[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I don't advocate decriminalization. I'm for all-out legalization. But either way, we'll never know the effects without trying. I think 60 - 80% reduction in gang revenues qualifies as more than a "dent".

Point noted. The topic is about decrim, however.

Respectfully, 60-80% is a pie in the sky guess. I don't think we should make changes to anything based on a guess or speculation.

[andyt]

If you read what the mayors actually said, they're talking about legalization. You don't have regulation with decrim. It's either poor reporting or poor understanding of the diff by the mayors. Regulating and taxing involves legalization, not just decriminalization. Decrim will just prevent people from being arrested for possession, it won't impact the gangs at all. But some people find that idea easier to swallow than fully legalizing the devil's weed.

[OnTheIce]

Scape Scape:

Do gangs run booze?

No.

Why?

No profit in it.

Why?

It's legal.

Remove the profit and you remove the gangs.

With respect Scape, that's completely and utterly false.

Yes, gangs run booze. They run cigarettes too.

Illegal cigarettes is a multi-billion dollar business in Canada alone. 1 of 3 cigarettes sold in Canada are illegal. There are tons of reports and stats about the trade online.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research ... 2147483964

[andyt]

Let's say legalization of pot is only as effective as with cigs - that means gangs would lose 2/3 of their revenue, a good kick in the pants. And if the govt doesn't give the pot sales to the Indigenous Peoples the way they did with cigs, that ratio would only increase, to say 4/5. Significant impacts. But the US will have to legalize as well for us to notice much of an effect on gangs.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Respectfully, 60-80% is a pie in the sky guess. I don't think we should make changes to anything based on a guess or speculation.

It's only a guess as to whether it's 60% or 80%. There's a ton of research on the subject and the results are always within that range.

[Xort]

Scape Scape:

Do gangs run booze?
No.
Why?
No profit in it.
Why?
It's legal.
Remove the profit and you remove the gangs.

Actualy alcohol is not unprofitable because it is legal, it is unprofitable because the price of sugar is too high thanks to protectism in the US. If the market price of sugar fell people would start moonshining again to avoid taxes.

People say legalize and tax pot. If you tax it too much, to avoid taxes people will illegaly grow their own, and the enterprising people will sell it tax free.

If you make the taxes low enought that it's not economical to illegaly grow and sell you don't recover your costs from the harm smoking does.

I don't see our drug laws as being an issue of unfair, immoral, or unethical. So I don't support people that are 'protesting' the law by getting high.

Know what if you want to protest the law go to a government center, call a press conference, call the police and tell them you are going to smoke pot in protest. Then get arrested, or maybe not.

Don't sit in a basement smoking pot watching SpongeBob and call that a protest.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

I don't advocate decriminalization. I'm for all-out legalization. But either way, we'll never know the effects without trying. I think 60 - 80% reduction in gang revenues qualifies as more than a "dent".

Point noted. The topic is about decrim, however.

Respectfully, 60-80% is a pie in the sky guess. I don't think we should make changes to anything based on a guess or speculation.

No its not. The resolution that the UBCM voted in favour of is this:

$1:

Resolution A5, brought forward to the annual convention by the municipality of Metchosin, calls for UBCM to lobby the appropriate level of government to decriminalize cannabis and research its regulation and taxation.

None of it is their jurisdiction anyway. The resolution is for the UBCM to lobby federal politicians to do research on how regulation and taxation would work, A.K.A. Legalization. It also calls for immediate removal of penalties for small amounts of cannabis. The only real achievement of this resolution being passed is that it got people engaged in a discussion about the benefits of ending prohibition. It changed peoples minds too, this was not expected to pass until the topic was debated very well by the legalize side, and the against-legalize side was caught off-guard, and were very very unprepared. This is good.

60 to 80% is not pie in the sky at all. You used to bring up tobacco smuggling as a counter example in these threads. In that scenario you have highly taxed cigarettes being undercut.



On a carton (200 grams of tobacco - 10 years ago), you have tobacco companies making $4.43, and the federal/provincial governments making $42.89 in taxes. It's not hard to see how smugglers would be able to make a profit here.

The situation that prohibition has created is that the black market will charge you $200 for 28 grams of marijuana. Extrapolated to 200 grams is $1428 on the black market for marijuana.

