[Thanos]

Curtman Curtman:

andyt andyt:

who's the bigger hypocrite, Curt or Gunnair?

For the record. The last time I bought any drug, was the beginning of last year and it was a prescription, after I was diagnosed with lead poisoning.

Chewing on those toys from China again? Didn't your parents tell you that eating paint was a bad idea when you were little?

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yeah it's more hypocritical to go to the local winery and buy a bottle of wine than it is for the local drug dealer to peddle gang grown pot to the teens.

Andy, how you can be such an idiot and continue to breath on your own simply amazes me.

You're the one harping how Curt is supporting gangs. As if that's the only consideration, when as I said, you're supporting an industry that causes way more misery than pot does. But you don't want to look at that, you're all good, Curt's the bad one. You like to throw stones, but live in a glass house.

[andyt]

$1:

A lot of marijuana is grown by our neighbours who have a day job and a room in the basement that makes them another $40k or more a year.


The BC Pot Conundrum
BC and the Kootenay region dodged a major bump in the road to economy recovery when Proposition 19 in California, a proposal to legalize marijuana, was narrowly defeated in the US mid term elections. If Proposition 19 had passed, it would have allowed individuals to legally grow, and possess 1 ounce (28.5 grams} for personal use. It would have also allowed municipalities to permit commercial growing and sales, and tax both. The potential tax benefits to the state were estimated at $1.2 to $1.4 billion and
that was, and in the fiscal mess many jurisdictions at all levels find themselves, will continue to be a major force pushing legalization.

What would the implications have been for B.C.? Estimates of the economic value to BC of the illegal marijuana trade are in the $6 to $8 billion range, with about $4 billion in exports. That’s a lot of business; in fact it’s comparable in scale to the value of primary forestry sector and softwood exports to the US prior to the recession. Regionally, income from growing and sales is estimated to be equivalent to 15% of all legal employment income. The impact of legalization would have been that street value for
marijuana in California would have plummeted; some estimates were by as much as 80% to 90%. That would have made the street value in California about half of price currently paid to BC growers. Moving into other markets would be very difficult for BC product as it’s hard to imagine that in a legalized environment, California would not have become a major producer and supplier to other states. It’s much easier to cross state lines than international borders. The BC industry would have been seriously
hurt, perhaps fatally, had Proposition 19 passed.

So what you might say, isn’t that a good thing? It’s only gangs that benefit anyway! Well, yes and no. It would hurt gangs. Exporting $4 billion worth of illegal product is big business, and by definition done by criminal elements. They would definitely have felt the pain. But, so would the legal economy, especially
in this region. Folks involved in the marijuana industry also go to restaurants, get haircuts, go skiing and golfing, buy houses and cars, all the things that the rest of us do. They just get to pay for it in cash! And, it’s not just about gangs. A lot of marijuana is grown by our neighbours who have a day job and a room
in the basement that makes them another $40k or more a year. And the contractor who does your home renovations during the day may be doing grow‐op conversions for cash at night. There are also
the legal “gardening” stores and other services that supply the industry. Most of that would be gone with legalization. Just the regional market would remain, and that’s only a small fraction of what is currently produced in BC.

Under the Proposition 19 radar, California has already decriminalized possession of one ounce. Two other states, Arizona and South Dakota also voted to support medical marijuana, so there were a couple of more “baby steps” toward legalization in the mid terms. So, it may be that legalization of marijuana is more about when, rather than if.

A question I was asked in a recent interview about Proposition 19 was “How can we prepare for the possibility of legalization and the impact on our economy?” My response was "create more resiliency in the legal economy." But the more I think about it, the hard truth is – we can’t. Why? Because, we can’t
seem to find a way to talk about this as a serious issue. Ask anyone about marijuana growing in BC, and I’ll guarantee you that the first response will be a joke or laughter. Regionally, marijuana is socially more legal that cigarettes of alcohol. It’s common to see pot smoking and even trading in public places. If you tried to do the same with beer or liquor you’d be asked to leave, or the police would be called. So, because it’s illegal we focus on gangs as the issue rather than our neighbours, or even our own or our kid’s behaviour or involvement in the industry either directly, or indirectly as consumers. We rarely talk
about our dependence on the marijuana trade as a support for the health of our retail and services sectors. It’s only recently for example that I’ve seen commentary that part of the reason for high real estate values in BC might be income from the marijuana industry. We are all in a very real way addicted to the benefits of pot economy and are complicit in its continuing existence. But because it’s illegal, we can’t engage in an open conversation with producers and distributors, and can’t have an informed discussion about the possible decline of the industry. We can’t discuss the possible need for “Pot Renewal BC” or “The Pot Action Coalition” as we have done in forestry, or sit down with growers, pruners or gang members and talk about “job transition training.” I think our best hope is that rather than getting off our dependence on the illegal marijuana industry “cold turkey” as would have happened
had Proposition 19 passed, that legalization continues to move forward in small steps so we can adjust as those small steps occur and slowly reduce our addiction to the benefits the illegal trade in marijuana provides.

