Pot Economics & Unintended Consequences

[Silhouette]

From an economic standpoint, all prohibiting pot did was create a black market economy for it, which meant more people would get involved with creating it because of the tremendous profits involved.

Nevermind that, let's look at the destabilizing influences in areas where drugs are made. Countries south of the border are havens for corruption, we push their governments to crack down on their own people, and when they do so the producers move to the next country over in a Push Down-Pop Up effect. We push on Bolivia and Colombia to crack down on drug production, so production moves to Mexico. Bravo.

And of course with prohibition and black markets we get violence. Gangs, booby trapped woods, killings, all kinds of great things.

And since government has to "do something" they crack down on normal citizens and the courts go along with it. Was keeping kids off pot worth gutting the First and Fourth Amendments?

It's interesting that you brought this up actually...and thanks for sticking to the topic of the OP.

Just since Prop 215 was enacted in California, Mexico's main customer for pot, Mexico's share of that black market became destablized. As prices plummeted from the legalization there, more and more desperation and competition started happening in Mexico. Was there a complete lack of violence there prior to that surrounding pot trade? No. But since 215 passed, violence in Mexico around the pot trade escalated off the charts. That's when all the rampant beheadings etc. started showing up in the news.

I'm sure they're completely unrelated....right?

Black markets are what they are, whether they are in Mexico or Chicago involving everything under the sun. Before well-meaning politicians do the groovy thing, they should study the black markets and how they affect the white markets and national security issues. We need Mexico to be a stable country. It's my personal opinion that one of the bad things of legalizing pot is the destablizing of that country's economy which, let's face it, is hugely invested in black markets...lol.. If you've ever spent any time there, you know exactly what I'm talking about..

 

[Moonglow]

Do any of you have an opinion on either the economic aspect of legalizing pot or the "lesser of two evils" aspect for teenagers regarding keeping pot illegal as per the OP? Or are you too baked to remember what this thread is about?

I think we don't give a shit. Teens will find and do drugs, legal or illegal. The thing you must impress upon the child is moderation and control of your body and inducing toxins into your body,
over the counter drugs also, energy shots, food, sex, etc.

 

[Montrovant]

From an economic standpoint, all prohibiting pot did was create a black market economy for it, which meant more people would get involved with creating it because of the tremendous profits involved.

Nevermind that, let's look at the destabilizing influences in areas where drugs are made. Countries south of the border are havens for corruption, we push their governments to crack down on their own people, and when they do so the producers move to the next country over in a Push Down-Pop Up effect. We push on Bolivia and Colombia to crack down on drug production, so production moves to Mexico. Bravo.

And of course with prohibition and black markets we get violence. Gangs, booby trapped woods, killings, all kinds of great things.

And since government has to "do something" they crack down on normal citizens and the courts go along with it. Was keeping kids off pot worth gutting the First and Fourth Amendments?

It's interesting that you brought this up actually...and thanks for sticking to the topic of the OP.

Just since Prop 215 was enacted in California, Mexico's main customer for pot, Mexico's share of that black market became destablized. As prices plummeted from the legalization there, more and more desperation and competition started happening in Mexico. Was there a complete lack of violence there prior to that surrounding pot trade? No. But since 215 passed, violence in Mexico around the pot trade escalated off the charts. That's when all the rampant beheadings etc. started showing up in the news.

I'm sure they're completely unrelated....right?

Black markets are what they are, whether they are in Mexico or Chicago involving everything under the sun. Before well-meaning politicians do the groovy thing, they should study the black markets and how they affect the white markets and national security issues. We need Mexico to be a stable country. It's my personal opinion that one of the bad things of legalizing pot is the destablizing of that country's economy which, let's face it, is hugely invested in black markets...lol.. If you've ever spent any time there, you know exactly what I'm talking about..

Do you have any statistics or evidence for your claims? I'm not dismissing them, just looking for more than your word.

And even if it is true that legalizing pot, even if only medically, causes problems in Mexico, do you really think that the laws of the United States should be based on possible effects in other nations? Especially laws about the personal freedoms of adult citizens.

