Nevada commission fine Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. $900k for smoking marijuana!

First topic message reminder :

http://m.espn.go.com/extra/boxing/story?storyId=8999557&src=desktop

Slightly over the top for someone caught smoking weed? Would rather there was stronger punishments handed out for fighters taking PEDs.

I believe Tarver was only fined £100k for a positive anabolic steroid test. In comparison, getting a £900k fine for smoking pot- you gotta feel for the kid!

JJC apparently to fight in June as soon as his suspension expires.

compelling and rich wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:It wouldnt be legal though unless he pays tax, thats the point, Look how much cigarettes cost - 8 bob for 20, with weed you just need to smoke 4-5 a day and you are chilled and sometimes not even that much as you'll probably have it socially.

im sure smokers of cigs just started with 4-5 a day as well, like anything the more you do of something the more your bodies grows an immunity and you need more of, how i loved the days of going out for a few drinks and being able to get drunk of a few pints. them days are long gone now

Interestingly scientific research shows that their is a saturation point reached with THC that after a certain amount taken it is not possible to get more high/stoned/comatosed with more use. I myself gave up a few years ago but had smoked for almost 20 years & probably for the last 10 never smoked more than 3 joints a day. Unfortunately this isn't quite the same with Heroin & Cocaine or in fact most pharmaceutical drugs that are prescribed, tolerance builds again making more profits for the big companies.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Rick James wrote:So you could sell weed/skunk via official outlets and tax at point of sell, but how are you going to decipher between a legit 'joint' and an illegal one? It would just drive for even greater underground production, as law enforcement would have less effect with it's greater public consumption/acceptance.

But unless you know how much the tax would be, you're only speculating. The balance between cost and quality and perceived safety would decide how people behave.

Alcohol is taxed. I don't know anyone who sells home brew.

Agreed, we are all speculating as we're theorising, but I guess we haven't outlined what our assumptions are.

I'm coming from the angle that we looking at legalising in the present day, where the UK government has a clear policy on issuing high taxes where it can justify without too much public backlash. Intoxicants and motoring have always been easy targets. With that said, I think it's within reason to assume a high taxation if marijuana were to be legalised.

Yeah - but one - its easy to grow - two its very popular - three you use very little of it unless you are showing off and 4 I bet a tenner would get you more than a paltry 2-3 joints you get out of a bag.

compelling and rich wrote:

sohotnot wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

sohotnot wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

Rick James wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:the government are never going to legalize it because they have no way of taxing it, it would end up costing them through nhs etc.

for me anything that damages health should not be promoted and made easier, the smoking ban has been a brilliant idea and also a lot of the adverts to try and stop people smoking.

Excellent points, especially the first one.

I agree excellent points too. Instead of trying to legalise a very dangerous drug in the hope that it will take away the cartels power and thus stop the killing the government should be trying to educate people as to the dangers of drugs. If you can stop people from taking drugs then you cut off the cartels demand and they make no money. You also have a much healthier society with less crime etc that an addiction to drugs causes.

Do you actually consider cannabis a very dangerous drug? There is a really good documentary about drugs & the war on drugs in America available on the Iplayer, I will post the link, very interesting.

i know quite a few people who are addicted to it, and it really does kill the brain cells of them, something which in today's society we could really do without!!!

Unlike cigarettes & alcohol which nobody is addicted to and are completely harmless.

Its interesting to see how many Governments are looking into medical marijuana & the use of THC one of the active ingredients contained in cannabis. Its big business & politics that keep its use for whatever reason illegal in the west.

that's pretty much my point, why add another unhealthy habit into the chain that is already costing the NHS million upon millions to deal with

So why are the governments & medical/pharmaceutical companies looking at it as an alternative to mainstream pharmaceutical drugs that can also be harmful with side effects? You don't need to use tobbaco to injest it whether for medicinal use or recreational use. It can be made into edible or tablet form, tinctures. The big thing no for smokers are vapourisers which gently heat the weed so that you only smoke the THC the active ingredient that makes you high, in turn allowing you to use less. The government in Holland do allow companies to grow it for medical use & patients are actually supplied the herbal version to consume how they want.

Rick James wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Rick James wrote:So you could sell weed/skunk via official outlets and tax at point of sell, but how are you going to decipher between a legit 'joint' and an illegal one? It would just drive for even greater underground production, as law enforcement would have less effect with it's greater public consumption/acceptance.

But unless you know how much the tax would be, you're only speculating. The balance between cost and quality and perceived safety would decide how people behave.

Alcohol is taxed. I don't know anyone who sells home brew.

Agreed, we are all speculating as we're theorising, but I guess we haven't outlined what our assumptions are.

