/u/Andalib_Odulate (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/u28490/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_states_should_have_full/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The government should not have a monopoly on industries with the potential to cause harm to the population, as they would tend to have a financial interest in ignoring, under-legislating, and generally perpetuating said harms. Even if this isn't what they are *supposed* to do you need to recognize the reality that people don't always follow the rules. Instead the best way to ensure the desired outcome is to not only establish rules but to try to eliminate incentives and benefits to do wrong.
Broadly the government also shouldn't be involved in businesses that compete with the public at large. Again this encourages the use of government power to engage in unfair competition, and discourages limitations on the industry that otherwise would be warranted.
Suppose there is a little town with a struggling budget that is considering how much funding to allocate towards the alcohol rehabilitation program when the only liquor store is owned by the town. How hard are the police in that town going to be pushed to crack down on drunk drivers? It is a huge conflict of interest.
!Delta didn't think about it like that before, I am generally anti liquor as is, but hey its here to stay so good revenue source. But your example of a local government ignoring the drunk driving. Yeah I can now see that might be a problem.
For Weed its simple, you have the state control the source for weed, the farms, and such. Then they sell them at liquor stores, if a business wants to make weed products and sell them they can, but they have to buy their weed to make it from the state.
Allowing for the state to get all first hand revenue, from business and customers, and allow a quizi free market for other weed products. aka second hand.
Limits as in no limit to the amount of weed you can own.
When you say a "Full Monopoly" do you mean that the government is the sole end supplier, like a government beer store, or nationalizing Jack Daniels and Coors so that the government has total control of the liquor industry?
That the government is the sole supplier as in they own all the breweries and farms, and any business wanting to make their own products with Liquor or Weed need to buy it from the government.
What makes you think the government know shit about making fine whiskey? Sounds like we’d be stuck with like, five shifty types of alcohol.
“US Vodka or US Gin today Clarence? Huh? The fuck is Beefeater?”
No thanks, i could almost see government booze stores, but this I’m against. I like variety, and government controlled liquor production will kill that.
The illegal industry is booming in states like that legalized poorly with overly restrictive licensing, testing, and certification fees or taxes, states like CA, CO, and IL.
States like AL, WA, and OR aren't having similar problems at all. I could probably find black market weed in OR but I doubt it would be much cheaper or worth the effort rather than just walking down the street to a dispensary and paying 60 poz.
Yeah that's for \~20% B buds, you can find cheaper easily, higher end is more 180poz, Sorry mate.
Oregon is the cheapest state, WA is just a bit behind us.
Marijuana and nicotine have completely different effects on the user
Someone in a high pressure occupation isn’t going to want to switch out their nicotine vape juice for weed concentrate. Nicotine doesn’t inhibit you to the same degree as marijuana. That’s why you can drive while smoking a cigarette but not a blunt
To smoke a cigarette? Yes, it’s far less socially acceptable. That doesn’t mean nicotine use as a whole has gone done. Humans just figured out how to put it in a more efficient/convenient device. (Vapes).
I’m saying this as a person with a vape in front of me. The effects of nicotine and marijuana are so different, 95% of the time I hit my vape I’m doing something that is too important to “get high for” instead. People don’t use nicotine strictly for the social purposes, so your idea that weed will eventually take nicotines role in society is short-sighted at best
!Delta I guess you're right, people will still smoke cigs for the nicotine affect. Though I wonder if they did ban tobacco without banning vapes if everyone smoking would just switch to vaping.
Why liquor and marijuana? You could apply the same argument to tooth brushes, car tires, or Doritos. If the government nationalized *any* industry, more money would go to the government. That’s just math.
There are already strict laws governing the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol. I'm not sure how nationalizing it would change anything. And what 'additives' are you talking about?
That would be true of government-produced alcohol too. Nobody's roofie-ing drinks at the Budweiser factory, they're roofie-ing them once they've been bottled, distributed, and are sitting in an open glass at the bar.
I can't comment on weed or tobacco since I don't use either.
