[PublicAnimalNo9]

Gunnair Gunnair:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Blackmarket cigs undercut the legal ones. Even so, at best, they have 20% of the market, would have way less if the govt hadn't given the reservations a special deal to produce cigs (and sell them on the black market). So if this holds true for pot, that would immediately reduce income by 80% to gangs - ie much less gang activity around pot. But the govt isn't going to sell pot at $220 an oz. Maybe set it at $100. So now the gangs would have to undercut that price, ie they would sell have 20% of sales at 1/2 the price = 10% of former sales. Pretty drastic reduction.

In Quebec, illegal smokes hold 40% of the market while in Ontario, they hold 50% of the market.

Stupid inconvenient facts.

The other inconvenient fact is the Indians ain't growing tobacco illegally and were given permission to produce cigarettes. It is THEY who are responsible for the bulk of illegal cigarette sales. They're not supposed to sell to anyone who isn't status.
The other thing is rezzie smokes actually helped me to quit smoking. Those goddam things were so cheap and awful I finally gave it up. I relaize that I'm a rarity BUT, if the Natives started growing and selling weed of quality equivalent to their tobacco products, they'd be broke inside of two weeks.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Thanos Thanos:

I could care less about legalization. Throwing people in jail or giving them criminal records for personal possession is stupid too. I just don't buy into any of your side's total bullshit about any of the benefits you keep touting will occur, especially the one about the current grow-your-own or grow-op gangsters suddenly deciding to become honest citizens upon legalization and paying taxes and what not. It's laughable on the face of it, as any claim that redefining crime is sufficient enough to eliminate the criminal personality and criminal pathology invariably is. And your belief that, thanks to criminalization, cultivation is the only crime these guys are engaging in is absolutely ridiculous. I've never heard of a single gangster ever being involved in only one facet of crime. Legalize pot all you want, but these guys are still going to be criminals thanks to their ongoing involvement in a dozen other illegal enterprises that they're all regularly engaged in at any given time.

Clue...less and the goddam dumbest thing you've ever posted. I normally don't expect strawmen from you so I must say, this rant of yours is awfully disappointing.

[Unsound]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Legalizing pot will necesarily see a new underclass of the permanently impaired who will, of course, demand that working people subsidize the lifestyles of the poor and stoned. As is the case in the Netherlands (where armed robberies take place right at the airport in Amsterdam) the people who are stoned 24/7 will take up crime to support their lifestyle when they can't even find jobs as prostitutes.

Much like all those alcoholics who are terrorizing our streets and airports?

Most of the stats I've seen show pot usage actually going down once it's legalized, or decriminlized. I certainly don't see usage going up by much, except for a small bumpo when it's first legalized. Do you really think there's a huge mass of otherwise productive people out there who are just waiting for it to be legal so they can tune in and drop out?

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Thanos Thanos:

I could care less about legalization. Throwing people in jail or giving them criminal records for personal possession is stupid too. I just don't buy into any of your side's total bullshit about any of the benefits you keep touting will occur, especially the one about the current grow-your-own or grow-op gangsters suddenly deciding to become honest citizens upon legalization and paying taxes and what not. It's laughable on the face of it, as any claim that redefining crime is sufficient enough to eliminate the criminal personality and criminal pathology invariably is. And your belief that, thanks to criminalization, cultivation is the only crime these guys are engaging in is absolutely ridiculous. I've never heard of a single gangster ever being involved in only one facet of crime. Legalize pot all you want, but these guys are still going to be criminals thanks to their ongoing involvement in a dozen other illegal enterprises that they're all regularly engaged in at any given time.

Clue...less and the goddam dumbest thing you've ever posted. I normally don't expect strawmen from you so I must say, this rant of yours is awfully disappointing.

The usual straw man bullshit. Of course gangstas are going to still be involved in other crimes, including selling the other illegal drugs, as well as maybe some blackmarket pot. But pot is a huge income earner for gangs, way more than all the other illegal drugs combined. Remove the biggest chunk of income from it, it won't be easy for them to replace that income, it will weaken them. We'll always have crime and gangs, but this will reduce it some.

[BartSimpson]

Unsound Unsound:

Much like all those alcoholics who are terrorizing our streets and airports?

Good point.

Unsound Unsound:

Do you really think there's a huge mass of otherwise productive people out there who are just waiting for it to be legal so they can tune in and drop out?

