Quote of the day

test again

The 5000% was an estimate the William F. Buckley used in his arguments for legalization.

This is perhaps the moment to note that the pharmaceutical cost of cocaine and heroin is approximately 2 per cent of the street price of those drugs.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2009 at 8:20 PM

you get the idea

Similar numbers can be found for heroin, as Dr. Wendell Rosevear says in Drugs In Perspective:

Currently the profit margin is 1,000 – 3,000% with opium being worth US$90/kg at the farm and street heroin being worth US$290,000/kg at 40% purity.

Do your homework.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2009 at 8:22 PM

you do get the idea, right?

Roche, SmithKline, and ParkeDavis would likely have set up their nascent and legal opium/Mary Jane/ whatever farms (which, by themselves, I have no problem with), and after a few months in business (if that), they would have gotten a nice “casual visit” from a few strange men (in truth representing groups like the Yakuza or the “Poppy Cartel” looking for another supplier but NOT another competetor) who offer a business proposition: you buy from them, and ONLY from them.

These firms (or others like them), are already buying opium for legitimate use, and are not buying from cartels. They are buying from legitimate sources, and there is no reason to believe that would change for heroin produced for recreational purposes.

Once again, you are caught talking out of your arse.

So WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU NEVER COUNTERED IT BEFORE?

First of, fix your Caps Lock.

Second of all, I have. I’ve only been here a few months, but I’m sure I’ve destroyed your arguments before. Just like I’m doing now.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2009 at 8:23 PM

You see, HA won’t let me post this where I want to

Again, forget our costs, how is the lack of legalization (remember, this is denying the legal market to them) HELPING their profits? If anything, it forces them to work under the cover of night, smuggling things in from down South or the Far East (which is costly), forcing them to a limited number (albiet a large one), and generally screwing them up.

Once again, your ignorance of economics is unbounded.

How it helps their profits is by granting them a price support, in the form of forming a barrier to entry for other organizations into the market.

You’re right… we can forget our costs (for now), and just focus on the fact that it is illegal. These cartels do not have to compete with legitimate industry, as legit industry is barred by their corporate charters from entry into the recreational drug market. Therefore, thee cartels do not have to compete with Drugstore.com, that can provide medical morphine at $0.65/ dose, and can instead sell an equivalent amount of recreational heroin for $10-20.

Will be similar to a legalization (where most of the prime growing conditions and pre-existing facilities have ALWAYS BEEN OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY, and futhermroe were ALREADY under criminal control BEFORE the drug laws were passed).

Somebody needs to brush up on their history.

You are either grossly misinformed, or a liar.

As I pointed out to you above, opium and coca supplies for legitimate production, while outside the country, are not under criminal control. They are under the control of the Indian, Australian, and Turkish governments, and purchased by GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Johnson Matthey, among others.

History indeed. Someone needs to brush up on the current situation.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM

so far, it hasn’t

Um, because the resources of the Federales can outpace those of a single cartel, the cartels are already at each others’ throats, an alliance will be fraught with distruct and unease, the Mexican Army DOES have Armor-piercing rounds, and the central government has not grown so corrupt as to simply hand over the reigns of power yet?

You (deliberately?) missed my point. My opinion is that one of the cartels has already taken over the government, and is using their resources to try to wipe out the other cartels.

Can I prove this? No. But I would challenge you to disprove it. Given the height that the cartels have reached in the government (e.g., the Mexican drug czar), such a supposition is not off the map.

And for that reference in particular, I was referring to the Era of Mexico 1878-1920, where first Diaz and than vairous groups fighting for control openly sold “plants” North of the Rio Grande, and during the ban continued to do so to a lesser extent while shifting emphasis to shipping them to Europe.

Link?

And even if that is true NOW, who is to say they couldn’t LATER. Remember, such drugs are not illegal the WORLD over, and even in such lenient places as the Netherlands, the authorities have noticed the encroachment of illegal groups onto legit operations.

Please give an example of a country where heroin, cocaine, or cannabis are legal for recreational use. Hint: All of those three are, in fact, illegal in the Netherlands.

