Monterrey police find 49 bodies in bags

[Jimbuna]

One can only imagine the mess down there...wonderful neighbours :nope:


Forty-nine mutilated bodies have been found wrapped in plastic bags near the northern Mexican city of Monterrey.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18052540

[BossMark]

And the stench it must have stunk like a slaughter house :nope:

[Gargamel]

And the stench it must have stunk like a slaughter house :nope:

Actually, here in Cleveland, we recently had a serial killer that was hiding bodies in his house. But the meat processor two blocks away kept getting fined for the smell.

[vienna]

Actually, here in Cleveland, we recently had a serial killer that was hiding bodies in his house. But the meat processor two blocks away kept getting fined for the smell.


From what I've heard of Cleveland, how were they able to pinpoint the smell? :D

...

[Blood_splat]

I think more people are killed in the drug cartel wars than the war on terror ie Iraq/Afghanistan.

[Reece]

This thread stinks!:oops:

[Stealhead]

If you counted just the American/NATO loses yes if you counted all sides and civilians killed by attacks,suicide bombings,and reprisal tribal killings in Iraq and Afghanistan the cartel drug war killings are lower by thousands not to say that there is much violence occurring there.

For the enemy in Iraq the number is around 28,736-37,120 and 113,728 civilians died in Afghanistan Taliban loses can only be guessed at but it is well over 10,000 around 14,700 civilian deaths since 2001. The Mexican drug war the estimate for all sides and civilians is around 54,927 bad indeed but it could be much much worse 54,927 is close to the loses of Americans during the 10 years that they consider the Vietnam War the cartel war on the other hand has only be "hot" since 2006 though they have been fighting each other to some extent since the late 1980's.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

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

[August]

Yet another reason for locking down our southern border.

[Stealhead]

Too late many of the cartels already control turf in the US.

[August]

Too late many of the cartels already control turf in the US.

Well just because some water is already in the bilge doesn't mean you shouldn't still plug the leaks in the hull.

The cartels make their money by smuggling humans and drugs across the border. Cut that and they begin to wither.

[kiwi_2005]

If I ever win lotto and take a trip round the world I think I will skip Mexico. :dead:

[Stealhead]

You mean what we have to some extent be doing for over 40 years?Seems not to have worked very well thus far post 9/11 they upped the number of Border Patrol by large number that made things much more difficult but they just now use the much harder and more difficult to control routes to smuggle drugs in so long as there is a demand (for drugs and for people wishing to get into the US) the cartels will keep on going seeing as this is their source of income the drugs being the big deal the coyote work is a side deal and also clever way to draw our resources away from pursuing the ones smuggling drugs.

Anything we do now is just about too little too late the cartels already have infiltrated the US a wall will not stop the flow(look at Israel look at East Germany look at Ancient China they all have/had some form of extensive wall border control yet they fail/ed and two of those nations have borders many times smaller than the US ) it might lower it but not stop it they already make use of tunnel networks do ever watch the show Border Wars about the Border Patrol and INS on National Geographic channel? I saw on one episode they followed these two BP agents inside this tunnel that had been found in Arizona after they checked it out and measured its length to the Mexican border (so the concrete guys could fill it) one of the agents told the crew that tunnel filling is such a huge business that there are contractors that only do that type of work they find them every single day how many they do not discover is unknown many that are found are the ones reported by the Mexican police when they find them on the other side so we have to rely on those that are not very reliable to find many.

I do not think that the federal government wants to stop fighting the war on drugs any time soon as long as that war is on so will the war and activities of the cartels be active.

[August]

You mean what we have to some extent be doing for over 40 years?Seems not to have worked very well thus far

Of course they haven't worked because our efforts have been half hearted at best.

post 9/11 they upped the number of Border Patrol by large number that made things much more difficult but they just now use the much harder and more difficult to control routes to smuggle drugs in so long as there is a demand (for drugs and for people wishing to get into the US) the cartels will keep on going seeing as this is their source of income the drugs being the big deal the coyote work is a side deal and also clever way to draw our resources away from pursuing the ones smuggling drugs.

No personal offense intended but your lack of capitalization and punctuation is kind of difficult to follow. I apologize if I accidentally split a sentence between quotes.

I do think you have a point about demand. However we could be a whole lot more effective than we are currently if we actually got serious about it. Throwing a few extra Border patrol agents and building a partial wall is not being serious.

Anything we do now is just about too little too late the cartels already have infiltrated the US a wall will not stop the flow

I disagree. These cartels need to keep up the flow of money or they will quickly wither. Anything we can do to hurt their cash flow will hurt them.

(look at Israel look at East Germany look at Ancient China they all have/had some form of extensive wall border control yet they failed and two of those nations have borders many times smaller than the US ) it might lower it but not stop it they already make use of tunnel networks do ever watch the show Border Wars about the Border Patrol and INS on National Geographic channel?

