cannabisnews.com: From Pot to Puffy to Bush to Arnold





From Pot to Puffy to Bush to Arnold
Posted by FoM on February 02, 2001 at 19:32:19 PT
Letters To The Editor
Source: Salon.com
Chris Colin hits the nail on the head when he states "its threat lies in its utter ungovernability." Imagine if pot were legal. The pharmaceutical companies (the richest companies in the nation, I believe) wouldn't be able to corner the market, and their bean counters would calculate all the money they were "losing" because people would be growing their own, instead of buying from them. The government wouldn't be able to tax it for the same reason. 
I don't believe for a second that the government is concerned that it's a gateway drug, or that it's addicting. Even if it is addicting, what's the harm? If you need to smoke a joint each night to relax, how is that any different from drinking a glass of wine each night? Everyone who smokes needs to be open about it, whether for medical use or recreation. The taboo must be broken. When we are at a party, my boyfriend and I wish we could just announce, "Hey, we've got a joint -- who wants to smoke it?" without the fear of being ostracized. Perhaps pot smokers should form a foundation. We all join and pay a reasonable annual fee. When one of us gets busted, everybody chips in a share based on the need divided by the membership. This way, we will all have the backing and support needed to clearly state, "I've got pot here -- who wants to smoke this fatty?" -- Sheila J. Burnham Two years ago, I was stricken with an extremely serious case of salmonella poisoning. For the first two weeks, I thought I had just a bad stomach flu. The high fever and constant diarrhea eventually led to severe dehydration and a trip to the emergency room. After I was misdiagnosed at the emergency room and given incorrect medicine, the infection entered my bloodstream. For almost two months, I had constant agonizing pain, vomiting and diarrhea. I was later correctly diagnosed by an internist. She put me on heavy-dosage antibiotics and gave me a prescription for an anti-nausea drug. These medicines didn't seem to help; after another week of no improvement, I became so debilitated and exhausted that I felt that I wanted to die. That day, a friend came over and convinced me to smoke a joint with him. If I could only convey how much better I felt after I smoked it! The pain retreated, the nausea disappeared and for the first time since the beginning of my ordeal, I was able to eat solid food. Anyone who says that marijuana has no medicinal value is wrong, wrong, wrong. Nothing else I was prescribed during the nightmare I went through even came close to the relief that marijuana offered. If the people who are saying that marijuana is evil could go through what I went through, they'd realize that marijuana is no more evil than any other plant or herb that grows out of the earth. If they had a family member who was suffering the pain of chemotherapy or a host of other debilitating afflictions, they would be singing a different tune about medical marijuana. They'd realize that marijuana is a powerful and promising tool in the treatment of chronic pain. It's not evil. What's evil is following the irrational but politically safe path of demonizing a plant that offers so much relief to so many sick and suffering people. -- Maria Source: Salon.com (US Web)Published: February 2, 2001Copyright: 2001 Salon.comAddress: 22 4th Street, 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103Fax: (415) 645-9204Contact: salon salonmagazine.comWebsite: http://www.salon.com/Forum: http://tabletalk.salon.com/Feedback: http://www.salon.com/contact/letters/Related Article:Doctor's Orders: Get Highhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8516.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by Stripey on February 03, 2001 at 10:22:02 PT
If it were legalized. . .
It depends on HOW legal. . . if it's completely unrestricted (I mean to adults, of course) and you're allowed to grow your own, I'd still be buying from growers, unless the same calibre of stuff is cheaper in the drugstore(?) But hey, it does make it a lot easier to get the quick stash on the weekends. . . :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by fivepounder on February 03, 2001 at 08:16:58 PT
pot vs alcohol
I disagree. Look at how many people brew their own and that's much quicker that growing weed. Alot of people would grow it but the masses would buy the budweiser, marlboro. starbucks, jack daniels' equivilent. It would be dirt cheap. I personally think it will be like wine. Masses buy the cheap stuff, the conneiseurs buy the limited high end product. I think pot would have the air about it that you find in Napa,. Ca. The rich willing to pay anything for the best. The aroma, taste, the big seasonal harvest that employs the whole community, the personal pride grower's and brewer's take in their product etc is just like wine. The powers to be like it the way it is so why have to change industries? or rock the boat? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Narcoleptic on February 03, 2001 at 01:14:24 PT:
Pot Ungovernable?