I'm coming from the angle that we looking at legalising in the present day, where the UK government has a clear policy on issuing high taxes where it can justify without too much public backlash. Intoxicants and motoring have always been easy targets. With that said, I think it's within reason to assume a high taxation if marijuana were to be legalised.

It's true what you say about intoxicants and motoring tax-wise, but have the government been a position before where they would be legalising something that is already available illegally on this scale? They'd be doing this to make money and, to a lesser extent, try to stamp out the illegal operations, no? My point is, high tax would encourage people to buy from the underground, making no tax money and ensuring the continuation of illegal activity. A low tax could be considered, to persuade people to buy through the correct channels. I don't think a high tax can be assumed.

For clarity, I don't smoke and am in no rush to see it legalised.

Rick James wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Rick James wrote:So you could sell weed/skunk via official outlets and tax at point of sell, but how are you going to decipher between a legit 'joint' and an illegal one? It would just drive for even greater underground production, as law enforcement would have less effect with it's greater public consumption/acceptance.

But unless you know how much the tax would be, you're only speculating. The balance between cost and quality and perceived safety would decide how people behave.

Alcohol is taxed. I don't know anyone who sells home brew.

Agreed, we are all speculating as we're theorising, but I guess we haven't outlined what our assumptions are.

I'm coming from the angle that we looking at legalising in the present day, where the UK government has a clear policy on issuing high taxes where it can justify without too much public backlash. Intoxicants and motoring have always been easy targets. With that said, I think it's within reason to assume a high taxation if marijuana were to be legalised.

As far as I know in Holland the coffee shops are taxed on it the same as any other profit made. Lets be honest no coffee shop owner is going out of business, some might see dips in profit in the tourist off season or in the holiday season in the more local coffee shops but thats for the retail sector the world over. Holland has made a huge amount of money out of cannabis, its one of the reasons they scrapped the weed pass in Amsterdam & allowed Germans & Belgians in the south of the country to still buy.

ShahenshahG wrote:How do they tell between legitimate cigarettes or those smuggled over from europe? Why would they be the legitimate ones from companies be more expensive? Do economies of scale not apply to weed?

Fair point again Shah.

I'm looking at this from a UK point of view and for me, it comes down to two areas:

1. The form it is consumed in. I know there are roll ups, but the majority of cigarettes are procured and consumed in pre-roll up packs. I assume, that even post hypothetical legalisation, marijuana would still be procured in an 'ingredient' basis and consumed with the purchasers choice of roach (filter), rizla (rolling paper) and mix of tobacco (or not). With that in mind, it would be difficult for law enforcement to stop someone on the street and decipher whether the marijuana is of a legitimate or illegal basis.

2. Length of time of legalisation. Tobacco has been legal for many years, therefore the UK population hasn't developed the need up until now to develop a large underground production scene. With rising costs however, this may change over time. Marijuana on the other hand, has always been illegal here, and therefore a large underground scene has developed to meet demand. Legalisation over time may lead to buying patterns that are similar to tobacco, but I just cannot envisage it in the near term.

For anybody interested here's a documentary about drug use, drug prohibition & Americas war on drugs that was shown on BBC4. Very interesting program which raises some good & interesting points about why & when etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pzz69/Storyville_20122013_The_House_I_Live_In/

Rick James wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:How do they tell between legitimate cigarettes or those smuggled over from europe? Why would they be the legitimate ones from companies be more expensive? Do economies of scale not apply to weed?

Fair point again Shah.

I'm looking at this from a UK point of view and for me, it comes down to two areas:

1. The form it is consumed in. I know there are roll ups, but the majority of cigarettes are procured and consumed in pre-roll up packs. I assume, that even post hypothetical legalisation, marijuana would still be procured in an 'ingredient' basis and consumed with the purchasers choice of roach (filter), rizla (rolling paper) and mix of tobacco (or not). With that in mind, it would be difficult for law enforcement to stop someone on the street and decipher whether the marijuana is of a legitimate or illegal basis.

2. Length of time of legalisation. Tobacco has been legal for many years, therefore the UK population hasn't developed the need up until now to develop a large underground production scene. With rising costs however, this may change over time. Marijuana on the other hand, has always been illegal here, and therefore a large underground scene has developed to meet demand. Legalisation over time may lead to buying patterns that are similar to tobacco, but I just cannot envisage it in the near term.

Not entirely true. I'm not entirely sure when, possibly as late as 1970 or could well be earlier it wasn't illegal to possess home grown weed as long as you were not & there was no evidence of you selling or looking to sell it. Also magic mushrooms until quite recently were legal as long as they were not dried & extacy/mdma was legal in California until the early 80's. GHB was also legally sold in sex shops in the UK until about 10 years ago.