In a regulated and taxed market, it will be the government undercutting the gangs, and still making fantastic amounts of tax dollars while doing it. This is a humongous cash-cow for the gangsters that we can take away, and put tax dollars to use somewhere else. But even worst-case without a legal market capturing 60% to 80% of the market, it will most definitely drive the hyper-inflated price down and reduce profits to gangsters.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Respectfully, 60-80% is a pie in the sky guess. I don't think we should make changes to anything based on a guess or speculation.

It's only a guess as to whether it's 60% or 80%. There's a ton of research on the subject and the results are always within that range.

Would you care to share research that suggests either?

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

No its not.

I'll wait until I see some actual numbers before I take your word on it.

Curtman Curtman:

On a carton (200 grams of tobacco - 10 years ago), you have tobacco companies making $4.43, and the federal/provincial governments making $42.89 in taxes. It's not hard to see how smugglers would be able to make a profit here.

The situation that prohibition has created is that the black market will charge you $200 for 28 grams of marijuana. Extrapolated to 200 grams is $1428 on the black market for marijuana.

In a regulated and taxed market, it will be the government undercutting the gangs, and still making fantastic amounts of tax dollars while doing it. This is a humongous cash-cow for the gangsters that we can take away, and put tax dollars to use somewhere else. But even worst-case without a legal market capturing 60% to 80% of the market, it will most definitely drive the hyper-inflated price down and reduce profits to gangsters.

That's with a whole bunch of assumptions.

What if weed comes onto the market being made by private government contractors and the price skyrockets? What if production costs + taxation will be more than the current street value? The government won't get into the business of making drugs so they'll have to pay a private contractor to make those drugs, maintain inspection of those facilities and then add taxation on top of it. It won't be sold at the corner store.

In my opinion, legalization of any new drugs will end up just the same as the others we've tried. The highly regulated product will be overpriced and the gangs/mob/bikers will undercut.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

No its not.

I'll wait until I see some actual numbers before I take your word on it.

Curtman Curtman:

On a carton (200 grams of tobacco - 10 years ago), you have tobacco companies making $4.43, and the federal/provincial governments making $42.89 in taxes. It's not hard to see how smugglers would be able to make a profit here.

The situation that prohibition has created is that the black market will charge you $200 for 28 grams of marijuana. Extrapolated to 200 grams is $1428 on the black market for marijuana.

In a regulated and taxed market, it will be the government undercutting the gangs, and still making fantastic amounts of tax dollars while doing it. This is a humongous cash-cow for the gangsters that we can take away, and put tax dollars to use somewhere else. But even worst-case without a legal market capturing 60% to 80% of the market, it will most definitely drive the hyper-inflated price down and reduce profits to gangsters.

That's with a whole bunch of assumptions.

What if weed comes onto the market being made by private government contractors and the price skyrockets? What if production costs + taxation will be more than the current street value? The government won't get into the business of making drugs so they'll have to pay a private contractor to make those drugs, maintain inspection of those facilities and then add taxation on top of it. It won't be sold at the corner store.

In my opinion, legalization of any new drugs will end up just the same as the others we've tried. The highly regulated product will be overpriced and the gangs/mob/bikers will undercut.

Why would it skyrocket? The retail price on the black market is such that the gangs can buy a brand new house, fill it full of plants until it's busted and take a total loss on the house yet still make a huge profit. We have a legal medicinal market now, and it charges a lot less than the gangsters do. You can buy it from B.C., and Canada Post will bring it to your door.

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

Lemmy Lemmy:

It won't STOP it, but it's reasonable to presume that legalization will reduce drug crime by a similar degree that reversing prohibition in the 1920s reduced alcohol-related crime. Are you suggesting that legalizing alcohol didn't reduce the crime associated with the illegal liquor trade?

Pretty safe to say you won't get an answer to this one. The anti-legalizations folks never seem to have an answer to this one.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

Why would it skyrocket? The retail price on the black market is such that the gangs can buy a brand new house, fill it full of plants until it's busted and take a total loss on the house yet still make a huge profit. We have a legal medicinal market now, and it charges a lot less than the gangsters do. You can buy it from B.C., and Canada Post will bring it to your door.

Comparing a very tiny amount of processing for select few customers is nothing like a multi-billion dollar industry and bureaucracy that you intend to create...IMO. The government isn't going to tax the shit out of people using it as medicine but will tax the shit out of it for those using it for recreation and no doubt, private companies will get in on the business too.

