Why I Was Hoping Prop 19 Would Pass In California UPDATED November 5, 2010
Posted by Michael in Crime.trackback
IMPORTANT UPDATE [DaveinTexas]:
This post was instigated by Anon, a first-time visitor, who castigated liberals and conservatives alike in a thread below. Of conservatives, he remarked:
you believe you should legislate the behavior of responsible people. Just sayin’…
Sandy Burger replied — her rejoinder was this:
By the way, the idea that Republicans want to control your private life is paranoid (for most Republicans, at least).
I’m guessing that Anon was pissed off by the failure of Prop 19, a ballot initiative in California to regulate and tax the distribution of marijuana. On that issue, I agree with him.
Look, I don’t want to encourage hippies to smoke weed, but let’s face it, they are going to do so anyway. If any state is going to be a haven for pot-smoking hippies, California (as opposed to Texas) is the right place for them.
I reckon this guy can survive the inevitable (since yesterday) economic meltdown of California just fine:
Enjoying the Age of Aquarious
Plus, I seriously think we need to do what we can to defund the Mexican drug cartels.
If you compare alcohol, nicotine, and marijuana, you can’t make sense out of our controlled substances policy. I think weed should be a public health issue, not a criminal issue. I’m leaning that way about coke. Lets get real — people are going to self-medicate for recreation. It has been a staple feature of human culture for millennia.
The idea that marijuana is a hugely addictive “starter drug” that leads straight to heroin has been thoroughly debunked. It is relatively benign compared to alcohol. The risks of cocaine have been similarly exaggerated. Cocaine is widely accepted as a middle-class recreational drug that is harmless if used in moderation, like beer, and harmful if used in excess.
The Gold Standard on this issue should be alcohol. We tried Abolition, and it did not work. We just funded powerful and murderous criminal gangs. So, I’m thinking, if something is not worse than alcohol, we should address it as a public health issue, not a criminal law issue.
Right now, we are funding and arming enormously dangerous criminal organizations, and wasting billions in law enforcement resources that are better directed elsewhere, for no good purpose. The giant sucking sound of our drug market has our southern neighbors like Mexico and Colombia fighting for their lives.
Beheading has become a commonplace tactic in Mexico’s drug wars. They remind me of Al-Qaeda, and they are here in our country. They worship money instead of Allah. Otherwise, they have no scruples or kinship to humanity.
Yup, none of those bodies have heads
Our billions of dollars of law enforcement aimed at drugs that are less harmful than alcohol or nicotine have a perverse effect. We are artificially inflating the price of marijuana and cocaine, simple agricultural products which require little processing (compared to cigarettes, beer or wine) and which would naturally be dirt cheap. This drives genuine addicts to break into someone’s house, or to commit an armed robbery, just to acquire a product they otherwise could easily afford at a licensed and taxed store, much like hard-core drunks can score some Mad Dog with a little panhandling.
You also can steer consumers away from really nasty shit, like meth, which is easily cooked up in the backwoods of Indiana and, realistically, we don’t have any way to stop it.
Plus — BONUS — if the trade is regulated, you have a better shot at suppressing the use of these substances by juveniles, whose as-yet-unformed brain structures place them seriously at risk if they consume these products.
Just my opinion.
When we flew to Peru on vacation, our hotel immediately offered us Americans coca tea to help ward off altitude sickness. It worked. Our tourist guide book actually encouraged us to accept the offer.
Extra bonus: You’ll turn all the cannabis shop owners into conservatives once they start paying taxes and abiding by regulations.
[Isn't it "Aquarius?"]
Let me put this another way. Any college kid in America can buy weed. That’s a known fact. There is nothing we can do to stop it.
The supply chain is highly developed, and lucrative at all levels.
The issues are: (1) price – how high to account for the artificial risk premium, and (2) profit, i.e., which gang is most ruthlessly effective at controlling the supply chain.
I would like to cut the criminals out of this equation.
[Isn't it "Aquarius?"]
Yes, Geoff.
You’re lucky I like Liz. She is the only reason to put up with you.
See, criminal gangs can’t really fix the market-clearing price for drugs.
They just discover the market-clearing price like any other business. That price factors in:
1. Risk (including the intensity of law enforcement, which is why Mexican cops are getting slaughtered).
2. Labor (e.g., farmers, workers at drug labs, or drug mules entering the U.S. with cocaine in a condom up their ass or in their vagina.)