Rick James wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:How do they tell between legitimate cigarettes or those smuggled over from europe? Why would they be the legitimate ones from companies be more expensive? Do economies of scale not apply to weed?

Fair point again Shah.

I'm looking at this from a UK point of view and for me, it comes down to two areas:

1. The form it is consumed in. I know there are roll ups, but the majority of cigarettes are procured and consumed in pre-roll up packs. I assume, that even post hypothetical legalisation, marijuana would still be procured in an 'ingredient' basis and consumed with the purchasers choice of roach (filter), rizla (rolling paper) and mix of tobacco (or not). With that in mind, it would be difficult for law enforcement to stop someone on the street and decipher whether the marijuana is of a legitimate or illegal basis.

2. Length of time of legalisation. Tobacco has been legal for many years, therefore the UK population hasn't developed the need up until now to develop a large underground production scene. With rising costs however, this may change over time. Marijuana on the other hand, has always been illegal here, and therefore a large underground scene has developed to meet demand. Legalisation over time may lead to buying patterns that are similar to tobacco, but I just cannot envisage it in the near term.

Fair points. Just a minor quibble from me this time. Companies can make perfect joints everytime, Mild, Strong whatever you like and loose tobacco has also been available for ages and varieties will fall in line with demand. Companies can provide weed without the seeds or twigs and you'll get exactly how much you want everytime.

Second - the underground have to smuggle it from somewhere, have to find a dealer and he needs to find a smuggler etc etc - considerable risk for not that much reward. People who smuggle cigarettes and Alcohol make very little out of it in the grand scheme of things and a large chunk of that demand will evaporate overnight. anything left over will be minor and dealt with as they are now.

What I would do is tell everyone that we're legalizing Heroin and Cannabis then arrest all the little bar stewards who have to panic dump their stock then tell them we were joking about the heroin.

sohotnot wrote:
Not entirely true. I'm not entirely sure when, possibly as late as 1970 or could well be earlier it wasn't illegal to possess home grown weed as long as you were not & there was no evidence of you selling or looking to sell it. Also magic mushrooms until quite recently were legal as long as they were not dried & extacy/mdma was legal in California until the early 80's. GHB was also legally sold in sex shops in the UK until about 10 years ago.

I stand corrected

ShahenshahG wrote:
Fair points. Just a minor quibble from me this time. Companies can make perfect joints everytime, Mild, Strong whatever you like and loose tobacco has also been available for ages and varieties will fall in line with demand. Companies can provide weed without the seeds or twigs and you'll get exactly how much you want everytime.

Second - the underground have to smuggle it from somewhere, have to find a dealer and he needs to find a smuggler etc etc - considerable risk for not that much reward. People who smuggle cigarettes and Alcohol make very little out of it in the grand scheme of things and a large chunk of that demand will evaporate overnight. anything left over will be minor and dealt with as they are now.

What I would do is tell everyone that we're legalizing Heroin and Cannabis then arrest all the little bar stewards who have to panic dump their stock then tell them we were joking about the heroin.

Hard to argue against these also.

Goes to show, what a difficult decision drug legalisation is.

@Rick James

I bet you wished you were more like your grandads age eh? laugh out loud

In all seriousness though check out the link I posted on the BBC Iplayer it'll open your eyes & it will show you the Governments don't actually have your health or a potential burden on the health service at heart more there own greedy vested interests.

sohotnot wrote:@Rick James

I bet you wished you were more like your grandads age eh? laugh out loud

In all seriousness though check out the link I posted on the BBC Iplayer it'll open your eyes & it will show you the Governments don't actually have your health or a potential burden on the health service at heart more there own greedy vested interests.

Haha, yes. Age is wisdom

Will try to catch it later today, thanks.

Ooh, seen as I helped drive this off topic I guess I should respond to a few responses.

Adam, not trying to turn this into a slagging match and haven't slagged anybody off.

Lumbering, cigarettes will kill so many more people and cost the NHS so much more than any other drug ever will as far as I can see.

Ghosty, yeah but MDMA is F U N I've never done anything like heroin so I couldn't comment, however my personal belief is that if I want to shoot up and kill myself it's my business. It's legal to slowly kill yourself and drag your loved ones down with you using alcohol. Also, there are plenty of foods out there that aren't all natural.

Victor, yeah I think suicide should be legal. Assisted suicide I don't have an opinion on, it deviates from the core of my argument which is MY body/mind/well being = my business. You're bringing somebody else's into it with assisted suicide.

