|
Seriously, drug cartels can only exist because they can charge exorbitant fees to cover the violence necessary in the black market. Once the need for violence disappears, they lose their reason to exist.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
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. Conflict diamonds exist because diamonds are only producible in places that tend to not have the strongest civil infrastructure. Marijuana can be produced almost anywhere and we would expect if legalized it would produce the same profit per acre as corn, or farmers would switch increasing supply until prices reached equilibrium. Raich was 6 (5+1) to 3 with Scalia as the "swing" vote because of his drugs-are-special argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Conflict diamonds exist because diamonds are only producible in places that tend to not have the strongest civil infrastructure. Marijuana can be produced almost anywhere and we would expect if legalized it would produce the same profit per acre as corn, or farmers would switch increasing supply until prices reached equilibrium. My bad on the count on Raich, I had King open in the adjacent tab for something else I'm working on and saw Scalia in the dissent without realizing I'd misclicked. But I still think you lose Kennedy (and if it's 5-4, Scalia swinging, I think he's reoriented more towards dismantling the Commerce Clause now than he was eight years ago). I don't consider Scalia to be the swing in Raich any more than I consider Thomas to be the swing in any 5-4 concurrence in the judgment. I simply don't see the existing Latin American marijuana growth and distribution infrastructure disappearing, though, nor U.S. agribusiness with money to buy abroad ignoring that off-the-rack production.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I simply don't see the existing Latin American marijuana growth and distribution infrastructure disappearing, though, nor U.S. agribusiness with money to buy abroad ignoring that off-the-rack production. The weed they grow is poo poo, and it's being grown under the radar deep in cartel territory far from any developed infrastructure. Once again, weed is a weed, you can grow it anywhere, and it doesn't take long to get big enough to bud. If it's ever legalized you won't need the cartel's "infrastructure" of mules and tunnels and poo poo, you'll be able to just load it on trucks or trains or ships or whatver you want. You really think Monsanto wants to have their weed grown in the middle of a jungle in Pueblo del Bumfuck as opposed to in a nice mechanized plantation in Iowa? Do you know anything about commercial agriculture?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Conflict diamonds exist because diamonds are only producible in places that tend to not have the strongest civil infrastructure. Marijuana can be produced almost anywhere and we would expect if legalized it would produce the same profit per acre as corn, or farmers would switch increasing supply until prices reached equilibrium. Diamonds can literally be produced anywhere, but the jewelry business has a vested interest in denigrating man made diamonds to maintain their profits taken from mining regular ones from minimal law areas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:The weed they grow is poo poo, and it's being grown under the radar deep in cartel territory far from any developed infrastructure. Once again, weed is a weed, you can grow it anywhere, and it doesn't take long to get big enough to bud. If it's ever legalized you won't need the cartel's "infrastructure" of mules and tunnels and poo poo, you'll be able to just load it on trucks or trains or ships or whatver you want. You really think Monsanto wants to have their weed grown in the middle of a jungle in Pueblo del Bumfuck as opposed to in a nice mechanized plantation in Iowa? Do you know anything about commercial agriculture? The infrastructure I'm talking about isn't "mules and tunnels," it's land, workers, and the prevention of worker organizing through violence. Do you know anything about cartels? My concerns are borne out by the history of American agribusiness ventures in Latin America, and it's not like the ability to create diamonds actually, factually anywhere has stopped established interests from protecting their market share in conflict diamond trade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The infrastructure I'm talking about isn't "mules and tunnels," it's land, workers, and the prevention of worker organizing through violence. Do you know anything about cartels? So what's your point? That we should reconsider ending prohibition because you feel, against all reason, that ~evil Monsanto~ and the ~evil Cartels~ will team up and do evil things together? Come the gently caress on. People have spent the last page repeatedly telling you exactly why something like that would never happen, give it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The infrastructure I'm talking about isn't "mules and tunnels," it's land, workers, and the prevention of worker organizing through violence. Do you know anything about cartels? But it's not even about morality, dealing with the cartels will probably cost as much money and be more risky than setting up farms in the US or in places that aren't Latin America. Besides, it's not that hard to exploit agricultural workers in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The infrastructure I'm talking about isn't "mules and tunnels," it's land, workers, and the prevention of worker organizing through violence. Do you know anything about cartels? Land, workers, and the prevention of worker organizing through violence are all readily available in the US. Apparently you don't know anything about large agribusiness, cartels, or weed if you think that the cartels have anything to offer a real agribusiness, they can handle their own violence just fine. Weed, unlike bananas or other tropical plants, can be grown in the US, and once the right strains have been bred will probably be harvested mechanically, so they'll probably just grow it in the US. Seriously, the way that the cartels grow weed is so laughably inefficient and their quality is so poor that if it does become legal they'll be priced out of the market pretty much instantly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
