Barrister Boy Weeps.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/health-canada-presides-over-birth-billion-dollar-free-173011758--finance.html
QuoteHealth Canada presides over birth of billion-dollar free market in marijuana
The Canadian PressBy Dean Beeby, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – 7 hours ago
OTTAWA - The Conservative government is launching a $1.3-billion free market in medical marijuana this Tuesday, eventually providing an expected 450,000 Canadians with quality weed.
Health Canada is phasing out an older system on Monday that mostly relied on small-scale, homegrown medical marijuana of varying quality, often diverted illegally to the black market.
In its place, large indoor marijuana farms certified by the RCMP and health inspectors will produce, package and distribute a range of standardized weed, all of it sold for whatever price the market will bear. The first sales are expected in the next few weeks, delivered directly by secure courier.
"We're fairly confident that we'll have a healthy commercial industry in time," Sophie Galarneau, a senior official with the department, said in an interview.
"It's a whole other ball game."
The sanctioned birth of large-scale, free-market marijuana production comes as the Conservatives pillory Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's campaign to legalize recreational marijuana.
Health Canada is placing no limits on the number of these new capital-intensive facilities, which will have mandatory vaults and security systems. Private-dwelling production will be banned. Imports from places such as the Netherlands will be allowed.
Already 156 firms have applied for lucrative producer and distributor status since June, with the first two receiving licences just last week.
The old system fostered only a cottage industry, with 4,200 growers licenced to produce for a maximum of two patients each. The Mounties have complained repeatedly these grow-ops were often a front for criminal organizations.
The next six months are a transition period, as Health Canada phases out the old system by March 31, while encouraging medical marijuana users to register under the replacement regime and to start buying from the new factory-farms.
There are currently 37,400 medical marijuana users recognized by the department, but officials project that number will swell more than 10-fold, to as many as 450,000 people, by 2024.
The profit potential is enormous. A gram of dried marijuana bud on the street sells for about $10 and Health Canada projects the legal stuff will average about $7.60 next year, as producers set prices without interference from government.
Chuck Rifici of Tweed Inc. has applied for a licence to produce medical weed in an abandoned Hershey chocolate factory in hard-scrabble Smiths Falls, Ont.
Rifici, who is also a senior adviser to Trudeau, was cited in a Conservative cabinet minister's news release Friday that said the Liberals plan to "push pot," with no reference to Health Canada's own encouragement of marijuana entrepreneurs.
Rifici says he's trying to help a struggling community by providing jobs while giving suffering patients a quality product.
"There's a real need," he said in an interview. "You see what this medicine does to them."
Tweed Inc. proposes to produce at least 20 strains to start, and will reserve 10 per cent of production for compassionate, low-cost prescriptions for impoverished patients, he says.
Patients often use several grams a day to alleviate a wide range of symptoms, including cancer-related pain and nausea. They'll no longer be allowed to grow it for themselves under the new rules.
Revenues for the burgeoning new industry are expected to hit $1.3 billion a year by 2024, according to federal projections. And operators would be favourably positioned were marijuana ever legalized for recreational use, as it has been in two American states.
Eric Nash of Island Harvest in Duncan, B.C., has applied for one of the new licences, banking on his experience as a licenced grower since 2002 in the current system.
"The opportunity in the industry is significant," he said in an interview.
"We'll see a lot of moving and shaking within the industry, with companies positioning. And I think we'll see some mergers and acquisitions, strategic alliances formed."
"It'll definitely yield benefits to the consumers and certainly for the economy and society in general."
Veterans Affairs Canada currently pays for medical marijuana for some patients, even though the product lacks official drug status. Some provinces are also being pressed to cover costs, as many users are too sick to work and rely on welfare.
Health Canada currently sells medical marijuana, produced on contract by Prairie Plant Systems, for $5 a gram, and acknowledges the new system will be more expensive for patients.
But Galarneau says competition will help keep prices in check.
"We expect that over time, prices will be driven down by the free market," she said. "The lower price range will likely be around $3 a gram. ... It's hard to predict."
Saskatoon-based Prairie Plant Systems, and its subsidiary CanniMed Ltd., were granted the first two licences under the system and are already advertising their new products on the web.
Prospective patients, including those under the current system, must get a medical professional to prescribe medical marijuana using a government-approved form.
Health Canada only reluctantly established its medical marijuana program, driven by court decisions from 2001 forward that supported the rights of suffering patients, even as medical science has been slow to verify efficacy.
— with files from Ben Makuch
I expect the Hell's Angels to try and assassinate Harper in revenge.
Quote from: Neil on September 29, 2013, 08:35:30 PM
I expect the Hell's Angels to try and assassinate Harper in revenge.
They should legalise cocaine as well, a Canadian-Columbian/Mexican drug cartel war would be something else. :cool:
The USA would probably end up with a two front war, South and North. :P
Quote from: mongers on September 29, 2013, 09:19:58 PM
The USA would probably end up with a two front war, South and North. :P
And we would deserve it. Our drug policies are a national embarrasment and a disgrace.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2013, 09:31:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 29, 2013, 09:19:58 PM
The USA would probably end up with a two front war, South and North. :P
And we would deserve it. Our drug policies are a national embarrasment and a disgrace.
So you support legalizing cocaine? :yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2013, 10:07:15 PM
So you support legalizing cocaine? :yeahright:
If the only alternative to what we are doing now is legalization I think it would be an improvement, yes.
But I have a feeling there are more than two policy decisions with regard to drugs.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2013, 10:07:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2013, 09:31:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 29, 2013, 09:19:58 PM
The USA would probably end up with a two front war, South and North. :P
And we would deserve it. Our drug policies are a national embarrasment and a disgrace.
So you support legalizing cocaine? :yeahright:
I would. It's a dangerous, annoying substance, but the market has spoken.
Yeah, I'd legalize cocaine too. Maybe even heroin.
I'd obviously try to manage it somewhat, but then again... I believe my government can actually do]/i] stuff.
Weed's one thing, Cocaine and especially Heroin qutie an other.
Legalization of hard drugs would be a nightmare.
It wouldn't be so bad. We should legalize these sorts of things, and then we can treat addiction as what it is: Not a medical problem, but a character flaw that can only be corrected with ostracism and persecution.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 11:40:00 PM
Legalization of hard drugs would be a nightmare.
Why do you hate personal responsibility?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2013, 12:05:08 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 11:40:00 PM
Legalization of hard drugs would be a nightmare.