There are probably loads of points I'm not responding to, but my basic point is when we're born into a society, many freedoms are immediately taken away from us. We're limited by nature, always. Then laws start telling you when you can do things and what you can do. Marijuana has been on Earth longer than any enforcer of law, probably longer than the concept of law.

Also, I might sound like a dreadlocked tie died hippy who's world is a purple haze, but it's been the best part of a year since I did anything illegal and that's not a conscious effort, it's simply not a part of my life style. However if I wanted it to be, I should have the right to decide that.

I wonder how many of the people in charge, who would never legalise recreational drugs have any experience whatsoever?

It is interesting that alcohol is the something like the 6th most harmful 'drug', it's only Heroin, Cocaine, Methodone and the barbiturates that are proven to severely more dangerous.

I think we can all agree that the aforementioned should stay illegal no matter what.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I wonder how many of the people in charge, who would never legalise recreational drugs have any experience whatsoever?

Well I was tempted to say Clinton but then remembered that he didn't actually inhale, but then whilst sat in the same room would he not have passively inhaled?

sohotnot wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I wonder how many of the people in charge, who would never legalise recreational drugs have any experience whatsoever?

Well I was tempted to say Clinton but then remembered that he didn't actually inhale, but then whilst sat in the same room would he not have passively inhaled?

Of course not. He was holding his breath in a vain attempt to stave off premature ejaculation

Ghosty, I don't agree that substances should be illegal.

Alcohol is more addictive than most and most widely available..........

Not sure that legalising is the answer but it's strange how some drugs have a hoodoo and some don't..

victorgarco wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Az I wouldn't bother, I doubt Victor has the intelligence to understand that all the problems caused by drug cartels is because it is illegal.

But it's not though. You legalise selling weed and that is not going to stop the cartels from fighting each other so that they have a monopoly over the distribution of the drug.

Twit

If suicide is illegal how are you going to charge the dead person?

You charge his family in the case of North Korean law.

Some fantastic comments on here in fact one of the best debate and opinions ive seen on this forum! going back to the OP Chavez dosent have to pay anything, all he has to do is 'not fight again in Nevada' simple as that.

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Some fantastic comments on here in fact one of the best debate and opinions ive seen on this forum! going back to the OP Chavez dosent have to pay anything, all he has to do is 'not fight again in Nevada' simple as that.

Certainly been a good un! What do you think of his fine & do you think its punishment enough? It seems there are & have always been inconsistencies with punishments for boxers testing positive for weed. In MMA there have been a lot, with the UFC a ban & a fine seems to be common with one guy recently being cut altogether for a 2nd positive test, admittedly he's not that big a name/money maker. Many years ago I remember Tim Witherspoon testing for weed after beating Tony Tubbs for a world title. I seem to remember he was fined & stripped of the title but not banned. I don't remember if they had a rematch or if he just fought for the vacant title again.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You charge his family in the case of North Korean law.

Lovely

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You charge his family in the case of North Korean law.

Lovely

They don't mess about over there! So if you knew a family member was thinking of committing suicide would it be better to kill them & then claim diminished responsibility, self defence or plea bargain it down to manslaughter & thus getting lesser punishment?

azania wrote:If suicide is illegal how are you going to charge the dead person?

Not all suicide attempts are successful so you end up putting people in prison for failing to kill themselves (or sending them to mental institutes).

Suicide was illegal in the UK until I think about 40 years ago.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Rick James wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Rick James wrote:So you could sell weed/skunk via official outlets and tax at point of sell, but how are you going to decipher between a legit 'joint' and an illegal one? It would just drive for even greater underground production, as law enforcement would have less effect with it's greater public consumption/acceptance.

But unless you know how much the tax would be, you're only speculating. The balance between cost and quality and perceived safety would decide how people behave.

Alcohol is taxed. I don't know anyone who sells home brew.

Agreed, we are all speculating as we're theorising, but I guess we haven't outlined what our assumptions are.

I'm coming from the angle that we looking at legalising in the present day, where the UK government has a clear policy on issuing high taxes where it can justify without too much public backlash. Intoxicants and motoring have always been easy targets. With that said, I think it's within reason to assume a high taxation if marijuana were to be legalised.

It's true what you say about intoxicants and motoring tax-wise, but have the government been a position before where they would be legalising something that is already available illegally on this scale? They'd be doing this to make money and, to a lesser extent, try to stamp out the illegal operations, no? My point is, high tax would encourage people to buy from the underground, making no tax money and ensuring the continuation of illegal activity. A low tax could be considered, to persuade people to buy through the correct channels. I don't think a high tax can be assumed.

