|
SwissCM posted:Gay marriage has the religious right to battle with. Making weed legal has nothing to do with scripture (at least for the vast majority of people) so it's far easier to change peoples minds about it. The truly fascinating thing is from a scriptural standpoint there is not a single word of indictment against cannabis. The Bible is pretty clear about what you may not do. Alcohol isn't prohibited, just you acting like an rear end from it. In fact, where cannabis is concerned Genesis states the plants are for mans usage so if anything it is pro-cannabis. Is cannabis not a herb that yields seed? I have shut down many a foolish Bible-thumper with that logic. Just food for thought. Any religious folk jumping on this anti-cannabis bandwagon is being very disingenuous to their own faith and is saying the Lord made a mistake.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:The truly fascinating thing is from a scriptural standpoint there is not a single word of indictment against cannabis. The Bible is pretty clear about what you may not do. Alcohol isn't prohibited, just you acting like an rear end from it. In fact, where cannabis is concerned Genesis states the plants are for mans usage so if anything it is pro-cannabis. Is cannabis not a herb that yields seed? I have shut down many a foolish Bible-thumper with that logic. That's one interpretation. On the other hand people have literally banned dancing because they think it's a sign of the Devil's influence. That's roughly the type of person who would oppose cannabis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
In the event of legalization, what's the likelihood of "conflict weed" being a pivot point for how market regulations would be put into place? Is it being talked about at all by legalization advocates? Most of what I've seen has been focused on how legalization will undercut the criminal organizations (and México seems to realize it, with its proposals arguing for state takeover of the industry in a way that I don't think is even remotely on the table in the U.S.). As we've seen with Dole and Coca-Cola (and the whole diamond industry), the legality of a product is no bar to the use of extralegal methods, including violence, for profit, and I'm curious as to how the ethics of that play into legalization, importation, and sales.
The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:In the event of legalization, what's the likelihood of "conflict weed" being a pivot point for how market regulations would be put into place? Is it being talked about at all by legalization advocates? Most of what I've seen has been focused on how legalization will undercut the criminal organizations (and México seems to realize it, with its proposals arguing for state takeover of the industry in a way that I don't think is even remotely on the table in the U.S.). As we've seen with Dole and Coca-Cola (and the whole diamond industry), the legality of a product is no bar to the use of extralegal methods, including violence, for profit, and I'm curious as to how the ethics of that play into legalization, importation, and sales. This is different because unlike diamonds you can grow cannabis pretty much anywhere. It's called "weed" for a reason. Also, drug violence is not really centralized around cannabis but harder drugs which are more profitable to smuggle. Finally, a better comparison would be to alcohol or tobacco which are not smuggled over the border.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:This is different because unlike diamonds you can grow cannabis pretty much anywhere. It's called "weed" for a reason. Also, drug violence is not really centralized around cannabis but harder drugs which are more profitable to smuggle. Finally, a better comparison would be to alcohol or tobacco which are not smuggled over the border. Sure, but that's also why marijuana legalization won't substantially impact drug violence. The only tenable solution I've heard is a total ban on imported weed (only allowing for the sale of domestic production). What I'm unsure about is how money flowing into the coffers of organized crime from marijuana sales can be distinguished in its harmful effects from money flowing from other criminal activity (harder drugs, human trafficking). I'm not advocating against legalization, but I don't see the difference between the money used to buy coke and the money used to buy weed if the money's going to be used to enslave women and murder people. But also, in the days of Prohibition, alcohol absolutely was smuggled over the border. In the case of legalization, what I'm asking after is not whether marijuana will still be smuggled, but whether marijuana produced by organized crime will be imported and sold in the United States and, if so, whether that's acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:This is different because unlike diamonds you can grow cannabis pretty much anywhere. It's called "weed" for a reason. Also, drug violence is not really centralized around cannabis but harder drugs which are more profitable to smuggle. Finally, a better comparison would be to alcohol or tobacco which are not smuggled over the border. The Warszawa posted:Sure, but that's also why marijuana legalization won't substantially impact drug violence. The only tenable solution I've heard is a total ban on imported weed (only allowing for the sale of domestic production). What I'm unsure about is how money flowing into the coffers of organized crime from marijuana sales can be distinguished in its harmful effects from money flowing from other criminal activity (harder drugs, human trafficking). I'm not advocating against legalization, but I don't see the difference between the money used to buy coke and the money used to buy weed if the money's going to be used to enslave women and murder people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I