Why do you hate freedom?
I don't hate freedom. It's just that I support freedom subject to reasonable limits prescribed by laws as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. :Canuck:
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2013, 12:07:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2013, 12:05:08 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 11:40:00 PM
Legalization of hard drugs would be a nightmare.
Why do you hate freedom?
I don't hate freedom. It's just that I support freedom subject to reasonable limits prescribed by laws as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. :Canuck:
Darn it.
Anyway, there's no ideological contradiction with you: you're a statist, like me.
Hard drugs are kinda legal in Portugal and it hasn't been the end of the world.
Regarding the hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, meth ...) my gut feeling is to hit the pushers/producers hard, but be comparatively soft to consumers. Give them a slap on the wrist and put them in rehab, not jail.
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2013, 11:21:43 PM
Yeah, I'd legalize cocaine too. Maybe even heroin.
I'd obviously try to manage it somewhat, but then again... I believe my government can actually do]/i] stuff.
Legalizing drugs would seem to be an admission that government can't do something.
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 07:54:22 AM
Hard drugs are kinda legal in Portugal and it hasn't been the end of the world.
You need the hard drugs to deal with the Klingon ambassador.
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 07:54:22 AM
Hard drugs are kinda legal in Portugal and it hasn't been the end of the world.
Sure it has. Coked-out Brazilians are always rubbing people.
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2013, 08:15:38 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 07:54:22 AM
Hard drugs are kinda legal in Portugal and it hasn't been the end of the world.
Sure it has. Coked-out Brazilians are always rubbing people.
Only in the bitch.
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 07:54:22 AM
Hard drugs are kinda legal in Portugal and it hasn't been the end of the world.
I've read up on Portugal, and they aren't legal at all. What they do is heavy emphasis on treatment for end users, rather than punishment. But the dealers still get punished.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2013, 09:16:21 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 07:54:22 AM
Hard drugs are kinda legal in Portugal and it hasn't been the end of the world.
I've read up on Portugal, and they aren't legal at all. What they do is heavy emphasis on treatment for end users, rather than punishment. But the dealers still get punished.
That's why I said kinda, because I'm iffy on the details, but the thing is that posession of small amounts and consumption are depenalized, and reduced to an administrative fine plus you have to be reviewed by a panel of doctors and social workers to check on you if you're a recidivist, or something like that.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2013, 09:16:21 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 07:54:22 AM
Hard drugs are kinda legal in Portugal and it hasn't been the end of the world.
I've read up on Portugal, and they aren't legal at all. What they do is heavy emphasis on treatment for end users, rather than punishment. But the dealers still get punished.
Wow look BB! There are indeed more than two policies besides the insane and self-destructive war on drugs and legalized drugs for all.
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 10:05:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2013, 09:16:21 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 07:54:22 AM
Hard drugs are kinda legal in Portugal and it hasn't been the end of the world.
I've read up on Portugal, and they aren't legal at all. What they do is heavy emphasis on treatment for end users, rather than punishment. But the dealers still get punished.
That's why I said kinda, because I'm iffy on the details, but the thing is that posession of small amounts and consumption are depenalized, and reduced to an administrative fine plus you have to be reviewed by a panel of doctors and social workers to check on you if you're a recidivist, or something like that.
The laws are very liberal for people having small quantities indeed.
The heavy emphasis on treatment for end uses is for Portuguese citizens only though.
The Larch, being Galician is a quasi-(Northern)Portuguese so that's why he does not make the distinction. ;)
Well, I don't intend to get busted in Portugal for posession, so excuse me if I didn't research it properly. :lol:
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 10:20:49 AM
Well, I don't intend to get busted in Portugal for posession, so excuse me if I didn't research it properly. :lol:
One of the Larchettes is gonna take the fall for you, eh?
I don't know what the policy is in Spain, but you have to try really hard to land in jail as a consumer. I've sat literally in front of a patrol car with my buddies while they were snorting coke/speed and the cops didn't bat an eye.
I do know a couple guys who ended in jail. One was dealing and the other was an idiot. He was so wasted he actually jumped into a police car and started bragging about all the shit he had on him. When the cops tried to shut him off and give him a ride home he actually emptied his pockets to prove his point. He had just bought supplies to last the whole holidays for him and his friends, so he had over the limit and spent six months in prison. The day he told me the story he was really happy: he had just received his HIV results, negative.
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2013, 11:21:43 PM
Yeah, I'd legalize cocaine too. Maybe even heroin.
I'd obviously try to manage it somewhat, but then again... I believe my government can actually do]/i] stuff.
It worked wonders with alcohol and tobacco. zero contraband now, zeron health&social problems.
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 10:32:49 AMzero contraband now, zeron health&social problems.
Sarcasm?
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 10:20:49 AM
Well, I don't intend to get busted in Portugal for posession, so excuse me if I didn't research it properly. :lol:
There's no shame in contingency planning.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2013, 10:38:52 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 10:20:49 AM
Well, I don't intend to get busted in Portugal for posession, so excuse me if I didn't research it properly. :lol:
There's no shame in contingency planning.
There's something creepy in knowing way too much about that. Like the kind of people that can quote ages of consent all over the world. :ph34r:
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 10:05:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2013, 09:16:21 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 07:54:22 AM
Hard drugs are kinda legal in Portugal and it hasn't been the end of the world.
I've read up on Portugal, and they aren't legal at all. What they do is heavy emphasis on treatment for end users, rather than punishment. But the dealers still get punished.
That's why I said kinda, because I'm iffy on the details, but the thing is that posession of small amounts and consumption are depenalized, and reduced to an administrative fine plus you have to be reviewed by a panel of doctors and social workers to check on you if you're a recidivist, or something like that.
Sounds suspiciously like a death panel to me. And no good ever comes of social workers.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2013, 10:33:52 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 10:32:49 AMzero contraband now, zeron health&social problems.
Sarcasm?
Yes.
We invest a lot to fight alcohol&tobacco contraband. Well, it's hard to quantify, because it's often mixed with drugs&firearms, but we do have specific squads to fight this and they make regular arrests.
As soon as drugs are legalized, they will be heavily taxed and the psychoactive agents will be limited. Wich will push consumers to seek cheaper&better products to give them buzz. Just look at that silly new drug that burns the bones. Once alcohol became legal, people turned to pot. Once pot became legal/socially "ok", people turned to harder drugs.