For clarity, I don't smoke and am in no rush to see it legalised.

I think the problem would be that the shops would be trying to make money out of it and so they would sell it at as a high a cost as they can. Whilst the government's aim for legalising weed might be to break up the drug dealers power, the shops that sell it have no such dreams. The shops only dream is to make money (just like the drug dealers) and so the shop will charge a high price.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:If suicide is illegal how are you going to charge the dead person?

Not all suicide attempts are successful so you end up putting people in prison for failing to kill themselves (or sending them to mental institutes).

Suicide was illegal in the UK until I think about 40 years ago.

Suicide is a psychological issue. More humane societies try to get to the root cause as opposed to institutionalising the poor people. But once the attempt succeeds I suppose the NK method is one you support.

victorgarco wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Rick James wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Rick James wrote:So you could sell weed/skunk via official outlets and tax at point of sell, but how are you going to decipher between a legit 'joint' and an illegal one? It would just drive for even greater underground production, as law enforcement would have less effect with it's greater public consumption/acceptance.

But unless you know how much the tax would be, you're only speculating. The balance between cost and quality and perceived safety would decide how people behave.

Alcohol is taxed. I don't know anyone who sells home brew.

Agreed, we are all speculating as we're theorising, but I guess we haven't outlined what our assumptions are.

I'm coming from the angle that we looking at legalising in the present day, where the UK government has a clear policy on issuing high taxes where it can justify without too much public backlash. Intoxicants and motoring have always been easy targets. With that said, I think it's within reason to assume a high taxation if marijuana were to be legalised.

It's true what you say about intoxicants and motoring tax-wise, but have the government been a position before where they would be legalising something that is already available illegally on this scale? They'd be doing this to make money and, to a lesser extent, try to stamp out the illegal operations, no? My point is, high tax would encourage people to buy from the underground, making no tax money and ensuring the continuation of illegal activity. A low tax could be considered, to persuade people to buy through the correct channels. I don't think a high tax can be assumed.

For clarity, I don't smoke and am in no rush to see it legalised.

I think the problem would be that the shops would be trying to make money out of it and so they would sell it at as a high a cost as they can. Whilst the government's aim for legalising weed might be to break up the drug dealers power, the shops that sell it have no such dreams. The shops only dream is to make money (just like the drug dealers) and so the shop will charge a high price.

Na they couldn't, the supermarkets would laugh as they took all their custom.

just abit further to the point - Cigarettes weed and alcohol dont make great profits - people come in to buy em and buy other stuff - anyone who prices out the weed, the cigarettes or the Alcohol is an imbecile whose business will fail in a matter of weeks.

Basic economics vic. Generally in a competitive market producers compete for market share.This is generally done by lowering prices. If they increase prices the consumer will probably shop elsewhere. I suppose tesco and asda compete for customers by increasing their prices. Think about it.

victorgarco wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Rick James wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Rick James wrote:So you could sell weed/skunk via official outlets and tax at point of sell, but how are you going to decipher between a legit 'joint' and an illegal one? It would just drive for even greater underground production, as law enforcement would have less effect with it's greater public consumption/acceptance.

But unless you know how much the tax would be, you're only speculating. The balance between cost and quality and perceived safety would decide how people behave.

Alcohol is taxed. I don't know anyone who sells home brew.

Agreed, we are all speculating as we're theorising, but I guess we haven't outlined what our assumptions are.

I'm coming from the angle that we looking at legalising in the present day, where the UK government has a clear policy on issuing high taxes where it can justify without too much public backlash. Intoxicants and motoring have always been easy targets. With that said, I think it's within reason to assume a high taxation if marijuana were to be legalised.

It's true what you say about intoxicants and motoring tax-wise, but have the government been a position before where they would be legalising something that is already available illegally on this scale? They'd be doing this to make money and, to a lesser extent, try to stamp out the illegal operations, no? My point is, high tax would encourage people to buy from the underground, making no tax money and ensuring the continuation of illegal activity. A low tax could be considered, to persuade people to buy through the correct channels. I don't think a high tax can be assumed.

For clarity, I don't smoke and am in no rush to see it legalised.

I think the problem would be that the shops would be trying to make money out of it and so they would sell it at as a high a cost as they can. Whilst the government's aim for legalising weed might be to break up the drug dealers power, the shops that sell it have no such dreams. The shops only dream is to make money (just like the drug dealers) and so the shop will charge a high price.

