[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

So, here's an exercise Curt. Let's say gangs sell pot at 10 dollars a gram. Now let's legalize it, tax, it, and sell it and 20 dollars a gram.

Now, making it legal will likely attract a large number of pot heads to buy it from the government, but how many? 20 dollars a gram cuts into the extra cash for Doritos now.

So, lets say the criminal elements from the price to 7 dollars a gram to undercut government prices, and unlike booze or cigarettes, pot, as we see, is relatively easy to produce in bulk.

This is flawed. Why $20/gram? The profit from a single medium sized grow-op is roughly $100,000 every 3 months. Tax free. The costs are low. Clones (plants) are free. Electricity will probably run you $200/month or so. There is no reason to believe regulated marijuana would need to inflate the current price, and every reason to believe that licensed commercial enterprise would decrease it significantly. We've done the comparison in a previous thread between tobacco producers and marijuana producers. The gangsters are making roughly 1500% more profit per 200g of product with pot than tobacco producers are after the government takes their cut.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Do you believe pot heads will stay away from gangs selling at 7 dollars a gram vice the government price of 20 dollars a gram?

Before you knee jerk answer that, check at the percentage of illegal cigarettes being sold these days.

Not rocket science, Curt, not at all. This is win win for pot heads, but not for the opportunity to vastly reduce gang activity.

I believe a significant part of the market will produce their own if drug laws are relaxed. But your numbers don't work at all.

[Yogi]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

Every time we discuss this, you claim that someone is saying all crime will disappear with legalization. Nobody on this forum has ever made that claim, as far as I know. We're talking about the huge amount of cash that is available to gangs as a result of prohibition, particularly marijuana. It's their largest source of revenue, and it's completely unnecessary to give them a monopoly on drugs. It's a better idea to have a regulated market that makes treatment available to addicts.

And every time we discuss this, you claim that this will be a huge win for preventing gang crime. You lay it out like it's the silver bullet against organized crime.

You've mentioned you have experience either directly or indirectly with gangs so you know full well that if you regulate a product they'll either sell the product for less than what's publicly available or move over to other drugs and other revenue streams. IMO, legalizing marijuana won't stop gangs from selling it, it'll just reduce the price they're selling it at and I highly doubt will see a mass-exodus of gang members just throwing in the towel.

Legalizing-decriminalizing weed, whatever, is just going to take it out of the 'gang equation'. Much the same as doing away with prohibition/alcohol did in regards to the mob of years ago. The gangs will just focus there enrgies on other products/endeavors.

Understanding gang mentality is the key to dealing successfully with them. (Experience speaking here)- You cannot deal with gangs from an intellectual standpoint. You must deal with them on their own level. To do otherwise is only to be seen to be doing something, all the while accomplishing nothing!
All gang leaders/members are weak & spineless. They could not operate without weapons; ergo the ability to intimidate. 'Weapons' = guns-knives-clubs, etc. or at least 3 thugs who are bigger & stronger than their opponent.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

So, here's an exercise Curt. Let's say gangs sell pot at 10 dollars a gram. Now let's legalize it, tax, it, and sell it and 20 dollars a gram.

Now, making it legal will likely attract a large number of pot heads to buy it from the government, but how many? 20 dollars a gram cuts into the extra cash for Doritos now.

So, lets say the criminal elements from the price to 7 dollars a gram to undercut government prices, and unlike booze or cigarettes, pot, as we see, is relatively easy to produce in bulk.

This is flawed. Why $20/gram? The profit from a single medium sized grow-op is roughly $100,000 every 3 months. Tax free. The costs are low. Clones (plants) are free. Electricity will probably run you $200/month or so. There is no reason to believe regulated marijuana would need to inflate the current price, and every reason to believe that licensed commercial enterprise would decrease it significantly. We've done the comparison in a previous thread between tobacco producers and marijuana producers. The gangsters are making roughly 1500% more profit per 200g of product with pot than tobacco producers are after the government takes their cut.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Do you believe pot heads will stay away from gangs selling at 7 dollars a gram vice the government price of 20 dollars a gram?

Before you knee jerk answer that, check at the percentage of illegal cigarettes being sold these days.

Not rocket science, Curt, not at all. This is win win for pot heads, but not for the opportunity to vastly reduce gang activity.

I believe a significant part of the market will produce their own if drug laws are relaxed. But your numbers don't work at all.

It's an exercise, Curt, not a business plan.

Take a walk around your neighborhood and tell me how many have vegetable gardens. These same people who are pot heads are going to suddenly grow their own?

No they won't. They could now with minimal issues but they don't.

You're wrong, Curt.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

It's an exercise, Curt, not a business plan.

Take a walk around your neighborhood and tell me how many have vegetable gardens. These same people who are pot heads are going to suddenly grow their own?

No they won't. They could now with minimal issues but they don't.

You're wrong, Curt.

The exercise is flawed. Do the exercise again.

