It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Losing marijuana business, Mexican cartels push heroin and meth instead

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: onequestion

And what lesson is that? Elaborate please!

Prohibition was a ban on producing, importing/exporting alcohol.

This is about the legalization of marijuana and the possible unforeseen reaction to those who profited from the trade while it was illegal.

Quite the opposite if you ask me. The reaction to unbanning a substance rather than banning it.



The point is, that banning a drug that people want, be it alcohol or other, only creates a lucrative black market that increases crime and empowers criminals. Legalizing pot was a good start to reverse that but, as demonstrated, that needs to be expanded to other intoxicants in order to reverse the societal damage that prohibition causes.




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Can only lead a horse to water.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Rampant hard drug use may be a reflection of the health of our culture.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat

Our culture of everyone vying to be more intelligent and successful than the man besides them?

Yeah our culture is sick.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: buster2010

Okay, thank you for making me understand better.

I was looking at it one-sided.

Question though, when droves of infected drug users are using public utilities and passing out in parks and movie theaters, how will that affect the ones who choose sobriety? It sounds lovely on paper, but I still think there are many unforeseen results of legalizing something. Society today is not what it was then. Different drugs produce different results and affect different markets.


Are you not familiar with this?

'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs

You are pushing propaganda and with your "infected drug user passing out on benched crap". Opiate use is through the roof right now. How often do you see drug users passed out on benches right now?

Slow down, no agendas here. I'm trying to spark a discussion and some people here think that just because one county has been successful that American will be too. How can anyone say that with certainty?

I am for legalization, but unless its done correctly, I think we will indirectly create a new subclass of zombies. I honestly don't think it will go as smoothly as some think, but I hope it happens either way.


The only way to do it 'correctly ' is to apologize for every having stolen the authority to steal, enslave and kill over a plant.

Do you know how legislatively, they made it illegal in the first place?? Hint, prohibition took a Constitutional amendment for a reason.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Here's the problem I see with eventual legalization of hard drugs:

You make it legal to produce, so Joe Methman goes into business cooking. Something happens and he explodes his operation. People are seriously injured and lots of property damage is incurred. Lots of lawsuits ensue.

Turns out that Joe Methman is not alone, so the Feds step in and pretty soon OSHA, FDA, CDC, ATF, DoJ and their state equivalents all must set standards of what they think is a safe meth cooking facility. Joe must meet these requirements and be inspected at their leisure whenever they choose to show up. The costs of compliance will be reflected in the cost of Joe's product, and it won't be nearly as cheap as what Joe was cooking before. At least Joe's neighbors are safe. Right?

Then comes the day Joe adds the wrong thing in the wrong amount to his latest batch of meth. Oops! Lots of people get sick and die. You guessed it! Here come the lawsuits and Feds because Joe wasn't the only one.

Now on top of having to maintain a safe and inspected facility in order to produce in a compliant manner. Joe must also standardize his production and supply and make sure he is meeting quality standards set by many of the same agencies listed above. This is to ensure that every single batch of meth Joe makes is exactly the same and can be expected to react in exactly the same way although an individual user's experience may vary.

And this is before we get into the problems that arise when people find it too easy to overdose and the potency must be cut in an attempt to make the drug "safer," etc.

The effect of all this regulation and control by the state on domestic producers is going to be increased cost of end product and the possible refining and dilution of the legal product to the point where an illegal user may not recognize it.

This opens the door for the black market to continue.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Just a reminder to everyone, I am NOT a supporter of prohibition in any form. It would be nice if some members were less condescending and focused more on the data provided than posing me as some poster child for prohibition.

I am at work now and will be more active when I get home. Thanks for your responses so far.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Brotherman


just because its legal doesn't mean it will appeal to more people my 2 cents

Just because its legal doesn't mean addicts can afford it, either. Powerfully addictive drugs like Heroin and Methapphetamine are cruel masters. Being "strung out" pretty much precludes having a regular job to sustain a habit. Quick income to "get a fix' will still result in theft and other crimes.

Hard drugs should never be main stream legalized.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
And what I posted above is quite aside from the issue of taxes.

