Mexican cartel busted in Ohio with 9 kilos of fentanyl worth more than $3.6 million.

But all we have to do is legalize pot and the cartels will be out of business overnight.
 
But all we have to do is legalize pot and the cartels will be out of business overnight.
It's the exact opposite of that. The financial incentive to profit off of an illegal drug is huge. So the more pot is legalized and stripped of its value, the more the Mexican cartels will import a drug that is still lucrative.

You got that one so bass-ackwards that I almost feel like giving you some kind of award.
 
But all we have to do is legalize pot and the cartels will be out of business overnight.
It's the exact opposite of that. The financial incentive to profit off of an illegal drug is huge. So the more pot is legalized and stripped of its value, the more the Mexican cartels will import a drug that is still lucrative.

You got that one so bass-ackwards that I almost feel like giving you some kind of award.

Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
 
But all we have to do is legalize pot and the cartels will be out of business overnight.
It's the exact opposite of that. The financial incentive to profit off of an illegal drug is huge. So the more pot is legalized and stripped of its value, the more the Mexican cartels will import a drug that is still lucrative.

You got that one so bass-ackwards that I almost feel like giving you some kind of award.

Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
I'm not sure because I've heard the argument before as actually "legitimate reasoning". Many times. Even here on this board. But in this one instance you may be right.

But as to that argument the "logic" goes "if pot is legal then people who would otherwise be tempted to keep using opiates would just rely on pot to get high". Absurd. It's like saying an alcoholic would turn to near-beer to get drunk when there's plenty of strong whiskey around to drink. And that "reasoning" completely ignores why the heroin replaced pot in the Mexican cartel business: profits. Heroin being more addictive by far, the return-customer and "fist time user returns" would be astronomically higher than pot. What cartel is going to import a somewhat addictive drug to a flooded US market when they could opt to import a highly addictive drug to a lucrative and scarce US market?
 
But all we have to do is legalize pot and the cartels will be out of business overnight.
It's the exact opposite of that. The financial incentive to profit off of an illegal drug is huge. So the more pot is legalized and stripped of its value, the more the Mexican cartels will import a drug that is still lucrative.

You got that one so bass-ackwards that I almost feel like giving you some kind of award.

Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
I'm not sure because I've heard the argument before as actually "legitimate reasoning". Many times. Even here on this board. But in this one instance you may be right.

But as to that argument the "logic" goes "if pot is legal then people who would otherwise be tempted to keep using opiates would just rely on pot to get high". Absurd. It's like saying an alcoholic would turn to near-beer to get drunk when there's plenty of strong whiskey around to drink. And that "reasoning" completely ignores why the heroin replaced pot in the Mexican cartel business: profits. Heroin being more addictive by far, the return-customer and "fist time user returns" would be astronomically higher than pot. What cartel is going to import a somewhat addictive drug to a flooded US market when they could opt to import a highly addictive drug to a lucrative and scarce US market?

It was sarcasm and said because so many potheads on this very board used and overused the argument, no matter how foolish. And it is if course very, very, foolish.
 
He should have stayed in CA.... they would have just let him go.
Probably gave his fentanyl back with interest, and an apology for interrupting his day.
 

Forum List

Back
Top