thought marijuana accounted for somewhere between 30-70% of mexican cartels' income? That seems pretty substantial? No offense, but that range is pretty silly. It's between less than a third and more than 2/3rds? Nevermind that the number would then need to be divided again to differentiate local Mexican sales from the cartels and smuggled cannabis/ Finally, I should point out that cannabis is bulky, low profit margin, and produces a strong oder making it unsuitable for smuggling compared to cocaine or heroin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I thought marijuana accounted for somewhere between 30-70% of mexican cartels' income? That seems pretty substantial? My problem is that I'm not sure I want U.S. companies officially, legally in business with Los Zetas, Inc., who are able to employ cost-control methods that domestic production can't (officially/as easily) use, like "enslave people" and "murder organizers." Dole has been accused of funding death squads to murder labor organizers in Latin America to keep costs down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:No offense, but that range is pretty silly. It's between less than a third and more than 2/3rds? Nevermind that the number would then need to be divided again to differentiate local Mexican sales from the cartels and smuggled cannabis/ Finally, I should point out that cannabis is bulky, low profit margin, and produces a strong oder making it unsuitable for smuggling compared to cocaine or heroin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
I'm not sure it matters how much of a cartel's profit is derived from marijuana sales any more than it mattered how much wool export profits contributed to apartheid South Africa's GNP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I'm not sure it matters how much of a cartel's profit is derived from marijuana sales any more than it mattered how much wool export profits contributed to apartheid South Africa's GNP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:My problem is that I'm not sure I want U.S. companies officially, legally in business with Los Zetas, Inc., who are able to employ cost-control methods that domestic production can't (officially/as easily) use, like "enslave people" and "murder organizers. I think most people agree with this, but the bottom line is it's already been that way for a long time w/r/t the finances of the cartels and the US government has explicitly excused those banks from any sort of prosecution due to their relationship with the cartels. Bottom line is legalizing pot isn't going to open some new chest of horrors for the government to unleash, the horrors are already out of the bag, it's the reality we're living in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:My problem is that I'm not sure I want U.S. companies officially, legally in business with Los Zetas, Inc., who are able to employ cost-control methods that domestic production can't (officially/as easily) use, like "enslave people" and "murder organizers." 2) I don't think marijuana production is any more likely to be driven by mexican cartels any more than say production of hydroponically grown tomatoes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
gvibes posted:1) I don't think that would be legal They already have a complete start-to-finish infrastructure for growing and selling one of those two plants. It's pretty different. The cartel isn't going to pack its bags and go home because weed is legal. They will certainly try to continue importing, legal or not. Hopefully it would be illegal so Phillip Morris et al can't just straight buy from them, but I kind of doubt the legislature would have those sort of conversations before whatever momentum starts the conversation finishes it. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:They already have a complete start-to-finish infrastructure for growing and selling one of those two plants. It's pretty different. The cartel isn't going to pack its bags and go home because weed is legal. They will certainly try to continue importing, legal or not. Hopefully it would be illegal so Phillip Morris et al can't just straight buy from them, but I kind of doubt the legislature would have those sort of conversations before whatever momentum starts the conversation finishes it. Even if marijuana were 50-state and federally legal, as long as Mexico continues to outlaw trafficking, importation of Mexican weed would violate the Lacey act.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:They already have a complete start-to-finish infrastructure for growing and selling one of those two plants. It's pretty different. The cartel isn't going to pack its bags and go home because weed is legal. They will certainly try to continue importing, legal or not. Hopefully it would be illegal so Phillip Morris et al can't just straight buy from them, but I kind of doubt the legislature would have those sort of conversations before whatever momentum starts the conversation finishes it. On the other hand, in a legalized market, it's now much more feasible (and, if retailers play their cards right, even convenient) for the consumer to be able to make choices about where they're going to get their weed from, and it's much easier for activists to line up and protest the sale of slavery-grown weed. Not to mention the issue of quality, and the perception of Mexican weed as an inferior brand. EDIT: Also wasn't aware of the Lacey act, so there almost certainly wouldn't be any windfall for them from bulk corporate purchasing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Even if marijuana were 50-state and federally legal, as long as Mexico continues to outlaw trafficking, importation of Mexican weed would violate the Lacey act. I think Mexico would legalize it within weeks of the US doing it, assuming they don't do it before. The cartel would continue importing either way, but yeah, big US players couldn't import from there unless that happened. EDIT: I certainly don't think it's a win for the cartel, I just don't think it will shutter their business. I foresee a good bit of cartel-driven tax evasion. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