 

[Silhouette]

I think we don't give a shit. Teens will find and do drugs, legal or illegal. The thing you must impress upon the child is moderation and control of your body and inducing toxins into your body,
over the counter drugs also, energy shots, food, sex, etc.

Got a mouse in your pocket do you?

Take YOUR opinion away then and let the grownups talk about the issues surrounding the legalization of pot. Go back to your bong and your bag of cheetos before what's left of your brain starts hurting trying to keep up, OK?

 

[Silhouette]

Do you have any statistics or evidence for your claims? I'm not dismissing them, just looking for more than your word.

And even if it is true that legalizing pot, even if only medically, causes problems in Mexico, do you really think that the laws of the United States should be based on possible effects in other nations? Especially laws about the personal freedoms of adult citizens.

The only evidence I have is anecdotal, but there may be statistics out there. Remember, I was speculating. But as I recall, the same time we heard about legal pot in California was just before this new wave of beheadings and other violent crimes in Mexico broke out...around the trade of selling pot...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you withdraw a significant portion of the Mexican black market economy, pot, by plummeting the prices, you're going to increase stress in competition of what used to be a nice simmering "gentleman's agreement" just south of the border.

 

[Montrovant]

Do you have any statistics or evidence for your claims? I'm not dismissing them, just looking for more than your word.

And even if it is true that legalizing pot, even if only medically, causes problems in Mexico, do you really think that the laws of the United States should be based on possible effects in other nations? Especially laws about the personal freedoms of adult citizens.

The only evidence I have is anecdotal, but there may be statistics out there. Remember, I was speculating. But as I recall, the same time we heard about legal pot in California was just before this new wave of beheadings and other violent crimes in Mexico broke out...around the trade of selling pot...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you withdraw a significant portion of the Mexican black market economy, pot, by plummeting the prices, you're going to increase stress in competition of what used to be a nice simmering "gentleman's agreement" just south of the border.

I think you may be making a mistake about the nature of the drug cartels if you think there is a 'gentleman's agreement' of any sort.

Is it possible that marijuana legalization in the US causes a backlash in the criminal organizations in Mexico and elsewhere? Absolutely. I just don't see how that should be a factor in determining our laws. After all, making it illegal in the first place probably created the drug cartels in the first place, wouldn't you think?

So while discussing possible consequences of legalization is fine, not making it legal because of the effects on illegal activities is asinine, IMO.

 

[oldfart]

Do any of you have an opinion on either the economic aspect of legalizing pot or the "lesser of two evils" aspect for teenagers regarding keeping pot illegal as per the OP? Or are you too baked to remember what this thread is about?

OK, I'm game. The OP was a little disjointed as I read it, but I think I get the gist now. The big objection to our current policy is that anything that is made illegal is almost impossible to regulate. If selling pot is good for 20 years in jail, it's hard to see where any law can be an effective deterrent to selling it to minors. Or for selling it laced with arsenic. Reasonable controls are not possible until pot is decriminalized.

If it's illegal, in general it also is untaxed. This means there is no income source to support treatment options. What you have is forfeiture laws that make police corrupt, becoming dependent on shakedowns for financial support for the department (not to mention individual officer's retirement). Why do you think that 90% of all drug-sniffing dogs when independently tested had at least an 80% rate of false positives?

So what's not to like about making pot illegal? It's made our police and criminal justice systems corrupt, undermined and underfunded treatment options, are contributed to a lesser degree to violence.

This is not a case of lesser evils. Legalizing and regulating pot will give providers an incentive to restrict access to pot by youth, instead of making them the prime target market.

 

[Silhouette]

I think you may be making a mistake about the nature of the drug cartels if you think there is a 'gentleman's agreement' of any sort.

Is it possible that marijuana legalization in the US causes a backlash in the criminal organizations in Mexico and elsewhere? Absolutely. I just don't see how that should be a factor in determining our laws. After all, making it illegal in the first place probably created the drug cartels in the first place, wouldn't you think?