I haven't seen the show you refer to but the Iron Curtain was a lot more effective than you may have been led to believe. The Great Wall was so long ago it doesn't really apply in modern times. And Israels border is not completed yet so I think it really shouldn't be used as an example here but I am under the impression that it has been pretty effective so far in reducing suicide attacks. I'm sure that MH could provide more detail.

I saw on one episode they followed these two BP agents inside this tunnel that had been found in Arizona after they checked it out and measured its length to the Mexican border (so the concrete guys could fill it) one of the agents told the crew that tunnel filling is such a huge business that there are contractors that only do that type of work they find them every single day how many they do not discover is unknown many that are found are the ones reported by the Mexican police when they find them on the other side so we have to rely on those that are not very reliable to find many.

The fact that the Mexican authorities have to report tunnels tells me that we're not really trying all that hard.

I do not think that the federal government wants to stop fighting the war on drugs any time soon.

Now here we can agree but probably not for the same reasons.

I think the Federal Government doesn't want to stop fighting the WoD because if they did it would mean a big loss of revenue and power hence their half hearted efforts in securing our border and and their constant attempt to block the border states from doing the job themselves.

[Penguin]

3 words: supply and demand.
The so-called "War On Drugs" is just as successfull as the prohibition of alcohol in the US was. With the same side effects: criminalizing citizens for victimless crimes and a rise of the mob.

So all efforts in history failed so far to reduce the demand for drugs, what can we do with the supply? Imo legalization/decriminalization is the only effective way. If people do no harm to others only to themself I see no reason to punish them for this.
The US can easily provide itself with drugs, no need for imports. This way you'd dry out the Cartel's profits. Yes, they do not only make money from drugs, but the argument that they would switch to other criminal activities is moot, as they do it already.

Regarding illegal immigration it should be the other way: With billions of people worldwide living in poverty the supply is virtually endless. So here it could work to hit on the demand. Punish the employers of illegals. The demand for illegals is more or less a luxury demand, it derives from greed and cheapness, as most illegals provide non life-essential services. Can't build a sundeck because US workers are too expensive? Tough crap, maybe wait a year and save some pennies to afford it!
If there are not enough qualified people there is still the option to give out work visas. This way the foreign workers also have the advantage of being protected by work and wage laws.

About the efficiency of the wall, here are some official numbers by the Stasi regarding the German border, for the years 76-85: http://www.chronik-der-mauer.de/index.php/de/Common/Document/field/file/id/44085 The first column is relevant, these are the successfull attempts (gelungene Fluichtversuche). 600-900 people per year seems pretty effective.
But does the US really want its Southern border to look like this? :o:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2772/grenzsperranlagesm.jpg

[soopaman2]

So is it the citizens (USA) fault for liking dope. The Mexicans love to blame us.
Or the fact that most the Mexican cops can be bribed?

I got pulled over for being a gringo, in my younger days, it cost me 50 USD to not be arrested for being white. The cop asked me in English for "a taste to go away" (late teen expedition to Tiajuana)

And that was in a tourist area, 10-15 years ago, before all the cartel crap was in the forefront.

So don't go there.

St. Thomas is better, I was there a few months ago, wonderful, and the natives don't hate you for your skin color, or ethnicity. (or try to scam and rob you)


EDIT: Pretty pic of the Berlin wall Penguin. Great Idea, except you Germans (soviets) didn't have enough artillery and mortars, too few landmines. Mexicans are more crafty than east Germans.:O: You should see what the Koreans did to the dmz, for lessons on border security (sadly we don't use landmines anymore, but we still use napalm..just saying)

[Stealhead]

I am not so sure that St.Thomas is all that safe actually:

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/07/articles/crime/more-caribbean-crime-carnival-passenger-killed-in-st-thomas/

http://virginislands-guide.info/travel.basics/crime/

[soopaman2]

I am not so sure that St.Thomas is all that safe actually:

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/07/articles/crime/more-caribbean-crime-carnival-passenger-killed-in-st-thomas/

http://virginislands-guide.info/travel.basics/crime/

I surely felt safer. I didn't feel like the concierge of the hotel was trying to kidnap my wife. Now Cozumel or Acupulco on the other hand, they always ask what you plan on doing while there. They poke even after being told to practice discretion.

I am a NYC boy, I can smell someone trying to rob me, and that is all I felt in Mexico during my multiple cruises/car trips there.


Not saying you're full of crap, just saying I have my preferences:salute:

[August]

I don't think it would need to look like that Penguin. After all the IC was designed to keep people in whereas we're trying to keep people and smugglers out. Different objective, different defenses. Much better surveillance technology too.

Your point is well taken about demand though. Even a partial legalization of drugs, say just marijuana, would really cut into the cartels cash flow, not to mention free up a lot of government and police resources that could be then concentrated on the really dangerous stuff as well as human trafficking.

[soopaman2]

I don't think it would need to look like that Penguin. After all the IC was designed to keep people in whereas we're trying to keep people and smugglers out. Different objective, different defenses. Much better surveillance technology too.

