Ecstasy and Ketamine are currently legal

nxbyveromdwjpg

InTheTrees wrote: »

From 48,153 in 2013 to 49,365 in 2014

SO thats a maybe 2% increase?

Now take into account Denver is one of the USA's fastest growing cities and I think you'll find there's not much in it.

And also the police have hundreds and hundreds more hours free to go after real crime (the type where there is a victim).

In fact there'd probably be something wrong if some other numbers weren't going up with the void in police time that legislation has provided.

Greenmachine

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Am I the only one who would be genuinely afraid of taking drugs? :O

When is the last time you had a cup of tea or coffee or a bar of chocolate, or some nice raspberries?

Greenmachine

So this has passed both house and been signed by the president. What would have happened if the president refused to sign the bill? Would it go back to the Dail to be redrafted, would it force a general election, or would the president have to step down?

Kurtosis

Greenmachine wrote: »

So this has passed both house and been signed by the president. What would have happened if the president refused to sign the bill? Would it go back to the Dail to be redrafted, would it force a general election, or would the president have to step down?

The only reason the president can refuse to sign a bill is if he believes it to be unconstitutional, in which case it gets referred to the Supreme Court. If they deem it to be constitutional, the president has to sign the bill.

If he were to refuse to sign it for other reasons, I believe he would have to step down and the Council of State would sign the bill into law.

Neither scenario likely to happen.

rubadub

bjork wrote: »

Standard-ish price is €50 for 3.5g, though there have been times in recent years when fifty-bags typically contained less than 3g. You wouldn't get anyone who'd sell in quantities as low as a gram.

Interesting > So because of it's illegality you are forced to buy a minimum amount.

If the higher end of the proposed minimum alcohol pricing came in then cans of usually cheap beer would be €2.75. At this price range I would expect a blackmarket to emerge, with people selling crates of smuggled beer. If the cans were going for €2 on the black market then I would similarly expect a minimum amount to be offered.

So similar to the person you quoted you would not expect people to be buying these cans in low quantities, they simply would not sell as the price would be so high relative to buying a few more. A "beer dealer" selling 1 single can illegally would probably want at least €3 or €4 to warranty the risk of the deal.

So his 3g for €50 might have cost him €40 (13.33 per gram) and he is making €10 . In holland you might buy a joint with say as 0.2g in it. This 0.2g might cost the dealer here €2.66, but he would be charging probably €10.

So yes, this is another downside to the illegality of drugs, people tend to buy more and may end up using more. Just like some governments wanted to outlaw discounts on bulk buying drink.

AlanS181824

They're illegal again now after an emergency law being passed.

Macavity.

AlanS181824 wrote: »

They're illegal again now after an emergency law being passed.

Now it is impossible for people to abuse drugs and we are all safe.

conorh91

nm wrote: »

In fact there'd probably be something wrong if some other numbers weren't going up with the void in police time that legislation has provided.

Crime numbers misleadingly reported as having fallen after legalisation... claim vindication
Crime numbers proven to have risen after legalisation... still claim vindication.

Those potheads at the Drug Policy Alliance were being lauded for their "statistics" when it suited the narrative, now they can be disposed of when it doesn't favour the legalisation of marijuana.

That's the point. It isn't so much about what's best for society, it's about making life as convenient as possible for people who just want to get stoned.

InTheTrees

conorh91 wrote: »

That's the point. It isn't so much about what's best for society, it's about making life as convenient as possible for people who just want to get stoned.

"Society" is deciding, country by country, that continued prohibition is absolute nonsense.

nxbyveromdwjpg

conorh91 wrote: »

Crime numbers misleadingly reported as having fallen after legalisation... claim vindication
Crime numbers proven to have risen after legalisation... still claim vindication.

Those potheads at the Drug Policy Alliance were being lauded for their "statistics" when it suited the narrative, now they can be disposed of when it doesn't favour the legalisation of marijuana.

That's the point. It isn't so much about what's best for society, it's about making life as convenient as possible for people who just want to get stoned.

