Hippy loser dirt bags rejoice

[Joe Miner]

 

And what would those things be?

 

Honestly, I think that stupid laws and policy changes have driven higher incarcerations percentages more than anything else. IMO, the only people that really need incarceration are the violent offenders and only a small number of nonviolent offenders.

 

I would suggest that the interracial population of the US is a large driving force for many stupid laws that we have.

 

Again, I dislike many of the laws in this country. I just think that making a blanket comparison between the US and many more homogeneously populated countries with a simple crime statistic isn't as telling as it suggests.

 

I'm not arguing anything other than that. And I'm definitely not saying anything NewBills is reading into my posts.

 

I actually agree with the premise that our prison population is way too high. I just didn't like the use of that 1 statistic to show it.

[dayman]

I would suggest that the interracial population of the US is a large driving force for many stupid laws that we have.

 

Again, I dislike many of the laws in this country. I just think that making a blanket comparison between the US and many more homogeneously populated countries with a simple crime statistic isn't as telling as it suggests.

 

I'm not arguing anything other than that. And I'm definitely not saying anything NewBills is reading into my posts.

 

I actually agree with the premise that our prison population is way too high. I just didn't like the use of that 1 statistic to show it.

 

LOL I'm not trying to read anything into your posts maliciously it's not clear what you are saying. And I'm not suggesting we don't have unique issues like every country. But we can look to ourselves as well as the article does. It's comparing America to...America...

 

Drug convictions went from 15 inmates per 100,000 adults in 1980 to 148 in 1996, an almost tenfold increase. More than half of America's federal inmates today are in prison on drug convictions. In 2009 alone, 1.66 million Americans were arrested on drug charges, more than were arrested on assault or larceny charges. And 4 of 5 of those arrests were simply for possession.

Edited June 6, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Joe Miner]

LOL I'm not trying to read anything into your posts maliciously it's not clear what you are saying. And I'm not suggesting we don't have unique issues like every country. But we can look to ourselves as well as the article does. It's comparing America to...America...

 

Drug convictions went from 15 inmates per 100,000 adults in 1980 to 148 in 1996, an almost tenfold increase. More than half of America's federal inmates today are in prison on drug convictions. In 2009 alone, 1.66 million Americans were arrested on drug charges, more than were arrested on assault or larceny charges. And 4 of 5 of those arrests were simply for possession.

 

Lol.

 

You're still trying to argue with me, when I pretty much agree.

 

Learn to read.

 

I only had an issue with one part of the article. No issue with whatever point you've been trying to make.

 

Do you want to continue to try to make a point or argue with me about not caring for how 1 statistic is used in an article?

[GG]

Do you think there is anyone making money off illegal cigarettes or booze? Why would that be different with pot?

 

This is a very good analogy. The mob had very little action in the cigarette racket until NY decided it would be a grand idea to tax a pack to over $10. Talk about a windfall for the racketeers.

[ieatcrayonz]

This is a very good analogy. The mob had very little action in the cigarette racket until NY decided it would be a grand idea to tax a pack to over $10. Talk about a windfall for the racketeers.

You are so right because I'm sure states would never think of taxing the crap out of legal pot. :wallbash:

[ieatcrayonz]

How much money does Jack Daniels make....compared to moonshiners?

 

Why would Pfizer cocaine be any different? Do you really think the jackass on the corner, or the series of jackasses leading up to him, can compete with our pharma companies on quality or price? Please. Never mind the fact that you can sue the hell out of them, if they don't deliver the goods? Who should we see if they guy on the corner cuts his stuff with draino?

 

Yeah, there goes that emotional argument disguised to look factual.

 

The fact that mommy, daddy?, whoever, is an idiot, has nothing to do with whether drugs are legal or not.

 

Case in point: people that can't get a hold of Jack Daniels, find a way to get a hold of sterno. Now, should we make sterno illegal, because some clown drinks that? Why not? Clearly drinking sterno is just as bad for you as any poorly cut/made drugs. The fact that somebody would even consider drinking sterno, shows that Jack Daniels, or moonshine is not the problem. The problem is the person.

Let me see if I understand your non-emotional argument here:

 

The average coked up loser pot head has a brand preference. Oh wait, then you said they don't. But it should be good because in today's environment these poor pot heads have nobody to sue if they get bad weed?