http://selkirk.ca/media/innovation/regi ... undrum.pdf

[Curtman]

Xort Xort:

I don't think the Mexicans waste time with a lot of marijuana trade.

They do. The black market for opiates and heroine is small compared to the marijuana market.

How A Mexican Drug Cartel Makes Its Billions

$1:

Moving cocaine is a capital-intensive business, but the cartel subsidizes these investments with a ready source of easy income: marijuana. Cannabis is often described as the “cash crop” of Mexican cartels because it grows abundantly in the Sierras and requires no processing. But it’s bulkier than cocaine, and smellier, which makes it difficult to conceal. So marijuana tends to cross the border far from official ports of entry. The cartel makes sandbag bridges to ford the Colorado River and sends buggies loaded with weed bouncing over the Imperial Sand Dunes into California. Michael Braun, the former chief of operations for the D.E.A., told me a story about the construction of a high-tech fence along a stretch of border in Arizona. “They erect this fence,” he said, “only to go out there a few days later and discover that these guys have a catapult, and they’re flinging hundred-pound bales of marijuana over to the other side.” He paused and looked at me for a second. “A catapult,” he repeated. “We’ve got the best fence money can buy, and they counter us with a 2,500-year-old technology.”

Xort Xort:

My point was when it was legal and trade was open, a staggeringly huge amount of the population became addicts. To a point that China felt it was better to try and fight war againt the top power in the world at the time then let it keep happening. They tried it in force at least twice and failed twice. They actualy fought a real war on drugs.

Wiki:

$1:

After the inauguration of the Canton System in 1756, which restricted trade to one port and did not allow foreign entrance to China, the British East India Company faced a trade imbalance in favour of China and invested heavily in opium production to redress the balance. British and United States merchants brought opium from the British East India Company's factories in Patna and Benares,[1] in the Bengal Presidency of British India, to the coast of China, where they sold it to Chinese smugglers who distributed the drug in defiance of Chinese laws.

Aware both of the drain of silver and the growing numbers of addicts, the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court, who advocated legalization of the trade in order to tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In 1838, the Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangzhou where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed.

In response, the British government sent expeditionary forces from India which ravaged the Chinese coast and dictated the terms of settlement. The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong, unilaterally fixed Chinese tariffs at a low rate, granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners in China which were not offered to Chinese abroad, a most favored nation clause, as well as diplomatic representation. When the court still refused to accept foreign ambassadors and obstructed the trade clauses of the treaties, disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and on the seas led to the Second Opium War and the Treaty of Tientsin.

These treaties, soon followed by similar arrangements with the United States and France, later became known as the Unequal Treaties and the Opium Wars as the start of China's "Century of humiliation."
...
Following the Battle of Plassey in 1757, in which Britain annexed Bengal to its empire, the British East India Company pursued a monopoly on production and export of Indian opium. Monopoly began in earnest in 1773, as the British Governor-General of Bengal abolished the opium syndicate at Patna. For the next fifty years opium trade would be the key to the East India Company's hold on the subcontinent.
Considering that importation of opium into China had been virtually banned by Chinese law, the East India Company established an elaborate trading scheme partially relying on legal markets, and partially leveraging illicit ones. British merchants carrying no opium would buy tea in Canton on credit, and would balance their debts by selling opium at auction in Calcutta. From there, the opium would reach the Chinese coast hidden aboard British ships then smuggled into China by native merchants. In 1797 the company further tightened its grip on the opium trade by enforcing direct trade between opium farmers and the British, and ending the role of Bengali purchasing agents. British exports of opium to China grew from an estimated 15 tons in 1730 to 75 tons in 1773. The product was shipped in over two thousand chests, each containing 140 pounds (64 kg) of opium

It wasn't legalization that kicked off the opium wars, it was British entrepreneurial spirit. When was the legalization effort that you speak of, and the resulting increase in usage? I'm certainly no expert on their history, but I've never heard anyone claim that opium prohibition in China was a success.