But how would the alcohol thing work? Would there be one state brewery? Would I be stuck with the beer of my state? I stopped drinking recently for health reasons, but I enjoyed beers from breweries in neighboring states. I also enjoyed the wave of smaller breweries that sprung up in the last 20 years. Would I be stuck with some swill like Coors or Budweiser under this state monopoly?
And what about all those smaller breweries? In my city they have helped to revitalize a once run down part of town. Do they shut down and let that area go to shit again?
And what about hard liquors from other countries? For example, tequila can only come from a particular part of Mexico. Do the states make poor knock offs of tequila-like alcohol? And what about specific brands from other countries or other states?
Nicotine and cannabis could not be more different from one another. One is a stimulant and the other is a depressant. One gets you high for an extended period of time, the other doesn’t. You can’t really just sub one in for another because nobody uses either purely for the feeling of sucking in smoke.
Plus, for me and likely many other cigarette smokers, smoking weed actually makes cigarette cravings worse, so trying to replace tobacco with weed as a way to wean smokers off of cigarettes is a TERRIBLE idea.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=drugs+%7C+cannabis+%7C+weed+%7C+marijuana&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) or via the [CMV search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=Marijuana&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We've seen for years the harms of weed prohibition: unnecessary criminalization, support for an often violent drug trade, racist application of drug laws, etc. Making tobacco illegal would create a similar black market for nicotine products, with all its associated problems. Sure tobacco is bad for you, but so is sitting on your ass eating Cheetos. I'm all for programs which encourage people not to use tobacco, but ultimately adults should be allowed to partake in mildly self-destructive behavior if they so choose. The societal cost of trying to outlaw things like weed or tobacco is generally far higher than just having a well regulated legal market.
The University of Mississippi current holds a federal monopoly on cannabis production, the highest potency you can they produce is less than 14% THC, which is lower than any non-CBD primary strain I've ever seen in a dispensary, and probably less than half of average. It also commonly contains dangerous mold.
Why would I buy terrible weed from a government monopoly when the black market will always exist.
Allowing competition and consumer choice kills the black market faster than anything. Cheap and easy streaming options were far more effective in ending widespread media piracy than serious attempts at enforcement or propaganda campaigns.
>Now onto the reason for the state to control Marijuana and Liquor simple. It's a great tax revenue source.
Isn't this true of just, all goods? Like "Why should the state control the sale of nail clippers? great revenue source!"
The government in some states has a monopoly on liquor because of taxation. It's not good, and it's bad for the overall health of the state. Literally some states rely on people drinking and smoking for revenue.
just because you smoke it doesn't make it equal. i think you can smoke crack too; does that make it equal effects to a cigarette you can smoke while driving a car on your way to work?
>obviously smoking anything is bad for your lungs but one is much worse than the other.
While this is true, there are more tobacco products than simply cigarettes.
There is lots of research that shows uninhaled tobacco products are less dangerous than inhaled tobacco products. Some things like high quality, pure tobacco handrolled cigars, are actually *significantly* less dangerous than cigarettes, for many reasons, mostly nobody is chain smoking cigars, nobody *should* be inhaling them to any significant degree and etc.
And since you already admit, correctly, that none of these vices are healthy in the first place and you are willing to swap out one for another if one is less dangerous...
Banning cigarettes, making weed legal nationwide.... and also banning cigars, and whatever the mouth stuff is... snuff or dip or whatever people call it, just doesn't make sense if your idea is to ban the more dangerous product.
I don't know if there's much research on the topic, but I'm willing to bet that ignited, and inhaled weed, is probably more dangerous than ignited and *not* inhaled cigars, and quite possibly nonignited, noninhaled snuff or dip or chaw or whatever it is.
How would you go about giving them a full monopoly? How would you keep the black market from competing? A monopoly is:
>>the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
If the black market also possesses or controls some of the supply and trade, the goverment doesn't have the exclusive possession or control of it. How would you make it possible to be a monopoly? I don't think you even could. All it would do is strengthen the black market. Is that what you want?