Your point is well taken about demand though. Even a partial legalization of drugs, say just marijuana, would really cut into the cartels cash flow, not to mention free up a lot of government and police resources that could be then concentrated on the really dangerous stuff as well as human trafficking.

As someone in the know, not so much a user, (as I cannot due to my job) Most of the real smokers get it from Canada, too many seeds in compressed Mestizo crap weed.

Just saying.:D

I feel bad for southerners with no choice, the Canadian weed is so much better (Yes I do know) Damn my job for not letting me know it better:D

Legal pot= broke prison industry, blasphemous to capitalist job creators.

[August]

Legal pot= broke prison industry, blasphemous to capitalist job creators.

Good point but where's more to it than just prisons and guards. What would all those excess DEA and narcotics officers do for a living without the easy mellow pothead to chase?

Much of the damage is already done though. RICO, no knock searches, cops equipped like Assault Infantry. The war on drugs has not only created the Mexican cartels it has made our own government way too powerful for it's own britches.

[soopaman2]

Good point but where's more to it than just prisons and guards. What would all those excess DEA and narcotics officers do for a living without the easy mellow pothead to chase?

Much of the damage is already done though. RICO, no knock searches, cops equipped like Assault Infantry. The war on drugs has not only created the Mexican cartels it has made our own government way too powerful for it's own britches.


My fear is when they use Patriot act powers to execute things with very little judicial control.

How long before they start banging stoner heads, or internet bloggers?

I believe our 3 branches system works, But the patriot act bypasses 2 of the mediating branches. Leaving the Legislative too powerful.

Look at the TSA, strip searching granny and fiddling fingers in toddlers underwear, and passengers end up thwarting every American plane explosion attempt, since 9-11. (underwear boy, and the shoe bomber)

Someone got rich off those nudity machines...
Someone got rich off the mass hirings.
Someone paid for all these people to get rich off of fear.
We did. With our liberties.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin

[August]

I believe our 3 branches system works, But the patriot act bypasses 2 of the mediating branches. Leaving the Legislative too powerful.

You mean the Executive branch? The legislature doesn't actually enforce the laws it passes. That's the job of the administration and it's various agencies.

[Osmium Steele]

St. Thomas is better, I was there a few months ago, wonderful, and the natives don't hate you for your skin color, or ethnicity. (or try to scam and rob you)

Must have changed since I was there last. 20+ years ago.

Off the strip and/or away from the cruise ship piers at night was dangerous. Roving bands of 8 - 10 guys would roll even a small group in a heartbeat.

Daytime, perfectly safe pretty much anywhere on the island and beautiful.

Shop for jewelry in St. Thomas and take the hop over to St. Johns. Much safer and less touristy.

[Seth8530]

My 2 cents, I feel like we created the gang related issues by making soft drugs illegal. As someone here has already mentioned we should of took a quick glance at prohibition to see what would of come of this. I believe that if we were to at least legalize marijuana we would take a big chunk out of the pocket book of the cartels thus accomplishing 5 things.

1) less government expenditure
2) less people in jail for possessing marijuana
3) a return of one of our civil liberties
4) a serious blow to cartel income
5) smaller government

Now I wonder which of these the our senators are afraid of?

[soopaman2]

You mean the Executive branch? The legislature doesn't actually enforce the laws it passes. That's the job of the administration and it's various agencies.

Yikes, yes, My bad. :salute::timeout:

[P_Funk]

Prohibition turned a couple of second rate thugs into millionaires. By the same token the war on drugs has turned a bunch of colombian sociopaths into billionaires.

You simply cannot fight the resources of the drug cartels. For every $1 million the American or Mexican government spends on fighting them they have probably $100 million to fight back with. Where does this money come from? Ironically from any success of the war on drugs. The more success there is the more supply is curtailed, the higher prices go, the more money the cartels make anyways, not to mention the more infighting you see over the few remaining open roads to smuggle or get access to more drugs from.

So basically everything we're seeing today is a result of the path we've taken to fighting the drug problem. So long as you treat the drug problem as a crime problem then no progress will be made except in making more and more greasy central americans into men richer than American presidents. Drugs are social issue, they always have, always will be, and soon as you stop trying to outspend or outmuscle drug cartels with fewer restrictions on morality than you... well you may see some progress.

Fact is that progressive approaches to drug problems all over the world have shown better results than the stubborn onslaught of mandatory minimum sentences and ever increasing DEA budget the US keeps betting on. You guys are supposed to be the freaking capitalists, don't you guys realize that organized crime is the purest expression of free market enterprise? Not to mention you're doing the crooks a favour by basically legislating thier entire industry into existence.

Fastest way to choke out of existence the cash flow of drug cartels: decriminalize all drugs; provide known addicts with 2 free hits a day; pour all that wasted DEA money into support and rehabilitation programs that those addicts will be exposed to through the same service that provides their free hit; watch as this process rehumanizes the victims and puts them in touch with change; watch as crime goes down because nobody has to steal anything to pay for a hit and nobody has to be killed to in order to fight over control of territory.

