Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Those are intertwined within the "big government" system too.
Hillary Clinton: drug legalization won't end the problem
- Thread starter Rentahamster
- Start date
- Status
Those are intertwined within the "big government" system too.
It smells terrible and gets eveywhere.
Also gateway drug or soemthing. Those DARE campagns were resourceful
not sure if joke post but
farts smell
and rice and sherbert gets everywhere
I like Hillary for the most part, but this is one area where she (and every single prominent national politician) is completely wrong. And I know that they all know they're wrong and just say this shit for political reasons (and political donations from pharma, prisons, etc.). They aren't going to change their stance on this until American voters start changing their stance (which is starting to happen at a decently quick pace).
I guarantee that if a serious nationwide debate over weed starts up, a lot of these politicians (probably even Hillary) would change their tune really quick. I was hoping that the passage of the new laws in CO and WA would start a serious discussion in the media about weed and the War on Drugs.
Unfortunately, the media has been rather muted in their coverage of the CO and WA laws. Most of the media just takes a minute or two to crack a couple jokes about "those silly pot smokers," and then move on to the "serious" issues like the completely self-made Fiscal Cliff or semantics arguments over talking points about Benghazi.
-They don't bring up the millions who are imprisoned and have their lives ruined for this silly drug that they all used to smoke when they were kids.
-They don't bring up the vast numbers of medical professionals who claim that there's no reason for marijuana to be illegal.
-They don't bring up the millions of tax dollars wasted trying to ruin people's lives over smoking a mostly harmless plant.
-They don't bring up the success stories of decreased crime rates in areas that have relaxed their marijuana laws.
They just laugh as they reminisce about back in the 70s when it was totally ok for them to experiment with it, and then move on to talking at length about whether or not an "act of terror" is the same thing as a "terrorist act." Fuck the US news media.
I guarantee that if a serious nationwide debate over weed starts up, a lot of these politicians (probably even Hillary) would change their tune really quick. I was hoping that the passage of the new laws in CO and WA would start a serious discussion in the media about weed and the War on Drugs.
Unfortunately, the media has been rather muted in their coverage of the CO and WA laws. Most of the media just takes a minute or two to crack a couple jokes about "those silly pot smokers," and then move on to the "serious" issues like the completely self-made Fiscal Cliff or semantics arguments over talking points about Benghazi.
-They don't bring up the millions who are imprisoned and have their lives ruined for this silly drug that they all used to smoke when they were kids.
-They don't bring up the vast numbers of medical professionals who claim that there's no reason for marijuana to be illegal.
-They don't bring up the millions of tax dollars wasted trying to ruin people's lives over smoking a mostly harmless plant.
-They don't bring up the success stories of decreased crime rates in areas that have relaxed their marijuana laws.
They just laugh as they reminisce about back in the 70s when it was totally ok for them to experiment with it, and then move on to talking at length about whether or not an "act of terror" is the same thing as a "terrorist act." Fuck the US news media.
Best avatar.
Hale-XF11
Member
Establish a regulated market similar to either tobacco or alcohol that undercuts black market sales.
freenudemacusers
Member
Go after what, exactly?
They're gonna shoot the laws in the FACE!
The "history will repeat" line of argument is somewhat dubious, IMO, but if we're going to discuss it, I think you have to recognize that the criminal enterprises that grew up or were strengthened during Prohibition did continue afterwards, and many of their sources of income were less socially desirable than alcohol, such as heroin sale, racketeering, and extortion.
You can argue that the latter two were already in the realm of organized crime before Prohibition, but the organizations were smaller and less powerful, so when the money from bootlegging went away, they were able to pursue those rackets with a much larger and better organized force.
Yes, it's not the case that extortion becomes more profitable if marijuana is legalized, however the cartels are also not going to suddenly shrink in size if it were, and all those gang members are going to have to do something.
Fenderputty
Banned
Even if it reduces their drug trafficing income by 50% it's not going to have the same effects as full legalization of all drugs. I would imagine that cartels will survive the loss of weed fairly well. IIRC the next drug after weed would be meth as far as their incomes are concerned.
