Do you believe the war on drugs is a failure?

[Katzndogz]

Okay, I'll qualify, only drugs that affect cognitive ability should be fully legalized. Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana, Ecstacy, anything that can get someone high.

 

[Katzndogz]

Maybe the drug users union will help accommodate them and force the general public to accept and normalize drug use.

Just pay for it.

Drug users' union in San Francisco part of growing movement - latimes.com

 

[editec]

and again, do you mean it will have a big black market like there is for alcohol, or cigarettes?

not alcohol, setting up distilleries is too expensive, but cigarettes, that's another story. The smugglers sell those for two bucks a pack.

Regulation usually works like regulating the porn industry in los angeles. In other words, making it one big expensive cluster fuck. There is no more porn being made in los angeles. Mostly because it is now regulated.

so there's a lot of cigarette smuggling going on? I find it odd that, in the close to 25 years i've been smoking, i've never seen someone selling black market cigs, never known anyone who claims to have bought black market cigs, never heard anyone say anything about black market cigs being available.

you talk a lot about legalization not having any effect on black market/illegal sales, but not only do you offer no evidence, the evidence we have of already legal drugs speaks against you.

Legalization would not instantly destroy drug cartels or gangs, etc., but the idea that it would make black market sales worse is, to put it politely, nothing but a speculative stretch.

fyi?

"right now a tractor-trailer load of illegal cigarettes will net the truck driver about $2 million in profit," says ted deeds, spokesman for the law enforcement alliance of america, a private law-and-order advocacy group.
Deeds points out that profits for the smugglers mean uncollected taxes for the states, money that's needed to fund local services, especially education.

"the wall street journal has reported that the individual states are losing approximately $5 billion annually, simply from the lost taxes caused by the illegal cigarette black market," he adds.
Cigarette taxes are a vital revenue source for new york state, which has the highest-priced cigarettes in the nation - almost $15 a pack.
State taxes make up more than $4 of the cost. New york city tacks on an extra levy of $1.50. The state is collaborating with the federal bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, known as the atf, in cracking down on the cigarette black market.

 

[Katzndogz]

Smoking is still legal, so unless possession is criminalized, there black market is going to boom. Which is what the drug users want. Just let them take it.

And we should all they want. Low cost or preferably no cost.

 

[Montrovant]

From what I can see, black market cigarettes are mostly an outgrowth of the huge amount of taxes some places put on them. And still, I find it hard to believe that the cigarette black market approaches anywhere near the marijuana market.

I would say this is good evidence for why piling tax after tax on a product is a bad idea, beyond any moral argument. If you tax something enough, you almost put it on the same level as being illegal; it becomes impossible or at least extremely difficult for the average person to obtain legally. In the case of cigarettes, they are taxed so much that people find themselves unable to afford purchasing them legally, and of course criminal enterprises will seize such an opportunity. If alcohol were taxed to the point that buying a cheap bottle of liquor cost $100 (which is around the cost of a carton of cigs in NY, apparently) I imagine we would see a lot more black market alcohol.

I still don't see how decriminalization or legalization would make the black market worse, though.

 

[Katzndogz]

From what I can see, black market cigarettes are mostly an outgrowth of the huge amount of taxes some places put on them. And still, I find it hard to believe that the cigarette black market approaches anywhere near the marijuana market.

I would say this is good evidence for why piling tax after tax on a product is a bad idea, beyond any moral argument. If you tax something enough, you almost put it on the same level as being illegal; it becomes impossible or at least extremely difficult for the average person to obtain legally. In the case of cigarettes, they are taxed so much that people find themselves unable to afford purchasing them legally, and of course criminal enterprises will seize such an opportunity. If alcohol were taxed to the point that buying a cheap bottle of liquor cost $100 (which is around the cost of a carton of cigs in NY, apparently) I imagine we would see a lot more black market alcohol.

I still don't see how decriminalization or legalization would make the black market worse, though.

No, it would be about the same. To affect the black market, the cost of the drug would have to be very low cost or, if not free, at least subsidized. It would be worth it too.

 

[MikeK]

It's a shame that pro pot propaganda is so strong. You can choose to believe that marijuana use reduces the liklihood of stroke and I'm glad that you do, despite medical evidence to the contrary.[...]

There is no empirical evidence that marijuana precipitates stroke. There is theory, none of which has been conclusively proven to be factual. The language used in discussing this latest effort to demonize marijuana is typical of all the Reefer Madness rhetoric to come down the pike since this prolific lie was first put forth to protect the interests of various corporate interests.