Xort Xort:

Today we have enough problmes trying to get people not to smoke, and to drink less. Making marijuana legal is going to cause a spike in use, which is counter to all our public health plans.

I don't believe this is true, and even if it is there is no evidence to suggest that marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. There is significant evidence to show that it's much much less dangerous. There is overwhelming evidence that prohibition causes consumption to grow.

Xort Xort:

$1:

This is not a prohibition success story that you are talking about.

No, but that is a military failure story I'm talking about. However during the 2nd Opium war China was fighting a civil war larger than World War I (and by some numbers bigger than WWII and might have been the most deadly human conflict of all time), the Taiping Rebellion. That didn't help China very much. (to say nothing of the Miao Rebellion, Dungan revolt and the Panthay Rebellion) However, once the UK drew down and stopped using the threat of force to keep up it's drug trade, China did follow up with an effective prohibition on opium. China was able to cut use down to reasonable levels, and restore a lot of the male population back to functional members of a nation. Legalization and regulation had a crippling amount of China's work force unwilling and unable to work. Prohibition freed them up for all sorts of fun with more Civil Wars and such.

The relation to pot is a big jump, opium isn't marijuana I know that. But opium addicts are about and useful as pot heads.

I don't think there is any difference between marijuana, opium, cocaine, meth, etc markets as far as organized crime is concerned. They each represent a certain demand, a certain risk, profit, transport cost. It's not a big jump at all, prohibition is the problem not the drugs themselves.

[Xort]

Curtman Curtman:

They do. The black market for opiates and heroine is small compared to the marijuana market.

Do you have dollar figures for the Mexican cartels?

$1:

It wasn't legalization that kicked off the opium wars, it was British entrepreneurial spirit. When was the legalization effort that you speak of, and the resulting increase in usage? I'm certainly no expert on their history, but I've never heard anyone claim that opium prohibition in China was a success.

I never said it was legalization that caused the wars, it was the efforts to stop the trade that caused the wars the exact opposite. The legalization was forced on China after they lost the wars, it was de facto legal for the majority of the time. China was forced to allow UK traders into China and they traded Indian opium.

$1:

I don't believe this is true, and even if it is there is no evidence to suggest that marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. There is significant evidence to show that it's much much less dangerous.

Less dangerous isn't safe.

$1:

There is overwhelming evidence that prohibition causes consumption to grow.

Oh?

$1:

I don't think there is any difference between marijuana, opium, cocaine, meth, etc markets as far as organized crime is concerned. They each represent a certain demand, a certain risk, profit, transport cost.

I'm not a member of orginized crime so I'm speaking from the point of view of social harm, and their is a huge differance between the drugs in terms of realized harm.

$1:

It's not a big jump at all, prohibition is the problem not the drugs themselves.

So you think that if opium or meth was legal it would become safe? That'st just insane.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yeah it's more hypocritical to go to the local winery and buy a bottle of wine than it is for the local drug dealer to peddle gang grown pot to the teens.

Andy, how you can be such an idiot and continue to breath on your own simply amazes me.

You're the one harping how Curt is supporting gangs. As if that's the only consideration, when as I said, you're supporting an industry that causes way more misery than pot does. But you don't want to look at that, you're all good, Curt's the bad one. You like to throw stones, but live in a glass house.

Tiny little point you missed...

One is illegal and managed by criminal gangs and the other is legal and regulated by government.

I suspect you are a reformed alcoholic by the fact that you sound like a born again here, but please keep in mind the subtle difference.

[andyt]

I know, I know, and because drinking is legal it's moral, and using pot is immoral. Never mind that you are doing your part to support a drug industry that causes way more harm than pot does.

Never been an alcoholic. Binge drank in my youth, as did pretty well everybody else, but one toot a week was all I could handle, not like a lot of guys. But feel free to make up stuff about me anytime, has never stopped you before.

As for sounding like a born again. Really? Is that what they sound like? I'm thinking more I sound like somebody that holds up an uncomfortable truth to you, that you're not as lily pure as you want to believe.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

I know, I know, and because drinking is legal it's moral, and using pot is immoral. Never mind that you are doing your part to support a drug industry that causes way more harm than pot does.

