[Headstrong]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

No, but you're free to ask Curtman or use Google. Based on your cut-and-paste onslaught, you're pretty familiar with search engines.

I'd figure you'd be smart enough to realize that I already asked google.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

You're clearly arguing something, but haven't said what.

You call bullshit on me and don't prove a damn thing and then you come back with that? You called me out and had nothing to back it up but more partisan bullshit.

Facepalm.

Curtman Curtman:

What to do you propose we do to end the drug war?

The "War On Drugs" will never end. Just as the "war" on murder, rape, child porn, etc will ever end.

This facile argument you present is why you're a bad spokesperson for the pro-pot agenda. We don't just change laws because we're not "winning".

There is no war on those. No gangs fighting for turf on murder, rape, child porn, etc...

Marijuana Prohibition Now Costs The Government $20 Billion A Year: Economist

$1:

Marijuana prohibition now costs state and federal government as much as $20 billion a year, an economist told The Huffington Post -- and legalization efforts are only just beginning to chip away at that.

That number comes from Jeffrey Miron, a senior lecturer at Harvard University who in 2010 studied the likely impacts of drug legalization, finding that about $8.7 billion would be saved on law enforcement and another $8.7 billion would be generated from taxes on marijuana. Accounting for inflation, that would add up to about $20 billion now, he said.

U.S. numbers, but all the same - what side are you on?

All for the status-quo still? Everything is going according to plan?

Good to know. Usage and violence increases, and you're happy with that.

Anybody have any solutions? Out-to-lunch drives a dodge, and supports escalating violence for no reason.

Or he supports legalization sometimes.. Wherever the conversation may take him.

[Curtman]

Headstrong Headstrong:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

No, but you're free to ask Curtman or use Google. Based on your cut-and-paste onslaught, you're pretty familiar with search engines.

I'd figure you'd be smart enough to realize that I already asked google.

We did this already. Thats why its funny.

current-events-f59/trudeau-s-legalization-stand-set-to-revive-debate-on-cannabi-t105847-60.html#p1998846

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

Good to know. Usage and violence increases, and you're happy with that.

Anybody have any solutions? Out-to-lunch drives a dodge, and supports escalating violence for no reason.

Or he supports legalization sometimes.. Wherever the conversation may take him.

Sure, there is no so-called "war" on those crimes, but they continue to happen despite mass amounts of enforcement.

And again, you present another facile argument....insinuating violence will end without prohibition. Gang members will pack it in and wait outside 7/11 for the job fair. Usage and violence are part of the drug business.

I guess we'll have this same conversation when the gangs move onto moving more coke or ecstasy, it'll become too expensive to enforce so we might as well legalize it

[Unsound]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And again, you present another facile argument....insinuating violence will end without prohibition.
Who has EVER said it would end? It's about harm reduction.I know for fact that that has been pointed out to you before.


Gang members will pack it in and wait outside 7/11 for the job fair. Usage and violence are part of the drug business.

Of course not, but a lot of the guys who sell part time just to supplement their income or subsidize their own habit will probably stop. And the big boys will be getting less money out of it to spend on guns and such. Unless you think all their pot smoking customers are going to suddenly switch to crack?

I guess we'll have this same conversation when the gangs move onto moving more coke or ecstasy, it'll become too expensive to enforce so we might as well legalize it

Its possible of course, but those drugs are a little bit different from weed. Coke for example is far more likely to lead to dangerous anti-social behaviour when high, and it's addictive properties make it much more likely that people will commit crimes to support the habit.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

Good to know. Usage and violence increases, and you're happy with that.

Anybody have any solutions? Out-to-lunch drives a dodge, and supports escalating violence for no reason.

Or he supports legalization sometimes.. Wherever the conversation may take him.

Sure, there is no so-called "war" on those crimes, but they continue to happen despite mass amounts of enforcement.

The difference is, enforcement of those crimes:
A) Delivers justice to a victim
B) Does not increase their market value
C) Does not create a recruiting mechanism for gangs

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And again, you present another facile argument....insinuating violence will end without prohibition. Gang members will pack it in and wait outside 7/11 for the job fair. Usage and violence are part of the drug business.

$1:

Corrections Canada has seen a 44 per cent jump in gang members in federal prisons in the last five years, to 2,040 in 2012 from 1,421 in 2007, according to the documents obtained under access to information.

The records show a big jump in aboriginal gangs, especially in the Prairies.

The documents say there are 54 different types of gangs now identified in institutions across the country. The biggest spike is in street gangs, which have swelled by 269 per cent since 2000.

Gangs are thriving. Ending prohibition will take away their money and power.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I guess we'll have this same conversation when the gangs move onto moving more coke or ecstasy, it'll become too expensive to enforce so we might as well legalize it

I love this argument. This is the one where a prohibitionist will tell us that giving billions of dollars of marijuana revenue to organized crime keeps us safe because the gangs don't have to sell coke or ecstasy as much.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I guess we'll have this same conversation when the gangs move onto moving more coke or ecstasy, it'll become too expensive to enforce so we might as well legalize it

You're usually pretty astute when it comes to discussions about economics. Unless there is sufficient demand for coke or ecstasy, that won't happen. Are you suggesting that legalizing pot will increase the demand for other drugs? What do you think happened to all the people working the illegal liquor trade when prohibition ended? The answer is that, yes, some moved into gambling, extortion and other organized crime. Others moved into the legal liquor business. But most were low-level peons who were unemployed as a result of legalization and had to go out and find real jobs.

And that's exactly what will happen to most of the people involved in the illegal pot trade. Demand drives employment. If there is reduced demand for illegal pot, those people will have no choice but to find other work. And it won't, for most of them, be selling other types of illegal drugs unless there's MASSIVE increase in demand for those other drugs. Since 90% of the illegal narcotics trade is pot, it's reasonable to presume that 90% of drug dealers will be out of work if pot is legalized.

[andyt]

If gangs could make the same profit from coke and ecstasy as pot, they would already be doing so. Ex is a lot easier to produce than pot, doesn't require the floor space or power usage of growing pot, a lot quicker to produce. Switch coke for meth, same deal. The demand for harder drugs just isn't the same as for pot. OTL claims he's a businessman, but doesn't seem to understand supply and demand. By his logic, there's all these frustrated coke and ecstasy users out there who decide to use pot instead because their dealer is more interested in selling pot.

And like many other anti-legalization people on this forum (or people who argue this position for just for shits and giggles), he has to see things in black and white. If legalization reduces harm (including crime) that just doesn't cut it. It either has to create a perfect world or there's no point in legalization.

Yet somehow drugs far more dangerous than pot, no problem keeping them legal. Prohibition doesn't work against alcohol and tobacco, but does against everything else, apparently.

Pot business in BC has been estimated up to 7 billion a year (probably inflated, let's say half that). That's all illegal money, no taxes paid, lots of crime associated with that. Put the largest chunk of that money into the legal stream, and gangs will have trouble just replacing it. Plus we save on policing costs and take in tax revenue.

Maybe OTL can understand this analogy - if Chevy suddenly stops making their best selling model, does he think he can just make up his commission on selling more of the other models that Chevy sells? "Oh, well, I can't get a Cruze, guess I'll buy a Corvette instead."