I'm rather surprised that you've completely ignored the common sense argument to this stroke nonsense. I have no doubt you are aware that the DEA's own figures casually estimate that a minimum of twenty thousand tons of marijuana are consumed in the U.S. every year -- and that is a very conservative estimate. The common sense argument is the obvious fact that if it were true that marijuana contributes to the onset of stroke, based on the amount of marijuana consumed in the U.S. the stroke statistics would be hundreds of times higher than they are and there would be more wheelchairs on the streets than pedestrians.

You may or may not know that back in the fifties (when I started smoking cigarettes) there were MDs who signed off to statements that "Smoking cigarettes is good for your health!" The same kind of medical prostitutes have been responsible for producing a myriad of equally false and misleading statements about marijuana. In one example a group of NIDA medical researchers produced a paper stating that marijuana smoking caused serious lung damage in laboratory monkeys. One of these "scientists" later admitted the research was conducted by attaching inhalation masks to the restrained chimps and pumping enough marijuana smoke through the masks to actually suffocate one of the poor creatures. (You can find documentation for this and a lot more on NORML's website.)

Some of the language used in this stroke "finding:" Marijuana "may" cause . . ., or "can" cause . . ., etc.. Or "heavy use of marijuana can . . ." But they don't quantify what "heavy use" is and they don't say that "heavy use" of water can cause drowning, too.

But if you wish to hang your drug warrior hat on this latest bogus study you must have a good reason for doing so. Can it be you're feeling guilty about something related to drug law enforcement and need reinforcement to justify your actions?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There are indeed "black market" cigarettes in the US as a direct result of the taxation on tobacco products. My homeboy in SE Portland got a cease and desist order for ordering cases of cartons of cigarettes online back around 2002 because the Canadian (I think. Some other close-by 1st world nation) company selling them (them being the same name brand smokes you get here. Camel, Marlboro, etc. My boy was buying Winstons) could sell them at 20 bucks or less per carton and still make a healthy profit without having to pay the US taxes.

This still doesn't suggest that decriminalization would -increase- black market activities, or even that it wouldn't decrease them. Black market transactions exist because there's both a demand for something and laws against that something or laws that make it more difficult (read expensive) to get that something. If marijuana were completely deregulated, obviously it would be literally impossible to have black market transactions inside of the country that involved trading cash for weed.

Now, with that in mind, take a look at the black market cigarette dealings vs black market marijuana dealings. Personally, I know no less than 3 people who've been shot over small amounts (less than a pound) of marijuana, as well as several people (myself included) who've been robbed at knife/gunpoint for even smaller amounts (less than an ounce). I'm willing to bet that nobody here could point out many cases of people being shot during shady cigarette deals, even in states like New York where the taxes on them are insane.

The fact of the matter is that decriminalizing a substance significantly decreases the potential risk involved (and thus the price of avoiding that potential risk) in the manufacture and distribution of that substance which, in a competitive market, inevitably drives down the end price to the consumer. This, in turn, drives down the end consumer's need to commit crimes to fund their abuse. It also, AGAIN, allows the manufacturers and distributors a legal recourse to violent tactics. Annheuser Busch and Coors Brewing Company aren't sending car-loads of guys with tommy guns to take out each other's operations. Even the "off-shore" cigarette guys "smuggling" legal products aren't offing each other for that share of the untaxed, unofficial US market. The easier you make it to get, the less need for violence and theft to get it. That simple.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a shame that pro pot propaganda is so strong. You can choose to believe that marijuana use reduces the liklihood of stroke and I'm glad that you do, despite medical evidence to the contrary.[...]

There is no empirical evidence that marijuana precipitates stroke. There is theory, none of which has been conclusively proven to be factual. The language used in discussing this latest effort to demonize marijuana is typical of all the Reefer Madness rhetoric to come down the pike since this prolific lie was first put forth to protect the interests of various corporate interests.

I'm rather surprised that you've completely ignored the common sense argument to this stroke nonsense. I have no doubt you are aware that the DEA's own figures casually estimate that a minimum of twenty thousand tons of marijuana are consumed in the U.S. every year -- and that is a very conservative estimate. The common sense argument is the obvious fact that if it were true that marijuana contributes to the onset of stroke, based on the amount of marijuana consumed in the U.S. the stroke statistics would be hundreds of times higher than they are and there would be more wheelchairs on the streets than pedestrians.

You may or may not know that back in the fifties (when I started smoking cigarettes) there were MDs who signed off to statements that "Smoking cigarettes is good for your health!" The same kind of medical prostitutes have been responsible for producing a myriad of equally false and misleading statements about marijuana. In one example a group of NIDA medical researchers produced a paper stating that marijuana smoking caused serious lung damage in laboratory monkeys. One of these "scientists" later admitted the research was conducted by attaching inhalation masks to the restrained chimps and pumping enough marijuana smoke through the masks to actually suffocate one of the poor creatures. (You can find documentation for this and a lot more on NORML's website.)