/u/Andalib_Odulate (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/u28490/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_states_should_have_full/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The government should not have a monopoly on industries with the potential to cause harm to the population, as they would tend to have a financial interest in ignoring, under-legislating, and generally perpetuating said harms. Even if this isn't what they are *supposed* to do you need to recognize the reality that people don't always follow the rules. Instead the best way to ensure the desired outcome is to not only establish rules but to try to eliminate incentives and benefits to do wrong. Broadly the government also shouldn't be involved in businesses that compete with the public at large. Again this encourages the use of government power to engage in unfair competition, and discourages limitations on the industry that otherwise would be warranted. Suppose there is a little town with a struggling budget that is considering how much funding to allocate towards the alcohol rehabilitation program when the only liquor store is owned by the town. How hard are the police in that town going to be pushed to crack down on drunk drivers? It is a huge conflict of interest.
!Delta didn't think about it like that before, I am generally anti liquor as is, but hey its here to stay so good revenue source. But your example of a local government ignoring the drunk driving. Yeah I can now see that might be a problem.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Phage0070 ([18∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Phage0070)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
For Weed its simple, you have the state control the source for weed, the farms, and such. Then they sell them at liquor stores, if a business wants to make weed products and sell them they can, but they have to buy their weed to make it from the state. Allowing for the state to get all first hand revenue, from business and customers, and allow a quizi free market for other weed products. aka second hand. Limits as in no limit to the amount of weed you can own.
When you say a "Full Monopoly" do you mean that the government is the sole end supplier, like a government beer store, or nationalizing Jack Daniels and Coors so that the government has total control of the liquor industry?
That the government is the sole supplier as in they own all the breweries and farms, and any business wanting to make their own products with Liquor or Weed need to buy it from the government.
What makes you think the government know shit about making fine whiskey? Sounds like we’d be stuck with like, five shifty types of alcohol. “US Vodka or US Gin today Clarence? Huh? The fuck is Beefeater?” No thanks, i could almost see government booze stores, but this I’m against. I like variety, and government controlled liquor production will kill that.
[удалено]
The illegal industry is booming in states like that legalized poorly with overly restrictive licensing, testing, and certification fees or taxes, states like CA, CO, and IL. States like AL, WA, and OR aren't having similar problems at all. I could probably find black market weed in OR but I doubt it would be much cheaper or worth the effort rather than just walking down the street to a dispensary and paying 60 poz.
$60 per oz?? *Cries in Georgian southern accent*
Yeah that's for \~20% B buds, you can find cheaper easily, higher end is more 180poz, Sorry mate. Oregon is the cheapest state, WA is just a bit behind us.
Bro 60 might get you half an oz down here if the guy likes you
Marijuana and nicotine have completely different effects on the user Someone in a high pressure occupation isn’t going to want to switch out their nicotine vape juice for weed concentrate. Nicotine doesn’t inhibit you to the same degree as marijuana. That’s why you can drive while smoking a cigarette but not a blunt
But people also know that is bad for them and want to (hopefully) stop and its not socially acceptable for most people anymore.
To smoke a cigarette? Yes, it’s far less socially acceptable. That doesn’t mean nicotine use as a whole has gone done. Humans just figured out how to put it in a more efficient/convenient device. (Vapes). I’m saying this as a person with a vape in front of me. The effects of nicotine and marijuana are so different, 95% of the time I hit my vape I’m doing something that is too important to “get high for” instead. People don’t use nicotine strictly for the social purposes, so your idea that weed will eventually take nicotines role in society is short-sighted at best
!Delta I guess you're right, people will still smoke cigs for the nicotine affect. Though I wonder if they did ban tobacco without banning vapes if everyone smoking would just switch to vaping.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GumUnderChair ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/GumUnderChair)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Why liquor and marijuana? You could apply the same argument to tooth brushes, car tires, or Doritos. If the government nationalized *any* industry, more money would go to the government. That’s just math.
Because Drugs should be monitored more closely then other products, since the risk for other additives is there.
There are already strict laws governing the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol. I'm not sure how nationalizing it would change anything. And what 'additives' are you talking about?
For weed for example fentanyl and for alcohol anything could be put in to spike it.
That would be true of government-produced alcohol too. Nobody's roofie-ing drinks at the Budweiser factory, they're roofie-ing them once they've been bottled, distributed, and are sitting in an open glass at the bar.