Never been an alcoholic. Binge drank in my youth, as did pretty well everybody else, but one toot a week was all I could handle, not like a lot of guys. But feel free to make up stuff about me anytime, has never stopped you before.

As for sounding like a born again. Really? Is that what they sound like? I'm thinking more I sound like somebody that holds up an uncomfortable truth to you, that you're not as lily pure as you want to believe.

No, you sound like a born again, Andy. The truth you present is no more a discomfort for me than saying a hamburger is bad, sun is bad, backpacking is risky....etc.

Moderation is the key, but you don't sound like a guy who understands that, hence the reformed alcoholic.

[andyt]

Whatever. You just sound hypocritical, as usual. The pure prophet pointing the finger, with feet of clay. Why don't you go after Lemmy and PA9 for supporting gangs for a bit, sounds like they smoke more weed than Curt does.

[Curtman]

Xort Xort:

Do you have dollar figures for the Mexican cartels?

There's plenty of numbers around..

http://newamericamedia.org/2012/07/mexican-drug-cartels-stake-in-the-us-one-trillion-dollars.php

$1:

The six-year War on Drugs that Mexican president Felipe Calderon has waged since 2007 has resulted in one consequence no one anticipated: Mexican drug cartels have sent upwards of $1 trillion to the U.S.

This staggering sum of money has been funneled through U.S. financial institutions, almost always in violation of U.S. laws, and at times even with the cooperation of American federal agencies.

In fact, if the Mexican drug cartels were a sovereign nation, they would qualify to be part of the G-20, ahead of Indonesia (GNP: $845 billion) and behind South Korea (GNP: $1.1 trillion). Yet, this is the cumulative sum of money that Mexican drug cartels have funneled through the U.S. economy.

$1:

US pot heads are providing the cash flow to fuel Mexican drug cartel violence. Some estimate that as much as 60% of the revenue to the drug cartels comes from marjuana.

$1:

That argument was blown out of the water on October 18 when the Mexican Army and police seized 134 tons of marijuana, wrapped and ready to be smuggled from Tijuana across the border. The huge cache was estimated to be worth at least $338 million dollars on the street. Mexican authorities guessed that it was owned by the nation's most powerful drug-trafficking organization, the Sinaloa Cartel.

Etc...

Xort Xort:

I never said it was legalization that caused the wars, it was the efforts to stop the trade that caused the wars the exact opposite. The legalization was forced on China after they lost the wars, it was de facto legal for the majority of the time. China was forced to allow UK traders into China and they traded Indian opium.

Exactly, prohibition created the wars and it was a losing battle. Many lives were lost, and usage increased as a result. It was illegal, but authorities were powerless to do anything with a supply always available.

Xort Xort:

Less dangerous isn't safe.

Less dangerous is not handing billions of dollars in revenue to gangsters. Less dangerous is the government collecting that money instead and using it to educate, treat, and support addicts during recovery. And crack down on violent crime. And fund health care.

Xort Xort:

I'm not a member of orginized crime so I'm speaking from the point of view of social harm, and their is a huge differance between the drugs in terms of realized harm.

I'm not either, so I'm speaking from the point of realization that any success that prohibition has, only drives up the profit. The market stays the same or grows, and new players enter to supply. Most people don't stay away from heroin because it's illegal, they stay away from it because they know it will destroy them quickly.

Xort Xort:

So you think that if opium or meth was legal it would become safe? That'st just insane.

If addicts had a legal place to purchase it, where they had access to counselling and treatment centres, and non-judgemental staff who actually cared enough to try to help get them off the stuff: it would be much safer than having them support the black market. It would be safer in terms of reducing HIV infections, etc. We've seen this with needle exchange programs, and safe sites. The problem is they only give a safe place to use, and still support the gangsters market. Why not collect the revenue to support the site, and ensure quality to increase safety?

Public intoxication is illegal. That's how problem-addicts should be directed toward treatment.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

One is illegal and managed by criminal gangs and the other is legal and regulated by government.

Poor choice of morals if you support management by criminal gangs for marijuana, but support a regulated market of a more dangerous and harmful drug.

[Curtman]

Again...

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/gangs/Caught+tape+gangsters+chat+about+drugs+guns+money/2327244/story.html

$1:

Spending lots of time with Roueche, according to court documents, was Johnny (K-9) Croitoru, the professional wrestler now charged in B.C. with plotting to kill the Bacon brothers and their Red Scorpion associates.