Blasphemy of course. I don't expect the US to ever try that concept out. Too much money is at stake. THe cartels aren't the only ones benefitting financially from the drug war. While the rest of the world is phasing out 23 hour a day solitary confinement the US is proceeding with building ever more Supermax prisons, prisons who's contruction and operation is deeply entrenched in private interests. The DEA itself is its own industry. How many thousands of livelihoods are dependent on this organization?

Basic economics says that price is a result of the available supply relative to the overall demand. Supply of drugs is such that the price is high because the government spends a lot of money to make it hard to get, which means you can get a lot of money for getting it to people. Make it easy to get drugs, see what happens to the cost benefit analysis of running the border suddenly.

Do all that and start addressing the drug problem on its own merits from a harm reduction standpoint and I guarantee you'll get your big hit to the gangland income. Problem with this solution is that its in direct conflict with the delusions imposed by generations of propaganda about drugs. Law and order pitches also make for easier campaign speeches than complex issues like harm reduction and long term health care reform to address the social and emotional issues amongst addicts.

The real problem with drugs isn't the drug dealers, its the addicts. So far the US can't wrap its head around it and as a result is directly responsible for the ever increasing black market drug trade.

[Pinko tirade over]

[Seth8530]

I disagree with giving away free drugs to addicts, but overall I feel like your tirade was pretty spot on tbh

[Penguin]

Two points in addition to Seth's list:

6. controlled quality (a legal trader is also responsible for his product = less risk of toxic substances like lead dust, or hard drugs)
7. the chance to have actually less young users

Germany and the Netherlands have a similar social structure. In Germany some states have decriminalized small amounts of pot. The cops have to take it away, otherwise they would break the law themselves. If it goes to court the judge can close the case under certain requirements (1st time drug offender, minor amount, no selling in schools, no smuggling, etc)

Contrary to many myths, marijuana is still illegal in the Netherlands. I've been told it would be very hard to legalize in regards to international law. Basically it's about some WHO agreements most states have signed where they state to do anything to fight against drugs, yada, yada, yada

So what did the smart and pragmatic Dutch do? Nearly nothing! No laws were abolished, no walls of text of new legislation was written. The police just has the simple instruction not to go against small possession. The Kofie Shops (tolerated pot bars) are allowed to have a little more generous amount than a single individual.
Some 20 years ago I was on a public forum where the police chief of Amsterdam was present and answered on the question how they control the shops: "We don't control them. If a shop sells hard drugs or alcohol (!) we get tips from the scene. Then we raid and close it."
Many "control freaks" in the audience stood there with open eyes :o, not believing how simple and non-interfering it can be and actually work.
(Maybe the police procedure changed today, but back then they said it worked well)

The result of two comparible countries with different marijuana laws: the percentage of adolescent users in the Netherlands is in fact smaller than in Germany. One should never underestimate the attraction of forbidden fruits, especially to juveniles. I don't have any statistics about adults, but on a limb I'd say the percentage is about the same.

Just a little food for thought for the "If pot's legal, all our kids will become stoned slackers"-crew. :|\\

[P_Funk]

Two points in addition to Seth's list:

6. controlled quality (a legal trader is also responsible for his product = less risk of toxic substances like lead dust, or hard drugs)
7. the chance to have actually less young users
I think #6 is awfully naive. Legal traders have no more accountability than anyone else. They have the concept of legitimacy but if anything legitimizing things only brings it into the sphere of political corruption. What would intevitably happen I'm sure with a full stop legalization of weed is that you'd see the government create monopolies in the private sector of "legitimate" business and then you'd get all kinds of political lobbies and people applying complex modern economics to it, doing cost benefit analyses. Anybody who's ever watched Food Inc. should remember that bit about the guy who farms chickens the old fashioned way, and slaughters them in the open air using old world implements to break the neck etc etc. He had a food inspector tell him he had to change his practices because it wasn't by the code because apparently he had to be in some big steel building with hard hats and stuff. He told them to test the average bacterial count of his chickens compared to the average in those big industrial chicken slaughter houses and apparently he had no more trouble from that inspector because the bacteria count in his chickens was way way lower despite his allegedly 'unclean' practices.

Weed already has its own regulatory system. Most people have a personal relationship with the people they get their weed from. A dealer acquires business through personal connections and recommendations. Selling bad weed leads to people being reluctant to buy from him. Even weed of a low quality, not even laced with drugs, but just low quality usually gives somebody a bad rap. Start selling stuff laced with something you're not bargaining for and his business dries up. Dealers rely on repeat customers, not on selling people bad stuff in one go.

I live in BC, a pot mecca. 420 is a proper holiday here. Nobody has trouble avoiding bad weed because your dealer is your friend usually, or a friend of your friend. Start selling this stuff out of a big mega companies then you're just more likely to have it contaminated with some chemical and then nobody will be held to account cause the litigation will be a nightmare.

