Rand study: Legalizing marijuana in CA will not significantly impact drug cartels

[nageov3t]

..then as Fine Supporters of the Capitalist Cause (not to mention disbelievers in the Government's ability to keep Social Security solvent..), we should buy stock in Hostess and Little Debbie snack cakes? :awe:

they're both privately held companies

may I counter with Pepsi? they own Fritos.

 

[Ns1]

So basically, the only way this proposition would make any sort of impact on drug smuggling would be if California replaced Mexico in supplying the rest of the US with higher-quality pot. I highly doubt the US government is going to stand by while that happens.

it's too bad too, because goddamn CA pot is good.

 

[ayabe]

As opposed to the 60% figure that had no basis in reality?

So what is it then? Give us your insight.

How many people do you know that do cocaine or heroin?

Me? 0.

I know dozens of people who smoke pot regularly and I bet you do too whether you realize it or not. It's a pretty simple numbers game. 60% sounds just about right when you take a look at the volumes involved.

Coke has been coming back in the last decade or so but still it goes back to my original assertion - how many people do you know that do that stuff? It's very, very rare in comparison to pot.

If you believe the reports of the amount of money the cartels are bringing in you have to realize pretty quickly that it isn't coke or heroin, the demand in this country just isn't enough to make up the gap.

Edit - Not sure what is meant by CA replacing Mexico as a source of high grade pot. Mexican weed is shitty brick weed and is the lowest quality.

 

[Turin39789]

Sure was nice of the cartels to open their books to Rand for this study.

 

[SP33Demon]

Decent pot is not that hard to grow sorry it isn't unless you are going for higher quality stuff. Of course the higher quality pot is complete over kill considering how the brain functions and the nature/quantity of thc receptors and the effects of prolonged use of pot. Being a infrequent user would give a better high then someone who smokes the best stuff money can buy but who also smokes every day and several times a day.

Oh and food vs pot is not in the same realm of comparison. People need food to live thus there is still a large market for it but people don't need pot to live and I doubt their will be a large recreational market for retail pot sales.

Pot will be a huge market and include everything from desserts/snacks (brownies, cookies) to drinks (even alchohol). Also included is increased tourism revenue.

All in all, just because you can grow it at home doesn't mean there won't be a market for it. Items such as prepackaged and rolled blunts with different kinds of strains/potency are going to sell because people by nature are lazy. For example, why aren't cigarette smokers growing their own tobacco plants?

 

[FDF12389]

Sure was nice of the cartels to open their books to Rand for this study.

No shit, I don't trust these numbers at all.

 

[fenrir]

Edit - Not sure what is meant by CA replacing Mexico as a source of high grade pot. Mexican weed is shitty brick weed and is the lowest quality.

You must be smoking too much pot. The article does not say Mexican pot is of a high grade, only that the CA pot is.

 

[xj0hnx]

How many people do you know that do cocaine or heroin?

Me? 0.

I know dozens of people who smoke pot regularly and I bet you do too whether you realize it or not. It's a pretty simple numbers game. 60% sounds just about right when you take a look at the volumes involved.

Coke has been coming back in the last decade or so but still it goes back to my original assertion - how many people do you know that do that stuff? It's very, very rare in comparison to pot.

If you believe the reports of the amount of money the cartels are bringing in you have to realize pretty quickly that it isn't coke or heroin, the demand in this country just isn't enough to make up the gap.

Edit - Not sure what is meant by CA replacing Mexico as a source of high grade pot. Mexican weed is shitty brick weed and is the lowest quality.

How many potheads you know doesn't have any bearing on it. Profits, and considering just a gram of coke sells for more than an ounce of weed I have serious doubts about the 60% number that just gets thrown around, especially when you start including all the cartels other activities. A pound of weed cost probably a hundredth, or less,than a kilo of coke and it twice the size.

 

[Moonbeam]

When you figure out that PissassJang is a small minded asshole you will figure out why he raises small minded imbecilic rationalizations for his bigot beliefs. The notion that somebody somewhere might have fun is an anathema to pricks.

 

[Ns1]

How many potheads you know doesn't have any bearing on it. Profits, and considering just a gram of coke sells for more than an ounce of weed I have serious doubts about the 60% number that just gets thrown around, especially when you start including all the cartels other activities. A pound of weed cost probably a hundredth, or less,than a kilo of coke and it twice the size.

coke is 50-60/g and CA weed is 350-450/oz

unless you're referring to the MX shit, in which case I agree, at which point it doesn't make any sense to me because I know of NO ONE that buys that shit (more than once).

A buddy got hustled into buying like a huge bag full of MX shit for 25 bucks. Worst 25 bucks ever.

 

[bfdd]

Pot will be a huge market and include everything from desserts/snacks (brownies, cookies) to drinks (even alchohol). Also included is increased tourism revenue.