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 10:52:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2013, 10:38:52 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 10:20:49 AM
Well, I don't intend to get busted in Portugal for posession, so excuse me if I didn't research it properly. :lol:
There's no shame in contingency planning.
There's something creepy in knowing way too much about that. Like the kind of people that can quote ages of consent all over the world. :ph34r:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 11:57:11 AMOnce alcohol became legal, people turned to pot. Once pot became legal/socially "ok", people turned to harder drugs.
You make a compelling case for banning water.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 30, 2013, 12:12:47 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 11:57:11 AMOnce alcohol became legal, people turned to pot. Once pot became legal/socially "ok", people turned to harder drugs.
You make a compelling case for banning water.
I think I rather make a compelling case to ban cigarettes ;)
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 10:52:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2013, 10:38:52 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 30, 2013, 10:20:49 AM
Well, I don't intend to get busted in Portugal for posession, so excuse me if I didn't research it properly. :lol:
There's no shame in contingency planning.
There's something creepy in knowing way too much about that. Like the kind of people that can quote ages of consent all over the world. :ph34r:
Mexico is 12.
Gross! :yuk:
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2013, 10:32:26 AM
The day he told me the story he was really happy: he had just received his HIV results, negative.
Well that is something to be happy about.
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 11:57:11 AM
As soon as drugs are legalized, they will be heavily taxed and the psychoactive agents will be limited. Wich will push consumers to seek cheaper&better products to give them buzz. Just look at that silly new drug that burns the bones. Once alcohol became legal, people turned to pot. Once pot became legal/socially "ok", people turned to harder drugs.
I don't think that's how it works. :wacko:
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2013, 07:47:24 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 11:57:11 AM
As soon as drugs are legalized, they will be heavily taxed and the psychoactive agents will be limited. Wich will push consumers to seek cheaper&better products to give them buzz. Just look at that silly new drug that burns the bones. Once alcohol became legal, people turned to pot. Once pot became legal/socially "ok", people turned to harder drugs.
I don't think that's how it works. :wacko:
drug users like the buzz, teenagers like the forbidden. If we legalize some kind of drugs, they'll simply turn to stronger, illegal stuff.
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 10:54:59 PMdrug users like the buzz, teenagers like the forbidden. If we legalize some kind of drugs, they'll simply turn to stronger, illegal stuff.
Have you ever drunk alcohol, smoked pot, or been a teenager?
It doesn't sound like it...
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 12:05:02 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 10:54:59 PMdrug users like the buzz, teenagers like the forbidden. If we legalize some kind of drugs, they'll simply turn to stronger, illegal stuff.
Have you ever drunk alcohol, smoked pot, or been a teenager?
It doesn't sound like it...
It also doesn't sound like he has paid the slightest bit of attention to what actually happens in the world. Banning drugs is what causes them to morph into stronger versions, because criminal penalties and difficulty of movement are based on raw quantity, not strength. Producers therefor have an incentive to make each ounce/pound/ton they move as strong as possible, even if this is expensive to do.
The shift from powdered cocaine to the much more addictive crack cocaine came about because the vipers of the world tried to solve other peoples' problems. Modern MJ is much stronger than the traditional stuff for the same boneheaded reasons.
That's something I'd never thought of. I wonder if it's ever come up (based on sentence differentials for larger quantities) whether the law treats x amount of a bag full of 35% cocaine hydrochloride the same as x amount of a bag full of 99% cocaine hydrochloride.
Maybe it was Soros who I once heard advocating a plan of legalizing basically every drug, by distributing them heavily supervised from government-owned shops, at a cut-back rate in order to destroy the drug cartels by making it impossible for them to turn a profit.
I am not sure how good an idea it is, but I cannot imagine having a lot of people who are only not doing hard drugs because it is not legal.
And it makes sense to me to a) sell it under strict state control, so it is not only taxable but also you can have a clear record of the buyers and b) sell it heavily under the street price, so that all the addicts would be willing to undergo said state supervision instead of just buying from a dealer.
I wonder how disastrous it would be for local economies for pharma companies to suddenly enter the market. Hundreds of thousands of livelihoods would vanish overnight.
Hell, some countries would probably be badly damaged.
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 12:05:02 AM
Have you ever drunk alcohol, smoked pot, or been a teenager?
It doesn't sound like it...
Never smoked voluntarily. Never used drugs either.
I have been a teenager, I have done stupid things just because they were forbidden. I have drank alcohol and kept increasing my consumption and trying stronger alcohol for a while. Eventually, it passed.
But I've seen the results of drug use on most of my friends. Of course, it usually doesn't come alone, people rarely use only one kind of drug, it's often mixed with alcohol and cocaine being a party drug, it ends with prostitutes and/or a g/f that's sharing your habits, wich tends to hurt your banking account a lot.
I may have been a teenager, but I was always greedy, so I stayed away ;)
Sounds like you just have self-destructive friends. I'm not sure that I'd generalize that though. Actually I certainly wouldn't.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 03:57:11 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 12:05:02 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 10:54:59 PMdrug users like the buzz, teenagers like the forbidden. If we legalize some kind of drugs, they'll simply turn to stronger, illegal stuff.
Have you ever drunk alcohol, smoked pot, or been a teenager?
It doesn't sound like it...
It also doesn't sound like he has paid the slightest bit of attention to what actually happens in the world. Banning drugs is what causes them to morph into stronger versions, because criminal penalties and difficulty of movement are based on raw quantity, not strength. Producers therefor have an incentive to make each ounce/pound/ton they move as strong as possible, even if this is expensive to do.
The shift from powdered cocaine to the much more addictive crack cocaine came about because the vipers of the world tried to solve other peoples' problems. Modern MJ is much stronger than the traditional stuff for the same boneheaded reasons.
Heroin was freely available in the early 20th century, it didn't stop people from consuming it. Just as with cocaine, it was made illegal/heavily regulated around the 20s, maybe late 1910s. Crack didn't appear until the 80s, when the technology to create it was available to just about everyone.
If it had been a result of the products being forbidden, we wouldn't have seen consumption in the early 19th century, and it wouldn't have taken that long after the products being forbidden for people to develop stronger alternatives.
New drugs are developped because: a) there's a market for the higher buzz and b) we have the technological means to develop it at a reasonable costs. It ain't different than the "market" in general, really.
Drug users are like alcoholics, always convincing themselves that there are far worst uses, that there are things they won't do, etc, etc. In the end, they simply seek the higher buzz until they really can't take more.