As someone in business I'd have to ask myself...if customers are already used to paying $x.xx for this product why would I sell it for less if I make and sell it?

I'd love to see data...no opinion, actual data on the effects of crime, how regulation would be handled and the pricing to follow. Just saying "well, we might as well try" isn't good enough.

As my favorite professor used to say "I'm from Missouri, you gotta show me".

[Unsound]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Unsound Unsound:

Lemmy Lemmy:

It won't STOP it, but it's reasonable to presume that legalization will reduce drug crime by a similar degree that reversing prohibition in the 1920s reduced alcohol-related crime. Are you suggesting that legalizing alcohol didn't reduce the crime associated with the illegal liquor trade?

Pretty safe to say you won't get an answer to this one. The anti-legalizations folks never seem to have an answer to this one.

?

[herbie]

Xort Xort:

Scape Scape:

Do gangs run booze?
No.
Why?
No profit in it.
Why?
It's legal.
Remove the profit and you remove the gangs.

Actualy alcohol is not unprofitable because it is legal, it is unprofitable because the price of sugar is too high thanks to protectism in the US. If the market price of sugar fell people would start moonshining again to avoid taxes.

People say legalize and tax pot. If you tax it too much, to avoid taxes people will illegaly grow their own, and the enterprising people will sell it tax free.

If you make the taxes low enought that it's not economical to illegaly grow and sell you don't recover your costs from the harm smoking does.

I don't see our drug laws as being an issue of unfair, immoral, or unethical. So I don't support people that are 'protesting' the law by getting high.

Know what if you want to protest the law go to a government center, call a press conference, call the police and tell them you are going to smoke pot in protest. Then get arrested, or maybe not.

Don't sit in a basement smoking pot watching SpongeBob and call that a protest.

Yeah it's 2012. Click the Facebook "Like" button.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Gunnair Gunnair:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Oh for... Ya know what OTI? Yer right. Since legalization won't remove 100% of the criminals from the market, let's just let the criminals HAVE 100% of the market. Yep, it's an all or nothing scenario for you isn't it. Since we can't eliminate 100% of the criminal aspect, there's no point in even trying.
Well, seeing how criminals have their hands in the alcohol distribution industry, let's just make alcohol illegal too, since being legal has not stopped the crime or violence associated with it.

Hell, let's make everything illegal that organized crime has its hands in; strip bars, all guns, tobacco, casinos, off-track betting parlours, unions, the construction industry, various police services, politics, etc etc.

You're right I course. As one who would like to see decriminalization I agree that it will have an affect on the criminal element. What gets my ire up and Curt is often guilty of this is when decriminalization is put out as a panacea against gang activity and that not supporting decriminalization somehow makes you guilty of increasing gang activity. Yes it will reduce that activity......for a while until something new shows up. I submit that I doubt it will have the significant affect often ascribed to it because it will still be sold illegally (just like cigarettes) and much easier since it is not such a process to refine. Gangs will undercut taxed pot and sell it illegally....just as they do now.

I've already explained in a different thread how the gov't could tax pot at 4-5 times the rate of tobacco and STILL keep prices below $100/oz. Current street prices in this area range from $200-$300/oz for anything worth smoking.

A gram of pot costs pretty much the same to produce as one cigarette. A king size cigarette contains 0.8 grams of tobacco. A large pack of name brand smokes runs around $12-$15 and contains 20 grams of tobacco. As we know, an oz contains 28 grams so if taxed at the same rate as tobacco, we'd be looking at an approximate cost of $25/oz. Ramp up the taxes on it so it costs $75-$80 an oz and the gov't will be raking in the cash and organized crime will see a major drop in it profits.
Yes we also know that they will just move onto something else to make money and some may try to hand onto what's left of their pot market but the point is, pot is the single largest source of income in the modern history of organized crime.
In the case of Hell's Angels, the profits from pot fund ALL of their other activities. It funds their gun running, it funds their purchase of hard drugs to sell, it funds their titty bars most of which are little more than fronts for illegal brothels and drug sales.

For the first time in history, more Canadians are smoking pot on a regular basis than smoking cigarettes. That's about 6,000,000 Canadians, those who admitted it anyway.