|
MDMA is approaching FDA drug approval process (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
And alcohol producers and distributors (a la the Anheiser-Busch clan) were already well-established as substantial donors to political campaigns.
Seriously, you guys are underestimating the pull of the alcohol and tobacco lobbies in DC - reason #1 why marijuana will likely never be legalized. Same goes for any other illicit drug that could be used for recreational purposes. |
I don't underestimate them at all. Marijuana was banned BECAUSE of big tobacco. They are the ones that pulled the bull to get it banned. I am well aware of that. Less competition means more profits.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
making something illegal rarely succeeds in reducing the demand for it. Demand for alcohol increased during prohibition. Demand for marijuana increased after it was outlawed in the 60s. I'm not sure about demand for acid in the late 60s but it certainly didn't go down significantly. Prohibiting something just makes it illegal... it doesn't destroy the market. |
This. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
Precisely. You start legalizing substances, and the private recreational pharmaceutical manufacturing industry is going to need a bailout. All that tax money you think you're profiting from by subsidizing previously illegal substances goes right back into the pockets of drug dealers and child murderers, etc.
KEEP ECSTASY ILLEGAL. |
If legalized, it would be cleaner, safer, and more readily available in properly measured forms. I would rather Jose go out of that business. |
|
|
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
And alcohol producers and distributors (a la the Anheiser-Busch clan) were already well-established as substantial donors to political campaigns.
Seriously, you guys are underestimating the pull of the alcohol and tobacco lobbies in DC - reason #1 why marijuana will likely never be legalized. Same goes for any other illicit drug that could be used for recreational purposes. |
I just don't get it - I've never known somebody who stopped smoking cigs and switched to weed. Their sales wouldn't go down at all - for either alcohol or tobacco - there would simply be another element to profit from with the legalization of marijuana. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| there seems to be some confusion here... you do realize they are not talking about completely deregulating MDMA, just making it available by prescription, right? It's mot like the FDA's going to allow it to be freely available next to the Tylenol. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
I just don't get it - I've never known somebody who stopped smoking cigs and switched to weed. Their sales wouldn't go down at all - for either alcohol or tobacco - there would simply be another element to profit from with the legalization of marijuana. |
But the legalization of marijuana would require them to invest billions in new farms, equipment, etc. That would mean less profit. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
making something illegal rarely succeeds in reducing the demand for it. Demand for alcohol increased during prohibition. Demand for marijuana increased after it was outlawed in the 60s. I'm not sure about demand for acid in the late 60s but it certainly didn't go down significantly. Prohibiting something just makes it illegal... it doesn't destroy the market. |
you misunderstand. i'm saying if no one is doing the drug, then it's not really an issue.
if people were getting high off cats spraying their hormones in your face (south park reference) them bitches would be outlawed next week. it just doesn't happen.
in fact i agree with what you posted above.
also - anyone else wonder, after the south park episode, if some dumbass kids went after (should they have one) their cat and tried to "test" the authenticity of it all? |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
But the legalization of marijuana would require them to invest billions in new farms, equipment, etc. That would mean less profit. |
wrong. it could, in fact, be a market stimulus. that's the whole concept of "investing". all those farms and equipment would create a whole new job market and stimulate the economy of the regions where they are built. |
|
|
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
If legalized, it would be cleaner, safer, and more readily available in properly measured forms. I would rather Jose go out of that business. |
See what I mean? People prefer the illusion of safety and corporations liable for their product provide that, something private sellers never truly could. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
I just don't get it - I've never known somebody who stopped smoking cigs and switched to weed. Their sales wouldn't go down at all - for either alcohol or tobacco - there would simply be another element to profit from with the legalization of marijuana. |
It's not about people stopping cigarette use - it's about people never starting. People don't stop smoking cigarettes often because they're addicting - and using marijuana doesn't end a nicotine addiction.
However, when faced with the legal alternative of getting high with no widely-published medical risks, Big Tobacco worries that it will no longer corner the 16 year old rebel without a cause crowd. Their older users are dying from cancer - Big Tobacco is always focused on the next generation of smokers (which explains commercials like Joe Camel, etc.) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
I just don't get it - I've never known somebody who stopped smoking cigs and switched to weed. Their sales wouldn't go down at all - for either alcohol or tobacco - there would simply be another element to profit from with the legalization of marijuana. |
the real problem wasn't that it would decrease demand for tobacco but it would decrease supply. Marijuana is easy to grow and cycles faster then tobacco. Add to this that marijuana does not need intensive processing prior to being market ready and you've really ed the tobacco companies, as farmers would switch to growing marijuana and selling it directly to consumers... essentially, tobacco would have become scarce and the tobacco companies would not have been able to turn significant profit from the marijuana industry. |
|
|
| Aortik |
Ah, that makes a lot of sense, actually.
Not to mention that we'd all denounce Jesus if pot were legal. Egads. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
However, when faced with the legal alternative of getting high with no widely-published medical risks, Big Tobacco worries that it will no longer corner the 16 year old rebel without a cause crowd. Their older users are dying from cancer - Big Tobacco is always focused on the next generation of smokers (which explains commercials like Joe Camel, etc.) |
i don't think joe camel has much to do with it. in fact i think it's the family influence/older smokers that bring in the youngsters in the first place.
at least that was the case with me. but could be a combination of things, nothing is ever 100% one way or the other (black and white :gsmile: ). |
|
|
|
|