So while discussing possible consequences of legalization is fine, not making it legal because of the effects on illegal activities is asinine, IMO.

I think the US has a vested interest in the stability of Mexico and its black market economies. For there are many in that country and it could be argued that if they were to disappear overnight, like what happened in California to Mexico, we could have a very wobbly southern neighbor who, as is their custom, might be tempted to be beholden to other gravy trains instead...

...thinking of China, Russia or Iran here... Would be kind of silly to say the US was alienating so many of her allies from her stupid internal policies that she suddenly was blindsided.. I'm arguing the issue from a standpoint also that making pot illegal also makes it expensive, which, in turn, also makes it harder for youngsters to get at since they aren't made of money like older people. If just one kid said to himself, "should I spend this money on a dime bag or maybe a paint ball gun?" and then chose the paint ball gun because it was cheaper...that's a win in my book..

 

[Silhouette]

OK, I'm game. The OP was a little disjointed as I read it, but I think I get the gist now. The big objection to our current policy is that anything that is made illegal is almost impossible to regulate. If selling pot is good for 20 years in jail, it's hard to see where any law can be an effective deterrent to selling it to minors. Or for selling it laced with arsenic. Reasonable controls are not possible until pot is decriminalized....

Two things:

1. If pot is illegal, the PRICE would be the deterrant to youngsters. Since pot heads aren't big on violent crime, and kids are notoriously strapped for money, they might choose something better to do than buy a bag of weed. They certainly would smoke less of it if it was more expensive.

2. No need for 20 years in jail. A friend of mine came up with an excellent solution to busting pot heads for large amounts: work them. No jail time, just working off the situation in community service. Food banks, picking up garbage, helping repair roads etc. Lesser amounts is a straight fine. Win win. What do pot heads hate more than anything? Well it sure isn't three hots and a cot, and all the TV they want to sit on their dead ass and watch. Pot heads simply hate working. Perfect deterrant. Saves the taxpayers money, doesn't turn soft criminals into hardened ones in jail and shit gets done at a savings to taxpayers!

 

[Montrovant]

I think you may be making a mistake about the nature of the drug cartels if you think there is a 'gentleman's agreement' of any sort.

Is it possible that marijuana legalization in the US causes a backlash in the criminal organizations in Mexico and elsewhere? Absolutely. I just don't see how that should be a factor in determining our laws. After all, making it illegal in the first place probably created the drug cartels in the first place, wouldn't you think?

So while discussing possible consequences of legalization is fine, not making it legal because of the effects on illegal activities is asinine, IMO.

I think the US has a vested interest in the stability of Mexico and its black market economies. For there are many in that country and it could be argued that if they were to disappear overnight, like what happened in California to Mexico, we could have a very wobbly southern neighbor who, as is their custom, might be tempted to be beholden to other gravy trains instead...

...thinking of China, Russia or Iran here... Would be kind of silly to say the US was alienating so many of her allies from her stupid internal policies that she suddenly was blindsided.. I'm arguing the issue from a standpoint also that making pot illegal also makes it expensive, which, in turn, also makes it harder for youngsters to get at since they aren't made of money like older people. If just one kid said to himself, "should I spend this money on a dime bag or maybe a paint ball gun?" and then chose the paint ball gun because it was cheaper...that's a win in my book..

As someone who used to play paintball, let me just say, that is never going to happen. Paintball guns are WAY more expensive than a dime bag!

 

[Vox]

What is more concerning is how people will learn to make money off others addictions. It will start with the police first and trickle down. A new industry will emerge. Stoners are worthless. The lowest of the low.

It's unclear from your post whether or not you agree or disagree with the OP.