$10/gram is what kids pay with their allowance. Let's look at what your typical pot-head does. He's buying a quarter ounce ($60 = $8.60/gram), maybe a half of an ounce ($80 - $100 = $5.70 - $7.14 per gram) per week or per month depending on usage. These prices provide for 1500% more profit than tobacco production does. The regulated tobacco price is $15 for 25 grams. That is $1.60 per gram for regulated tobacco, and the amount of users is going down drastically. The smugglers are undercutting that price. Profit is low.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

It's an exercise, Curt, not a business plan.

Take a walk around your neighborhood and tell me how many have vegetable gardens. These same people who are pot heads are going to suddenly grow their own?

No they won't. They could now with minimal issues but they don't.

You're wrong, Curt.

The exercise is flawed. Do the exercise again.

$10/gram is what kids pay with their allowance. Let's look at what your typical pot-head does. He's buying a quarter ounce ($60 = $8.60/gram), maybe a half of an ounce ($80 - $100 = $5.70 - $7.14 per gram) per week or per month depending on usage. These prices provide for 1500% more profit than tobacco production does. The regulated tobacco price is $15 for 25 grams. That is $1.60 per gram for regulated tobacco, and the amount of users is going down drastically. The smugglers are undercutting that price. Profit is low.

Profit is low yet business is good. A fact you are conveniently ignoring.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

It's an exercise, Curt, not a business plan.

Take a walk around your neighborhood and tell me how many have vegetable gardens. These same people who are pot heads are going to suddenly grow their own?

No they won't. They could now with minimal issues but they don't.

You're wrong, Curt.

The exercise is flawed. Do the exercise again.

$10/gram is what kids pay with their allowance. Let's look at what your typical pot-head does. He's buying a quarter ounce ($60 = $8.60/gram), maybe a half of an ounce ($80 - $100 = $5.70 - $7.14 per gram) per week or per month depending on usage. These prices provide for 1500% more profit than tobacco production does. The regulated tobacco price is $15 for 25 grams. That is $1.60 per gram for regulated tobacco, and the amount of users is going down drastically. The smugglers are undercutting that price. Profit is low.

Profit is low yet business is good. A fact you are conveniently ignoring.

But it brings in much less revenue. If a regulated marijuana market could capture a similar amount as tobacco does, and the profit decreased it would deal a significant blow to organized crime.

Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS)

$1:

Fifty-four percent (54% or about 2.2 million) of current smokers aged 15 and older purchased discount-brand cigarettes at retail, 11% (about 549,000 Canadians) purchased cigarettes from a First Nations Reserve and 3% (about 158,000) reported they purchased cigarettes that may have been smuggled. Some smokers reported more than one source, however, these numbers should not be added.

Nearly 100% of pot-heads purchase hyper-inflated smuggled product. Prohibition is fuelling organized crime.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I just think that people assuming the gang problems and violence will magically dissapear if drugs are legalized is more than a little simplistic and will lead to a big letdown for those proponents of this theory who actually believe their own press.

Never get tired of de ol canard, eh, ami? Love your strawman. Do you call him Mr Black and White or Fallacy of Perfection?

[Yogi]

[quote="Curtman"]It's an exercise, Curt, not a business plan.

Take a walk around your neighborhood and tell me how many have vegetable gardens. These same people who are pot heads are going to suddenly grow their own?

Nearly 100% of pot-heads purchase hyper-iflated smuggled product. Prohibition is fuelling organized crime.[/quote]


ALL LAWS are a 'prohibition'. The punishment must exceed the crime!
Not regulating, rather legalizing all possession of weed is the only way to take it out of the hands of organised crime.
Tobacco is 'regulated' yet there is still a black market for it because the govt price is $80.00/ctn.
I don't really care 'where it comes from', if I can buy a ctn of smokes for less than I'm paying now, then 'bring it on'. If the govt got their greedy fucking hands out of the mix, and left the sale/distribution to the free market, prices would go way down due to competetive distributors, and I just don't see the place for a 'black market/tobacco'.
Govt involvement in the sale/distribution of any product is exactly what creates a black market.

[Curtman]

Yogi Yogi:

ALL LAWS are a 'prohibition'. The punishment must exceed the crime!
Not regulating, rather legalizing all possession of weed is the only way to take it out of the hands of organised crime.
Tobacco is 'regulated' yet there is still a black market for it because the govt price is $80.00/ctn.
I don't really care 'where it comes from', if I can buy a ctn of smokes for less than I'm paying now, then 'bring it on'. If the govt got their greedy fucking hands out of the mix, and left the sale/distribution to the free market, prices would go way down due to competetive distributors, and I just don't see the place for a 'black market/tobacco'.
Govt involvement in the sale/distribution of any product is exactly what creates a black market.

The point is, a regulated market would undercut the current black market. The regulated tobacco market is successfully convincing people not to smoke. The sum total of dollars brought in by a gang would decrease substantially if the gangs could not use intimidation to force out competition and keep the price high. They would have to compete with a regulated price which is much lower, and the evidence we have shows that the market would get smaller. Prohibition has not accomplished either of those objectives in 50 years.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

The point is, a regulated market would undercut the current black market. The regulated tobacco market is successfully convincing people not to smoke. The sum total of dollars brought in by a gang would decrease substantially if the gangs could not use intimidation to force out competition and keep the price high. They would have to compete with a regulated price which is much lower, and the evidence we have shows that the market would get smaller. Prohibition has not accomplished either of those objectives in 50 years.