All in all, just because you can grow it at home doesn't mean there won't be a market for it. Items such as prepackaged and rolled blunts with different kinds of strains/potency are going to sell because people by nature are lazy. For example, why aren't cigarette smokers growing their own tobacco plants?

Lol true that. Fact is I will still grow, but that will be for like special occasion own brand kind of crap. I'll probably roll into 7-11 everyday, if legalized, and buy a pack of pre-rolled Js.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's hard to say how much of the Cartels' money comes from MJ vs other drugs, but California's proposal certainly won't help them.

Ultimately, federal enforcement will fail w/o the assistance of state and local authorities. They simply don't have the manpower or the mandate to make it work.

The notion that California growers won't expand their operations in the event of legalization there is a non starter. Obviously, they will, and the risks associated with transporting it to other states are much lower than getting it across the border, so the domestic market will obviously see more California MJ. State and local authorities simply don't have the same search and seizure prerogatives as Customs.

MJ prohibition has been and always will be a ridiculous waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere (like investigating financial crimes) so I applaud the efforts in California, and hope that their initiative passes.

BTW, I haven't had a toke since 1988, and don't plan on starting up, so I have no personal interest here...

 

[Nemesis 1]

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2010/10/12/index.html




So basically, the only way this proposition would make any sort of impact on drug smuggling would be if California replaced Mexico in supplying the rest of the US with higher-quality pot. I highly doubt the US government is going to stand by while that happens.

Otherwise, the argument that passing this proposition would cut down on cartel violence is basically shot. If anything, violence would probably increase as the cartels fight to gain control of a (slightly) smaller market, similar to the end of prohibition with Chicago organized crime.

Well ok . Tell me how the US government stops california from suppling the US states POT . They can't stop it now. So whats going to change.

 

[Ns1]

Well ok . Tell me how the US government stops california from suppling the US states POT . They can't stop it now. So whats going to change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

 

[BoberFett]

It's hard to say how much of the Cartels' money comes from MJ vs other drugs, but California's proposal certainly won't help them.

Ultimately, federal enforcement will fail w/o the assistance of state and local authorities. They simply don't have the manpower or the mandate to make it work.

The notion that California growers won't expand their operations in the event of legalization there is a non starter. Obviously, they will, and the risks associated with transporting it to other states are much lower than getting it across the border, so the domestic market will obviously see more California MJ. State and local authorities simply don't have the same search and seizure prerogatives as Customs.

MJ prohibition has been and always will be a ridiculous waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere (like investigating financial crimes) so I applaud the efforts in California, and hope that their initiative passes.

BTW, I haven't had a toke since 1988, and don't plan on starting up, so I have no personal interest here...

The feds don't have to police it. They simply have to tie funding to it.

You're new to this whole politics things, aren't you?

 

[dawp]

what if CA legalizing pot leads to other states legalizing pot too?

that is what I think will happen, CA is the tip of the iceberg and once legal there, there will be a domino effect where states one by one will want to get to get in on the act.

 

[shortylickens]

Restricting the Sale of certain Weapons in California wouldn't keep those Weapons off of California's streets either. Certain things need National Implementation to truly achieve their Goals.

Surprise surprise!

Not relevant.
The above discussion involved ALLOWING things to happen.
Your point involved trying to RESTRICT things from happening.

I think the above "study" is pure political propaganda and has no basis in science. Some people are terrified at the thought of legalizing pot so they keep commissioning reports until they get one that supports their fears.

 

[sandorski]

Not relevant.
The above discussion involved ALLOWING things to happen.
Your point involved trying to RESTRICT things from happening.

I think the above "study" is pure political propaganda and has no basis in science. Some people are terrified at the thought of legalizing pot so they keep commissioning reports until they get one that supports their fears.

It is relevant, sorry. What you should have said is, "not the same", but that would have not been relevant to the discussion.

 

[xj0hnx]

coke is 50-60/g and CA weed is 350-450/oz

unless you're referring to the MX shit, in which case I agree, at which point it doesn't make any sense to me because I know of NO ONE that buys that shit (more than once).

A buddy got hustled into buying like a huge bag full of MX shit for 25 bucks. Worst 25 bucks ever.

Why would I be referring to home grown cali bud when we are talking about imported cartel weed.

 

[Doboji]

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2010/10/12/index.html




So basically, the only way this proposition would make any sort of impact on drug smuggling would be if California replaced Mexico in supplying the rest of the US with higher-quality pot. I highly doubt the US government is going to stand by while that happens.

Otherwise, the argument that passing this proposition would cut down on cartel violence is basically shot. If anything, violence would probably increase as the cartels fight to gain control of a (slightly) smaller market, similar to the end of prohibition with Chicago organized crime.

I think it's a great idea actually... Would do wonders for California's ailing budget.