Originally posted by Low Orbit
one needs to put some time into it, one needs to watch it like a bonsai or something.
Why do I suddenly get the impression that you're under the influence?
We're not talking about pruning a bonsai tree. We're talking about causing a plant to grow in the manner that its genetics dictate. In an optimum
climate, good soil and/or appropriate fertilizer, and appropriate watering levels, any plant will meet its potential. Choosing the right strain of any
plant is also important.
I know from first-hand, non-illegal experiences that there are plenty of other plants which grow in "dirt" varieties which are of lower quality.
Oranges are a great example. Bad soil, light, and temperature equal bad oranges. Does sunkist have to grow them hydrophonically in a climate
controlled building under UV lights to make them good? No. They plant them in the right place at the right season and get the right nutrients in the
soil. As a matter of fact, if you live in the right place, all you've really got to do to get the best oranges you ever had is wait till your pet
dies and bury him under the tree.
The operative word in dirt weed is dirt- as opposed to rich soil.
Finally, why would you ever think of trasporting it to over state's boaders, doing that is an invitation to be locked up.
Number 1, it is obviously done, so it is a factor in the pre-legalization economics of this proposed cash crop.
Number 2, ATS forbids discussion of illegal activity- this thread only hopes to maintain legitimacy in that it is a policy discussion. Hence we are
not discussing the merits of narcotrafficking but rather are discussing how legalization would change the economics of pot as a cash crop. In other
words, it wouldn't be illegal to transport it in the scenario we are projecting, and it would be an integral part of efficiency in the industry, thus
this must be considered as part of the projection of marijuana's laughable cash-crop potential.
As for the ad misericordiam argument featuring the little old lady with a drug problem, there are plenty of other policy solutions which would be both
socially and economically more sound than legalizing weed, so she hardly moves the issue.
Taking away prison sentences for marijuana use need not be a package deal with legalizing it- we can stop giving prison sentences for that without
legalization and use fines instead and put that money towards helping our police go soley after dealers and traffickers (who often enough deal in more
than just weed) thus using a punishment that fits the crime to bolster our efforts against meth, which I agree is a bigger problem.
The economics of legalization are less than compelling. The social issues are where the weight of the argument lies.
On the one hand, legalizing marijuana will necessarily make it more accessible and thus likely increase overall useage, which will carry a certain
cost to the general public in terms of productivity and marijuana involved accidents of various kinds, nor will it necessarily destroy the black
market if demand and taxation don't stay at a level which reduces prices below current street prices.
On the other hand, keeping it illegal leaves us with a black market problem which does fund criminal activity, among other things.
Thats a tradeoff that's been debated for some time, it seems to me to be a fair topic for debate, and I'm not necessarily predisposed to conclude
one way or another, but you certainly can't skip neatly around that with a poorly thought out economic claim that just doesn't seem to hold up to
[edit on 20-12-2006 by The Vagabond]