugs. Not enough knocking down doors and shooting.
Liberals can't even do the Drug War properly.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 6, 2010 1:16 PM
"if marijuana were completely legalized, would people prefer to buy the mostly-unprocessed buds (after drying, of course)"
are you INSANE!!!! why would you want to dry out your buds?! pick em sticky and vacum pack em.
green, smelly and sticky-sweet.. those are the buds .. "my friend" remembers...
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | April 6, 2010 1:44 PM
Excellent response Izzy, I am unbelievably impressed by your wit and all the evidence to support your moronic fucking bullshit.
Jeezuz fuck people how lazy can you get?? Sexing your plants is hard?
First of all Peaches, no one said a fucking thing about the difficulty level of sexing plants. The basic issue would be that you can't sex fucking seedlings. I was responding to something that not only had nothing to do with you, but apparently you didn't bother to read. Second, sexing plants is easy enough if you happen to know how. While it is possible to learn from a book, it is much easier when someone who knows what they are doing shows you.
And DuWaynne, you are an ignorant, pompous ass. Go fuck yourself, you fucking moron.
Now, now Dizzy, someone might think you don't like me.
And when it comes to the topic at hand, I know that I know a hell of a lot more than you do. I have grown pot for personal use and I have been involved in a medical coop in Portland that grew significantly more than personal. I have made various extracts, hash, foods, cigars - all sorts of fun shit. I also designed the thermostat for a vaporizer that would hold the temp steady to within a hundredth of a degree.
I have also studied demographic statistic reports for cannabis and several other drugs, as well as studies on comparative harms. And I have studied the neurochemical effects of THC and several other cannabinoids - how they interact with receptors and, incidentally, why different strains produce different effects.
We are not talking about Maxwell House. But once you have a good product, all the little subtleties are often imaginary. And some of the fragrances are downright offensive
Again, this is your opinion. You are making a completely subjective statement and treating it like a fucking fact. There are a lot of people who really like to play with strains - messing about with various characteristics, including flavor. That you don't happen note the subtlety or care is your business. No one is forcing you to grow or smoke anything you don't like.
And yes I know all about the sativa vs indica thing. In excruitiating detail. I think it is a marketing tool as much as anything.
You call the difference "marketing" and have the fucking gall to accuse me of ignorance? Seriously? Jesus christ Dizzy, are you really that fucking stupid?
The difference between a straight sativa and a straight indica is rather significant - thus why many growers like to hybrid them for desired physical characteristics. Personally, as I was rather fond of joint rolling, I went for a nice dense sativa. I like the calyxes to be long, slender and dense - just a touch on the heavy side. Get the right balance and you will never roll a joint that runs or won't smoke due to heavy trichomes.
Sativa has relatively thin and long calyx, while indica has very thick, short and dense calyx. This isn't a marketing difference jackass, this is a rather significant physical difference.
Blind tastings always show up the pretentious wine industry.
I'm not talking about blind tastings, though I imagine there are pot smokers out there are pretentious enough to do that with weed. I am talking about a variety of different characteristics that can be manipulated, to cater to various tastes - or just to provide some variety. A lot of people like the variety you are disparaging.
Terry, one medical grower was mentioning to me that there is some concern that some cannaboids are being bred out of some strains, that may have important activities.
So one medical grower mentioned concerns about specific strains and you take that to mean medical growers are concerned about all this hybridization? Jesus Dizzy, you provide some interesting interpretations.
There are always unexpected consequences with growing, especially when one is looking to develop specific cannabinoid characteristics. Different cannabinoids have a variety of effects on the receptors in your brain. For example, higher levels of cannabigerol is assumed to block receptors, slightly dulling but also extending the duration of the buzz. Cannabinol and tetrahydrocannabivarin are both contributors to that really intense sort of high that one feels behind their eyes and causes intense bloodshot.
The cannabinoid your friend was talking about is probably cannabidiol. Abel Pharmboy or Drugmonkey wrote about it, when the discussion of pharma alternatives came up an the problems with pure THC in suspension were discussed. Cannabidiol is non-psychoactive, but there is some evidence to support the assertion that this is the major anti-nausea component, as well as very likely moderating the psychological impact of using cannabis (i.e. paranoia and the exceedingly rare drug induced aggression (there are many folks who call it drug induced psychosis - which is complete and utter non-sense)).