Sadly the process to full legalization inevitably brings these issues into the equation, but its part of the process. One thing I can say though is that I've been around weed my whole life. I knew guys who had it in their lockers at school, I've known people who dealt it in large quantities, I've known people who smoked an entire ounce themselves in a week or less. I've never once heard of someone having trouble with laced weed, not directly. Its always that its dried out and not very good. The marijuana trade is perhaps the best expression of supply and demand economics in action, a system that self regulates because of the nature of personal relationships with the vendor. As a total lefty its takes a lot of courage to say that, but its seems true. One thing though is that the bigger market gets the harder it is to self regulate. If it stays small and local, just about you and your dealer, then its easier to keep control on it. Turn it into a monopoly where you can only get your weed from a company, then the consumer and the dealer lose control. Thats the danger. Any legalization must allow for the same underground weed industry to exist or else we're going to if anything I think make weed less safe or at least more prone to corruption that you see in all kinds of food scares and such.

And for #7, who cares if young people smoke it? Heavy and harmful drug abuse is an expression of deeper issues in a person. Its a social problem. Light and recreational drug use is just an expression of rebellion that most teens goes through. Tell them they can't do it and the more they want to do it. Relax and it'll be easier to parse between guys who smoke a bit on the weekend or people who can't cope without it. Legitimize the practice of using the drug and you make it easier to address those issues.

Alcohol has all the legalized and regulatory things most people think you need to keep young people from using it and I think almost everybody has had a beer before the legal age. Its just a fact that you can't prevent people from doing things they want to do, and with things as harmless as a little crappy 5% beer or a few joints the few times yous kipped class to feel rebellious... well that's never going to stop. Addressing it incorrectly will only make dealing with the real problems harder.

[Platapus]

Nice post P Funk, Thanks for the insight. There is much to think about in your post.

[August]

I think #6 is awfully naive. Legal traders have no more accountability than anyone else.

Sure they do. Legal sources are by definition more accountable than illegal ones. After all companies get fined and sued for producing unsafe products all the time. Try doing that to the Mexican drug cartels...

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Sure they do. Legal sources are by definition more accountable than illegal ones. After all companies get fined and sued for producing unsafe products all the time. Try doing that to the Mexican drug cartels...I partially agree with you - I'm just not convinced that those fines really matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that fine usually fixed amount of money (or at least have max.)? How much for example $500 million business cares of few dozen $50,000 fines?

Getting sued is totally different thing if we are talking about USA but here in Finland atleast it isn't a big deal as possible financial consequences are relatively small.

[August]

I partially agree with you - I'm just not convinced that those fines really matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that fine usually fixed amount of money (or at least have max.)? How much for example $500 million business cares of few dozen $50,000 fines?

Getting sued is totally different thing if we are talking about USA but here in Finland atleast it isn't a big deal as possible financial consequences are relatively small.

AFAIK the only limit to fines and lawsuits is that they cannot be so large that it puts the company out of business. On the other hand legal companies have IRS audits, health and safety inspections and even criminal charges for individuals to consider as well.

Bottom line is that operating above board means a level of public scrutiny that will have somewhat chilling effect on bad behavior that someone operating outside the law doesn't have to deal with.

[Penguin]

I think #6 is awfully naive. Legal traders have no more accountability than anyone else. They have the concept of legitimacy but if anything legitimizing things only brings it into the sphere of political corruption. What would intevitably happen I'm sure with a full stop legalization of weed is that you'd see the government create monopolies in the private sector of "legitimate" business and then you'd get all kinds of political lobbies and people applying complex modern economics to it, doing cost benefit analyses. Anybody who's ever watched Food Inc. should remember that bit about the guy who farms chickens the old fashioned way, and slaughters them in the open air using old world implements to break the neck etc etc. He had a food inspector tell him he had to change his practices because it wasn't by the code because apparently he had to be in some big steel building with hard hats and stuff. He told them to test the average bacterial count of his chickens compared to the average in those big industrial chicken slaughter houses and apparently he had no more trouble from that inspector because the bacteria count in his chickens was way way lower despite his allegedly 'unclean' practices.

Weed already has its own regulatory system. Most people have a personal relationship with the people they get their weed from. A dealer acquires business through personal connections and recommendations. Selling bad weed leads to people being reluctant to buy from him. Even weed of a low quality, not even laced with drugs, but just low quality usually gives somebody a bad rap. Start selling stuff laced with something you're not bargaining for and his business dries up. Dealers rely on repeat customers, not on selling people bad stuff in one go.

I live in BC, a pot mecca. 420 is a proper holiday here. Nobody has trouble avoiding bad weed because your dealer is your friend usually, or a friend of your friend. Start selling this stuff out of a big mega companies then you're just more likely to have it contaminated with some chemical and then nobody will be held to account cause the litigation will be a nightmare.