and here's my post without the spelling errors! I really need to run the spell check next time. . .I really enjoyed Ms. Burnham’s brief article, but I have to disagree concerning the inherent "ungovernability" of pot. While cannabis certainly is a unique botanical, I don't see it as significantly different from any other product for which there is a demand. Yes, SOME people would grow their own pot. But it's unlikely most people would invest the considerable time and energy necessary to grow cannabis, when they could just go down to the neighborhood liquor store/smoke shop/drug store to get a bag of prime green. With Americans working longer hours than ever before closet cultivation will become a specialized interest of a small group of enthusiasts. By flooding the market with mass produced cannabis, the financial incentive for such a set up will be also gone - only true gardeners and weed connoisseurs will remain. There are more than a few Americans who currently grow their own tomatoes, get mint from their garden or brew their own beer. That being said, backyard gardens and homebrewing haven’t made much of a dent in the produce or beer industries. So what would happen if pot were legalized? It would, of course, depend on the nature of the legalization laws, but let’s suppose the regulation was minimal and that the buying and selling of cannabis was thrown to the winds of the free marketplace. I envision that there would be a brief period where countless pot producers would spring up as part of a mad rush of companies trying to dominate the marijuana market. This might be a phenomenon similar to the recent dot.com boom; one might not be able to turn on the TV without seeing an advertisement for another marijuana start-up company. But, like any new industry, the market will eventually calm (as we are currently seeing in the form of massive layoffs for internet based companies). There will be a few start-ups that would survive, but my bet is that most of the survivors would be well-moneyed established corporations - perhaps the tobacco industry, the liquor industry, the pharmaceutical industry, or any of the many food and entertainment corporations (I can already imagine Richard Branson coming out with "Virgin Bud"). Once a small group of "heavy hitters" establish a grip on the market, they would come to dominate the industry and its corresponding shelf space in your local market. There would most likely remain a few smaller, pricier homegrown outlets that sell higher quality cannabis (comparable to microbreweries or gourmet food outlets), but these would sell to a different, more affluent clientele. Like any product, the major producers would be under pressure to produce better and more novel varieties and to keep their prices competitive. In other words, I don't think there is any reason to believe that marketing marijuana would be significantly different than marketing any other product. Certainly long-suffering pot activists might despair as the current sense of "stoner solidarity" becomes a thing of the past and business executives start overseeing cannabis sales and production. Others might resent the sense of commercialization of pot culture by large corporations (it's not hard to imagine billboard ads of preppy models enjoying a doobie against a faux tie-dye background). But, despite the inevitable evils of capitalism, cannabis would be what it should be now - a taxed, legal and government-regulated product that could be consumed by any adult.So why WOULDN'T any corporation want the huge injection of wealth cannabis would surely bring to the marketplace? The problems are twofold. First, there is the existing taboo against even discussing legalization, much less sale for recreational use. No businessman in his right mind would bring it up for fear of being labeled at best a dreamer and at worst a social deviant. It's here where I really agree with Ms. Burnham - it's important that we all try to dispel the fear of social reproach when it comes to smoking pot. Changing the attitude of society as a whole is the first step to a more reasonable drug policy. The second problem is that existing corporations quite legitimately fear losing what they have - pharmaceutical companies want you to buy their anti-nausea drugs (which don't work as well as cannabis), cigarette companies are no doubt against a substance more pleasant and less addictive than nicotine, and Anheiser-Busch is afraid that if legalization happens the "Bud Bowl" will take on a whole new meaning. Politicians exist to protect established industries, not to create new ones, and no one wants to look "soft on crime", even if this means supporting a policy that turns responsible pot smokers into criminals. I don't know the answer to this problem, but I think the earning potential of cannabis legalization must be emphasized - not everyone likes to smoke out, but the language of money is universal. In addition, serious attention must be given to the social costs of arresting people for marijuana possession, particularly in poorer minority communities. Once it becomes clear that current drug policy is a failure, alternatives can be suggested without fear of reproach. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Narcoleptic on February 03, 2001 at 00:58:55 PT
Pot Ungovernable?
