Also, Fellhand, we don't want cannabis legalized. Anyone who says that doesn't know what they're talking about.
I want it legalised and I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Ditto, although my grounds for wanting it legalized are based in the sheer volume of government cheese wasted on keeping it illegal that could otherwise be put to some sort of actual use.
Also, Fellhand, we don't want cannabis legalized. Anyone who says that doesn't know what they're talking about.
I want it legalised and I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Ditto, although my grounds for wanting it legalized are based in the sheer volume of government cheese wasted on keeping it illegal that could otherwise be put to some sort of actual use.
That's one of my reasons too. I also resent being forced to pay for someone to make my life more difficult.
Also, Fellhand, we don't want cannabis legalized. Anyone who says that doesn't know what they're talking about.
I want it legalised and I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Ditto, although my grounds for wanting it legalized are based in the sheer volume of government cheese wasted on keeping it illegal that could otherwise be put to some sort of actual use.
That's one of my reasons too. I also resent being forced to pay for someone to make my life more difficult.
I stick with the argument that the most people are likely to understand, the one about their money.
Also, Fellhand, we don't want cannabis legalized. Anyone who says that doesn't know what they're talking about.
I want it legalised and I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Ditto, although my grounds for wanting it legalized are based in the sheer volume of government cheese wasted on keeping it illegal that could otherwise be put to some sort of actual use.
That's one of my reasons too. I also resent being forced to pay for someone to make my life more difficult.
I stick with the argument that the most people are likely to understand, the one about their money.
Not only would the government stop wasting their money, but they would be able to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis, so they would make a boat load of money.
This is my frustration as well. And that's not even allowing for the clear opportunities that drugs *DO* offer above other things, like recent potential therapies involving ecstacy and LSD for various emotional/psychological problems
bwahahahahaha
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Well that psilocybin experiment came out recently, and it seems like the United States is actually relaxing its anti-drug policies when it comes to research with substances like psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA. MAPS is constantly working on new studies, and I don't think its completely unreasonable that these things might be available for therapeutic use in 5-15 years.
Well that psilocybin experiment came out recently, and it seems like the United States is actually relaxing its anti-drug policies when it comes to research with substances like psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA. MAPS is constantly working on new studies, and I don't think its completely unreasonable that these things might be available for therapeutic use in 5-15 years.
Well that psilocybin experiment came out recently, and it seems like the United States is actually relaxing its anti-drug policies when it comes to research with substances like psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA. MAPS is constantly working on new studies, and I don't think its completely unreasonable that these things might be available for therapeutic use in 5-15 years.
Actually, it's far more likely that patented pharmaceuticals based loosely off of those drugs, but designed to have less abuse potential, will become available for therapeutic use in the future.
So you probably won't see MDMA used in therapy without some significant political sea change, but you might see a molecule that shares a mechanism of action with MDMA.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Also, Fellhand, we don't want cannabis legalized. Anyone who says that doesn't know what they're talking about.
I want it legalised and I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Ditto, although my grounds for wanting it legalized are based in the sheer volume of government cheese wasted on keeping it illegal that could otherwise be put to some sort of actual use.
I'm pretty sure I know what Shogun is talking about, and agree. I'd rather it decriminalized and leave it at that. We all know how tobacco turned out, that should be a big enough clue to why you wouldn't want it legalized. Though if I'm wrong in my thinking on the distinction between the two, please let me know.
I really think you should put the "less" in "less potential for abuse" in quotes, there, given the side-effects listed on a bunch of modern prescription anti-depressants.
I really think you should put the "less" in "less potential for abuse" in quotes, there, given the side-effects listed on a bunch of modern prescription anti-depressants.
Not really sure what you're saying. Antidepressants have extremely low abuse potential.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I really think you should put the "less" in "less potential for abuse" in quotes, there, given the side-effects listed on a bunch of modern prescription anti-depressants.
Not really sure what you're saying. Antidepressants have extremely low abuse potential.
I confused myself. When I said abuse I was thinking damage/harm/etc. The things that abuse leads to that make abuse bad.