How are u posted:So what's your point? That we should reconsider ending prohibition because you feel, against all reason, that ~evil Monsanto~ and the ~evil Cartels~ will team up and do evil things together? Come the gently caress on. This is such a dumb strawman stop it. The point is to honestly consider the consequences even of actions we support. The best argument given here is that marijuana is a tenacious plant that will grow anywhere, and there is no need to grow it anywhere but close to where it is consumed. This is possible but I'm not ready to take it on faith, given the extensive infrastructure(which will only be improved with Mexico legalizing it, which I claim will happen shortly after US legalization, if not before.) Seems prudent to address imports/exports in any initial legislation. I'd be willing to back my prediction with bet on cartel marketshare n years after legalization if such a thing were possible to measure, but I don't really think it is. I really don't see them dropping marijuana exports, even if it's only for tax evasion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
How are u posted:So what's your point? That we should reconsider ending prohibition because you feel, against all reason, that ~evil Monsanto~ and the ~evil Cartels~ will team up and do evil things together? Come the gently caress on. No, my point is asking what protections are or would be put in place to prevent such a thing from happening. I'm not opposed to ending prohibition, but I'm not actively involved in the topic, and I'm asking about what I consider to be the one legitimate ethical argument against legalization. It's been said before: Jeffrey posted:The point of having the discussion is to talk about what sort of import/export regulations could be made that would tide this. There're conflicting arguments: that it won't matter because marijuana profits are so small and the trade isn't violent, and that it's so integral to cartel business that legalization will wipe out the cartels. Considering that it's alleged that, as recently as 2007, Dole was paying militias to murder labor organizers in Latin America, I don't think this is some absurd parade of horribles so much as a very plausible consequence of sanctioning the importation of marijuana from these areas. Which is why I've been asking about "conflict weed" proposals, not telling anyone to reconsider legalization. There's a difference between prohibition and divestment from unethical producers. Xandu posted:But it's not even about morality, dealing with the cartels will probably cost as much money and be more risky than setting up farms in the US or in places that aren't Latin America. I think it depends on a lot of factors which are hard to predict from the outset, especially regading the legal seachange that would come from legalization in the U.S./the Americas, which is why I'm asking about additional protections running alongside legalization. It's not hard to exploit agricultural workers in the U.S., I know, but if you think the degree of exploitation is the same I think you're mistaken. If importing cartel weed nets an agribusiness corporation more profit, I don't see them refraining from partnership. The question of whether the costs of that partnership outweigh the costs of setting up domestic production to scale is debatable, but I don't think it's resolvable right now. thekeeshman posted:Land, workers, and the prevention of worker organizing through violence are all readily available in the US. Apparently you don't know anything about large agribusiness, cartels, or weed if you think that the cartels have anything to offer a real agribusiness, they can handle their own violence just fine. Weed, unlike bananas or other tropical plants, can be grown in the US, and once the right strains have been bred will probably be harvested mechanically, so they'll probably just grow it in the US. Seriously, the way that the cartels grow weed is so laughably inefficient and their quality is so poor that if it does become legal they'll be priced out of the market pretty much instantly. Labor law enforcement in the U.S. is bad, but handwaving away the level of violence used against workers in cartel-controlled areas as "well it's just as bad in the U.S." is silly. It's not even the same as when U.S. business is involved abroad - no one's marching death squads into fields in California. Agribusinesses handle their own violence by contracting locally, no poo poo. That's what I'm talking about. Unless the transaction costs of doing that kind of business are prohibitively high - something I don't trust market conditions to handle - it will occur. Why should that not be part of a legalization package?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Labor law enforcement in the U.S. is bad, but handwaving away the level of violence used against workers in cartel-controlled areas as "well it's just as bad in the U.S." is silly. It's not even the same as when U.S. business is involved abroad - no one's marching death squads into fields in California. Agribusinesses handle their own violence by contracting locally, no poo poo. That's what I'm talking about. Unless the transaction costs of doing that kind of business are prohibitively high - something I don't trust market conditions to handle - it will occur. Why should that not be part of a legalization package? I really have no idea what's going on here. The death squads in Mexico exist because of prohibition full stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I really have no idea what's going on here. The death squads in Mexico exist because of prohibition full stop. Wait, is it your contention that legalization (either of just marijuana or of all drugs) will cause the cartels to vanish into thin air? Prison overcrowding (and a whole host of other problems) also exist because of prohibition, at least in part, but ending prohibition will only limit the growth of those problems, not end them or reverse their effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