The statistics were only replied to by you, and then me to your reply. You succeeded in sidetracking the actual point of that post.

The Drug Policy Alliance were only brought up because they showed evidence (in the same post) that utterly rubbished your previous stance that it would simply cost a state too much to legalise and regulate marijuana.

You've conveniently ignored this yourself and replaced with no argument, sorry - an argument about fraud statistics or some other semantics.

So one must wonder if you really have any interest in what's best for society also, or if you're just going to be bull headed and ignore any and all evidence presented to you when it doesn't suit your opinion (which was that legislation won't cover the costs of the damage it'll do). You've certainly done it this time.

conorh91

nm wrote: »

The Drug Policy Alliance were only brought up because they showed evidence (in the same post) that utterly rubbished your previous stance that it would simply cost a state too much to legalise and regulate marijuana.

LOL

How did they show that? They did nothing of the kind.

Little CuChulainn

I think what the stats are showing is that simply legalising marijuana will not free up police time, will not be a windfall for the state and will not have a massive effect on crime or the black market. Most people who had put any thought into the matter would probably already have known this. Cannabis is not massively big business for most dealers. It's bulky, easily detected and yields very little per kg than other drugs. There was thread on reddit last week asking police officers in legalised states how it had affected their work load. If I recall, the general consensus was, not much. People have this impression that tons of innocent people are having their lives ruined by possession laws but it's a fallacy. The vast majority of people caught for possession have been caught because they brought themselves to the attention of police in some other way.

I'm not suggesting marijuana shouldn't be legalised. I think it would be an overall net benefit to society. But it cannot be done by simply removing it from the law books. It has to be part of an overall strategy that includes, manufacture, distribution, sales and possession. Otherwise you are just fooling yourself and passing problems down the line, maybe even to other countries. This has been seen in the states where people are growing it in legal states and importing it to illegal states. Without an overall national strategy it's not oging to work.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think what the stats are showing is that simply legalising marijuana will not free up police time, will not be a windfall for the state and will not have a massive effect on crime or the black market.

Forbes thinks different.

InTheTrees

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'm not suggesting marijuana shouldn't be legalised. I think it would be an overall net benefit to society. But it cannot be done by simply removing it from the law books. It has to be part of an overall strategy that includes, manufacture, distribution, sales and possession. Otherwise you are just fooling yourself and passing problems down the line, maybe even to other countries.

This isnt the right thread for this but Washington State is doing it well and there havent been many issues since legalisation two years ago.
Producers and retailers are state licensed and Product is tracked by the state from seed to consumer and taxed along the way as well.

nxbyveromdwjpg

conorh91 wrote: »

LOL

How did they show that? They did nothing of the kind.

I'm not going to keep this back and forth going as you just selectively ignore the parts of my posts that don't suit you, it's getting tiring.

InTheTrees

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Otherwise you are just fooling yourself and passing problems down the line, maybe even to other countries. This has been seen in the states where people are growing it in legal states and importing it to illegal states. Without an overall national strategy it's not oging to work.

The "United States" of America is a union of separate States.

Each state gets to decide for itself. This is why prostitution is legal in Nevada for instance. This is how Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon and now Vermont(?) have voted to legalise and why the feds cant do much about it.

States rights are very important and very closely guarded. Its also a bipartisan issue, the conservative right wingers are actually the most fervent proponents of States Rights so this issue has united both left and right.

InTheTrees

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think what the stats are showing is that simply legalising marijuana will not free up police time, will not be a windfall for the state and will not have a massive effect on crime or the black market.

What "stats" would those be exactly?

Ending a nonsense prohibition doesnt always have to show benefits in law enforcement or be a windfall for the state.

When Ireland legalised contraception do you think the arguments for legalisation were all about freeing up police time and making cash for the state?

InTheTrees

And if you think a popular "states rights" issue that starts on the west coast of the USA wont reach Ireland pay attention to the fact that Ireland will probably vote to accept Gay Marriage this year.