True, I suppose the numbers of Democrats won't necesarily increase all that much.

[andyt]

Unsound Unsound:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Legalizing pot will necesarily see a new underclass of the permanently impaired who will, of course, demand that working people subsidize the lifestyles of the poor and stoned. As is the case in the Netherlands (where armed robberies take place right at the airport in Amsterdam) the people who are stoned 24/7 will take up crime to support their lifestyle when they can't even find jobs as prostitutes.

Much like all those alcoholics who are terrorizing our streets and airports?

Most of the stats I've seen show pot usage actually going down once it's legalized, or decriminlized. I certainly don't see usage going up by much, except for a small bumpo when it's first legalized. Do you really think there's a huge mass of otherwise productive people out there who are just waiting for it to be legal so they can tune in and drop out?

You're wrong. Pot is so hard for people to get under current prohibition, there are very few people using it.Legalizing it will result in a huge upsurge of pot addicts desperately trying to get their fix. Booze, of course has none of these problems. Legalized booze good, legalized pot bad. Simple.

(In reality, Holland has far less pot usage per capita than Canada. I believe this is another area where Canada kicks ass - ie we use more per capita than anybody else.) But, let's see what happens in WA and CO. Bart could be right, as in a broken clock is still right twice a day.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

The usual straw man bullshit. Of course gangstas are going to still be involved in other crimes, including selling the other illegal drugs, as well as maybe some blackmarket pot. But pot is a huge income earner for gangs, way more than all the other illegal drugs combined. Remove the biggest chunk of income from it, it won't be easy for them to replace that income, it will weaken them. We'll always have crime and gangs, but this will reduce it some.

If fighting crime was the actual concern, don't you think that increasing competition among gangs for the leftovers might be a brutal experiment?

[Unsound]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

True, I suppose the numbers of Democrats won't necesarily increase all that much.

I get that this is a joke, but i do wonder if democrat leaning voters are really much more likely to smoke weed? Just going by the people I know, pot smokers may be slightly more likely to be further left but not as much as one would expect. There must be a study out there somewhere... Khar? You watching?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

stratos stratos:

Okay I am curious and need a bit of help. How much does it cost to buy enough pot to make 20 normal sized joints?

"Normal sized" is very subjective.

However, I know what you're saying. A "normal sized" joint will contain about 1/3 of a gram of weed. So approximately 1/4oz, which will cost anywhere from $60-$90 depending on quality and location.

I also get where you're going with this. A large pack of brand name smokes costs anywhere from $12-15 and if it's a king-size pack, it will contain 2/3oz of tobacco. In carton form that works out to over 6.5ozs of tobacco for about $100 when purchased legally.
Street price for 6ozs of weed could be anywhere from $1000-$1500 or more depending on quality and location.

Whoah hoss, your figures are off. Did you mean one third of a gram of weed? There's 28 grams in an oz, so that would be 1/84 of an ounce. You're not smoking much more than paper at that point. Any normal sized joint is not going to cost $60-$90.

Context andy, context. Stratos was asking how much 20 joints would cost. The $60-90 figure was for a quarter oz, not a joint.
The 1/3 of a gram amount is based on getting 3 joints out a gram. Which is about what you'd get rolling "normal" size joints. A quarter is 7 grams, hence around 21 joints.
1/3 of a gram is NOT going to be mostly paper, it'll be a bit less than half the diameter of a cigarette.

[Thanos]

Your assumption that they'll quit dealing pot when it's legalized is what's flawed. If the illegal growers provide a more potent product at a cheaper price than what the government-sanctioned cultivators do then their customer base will stay with them. We all saw what happened with the gong-show that erupted when the feds were growing their own for medical marijuana research in that they grew a pathetically weak equivalent to a Coors light beer while the grow-oppers are continuously providing a 140% bottle of Everclear in comparison. Who is going to bother with a watered-down product when a more powerful and more enjoyable alternative is readily available for a cheaper price?

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Just my own pointless comments on the topic so far:

1. As much as Gunnair annoys me anymore I owe him a bottle of Scotch for annoying Curtman even more. Well done, sir!

The feeling is more than mutual. The point of the questioning was not to drive the member off but to illustrate his hypocrisy - which his temper tantrum certainly suggests.