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2013, 10:28:56 AM
Heroin was freely available in the early 20th century, it didn't stop people from consuming it.
Is anyone suggesting that making drugs legal would stop people taking them? I mean, apart from you.
The point is that we can stop criminals making vast amounts of money from the illegality of drugs and stop drug users committing huge amount of crime to fund their habits.
And your suggestion taht as sooon as something is made illegal people move onto something illegal is ludicrous as well. The biggest current issue is folk taking "legal highs" which givernemnts simply can't ban quickly enough.
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2013, 10:28:56 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 03:57:11 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 01, 2013, 12:05:02 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 10:54:59 PMdrug users like the buzz, teenagers like the forbidden. If we legalize some kind of drugs, they'll simply turn to stronger, illegal stuff.
Have you ever drunk alcohol, smoked pot, or been a teenager?
It doesn't sound like it...
It also doesn't sound like he has paid the slightest bit of attention to what actually happens in the world. Banning drugs is what causes them to morph into stronger versions, because criminal penalties and difficulty of movement are based on raw quantity, not strength. Producers therefor have an incentive to make each ounce/pound/ton they move as strong as possible, even if this is expensive to do.
The shift from powdered cocaine to the much more addictive crack cocaine came about because the vipers of the world tried to solve other peoples' problems. Modern MJ is much stronger than the traditional stuff for the same boneheaded reasons.
Heroin was freely available in the early 20th century, it didn't stop people from consuming it. Just as with cocaine, it was made illegal/heavily regulated around the 20s, maybe late 1910s. Crack didn't appear until the 80s, when the technology to create it was available to just about everyone.
If it had been a result of the products being forbidden, we wouldn't have seen consumption in the early 19th century, and it wouldn't have taken that long after the products being forbidden for people to develop stronger alternatives.
New drugs are developped because: a) there's a market for the higher buzz and b) we have the technological means to develop it at a reasonable costs. It ain't different than the "market" in general, really.
Drug users are like alcoholics, always convincing themselves that there are far worst uses, that there are things they won't do, etc, etc. In the end, they simply seek the higher buzz until they really can't take more.
There were four primary reasons why drugs became regulated in the 20th centrury:
(1) as a consumer safety issue. Prior to regulation, many so-called "patent medicines" were often mostly opiates; there was no labelling requirements, so granny Smith taking her tonic for gout (or whatever) became addicted, or OD'd, without even knowing what was in the shit. Labeling and ingredient restrictions were part and parcel of cleaning up the
consumer industry altogether.
(2) Alcohol was seen as a White Man's drug. Opiates were seen as the Yellow Man's drug (ironically, as the Brits essentially made it so). Pot was what Blacks and Hispanics did. Thus, the latter drugs were seen as unacceptable, explicitly because they had racial implications. In Canada, the leading text was "The Black Candle", which was written by a very influential woman - the first female judge in Canada - and makes for very entertaining reading today. In it, you learn pot makes Blacks go crazy and rape White women ...
(3) Prohibition generally - the puritan notion that taking substances to feel good = bad, morally.
(4) Impressions - either realistic or exaggerated - of the actual harms that the products do, their potential for addiction, etc. - which is really a subset of the first reason.
The difficulty, in this complex mix, lies in seperating out the various motives, and determining what is true and what is not. No-one would deny that addiction is harmful and that drugs can also cause both chronic and acute harms if abused. However, exaggerated and absurd accounts of those harms actually do more harm than good, as people quickly discover that the exaggerated accounts are nonsense. No, pot does not lead Blacks to go crazy and rape White women. No, smoking pot does not inevitably lead to taking more and different drugs until the user can't take any more ...
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2013, 10:28:56 AM
Heroin was freely available in the early 20th century, it didn't stop people from consuming it. Just as with cocaine, it was made illegal/heavily regulated around the 20s, maybe late 1910s. Crack didn't appear until the 80s, when the technology to create it was available to just about everyone.
This is a joke, right? The "technology to create" crack cocaine consists of, what, a candle, some baking powder, and a spoon? When was the candle "available to just about everyone?"
And of course heroin was consumed by people when it was legal. In fact, it was sold as a cure for morphine addiction! But that is neither here nor there; no one claims that making
alcohol any drug legal will make people stop using it.
Quote from: Gups on October 01, 2013, 10:57:36 AM
The point is that we can stop criminals making vast amounts of money from the illegality of drugs and stop drug users committing huge amount of crime to fund their habits.
Alcohol is legal. So is tobacco. Criminal groups make tons of money with contraband, due to being able to sell cheaper stuff. Heck, the tobacco companies made tons of money by supplying smugglers. I can't see how it is better, or even how it is different than the usual business of organized crime.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 11:16:53 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2013, 10:28:56 AM
Heroin was freely available in the early 20th century, it didn't stop people from consuming it. Just as with cocaine, it was made illegal/heavily regulated around the 20s, maybe late 1910s. Crack didn't appear until the 80s, when the technology to create it was available to just about everyone.
This is a joke, right? The "technology to create" crack cocaine consists of, what, a candle, some baking powder, and a spoon? When was the candle "available to just about everyone?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_base
Quote
Freebasing can also refer to the consumption by smoking of free base cocaine (crack cocaine) or heroin. Freebasing became popular in the United States during the 1980s, mainly because of the fear of diseases such as HIV and viral hepatitis, since users did not have to share hypodermic needles.[1]
Nothing to do with the illegality of cocaine, wich was illegal since before WW1 anyway.
QuoteAnd of course heroin was consumed by people when it was legal. In fact, it was sold as a cure for morphine addiction!
cocaine was sold to cure morphine addiction. Heroin, I think was just a substitute.
QuoteBut that is neither here nor there; no one claims that making alcohol any drug legal will make people stop using it.
then what are the benefits of legalizing dangerous products for everyday use? Taxing them like tobacco&alcohol? That won't stop contraband and it certainly won't stop related crimes. I could still buy illegal cigarettes and illegal tequila if I wanted to. Same applies to gun, really, despite strong anti-guns laws. Should we legalize all type of guns because the Hell's Angels and the mafia makes tons of money trading weapons? Is that a reason to keep guns freely available in the US, because otherwise the organized crime would profit from it (as if it didn't right now)?
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2013, 04:48:59 AM
Maybe it was Soros who I once heard advocating a plan of legalizing basically every drug, by distributing them heavily supervised from government-owned shops, at a cut-back rate in order to destroy the drug cartels by making it impossible for them to turn a profit.
