Health Canada presides over birth of billion-dollar free market in marijuana

[Ideologue]

I dunno, mongers.  Eventually they would run out of products with mass-appeal, the funding dries up, and they're done.

What's left after you legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution?  Extortion and weapons?  That will go nowhere fast.

[grumbler]

I dunno, mongers.  Eventually they would run out of products with mass-appeal, the funding dries up, and they're done.

What's left after you legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution?  Extortion and weapons?  That will go nowhere fast.

I'm with you.  Mongers is proposing that the drug lords and distributors are unlike any other type of criminal organization of the past, and that they will "invest" the money they have made over the years into some massive new criminal enterprise.  I don't think it works that way.  I think each person in the existing chain of production and transport will make their own decisions as to self-interest, and while some small criminal gangs will persist (as they did before the drugs trade because so big), most individuals will find other ways of making a living  (or will start to rat out their bosses so as to get cleanly away from their existing criminal past).

[Razgovory]

I dunno, mongers.  Eventually they would run out of products with mass-appeal, the funding dries up, and they're done.

What's left after you legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution?  Extortion and weapons?  That will go nowhere fast.

Yeah, they'll do fine.  Organized crime always has some new scam going.

[Ideologue]

Is this a variant on the truism that "there will always be jobs"?

[garbon]

Is this a variant on the truism that "there will always be jobs"?

Well I think there will or at least as far as there are humans. Doesn't say how many.

[Razgovory]

Is this a variant on the truism that "there will always be jobs"?

I'm saying that they aren't simply just wholesalers of contraband goods.

[Malthus]

I was just at the bank the other day, and I asked them about opening a business account for a weed related business (I was just joking around). The lady told me that they are reviewing their guidelines; right now, it seems that no major institution is yet willing to do business with people getting into the weed business, so there are a few practical obstacles still to be overcome.

Makes sense.  After all, the sorts of individuals who would be starting up pot businesses are the sorts of people you wouldn't want to lend money to.

Actually ... the clients who have consulted me on this topic were both established healthcare firms with major ongoing business.

I'm pretty sure the banks will not have a problem doing financial transactions with them. 

[mongers]

I dunno, mongers.  Eventually they would run out of products with mass-appeal, the funding dries up, and they're done.

What's left after you legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution?  Extortion and weapons?  That will go nowhere fast.

Well in the end if absolutely everything is legalized then yes organised criminality will wither. But there still remain a lot of illegal goods that gangs can traffic in like, animal products (ivory etc) and even if prostitution was legalised (imho sensible for the women involved) there's still the issue of trafficked foreign women, who depending on whom you listen to is either a massive problem or not so much.

I think the point I was making about the drug gangs was the magnitude of their activities, strength and violence as compared to other modern historical criminal groups. They managed to all but subvert one or more major governments in South America, corrupt still further the governance of others and kick started or significantly extended civil wars in Columbia and to some extent one on America borders. Whilst the mafia were violent and embedded themselves effectively in local, state and national politics I don't think the achieve that level of influence, though perhaps in good measure that was due to the robust democratic traditions in America.

Thank goodness FDR never declared a full on 'War against Alcohol' and waste similar resources on it, to those we do today.

And yes Grumbler is right, most criminals will make rational decisions about profit/loss and where to focus their actives,  turning profits into legal or at least somewhat grey businesses. But that vision mean we accept people schooled in criminal structures, moving into other careers and I suspect given the attraction of power, a significant number would go for local/state politics and government.  I'll even go so far as to say such a cadre of politicians would be noticeably worse than the ones 'we' elect today!

[The Brain]

I'll even go so far as to say such a cadre of politicians would be noticeably worse than the ones 'we' elect today!

Indeed.

[Jacob]

Is this a variant on the truism that "there will always be jobs"?

Well... they make their own jobs by exploiting the gullible, the weak, grey areas in legislation, and economic opportunities available from avoiding the law (i.e. import/export, taxation, illegal) while providing goods and services for which there are a market.

If those conditions are no longer present, then perhaps organized crime will fade away; but as long as those conditions exist, organized crime will be around.

[grumbler]

Well... they make their own jobs by exploiting the gullible, the weak, grey areas in legislation, and economic opportunities available from avoiding the law (i.e. import/export, taxation, illegal) while providing goods and services for which there are a market.