Greenmachine

InTheTrees wrote: »

The "United States" of America is a union of separate States.

Each state gets to decide for itself. This is why prostitution is legal in Nevada for instance. This is how Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon and now Vermont(?) have voted to legalise and why the feds cant do much about it.

States rights are very important and very closely guarded. Its also a bipartisan issue, the conservative right wingers are actually the most fervent proponents of States Rights so this issue has united both left and right.

The United States government managed, pretty well to implement a state wide minimum drinking age, of 21. I believe they did by making a ruling regarding the national highway fund. Seems the will was not a strong to continue the prohibition of marijuana, as setting a high minimum drinking age in the United States.

Little CuChulainn

nm wrote: »

Forbes thinks different.

All you've shown is the tax take. Where are all the savings on court and police time? Have alcohol and nicotines tax takes gone down to compensate or is it all from people who use to buy drugs. There will obviously be an income, it just won't be as massive as people think.

Anyway, that tax take is from all along the distribution chain, not just the end sale. As I've said, any implementation of a legal marijuana policy cannot simply be making possession legal.

InTheTrees wrote: »

This isnt the right thread for this but Washington State is doing it well and there havent been many issues since legalisation two years ago.
Producers and retailers are state licensed and Product is tracked by the state from seed to consumer and taxed along the way as well.

A quick google tells me you are wrong. High taxes have caused a boom in the black market.

http://crosscut.com/2014/12/pot-marijuana-excise-taxes-washington-state-280e/

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/01/03/rethinking-legal-pot-washington-colorado-face-unexpected-problems/

http://mic.com/articles/94776/there-s-a-big-problem-with-washington-state-s-legal-marijuana-experiment

InTheTrees wrote: »

The "United States" of America is a union of separate States.

Each state gets to decide for itself. This is why prostitution is legal in Nevada for instance. This is how Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon and now Vermont(?) have voted to legalise and why the feds cant do much about it.

States rights are very important and very closely guarded. Its also a bipartisan issue, the conservative right wingers are actually the most fervent proponents of States Rights so this issue has united both left and right.

What's your point? The actions of one State can still have negative affects on a neighbouring State and that is unlikely to be ignored.

InTheTrees wrote: »

What "stats" would those be exactly?

Ending a nonsense prohibition doesnt always have to show benefits in law enforcement or be a windfall for the state.

When Ireland legalised contraception do you think the arguments for legalisation were all about freeing up police time and making cash for the state?

Nonsense comparison. Contraception was illegal because of religious dogma. Marijuana is illegal because of health concerns, be they right or wrong.

mikom

InTheTrees wrote: »

And if you think a popular "states rights" issue that starts on the west coast of the USA wont reach Ireland pay attention to the fact that Ireland will probably vote to accept Gay Marriage this year.

The bible was right all along........

Leviticus 20:13
if a man lays with another man, he should be stoned.

ohnonotgmail

mikom wrote: »

The bible was right all along........

Leviticus 20:13
if a man lays with another man, he should be stoned.

well he doesnt have to be. It helps, thats all i'm sayin.

InTheTrees

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What's your point? The actions of one State can still have negative affects on a neighbouring State and that is unlikely to be ignored.

You suggested a national policy.

InTheTrees

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Nonsense comparison. Contraception was illegal because of religious dogma. Marijuana is illegal because of health concerns, be they right or wrong.

It wasn't a nonsense comparison because I wasn't comparing the reasons behind the prohibition.

InTheTrees

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

A quick google tells me you are wrong. High taxes have caused a boom in the black market.

Ha ha...

I said there haven't been many issues.

There have certainly been issues. You don't fully legalize cannabis without some problems. Its never been done like this before, and it goes far beyond amsterdams model.

One issue is the tax rate. And its going to be lowered. The price is dropping too though so its getting closer and closer to the black market price. I don't think the black market price has dropped ber significantly though, not enough to produce a boom (?) anyway.

Another problem is that the medical dispensaries still use the Dutch model and get the product from illegal sources and thats got to end.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

All you've shown is the tax take.