 

The only emotional part of this whole thing is the validation hippy loser dirt bags are seeking for what even they, in their rotted inner core, know is wrong. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of loser boozers either and they have had this validation for years. What percentage of people who have at least one drink per year are alkies? How about pot head losers? What percentage of those plan out their hole daily agenda based on their next toke? Crack heads? Coke heads? Those percentages are the non-emotional part of this whole thing.

[GG]

You are so right because I'm sure states would never think of taxing the crap out of legal pot. :wallbash:

 

Time to brush up on the Crayola MBA course on supply/demand economics.

 

The current price of pot, or any illegal drug, carries a significant price premium over its marginal cost of production due to control of the retail supply chain and the risk of distribution. By legalizing it you remove that premium, so even if you tax the crap out of it, it will be nowhere near the current street price.

 

But hey, it's much more productive to argue that 100-year old drug laws were passed based on a rational examination of the facts at that time, versus cherry picking favored drugs of polite society vs the demons of blacks & immigrants.

[ieatcrayonz]

Time to brush up on the Crayola MBA course on supply/demand economics.

 

The current price of pot, or any illegal drug, carries a significant price premium over its marginal cost of production due to control of the retail supply chain and the risk of distribution. By legalizing it you remove that premium, so even if you tax the crap out of it, it will be nowhere near the current street price.

 

But hey, it's much more productive to argue that 100-year old drug laws were passed based on a rational examination of the facts at that time, versus cherry picking favored drugs of polite society vs the demons of blacks & immigrants.

How much is the the cost of producing and distributing a pack of cigarettes? How much does a pack of cigarettes cost to buy?

 

I have read that some Native Americans now have their own cigarette brands to skirt the tax laws. They constructed manufacturing facilities, brought in the raw materials, manufactured the product, fought sovereignty issues in courts and relied on their customer base to drive to their reservation land with $4 gas for the sole purpose of buying cigarettes with a non name brand. And they are flourishing. People do this because the huge component of the of the cost of a pack at the corner store is tax. And the government wouldn't repeat the process with pot because.......?

[GG]

How much is the the cost of producing and distributing a pack of cigarettes? How much does a pack of cigarettes cost to buy?

 

I have read that some Native Americans now have their own cigarette brands to skirt the tax laws. They constructed manufacturing facilities, brought in the raw materials, manufactured the product, fought sovereignty issues in courts and relied on their customer base to drive to their reservation land with $4 gas for the sole purpose of buying cigarettes with a non name brand. And they are flourishing. People do this because the huge component of the of the cost of a pack at the corner store is tax. And the government wouldn't repeat the process with pot because.......?

 

Since we're failing Crayola Economics 101, let's move to Crayola Retailing 101.

 

The price differential between production/distribution costs and retail price of illegal drugs has a far greater profit margin built in than what the likely taxation on drugs will be. I imagine that taxes on drugs will be high, but not high enough to entice the gangs to stay in the business. Removing the high profit incentive in the drug supply chain will also address a festering crime problem south of the border that will have serious reverberations to the US unless fixed. So far, the 40-year War on Drugs has accomplished the exact opposite of what it set out to do and the costs (dollar & human) keep multiplying. But, yes, let's focus the discussion on a few thousand tie dyed hippy dead heads in a Woodstock drum circle.

[DC Tom]

Since we're failing Crayola Economics 101, let's move to Crayola Retailing 101.

 

The price differential between production/distribution costs and retail price of illegal drugs has a far greater profit margin built in than what the likely taxation on drugs will be. I imagine that taxes on drugs will be high, but not high enough to entice the gangs to stay in the business. Removing the high profit incentive in the drug supply chain will also address a festering crime problem south of the border that will have serious reverberations to the US unless fixed. So far, the 40-year War on Drugs has accomplished the exact opposite of what it set out to do and the costs (dollar & human) keep multiplying. But, yes, let's focus the discussion on a few thousand tie dyed hippy dead heads in a Woodstock drum circle.

 

Can we get MDP in on this discussion?

[GG]

Can we get MDP in on this discussion?

 

No thank you.

[ieatcrayonz]

Since we're failing Crayola Economics 101, let's move to Crayola Retailing 101.

 

The price differential between production/distribution costs and retail price of illegal drugs has a far greater profit margin built in than what the likely taxation on drugs will be.

So you're saying that government will decide out of the goodness of its own heart to not create a tax in the amount representing street price minus costs minus a decent margin to competitive manufacturers? Stated another way, you think the government will knowingly leave easily attained tax revenue on the table. Good one.

