|
In the ideal case, you would have something like what is happening in Australia at the moment with cigarettes. It has been recognised that even with massive government taxes margins are still quite healthy for tobacco companies. The government regularly hikes this tax as a revenue raising tool because demand is so constant, and everybody loves to (rightly) demonise smokers so there is negligible electoral consequence. The Australian government has pioneered plain-packaging, in itself a huge battle, which recognises that the reasons why people buy cigarettes are deeper than the powerful addiction, but relate to sponsorship, advertising and packaging and broad social attitudes. These are incredibly potent forces, responsible for attracting new smokers. A full on offensive was needed to break the back of the industry, basically crippling their ability to advertise and lobby effectively, introducing ludicrously high prices for consumers (~$25 per pack) to discourage people from taking it up, massive health campaigns and support for people trying to quit, media to address smokings public image as sexy/rebellious, as well as ongoing efforts to combat illegal imports. There would hardly be a more hostile environment for a legal product. And it still makes profits, as well as being a huge tax take for the government. A similar program for cannabis would see its recreational use pretty much nullified before a serious legal market got off the ground, especially as it so easy to grow at home. The regulated market for cannabis could be compared to the market for poppy seeds. Ie. basically nonexistent.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
Somehow I don't think marijuana use will just up and disappear as if illegality was the major defining factor for it's use. There will be a market, not particularly mega-large-huge, but not small either, since a lot more people use marijuana casually than seems apparent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Somehow I don't think marijuana use will just up and disappear as if illegality was the major defining factor for it's use. Yeah I certainly don't see it as being anything like cigarettes in terms of volume. If people are paying $50 a gram (~50% tax) for a product that is properly marketed and controlled I think volume of recreational consumption could be reduced quite substantially. Remember this is the correct 'hard on drugs' approach, designed to minimise consumption without trade diversion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Flaky posted:and everybody loves to (rightly) demonise smokers You can get bent with that kind of attitude. I do love the complete hypocrisy that people approach nicotine addiction, even compared to the other great legal and profitable social ill that is alcohol. If Australians want to make some money off of some cancer, why not tax the waste of space and CO2 behemoth mining companies like the "Sterilize the Aboriginals" spawn Gina Rinehart instead of getting off of taxing addicts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Yeah that line stuck out to me too, and wanting to do the same for cannabis is even more disturbing. Why should reducing recreational cannabis use even be a concern for the government other than kids using? An adult using cannabis should be the absolute last thing the government should be concerned about, there are literally hundreds of things people do regularly that are more harmful to them. Also, demonizing individuals for using a certain drug is just loving stupid in any context, what the hell is wrong with you?
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Aug 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I really have no idea what's going on here. The death squads in Mexico exist because of prohibition full stop. Rubber, gum, and bananas were all legal and it didn't stop the death squads in Guatemala.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Rubber, gum, and bananas were all legal and it didn't stop the death squads in Guatemala. All of these things can't be easily grown outside of the tropics. If people could cultivate rubber or bananas in Hinckley, MN, then you wouldn't see death squads guarding the means of production of those legal goods.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:The mob does, to an extent. Well it is known that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb does cigarette smuggling for funding but it pales in comparison to its cocaine and especially kidnapping operations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Blorange posted:All of these things can't be easily grown outside of the tropics. If people could cultivate rubber or bananas in Hinckley, MN, then you wouldn't see death squads guarding the means of production of those legal goods. Right, my point was that it's exploitable resources in American puppet states that leads to the death squads, not legality or illegality per se.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Right, my point was that it's exploitable resources in American puppet states that leads to the death squads, not legality or illegality per se. Would we also agree that legalization would eliminate marijuana as an exploitable resource? Cocaine is limited by climate, but marijuana is grown in Mexico only because of the relative weakness of local authorities, or their outright cooperation. Blorange fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Aug 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Blorange posted:Would we also agree that legalization would eliminate marijuana as an exploitable resource? Cocaine is limited by climate, but marijuana is grown in Mexico only because of the relative weakness of local authorities, or their outright cooperation. Yes, I think so. The cartels are effectively playing level-of-enforcement arbitrage by growing in Mexico and then importing to the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Yeah that line stuck out to me too, and wanting to do the same for cannabis is even more disturbing. Why should reducing recreational cannabis use even be a concern for the government other than kids using? An adult using cannabis should be the absolute last thing the government should be concerned about, there are literally hundreds of things people do regularly that are more harmful to them. Also, demonizing individuals for using a certain drug is just loving stupid in any context, what the hell is wrong with you? You are correct, I should have said perhaps "justifiably" rather than rightly. Even then that's of course not what I believe, all addicts should be assisted with their disease and not demonised. I was merely approaching the subject from the point of view of the government, who's priority is to reduce consumption at all costs. Debate about addiction in Aus is not significantly different to the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