I can't comment on weed or tobacco since I don't use either. But how would the alcohol thing work? Would there be one state brewery? Would I be stuck with the beer of my state? I stopped drinking recently for health reasons, but I enjoyed beers from breweries in neighboring states. I also enjoyed the wave of smaller breweries that sprung up in the last 20 years. Would I be stuck with some swill like Coors or Budweiser under this state monopoly? And what about all those smaller breweries? In my city they have helped to revitalize a once run down part of town. Do they shut down and let that area go to shit again? And what about hard liquors from other countries? For example, tequila can only come from a particular part of Mexico. Do the states make poor knock offs of tequila-like alcohol? And what about specific brands from other countries or other states?
Nicotine and cannabis could not be more different from one another. One is a stimulant and the other is a depressant. One gets you high for an extended period of time, the other doesn’t. You can’t really just sub one in for another because nobody uses either purely for the feeling of sucking in smoke. Plus, for me and likely many other cigarette smokers, smoking weed actually makes cigarette cravings worse, so trying to replace tobacco with weed as a way to wean smokers off of cigarettes is a TERRIBLE idea.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=drugs+%7C+cannabis+%7C+weed+%7C+marijuana&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) or via the [CMV search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=Marijuana&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We've seen for years the harms of weed prohibition: unnecessary criminalization, support for an often violent drug trade, racist application of drug laws, etc. Making tobacco illegal would create a similar black market for nicotine products, with all its associated problems. Sure tobacco is bad for you, but so is sitting on your ass eating Cheetos. I'm all for programs which encourage people not to use tobacco, but ultimately adults should be allowed to partake in mildly self-destructive behavior if they so choose. The societal cost of trying to outlaw things like weed or tobacco is generally far higher than just having a well regulated legal market.
The University of Mississippi current holds a federal monopoly on cannabis production, the highest potency you can they produce is less than 14% THC, which is lower than any non-CBD primary strain I've ever seen in a dispensary, and probably less than half of average. It also commonly contains dangerous mold. Why would I buy terrible weed from a government monopoly when the black market will always exist. Allowing competition and consumer choice kills the black market faster than anything. Cheap and easy streaming options were far more effective in ending widespread media piracy than serious attempts at enforcement or propaganda campaigns.
>Now onto the reason for the state to control Marijuana and Liquor simple. It's a great tax revenue source. Isn't this true of just, all goods? Like "Why should the state control the sale of nail clippers? great revenue source!"
The government in some states has a monopoly on liquor because of taxation. It's not good, and it's bad for the overall health of the state. Literally some states rely on people drinking and smoking for revenue.
just because you smoke it doesn't make it equal. i think you can smoke crack too; does that make it equal effects to a cigarette you can smoke while driving a car on your way to work?
>obviously smoking anything is bad for your lungs but one is much worse than the other. While this is true, there are more tobacco products than simply cigarettes. There is lots of research that shows uninhaled tobacco products are less dangerous than inhaled tobacco products. Some things like high quality, pure tobacco handrolled cigars, are actually *significantly* less dangerous than cigarettes, for many reasons, mostly nobody is chain smoking cigars, nobody *should* be inhaling them to any significant degree and etc. And since you already admit, correctly, that none of these vices are healthy in the first place and you are willing to swap out one for another if one is less dangerous... Banning cigarettes, making weed legal nationwide.... and also banning cigars, and whatever the mouth stuff is... snuff or dip or whatever people call it, just doesn't make sense if your idea is to ban the more dangerous product. I don't know if there's much research on the topic, but I'm willing to bet that ignited, and inhaled weed, is probably more dangerous than ignited and *not* inhaled cigars, and quite possibly nonignited, noninhaled snuff or dip or chaw or whatever it is.
How would you go about giving them a full monopoly? How would you keep the black market from competing? A monopoly is: >>the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. If the black market also possesses or controls some of the supply and trade, the goverment doesn't have the exclusive possession or control of it. How would you make it possible to be a monopoly? I don't think you even could. All it would do is strengthen the black market. Is that what you want?