I don't think it's conscionable for the government to sell things that are basically poison and serve no social purpose. It'd be really weird to have a store where the employees would have to wear a protective suit for the fumes that would be emitted by meth and whatever.
But those suits look so cool.
Anyway, what about the lottery?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 01:13:24 AM
But those suits look so cool.
Anyway, what about the lottery?
The lottery is proof that just because something is run by the government doesn't mean it's not exploitative. There may be some ethical differences between state lottery and a mafia casino, but I don't know enough about gambling to identify them
Aw, the lottery's fun. Just like meth!
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2013, 12:08:31 AM
Anyway, there's no ideological contradiction with you: you're a statist, like me.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2814%2F10039291364_595af75865.jpg&hash=c116e8d1602fb18427dfd0466b96691d4016d7cf)
:lol: What is that? Photoshop? I don't know if I get it.
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2013, 12:50:19 PM
Nothing to do with the illegality of cocaine, wich was illegal since before WW1 anyway.
Crack cocaine became popular because drug dealers could produce more value in street product per ounce of material smuggled. That was purely the outcome of making the drug illegal, and of stepping up enforcement and penalties. But, at least, you've dropped the 'technology' argument. that was wise.
Quotethen what are the benefits of legalizing dangerous products for everyday use? Taxing them like tobacco&alcohol? That won't stop contraband and it certainly won't stop related crimes. I could still buy illegal cigarettes and illegal tequila if I wanted to. Same applies to gun, really, despite strong anti-guns laws. Should we legalize all type of guns because the Hell's Angels and the mafia makes tons of money trading weapons? Is that a reason to keep guns freely available in the US, because otherwise the organized crime would profit from it (as if it didn't right now)?
The benefits of legalizing alcohol and other dangerous products for everyday use are:
(1) we take money out of the hands of the crooks
(2) we increase the safety and quality of the products (not making them "safe," but at least making them "safer")
(3) we save the cost of imprisoning millions of people
(4) we encourage drug users to understand that theirs is a health problem, not a crime problem, and so they can seek help without risking long prison terms.
There are, of course, many others, but those will do for now.
Let's assume that there are no laws on the books about drugs for the moment. Make the case, equivalent to mine here, for criminalizing, say, marijuana.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2013, 11:16:53 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2013, 10:28:56 AM
Heroin was freely available in the early 20th century, it didn't stop people from consuming it. Just as with cocaine, it was made illegal/heavily regulated around the 20s, maybe late 1910s. Crack didn't appear until the 80s, when the technology to create it was available to just about everyone.
This is a joke, right? The "technology to create" crack cocaine consists of, what, a candle, some baking powder, and a spoon? When was the candle "available to just about everyone?"
Technology is also knowledge, and so he's right in that crack didn't appear until the knowledge to create it proliferated.
There are a lot of reasons crack proliferated when it did. One of them is that freebasing cocaine powder had become very popular in the late 70s and early 80s, since it delivered the strongest rush short of IV injection, but it required a fairly complicated and dangerous chemical extraction process to produce smokable cocaine out of snortable powder (cocaine hcl). That's how Richard Pryor got burned. I think it might be depicted in some form in "Boogie Nights" since John Holmes was heavily addicted to freebase.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 02, 2013, 08:13:16 AM
There are a lot of reasons crack proliferated when it did. One of them is that freebasing cocaine powder had become very popular in the late 70s and early 80s, since it delivered the strongest rush short of IV injection, but it required a fairly complicated and dangerous chemical extraction process to produce smokable cocaine out of snortable powder (cocaine hcl). That's how Richard Pryor got burned. I think it might be depicted in some form in "Boogie Nights" since John Holmes was heavily addicted to freebase.
The point, though, is that crack cocaine users wouldn't exist in any numbers if cocaine had been legal; it may give a more immediate high, but is also much more dangerous and addictive.
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2013, 06:26:17 AM
Crack cocaine became popular because drug dealers could produce more value in street product per ounce of material smuggled. That was purely the outcome of making the drug illegal, and of stepping up enforcement and penalties.
The drug has been illegal since early 20th century, crack did not appear 'til the mid-80s.
If you look at legal products, you always see a tendency of getting more for the same price. Think of shampoo bottles in the 80s "33% more". Think of sugar substitute wich are more concentrated. Think of alcool,wine and beer were many producers seek to enhance the content of their products by adding pure alcohol as the fermentation process isn't sufficient. Think of soap where you get "ultra" stuff that is more concentrated in a smaller format. I don't see drugs evolving differently because they were made illegal.
QuoteBut, at least, you've dropped the 'technology' argument. that was wise.
I don't know anything about chemistry, I chose physics and history instead. I thought it was like ice, it required some purification process of the regular coke and some additives, but it seems I was wrong. I'm just wondering why they waited the 80s to do it since it was so easy.
Quote
The benefits of legalizing alcohol and other dangerous products for everyday use are:
(1) we take money out of the hands of the crooks
Lots of corporations are managed by crooks. Many bankers made their money by cheating consumers and then turning to the government to get them out of their misery. How is it different than being a crook?
Tobacco companies sold their products to smugglers to increase their sales in Canada. How is it different than being a crook?
Enron was legal. A legitimate business. How are they not crooks?
Financial services are legal & heavily regulated. There are crooks on the sides offering their services for cheaper and promising bigger return on investments, and they are quite popular, until they sink and everyone realizes the honest looking guy with no license and no financial education giving them huge monthly return was a crook who lived a good life with their money.
Medical services are legal and heavily regulated. Yet, there are lots of stories about fake doctors&nurses.
Quote
(2) we increase the safety and quality of the products (not making them "safe," but at least making them "safer")
True if you consider only the legalized product in itself by ignoring substitute. Unless we decide to legalize everything, there will always be something stronger and cheaper for the buzz it gives. Quality has a price. If you sell 5 ounces of pure coke on one side and 5 ounces of a product that contains only 1 ounce of real coke on the other side, which one costs more? If we legalize coke but not crack, what's to prevent people from using crack? If we legalize crack but not ice, how to we prevent people from using ice because it's stronger?
Look at the other thread about alcohol in the UK. It's a widely available product, it has its quality controlled, it is not in the hands of crooks. Yet, 18% of the population admits to buying illegal alcohol even when they know it contains stuff harmful to their health. How would that be different with legalized drugs like heroin, cocaine, marijuana, haschish?