Also, Fellhand, we don't want cannabis legalized. Anyone who says that doesn't know what they're talking about.
I want it legalised and I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Ditto, although my grounds for wanting it legalized are based in the sheer volume of government cheese wasted on keeping it illegal that could otherwise be put to some sort of actual use.
I'm pretty sure I know what Shogun is talking about, and agree. I'd rather it decriminalized and leave it at that. We all know how tobacco turned out, that should be a big enough clue to why you wouldn't want it legalized. Though if I'm wrong in my thinking on the distinction between the two, please let me know.
Bear in mind that I don't have any problem with tobacco being legal either.
Isn't it, in small amounts, decriminalized in like 1/3 of US states?
I know that they are at least considering decriminalizing it here (MA).
It has been decriminalized in Ohio since the early '70s. Up to 3.5 oz nets you a $100 ticket, unless you have the means on hand to break it up into seperate measured baggies, in which case you get intent to sell.
Isn't it, in small amounts, decriminalized in like 1/3 of US states?
I know that they are at least considering decriminalizing it here (MA).
It has been decriminalized in Ohio since the early '70s. Up to 3.5 oz nets you a $100 ticket, unless you have the means on hand to break it up into seperate measured baggies, in which case you get intent to sell.
That's not really decriminalized if there's a penalty for it is it?
Isn't it, in small amounts, decriminalized in like 1/3 of US states?
I know that they are at least considering decriminalizing it here (MA).
It has been decriminalized in Ohio since the early '70s. Up to 3.5 oz nets you a $100 ticket, unless you have the means on hand to break it up into seperate measured baggies, in which case you get intent to sell.
That's not really decriminalized if there's a penalty for it is it?
It's not a criminal charge, it's a minor-misdemeanor. The legal equivalent of a parking-ticket.
Also, Fellhand, we don't want cannabis legalized. Anyone who says that doesn't know what they're talking about.
I want it legalised and I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Ditto, although my grounds for wanting it legalized are based in the sheer volume of government cheese wasted on keeping it illegal that could otherwise be put to some sort of actual use.
I'm pretty sure I know what Shogun is talking about, and agree. I'd rather it decriminalized and leave it at that. We all know how tobacco turned out, that should be a big enough clue to why you wouldn't want it legalized. Though if I'm wrong in my thinking on the distinction between the two, please let me know.
Bear in mind that I don't have any problem with tobacco being legal either.
The problem with tobacco is all the additives the cigarette companies put with it. I mean I don't know if I'd like pure tobacco (not that I enjoy cigarettes too much anyways) but I know I wouldn't want the equivalent product with marijuana.
djklay on
0
Options
ShogunHair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get alongRegistered Userregular
Also, Fellhand, we don't want cannabis legalized. Anyone who says that doesn't know what they're talking about.
I want it legalised and I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Ditto, although my grounds for wanting it legalized are based in the sheer volume of government cheese wasted on keeping it illegal that could otherwise be put to some sort of actual use.
I'm pretty sure I know what Shogun is talking about, and agree. I'd rather it decriminalized and leave it at that. We all know how tobacco turned out, that should be a big enough clue to why you wouldn't want it legalized. Though if I'm wrong in my thinking on the distinction between the two, please let me know.
Bear in mind that I don't have any problem with tobacco being legal either.
The problem with tobacco is all the additives the cigarette companies put with it. I mean I don't know if I'd like pure tobacco (not that I enjoy cigarettes too much anyways) but I know I wouldn't want the equivalent product with marijuana.
Thank you for being the only person in the thread to understand where I'm coming from. There is an industry in place already that, should cannabis become legalized, can grow it on their land, harvest it quickly and efficiently, roll it up, and stuff it 20 to a pack.
That'd be the tobacco industry. I think we all know the good they've done for America thus far. I really don't want them gaining immediate control of our newly freed cannabis only to ruin it for their profits. Cannabis should never ever be legalized, only decriminalized. I could really go into a serious tangent about this, but I'm not going to. I gave up long ago trying to change people's minds. I just wish everyone could've read what I've read, and fully understand the actual why behind it ever being illegal in the first place.