Interestingly since the authorities realized there was huge amount of people growing weed in the UK they've really started clamping down on it, especially the so called factories sometimes run by criminal gangs. They've found more ways how to discover grow houses from outside through the wall heat detectors & now new smart electricity meters to name a few. This has led to a shortage of weed in some places pushing the price up & the quality down. I have heard that prices are almost double what they were 5 years ago, people buying a gram of weed that's not dried & trimmed properly sometimes paying 10 quid! In Holland where its legal to buy it you can pay 7 euros for a gram that is properly dried & trimmed, so you can actually get double the amount of joints that you get in the UK, from a licensed coffee shop paying tax to the government as well as paying staff above the minimum wage. Your arguement really doesn't stand up. When supply doesn't meet the demand prices go up & thats for most things in life.

azania wrote:Basic economics vic. Generally in a competitive market producers compete for market share.This is generally done by lowering prices. If they increase prices the consumer will probably shop elsewhere. I suppose tesco and asda compete for customers by increasing their prices. Think about it.

Basic economics is that the supplier tries to get as much money as possible out of the customer. Just look at the extornate price that supermarkets are charging for cigarettes.

There is no way that a shop will be able to charge a cheaper price than a dealer selling from his house/street corner. It is estimated that the Mexican drug cartels make about $60 BILLION a year through selling drugs and weed accounts for 50% of that. Once you legalise weed all you do is give dealers the opportunity to sell it at a cheaper price than the shops. Your arguing that supermarkets can sell it cheaper than a 'weed shop' so I can only guess that you are suggesting that anyone can sell weed. if that is the case then a dealer can just sell weed legally from his house.

The supermarkets charge less than corner shops and petrol stations for alcohol and cigarettes, if it's legalised then the majority of people would be happier to buy it from those they know they can trust and not some stingy dealer. If it were to be legalised then there would be legislation in place to stop 'people selling from there bedrooms', basic common sense which seems to allude you Victor.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The supermarkets charge less than corner shops and petrol stations for alcohol and cigarettes, if it's legalised then the majority of people would be happier to buy it from those they know they can trust and not some stingy dealer. If it were to be legalised then there would be legislation in place to stop 'people selling from there bedrooms', basic common sense which seems to allude you Victor.

The end of your post ruined it mate.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The supermarkets charge less than corner shops and petrol stations for alcohol and cigarettes, if it's legalised then the majority of people would be happier to buy it from those they know they can trust and not some stingy dealer. If it were to be legalised then there would be legislation in place to stop 'people selling from there bedrooms', basic common sense which seems to allude you Victor.

if you have been going to the same dealer for 5 years why would you suddenly not trust him?

Poor show victor editing before anyone could see it.

ShahenshahG wrote:Poor show victor editing before anyone could see it.

wanted to keep it on the debate of drugs rather than turn it into a slanging match which some people are so keen on doing.

It would still be illegal to do so, if you had the choice of buying something legally and more reputable or illegal and less reputable what one would you go for?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It would still be illegal to do so, if you had the choice of buying something legally and more reputable or illegal and less reputable what one would you go for?

I think you and a lot of other posters have become lost in your arguments. Are you arguing that weed should be legalised so that the man in the street is no longer the drug dealer and instead supermarkets should become drug dealers? How will that help society?

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Basic economics vic. Generally in a competitive market producers compete for market share.This is generally done by lowering prices. If they increase prices the consumer will probably shop elsewhere. I suppose tesco and asda compete for customers by increasing their prices. Think about it.

Basic economics is that the supplier tries to get as much money as possible out of the customer. Just look at the extornate price that supermarkets are charging for cigarettes.


Not really, profits on the sale of cigarettes is actually quite low, supermarkets tend to be the cheapest place in the UK to legally buy legal cigarettes especially if you buy them buy the sleeve. Most of the money made by an independent shop is from the advertising, from the neon sign outside, to the smaller ones inside, to the actual cigarettes displayed in the shop, the brand wanting you to stock as many of their growing range as possable. At the end of the year the shopkeeper will get a small dividend based on how many he has sold over the year as well as every 3 or 4 months his supplier will give him a couple of sleeves for free. The supermarket only really sells them to get more of your money rather than for huge profit.



There is no way that a shop will be able to charge a cheaper price than a dealer selling from his house/street corner. It is estimated that the Mexican drug cartels make about $60 BILLION a year through selling drugs and weed accounts for 50% of that. Once you legalise weed all you do is give dealers the opportunity to sell it at a cheaper price than the shops. Your arguing that supermarkets can sell it cheaper than a 'weed shop' so I can only guess that you are suggesting that anyone can sell weed. if that is the case then a dealer can just sell weed legally from his house.

You have a link with the evidence of that? Most of their profits come from cocaine & recently heroin. There weed is not actually that good, hence why Americans generally prefer their own homegrown. With medical marijuana now being available in more US states its slowly cutting the demand for imported weed.