Quote(3) we save the cost of imprisoning millions of people
True, but you could just stop improsining consumers. Canada doesn't jail simple consumers. Most of Europe doesn't either. Yet, not all drugs are legal everywhere. People here smoke pot in the street right in front or beside the police station.
Quote
(4) we encourage drug users to understand that theirs is a health problem, not a crime problem, and so they can seek help without risking long prison terms.
Obviously, I don't know what's the situation where you live, but no one here is going to jail because they admit to a consumption problem. Various program exists, privately or publicly funded. Some religious based program with doubtful utility, sure, but apparently, some good stuff too.
Yet, drug users are unlikely to stop until they reach the bottom. Say, when people come to their homes and thrash everything because of unpaid drug debts. Or when they make a trip to the hospital as a warning.
Or when they land in jail after killing someone.
I can't find stats on it, but it's been my experience that only a tiny minority of drug users stop on their own, without any kind of pressure. I know of some, but most of those I know had to face the bottom of the barrel before acting on it.
Quote
Let's assume that there are no laws on the books about drugs for the moment. Make the case, equivalent to mine here, for criminalizing, say, marijuana.
[list=1]
- it is a dangerous product to the consumer. Just like many other dangerous product, it is the government's responsibility to protect public health. You can't buy arsenic at your local drugstore. I can't buy chemical fertilizer without a proper license that certifies I have the right to use it on my lands, even in small quantities. I can't simply buy a gun for my own protection without passing multiple tests certifying I really need it and I can use it safely for me and others.
- It is a dangerous product to other people around the consumer. Just like tobacco forbidden in public places, I see no reason to allow smokers to poison their environment. People make choices for themselves, I don't make the choice to breathe marijuana smoke when people light one at a concert.
- Driving under influence is bad, m'kay? :) Right now, you have no good way of detecting drug use other than bloodtest. A police officer can not force you to give a sample of your blood, unless you were involved in an accident or a crime. For wich case he needs a warrant, but I understand it's easier to get now. While with alcohol, if you refuse to take the breath test, your ass will land in jail and you car will be seized. Either we change the laws (wich implies changing the canadian constitution, if I'm right, but BB will step in and correct me if I'm wrong and it changed recently, but as of 10 years ago you could still refuse a blood test), or we wait until we have the technology to detect drug use, just as with alcohol.
- Employers have the build a really, really, really tight case to be able to fire a drug using employee, and even then, they must meet strict criterias: a treatment must have been offered more than once, the security of the worker must be in danger, the security of the other workers must be in danger, the employee must be paid in full for the day(s) in wich he presents himself to work despite being under influence of mind altering substance, if an insurance is available at the place of work, it must cover detox programs. If one of these criteria is not met, the employee can sue his company for illegal termination of contract and can aks to be reinstated.
- Employees coming to work totally stoned and not detected as such immediatly before starting their work can still claim compensation if they injure themselves. If I don't want them to work, I have to pay them the full day and a transport home.
- Alcool is good for your health in small quantity, especially wine, but also beer and stronger alcools, each with their own benefits. I have yet to find a single study talking about the benefits of regularly smoking small quantities of marijuana.
- Drugs cost a ton of money to get your feeling and cause social problems much, much worst than anything else. Entire families destroyed, people going totally crazy after years of use, etc. With alcohol, the brain damages stops once you stop consuming.
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2013, 10:57:10 AM
I have yet to find a single study talking about the benefits of regularly smoking small quantities of marijuana.
:huh:
The only reason the government is taking this step is because they cannot outlaw pot completely and stay within the Charter because of the medicinal effects of pot.
For those who think this is a step toward legalization you are not reading this in the proper context. This move is aimed to eliminate the ability of small producers to grow their own (which was the former model that this move replaces). It is easier to regulate a few large producers than thousands of people who are mainly growing their own. The government is also restricting the type of pot that can be distributed to being only dried leaves. As I understand it the only way pot can be used in that form and obtain the benefit of the drug is by smoking it. The problem is that for a lot of medical conditions it is either not possible to smoke (eg lung conditions) or not the prefered method to using the drug (ie ingesting is more effective).
I agree entirely with what Grumbler has been saying. And to add to it, this law criminalizes all those small producers who were growing pot for their own use and for whom smoking dried leaves is not a viable form of treatment. All those people - who number in the thousands - will now have to either grow their own in violation of the law or buy from dealers.
The drug policy in this country needs a serious rethink.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2013, 01:40:37 PM
:huh:
The only reason the government is taking this step is because they cannot outlaw pot completely and stay within the Charter because of the medicinal effects of pot.
There are no medicinal effects to pot, no more than morphine is a cure for cancer. In fact, doctors will not prescribe marijuana to non smokers. If you already smoke pot and you ask your doctor to prescribe it to you as a stress relief or to cure pain, chronic or not, they will.
QuoteThe problem is that for a lot of medical conditions it is either not possible to smoke (eg lung conditions) or not the prefered method to using the drug (ie ingesting is more effective).
The preferred method at first was to give marijuana pills to cancer patients. Since smokers complain it wasn't effective, the government agreed to let them smoke their own stuff. If you already have cancer or aids and are in terminal phase of your disease, there is no worries about developping lung cancer down the road.
There's no way a doctor will prescribe you marijuana for back pain after an accident though, unless you ask about it.
Quote
The drug policy in this country needs a serious rethink.
but why only for illegal drugs? I can't buy morphine over the counter. Whatever medication I buy at the drugstore is heavily controlled. Why make an exception for people who can't control their addiction, especially when it is no more effective than current remedies? Why not liberalize all drug - illegal or not commerce - ? You want morphine? Buy it at your local Wal-Mart. You need asthma medication? Get it from your grocery store, right beside your shampoo.[/quote]
Heh, I just got my second file related to this ... :lol:
I love regulatory change. :wub:
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2013, 04:10:19 PM
Heh, I just got my second file related to this ... :lol:
I love regulatory change. :wub:
Yeah, I was thinking this will be a huge boon for you. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2013, 04:17:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 02, 2013, 04:10:19 PM
Heh, I just got my second file related to this ... :lol:
I love regulatory change. :wub:
Yeah, I was thinking this will be a huge boon for you. :)
:yes:
It helps that in typical Canadian fashion the new regime is of byzantine complexity. :D
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2013, 04:04:47 PM
There are no medicinal effects to pot
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 :hmm:
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.