What about the supply side of the coin? Lets say lots of countries have legalized weed, but some haven't. Monsanto could export cheaply produced American weed to a contractor in a country where it is legal, and then that contractor smuggles it illegally for the cartels into (China, etc). This supports those same power structures, only now it is border jumpers and distributors being exploited instead of farm workers. How is this handled currently? Is it illegal under US law for a US corporation to knowingly facilitate their product being illegally imported into another country? Is this something we should even try to regulate? I think this is a steelman of the previous concern, since this one exists as long as there exists a single place where marijuana is illegal. I don't know if facilitating arbitrary foreign import laws should be in the purview of our government at all, but it would nice to have a system where US corporations couldn't profit from gang violence. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Aug 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
I don't think the 3rd party country it's being smuggled out of would be okay with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I don't think the 3rd party country it's being smuggled out of would be okay with that. They certainly wouldn't, but the "level-of-enforcement arbitrage" still exists in the same sense. How much effort is Vietnam going to put in to enforce stuff illegally leaving their country? How many guns are illegally exported from the US to Mexico each year? I don't know any enforcement details here, but it is clear that it happens. I'd guess we spend a lot more on trying to catch drug smugglers coming in than gun smugglers going out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Blorange posted:All of these things can't be easily grown outside of the tropics. If people could cultivate rubber or bananas in Hinckley, MN, then you wouldn't see death squads guarding the means of production of those legal goods. Just look how smug those assholes are in that picture. Yep, we're saving the world by confiscating all this plant matter that in no way harms a living soul.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I don't think the 3rd party country it's being smuggled out of would be okay with that. Just to make sure I understand, this is a hypothetical about a U.S. corporation growing marijuana legally in the U.S. then exporting it legally to country B and (possibly through an intermediary) shipping it illegally from country B to country C, yes? I think it's unlikely a U.S. company would be able to conduct an illegal business in country C without violating some U.S. law, although without knowing the specific facts it's hard to say exactly what the charge should be. They would almost certainly run afoul of anti money laundering regulations or commit wire fraud while trying to get the profits back to the U.S. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act would also almost certainly be violated if they're paying off customs inspectors in country C.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Just to make sure I understand, this is a hypothetical about a U.S. corporation growing marijuana legally in the U.S. then exporting it legally to country B and (possibly through an intermediary) shipping it illegally from country B to country C, yes? Plausible deniability for corporations and governments is basically what keeps organized crime afloat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:
Coke and Del Monte have both sponsored murder squads to kill labor leaders in South America, And Hersey's practices factual chattel slavery to harvest it's chocolate. In practice corporations are above the law when they perform their illegal activities outside of the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Plausible deniability for corporations and governments is basically what keeps organized crime afloat. Yeah they are just innocently selling it to their customer in country B, as far as they know they are rebranding and selling it locally. It is kind of funny because it is actually a worse consequence than Monsanto illegally importing it to country C directly, presuming they don't use violence themselves. Of course, country C has an easy out by legalizing it. I now understand why the US has pushed its drug agenda so hard overseas, it is infinitely harder to enforce a ban if you are in the minority on the world stage. At some point I question the point of the US requiring our companies to respect other countries' import laws in the general case. Obviously not doing so hurts our relationship with those countries, but to what degree should a country get popular sovereignty over what products can be consumed there? I certainly would support illegally importing condoms into a country where they were illegal, and I would be very against illegally importing guns in the same situation. I just don't know how to draw the line between them. I don't think a blanket ban on exporting marijuana is the answer either, there's no reason not to allow trade with countries where it is legal and I think that would be cutting off the nose to spite the face. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Well, guns cause far less harm than marijuana. That's why guns are legal and marijuana isn't! We love to spite ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
EBT posted:Coke and Del Monte have both sponsored murder squads to kill labor leaders in South America, And Hersey's practices factual chattel slavery to harvest it's chocolate. In practice corporations are above the law when they perform their illegal activities outside of the US. Whether they would be prosecuted is a different issue than whether the action would be legal. It's also worth noting that in those cases real goods are being imported to the U.S. not exported, so the situation is somewhat of the reverse. Incidentally, do you have source for the claim about Hershey's? I'm not aware of any chocolate producing countries that have a legal system that would be required to support chattel slavery, unless by factual you mean something other than factual.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Incidentally, do you have source for the claim about Hershey's? I'm not aware of any chocolate producing countries that have a legal system that would be required to support chattel slavery, unless by factual you mean something other than factual. It's like one google search away. http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/child-slavery-and-chocolate-all-too-easy-to-find/ Don't worry though, they've agreed to reform their practices by 2020. Hersheys will only be using child slaves for another 7 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's like one google search away. That reference discusses forced labor and human trafficking. There is nothing in it that suggests the legal system of the Ivory Coast recognizes a property right in the slaves -- a precondition for chattel slavery. So unless "factual" means "something with some similarities to and in my opinion is just as morally reprehensible but not quite the same as..." I don't think that claim has been supported.