[GG]

So you're saying that government will decide out of the goodness of its own heart to not create a tax in the amount representing street price minus costs minus a decent margin to competitive manufacturers? Stated another way, you think the government will knowingly leave easily attained tax revenue on the table. Good one.

 

No, a government will enact a tax along the lines of the tax it now imposes on alcohol & tobacco, or other vice consumables. And that after-tax price will still be far lower than the current street price of illegal drugs. Why doesn't the government slap a $10 tax on each beer, because it can? Setting a very high tax level on cigarettes is not having the intended impact, because the tax does not curb demand and allows black market operators back in the game. The market always settles on a clearing price in a commodity. In a regulated market where the government has greater sway in retail pricing, the price setting mechanism should also take into account elasticity of demand which will also give you a hint of the potential for black market operators' ability to undercut the "official" price.

[ieatcrayonz]

No, a government will enact a tax along the lines of the tax it now imposes on alcohol & tobacco, or other vice consumables. And that after-tax price will still be far lower than the current street price of illegal drugs. Why doesn't the government slap a $10 tax on each beer, because it can? Setting a very high tax level on cigarettes is not having the intended impact, because the tax does not curb demand and allows black market operators back in the game. The market always settles on a clearing price in a commodity. In a regulated market where the government has greater sway in retail pricing, the price setting mechanism should also take into account elasticity of demand which will also give you a hint of the potential for black market operators' ability to undercut the "official" price.

 

So you have cited one example in cigarettes where the government has imposed a tax high enough to create a black market. You cite another where the tax is not high enough to create a black market, or at least not one of any size. I agree that the taxes in both cases have done/not done what you said. Why again is it that they will go the booze route and not the cig route with pot taxes? Because today's street price is so "high"? My guess is that they would figure out today's cost of goods sold per joint, let's call it $.50 and the street price of a joint, let's call it $3. My guess is that the tax would be a whole lot closer to $2.50 than it would be to $0.25. Why do I think this? Because cigarettes have developed a stigmata over the years and their manufacturers have been shaken down by the government. Pot already has a stigmata as it is illegal. I think government would use this stigmata to its advantage and tax away. In addition, the "manufacturing costs and barriers to entry for pot are VERY low compared to either booze or cigs. Sure you can make your own beer and could conceivably grow your own tobacco in some climates but growing pot is pretty darn easy. When pot is legal I would think it would be even easier as there may be diminished pressure on growers to hide. In the case of cigs the government has failed to recognize the low elasticity and has helped create a black market. In the case of booze it has recognized the low elasticity. If you'd like to make a case as to why the tax will look more like the booze tax I'd be glad to hear it.

 

 

Clearly cigs do not have a high elasticity of demand due in large part to few suitable substitutes. Booze can be argued as to its elasticity IMO but I would say booze as a whole has a low elasticity but a high elasticity within its own category. If you taxed the crap out of beer a lot more people might drink wine but if you tax the crap out of all booze then it starts to look more like cigs.

 

My case

 

Elasticity - Pot - low; cigs - low; Booze - low as a whole, moderate within its own category

 

Barriers to entry - Cigs - high; Pot low; Booze - moderate for making your own, high if you want to distribute. This component means that the street price of pot has the potential to get lower than it is today. The stigmata of being illegal is to some degree raising the street price. It costs more to hide your manufacturing and distribution than it does to have it in the open. It helps keep costs down when your customers roll their own or just shove it in a bong shaped like a really cool skull or something that makes them seem hip. This is the crux of my argument. Government will use the built in stigmata pot already carries as an excuse to tax it more like cigarettes than like booze.

 

This part has nothing to do with pricing but do you dudes want all the crap that goes with smoking dope to be legal too?

Edited June 6, 2012 by ieatcrayonz

[Taro T]

So you have cited one example in cigarettes where the government has imposed a tax high enough to create a black market. You cite another where the tax is not high enough to create a black market, or at least not one of any size. I agree that the taxes in both cases have done/not done what you said. Why again is it that they will go the booze route and not the cig route with pot taxes? Because today's street price is so "high"? My guess is that they would figure out today's cost of goods sold per joint, let's call it $.50 and the street price of a joint, let's call it $3. My guess is that the tax would be a whole lot closer to $2.50 than it would be to $0.25. Why do I think this? Because cigarettes have developed a stigmata over the years and their manufacturers have been shaken down by the government. Pot already has a stigmata as it is illegal. I think government would use this stigmata to its advantage and tax away. In addition, the "manufacturing costs and barriers to entry for pot are VERY low compared to either booze or cigs. Sure you can make your own beer and could conceivably grow your own tobacco in some climates but growing pot is pretty darn easy. When pot is legal I would think it would be even easier as there may be diminished pressure on growers to hide. In the case of cigs the government has failed to recognize the low elasticity and has helped create a black market. In the case of booze it has recognized the low elasticity. If you'd like to make a case as to why the tax will look more like the booze tax I'd be glad to hear it.