Sadly the process to full legalization inevitably brings these issues into the equation, but its part of the process. One thing I can say though is that I've been around weed my whole life. I knew guys who had it in their lockers at school, I've known people who dealt it in large quantities, I've known people who smoked an entire ounce themselves in a week or less. I've never once heard of someone having trouble with laced weed, not directly. Its always that its dried out and not very good. The marijuana trade is perhaps the best expression of supply and demand economics in action, a system that self regulates because of the nature of personal relationships with the vendor. As a total lefty its takes a lot of courage to say that, but its seems true. One thing though is that the bigger market gets the harder it is to self regulate. If it stays small and local, just about you and your dealer, then its easier to keep control on it. Turn it into a monopoly where you can only get your weed from a company, then the consumer and the dealer lose control. Thats the danger. Any legalization must allow for the same underground weed industry to exist or else we're going to if anything I think make weed less safe or at least more prone to corruption that you see in all kinds of food scares and such.

And for #7, who cares if young people smoke it? Heavy and harmful drug abuse is an expression of deeper issues in a person. Its a social problem. Light and recreational drug use is just an expression of rebellion that most teens goes through. Tell them they can't do it and the more they want to do it. Relax and it'll be easier to parse between guys who smoke a bit on the weekend or people who can't cope without it. Legitimize the practice of using the drug and you make it easier to address those issues.

Alcohol has all the legalized and regulatory things most people think you need to keep young people from using it and I think almost everybody has had a beer before the legal age. Its just a fact that you can't prevent people from doing things they want to do, and with things as harmless as a little crappy 5% beer or a few joints the few times yous kipped class to feel rebellious... well that's never going to stop. Addressing it incorrectly will only make dealing with the real problems harder.

First of all: I'm no fan of "scientific economics", I see it as voodo mathematics which can basically reduced to the formula Income>Expenses = good. So I speak of very basic concepts, but may sometimes use the wrong economic lingo.

However doing a "cost-benefit analyses" is no modern pseudo-science, but something every entity that participates in economic activities does, all the time.
The customer does so:"Shall I buy the dry homegrown for $5 or the Nepalese for 15?" So does every grower:"What resources do I have to invest? What's the risk? What's the profit?", with profit not neccessary meaning monetary gain, but also the profit a subsistence economy can provide.

Speaking in submarine terns: to regard the distribution of hemp mostly as a network of friends, is like watching the world only through the scope :dead:. It is a product in a capitalist society and therefore is an industry, with all the shady stuff included that is also going on in legal business.
The grower is not always your friendly Detlev Dreadlock, who loves his hemp, put's in his best effort to receive an outstanding quality and grows because "Man, everybody should get stoned!" but it is also grown by people who regard it as a cash crop. There are people in it just for the profit: growers, distributers, merchants.

My Amsterdam Kofie Shop example was actually about control by the customers with little interference by the state. Well, not entirely correct, as the shops also have to fulfill fire, safety, work, tax codes that every other business over there has, but in regards to the illegal product the control is a minimum.

We don't have to (pipe) dream about it: as soon as as pot becomes legal, we'll have big tobacco jumping into it, advertising with the Camel Dude, willing to walk miles through the jungle just to get a puff. Fact is also big business is already there. Medical marijuana is an unknown term in Germany, giving THC to people with serious medical conditions is not. How does it get distributed? In the form of a synthetic, manufactured in a patented process. Sold for costs where a dose costs more than even the inexperienced rich kid would be willing to pay for an ounce of BC's finest. Payed by everyone with an health insurance – an example of an already existing state-controlled monopoly. And what's a better example for unregulated big business than the Cartels?

Why would the regulation mechanisms you wrote about suddenly disappear if hemp is leagl? The customer would still have the same sanctions that you mentioned. He can boycott a merchant, inform others about a bad/dangerous product, he can demand a refund, put cockroaches into the dealer's house in case of a dispute, etc. In addition, when trading with a legalized business he also has some more options.

"Dealers rely on repeat customers, not on selling people bad stuff in one go." this is also true in the legal economy. A trader assures quality by his good name, a brand so to speak. Despite becoming fewer and fewer there are still some brands out there who put an emphasis on purveying high quality products.
Your sentence applies even to our beloved mega-corporations. Part of Mickey D's success is that it assures the same standard to its customers, A BigMac is made of the same ingredients in Boston and Bangladesh, the "quality" of the product is the same, worldwide. Or just look at the "New Coke" disaster in the 80s , a huge failure, despite all the huge financial efforts to push it into the market.

The Food Inc. Example, (haven't watched the film) is actually an example that works both ways. If I ate chicken, I wouldn't care if the slaughterer wears a hard hat, but care for an unconterminated product. Most have neither the training nor the resources to check food for bacteria or weed for poison. It's good that there are experts who do so and don't rely on Joe Farmer's honest eyes but actually test it. Hell, if all my taxes would be spend on stuff like health inspections, which provides a sensible service that benefits the people, I would't bitch so much about government.