gvibes posted:You don't think cartels would become a smaller problem if you took away 70% of their income? I think you've misread my posts: I'm questioning whether legalization on one end of the market is actually going to take away their income. That's why I'm asking about "conflict weed" controls. Is there a mechanism proposed by legalization advocates to ensure that legal weed isn't cartel weed/isn't produced by drug violence/isn't generating funds for drug violence? a lovely poster posted:I think most people agree with this, but the bottom line is it's already been that way for a long time w/r/t the finances of the cartels and the US government has explicitly excused those banks from any sort of prosecution due to their relationship with the cartels. Sure, but this is the historical "divestment versus 'constructive engagement'" issue - does it become ethically important not to contribute (or not to contribute more) to horribly lovely things only when abstention/divestment will itself produce the desired result? gvibes posted:1) I don't think that would be legal I don't think it would be legal either, but I think it would be pretty likely to happen if/when a U.S. company decided to partner with a "local producer."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Sure, but that's also why marijuana legalization won't substantially impact drug violence. The only tenable solution I've heard is a total ban on imported weed (only allowing for the sale of domestic production).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:The Washington state system is designed to not allow foreign grown pot to be sold in the marketplace. They have a system where producers and sellers must track everything they grow and sell using fancy bar codes. All weed sold must have been grown in the state, how this all works out is another issue but it is something they are trying to address. That makes sense (especially in light of a federal ban, what with that pesky Commerce Clause).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Sure, but that's also why marijuana legalization won't substantially impact drug violence. The only tenable solution I've heard is a total ban on imported weed (only allowing for the sale of domestic production). What I'm unsure about is how money flowing into the coffers of organized crime from marijuana sales can be distinguished in its harmful effects from money flowing from other criminal activity (harder drugs, human trafficking). I'm not advocating against legalization, but I don't see the difference between the money used to buy coke and the money used to buy weed if the money's going to be used to enslave women and murder people. I bet it could be manufactured so cheaply domestically if it were legal federally that imported weed wouldn't be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:That makes sense (especially in light of a federal ban, what with that pesky Commerce Clause). None of that matters post Raiche. Since there is an (albeit illegal) interstate market in marijuana and marijuana is a commodity with elastic demand, any production of marijuana affects the interstate market. Therefore congress has the authority to outlaw growing marijuana per se. Add it to the list of reasons to dislike Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I think you've misread my posts: I'm questioning whether legalization on one end of the market is actually going to take away their income. That's why I'm asking about "conflict weed" controls. Is there a mechanism proposed by legalization advocates to ensure that legal weed isn't cartel weed/isn't produced by drug violence/isn't generating funds for drug violence?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:None of that matters post Raiche. Since there is an (albeit illegal) interstate market in marijuana and marijuana is a commodity with elastic demand, any production of marijuana affects the interstate market. Therefore congress has the authority to outlaw growing marijuana per se. Add it to the list of reasons to dislike Scalia. I think you can distinguish Raich on weird grounds (basically, Raich was about medical marijuana and criminalization for non-medical uses and this is recreational legalization, so I don't think you can get to the same question the same way because it's either okay or an explicit preemption issue, and the preemption norms will probably have a court look to that provision as keeping it out of interstate commerce). Plus I'm not sure Raich would come out the same way if it came up now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I think you can distinguish Raich on weird grounds (basically, Raich was about medical marijuana and criminalization for non-medical uses and this is recreational legalization, so I don't think you can get to the same question the same way because it's either okay or an explicit preemption issue, and the preemption norms will probably have a court look to that provision as keeping it out of interstate commerce). Plus I'm not sure Raich would come out the same way if it came up now. I'll grant that I haven't re-read it lately, but I didn't think the "medical use" factor was particularly important. I'd be curious to hear your opinions on why you think it might come out differently today. Do you think Wickard is on shaky ground, too?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Asking if Phillip Morris would buy their weed from the Zetas after legalization is like asking if Anheuser Busch would buy their beer from Al Capone. The answer is "of course not".