I'm undecided although I know that THC is no less a drug and no less addictive than anything south of meth or heroin. The war on drugs has completely militarized the police for example. I don't see any good coming from it.

decriminalization does not equal legalization and even less glorification, which we observe with pot ( which IS as dangerous as any other addictive drug) and of course, it is exponentially more dangerous than alcohol)

 

[Asclepias]

OK, I'm game. The OP was a little disjointed as I read it, but I think I get the gist now. The big objection to our current policy is that anything that is made illegal is almost impossible to regulate. If selling pot is good for 20 years in jail, it's hard to see where any law can be an effective deterrent to selling it to minors. Or for selling it laced with arsenic. Reasonable controls are not possible until pot is decriminalized....

Two things:

1. If pot is illegal, the PRICE would be the deterrant to youngsters. Since pot heads aren't big on violent crime, and kids are notoriously strapped for money, they might choose something better to do than buy a bag of weed. They certainly would smoke less of it if it was more expensive.

2. No need for 20 years in jail. A friend of mine came up with an excellent solution to busting pot heads for large amounts: work them. No jail time, just working off the situation in community service. Food banks, picking up garbage, helping repair roads etc. Lesser amounts is a straight fine. Win win. What do pot heads hate more than anything? Well it sure isn't three hots and a cot, and all the TV they want to sit on their dead ass and watch. Pot heads simply hate working. Perfect deterrant. Saves the taxpayers money, doesn't turn soft criminals into hardened ones in jail and shit gets done at a savings to taxpayers!

Weed is illegal in some states and still very easy for kids to get. Its all over the place and not even a big deal to most kids. I'd rather have kids smoking weed than sniffing glue and markers.

 

[Montrovant]

It's unclear from your post whether or not you agree or disagree with the OP.

I'm undecided although I know that THC is no less a drug and no less addictive than anything south of meth or heroin. The war on drugs has completely militarized the police for example. I don't see any good coming from it.

decriminalization does not equal legalization and even less glorification, which we observe with pot ( which IS as dangerous as any other addictive drug) and of course, it is exponentially more dangerous than alcohol)

It is exponentially more dangerous than alcohol, huh? Got some evidence of that by chance?

Also, do you think all addictive drugs are equally dangerous?

Do you have evidence that pot is physically addictive, or did you mean psychologically, which is mostly meaningless because pretty much anything can be psychologically addictive?

 

[Silhouette]

I think you may be making a mistake about the nature of the drug cartels if you think there is a 'gentleman's agreement' of any sort.

Is it possible that marijuana legalization in the US causes a backlash in the criminal organizations in Mexico and elsewhere? Absolutely. I just don't see how that should be a factor in determining our laws. After all, making it illegal in the first place probably created the drug cartels in the first place, wouldn't you think?

So while discussing possible consequences of legalization is fine, not making it legal because of the effects on illegal activities is asinine, IMO.

I think the US has a vested interest in the stability of Mexico and its black market economies. For there are many in that country and it could be argued that if they were to disappear overnight, like what happened in California to Mexico, we could have a very wobbly southern neighbor who, as is their custom, might be tempted to be beholden to other gravy trains instead...

...thinking of China, Russia or Iran here... Would be kind of silly to say the US was alienating so many of her allies from her stupid internal policies that she suddenly was blindsided.. I'm arguing the issue from a standpoint also that making pot illegal also makes it expensive, which, in turn, also makes it harder for youngsters to get at since they aren't made of money like older people. If just one kid said to himself, "should I spend this money on a dime bag or maybe a paint ball gun?" and then chose the paint ball gun because it was cheaper...that's a win in my book..

As someone who used to play paintball, let me just say, that is never going to happen. Paintball guns are WAY more expensive than a dime bag!

OK, well, whatever. I'm a little dated I guess but you know...just whatever the equivalent would be.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm undecided although I know that THC is no less a drug and no less addictive than anything south of meth or heroin. The war on drugs has completely militarized the police for example. I don't see any good coming from it.

decriminalization does not equal legalization and even less glorification, which we observe with pot ( which IS as dangerous as any other addictive drug) and of course, it is exponentially more dangerous than alcohol)

It is exponentially more dangerous than alcohol, huh? Got some evidence of that by chance?

Also, do you think all addictive drugs are equally dangerous?