I don't think that legalization is immediately going to undo the carnage that the War on Drugs has brought over the last several decades and there will certainly be some residual effects for quite some time but at a certain point legal weed isn't going to cause any more suffering than any other product might within the global capitalist system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Of course the cartels won't disappear if we legalize weed. They'll just stop dealing with it because it won't be worth the time. Legalize all drugs and they'll stop dealing with those because, again, it won't be worth the time. They'll never just up and disappear, obviously. We still have organized crime here in the US, what do they deal in? Human trafficking, low level crime, extortion, etc. Come on, don't be willfully dense. Nobody sane argues that legalizing pot is going to eliminate crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Kid Gloves posted:I don't think that legalization is immediately going to undo the carnage that the War on Drugs has brought over the last several decades and there will certainly be some residual effects for quite some time but at a certain point legal weed isn't going to cause any more suffering than any other product might within the global capitalist system. I agree, and I think that we can mitigate that damage in the short term and the long term by instituting a ban on importing and selling conflict weed in the United States alongside legalization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I agree, and I think that we can mitigate that damage in the short term and the long term by instituting a ban on importing and selling conflict weed in the United States alongside legalization. I don't really see a problem with that but I guess it depends on who decides to lobby the hardest once legalization happens
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if that happens anyway. Plus even if it didn't, if we assume these large corporations are going to follow the law, then they still wouldn't want to deal with cartels. The cartels would still be way to involved in cocaine and other illicit activities for most US companies to be comfortable dealing with them, short of there somehow being massive profits from it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I agree, and I think that we can mitigate that damage in the short term and the long term by instituting a ban on importing and selling conflict weed in the United States alongside legalization. Ending prohibition isn't even a twinkle in Congress' eye and won't be for many years, so are you seriously freaking out about the omission of a conflict weed clause in legislation that won't exist for another decade? e: I guarantee you that, inshallah, if/when prohibition ending legislation begins to be taken up in Congress your concerns will be addressed. Look at the repeal of Alcohol prohibition and the myriad of laws, restrictions, and requirements that came along with it. Congress is not going to go "Welp, its legal now, have at it!" How are u fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
I kind of wonder if the cartels would even be interested in weed if they couldn't get black market prices for it. I guess that depends on a ton of factors at all levels of legalization, but since weed would be so cheap were it legal everywhere it might not even make financial sense for the cartels to continue to deal in it when they can make much more money on the still-illegal drugs in which they deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Kid Gloves posted:I kind of wonder if the cartels would even be interested in weed if they couldn't get black market prices for it. I guess that depends on a ton of factors at all levels of legalization, but since weed would be so cheap were it legal everywhere it might not even make financial sense for the cartels to continue to deal in it when they can make much more money on the still-illegal drugs in which they deal. That is exactly what will happen, and history and simple economics bear this out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
How are u posted:Ending prohibition isn't even a twinkle in Congress' eye and won't be for many years, so are you seriously freaking out about the omission of a conflict weed clause in legislation that won't exist for another decade? I don't see where discussing it is "freaking out." I do think, however, given the current trends in government regulation on big business it's not absurd to think it might get overlooked or overloopholed. Kid Gloves posted:I kind of wonder if the cartels would even be interested in weed if they couldn't get black market prices for it. I guess that depends on a ton of factors at all levels of legalization, but since weed would be so cheap were it legal everywhere it might not even make financial sense for the cartels to continue to deal in it when they can make much more money on the still-illegal drugs in which they deal. I think it depends on a number of factors, including the exact policies the Americas implement and how full federal legalization takes shape in the United States (and what happens at the state level in the wake of that).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I don't see where discussing it is "freaking out." I do think, however, given the current trends in government regulation on big business it's not absurd to think it might get overlooked or overloopholed. That would then be a very good law with a flaw and not a total disaster like the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:That would then be a very good law with a flaw and not a total disaster like the status quo. Good thing I'm not advocating for the status quo, then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