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Asking if Phillip Morris would buy their weed from the Zetas after legalization is like asking if Anheuser Busch would buy their beer from Al Capone. The answer is "of course not". Al Capone was in prison when prohibition ended. I'm sure there were bootleggers who turned into legit distributors after prohibition ended, though I have no citation. Your analogy also ignores the international aspect as well. If Mexico legalizes it, the Zetas may well form "legitimate" business partnerships which are legal under Mexican law, and continue to use violence/slavery under the covers. If they can provide the veneer of a legitimate business who insulates their customers from their internal affairs, I think there is a legit chance that they will partner with Philip Morris. I certainly don't think Philip Morris would give up additional income at the expense of human life. (See also: their continued existence) It'd be one thing if the economics wouldn't work, but presuming they can get cheaper weed from Mexican cartels in a manner that is legal under US law, I think they would. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Are you serious? Do you honestly believe Mexican cartels are going to beat out loving Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, or even a non-household name in seed / farming production in the united states? Hydroponic weed only makes any sense at all when you're actively trying not to show up on the federal government's radar; once weed's legal at least one high end farm group is simply going to replace a soybean/corn field or ten thousand with the stuff. The cartels couldn't even hit 1% of what the legal production would be even domestically if they tried.
Babby Formed fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Babby Formed posted:Are you serious? Do you honestly believe Mexican cartels are going to beat out loving Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, or even a non-household name in seed / farming production in the united states? Hydroponic weed only makes any sense at all when you're actively trying not to show up on the federal government's radar; once weed's legal at least one high end farm group is simply going to replace a soybean/corn field or ten thousand with the stuff. They couldn't even hit 1% of what the legal production would be even domestically if they tried. I'm not worried Monsanto and Dow are going to lose to the cartels, I'm worried they're going to partner with the cartels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
To do what? They already have all the farming experience, land, access to an impressive range of base strains to start their modifying work on, workers, transport routes, sales infrastructure...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I'm not worried Monsanto and Dow are going to lose to the cartels, I'm worried they're going to partner with the cartels. What power will the cartels have at peaceful business operations? They have the power they do because they are good at chopping of heads, not efficiently growing a product. Edit: I can't tell if you're trolling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Monsanto put money into Uruguay's campaign to legalize it (financed TV adverts, mainly). They will push for legalization all around the world because they'll do with cannabis what they did with soy. They have nothing to win from partnering with cartels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:What power will the cartels have at peaceful business operations? They have the power they do because they are good at chopping of heads, not efficiently growing a product. Yeah man, it must be trolling to point out that legal American businesses operating in Latin America have often played by rules closer to those of the cartels than to domestic production.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Yeah man, it must be trolling to point out that legal American businesses operating in Latin America have often played by rules closer to those of the cartels than to domestic production. Right, but any legalization would probably have import/export regulation which would stop any dealing with the cartels immediately. Edit: I'm not even sure what's being argued as to how legalization could make any of this worse? Is the argument somehow that the cartels that are now funded by illegal drug money will somehow be made worse running legitimate drug operations with monsanto? Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Right, but any legalization would probably have import/export regulation which would stop any dealing with the cartels immediately. Which is why I opened up this line of discussion with a question about "conflict weed" proposals in legalization advocacy - I'm curious as to the extent to which advocates are dealing with that. The current laws limit it to in-state production only, but I don't think that would hold up under a federal ban because of Dormant Commerce Clause stuff, so I'm asking what additional steps might be or would be or have been proposed to take the place of that sort of protection. I'm not actually arguing against legalization, I'm pointing out what I see as the one legitimate ethical dilemma and trying to hash out where advocates stand on it presently. KernelSlanders posted:I'll grant that I haven't re-read it lately, but I didn't think the "medical use" factor was particularly important. I'd be curious to hear your opinions on why you think it might come out differently today. Do you think Wickard is on shaky ground, too? Raich was 5-4 with Kennedy as the "swing," I think Kennedy's probably moved further right on the Commerce Clause in the last eight years(he signed onto the categorical strikedown dissent in NFIB). I think if Wickard came up today under a different name, it might come out different (and it sure as poo poo wouldn't be unanimous).