I don't think it necessarily follows that legalization == tobacco companies in control of the entire weed industry. I guess it sort of depends on how the legislation handles the production of dope, whether you need to have an expensive government contract or something. Because I can just as easily imagine a burgeoning industry of competing small businesses growing the shit in greenhouses and selling it to the public, head shops with shelves loaded with different strains from various suppliers, and friendly hippies selling their own home-grown organic shit at farmer's markets and whatnot. Personally I'm a fan of any law that says I can grow my own dope in the garden, next to the tomatoes.
There is already a community of dedicated growers of marijuana, that if marijuana were to be legalized, I think would make up the bulk of marijuana supply. Maybe this is just wishful thinking. Nonetheless, unlike tobacco, marijuana users are very preferential about the types of strains, methods of curing, and the type of weed they get. Tobacco companies wouldn't be able to sell shit weed covered in poison for the simple fact that no one will buy it. Plus, the ease of growing weed would create another incentive to not buy the shit from the major corporations. There is simply too much variety and preference out there for marijuana to be lumped into a single entity to be shit-fucked by the tobacco companies.
I would much rather pay $250 for a zip of Bubba Kush than $80 for a ounce of schwag. Marijuana users aren't stupid, the same market mechanisms applies to them as anyone else.
Dude, you guys are aware that you can buy tobacco without additives, right?
There just isn't a big market for it. However, there would no doubt be a massive market for organic marijuana.
Also, that Ohio law is hilarious. If you have 3.5oz, you're probably going to be selling some of it no matter what.
There doesn't need to be a large market. In the morning when the shops uptown open up, I can choose from no less than five additive-free tobacco brand options and this town doesn't even have a tobacconist shop.
I used to work for a medicinal pot clinic - a pretty big one, actually. We sold ungodly amounts of shitty brown Mexican weed (after paying a couple of stoners a few bucks over minimum wage to pick through it and pull the dead flies and cockroaches out).
A lot of people really don't care what quality of pot they smoke.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I used to work for a medicinal pot clinic - a pretty big one, actually. We sold ungodly amounts of shitty brown Mexican weed (after paying a couple of stoners a few bucks over minimum wage to pick through it and pull the dead flies and cockroaches out).
A lot of people really don't care what quality of pot they smoke.
I used to work for a medicinal pot clinic - a pretty big one, actually. We sold ungodly amounts of shitty brown Mexican weed (after paying a couple of stoners a few bucks over minimum wage to pick through it and pull the dead flies and cockroaches out).
A lot of people really don't care what quality of pot they smoke.
Indeed. But a lot of people do care, too. Higher quality weed gives a much different high, one that many people vastly prefer.
I used to work for a medicinal pot clinic - a pretty big one, actually. We sold ungodly amounts of shitty brown Mexican weed (after paying a couple of stoners a few bucks over minimum wage to pick through it and pull the dead flies and cockroaches out).
A lot of people really don't care what quality of pot they smoke.
I don't know what kind of clinic you worked at, but all the ones I've seen have a wide range of very good pot along with shitty strains. At this one clinic I just visited in California, I saw Master Kush, Northern Lights, Alohaberry, and more all available to patients. The strain of marijuana is very important, as the different effects they produce have different effects on medical conditions. If I can find the list of the different strains that correspond to each disease I'll post it. Also, Mexican pot can be shitty but it can also be very, very, very dank.
I used to work for a medicinal pot clinic - a pretty big one, actually. We sold ungodly amounts of shitty brown Mexican weed (after paying a couple of stoners a few bucks over minimum wage to pick through it and pull the dead flies and cockroaches out).
A lot of people really don't care what quality of pot they smoke.
I don't know what kind of clinic you worked at, but all the ones I've seen have a wide range of very good pot along with shitty strains. At this one clinic I just visited in California, I saw Master Kush, Northern Lights, Alohaberry, and more all available to patients. The strain of marijuana is very important, as the different effects they produce have different effects on medical conditions. If I can find the list of the different strains that correspond to each disease I'll post it. Also, Mexican pot can be shitty but it can also be very, very, very dank.