3. Capital (e.g., submarines that can make it to Florida from Mexico with a huge cargo of coke, thereby allowing them to lay off those drug mules and reduce labor costs. Also, sufficient weapons to ensure that they have Mexico out-gunned.)
4. Demand. That is our part of the deal. We are the market that pays for risk, labor, and capital in the illegal drug business.
The bottom line is: the drug cartels are no different than the company I work for. Their motivation is return on invested capital (ROIC).
Their ROIC is artificial and is created by us, at great cost.
I could start a white-hot rant right now about the complicity of Western shipping companies with Somalian pirates.
Never mind. I’m going to eat some jelly beans instead.
When we flew to Peru on vacation, our hotel immediately offered us Americans coca tea to help ward off altitude sickness.
I stuck with the Pisco Sours.
Michael, did you call Sandy Burger a “her?” I thought he was a “he..”
The escalation of Mexican violence is scary and uncontrollable. The level of viciousness is beyond anything I’ve seen. Frightening.
Actually, many of the Mexican drug runners worship La Santa Muerta – Saint of Death – a ghastly combination of the Virgin Mary and the Grim Reaper.
A Marine friend from work was in Central America during the Reagan years. He says “it’s all about who controls the drugs.” Some things never change.
Michael, did you call Sandy Burger a “her?” I thought he was a “he..”
Sandy is a “he.” That’s just a very old joke that goes back to the early AOSHQ. “Sandy” was my mother’s nickname, so I initially thought he was female.
Recently a young couple, David & Tiffany Hartley, vacationing in Texas but from Colorado, were jet-skiing on Falcon Lake which is part of the Texas-Mexico border. Tiffany witnessed her husband’s murder but was physically unable to rescue his body. Everyone figures he was mistaken as a participant in the Mexican drug wars.
The murder investigation stalled, but within days of it being initiated, an experienced high ranking investigator was beheaded.
Mexican Drug Cartels don’t mess around. I’m in favor of the U.S. finding effective ways to hurt & end their revenue stream.
Democrat Senator, Walt Minnick, ran some despicable ads about Raul Labrador. He edited the video to say the opposite of what Raul actually said. I was at the (tea party) meeting where the video was shot and I know what he actually said.
I was afraid that the ads were going to be effective but the People of the Spud State saw through the lies and elected Raul Labrador.
Grayson (D-Dickhead) tried the same thing on Taliban Dan Webster, but it backfired and Grayson got his ugly ass kicked.
A sold-out spectator event.
*What a dickhead*
So if enough ruthless thugs want to supply something to brain-dead Americans badly enough we should just cave in and let them do it. What’s next?
As an employer, am I still responsible when someone comes to work stoned and hurts himself or another employee (or me – or you)?
It is not just about the crime or the money. Sorry it is no that simple. I used to think so too.
Just sayin’.
Damn it, Michael.
@ #14… Brian, as an employer you are not only still entitled but also responsible for executing progressive discipline on any employee who comes to work under the influence… whether it is legal alcohol or illegal drugs. Changing what ‘drugs’ are legal or illegal for your situation does not matter.
Are you also now wanting to make the general consumption of alcohol illegal so that you don’t have to take responsibility to for following through with progressive discipline with your own employees’ behaviors?
Brian – if those are your arguments against legalization, then it really *is* simple.
The ruthless thugs are a symptom of the real problem; i.e., something’s illegal that shouldn’t be. By addressing the root cause, you’re not giving in to thugs, you’re sensibly abandoning a strategy that’s never going to succeed.
And liability-wise, what difference does it make whether your employee’s substance is legal? Is it ok for your employees to be drunk at work, because alcohol is legal? (if yes, let us know where you work)
Meanwhile, all the arguments for legalization (libertarian, economic, hedonistic, etc.) are overwhelming. Bottom line, is it really in the country’s best interest to put people in prison for smoking weed?
Bottom line, is it really in the country’s best interest to put people in prison for smoking weed?
Well, there’s always the argument that that leaves more for the rest of us.
I agree with Mark in NJ
*cuts self*
Brew, you could have agreed with me instead of cutting yourself. Gee, thanks.
*hands Brew a razor*
There are a lot of people who intellectually might agree with the pro-legalization arguments, but, in the privacy of the poll booth, they know that drugs are bad for you, and they fear for a society that in any way condones it, so they vote no.
I think they’re wrong. (No, I know they’re wrong.) But I see where it’s coming from, and I’m not surprised that this vote turned out how it did.