Do you have evidence that pot is physically addictive, or did you mean psychologically, which is mostly meaningless because pretty much anything can be psychologically addictive?

I agree, pot is pretty low on the "bad drug" scale. And I have a friend who is addicted to eating massive amounts of red meat. His arteries are the size of pin holes and his body is..well...he's a walking heart attack.

I'd much rather have kids think that pot is that sneaky thing adults don't want them to do than say, heroin. Crack down on pot, make it illegal, hard to get, expensive and it will both deter kids from smoking it too much [expensive] but prefer it to the drugs that for sure will kill them [heroin etc.] while making it "sneaky" to draw them away from other stuff.

I know it sounds complicated. But it worked when we were kids! We never heard of a friend dying of a heroin addiction or molly or whatever. Now you hear about it every other day it seems... Why? Because if all the adult say its OK, then teenagers become suddenly very lukewarm to the idea and enticed by other ideas.

 

[Montrovant]

decriminalization does not equal legalization and even less glorification, which we observe with pot ( which IS as dangerous as any other addictive drug) and of course, it is exponentially more dangerous than alcohol)

It is exponentially more dangerous than alcohol, huh? Got some evidence of that by chance?

Also, do you think all addictive drugs are equally dangerous?

Do you have evidence that pot is physically addictive, or did you mean psychologically, which is mostly meaningless because pretty much anything can be psychologically addictive?

I agree, pot is pretty low on the "bad drug" scale. And I have a friend who is addicted to eating massive amounts of red meat. His arteries are the size of pin holes and his body is..well...he's a walking heart attack.

I'd much rather have kids think that pot is that sneaky thing adults don't want them to do than say, heroin. Crack down on pot, make it illegal, hard to get, expensive and it will both deter kids from smoking it too much [expensive] but prefer it to the drugs that for sure will kill them [heroin etc.] while making it "sneaky" to draw them away from other stuff.

I know it sounds complicated. But it worked when we were kids! We never heard of a friend dying of a heroin addiction or molly or whatever. Now you hear about it every other day it seems... Why? Because if all the adult say its OK, then teenagers become suddenly very lukewarm to the idea and enticed by other ideas.

While I've read that heroin use has been on the rise recently, wasn't it also a much more popular drug decades ago, say in the 60s and 70s? My point is that I don't think the legality of marijuana is likely much of an influence on heroin use.

 

[itfitzme]

It is exponentially more dangerous than alcohol, huh? Got some evidence of that by chance?

Also, do you think all addictive drugs are equally dangerous?

Do you have evidence that pot is physically addictive, or did you mean psychologically, which is mostly meaningless because pretty much anything can be psychologically addictive?

I agree, pot is pretty low on the "bad drug" scale. And I have a friend who is addicted to eating massive amounts of red meat. His arteries are the size of pin holes and his body is..well...he's a walking heart attack.

I'd much rather have kids think that pot is that sneaky thing adults don't want them to do than say, heroin. Crack down on pot, make it illegal, hard to get, expensive and it will both deter kids from smoking it too much [expensive] but prefer it to the drugs that for sure will kill them [heroin etc.] while making it "sneaky" to draw them away from other stuff.

I know it sounds complicated. But it worked when we were kids! We never heard of a friend dying of a heroin addiction or molly or whatever. Now you hear about it every other day it seems... Why? Because if all the adult say its OK, then teenagers become suddenly very lukewarm to the idea and enticed by other ideas.

While I've read that heroin use has been on the rise recently, wasn't it also a much more popular drug decades ago, say in the 60s and 70s? My point is that I don't think the legality of marijuana is likely much of an influence on heroin use.

I agree.

There is, of course, no causal connection between marijuana use and other drug use. There isn't any causal connection between any forms of drug use. It is very simple. People that want to self medicate, self medicate. It is the desire to self medicate that causes use of each seperately, not one drug that causes use of another. The idea is moronic.

There is no rise in heroin use. I just found a research paper. The per capita use is steady. The only way to conclude an increase is to be ignorant of what per capita means and use simple level.