Some of the language used in this stroke "finding:" Marijuana "may" cause . . ., or "can" cause . . ., etc.. Or "heavy use of marijuana can . . ." But they don't quantify what "heavy use" is and they don't say that "heavy use" of water can cause drowning, too.

But if you wish to hang your drug warrior hat on this latest bogus study you must have a good reason for doing so. Can it be you're feeling guilty about something related to drug law enforcement and need reinforcement to justify your actions?

I don't know how much pot you smoke, but double it. It's good for your health. I can already see that the logic of the pot user is irrefutable. The answer to our present drug problems isn't prohibition or less use, it's MORE. If it is not harmful, good. If it causes psychosis and/or stroke, that's just as good or even better. For those who go on to use other drugs (hopefully also unlimited and free or very low cost) it is even better. The answer to reducing drug use isn't to reduce the drugs, it's to reduce the number of users.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are indeed "black market" cigarettes in the US as a direct result of the taxation on tobacco products. My homeboy in SE Portland got a cease and desist order for ordering cases of cartons of cigarettes online back around 2002 because the Canadian (I think. Some other close-by 1st world nation) company selling them (them being the same name brand smokes you get here. Camel, Marlboro, etc. My boy was buying Winstons) could sell them at 20 bucks or less per carton and still make a healthy profit without having to pay the US taxes.

This still doesn't suggest that decriminalization would -increase- black market activities, or even that it wouldn't decrease them. Black market transactions exist because there's both a demand for something and laws against that something or laws that make it more difficult (read expensive) to get that something. If marijuana were completely deregulated, obviously it would be literally impossible to have black market transactions inside of the country that involved trading cash for weed.

Now, with that in mind, take a look at the black market cigarette dealings vs black market marijuana dealings. Personally, I know no less than 3 people who've been shot over small amounts (less than a pound) of marijuana, as well as several people (myself included) who've been robbed at knife/gunpoint for even smaller amounts (less than an ounce). I'm willing to bet that nobody here could point out many cases of people being shot during shady cigarette deals, even in states like New York where the taxes on them are insane.

The fact of the matter is that decriminalizing a substance significantly decreases the potential risk involved (and thus the price of avoiding that potential risk) in the manufacture and distribution of that substance which, in a competitive market, inevitably drives down the end price to the consumer. This, in turn, drives down the end consumer's need to commit crimes to fund their abuse. It also, AGAIN, allows the manufacturers and distributors a legal recourse to violent tactics. Annheuser Busch and Coors Brewing Company aren't sending car-loads of guys with tommy guns to take out each other's operations. Even the "off-shore" cigarette guys "smuggling" legal products aren't offing each other for that share of the untaxed, unofficial US market. The easier you make it to get, the less need for violence and theft to get it. That simple.

The mistake in your thinking is that people commit crimes solely to get drugs. While it is true that users commit crimes to get money to buy drugs (which should be free or at least cost pennies), users commit crimes as a way of making a living. They still want things. They cannot hold down a job due to drug use, they commit crimes do pay for everything. This is a problem unfortunately that legalization won't help. Even with massive amounts of public benefits, it isn't enough to satisfy an avaracious and impaired consumer.

 

[FA_Q2]

There are indeed "black market" cigarettes in the US as a direct result of the taxation on tobacco products. My homeboy in SE Portland got a cease and desist order for ordering cases of cartons of cigarettes online back around 2002 because the Canadian (I think. Some other close-by 1st world nation) company selling them (them being the same name brand smokes you get here. Camel, Marlboro, etc. My boy was buying Winstons) could sell them at 20 bucks or less per carton and still make a healthy profit without having to pay the US taxes.

This still doesn't suggest that decriminalization would -increase- black market activities, or even that it wouldn't decrease them. Black market transactions exist because there's both a demand for something and laws against that something or laws that make it more difficult (read expensive) to get that something. If marijuana were completely deregulated, obviously it would be literally impossible to have black market transactions inside of the country that involved trading cash for weed.

Now, with that in mind, take a look at the black market cigarette dealings vs black market marijuana dealings. Personally, I know no less than 3 people who've been shot over small amounts (less than a pound) of marijuana, as well as several people (myself included) who've been robbed at knife/gunpoint for even smaller amounts (less than an ounce). I'm willing to bet that nobody here could point out many cases of people being shot during shady cigarette deals, even in states like New York where the taxes on them are insane.

The fact of the matter is that decriminalizing a substance significantly decreases the potential risk involved (and thus the price of avoiding that potential risk) in the manufacture and distribution of that substance which, in a competitive market, inevitably drives down the end price to the consumer. This, in turn, drives down the end consumer's need to commit crimes to fund their abuse. It also, AGAIN, allows the manufacturers and distributors a legal recourse to violent tactics. Annheuser Busch and Coors Brewing Company aren't sending car-loads of guys with tommy guns to take out each other's operations. Even the "off-shore" cigarette guys "smuggling" legal products aren't offing each other for that share of the untaxed, unofficial US market. The easier you make it to get, the less need for violence and theft to get it. That simple.