Once again, you are talking out of your arse.

The ONLY advantage they have? What about years of experience,

As many years of experience as SmithKline has making opiates? I don’t think so.

a largely skilled and experienced work force,

As skilled or experienced as SmithKline’s? Once again, i don’t think so.

control over the producers

Control over the Tasmanian opium producers? I don’t think so.

and openings to the market both here and in Europe?

You mean the cartels have been doing business with RightSource, Walgreens, and Wal-mart? Or are you saying that the Crips and Bloods would have a competitive advantage over these outlets?

Once again, you are talking nonsense.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2009 at 8:27 PM

we may have a winner

Perhaps. They- in varying forms and organizations- HAVE been able to do it for over a century.

Once again, you are either lying or grossly misinformed. American supply of
opiates, cocaine, and cannabis was above board.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2009 at 8:28 PM

damn

Obviously, somebody hasen’t studied Pablo Escobar and the “Golden Traingle” of Indochina enough.

The misspellings aside, as far as I can tell, if Pablo Escobar tried to compete in the legal cocaine business, Mallinckrodt would have kicked his teeth in, economically. At least they were when they were providing pharmaceutical grade cocaine for $1.80/gram. Likewise, the Burma thugs would have to be able to supply heroin for $0.65/dose, which they have, as of yet, been incapable of doing.

The issue is not merely about the MEXICAN drug trade (though that is a large part of it), but about the Colombian/Venezuelan trade, the Middle Eastern Trade

and…

Odd, because I think most would understand that I was reffering to the posters on the OTHER THREAD. If you have trouble finding them, a few to get you started include “Free Constitution” and “dogsoldier.”

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2009 at 8:29 PM

You have obviously never studied the Chinese Opium trade or the Poppy Cartel.

I have studied the Chinese opium problem enough to know that the British East india Company, as legitimate an organization as there was on Earth, controlled the trade. From PBS:

1750

The British East India Company assumes control of Bengal and Bihar, opium-growing districts of India. British shipping dominates the opium trade out of Calcutta to China.

and;

1793

The British East India Company establishes a monopoly on the opium trade. All poppy growers in India were forbidden to sell opium to competitor trading companies.

No mythical “Poppy Cartel”… no, the British East India Company. Along with the British Levant, they controlled the opium trade. True, there were smugglers, but they didn’t carry anywhere near the weight of these legitimate firms. If you disagree, please provide a link.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Now, you have asked for links, and I have provided them. Funny that someone would ask for links, in a 5000 word post that provides NO LINKS. Not one. No links. No citations. Just a bunch of misinformation that I have clearly shown to be at best nonsense, and at worst, outright lies.

This is the tactic of the intellectual coward.

Back in the days… oh going back to old Usenet debates, I learned early on that in internet debates, it is bad form to question someone else’s facts, figures or arguments without providing your own. Now, as I’ve said, I’ve come to expect little from prohibitionists. They are often graceless, dishonest, sloppy, and without a modicum of etiquette. I’ve tried to provide verifiable links to objective sources where you have asked for them. Now, take a stab at a little honesty, and do the same.

So, please:

Links to the “Poppy Cartel” and it’s alleged coup;

Links to where organized crime has infiltrated legitimate opium or cocaine production;

Links to where pre-prohibition drug production facilities were entirely under the control of criminal enterprises;

Links to where organized crime successfully muscled in on legitimate alcohol producers post-prohibition;

Links proving that the Mexican drug czar’s office is no longer under cartel control;

Links proving that criminal organizations, rather than legitimate business, controlled opium, cocaine, or cannabis trade in the US prior to prohibition;

Links that indicate, in any way shape or form, organized criminal cartels have a competitive advantage over drug firms that currently manufacture cocaine or opiates;

Links indicating which countries have put drugs on the same legal par as alcohol;

Links indicating that criminal organizations had as large a share of the opium market as British East India.

I’ll wait, buth I think both of us know you can’t do it.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2009 at 8:31 PM