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Which is why I opened up this line of discussion with a question about "conflict weed" proposals in legalization advocacy - I'm curious as to the extent to which advocates are dealing with that. The current laws limit it to in-state production only, but I don't think that would hold up under a federal ban because of Dormant Commerce Clause stuff, so I'm asking what additional steps might be or would be or have been proposed to take the place of that sort of protection. Extra steps would be nice but frankly any legalization would be such an improvement over the status quo for Mexico and Central America that it's really just a side issue for distraction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Al Capone was in prison when prohibition ended. I'm sure there were bootleggers who turned into legit distributors after prohibition ended, though I have no citation. Your analogy also ignores the international aspect as well. If Mexico legalizes it, the Zetas may well form "legitimate" business partnerships which are legal under Mexican law, and continue to use violence/slavery under the covers. If they can provide the veneer of a legitimate business who insulates their customers from their internal affairs, I think there is a legit chance that they will partner with Philip Morris. But you're implying that cartels seem to offer something that would make agribusiness want to jump in bed with them i.e. if working with the cartels would make them more profit with no downsides then why haven't they already done it with tobacco or corn or any number of other mass produced agricultural products? You've insinuated cheap labour or even slave labour but you haven't made an actual argument as to why cannabis would be different to any other crop. The cost of labour is an immensely small part of the final cost to normal fruits and vegetables, as many people are campaigning for better wages for farm work a lot of research has been done on the topic. As many papers have found similar results to this: quote:A 40% increase in farmworker earnings would lift a typical seasonal farmworker’s earnings from about $10,000 a year to $14,000 a year, above the poverty line for an individual.2 quote:Consumers who pay $1 for a pound of apples are giving 30 cents to the farmer and 10 cents to the farm worker; those spending $2 for a head of lettuce are giving 50 cents to the farmer and 16 cents to the farm worker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Right, but any legalization would probably have import/export regulation which would stop any dealing with the cartels immediately. Why do you just handwave having import/export regulation as if it is the default? You don't think that there's any chance a legislature could rush through a bill and not bother thinking that part through? There are plenty of relatively unregulated things(like diamonds) which are produced in a not-so-ethical manner. Monsanto/Philip Morris/etc WILL partner with the cartels if it is legal and cheaper for them to do so, that I can promise. The point of having the discussion is to talk about what sort of import/export regulations could be made that would tide this. This doesn't have to be an echo-chamber here, we are allowed to shoot down potential(advertised?) upsides (like "cartels will lose 50% of their income overnight!") while still being pro-legalization. I don't think many of us are anti-legalization and still posting in this topic. ^^^ To the above, I'm purely talking about if it makes sense financially. They would in fact do it with corn as well if it were profitable. However, many american-grown crops have protectionist tariffs in place that make it much less profitable to grow them anywhere else. Clearly Dole was willing to do it with bananas, and Nestle with cocoa. Do you seriously think there aren't any us crops grown in other countries? The cartels aren't currently producing bananas with a legitimate front-business, but I'm sure Dole would price them out if they did. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:This doesn't have to be an echo-chamber here, we are allowed to shoot down potential(advertised?) upsides (like "cartels will lose 50% of their income overnight!") while still being pro-legalization. I don't think many of us are anti-legalization and still posting in this topic. Weed is a weed. It's not hard to grow. Some people have speculated that if you could grow it industrially bars could essentially give it away like they do with peanuts. You haven't shot anything down, you're just doing the usual "I'm just asking questions" dance. There's no reason for Monsanto to cooperate with the cartels, because the cartels' only expertise is in violence, and since Monsanto could grow weed in pretty much any field anywhere, and since you can get plenty of Mexican slave labor in the US, they'll just grow it in the US and harvest it with machines. Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
The only reason cartels make money off of marijuana is because Americans buy it. That is changing fast as the medical economy has been bleeding over into the recreational economy. Now we're at 20 states with MMJ laws? The market is being flooded with "dank" weed and that compressed crap full of seeds and stems isn't even worth unpacking to the average smoker. Cartels are growing pot in National Forests and other wilderness areas because it's not profitable to bring it across the border anymore. They'll probably be out of the US weed market pretty soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 20:26
|
|