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:That reference discusses forced labor and human trafficking. There is nothing in it that suggests the legal system of the Ivory Coast recognizes a property right in the slaves -- a precondition for chattel slavery. So unless "factual" means "something with some similarities to and in my opinion is just as morally reprehensible but not quite the same as..." I don't think that claim has been supported. You can dance around the word "chattel" all you want, but when you pay someone to traffick a human being and you hold them at gunpoint and don't allow them to leave and work them without paying them it's slavery. Like, you literally just described the Atlantic Slave Trade. Cote d'Ivore is well known for being a slaving region still, particularly in the cocoa industry. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:So unless "factual" means "something with some similarities to and in my opinion is just as morally reprehensible but not quite the same as..." Or it means the same thing that "de facto" means. e: yep, looks like what he meant. There's nothing wrong with that phrasing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Maybe people think I'm just being pedantic, and that's fine. I don't understand why someone would go out of their way to say "chattel slavery" when that's not what he or she meant. If EBT had just said "slavery," I wouldn't have asked for a source and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
EBT posted:Coke and Del Monte have both sponsored murder squads to kill labor leaders in South America, And Hersey's practices factual chattel slavery to harvest it's chocolate. In practice corporations are above the law when they perform their illegal activities outside of the US. Even without any moral considerations, it would be economically preferable to grow bananas domestically, rather than having to go to all the trouble and uncertainty of having banana republics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/21/no-change-in-marijuana-laws-coming-white-house-says/?hpt=hp_c4quote:President Barack Obama isn't looking to change current federal laws dictating the classification of marijuana, his spokesman explained Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Maybe people think I'm just being pedantic, and that's fine. I don't understand why someone would go out of their way to say "chattel slavery" when that's not what he or she meant. If EBT had just said "slavery," I wouldn't have asked for a source and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Maybe it's illegal to do so, but that has no basis on the fact that people are literally bought and sold as property in Cote d'Ivore. Chattel slavery of children in the Hershey's supply chain is a fact and it's stupid to attempt to assert otherwise. People pay money to have children kidnapped and delivered to their property in order to force them to farm cocoa without wage. It's not even forced labor, which wouldn't involve paying to purchase other people. You're not pedantically correct, you're just wrong. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Invisble Manuel posted:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/21/no-change-in-marijuana-laws-coming-white-house-says/?hpt=hp_c4 Hypocritical piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Invisble Manuel posted:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/21/no-change-in-marijuana-laws-coming-white-house-says/?hpt=hp_c4 Yeah, I think I'm done being an obama supporter. gently caress him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Since the day he loving laughed in a guy's face when he asked him to reconsider the scheduling of cannabis, I knew he was always going to be a rock on this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Since the day he loving laughed in a guy's face when he asked him to reconsider the scheduling of cannabis, I knew he was always going to be a rock on this poo poo. If he truly believes these laws are just then why the gently caress doesn't he step down from the presidency and put himself in prison where he belongs? He should be in jail for his whole life. That's what he advocates and does to hundreds of thousands of americans, why the gently caress doesn't he do it to himself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Invisble Manuel posted:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/21/no-change-in-marijuana-laws-coming-white-house-says/?hpt=hp_c4 Well, if Obama is against marijuana legalization, then I reckon the Republicans will soon be for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Well, if Obama is against marijuana legalization, then I reckon the Republicans will soon be for it. I have long suspected that republicans are going loop right back around to the left of Obama on accident.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I have long suspected that republicans are going loop right back around to the left of Obama on accident. Marijuana has nothing to do with the left. Which party is more friendly is a matter of history, not ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
No republican in congress is gonna do poo poo for weed because they'd find themselves without campaign funds for the next election, meanwhile their anti pot adversary that didnt exist prior to their comments would mysteriously enjoy unprecedented funding. There is simply way too much money in it for republicans to go contrarian on weed. They'd sooner advocate higher taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:No republican in congress is gonna do poo poo for weed because they'd find themselves without campaign funds for the next election, meanwhile their anti pot adversary that didnt exist prior to their comments would mysteriously enjoy unprecedented funding. There is simply way too much money in it for republicans to go contrarian on weed. They'd sooner advocate higher taxes. I think it is unlikely but not impossible. I don't think predicting what the republican party will do for 2016/2020/etc is very tenable at this point, a lot can happen in that time. I don't think it is the likely outcome but if you gave me like 2.5:1 odds I'd bet :tenbux: that the future federal weed legalization bill has at least as many republicans as democrats voting yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
Jeffrey posted:I think it is unlikely but not impossible. I don't think predicting what the republican party will do for 2016/2020/etc is very tenable at this point, a lot can happen in that time. I don't think it is the likely outcome but if you gave me like 2.5:1 odds I'd bet :tenbux: that the future federal weed legalization bill has at least as many republicans as democrats voting yes. Basically the only determining factor for 2016 is going to be the results of the 2014 election, and there will be only two possible decisions based on that election, and I can basically guarantee that "legalizing marijuana" will not be part of the national platform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:40
|
|