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2013, 10:57:10 AM
The drug has been illegal since early 20th century, crack did not appear 'til the mid-80s.
Federal drug law enforcement didn't begin in earnest until the "War on Drugs" was accelerated with the creation of the DEA in 1973, and then the acceleration of investigations and arrests in the 1980s. So crack cocaine is a result of the war on drugs, not the result of the controls placed on cocaine in the 1920s. This is exactly my point.
(deleted some demented analogy to shampoo).
QuoteI don't know anything about chemistry, I chose physics and history instead. I thought it was like ice, it required some purification process of the regular coke and some additives, but it seems I was wrong. I'm just wondering why they waited the 80s to do it since it was so easy.
I explained why: the War on Drugs.
QuoteLots of corporations are managed by crooks. Many bankers made their money by cheating consumers and then turning to the government to get them out of their misery. How is it different than being a crook?
:huh:
QuoteTobacco companies sold their products to smugglers to increase their sales in Canada. How is it different than being a crook?
Enron was legal. A legitimate business. How are they not crooks?
Financial services are legal & heavily regulated. There are crooks on the sides offering their services for cheaper and promising bigger return on investments, and they are quite popular, until they sink and everyone realizes the honest looking guy with no license and no financial education giving them huge monthly return was a crook who lived a good life with their money.
Medical services are legal and heavily regulated. Yet, there are lots of stories about fake doctors&nurses.
:huh:
Was any of this aimed at anything I said, or was this supposed to be in a different response in another thread? Surely your argument isn't that allowing thugs to get rich off of the drug trade is the same as jailing the Enron guys?
QuoteTrue if you consider only the legalized product in itself by ignoring substitute. Unless we decide to legalize everything, there will always be something stronger and cheaper for the buzz it gives.
This is absolutely untrue. When marijuana is legalized or decriminalized in a jurisdiction, the use of harder drugs doesn't go up.
But the argument could be made for legalizing everything, in which case your point is moot.
QuoteLook at the other thread about alcohol in the UK. It's a widely available product, it has its quality controlled, it is not in the hands of crooks. Yet, 18% of the population admits to buying illegal alcohol even when they know it contains stuff harmful to their health. How would that be different with legalized drugs like heroin, cocaine, marijuana, haschish?
The difference is in the 82% of people who procure the safe stuff. You want that percentage to be zero.
Quote- it is a dangerous product to the consumer. Just like many other dangerous product, it is the government's responsibility to protect public health. You can't buy arsenic at your local drugstore. I can't buy chemical fertilizer without a proper license that certifies I have the right to use it on my lands, even in small quantities. I can't simply buy a gun for my own protection without passing multiple tests certifying I really need it and I can use it safely for me and others.
many things are dangerous, and yet allowed. Automobiles kill far more people than drugs, and yet remain legal. All the government can do to protect public health is to make autos (or drugs) as safe as possible given cost constraints.
Quote- It is a dangerous product to other people around the consumer. Just like tobacco forbidden in public places, I see no reason to allow smokers to poison their environment. People make choices for themselves, I don't make the choice to breathe marijuana smoke when people light one at a concert.
Red herring. No one is proposing that smoking be allowed where it is now prohibited.
Quote- Driving under influence is bad, m'kay? :) Right now, you have no good way of detecting drug use other than bloodtest. A police officer can not force you to give a sample of your blood, unless you were involved in an accident or a crime. For wich case he needs a warrant, but I understand it's easier to get now. While with alcohol, if you refuse to take the breath test, your ass will land in jail and you car will be seized. Either we change the laws (wich implies changing the canadian constitution, if I'm right, but BB will step in and correct me if I'm wrong and it changed recently, but as of 10 years ago you could still refuse a blood test), or we wait until we have the technology to detect drug use, just as with alcohol.
Studies show that driving under the influence of alcohol is more dangerous than that of any other drug, and that driving under the influence of Marijuana produces no increased risk of accidents.
Quote- Employers have the build a really, really, really tight case to be able to fire a drug using employee, and even then, they must meet strict criterias: a treatment must have been offered more than once, the security of the worker must be in danger, the security of the other workers must be in danger, the employee must be paid in full for the day(s) in wich he presents himself to work despite being under influence of mind altering substance, if an insurance is available at the place of work, it must cover detox programs. If one of these criteria is not met, the employee can sue his company for illegal termination of contract and can aks to be reinstated.
This makes no case for making drugs illegal at all.
Quote- Employees coming to work totally stoned and not detected as such immediatly before starting their work can still claim compensation if they injure themselves. If I don't want them to work, I have to pay them the full day and a transport home.
I am not sure that your convenience is really an argument about public policy.
Quote- Alcool is good for your health in small quantity, especially wine, but also beer and stronger alcools, each with their own benefits. I have yet to find a single study talking about the benefits of regularly smoking small quantities of marijuana.
What you cannot find isn't very persuasive.
Quote- Drugs cost a ton of money to get your feeling and cause social problems much, much worst than anything else. Entire families destroyed, people going totally crazy after years of use, etc. With alcohol, the brain damages stops once you stop consuming.
I ran this through my Gibberish-English translator, and it still came out gibberish. If the argument is that pot or coke or whatever leads to more family problems than alcohol, it is full of shit. The idea that the brain damage inflicted by long-term alcoholism miraculously disappears when the decision to stop drinking is made is pure magical thinking.
I still don't understand some peoples instance on controlling the behaviour of others if it's self-regarding.
As for drugs, the damage has been done and looks hard to undo, not on the individuals, but the social impact of this latest bout of prohibition.
Just as the alcohol ban of the 1920s greatly strengthened the Mafia, so the 'War on Drugs' has empowered a range of gangs, supplies chains and social structures, that won't just go away if all drugs are legalised.
Those who've grown rich by the operating in an unregulated market, will find other social arenas to practice their skills in, if drugs are made legal; that will be the lasting impact of this 'war'.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 04:21:55 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 05:38:41 PM
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).
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 05:38:41 PM
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.
Is this a variant on the truism that "there will always be jobs"?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 03, 2013, 07:16:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 03, 2013, 07:16:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on October 02, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 04:21:55 PM
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. ;)
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2013, 05:38:41 PM
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!
Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2013, 08:35:24 AM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 03, 2013, 07:16:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:52:36 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2013, 04:21:45 PM
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 :hmm:
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 04:21:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:52:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 03, 2013, 07:16:28 AM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2013, 07:45:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 02, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 02, 2013, 04:21:55 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 03, 2013, 12:12:47 PMI 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.