“There is one big crazy guy out here who f---ing thinks the Mexicans and the UN are f---ing up the market,” Roueche told the person identified in court documents as Croitoru. “They are just having meetings because the Mexicans before I was involved were just straight flooding the city.”

Roueche bragged to Croitoru that there were two Montreal “crews” that wanted to work with the UN.

“And they got 70 guys out here. But they sort of stay neutral. They like to be quiet and make money,” Roueche said.

Croitoru told Roueche that he had his own contact who wanted to work with them.

“He makes 25 keys a month of this crystal meth,” Croitoru said. “We could get rich with this.”

Croitoru explained that his meth man had a beef with someone and needed protection.

“I’ll get the f---ing money for protection and we’ll get good prices for the s---,” Croitoru said.

Roueche agreed, “We can make tons.”

Croitoru suddenly realized that a visitor to room 407 has forgotten his man purse.

“Hey dawgie, give him his pouch,” he said to Roueche, as the UN boss opened the door and yelled down the hallway. The pouch owner didn’t return.

“There are guns in the pouch,” Croitoru said. “He’s got a nice little f---ing 15 with a clip in it.”

“Nice,” Roueche said, adding that he would keep it.

Roueche said that he has been working with South American drug cartels.

“I got given a big responsibility by the guys way down south, I am just hoping that it works out.”

Croitoru asked for a piece of the action. “Dawgie, when are you going to let me in to make big, big money?

“You’ve got connections buddy. Let’s make it happen,” Croitoru said.

Roueche complained that other traffickers had not been giving him a cut.

“I have to make my own moves and s---, which I’ve been doing. I think that one collection I got is good, right,” Roueche said.

And he said he has another collection in the works linked to “bikers’ buddies.”

“In the long run we’ll make money. This guy has got the No. 1 flower line in L.A. CODs everything. He buys E,” Roueche said. “We can get some cheap labour and everything from him. And because the other guy who owns him owes us money, we can just take it over.”

Roueche worried the mobster would be nervous if Croitoru remained in the room.

“I don’t want to sketch this guy out,” Roueche said. “He doesn’t want to see nobody. He is like an oldtimer.”

Croitoru offered to act as Roueche’s bodyguard and stand outside in the hallway.

“This guy controls all the import and exports, the transportation in Eastern Canada,” Roueche said. “He gets product on an airplane in Venezuela.”

Roueche said he got some chromium, a chemical that can be used to produce illegal pharmaceuticals.

“I got some s--- I want to f--- with,” Roueche said.

Roueche laughed when he told Croitoru that his associates were down in the hotel bar.

“All our guys are sitting with the mob and bikers. They are sharing a table,” Roueche said. “Hopefully it works out right.”

He triumphantly declared to Croitoru that he had “f---ing keys all over the city right now.”

Roueche also said that he had been in the drug trade since he was 19, but blew most of his money in the early years.

“I don’t know what the f--- I did with all my money back then. I just spent it like a f---ing idiot. I don’t know what the hell I had to show for it,” Roueche said. “You would just go out with 30 guys and catch the bill and you would be broke.”

On an earlier recording, Roueche also reminisced about the good old days and how his associates were buying “1,000 pounds a week” of pot from him.

“They had three f---ing rental houses and we would come in with garbage bags full of this s--- and they would be counting and weighing and bagging and tagging and looking and giving prices and I had all my weed guys because they were all from the valley. I knew every grower in the country.”

Get rich with pot, use the revenue to diversify to new black markets. It's a constant in these stories.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

One is illegal and managed by criminal gangs and the other is legal and regulated by government.

Poor choice of morals if you support management by criminal gangs for marijuana, but support a regulated market of a more dangerous and harmful drug.

Nice try. In moderation, booze ain't any worse and has some health benefits.

You currently support gang violence because you support the purchase of illegal drugs managed by criminal
Organizations.

I prefer my morals to yours, thanks.

As for the whole getting rich with pot, well, the constant you ignore is the fact people choose to support it.

I'd buy your argument if it was some cancer fighting drug the government made illegal but it is not. It's a recreational drug the vast majority take for pleasure purposes only.

Keep trying though.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

You currently support gang violence because you support the purchase of illegal drugs managed by criminal
Organizations.

Do you even remember talking about this already? Has it gone that far?