How so?

Has any regulated market undercut their black-market competitors?

Legal booze and smokes are far more expensive than their black-market competitors.

Why would marijuana be different?

One one side, you suggest that they only compete for pricing in a prohibited market but you don't think competition will be the same or more when their market share is decreased due to legalization and they have to compete over the price that will undercut the legal product?

[Gunnair]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

The point is, a regulated market would undercut the current black market. The regulated tobacco market is successfully convincing people not to smoke. The sum total of dollars brought in by a gang would decrease substantially if the gangs could not use intimidation to force out competition and keep the price high. They would have to compete with a regulated price which is much lower, and the evidence we have shows that the market would get smaller. Prohibition has not accomplished either of those objectives in 50 years.

How so?

Has any regulated market undercut their black-market competitors?

Legal booze and smokes are far more expensive than their black-market competitors.

Why would marijuana be different?

One one side, you suggest that they only compete for pricing in a prohibited market but you don't think competition will be the same or more when their market share is decreased due to legalization and they have to compete over the price that will undercut the legal product?

Yep. It's all...




... for Curt.

[Freakinoldguy]

Curtman Curtman:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

You see the drug trade in everything. Gangs offer alot more than just the ability to sell drugs, but your myopic view of the problem and overwhelming desire to attach every societal ill to the prohibition of drugs makes your post more than somewhat biased.

Actually if this was 1918 we could insert alcohol as the cause of all these problems.............oh wait the WCTL and the ASL people already did that when then forced the prohibition of alcohol onto the American people, so it's apparent the facts can be twisted to suit a groups specific agenda, just like your saying that the prohibition of drugs is the cause of all these problems.

I'll reiterate, I'm not anti legalization I'm ambivalent about it. I just think that people assuming the gang problems and violence will magically dissapear if drugs are legalized is more than a little simplistic and will lead to a big letdown for those proponents of this theory who actually believe their own press.

So keep believing what you want, despite the obvious other reasons for gang violence and membership you're never going to change your opinion, which is fine since we're likely not going to find out which theory is the correct one any time soon.

Every time we discuss this, you claim that someone is saying all crime will disappear with legalization. Nobody on this forum has ever made that claim, as far as I know. We're talking about the huge amount of cash that is available to gangs as a result of prohibition, particularly marijuana. It's their largest source of revenue, and it's completely unnecessary to give them a monopoly on drugs. It's a better idea to have a regulated market that makes treatment available to addicts.

Okay, so we may not be on the same page or even believe in the same outcome from legalization but I will agree with you that for the interim legalizing marijuana would cut into a gangs profit margin.

But it's not me who said it would reduce crime, it was a coalition of former Attorney Generals who said it would. But I think they're talking through their ass because as was shown with the prohibition on alcohol gangs move on to other things when one source of income is removed. So the former AG's who said it would reduce gang violence are likely only partly correct because it may reduce it initially but I seriously doubt it will stop or even curb it much in the future.

But I stand by my statement that there are alot more reasons than just drugs for kids to join gangs despite your claim otherwise.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I just think that people assuming the gang problems and violence will magically dissapear if drugs are legalized is more than a little simplistic and will lead to a big letdown for those proponents of this theory who actually believe their own press.

Never get tired of de ol canard, eh, ami? Love your strawman. Do you call him Mr Black and White or Fallacy of Perfection?

Yep my strawman as posed by a coalition of former Attorney Generals, former mayors and of course Kash Heed all whom advocate the legalization of marijuana and who belong to a group called "Stop the Violence" not a group called "Reduce the Violence".

So, if you don't like how I present my argument or my semantics, allow me to poltiely point out that you your are free to use the ignore option for my posts and I would be eternally grateful if you did since, you add nothing to the discussion with your emotional and continual overuse of the term "strawman" whenever you don't like someones point of view.

[Freakinoldguy]

Now with all my bitching out of the way I have a question. If Washington State Legalizes Marijuana, what does Obama do? Drug enforcement is a Federal issue and if I'm correct States can't just start legalizing drugs because they want to.

Case in point California and the medical marijuana industry. Everyone thought that by getting a medical marijuana certificate from their doctor they could get dope anytime they wanted, but as it turned out the operators of these medical Marijuana distribution centers were in contravention of Federal Laws and consequently were either shut down or arrested if they reopened.

So what happens when a State explicitly and knowingly breaks a Federal Law? Do the State Legislators go to jail or what?

[Gunnair]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Now with all my bitching out of the way I have a question. If Washington State Legalizes Marijuana, what does Obama do? Drug enforcement is a Federal issue and if I'm correct States can't just start legalizing drugs because they want to.

Case in point California and the medical marijuana industry. Everyone thought that by getting a medical marijuana certificate from their doctor they could get dope anytime they wanted, but as it turned out the operators of these medical Marijuana distribution centers were in contravention of Federal Laws and consequently were either shut down or arrested if they reopened.

So what happens when a State explicitly and knowingly breaks a Federal Law? Do the State Legislators go to jail or what?

Long lines to catch the Anacortes ferry!