I never said we didn't. A lot of customers wanted specific strains, too, or only wanted whatever the blue star sativa of the day was or whatever.
I'm just challenging the notion that no pot smokers want shitty cheap weed. Plenty do, enough to form a market. Some people want whatever's cheap and plentiful.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I used to work for a medicinal pot clinic - a pretty big one, actually. We sold ungodly amounts of shitty brown Mexican weed (after paying a couple of stoners a few bucks over minimum wage to pick through it and pull the dead flies and cockroaches out).
A lot of people really don't care what quality of pot they smoke.
I don't know what kind of clinic you worked at, but all the ones I've seen have a wide range of very good pot along with shitty strains. At this one clinic I just visited in California, I saw Master Kush, Northern Lights, Alohaberry, and more all available to patients. The strain of marijuana is very important, as the different effects they produce have different effects on medical conditions. If I can find the list of the different strains that correspond to each disease I'll post it. Also, Mexican pot can be shitty but it can also be very, very, very dank.
I never said we didn't. A lot of customers wanted specific strains, too, or only wanted whatever the blue star sativa of the day was or whatever.
I'm just challenging the notion that no pot smokers want shitty cheap weed. Plenty do, enough to form a market. Some people want whatever's cheap and plentiful.
Hence the popularity of Natty.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
ShogunHair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get alongRegistered Userregular
I used to work for a medicinal pot clinic - a pretty big one, actually. We sold ungodly amounts of shitty brown Mexican weed (after paying a couple of stoners a few bucks over minimum wage to pick through it and pull the dead flies and cockroaches out).
A lot of people really don't care what quality of pot they smoke.
I don't know what kind of clinic you worked at, but all the ones I've seen have a wide range of very good pot along with shitty strains. At this one clinic I just visited in California, I saw Master Kush, Northern Lights, Alohaberry, and more all available to patients. The strain of marijuana is very important, as the different effects they produce have different effects on medical conditions. If I can find the list of the different strains that correspond to each disease I'll post it. Also, Mexican pot can be shitty but it can also be very, very, very dank.
I never said we didn't. A lot of customers wanted specific strains, too, or only wanted whatever the blue star sativa of the day was or whatever.
I'm just challenging the notion that no pot smokers want shitty cheap weed. Plenty do, enough to form a market. Some people want whatever's cheap and plentiful.
Those same people are already tobacco company's biggest customer base. Broke people. Broke people don't take the time to go to the local cannabis club and pick out good shit. They're going to buy a pack of joints for seven or eight dollars. The tobacco companies will sell cheap packs, expensive packs, and everything in between. Cannabis will become a thing of convenience like ciggs and quarts of oil are today. These people buy what they can afford. They already get their smokes this way, why wouldn't they do the same for bud? This also holds true to Natty, VC.
That'd be the tobacco industry. I think we all know the good they've done for America thus far. I really don't want them gaining immediate control of our newly freed cannabis only to ruin it for their profits. Cannabis should never ever be legalized, only decriminalized. I could really go into a serious tangent about this, but I'm not going to. I gave up long ago trying to change people's minds.
I guarantee that Philip Morris wouldn't be the only company making them (if they made them at all). It would, in all likelihood, resemble the alcohol industry more than the tobacco industry, with differing strengths and strains of cannabis made by a wide variety of companies. It wouldn't "ruin" cannabis at all (probably the opposite: people would be free to genetically engineer and selectively breed it, like they have done with tobacco, to produce even more potent cannabis). You also wouldn't have to worry about "cheap" people ruining it, because there would be better, more expensive packs available as well (just like the difference between Budweiser and Samuel Adams). And if you don't like what they sell, you can grow your own... problem solved.
Legalizing it would allow a huge amount of money (currently being spent to fight cannabis usage) to go towards other, better objectives. The taxes on it would generate a ton of additional revenue. A bunch of jobs would be created, we would spend less money keeping people in jail... the list goes on and on.
I just wish everyone could've read what I've read, and fully understand the actual why behind it ever being illegal in the first place.