Here's an example that the leaded weed is no single anecdote, but actually a problem in Euroland http://drugscouts.de/de/page/aktuelles-zu-blei-im-gras(site's in German only ). Drugscouts is no yellow press paper, but a non profit organization by and for the "scene". Being run by people who don't preach but know theirr stuff and want the people to have a safe trip. Those guys test drugs, offer help when something goes wrong, they provide infos about bad stuff. - just check out all the nearly daily warnings about bad Ekstacy they have on the top, bad drugs are no side problem. It is the reality, because of it's illegality, people buy it on the street without always knowing the dealer in person. As good of an example drugscouts is for self-organization, after all it is still a very limited control, only working in reaction to the problem.

I can give you an example about a legal business which is run like a network of friends, I cut it out for keeping the test here shorter, but your perception of the hemp trade is an idealized version. It's how it be should be run, no question about that. I'm with you in the fear that part of the culture will go down the drain in case of a legalization, but I don't think it will result in a less safe product.

I'll address the next issue a lil shorter ;):
"Who cares if young people smoke it?" People do, parents, friends. If I may be so bold: I'll crap a huge pile on people who smoke it for rebel reasons. Smoking pot is as rebellous as wearing Jeans. If people smoke only for this reason, or the excitement of the forbidden, they shouldn't smoke at all.
I don't think that pot is for everyone. As a little band once sang"some people don't take no ****, maybe if they did, they had half a brain left". This also goes vice versa.
Glorification is the ugly sister of Demonization.

[August]

I don't see any push for legalization from business because they won't be able to make money on it. Anyone can grow pot plants with a minimum of knowledge and training. It is after all a weed.

[Penguin]

Well, anyone can grow a flower, but we still have flower shops. :know:

It would be idiotic from their perspective if (big) business would not at least try to get their share of the market when it becomes an official one.
I think that the market is there. People would buy a "Marlboro Extra Green" because many customers like a standartized product, from a brand they trust. I also think that there are people who are more likely to buy the product when it is away from a certain "counter-cultural implication", to buy it in a "cleaner" environment of a tobacco store or a drugstore in oppostion to some hippie-coop. Basically the same reason why beer gets advertized not with the picture of a construction worker cracking a can, but as a wine substitute at a fancy diner with your darling.
Though I would really hate to see advertisements pushing the demand for pot. :-?

[Seth8530]

I don't see any push for legalization from business because they won't be able to make money on it. Anyone can grow pot plants with a minimum of knowledge and training. It is after all a weed.

Having spoken with people who have attempted to grow before, it is not near as simple as you make it sound.

[August]

Having spoken with people who have attempted to grow before, it is not near as simple as you make it sound.


I don't know who you talked to, their setup or their abilities but it really is pretty easy to anyone with the least bit of a green thumb. After all you're talking about a weed that grows wild in all 50 states.

[P_Funk]

Sure they do. Legal sources are by definition more accountable than illegal ones. After all companies get fined and sued for producing unsafe products all the time. Try doing that to the Mexican drug cartels...

AFAIK the only limit to fines and lawsuits is that they cannot be so large that it puts the company out of business. On the other hand legal companies have IRS audits, health and safety inspections and even criminal charges for individuals to consider as well.

Bottom line is that operating above board means a level of public scrutiny that will have somewhat chilling effect on bad behavior that someone operating outside the law doesn't have to deal with.
How naive are you about how the politics of economics and regulation really are? If you look at the list of side effects on most prescription drugs and the kind of money that major drug companies spend to get their products given the thumbs up you can't really believe that anything going on here is "above board". Got arthritis? Great, lets cure that by giving you cancer. Yea, that makes sense. How about Yaz, birth control that is now facing lawsuits for blood clots cause women took it for skin problems.

The biggest drug problems in North America are the ones that come from so called legal vendors. You go to your doctor, you have some issue, maybe its emotional and you need a therapist, oh wait guess what. Your GP just went to some 'event' where a drug company paid doctors for their time, talked about an exciting new product, now he wants to put you on it, and guess what, he gets money from the drug company for promoting their product to his patients over others.

That sounds so unbelievably above board, my god. I have no much faith in the regulatory system as overseen by politicians who get way more money to sit down and listen to a Phizer rep than his own constituents.

It is funny tha tin America everyone says regulation and governmetn doesnt work until you get onto these drug issues. Then its all going to somehow be sorted by a big regulatory body.

The best form of regulation is customer loyalty. Bad weed breeds no business. You industrialize the process and you open it up to all the dangers of the macro process. If I'm just a guy in a neighbourhood with 20 customers I can't afford to sell them bad weed. That changes soon as you get big enough to start sitting down with congressmen and legislators.



Speaking in submarine terns: to regard the distribution of hemp mostly as a network of friends, is like watching the world only through the scope :dead:. It is a product in a capitalist society and therefore is an industry, with all the shady stuff included that is also going on in legal business.
The grower is not always your friendly Detlev Dreadlock, who loves his hemp, put's in his best effort to receive an outstanding quality and grows because "Man, everybody should get stoned!" but it is also grown by people who regard it as a cash crop. There are people in it just for the profit: growers, distributers, merchants.
So what, you reject the notion that the behavior of economics changes as it scales from smaller to larger markets? I tell you one thing. Ive' always gotten better prices and better produce from one of those small Vietnamese families with one location than from a big box grocery store.