Who knows though. Maybe it would have negtive impacts on the cartels that I'm not seeing. Either way I would consider any such benefit to be nice surpise. Legalization should happen for the other reasons I listed reagrdless.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Those that champion legalization as the end of cartel violence truly baffle me; it's one of the most childish, simplistic arguments on this issue. Cartels will not stop fighting over turf or market share if their products were legalized
This is a great thing and smart people can use this to separate the issues in the media and the social and political conversation. Violent criminals do not equal drug trade (c|=d). Violent criminals have rather, taken control of that existing drug trade, and to equate the two creates a false issue that inhales tax dollars like a black hole. People running around with buckets screaming "why doesn't locking up all these minorities for victimless(drug related) crimes and minor offenses stop all the violence? Why aren't people working hard and raising themselves out of poverty, we've taken away all the drugs that were poisoning their communities? We've spent billions on motherfucking cops black people! C'mon! Bootstraps! We can open another police station in a McDonalds if it will help you make it to work on time. What? No jobs? Well...wanna be a policeman? Or a corrections officer?" If you take away the drug trade you still have the criminals, so you have to separate the two and deal with them separately, and appropriately.
Now I will say that of course the people who run these law enforcement things knew this, that there are better and more direct ways of dealing with problems, like crime, separate from social issues like drug use. But...this was the most convenient way to kill a bunch of birds with one stone, and still have time to snort a little coke on weekends when you need to have fun.
Now I will say that of course the people who run these law enforcement things knew this, that there are better and more direct ways of dealing with problems, like crime, separate from social issues like drug use. But...this was the most convenient way to kill a bunch of birds with one stone, and still have time to snort a little coke on weekends when you need to have fun.
billy beane
Banned
From what I remember, they were going to go after anybody trying to sell big. Idk, I'm trying to look for the article I read it in.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
I champion it because it would be a great revenue source for state governments if it were sold, regulated, and taxed similar to tobacco and alcohol.
From that perspective it's extremely rational. Anyone agree or disagree?
Cartels are not in the weed industry. It is not fiscally responsible for cartels to mass produce quality marijuana when there are much cheaper, easier and more addictive substances to produce and market. I understand that a portion of marijuana sales originate from south of the border and have cartel ties but to associate the two businesses is disingenuous and down right fear mongering. Not surprising coming from our government with their outdated drug policies.
Survive, sure, but 'fairly well'? Depends on how you define that, cuz no business can take a 50% loss of profits 'fairly well' in my eyes.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Speak da truth!
freenudemacusers
Member
People already sell in Washington. Legally (well medical). Down the street from my wife's parents. And all over the place. I think you're reading standard issue FUD stuff to be honest.
Silas Lang
Member
Obviously legalization won't fix everything but it would certainly reduce a number of problems. Having the same polices we've had for decades ain't gonna fix shit.
billy beane
Banned
Probably. Like I said, I was probably wrong.
That's true, of course. However, legalizing marijuana will substantially decrease their power simply by decreasing the size of the economy they have to work with. The cartels will still be around, and may try to increase the market size for other illegal drugs and activities to compensate, but I don't think you can argue against the fact that legalization would deal a big blow to their power and influence. If you cut the size of their economy in half, they will necessarily have to cut back their operation size.
But hurting the cartels isn't even the primary objective for legalization in my view. The fact that marijuana is mostly harmless and that the current laws ruin the lives of millions of otherwise innocent people should be enough reason to legalize it.
speculawyer
Member
No one is saying that legalization is going to make things all puppies and rainbows. But if you eliminate a lucrative profit motive created solely by making something illegal, you will reduce the crime & violence associated with fighting over that lucrative profit. You are just parroting the same strawman she said.
Wars were once fought over salt. Yes, salt. You don't see many wars over salt these days because there is no money in it. These days, you have wars over oil . . . because oil is a precious valuable commodity.
Fenderputty
Banned
Like I said .. they still have other drugs to push and can fill in the loss of weed by another shady revenue stream. It might be a net loss for them, but it's not going to solve all of Mexico's issues.
That doesn't mean we shouldnt pursue legalization for other reasons though. Reason Mrs. Clinton didn't address.
freenudemacusers
Member
I'm sure you read an article making these claims, there have been all sorts of weird anti-legalization efforts and paranoid theories going around.
Indeed. Any possible dent in the cartel's operations, no matter how brief, is and always has been bonus. The debate, in the context of what America should do, should always be about the common people affected here.
She's speaking as the Secretary of State. Marijuana legalization will not solve the problems the drug trade creates on a national and international level. That's absolutely true. That dosen't mean it wouldn't still be a good move, or have other benefits, and she leaves the door open to that in her statement.