With the regards to legal selling you would be required to have a license & pay tax, it would be illegal for others to sell.

Not at all, you wouldn't be able to label them dealers when they're selling something legal, you seem under the impression that by legalising it every man and his dog could sell it when there would be very strict licencing in place to stop that happening. Alcohol for instance is more harmful and more addictive than cannabis so how it would be harming society by legalising it i'm unsure.

sohotnot wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Basic economics vic. Generally in a competitive market producers compete for market share.This is generally done by lowering prices. If they increase prices the consumer will probably shop elsewhere. I suppose tesco and asda compete for customers by increasing their prices. Think about it.

Basic economics is that the supplier tries to get as much money as possible out of the customer. Just look at the extornate price that supermarkets are charging for cigarettes.


Not really, profits on the sale of cigarettes is actually quite low, supermarkets tend to be the cheapest place in the UK to legally buy legal cigarettes especially if you buy them buy the sleeve. Most of the money made by an independent shop is from the advertising, from the neon sign outside, to the smaller ones inside, to the actual cigarettes displayed in the shop, the brand wanting you to stock as many of their growing range as possable. At the end of the year the shopkeeper will get a small dividend based on how many he has sold over the year as well as every 3 or 4 months his supplier will give him a couple of sleeves for free. The supermarket only really sells them to get more of your money rather than for huge profit.



There is no way that a shop will be able to charge a cheaper price than a dealer selling from his house/street corner. It is estimated that the Mexican drug cartels make about $60 BILLION a year through selling drugs and weed accounts for 50% of that. Once you legalise weed all you do is give dealers the opportunity to sell it at a cheaper price than the shops. Your arguing that supermarkets can sell it cheaper than a 'weed shop' so I can only guess that you are suggesting that anyone can sell weed. if that is the case then a dealer can just sell weed legally from his house.

You have a link with the evidence of that? Most of their profits come from cocaine & recently heroin. There weed is not actually that good, hence why Americans generally prefer their own homegrown. With medical marijuana now being available in more US states its slowly cutting the demand for imported weed.

With the regards to legal selling you would be required to have a license & pay tax, it would be illegal for others to sell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html?_r=0

FOR a growing number of American policy makers, politicians and activists, the best answer to the spiraling violence in Mexico is to legalize the marijuana that, they argue, fuels the country’s vicious cartels and smugglers. After all, according to official estimates, marijuana constitutes 60 percent of cartels’ drug profits.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not at all, you wouldn't be able to label them dealers when they're selling something legal, you seem under the impression that by legalising it every man and his dog could sell it when there would be very strict licencing in place to stop that happening. Alcohol for instance is more harmful and more addictive than cannabis so how it would be harming society by legalising it i'm unsure.

We are arguing over something that has not happened. Youa re arguing that a licence would be required (and supermarkets would be able to gain a licence) before selling weed. If there was a licence we don't know how you could apply for one and the terms so it is no good you arguing about licences because there is no licence and the government has never even debated this topic so there is nothing for us to argue over.

What i will say is that if under your argument a supermarket can gain a licence why can't a cartel run shop gain a licence (of course no one knows it's run by the cartels)? Why does Tesco or Morrisson's have permission to sell it but other shops don't?

Also if we take mexico as an example, the cartels are so powerful that they basically run the country. The police and politicians actually work for the cartels and corruption is everywhere. A lot of people believe that the government is actually working with one cartel, the Sinaloa cartel. If Weed was legalised in mexico what would stop the cartels from just selling that weed legally in shops etc rather than in a house?

victorgarco wrote:

sohotnot wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Basic economics vic. Generally in a competitive market producers compete for market share.This is generally done by lowering prices. If they increase prices the consumer will probably shop elsewhere. I suppose tesco and asda compete for customers by increasing their prices. Think about it.

Basic economics is that the supplier tries to get as much money as possible out of the customer. Just look at the extornate price that supermarkets are charging for cigarettes.


Not really, profits on the sale of cigarettes is actually quite low, supermarkets tend to be the cheapest place in the UK to legally buy legal cigarettes especially if you buy them buy the sleeve. Most of the money made by an independent shop is from the advertising, from the neon sign outside, to the smaller ones inside, to the actual cigarettes displayed in the shop, the brand wanting you to stock as many of their growing range as possable. At the end of the year the shopkeeper will get a small dividend based on how many he has sold over the year as well as every 3 or 4 months his supplier will give him a couple of sleeves for free. The supermarket only really sells them to get more of your money rather than for huge profit.