In the form of a synthetic, manufactured in a patented process. Sold for costs where a dose costs more than even the inexperienced rich kid would be willing to pay for an ounce of BC's finest. Payed by everyone with an health insurance – an example of an already existing state-controlled monopoly. As I understand it this synthetic THC product is incredibly ineffective. The positive health benefits of Marijuana is supposed to actually be the natural combination of hundreds of small chemicals of which THC is the most prominent. Basically this is an example of where the 'above board' process basically ruins the entire reason to use it.


"Dealers rely on repeat customers, not on selling people bad stuff in one go." this is also true in the legal economy. A trader assures quality by his good name, a brand so to speak. Despite becoming fewer and fewer there are still some brands out there who put an emphasis on purveying high quality products.
Your sentence applies even to our beloved mega-corporations. Part of Mickey D's success is that it assures the same standard to its customers, A BigMac is made of the same ingredients in Boston and Bangladesh, the "quality" of the product is the same, worldwide. Or just look at the "New Coke" disaster in the 80s , a huge failure, despite all the huge financial efforts to push it into the market.

The Food Inc. Example, (haven't watched the film) is actually an example that works both ways. If I ate chicken, I wouldn't care if the slaughterer wears a hard hat, but care for an unconterminated product. Most have neither the training nor the resources to check food for bacteria or weed for poison. It's good that there are experts who do so and don't rely on Joe Farmer's honest eyes but actually test it. Hell, if all my taxes would be spend on stuff like health inspections, which provides a sensible service that benefits the people, I would't bitch so much about government.The point is whether or not the legalization would simply be turned into a capital enterprise that becomes wholly corrupt the moment it goes public. It a waste of the potential good of marijuana and with how our societies have handled all other drugs, both legal and illegal, I am wary of the result.

The lagalization process can be done properly but how things are currently handled doesn't look to have the interests of the public at heart so much as business. Right now there is a good way in Canada. There are things called Dispenseries that you can get a card faorm your doctor to get access to. You get all kinds of good weed and its acquired from multiple sources.

The question isn't whether the current system of self regulation breaks down, its whether hte government will try and institute the good old fashioned corrupt big business lobby system instead, one which the customer has no chance to compete in.

Its one thing to be a teen buying from friends, but if a bunch of old peoplewith medical problems can only legally get it through a corrupt process that sells them inferior products then thats a problem.

My point really is to contest the notion that legalizing marijuana will somehow fix accountability issues. I'm saying therer are already ways that people buy what they want and keep from getting ripped off. Like I said, I buy produce from famers and small families, I get better products. Pretend the government suddenly said you have to buy it from a big company like Safeway or something, well... it does nobody any good to have to go underground to circumvent this, nknowing that big companies can never compete with the small scale operation as far as quality goes.

You mentioned McDonalds as if its somehow some bastion of quality. Its not. Its cheap, fat people live on it when they're poor. Stupid college kids eat it cause they're stupid.

Real people eat at bistros and small scale places cause they're the only ones who can make good stuff. Small restaurants generally don't kill people cause they cant afford to. Big companies have killed people and have lived on cause of good lawyers.




I'll address the next issue a lil shorter ;):
"Who cares if young people smoke it?" People do, parents, friends. If I may be so bold: I'll crap a huge pile on people who smoke it for rebel reasons. Smoking pot is as rebellous as wearing Jeans. If people smoke only for this reason, or the excitement of the forbidden, they shouldn't smoke at all.
I don't think that pot is for everyone. As a little band once sang"some people don't take no ****, maybe if they did, they had half a brain left". This also goes vice versa.
Glorification is the ugly sister of Demonization.


Now you jsut sounds stupid. Judging people for their choices. Might as well go on about middle aged men and convertibles. THATS NOT A GOOD REASON TO OWN A MOTOR VEHICLE!

You can't change teens. Thats the point. They will do the wrong things, give in to peer pressure, smoke cuase its cool. Parents will be upset about it. It won't change. The legalization process has nothing nor should it have anything to do with keeping younguns from smoking. They do it either way, as sthey do a lot of other stupid crap.

[August]

How naive are you

I got to this point in your tirade and stopped reading. If you can't make your point without insults then you just aren't worth listening to.

[Penguin]

@Pfunk:

I have been judged by my fellow teens, I judged them back then, I judge them today, just as I do judge you, my dear, for:

- lacking the intellectual capacity to differentiate between throwing in a different perspective and an personal opinion, not even understanding basic concepts like quotation marks
- being unable think outside of your subjective perception
- claiming to take the high road while being unable to life up to your own "values" yourself


Now you jsut sounds stupid. Judging people for their choices.


Its cheap, fat people live on it when they're poor. Stupid college kids eat it cause they're stupid.


quod erat demonstrandum

[Seth8530]

We are not hear to judge. If you could get past his poor delivery, their are some good words in what he said.