I don't know, grumbler; I think there are plenty of examples of criminal organizations that have moved from one source of revenue on to another once the first one became less lucrative.
That said, you are probably right that any number of individuals and groups may not move on. My point was less about whether any particular group or individual would move on if some drugs became less lucrative due to legalization, and more about the conditions that allow organized crime to flourish altogether, whether they're new organizations formed to exploit the extant conditions or whether they're established organizations looking for new revenue sources.
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2013, 01:08:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2013, 07:45:38 AMActually ... 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.
Neither were the scenarios I discussed with my banker. At this point, it appears, the banks are not ready to support even Malthus' clients in being involved.
Quote from: viper37 on October 03, 2013, 12:26:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2013, 04:21:45 PM
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 :hmm:
they prescribe it like they prescribe other painkillers.
You are just flat out wrong about that Viper. While it is true that pot is prescribed as a painkiller it is not prescribed solely for that reason. Take for example the case that created the requirement for an exemption in the law for medical pot.
The reason we have medical pot today is because of an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in about 2000 which held that it was unconstitional for a person to be forced to choose between their health and their liberty.
On the facts in that case the accused had severe epilepsy and after traditional medical treatments failed,
he found that marijuana significantly reduced his seizures. At that time of course he did not have access to medical marijuana and so he grew is own. He was charged with possession.
The Court gave the Feds two years to create an exemption in the criminal law for medical use. That is why the current federal government cannot simply outlaw all use but instead are attempting to restrict medical use as much as possible.
Further, pot has been found to be a very effective anti inflammatory. Something that someday will be quite important for me so I have some skin in this game (and especially the ability to access it without the need to smoke it). And research has shown that it is effective at shrinking cancerous tumors.
Here is just one of the many links that can be found regarding the medicinal effects of pot.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
Put another way Viper. If pot was just another pain killer that can easily be replaced by a drug which is currently legal, the Court of Appeal would never have required the exemption.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2013, 01:08:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 03, 2013, 07:45:38 AMActually ... 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.
Neither were the scenarios I discussed with my banker. At this point, it appears, the banks are not ready to support even Malthus' clients in being involved.
Jacob, you were just some guy off the street raising the issue as a joke. I dont think you can infer that the response you got is the same response that one of Malthus' clients would receive. Perhaps if you retained Malthus you would get a better response. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2013, 01:29:52 PMJacob, you were just some guy off the street raising the issue as a joke. I dont think you can infer that the response you got is the same response that one of Malthus' clients would receive. Perhaps if you retained Malthus you would get a better response. :P
:lol:
I'm sure it's the need of Malthus' clients and their peers that are driving the bank's ongoing review of their guidelines, and I'm sure that they'll see the benefits much sooner than some guy off the street.
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 01:33:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2013, 01:29:52 PMJacob, you were just some guy off the street raising the issue as a joke. I dont think you can infer that the response you got is the same response that one of Malthus' clients would receive. Perhaps if you retained Malthus you would get a better response. :P
:lol:
I'm sure it's the need of Malthus' clients and their peers that are driving the bank's ongoing review of their guidelines, and I'm sure that they'll see the benefits much sooner than some guy off the street.
You were dealing with someone at the retail bank level. At another level the response will be, "Lets talk about how we can do this."
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2013, 01:39:09 PMYou were dealing with someone at the retail bank level. At another level the response will be, "Lets talk about how we can do this."
Yes. I agree.
Not sure why it would even be an issue.
Medical pot is regulated as a narcotic drug. There are already manufacturers of narcotic pharmaceutical drugs out there - I've represented several. It's a perfectly legitimate business, not sure why the banks would care about lending to it any more than to any other pharma company, other than the diversion risk ... i.e., if you were a mom-and-pop operation trying to get licenced to make generic Asprin out of your basement, the banks will treat you very differently from a major manufacturer. ;)
The main problem with narcotics manufacturing different from any other drug manufacturing is always going to be security and the possibility of diversion into the illegal market. That's why those who deal in narcotics have to get a dealer's licence, which includes a requirement for undergoing a security clearance. The diversion risk may well concern a bank, but again, if you are a major manufacturer not so much.
I don't mean to go all semantics here but has the meaning of narcotics changed in the last 10 years or so? Growing up I thought narcotics was specific to opiates, not just any illegal drug.
It really sounds wrong to call pot a narcotic.
Not an argument just a curiosity.
Quote from: sbr on October 03, 2013, 01:53:14 PM
I don't mean to go all semantics here but has the meaning of narcotics changed in the last 10 years or so? Growing up I thought narcotics was specific to opiates, not just any illegal drug.
It really sounds wrong to call pot a narcotic.
Not an argument just a curiosity.
No, I don't mean "as understood in ordinary language". You are clearly right that it pot isn't a "narcotic" as the term is generally understood.
I mean that it is regulated in Canada under the regulatory category "narcotic", as defined in the
Narcotic Control Regulations to the federal Canadian
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/crc-c-1041/latest/crc-c-1041.html
Quote"narcotic"
"narcotic" means
(a) any substance set out in the schedule or anything that contains the substance, ...
QuoteSchedule
...
17. Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations, including:
(1) Cannabis resin
(2) Cannabis (marihuana)
(3) Cannabidiol (2-[3-methyl-6-(1-methylethenyl- 2-cyclohexen-1-yl]-5-pentyl-1,3-benzenediol)
(4) Cannabinol (3-n-amyl-6,6,9-trimethyl-6-dibenzo-pyran-1-ol)
(5) Nabilone((±)-trans-3-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-6,6a,7,8,- 10,10a-hexahydro-1-hydroxy-6,6-dimethyl-9H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-9-one)
(6) Pyrahexyl (3-n-hexyl-6,6,9-trimethyl-7,8,9,10- tetrahydro-6-dibenzopyran-1-ol)
(7) Tetrahydrocannabinol(tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3- pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol)
(7.1) 3-(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol (DMHP)
but not including
(8) Non-viable Cannabis seed, with the exception of its derivatives
(9) Mature Cannabis stalks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches; and fiber derived from such stalks
Ah, I would imagine it is similar here and that is why so many people call it a narcotic.
Quote from: grumbler on October 03, 2013, 12:12:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2013, 11:52:36 AM
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.
I really do wonder what you base this on. What motives do you think these people have?