There is no way that a shop will be able to charge a cheaper price than a dealer selling from his house/street corner. It is estimated that the Mexican drug cartels make about $60 BILLION a year through selling drugs and weed accounts for 50% of that. Once you legalise weed all you do is give dealers the opportunity to sell it at a cheaper price than the shops. Your arguing that supermarkets can sell it cheaper than a 'weed shop' so I can only guess that you are suggesting that anyone can sell weed. if that is the case then a dealer can just sell weed legally from his house.

You have a link with the evidence of that? Most of their profits come from cocaine & recently heroin. There weed is not actually that good, hence why Americans generally prefer their own homegrown. With medical marijuana now being available in more US states its slowly cutting the demand for imported weed.

With the regards to legal selling you would be required to have a license & pay tax, it would be illegal for others to sell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html?_r=0

FOR a growing number of American policy makers, politicians and activists, the best answer to the spiraling violence in Mexico is to legalize the marijuana that, they argue, fuels the country’s vicious cartels and smugglers. After all, according to official estimates, marijuana constitutes 60 percent of cartels’ drug profits.

So therefore legalizing marijauna would be the answer to the spiraling violence in Mexico & cut the profits of the vicious cartels & smugglers! You've said it yourself. I'll stand corrected on the 60% but I would think that figure is based more on domestic sales of weed rather than the export sales of cocaine & heroin.

Nice to see you've replied to me at last, you seemed to lack answers & were happy to go over the same ground. Anything you'd like to comment on in any of my previous posts or the dutch system?

sohotnot wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

sohotnot wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Basic economics vic. Generally in a competitive market producers compete for market share.This is generally done by lowering prices. If they increase prices the consumer will probably shop elsewhere. I suppose tesco and asda compete for customers by increasing their prices. Think about it.

Basic economics is that the supplier tries to get as much money as possible out of the customer. Just look at the extornate price that supermarkets are charging for cigarettes.


Not really, profits on the sale of cigarettes is actually quite low, supermarkets tend to be the cheapest place in the UK to legally buy legal cigarettes especially if you buy them buy the sleeve. Most of the money made by an independent shop is from the advertising, from the neon sign outside, to the smaller ones inside, to the actual cigarettes displayed in the shop, the brand wanting you to stock as many of their growing range as possable. At the end of the year the shopkeeper will get a small dividend based on how many he has sold over the year as well as every 3 or 4 months his supplier will give him a couple of sleeves for free. The supermarket only really sells them to get more of your money rather than for huge profit.



There is no way that a shop will be able to charge a cheaper price than a dealer selling from his house/street corner. It is estimated that the Mexican drug cartels make about $60 BILLION a year through selling drugs and weed accounts for 50% of that. Once you legalise weed all you do is give dealers the opportunity to sell it at a cheaper price than the shops. Your arguing that supermarkets can sell it cheaper than a 'weed shop' so I can only guess that you are suggesting that anyone can sell weed. if that is the case then a dealer can just sell weed legally from his house.

You have a link with the evidence of that? Most of their profits come from cocaine & recently heroin. There weed is not actually that good, hence why Americans generally prefer their own homegrown. With medical marijuana now being available in more US states its slowly cutting the demand for imported weed.

With the regards to legal selling you would be required to have a license & pay tax, it would be illegal for others to sell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html?_r=0

FOR a growing number of American policy makers, politicians and activists, the best answer to the spiraling violence in Mexico is to legalize the marijuana that, they argue, fuels the country’s vicious cartels and smugglers. After all, according to official estimates, marijuana constitutes 60 percent of cartels’ drug profits.

So therefore legalizing marijauna would be the answer to the spiraling violence in Mexico & cut the profits of the vicious cartels & smugglers! You've said it yourself. I'll stand corrected on the 60% but I would think that figure is based more on domestic sales of weed rather than the export sales of cocaine & heroin.

Nice to see you've replied to me at last, you seemed to lack answers & were happy to go over the same ground. Anything you'd like to comment on in any of my previous posts or the dutch system?

If you read the full report you would see that it actually says that legalising weed would only offer a short term problem for the cartels before they adapt and the article actually states that the cartels would just enter the legal trade of selling weed, making their job easier as now they are doing nothing wrong.

But even though that article agrees with my post it is irrelevant. There are 1000's of artices that agree/disagree with my views and your views.

Multinational corporations would be more trusted by the government than a small local run shop, again it's basic common sense. If you legalise it you put in place very strict guidelines and very stringent licencing, much in the same way not everyone can start up a brewery so speculating on licencing is very much part of this discussion.

Are you of the opinion that the rest of us are suggesting that by legalising cannabis anybody can sell it?