 

 

Clearly cigs do not have a high elasticity of demand due in large part to few suitable substitutes. Booze can be argued as to its elasticity IMO but I would say booze as a whole has a low elasticity but a high elasticity within its own category. If you taxed the crap out of beer a lot more people might drink wine but if you tax the crap out of all booze then it starts to look more like cigs.

 

My case

 

Elasticity - Pot - low; cigs - low; Booze - low as a whole, moderate within its own category

 

Barriers to entry - Cigs - high; Pot low; Booze - moderate for making your own, high if you want to distribute. This component means that the street price of pot has the potential to get lower than it is today. The stigmata of being illegal is to some degree raising the street price. It costs more to hide your manufacturing and distribution than it does to have it in the open. It helps keep costs down when your customers roll their own or just shove it in a bong shaped like a really cool skull or something that makes them seem hip. This is the crux of my argument. Government will use the built in stigmata pot already carries as an excuse to tax it more like cigarettes than like booze.

 

This part has nothing to do with pricing but do you dudes want all the crap that goes with smoking dope to be legal too?

Because the ONLY reason cigarettes are taxed so highly is because they cause lung cancer. Booze doesn't cause lung cancer so it isn't taxed as highly.

 

According to pot smokers, there's never been a single case of lung cancer associated with MJ. So, MJ will be taxed like booze. Quid pro ergo.

[/dev/null]

Can we get MDP in on this discussion?

Sure, MDP is probably another one of your alts anyway

[Nanker]

Look for street crime in NYC to escalate. The cops there use the drug laws to crimp the street thugs and get them away from regular people.

The Rockefeller drug laws in NY are draconian though and should be repealed. I don't think Cuomo's tact is the right one though.

[CosmicBills]

Look for street crime in NYC to escalate. The cops there use the drug laws to crimp the street thugs and get them away from regular people.

The Rockefeller drug laws in NY are draconian though and should be repealed. I don't think Cuomo's tact is the right one though.

Ridiculous. On every level. Marijuana has never, in the history of humanity around the world, caused violent crime. Even Crayonz would agree with that. Go smoke a dube and tell me if you feel like getting in a fight or robbing someone for something other than their bag of Doritos.

 

In fact, if you sold weed at Bills games instead of beer you would see the amount of arrests and fights drop like a stone. Weed does the exact opposite of what alcohol does in that regards.

[paintmyhouse]

Was there as much access to drugs way back when? Likely not. I guess if you just say weed, but there are so many options today. Also, kids listened to their parents. Drugs can be very dangerous. Society is so different, we are a very mobile society too, and heck, I bet at any 1 point in time you can pull over a person and 1 of 4 or 5 times they are wasted on something, whether it be booze or some kind of drug.

 

Ridiculous. On every level. Marijuana has never, in the history of humanity around the world, caused violent crime. Even Crayonz would agree with that. Go smoke a dube and tell me if you feel like getting in a fight or robbing someone for something other than their bag of Doritos.

 

In fact, if you sold weed at Bills games instead of beer you would see the amount of arrests and fights drop like a stone. Weed does the exact opposite of what alcohol does in that regards.

 

Disagree about the fights. Jerks are jerks no matter what they are on or not on anything.

[ieatcrayonz]

Ridiculous. On every level. Marijuana has never, in the history of humanity around the world, caused violent crime. Even Crayonz would agree with that. Go smoke a dube and tell me if you feel like getting in a fight or robbing someone for something other than their bag of Doritos.

 

In fact, if you sold weed at Bills games instead of beer you would see the amount of arrests and fights drop like a stone. Weed does the exact opposite of what alcohol does in that regards.

Click the link in my last post. I might not have seen too many violent hippy loser dirt bags but you know who did see one? They guy in Miami that got his face eaten.