Much like you reveal when you get accused of bigotry after one of you generalized anti- Muslim rants. Reactions can be telling things sometimes.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If fighting crime was the actual concern, don't you think that increasing competition among gangs for the leftovers might be a brutal experiment?

Ah, so now we structure our laws to make it easier for gangs so they won't get into competition?

$1:

Founded on March 16, 2002, LEAP is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization made up of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are speaking out about the failures of our existing drug policies. Those policies have failed, and continue to fail, to effectively address the problems of drug abuse, especially the problems of juvenile drug use, the problems of addiction, and the problems of crime caused by the existence of a criminal black market in drugs.

We believe that drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes these drugs so valuable – while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply. Driven by the huge profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and children. Their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control.

History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.

We believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer. We believe that sending parents to prison for non-violent personal drug use destroys families. We believe that in a regulated and controlled environment, drugs will be safer for adult use and less accessible to our children. And we believe that by placing drug abuse in the hands of medical professionals instead of the criminal justice system, we will reduce rates of addiction and overdose deaths.

$1:

A new study suggests that Mexico's drug cartels could take big hits to their pocketbooks if ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana in parts of the United States are approved by voters, but the overall effect on the country's security situation would likely be limited.

The study (.pdf), released on October 31 by the Mexican Institute of Competitiveness (IMCO), found that Mexican drug cartels could see their revenue drop by as much as 30 percent across the board if current ballot initiatives on marijuana legalization in three states are passed.
On November 6, residents of Colorado, Oregon and Washington state will vote on measures that will allow adults to grow, sell and possess small amounts of marijuana for recreational use. While opinion polls in Oregon show that the referendum is unlikely to be approved there, both Colorado and Washington stand a chance of passing theirs.
Using a statistical model, IMCO researchers estimated the legalized price of marijuana produced in Oregon, Washington and Colorado based on local demand. They then assumed that some of the drug will be smuggled into other states, and that marijuana purchasers in the country would be more likely to choose domestic marijuana over Mexican marijuana because of its lower price.
As a result of this, the IMCO report estimates that Mexico’s cartels would lose $1.425 billion if the initiative passes in Colorado, $1.372 billion if Washington votes to legalize, and $1.839 billion if Oregon approves its ballot measure.

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analys ... fits-by-30

$1:

What do Alaska, Alabama, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginiahave in common? Their biggest cash crop—generating far more revenue than wine in the Napa Valley, tobacco in North Carolina, or pineapples in Hawaii—is marijuana. When a product gains that kind of economic foothold it’s time to take stock.

Not only is cannabis the biggest cash crop in those 12 states, it’s in the top three in 30 states, the top five in 39. In fact, marijuana is the greatest revenue producer of all agricultural products grown in the U.S. With production values of roughly $36 billion annually, the cultivation of marijuana is permanently entrenched within and integrally connected to the U.S. economy.

And it’s illegal.

Irony And Ineffectiveness

Which guarantees obscene, untaxed profits and full employment for demonstrably evil and greedy people; criminal records attached to the lives of tens of millions of Americans; fractured families; inflated risks for cops; widespread discrimination against young, poor, and black and brown people; exploitation and despoilment of thousands of acres of national park lands; open-air drug markets and deflated property values; public corruption; a brutal and bloody war raging in Mexico, now spilling over into the U.S.; abridgement of our civil liberties; and the squandering of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.

And for what? Pot is more readily available at lower prices and higher levels of potency than ever before. Throughout my 34-year career in law enforcement, I bore witness to these and other unanticipated consequences of the drug war, none more wrenching than the sudden, violent deaths of fellow police officers or innocent citizens caught in the crosshairs of traffickers bent on protecting or expanding their markets and profits.

Prohibition, as we learned with alcohol in the 1920s, not only does not work, but gives rise to staggering rates of death, disease, crime and addiction. In fact, it guarantees them.

I don’t mean to be unkind, but marijuana prohibitionists are beginning to embarrass themselves. Their intentions are laudable; their main argument takes a distinctly moral slant: What message would relaxation of marijuana laws send our children? Don’t kids have it tough enough today without being subjected to the legitimization of yet another mind-altering drug?

