Black markets form to support a demand that is not being met by the legal market. There's always reward in them, because you charge a premium for the product based on risk and difficulty to acquire. If it's so difficult for kids to get alcohol legally, that premium will be very high and kids will pay it. I have no idea what you're saying here. The market would form the same way - if the kid is liable to be shot by the drug dealer, they'd be liable to be shot by the alcohol dealer as well. There's no difference in the two in terms of how a black market functions. I fail to see how legalizing mar1juana, if kids still can't get it, would shut down the black market that provides it to kids. The needs will still be there and a black market will still exist to supply it. The only difference is the acquisition costs will be lower, meaning the kids will be able to get it at a lower price or the dealers will have a much larger profit margin.
I'm not sure how dealers would receive a larger profit margin if the inflated black market value (5-10 times more) has been eliminated. If it costs the same to grow weed as tobacco, and the government decides to tax it 100% more, the operating margin for the black market dealers still selling wouldn't be higher than that value (hypothetical cap). The lowered profit margins wouldn't give dealers the incentive to take the risk of jail. Kids will still be able to get weed like they have from alcohol: from their parents stash, the bum standing next to the liquor store, or college frat losers looking to party. It's just that it'll be done w/o the black market. The loss in drug revenue would greatly cripple organized crime networks. That doesn't paint a great picture for legalization, but it wasn't given to totally solve the drug war. It's just that the several billions saved from enforcement and jailing non-violent offenders could be used for more permanent solutions such as education, treatment, and recovery.
While I tend to agree with the "regulate" crowd, do you honestly thing organized crime networks get most of their money from mar1juana? Do you also truly believe that regulating it would cripple them?
I think decriminalizing all drugs would cripple them more. Legalizing mar1juana would reduce dealers who use it to introduce their clientelle to deadlier drugs. I feel that most addicted users of hardcore drugs didn't plan on taking them. But you're right, weed dealers don't make that much compared to the other drugs.
I think you hit it spot on here. While I think you are right, and for perspectives sake, some friends of mine in college lived pretty well only selling pot. They rented a nice, older house, had a killer A/V system (TV, stereo, etc) and also had every video game console available at the time, including the PS1, which was relatively new at the time, with every game available for it. Their furniture, while nothing grand, wasn't your typical college-student fare, either. They were full-time students without "real" jobs making car payments, insurance, etc. all from selling bud. They didn't live like kings, but they sure weren't hurting.
I don't believe it should be legalized. But not for the reasons you might think. [droxford makes a heavy sigh as he knows that he's about to make a statement that's gonna make him sound like a complete nut] I don't believe that it should be legal for any product to be sold to the American people that contains physically addictive elements... ... .... and that includes... [gulp!] ...caffeine.
very good point.. drug deals are much more 'personal' than buying a bottle from the liquor store.. because of the risk factor involved for both sides, much of the relationship is based on trust and loyalty. when you cross that line, there will be repurcussions.. these drug dealers will take this 'backstabbing' personal.. also lets not forget the alcohol distribution liscenses needed by stores to sell alcohol, the possibility of losing that liscense is a big factor in discouraging sale to minors.. you obviously havent been out in a while.. in the REAL WORLD.. it is much more likely someone getting shot for ratting out a dealer than if one was to rat out a store owner.. lets remember the store owner is a business owner and thats his first priority.. he'll be busy dealing with not only the legal troubles but also his business.. a drug dealer does not have that business to worry about while he still has the legal issues... the store owner still has more to lose than the dealer.. therefore the drug dealer would be much more likely to say F*ck it and try to get revenge...
Except we're not talking about a store owner (the legal market). We're talking about a black market for alcohol.
I can see this. However, keep in mind you're ultimately making weed both more accessible and cheaper to the entire population. There may be separate benefits from the additional tax revenues and such. I'm mostly arguing against those who say that legalizing will help keep it out of the hands of kids. If whatever the regulations are keep weed out of the hands of kids, then a black market will form again. If they don't keep it away from kids, then now there is more weed out there making it more available.
You would think so, but apparently when adults can get alcohol, they become less interested in acquiring it for children. In addition, in order for it to be profitable to have a black market for alcohol, they would have to tack on 50% or so, making mar1juana a more attractive choice. But the profit margin isn't there. What teenager is going to pay $15-20 for a 12 pack of beer when they can buy a bag of pot for the same price, a bag that will last longer than a 12 pack of beer, is more easily concealed, and isn't detectable on a breathalyzer.
No, it should be MUCH harder for them to get drugs, which it would be if they were regulated and distributed by legitimate businesspeople.
Not if there is something just as effective at a lower price. That is the point here. Kids can get enough mar1juana to last them longer than a 12 pack of beer than they would be able to get if there were an actual "black market" for alcohol. When was the last time you heard of a shootout over the alcohol business? The last one I heard about happened in the early 1930s. Because the majority of people that the black market currently serves are adults, just like it was in the days of alcohol prohibition. If adults can get mar1juana whenever they want it, the risk/reward ratio is skewed more heavily, particularly if we impose even more draconian sentences for providing drugs to kids. The massive profits flow to the government through taxes and to legitimate businesses through markups, so a dealer would have to pay retail price and then mark that up further. Just like it is with the alcohol black market, huh? Kids will still get access to mar1juana in a regulated system, to be sure. However, the only system that has proven to be effective at reducing the access our kids have to mind altering chemicals is the regulated market. Since the "We Card" programs came into effect in the mid '90s, tobacco availability for kids has dropped by 25% and alcohol by an incredible 50%. We can achieve the same kinds of results with mar1juana, just as Holland has. Their rate of adult usage of marijauna is just about the same as it is here (a study done compared Amsterdam to San Francisco and found statistically insignificant differences in adult usage), but their rates of teen use are roughly HALF what we have here. Clearly, a regulated market works where prohibition does not.
Actually, they don't get "most" of their money from marijauna, they get most of it from heroin and cocaine. Drugs are the single biggest source of funds for organized crime networks to the tune of $60 billion per year in the US alone, $400 billion worldwide, per the UN Office of Drug Control Policy. Regulating mar1juana is a good first step, but to really "cripple" the crime networks, we will have to look at regulating other drugs as well. Switzerland has show a lot of promise with their prescription heroin trials.
You do realize that marijauna has not been shown to have physically addictive elements, don't you? Users can have psychological dependance, but suffer no physical withdrawal whatsoever upon quitting.
Is a psychological dependance better than having a physical dependance? (I'm asking this seriously here) Wouldn't the ability to break the dependance, if it came to that, be easier if it was physical? (Detox, medicine, etc.) Psychological dependance seems like a level of complexity that makes it a hell of an addiction.
Actually, psychological dependance is FAR easier to break than physical addiction. Physically addictive substances invariably carry with them a psychological dependance that is amplified as a result of the physical withdrawal people go through when they stop using. So, the user has to break both the physical addiction AND the psychological dependance to recover.
I would agree that it should be MUCH harder to obtain hard rugs, but soft drugs like mar1juana are home grown. People have networks with individuals who know growers. This facilitates the distribution of mar1juana through a so called network. In addition, since mar1juana is grown and not processed like the harder drugs, it is easier to obtain. Most of the mar1juana I have been around is not grown outside of the country. It is grown in apartment complexes, houses, and backyards. This makes it relatively cheap to grow with a much higher profit than alcohol. Plus, if you were making your own beer for example and selling it to minors, you would not only be violating the law for underage distribution but also countless FDA laws I am sure.