Good post. Essentially, the argument I have been trying to make but Katz want to be a drma queen instead of actually addressing this.

There are indeed "black market" cigarettes in the US as a direct result of the taxation on tobacco products. My homeboy in SE Portland got a cease and desist order for ordering cases of cartons of cigarettes online back around 2002 because the Canadian (I think. Some other close-by 1st world nation) company selling them (them being the same name brand smokes you get here. Camel, Marlboro, etc. My boy was buying Winstons) could sell them at 20 bucks or less per carton and still make a healthy profit without having to pay the US taxes.

This still doesn't suggest that decriminalization would -increase- black market activities, or even that it wouldn't decrease them. Black market transactions exist because there's both a demand for something and laws against that something or laws that make it more difficult (read expensive) to get that something. If marijuana were completely deregulated, obviously it would be literally impossible to have black market transactions inside of the country that involved trading cash for weed.

Now, with that in mind, take a look at the black market cigarette dealings vs black market marijuana dealings. Personally, I know no less than 3 people who've been shot over small amounts (less than a pound) of marijuana, as well as several people (myself included) who've been robbed at knife/gunpoint for even smaller amounts (less than an ounce). I'm willing to bet that nobody here could point out many cases of people being shot during shady cigarette deals, even in states like New York where the taxes on them are insane.

The fact of the matter is that decriminalizing a substance significantly decreases the potential risk involved (and thus the price of avoiding that potential risk) in the manufacture and distribution of that substance which, in a competitive market, inevitably drives down the end price to the consumer. This, in turn, drives down the end consumer's need to commit crimes to fund their abuse. It also, AGAIN, allows the manufacturers and distributors a legal recourse to violent tactics. Annheuser Busch and Coors Brewing Company aren't sending car-loads of guys with tommy guns to take out each other's operations. Even the "off-shore" cigarette guys "smuggling" legal products aren't offing each other for that share of the untaxed, unofficial US market. The easier you make it to get, the less need for violence and theft to get it. That simple.

The mistake in your thinking is that people commit crimes solely to get drugs. While it is true that users commit crimes to get money to buy drugs (which should be free or at least cost pennies), users commit crimes as a way of making a living. They still want things. They cannot hold down a job due to drug use, they commit crimes do pay for everything. This is a problem unfortunately that legalization won't help. Even with massive amounts of public benefits, it isn't enough to satisfy an avaracious and impaired consumer.

So, let's try some actual history for a change then. Care to elaborate on why we were better off before prohibition was repealed as it concerns alcohol as it is quite established that alcohol is more damaging than marijuana.

 

[rightwinger]

In a country struggling in a tough economy, we only have to look at how much we spend incarcerating non violent offenders

 

[Immanuel]

In a country struggling in a tough economy, we only have to look at how much we spend incarcerating non violent offenders

So you are saying that we should be charging them the going rate on room and board in order to eliminate the deficit?

Immie

 

[MikeK]

In a country struggling in a tough economy, we only have to look at how much we spend incarcerating non violent offenders

So you are saying that we should be charging them the going rate on room and board in order to eliminate the deficit?

Immie

No. He's saying it makes no sense to incarcerate people for doing something that harms absolutely no one.

 

[Immanuel]

In a country struggling in a tough economy, we only have to look at how much we spend incarcerating non violent offenders

So you are saying that we should be charging them the going rate on room and board in order to eliminate the deficit?

Immie

No. He's saying it makes no sense to incarcerate people for doing something that harms absolutely no one.

Well, duh, did you miss the ?

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

In a country struggling in a tough economy, we only have to look at how much we spend incarcerating non violent offenders

So you are saying that we should be charging them the going rate on room and board in order to eliminate the deficit?

Immie

Somehow, Europe and Canada get by without locking up all their drug offenders. Their drug problems are no worse than ours.

It would also help ease the Mexican drug cartel problem fighting over who gets to sell drugs to the gringos

 

[Katzndogz]

Sweden I believe deals with drug use by keeping those who are high locked up in monitored comfort rooms which is something addicts in the US want implemented here too. That's not a bad idea.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sweden I believe deals with drug use by keeping those who are high locked up in monitored comfort rooms which is something addicts in the US want implemented here too. That's not a bad idea.

Still avoiding the fact that legalization has worked in the past for alcohol I see. Still avoiding posting anything that actually deals with facts or history and defaulting to contrite bullshit. Nice work, you're really framing your side of the debate well