SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Monterrey police find 49 bodies in bags

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk (Post 1884734)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1884745)

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1884907)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penguin (Post 1885051)

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.