If those conditions are no longer present, then perhaps organized crime will fade away; but as long as those conditions exist, organized crime will be around.

I think that conclusions like this are a result of the misuse of the term "they" or "them."  The "they" who buy South American governments and whose thugs massacre each other (and any intervening civilians or merely suspected enemies) aren't the 'they" that run betting books in the corner bar.  The thugs and drug lords in South and Central America probably won't get involved much in more organized crime if the drug trafficking opportunities go away.  They will enjoy their retirement, or just stay in crime of the old, every-thug-for-himself kind.

There will still be organized crime, but it won't be carried out much (if at all) by the ex-drug smugglers and drug lords.

[viper37]

I wonder then why doctors prescribe it and I wonder why our current government who is very much anti drugs would allow it to be sold

they prescribe it like they prescribe other painkillers.  But it doesn't cure anything.  Did you think cancer was cured with morphine?

Pot smokers find it alleviates their pains better than other painkillers.  Fine.  But I've yet to see a non pot smoker getting a marijuana prescription.

Imho, before paying for marijuana, there are tons of other products that could be covered by government insurances.  Many migraine medications aren't covered, as I've seen recently.  Many asthma meds aren't covered unless the doctor specifically justifies it, and even then, they will refuse to cover it if you're not already a regular user.

I don't get the preferential treatment for drug users.

[viper37]

I was just at the bank the other day, and I asked them about opening a business account for a weed related business (I was just joking around). The lady told me that they are reviewing their guidelines; right now, it seems that no major institution is yet willing to do business with people getting into the weed business, so there are a few practical obstacles still to be overcome.

you would have the same problem if you tried your bank to finance a new porn studio.  Or a stripper's club.
yet, both a are legal and have been for a while.

[viper37]

Is this a variant on the truism that "there will always be jobs"?

Well... they make their own jobs by exploiting the gullible, the weak, grey areas in legislation, and economic opportunities available from avoiding the law (i.e. import/export, taxation, illegal) while providing goods and services for which there are a market.

If those conditions are no longer present, then perhaps organized crime will fade away; but as long as those conditions exist, organized crime will be around.

Alcool is legal.  Organized crime is still there providing contraband.  Yes, many, like the Bronfman, were smugglers before becoming legitimate enterprise.  Nowadays, they simply evade their taxes, but I guess it's ok
Tobacco is legal.  Organized crime is still there providing contraband.  Tobacco companies even helped them.  Yet, you can buy it everywhere with a control on quality&content.
Gambling is legal, yet organized crime makes a fortune with it.  How is it possible?  Why play in an underground card game when you have fancy&affordable casinos for it?  You got games from 25$ min to 100 000$ min.
Unions are legal.  Legitimate businesses.  Yet, organized crime is very present in unions, it even controls some unions.
Construction companies are legal.  Legitimate businesses.  Yet, organized crime is very present in our industry, sometimes controlling entire companies.  How is it possible?
Just about anyone can buy a gun in the US.  It's kinda hard to do in Canada.  Yet, US organized crime makes tons of money by selling weapons in the US, where as the market is very small in Canada.  How is it possible?

And the list could go on and on.  Besides, unless we legalize everything and remove restrictions on everything, organized crime will still find hard to come by products to sell in an underground market.  Of find ways to undercut the legal market (alcool, tobacco).

See, we legalized marijuana for pot smokers.  We gave them pills, they complained it wasn't strong enough.  We had to let them grow their own stuff, so they could have their buzz.  How will that be different when users realize they don't get the same buzz from the legal stuff than they did with the illegal one?

[Neil]

I was just at the bank the other day, and I asked them about opening a business account for a weed related business (I was just joking around). The lady told me that they are reviewing their guidelines; right now, it seems that no major institution is yet willing to do business with people getting into the weed business, so there are a few practical obstacles still to be overcome.

Makes sense.  After all, the sorts of individuals who would be starting up pot businesses are the sorts of people you wouldn't want to lend money to.

Actually ... the clients who have consulted me on this topic were both established healthcare firms with major ongoing business.

I'm pretty sure the banks will not have a problem doing financial transactions with them. 

They aren't individuals looking to get a loan to start a grow-op.  They're not spacey hippies, nor are they criminals.