The bottom line is that there is very little known about the interactions of various cannabinoids and so mucking around with hybrids can lead to unintended consequences. Nothing particularly problematic about it. And for someone who claims gardening is fun, you should be all about it. Growers who develop strains fucking love it. Not my thing at all - plants not being my thing, but there are a lot of folks who think it's wonderful fun and who also tend to take a great deal of pride in their own strains.
What was my thing when I smoked, was having variety. Most pot smokers I know are big on variety. Are the tokers I have known all that representative - no, not any more representative than your own interactions. But there are certainly a lot of people who like their variety. Considering that there are large numbers of people who will actually fly to Amsterdam just to judge different strains, while all their toker friends are stuck at home with their jealousy, I would tend to assume that there is a significant percentage of tokers who are going to want more than one or two strains to smoke for the rest of their lives.
Freemage -
Can't we all just agree that the Drug War is stupid, stupid, stupid and focus energy on that, and let economics determine the rest?
I can focus on many things at once and I like to argue marketing and demographics. Though at this point I am mainly in it because Dizzie is such a lovely soul to interact with...
Posted by: DuWayne | April 6, 2010 3:59 PM
The sexing comment wasn't even directed at you, asshole.
yes you are an expert at everything! even the size of gardening departments, their relative contents, vs the produce departments, and exactly how many plants and of what type people grow. And you don't even like gardening! Wow that's impressive! So now I know that most people who are into gardening only have a few plants, and that those are only ornamentals!
Don't blame your hostility in this thread on me. It has all been you, and it started with you. You are just an arrogant prick who doesn't know how to have a conversation.
Posted by: Isabel | April 6, 2010 5:13 PM
Dizzy -
I am perfectly capable of having reasonably rational people. You are stuck in this special little world where everyone else is just like you and lives just like you do.
And I would be the person who talked about sexing plants Izzy, it is not very surprising that I would think you were talking about my mention.
As for the "remarkable" knowledge of so many things - I read. I read a lot. And I talk to people. But one needn't even depend on reading for consumer trends - just take a wander through garden centers and look at what they sell and how much. Take a wander through your local grocer. For more consumer trends, all you need to do is take a wander through your local Wal-Mart.
And I am sorry that you have the impression that I am blaming anything but my continuing with this on you. And the blame really does rest with you. I don't like you. I don't like your ignorant fucking assumptions (similar to the assumptions others have made on this thread) that the bit of the world that you see, is particularly representative of society at large. That nearly everybody is, for example, a gardening enthusiast with the space to garden and the time/energy to manage it.
Most importantly, I find your claims to being a scientist rather repulsive, given your flat refusal to actually engage with science that doesn't support your world view. And I find your racist fucking tropes are beyond the fucking pale. Frankly, I am beyond sympathy for your neurological issues. You are disgusting, ignorant and willfully both.
As such, I will continue to fuck with you and I will not let your ignorant fucking bullshit stand, when I run across it.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 6, 2010 8:03 PM
@ Isabell - could you provide a reference for the "breeding out" of certain cannabinoids? I'd like to read about it if you're friend has that info.
On the other points, I suppose its each to his or her own. I find, however, that you make a lot of claims that just aren't true in my experience.
Take care.
Posted by: Terry | April 6, 2010 8:35 PM
Terry,
I am me and you are you. And we are all together. I am just stating my opinion. It seems rather bizarre that we need to find the perfect right answer for something that hasn't even happened yet. As far as doubts about my claim that gardening is the #1 hobby in America, I don't have a reference on hand, but that is true, at least I have read it and did not make it up. Most household's have pets as well, if that's what you are comparing growing to:)
All I am saying is I don't believe it will be so easy for big tobacco or other mega-companies to take over the cannabis market, and that at least in CA I could see small growers and home growers prevailing, or substantially contributing.
And that I would happily grow my own (I have before and I enjoy gardening) and do not need it to be super-optimally grown. ESPECIALLY if prices don't drop pretty dramatically.
Psycho DuWaynne, see #28, #46, #47 all before I came on the scene. Now go take your meds, you are babbling incoherently.Racist???
Posted by: Isabel | April 6, 2010 9:41 PM