IMO the only reason they haven't attempted to completely outlaw tobacco yet is because it is highly addictive and thus provides a ready stream of tax revenue from people who cannot help themselves easily. Once you are hooked, you are stuck paying that tax almost for life unless you find the will to stop.

Legalizing hard drugs opens the same door - a series of highly addictive substances abused mainly by the very poor that they will be unable to do anything but pay tax on.

In addition to regulatory costs, there will be tax costs.

The poor will do what they are doing with cigarettes in many places now - opt for the black market.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Whats the numbers from last year? 2009 Is quite a while ago to be comparing anything to, statistically it means nothing.

Just an FYI




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Everything you said is 100% correct, but explain to me why that situation isn't preferable to out and out criminalization of the drugs? At least with regulation, the underworld has to deal with a price ceiling created by the legal market's prince point. So, no matter how dangerous selling illegal, unregulated drugs becomes, the price wouldn't be able to exceed the price ceiling since the market would just buy them legally.

With the way things work now, there is no ceiling. Just whatever the cartels feel like charging, then the subsequent markup as it is stepped on at every link of the chain.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis


The amount of cannabis seized by U.S. federal, state and local officers along the boundary with Mexico has fallen 37 percent since 2011

Imo, Two reasons for that.

Cartels are being caught growing in the US in National forests more and the pot "quality" here is much better than Mexican varieties. Since they made it legal it is becoming a high science.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

What's going to change then?

Nothing obviously the legality of it doesn't change its accessibility.

I mean besides the fact that we are still not addressing the underlying issues of addiction and falsely imprisoning people for having an addiction that we still don't u deist and.


edit on 1/12/2015 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You would have to convince me that the price ceiling created by regulated, taxed drugs would be lower than what the price is now.

Also you would have to convince me that the legalized versions of hard drugs would be more desirable by hard core addicts or enthusiasts than the illegal boutique versions.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
" Losing marijuana business, Mexican cartels push heroin and meth instead "

Let's hope "legalization" doesn't create a Cartel War like in Mexico.

Mexican drug cartels are worse than ISIL



piss-poor planning by the U.S. lawmakers could be dangerous !!

Careful who you trust.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You would have to convince me that the price ceiling created by regulated, taxed drugs would be lower than what the price is now.


Well part of what constitutes the price of illegal drugs is the risk. Most of the markup is done so because of how risky it is to sell them. So it reasons therefore that legal drugs would be cheaper for this reason alone. It is only with encroaching legislation and regulations that the price increases slowly. So at first, it will be lower, but that is tough to say down the line. But then again there is also inflation to worry about so it may be higher in 10 years, but what is it when compared with inflation?


Also you would have to convince me that the legalized versions of hard drugs would be more desirable by hard core addicts or enthusiasts than the illegal boutique versions.


Why wouldn't guaranteed safety be more desirable? As long as we aren't demonizing the people who take these substances, I see no reason why they would shy away from legal outlets for safe drugs for them to consume. Also, one purchase comes with the risk of jail time, the other is completely legal. Which would you choose? Drug users aren't inherently stupid. They can make rational decisions to. Especially ones that get them their fix easier.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion


What's going to change then?

All I can say is…

I changed.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: pl3bscheese


Legalize it, and you simply transfer the power from one group of thugs to another,


Let's not mention the fact that addicts shouldn't be treated like criminals, and legalization actually leads to a drop in the use of hard drugs.


It seems you're confused.

1: I never mentioned addicts in that context. Maybe you are thinking of drug lords?

2. That's just not true. Yet another myth that is propagated ad nauseum.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
It seems you're confused.

1: I never mentioned addicts in that context. Maybe you are thinking of drug lords?

2. That's just not true. Yet another myth that is propagated ad nauseum.


Got any proof that it isn't true? Because everything coming out of Portugal disagrees with you.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care to prove you wrong. How about, oh I don't know... common sense? There was a minor spike in Portugal after legalization, then a minor dip. It's statistically non-significant.
edit on 12-1-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join