By the way, hypothetically, if I were to smoke the sweet sweet cheeba, I’d know who it came from, and they’re Northern Californians who are not chopping off anybody’s heads.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/26/opinion/l-why-marijuana-should-remain-illegal-310506.html
Try this link to the New York Times (of all places).
As far as employers go- get real. We all can tell is someone has been drinking. Impairment from pot is much more subtle and hard to detect.
The “alcohol is legal” argument is ridiculous. You can’t change alcohol. We tried. That is not an excuse to not protect society from other hazards. We do it all the time.
Brew, you could have agreed with me instead of cutting yourself. Gee, thanks.
So true, but agreeing with you is not comment-worthy because as far as I can tell your judgement is impeccable. Except for once, but hey, nobody is perfect
Couple anecdotals
Medical pot……
1)
A neighbor (white, young, married, cute wife) got diagnosed with a brain tumor.
He soon got medical pot on a regular basis.
He sometimes sold a bit to help with his budget.
Later he also bought several plants.
One day, for no reason, a group of 6 black men broke in his place.
They took all his plants.
They took all their jewelry.
They took all their electrical toys, MP3, laptop, big screen TV.
They all raped his wife.
They beat him to within an inch of his life.
How did they know he had pot?
One had bought from him one time then came over and cased his entire home.
He and his wife did not call the police or file charges.
They simply disappeared.
Recreational pot…..
2)
My next-door neighbors moved away and rented out their condo to a young lady.
She moved in her boyfriend.
He has moved in several more guys as each got out of prison.
Then a new female or two showed up…she does tattoos.
From ~10:30 AM until about 3AM they do drugs.
They cough, they laugh, they get loud, the neighbors call the police, they get quiet.
They cough, they laugh, they get loud again.
Their landlord is out of state.
He does not care…..about anything but his rent check.
The police never look for drugs no matter how obvious it is (cloud of smoke).
All the police do is address the noise issue….pretty much 2 times a day.
If pot were legal it would be more expensive, in my opinion.
therefore it would also be sold under the table by the cartels through dealers on the streets, just as it is now.
Nothing would change.
If pot were legal it would be more expensive, in my opinion.
Naw – I think it’s universally agreed that the price would drop.
Is that a good thing?
Also, since the government regulates cigarettes, why does the price go up every year?
See, for instance, here:
Also, since the government regulates cigarettes, why does the price go up every year?
Well, an oz of tobacco gets you about 20 cigarettes, which costs $2 to $4. Compare that to $375 for an oz of marijuana. So tobacco is already really cheap. The price increases because government taxes keep getting added.
Is that a good thing?
It will certainly have the effects Michael is talking about – reduced violence and criminality. Taxing the bejeebers out of it would create revenue.
As far as the personal issues, I tend to think that everybody should worry about themselves, rather than the other guy. Everyone’s always worried about “them.” “They’ll” get out of control and show up at work stoned. Meh. I won’t. My wife won’t. And that’s about as far as my responsibility for, and knowledge of, the behavior of my fellow man can take me.
Well, an oz of tobacco gets you about 20 cigarettes, which costs $2 to $4.
More like $6.00-7.50.
Of course, I’m biased cause I smoke cigarettes but don’t smoke pot.
More like $6.00-7.50.
Probably true at retail, but still insignificant compared to the street price of pot. I got that price by looking at online offers for a carton of Marlboros. They said you could get 200 cigs for $20.50, so guessed a pack of 20 was in the neighborhood of $2 – $4.
While I was looking this stuff up, I found some article that said that in parts of NYC, the price for a pack has hit $14.50. They don’t have far to go before bootlegging cigarettes starts to appeal to the criminal element.
I’ve got to start shopping online then! Used to, in California before they banned it.
You’re right about NYC, they’re just asking for bootleggers.
How did Mrs. Geoff like Egypt?
She thought that:
1. The ships and hotel accommodations were great;
2. It was too damn hot (104F on a couple days);
3. Annoying passengers;
4. Very cool sights, though maybe a few too many temples; and
5. How can anybody have a good time w/o their hunky hubby along?
OK, I might have embellished Point 5.
Nan’s comment (#24) nicely illustrates some of the trade-offs. If pot were legal (and thus, cheap), the horrific crime in the first story would not have happened. But, the risk of having obnoxious stoners as neighbors, as in the second story, would be higher.
They don’t have far to go before bootlegging cigarettes starts to appeal to the criminal element.
That’s already a big criminal enterprise.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804682785163691.html
Many people remain uninformed about the physical harm and dependence levels of common drugs such as caffeine, tobacco and alcohol.
Interesting chart to be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/cn95kf