I really enjoyed Ms. Burnham’s brief article, but I have to disagree concerning the inherent "ungovernability" of pot. While cannabis certainly is a unique botanical, I don't see it as significantly different from any other product for which there is a demand. Yes, SOME people would grow their own pot. But it's unlikely most people would invest the considerable time and energy necessary to grow cannabis, when they could just go down to the neighborhood liquor store/smoke shop/drug store to get a bag of prime green. With Americans working longer hours than ever before closet cultivation will become a specialized interest of a small group of enthusiasts. By flooding the market with mass produced cannabis, the financial incentive for such a set up will be also gone - only true gardeners and weed connisseurs will remain. There are more than a few Americans who currently grow their own tomatoes, get mint from their garden or brew their own beer. That being said, backyard gardens and homebrewing haven’t made much of a dent in the produce or beer industries. So what would happen if pot were legalized? It would, of course, depend on the nature of the legalization laws, but let’s suppose the regulation was minimal and that the buying and selling of cannabis was thrown to the winds of the free marketplace. I envision that there would be a brief period where countless pot producers would spring up as part of a mad rush of companies trying to dominate the marijuana market. This might be a phenominon similar to the rencent dot.com boom; one might not be able to turn on the TV without seeing an advertisement for another marijuana start-up company. But, like any new industry, the market will eventually calm (as we are currently seeing in the form of massive layoffs for internet based companies). There will be a few start-ups that would survive, but my bet is that most of the survivors would be well-monied established corporations - perhaps the tobacco industry, the liquor industry, the pharmeceutical industry, or any of the many food and entertainment corporations (I can already imagine Richard Branson coming out with "Virgin Bud"). Once a small group of "heavy hitters" establish a grip on the market, they would come to dominate the industry and its corresponding shelfspace in your local market. There would most likely remain a few smaller, pricier homegrown outlets that sell higher quality cannabis (comparable to microbreweries or gourmet food outlets), but these would sell to a different, more affluent clientele. Like any product, the major producers would be under pressure to produce better and more novel varieties and to keep their prices competitive. In other words, I don't think there is any reason to believe that marketing marijuana would be significantly different than marketing any other product. Certainly long-suffering pot activists might despair as the current sense of "stoner solidarity" becomes a thing of the past and business executives start overseeing cannabis sales and production. Others might resent the sense of commercialization of pot culture by large corporations (it's not hard to imagine billboard ads of preppy models enjoying a doobie against a faux tie-dye background). But, despite the inevitable evils of capitalism, cannabis would be what it should be now - a taxed, legal and government-regulated product that could be consumed by any adult.So why WOULDN'T any corporation want the huge injection of wealth cannabis would surely bring to the marketplace? The problems are twofold. First, there is the existing taboo against even discussing legalization, much less sale for recreational use. No businessman in his right mind would bring it up for fear of being labeled at best a dreamer and at worst a social deviant. It's here where I really agree with Ms. Burnham - it's important that we all try to dispel the fear of social reproach when it comes to smoking pot. Changing the attitude of society as a whole is the first step to a more reasonable drug policy. The second problem is that existing corporations quite legitimately fear losing what they have - pharmeceutical companies want you to buy their anti-nausea drugs (which don't work as well as cannabis), cigarette companies are no doubt against a substance more pleasant and less addictive than nicotine, and Anheiser-Busch is afraid that if legalization happens the "Bud Bowl" will take on a whole new meaning. Politicians exist to protect established industries, not to create new ones, and no one wants to look "soft on crime", even if this means supporting a policy that turns responsible pot smokers into criminals. I don't know the answer to this problem, but I think the earning potential of cannabis legalization must be emphasized - not everyone likes to smoke out, but the language of money is universal. In addition, serious attention must be given to the social costs of arresting people for marijuana posession, particularly in poorer minority communities. Once it becomes clear that current drug policy is a failure, alternatives can be suggested without fear of reproach. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: