P2P Pot — Napster for Soft Drugs

Lots of interesting discussion about drugs, hard and soft, in response to an item I wrote yesterday.

Got me thinking: under the pending new “30 grams isn’t a Big Crime” changes to the laws here in Canada, the challenge, should one wish to have pot, but remain in the “like a parking ticket” crime zone rather than the “go to jail and get a record” crime zone, is to have 30 grams or less in one’s possession at any time.

The problem with this is that it doesn’t fit into the current drug distribution model, which I vaguely understand to be “from the growers in giant truckloads, split into small carloads, split into small lots, out to small dealers, out the consumer.” In other words, just like Wal-Mart.

If Wal-Mart could only hold 30 diapers at a time, their relationship with Procter and Gamble would have to change.

So perhaps Napster-like P2P principles can be applied here.

In other words, rather than One Big Warehouse, you have millions of tiny, sub-30-gram warehouses, and a web-based system for doing sub-30-gram transactions between peers.

This would require changes on the grow-side too, of course, for as long as the giant truckloads still exist, the giant truckload drivers are in jeopardy. Perhaps a “Community Gardens”-type system, where communal sub-30-g plots are grown in a central location, owned individually but with community facilities and expertise?

It seems to me there are some interesting possibilites here.

Disclaimers: 1. I have not actually used pot myself in more than a decade; it started to make my hands go numb for two weeks, which was unpleasant. 2. I don’t actually know anything about how the drug distribution system works, so I may have this all wrong; perhaps others know more and could comment.


Jevon's picture
Jevon on January 10, 2003 - 20:30 Permalink

Umm, does this law (or non-law), make distribution at all legal?

It’s still just decriminalizing is it not?

Peter Rukavina's picture
Peter Rukavina on January 10, 2003 - 20:32 Permalink

Thie wouldn’t be distribution, this would be friends sharing with friends. If I come over to your house with a case of beer, I’m not a beer distributor, am I?

Alan's picture
Alan on January 10, 2003 - 21:08 Permalink

If your friends pay you for the beer you picked up, you are technically bootlegging but bootlegging is a proud part of the Island way of life so you would be ok…heck you might make one of the innumerable halls of fame! Anyway, the realy thing that needs distributed are the seeds. A few pots of pot in every kitchen window would avoid all the hassles about the middle men. Trim as you go and dry to keep the weight down. By the way, once you are in the regulated world of 30 gram possession, it is not a “crime” to anyone at all. Regulatory offences are a different animal with different treatment by the courts — fewer procedural rights, for example, in recognition of the less serious scale of wrong being dealt with. Without the italicized “disclaimer” my relationship with the demon weed ended before I was a legal drinker due to a similar sensitivity. For those adults who do not so suffer, it is none of my business and none of the state’s. Fortunately, I was soon able to legally recreate chemically via the NSLC and put myself in far greater risk through crusing and boozing as the phrase went in the early 80’s.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 12, 2003 - 17:04 Permalink

What about the users whose symptoms are stupidity/loss of reality/psychological hiccups/suicidal tendencies and other foolish reactions who put themselves and others at risk. Not everyone suffers from numb hands, and I really worry about the ones who get “numb minds”.

I know P E Trudeau did not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, Alan, but when it starts down the slippery slope of hurting oneself and others due to self-induced stupidity, I see a need for society to step up to the plate and regulate what is right.

We all were lucky to survive that era of drinking in the car, playing hockey without a helmet, no seatbelts, UPEI Drinking Team Ch’ships, etc. but we now know better, and for the sake of the next generation, lets pass on what we know is right, whether or not it is appreciated.(Disclaimer:I never participated in the UPEI Drinking Team Ch’ships.)

Ken's picture
Ken on January 12, 2003 - 17:47 Permalink

Wayne you are a moralist who knows better than others what is good for them. How did you become so wise?

Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 12, 2003 - 18:03 Permalink

Not wisdom,Ken,but courageous enough to speak out in defense of my opinions on drug abuse. And, I have reasons for my opinions. Let’s leave it at that.

I regret that you interpret my opinion as an “I know better” attitude.

But, I am thankful to Peter for offering this venue, to all those who voice their opinion here, and most importantly, for the opportunity to be reminded that not all share mine. I would only hope that you share my gratitude for the ability to hear differing attitudes,the willingness to share them, and an appreciation for them.

Ken's picture
Ken on January 12, 2003 - 18:24 Permalink

Absolutely! This venue is much appreciated and I do enjoy the back and forth. Who knows? Maybe we can see a new side of things or shed light on something new.
For instance I was hungry for a McDonalds flatbread sandwich, but Reinvented.net changed my mind!

Dave Moses's picture
Dave Moses on January 13, 2003 - 13:33 Permalink

Wayne, I’d sympathize with your concerns, if you would allow that there could be drug “use” without drug “abuse”… just as one can have a drink without being an alcoholic.

Alan's picture
Alan on January 13, 2003 - 16:23 Permalink

Ken — Pete — having worked at McPigs for 4 months in the late 70’s on the grill in Truro (zits, voice changing, hoping to earn enough for the new Police album) I am amazed how anyone could get hungry watching an ad of theirs. It all looks like an extrusion from a Dupornt chemical factory. Look at the cheese in that ad — yellow macaroni loaf.

Wayne's picture
Wayne on January 13, 2003 - 18:53 Permalink

Dave, I believe that if the drug laws are relaxed, the user rates will increase. And, I believe that will be a mistake.

Jon's picture
Jon on January 13, 2003 - 23:48 Permalink

Wow, I just stumbled across this page searching for “columbine” in a google search and decided to take a peak since I’m from PEI. I’ve got to say, Wayne man, you should really chill. I’m in grade 12 this year and have a 92% average, I smoke the reefer all the time and so far I’ve had no compulsion to commit crime (other the actual act of smoking) or kill myself or anything silly like that. Why should I be thrown in jail for smoking what is literally a WEED and have a criminal record so universities will look down upon me? If your concerned about childrens drug use, then legalization is a good answer. It takes the weed that young people want out of the hands of people who try to sell them harder drugs, and even lace weed at times. I’m sure you feel that you have learned in your lifetime some great lessons that must be taught to future generations, but legislation is not the answer. Youth often don’t care about the law, and there are some lessons that need to be learned from experience and having youth that have learned a minor lesson burdened with a criminal record isn’t what I’d call in our best interest. Maybe I’m just a young foolish pothead, I dunno, thats just my two cents.

jesus christ's picture
jesus christ on April 29, 2004 - 03:28 Permalink

Excuse me, but we need to look back into the history of our country. What were the original reasons for the illegalization of marijuana? To get rid of mecicans in our country because they smoked it and because it caused orgies, murder, and was uncivilized. Since that law has never been changed and the fact that the DEA wont even look at health results on marijuana, what are the rights behind that law? And wayne what are you talking about? “when it starts down the slippery slope of hurting oneself and others due to self-induced stupidity” people who hurt them selves have serious problems and i think relying on marijuana is a lot more effective of a way to alleviate then to slit your wrists. “Numb hands” what are you talking about you obviously have no clue because marijuana has no affect what so ever of that sort. I am a habitual marijuana smoker and i suffer not from numb hands? i start on varsity baseball and football while still manage to make honor roll every quarter… who has the numb mind? i think you do for being so ignorant

Carpefile's picture
Carpefile on May 27, 2004 - 21:08 Permalink

Hey Jesus, nothing like bumping a year old thread huh?

The sheer amount of crime committed that is alcohol related, not to mention the amount of deaths and injuries directly stemming from use of alcohol blows any idea that stronger legislation against marijuana use would be beneficial right out of the water.
There is not a single death attributed to marijuana usage, I challenge you to find a single verifiable instance.
The main reason I believe marijuana is still illegal is that the war on drugs is big business, law enforcement agencies depend heavily on the funding they receive to keep fighting the war on drugs. Since marijuana users are plentiful and relatively docile, they make easy targets and quick victories to justify the funding they receive.

Marijuana is believed to be the earliest cultivated plant in the history of man. Before corn, before wheat, marijuana was being planted and cared for and harvested.

It grows practically everywhere on the planet, requires no artifical processing for use, and has a multitude of uses beyond recreational activities.
There is not a more useful plant on earth. It can be used for fuel, clothing, building materials, rope, canvas, food, medicine, as well as for relaxation.
If no other plant existed for us to subsist on, we would do just fine with pot.