I guess a full on embargo with Latin America is what we should be pushing for along-side full marijuana legalization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Diamonds can literally be produced anywhere, but the jewelry business has a vested interest in denigrating man made diamonds to maintain their profits taken from mining regular ones from minimal law areas. Calling the DeBeers cartel 'the jewelry business' is a bad attempt to legitimize what it is, a cartel built on exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Calling the DeBeers cartel 'the jewelry business' is a bad attempt to legitimize what it is, a cartel built on exploitation. The jewelry business as a whole is complicit in refusing to support man made diamonds at all, and thus helping to sustain DeBeers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Good thing I'm not advocating for the status quo, then. What exactly are you advocating for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:The jewelry business as a whole is complicit in refusing to support man made diamonds at all, and thus helping to sustain DeBeers. You're ignoring how much De Beers controls the industry to the very concept of diamonds being valuable in today's world and common for engagement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:What exactly are you advocating for? That a "conflict weed" provision be part of a comprehensive legalization statute. I was asking as to what the present advocacy's position on it was, as well. I think that's been pretty clear, though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
What's the biofuel potential of marijuana, specifically after the plant has been harvested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
LP97S posted:You're ignoring how much De Beers controls the industry to the very concept of diamonds being valuable in today's world and common for engagement. Which is what I've said. redshirt posted:What's the biofuel potential of marijuana, specifically after the plant has been harvested. It can barely be said to have potential. Especially the strains that are good for smokin' since the genes you want for a good buzz aren't going to leave you a plant particularly suited for conversion to fuel. Sugarcane is pretty much the gold standard for biofuel, though it's limited to only growing in subtropical and tropical enviroments. In case you aren't familiar, these are the subtropical areas of the globe: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Which is what I've said. Funny how the largest producer of Sugarcane biofuel isn't subtropical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Funny how the largest producer of Sugarcane biofuel isn't subtropical. I expect people to already know what the tropical regions are, dude.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:That a "conflict weed" provision be part of a comprehensive legalization statute. I was asking as to what the present advocacy's position on it was, as well. I think that's been pretty clear, though! Even if importing marijuana were to become legal at all (which it probably wouldn't), it would certainly be at least as strictly regulated as alcohol (if not more (which it would be)). It's not going to be like medical cocaine today, where pharmaceutical companies are directly supplying money to purchase arms to FARC (which of course they aren't).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I expect people to already know what the tropical regions are, dude. Yeah, misread your post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Kid Gloves posted:I kind of wonder if the cartels would even be interested in weed if they couldn't get black market prices for it. I guess that depends on a ton of factors at all levels of legalization, but since weed would be so cheap were it legal everywhere it might not even make financial sense for the cartels to continue to deal in it when they can make much more money on the still-illegal drugs in which they deal. Does the cartel sell cigarettes? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Does the cartel sell cigarettes? The mob does, to an extent. Edit: And it funds terrorism. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:The mob does, to an extent. State tax dodging with cigarette smuggling is reputed to be able to earn you $2 million on a single semitruck load, particularly when taking them into NY/MA/RI/CT from VA (less then 250 miles drive from your supplier down in Virginia, you pay $3-$4 less in tax per packet, and you supply them to shady shops across those areas at a buck or two under normal cig prices).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
Wow, they are stretching this even by war on terror standards quote:In another investigation into the trafficking of contraband cigarettes prior to the traumatic events of September 11, 2001, ATF discovered that a convicted cigarette trafficker was tied directly to Hamas. During the execution of search and arrest warrants, the suspect stated, when asked about the identity of a person in his residence, that the man was his cousin and that he was in Hamas, and that he had come to the United States to escape from the Israelis. Note the non-sequitor 9-11 reference 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 10:11
|
|