Because you said there would not be a significant one. There was, is, and would be.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Where are all the savings on court and police time?

Do you really need a link for this? It's common sense. Do you think the police and courts dealt with illegal marijuana offenses in their spare time?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Have alcohol and nicotines tax takes gone down to compensate or is it all from people who use to buy drugs.

What are you talking about? There have been several links posted all about marijuana tax income in Colorado, over 41mil, and that's not including medicinal.
Why would other taxes go down?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There will obviously be an income, it just won't be as massive as people think.

But it is in Colorado and would be practically everywhere. It's a huge, huge, industry.

All the links have already been posted.

InTheTrees

Greenmachine wrote: »

The United States government managed, pretty well to implement a state wide minimum drinking age, of 21. I believe they did by making a ruling regarding the national highway fund. Seems the will was not a strong to continue the prohibition of marijuana, as setting a high minimum drinking age in the United States.

Thats right.

They didnt make a national law regarding drinking age they said they'd withhold federal funds to any state that didnt adopt a age 21 limit.

Which meant that all fifty states adopted the limit and made it law in their particular states.

Little CuChulainn

nm wrote: »

Because you said there would not be a significant one. There was, is, and would be.

I said it wouldn't be a windfall. That's with ll the costs and benefits combined. You simply posted the income from tax. Do you honestly believe that there are no related costs? And as I have already posted, such a high level of tax is actually killing the legal industry in Washington State.

nm wrote: »

Do you really need a link for this? It's common sense. Do you think the police and courts dealt with illegal marijuana offenses in their spare time?

I think cannabis possession charges take up very little of their time.

nm wrote: »

What are you talking about? There have been several links posted all about marijuana tax income in Colorado, over 41mil, and that's not including medicinal.
Why would other taxes go down?

Product substitution. Smoke a joint instead of a cigarette. Stay in for a few joints instead of go down the pub.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I said it wouldn't be a windfall. That's with ll the costs and benefits combined. You simply posted the income from tax. Do you honestly believe that there are no related costs? And as I have already posted, such a high level of tax is actually killing the legal industry in Washington State.

There are related costs, but they don't amount to anywhere near the $43~ million take.
This seems to be just speculation on your part, have you anything to back this up?
Why are the other states all moving to follow suit?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think cannabis possession charges take up very little of their time.

Well cannabis charges are down 80% in Colorado, we know this as fact. I am assuming that that will free some time and you're assuming it doesn't. We can agree to differ there.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Product substitution. Smoke a joint instead of a cigarette. Stay in for a few joints instead of go down the pub.

This is complete speculation again, is there anything to back this up?

Little CuChulainn

nm wrote: »

There are related costs, but they don't amount to anywhere near the $43~ million take.
This seems to be just speculation on your part, have you anything to back this up?
Why are the other states all moving to follow suit?

I like the irony of posting a speculative comment followed by a demand for evidence of my own. Have you anything to support your theory that it's nowhere near 43 million? You must accept there are costs, not only in running the program but in other areas too. The Colarado Department of Transport spent 1 million on a single ad campaign to target drivers under the influence of cannabis last year.

nm wrote: »

Well cannabis charges are down 80% in Colorado, we know this as fact. I am assuming that that will free some time and you're assuming it doesn't. We can agree to differ there.

Cannabis posession charges may be down butI've already explained that these take up a minimum of police time. Even in court. It's no more complex than a traffic summons. On the other hand, since the opening of marijuana dispensaries Colorado has seen an increase in fatal road accidents involving drivers under the influence of cannabis and an overall increase in charges for driving under the influence. And if what I've read is true, it looks like these figures are still going up. So where is all that time saved going? That's right, dealing with marijuana users.

nm wrote: »

This is complete speculation again, is there anything to back this up?

It's just economic logic. Substitution is not speculation. It happens in all markets when one product becomes cheaper or more convenient than another. I'll see if Colorado figures for alcohol and nicotine are available online to make a comparison though.