Please, do tell. To my knowledge, there has never been a single good reason to outlaw it. It happened as a result of a propaganda machine that continues to this day. Cannabis was initially (and still often is) referred to as "marijuana" in U.S. anti-cannabis ads because it sounds strange and foreign (Mexican/Spanish). And you got gems like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Killerdrug.jpg
Marijuana was made illegal primarily because of the association it had with Mexican workers coming over, and cocaine was made illegal because some thought it made black men get the urge to rape white women. The history of drug banning in the US is very much tied into racism.
I used to work for a medicinal pot clinic - a pretty big one, actually. We sold ungodly amounts of shitty brown Mexican weed (after paying a couple of stoners a few bucks over minimum wage to pick through it and pull the dead flies and cockroaches out).
A lot of people really don't care what quality of pot they smoke.
I don't know what kind of clinic you worked at, but all the ones I've seen have a wide range of very good pot along with shitty strains. At this one clinic I just visited in California, I saw Master Kush, Northern Lights, Alohaberry, and more all available to patients. The strain of marijuana is very important, as the different effects they produce have different effects on medical conditions. If I can find the list of the different strains that correspond to each disease I'll post it. Also, Mexican pot can be shitty but it can also be very, very, very dank.
I never said we didn't. A lot of customers wanted specific strains, too, or only wanted whatever the blue star sativa of the day was or whatever.
I'm just challenging the notion that no pot smokers want shitty cheap weed. Plenty do, enough to form a market. Some people want whatever's cheap and plentiful.
Those same people are already tobacco company's biggest customer base. Broke people. Broke people don't take the time to go to the local cannabis club and pick out good shit. They're going to buy a pack of joints for seven or eight dollars. The tobacco companies will sell cheap packs, expensive packs, and everything in between. Cannabis will become a thing of convenience like ciggs and quarts of oil are today. These people buy what they can afford. They already get their smokes this way, why wouldn't they do the same for bud? This also holds true to Natty, VC.
Damn fine point you make here.
I was a proponent of full out legalization until I read this thread, but all the things that you have said would most likely happen. As a large hater of the tobacco industry, I could totally imagine them diving head first into this the moment it's legalized. Why wouldn't they?
Posts
Ditto, although my grounds for wanting it legalized are based in the sheer volume of government cheese wasted on keeping it illegal that could otherwise be put to some sort of actual use.
That's one of my reasons too. I also resent being forced to pay for someone to make my life more difficult.
I stick with the argument that the most people are likely to understand, the one about their money.
bwahahahahaha
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
I can't see it happening in the US any time soon. Unfortunately that also affects our laws.
Yes exactly, if you scoff at that well, grow up.
Actually, it's far more likely that patented pharmaceuticals based loosely off of those drugs, but designed to have less abuse potential, will become available for therapeutic use in the future.
So you probably won't see MDMA used in therapy without some significant political sea change, but you might see a molecule that shares a mechanism of action with MDMA.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm pretty sure I know what Shogun is talking about, and agree. I'd rather it decriminalized and leave it at that. We all know how tobacco turned out, that should be a big enough clue to why you wouldn't want it legalized. Though if I'm wrong in my thinking on the distinction between the two, please let me know.
Not really sure what you're saying. Antidepressants have extremely low abuse potential.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I confused myself. When I said abuse I was thinking damage/harm/etc. The things that abuse leads to that make abuse bad.
Bear in mind that I don't have any problem with tobacco being legal either.
I know that they are at least considering decriminalizing it here (MA).
It has been decriminalized in Ohio since the early '70s. Up to 3.5 oz nets you a $100 ticket, unless you have the means on hand to break it up into seperate measured baggies, in which case you get intent to sell.
That's not really decriminalized if there's a penalty for it is it?
It's not a criminal charge, it's a minor-misdemeanor. The legal equivalent of a parking-ticket.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
A minor-misdemeanor is differentiated from a misdemeanor in Ohio law.
The problem with tobacco is all the additives the cigarette companies put with it. I mean I don't know if I'd like pure tobacco (not that I enjoy cigarettes too much anyways) but I know I wouldn't want the equivalent product with marijuana.