Social Consequences

What these prohibitionists fail to grasp, however, is that the current ban on adult use does not shield kids from pot. On the contrary, it produces precisely the opposite effect. It’s easier for a 14-year-old to score a nickel or dime bag of illegal pot than a six-pack of Bud or a pint of Southern Comfort. Unlike government-regulated liquor stores, drug dealers do not card kids; their only interest is the hand-to-hand sale behind the high school gym. And, of course, the cultivation of long-term, loyal customers.

No responsible adult encourages or condones adolescent drug use, much less furnishes pot to a kid. While the evidence of marijuana’s relative safety is substantial (there has never been a single overdose death attributed to the drug), adolescence is a critical time of brain development and emotional maturation. There is good cause to promote, and fund, sound measures against the harmful developmental consequences of teenage drug use—including, it must be stressed, the much riskier drug, alcohol.

We're undermining our kids’ health, and subverting the will of freedom-valuing adults, by leaving the commerce of this multibillion-dollar industry in the monopolized hands of ruthless drug cartels and street traffickers. Where's the morality in that?

Across the country, local communities are recognizing this ugly reality. California voters will be given a chance in November to make their state the first to “regulate, control, and tax cannabis.” Not only will the new law (56 percent of Californians support it) strike a blow for drug-law sanity, it will net the economically teetering state, according to the Board of Equalization, an estimated $1.3 billion in new revenue.

Law Enforcement Impact

It will also free that state’s police officers to concentrate on crimes that inflict the deepest fear, pain and loss: burglaries, robberies, sexual assaults, domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, workplace and school shootings, drunk driving.

It’s a myth that cops, supposedly reflecting the will of an increasingly enlightened society, are no longer enforcing pot laws, or doing so only half-heartedly. In fact, adult arrest rates for marijuana offenses have gone through the roof, with new records being set several times in the recent past. Last year, police arrested 847,864 persons for marijuana violations, almost 90 percent of them for possession only.

With 100 million Americans having used pot at least once—including the president, his two immediate predecessors, the mayor of New York and countless other luminaries from all walks of life—and with an estimated 25 million regular users, marijuana consumption is a deeply ingrained pattern of American culture.

It’s high time we recognize the institutionalized hypocrisy of our marijuana laws and repeal this deadly, costly prohibition.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36201668

[andyt]

Thanos Thanos:

Your assumption that they'll quit dealing pot when it's legalized is what's flawed. If the illegal growers provide a more potent product at a cheaper price than what the government-sanctioned cultivators do then their customer base will stay with them. We all saw what happened with the gong-show that erupted when the feds were growing their own for medical marijuana research in that they grew a pathetically weak equivalent to a Coors light beer while the grow-oppers are continuously providing a 140% bottle of Everclear in comparison. Who is going to bother with a watered-down product when a more powerful and more enjoyable alternative is readily available for a cheaper price?

Sure. But your assumption is bullshit. The feds won't be growing their own, the provinces will sell privately produced pot the way they do alcohol now. And the price will be lower than the current street price. It could be half the street price and that would result still result in huge incomes to govt and producers. It could be 1/5 the current street price and this would still be true. The only thing pushing up the price for legal pot would be govt greed for taxes and not wanting to promote pot use by making it too cheap. They'll have to balance that against not creating an opening for a black market.

And again, here's some simple math, try to follow along. If legal weed has 50% of the market and costs 50% as much as current illegal weed, it means that gang profits will have been reduced to 25% of current. Likely it will be much less, as the legal stuff will capture most of the market. But, I'll take a 75% drop in gang profits from weed (their most profitable enterprise by far) any day compared to current situation. And I'll take millions or even billions (as has been estimated) in increased govt revenue from pot taxes, plus less enforcement costs and more effective enforcement for illegal pot.

[Thanos]

$1:

Pot is more readily available at lower prices and higher levels of potency than ever before.

Both of which will do a massive 180-degree turn when the government gets involved to regulate allowable levels of potency and to levy taxation, which is why the illegal growers aren't going to be disappearing if/when legalization occurs.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If fighting crime was the actual concern, don't you think that increasing competition among gangs for the leftovers might be a brutal experiment?

Ah, so now we structure our laws to make it easier for gangs so they won't get into competition?

No, but that's a consideration, is it not? If your sole purpose is crime reduction.

You want to take direct aim at criminal organizations and you have this fantasy that they'll just die down and drift away. Fantasy.

Not once have you considered what will happen when competition gets fierce. Point being, the violence you'd like to prevent may in fact be much worse at the beginning than even you considered.