People are way too quick to attack others on this issue.
People are way too quick to attack others on this issue.
Yep, that's another strong point in favor of it. Hopefully CO and WA pull in a lot of revenue from their laws and other states take note. All the states are bitching about how hard it is to balance the budgets right now, well here's an easy way to help with that.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Sure, the criminal enterprises continued after Prohibition, but they would never again achieve the height of power of influence that they did during it. The loss of illegal bootlegging was clearly detrimental to those organizations.
And ultimately, the market helps shape the way criminal organizations work just in the same way it does for legitimate organizations. Weed suddenly becoming legal doesn't increase demand for other illicit drugs. In fact, it could actually lower demand. So the cartels can't just replace weed with heroin or coke and keep going about their business. Nor does the legalization of weed make kidnapping or extortion more profitable.
And furthermore, the cartel would have to do some massive restructuring to turn their drug mules into kidnappers. Would it happen to a small degree? Probably, but it's asinine for Hillary to suggest that the cartels can easily replace their drug operations with alternative crimes.
Exactly. It seems like she's referring to a place like Mexico and Brazil..
PhoenixDark
Banned
Go read up on the prohibition era.
No one is saying that legalization is going to make things all puppies and rainbows. But if you eliminate a lucrative profit motive created solely by making something illegal, you will reduce the crime & violence associated with fighting over that lucrative profit. You are just parroting the same strawman she said.
Wars were once fought over salt. Yes, salt. You don't see many wars over salt these days because there is no money in it. These days, you have wars over oil . . . because oil is a precious valuable commodity.
We're not in the prohibition era. We're talking about cartels that can compete round for round with the military of multiple countries.
You don't eliminate profit motives by legalizing - you increase profits. They'll simply make more money from the US and other foreign markets while fighting over turf/market share in South America.
Dude Abides
Banned
Indeed. During the prohibition era there was, of course, no organized criminal element doing bootlegging. Just a bunch of freelancers working on their own.
Black markets how do they work?
what?
Who is going to buy/deal weed off the streets when you can get it from Phillip Morris at the gas station (and they won't be supplied by the cartels)? If the cartels want to go legit then who cares, but you can't do that while kidnapping etc on the sides
WeAreStarStuff
Member
I propose we legalize plants, and make politicians illegal.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Huh? If you legalize, you open the free market. It's fair game. No longer are consumers limited to the illegal sources, they can get it from anyone. You think Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds wouldn't get in on that action?
Fenderputty
Banned
I can't tell if you're still in troll mode when you post something like this.
Because the feds get a huge blank check to crackdown on it. They will turn a blind eye to logic/science when it means keeping their drug war money.
That and some still worship the old government bullshit from the past.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Once again, I'm not concerned about the impact in the US; I'm sure gas stations would have no problem selling weed there. That's not the case in Mexico. The cartels have shown for decades that they will attack anything that cuts into their turf or profits; the notion that Mexican stores can simply legally sell weed or cocaine and face no repercussions is nonsense. You think cartels will simply say "oh well, if you can't beat em, join em?"
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
As analogies go... seems like that article would be more like: telling a major pizza chain that they're now a wing joint.
So you are saying that there will be a benefit in the US, and no change in Mexico, so it is not worth doing?
PhoenixDark
Banned
The argument made for legalization is that it will lower violence, and I see no evidence of that. It might even increase violence in Mexico, who knows.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
But you just said that they'll make more money from the US if drugs are legal.
But they won't, because they can't compete with US companies.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Just to make sure we're on the same page: we're discussing more than just the legalization of weed, correct? Hard drugs as well?
.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If you no longer have to rely on street justice, and can turn to courts and police to settle business disputes, that will lower violence domestically.
As for the cartels, US legalization may increase their desperation, but it will also decrease their ability to make money, which in turn decreases their influence and capability to commit violence.
afternoon delight
Member
I'm optimistic in thinking that the states will show their profit margins to other states, and economics in the end will win people over. And til then, it's very easy to find anyways.
No. The argument for legalisation is much more complex than that. That is one possible benefit of legalisation. And your argument is now reduced to 'it might... who knows'? Not real convincing.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Why does the U.S. give a shit what happens to the drug market in Mexico if it fixes some of our problems? Let Mexico do what's best for them, we'll do what's best for us. It's not like they give a shit about illegal immigrants in the U.S.
- Status