Thank you for being the only person in the thread to understand where I'm coming from. There is an industry in place already that, should cannabis become legalized, can grow it on their land, harvest it quickly and efficiently, roll it up, and stuff it 20 to a pack.
That'd be the tobacco industry. I think we all know the good they've done for America thus far. I really don't want them gaining immediate control of our newly freed cannabis only to ruin it for their profits. Cannabis should never ever be legalized, only decriminalized. I could really go into a serious tangent about this, but I'm not going to. I gave up long ago trying to change people's minds. I just wish everyone could've read what I've read, and fully understand the actual why behind it ever being illegal in the first place.
but srsly DjKlay; hi5
Shogun Streams Vidya
I would much rather pay $250 for a zip of Bubba Kush than $80 for a ounce of schwag. Marijuana users aren't stupid, the same market mechanisms applies to them as anyone else.
There just isn't a big market for it. However, there would no doubt be a massive market for organic marijuana.
Also, that Ohio law is hilarious. If you have 3.5oz, you're probably going to be selling some of it no matter what.
There doesn't need to be a large market. In the morning when the shops uptown open up, I can choose from no less than five additive-free tobacco brand options and this town doesn't even have a tobacconist shop.
A lot of people really don't care what quality of pot they smoke.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Old ladies with glaucoma rarely do.
Indeed. But a lot of people do care, too. Higher quality weed gives a much different high, one that many people vastly prefer.
I don't know what kind of clinic you worked at, but all the ones I've seen have a wide range of very good pot along with shitty strains. At this one clinic I just visited in California, I saw Master Kush, Northern Lights, Alohaberry, and more all available to patients. The strain of marijuana is very important, as the different effects they produce have different effects on medical conditions. If I can find the list of the different strains that correspond to each disease I'll post it. Also, Mexican pot can be shitty but it can also be very, very, very dank.
I never said we didn't. A lot of customers wanted specific strains, too, or only wanted whatever the blue star sativa of the day was or whatever.
I'm just challenging the notion that no pot smokers want shitty cheap weed. Plenty do, enough to form a market. Some people want whatever's cheap and plentiful.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hence the popularity of Natty.
Those same people are already tobacco company's biggest customer base. Broke people. Broke people don't take the time to go to the local cannabis club and pick out good shit. They're going to buy a pack of joints for seven or eight dollars. The tobacco companies will sell cheap packs, expensive packs, and everything in between. Cannabis will become a thing of convenience like ciggs and quarts of oil are today. These people buy what they can afford. They already get their smokes this way, why wouldn't they do the same for bud? This also holds true to Natty, VC.
Shogun Streams Vidya
I guarantee that Philip Morris wouldn't be the only company making them (if they made them at all). It would, in all likelihood, resemble the alcohol industry more than the tobacco industry, with differing strengths and strains of cannabis made by a wide variety of companies. It wouldn't "ruin" cannabis at all (probably the opposite: people would be free to genetically engineer and selectively breed it, like they have done with tobacco, to produce even more potent cannabis). You also wouldn't have to worry about "cheap" people ruining it, because there would be better, more expensive packs available as well (just like the difference between Budweiser and Samuel Adams). And if you don't like what they sell, you can grow your own... problem solved.
Legalizing it would allow a huge amount of money (currently being spent to fight cannabis usage) to go towards other, better objectives. The taxes on it would generate a ton of additional revenue. A bunch of jobs would be created, we would spend less money keeping people in jail... the list goes on and on.
Please, do tell. To my knowledge, there has never been a single good reason to outlaw it. It happened as a result of a propaganda machine that continues to this day. Cannabis was initially (and still often is) referred to as "marijuana" in U.S. anti-cannabis ads because it sounds strange and foreign (Mexican/Spanish). And you got gems like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Killerdrug.jpg
(ok, I'm done editing now)
Damn fine point you make here.
I was a proponent of full out legalization until I read this thread, but all the things that you have said would most likely happen. As a large hater of the tobacco industry, I could totally imagine them diving head first into this the moment it's legalized. Why wouldn't they?