Gallup: Support for legalizing marijuana at an all-time high

posted at 5:24 pm on October 19, 2009 by Allahpundit

A hopeful note, but don’t get too excited. The data’s actually pretty discouraging.

Gallup’s October Crime poll finds 44% of Americans in favor of making marijuana legal and 54% opposed. U.S. public support for legalizing marijuana was fixed in the 25% range from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, but acceptance jumped to 31% in 2000 and has continued to grow throughout this decade…

The highest level of support for decriminalizing the use of marijuana today is seen with self-described liberals, among whom 78% are in favor. In contrast, 72% of conservatives are opposed. Moderates are about evenly divided on whether the use of marijuana should be legal, although they tilt against it (51% vs. 46%)…

Gallup also finds a generational rift on the issue, as 50% of those under 50 and 45% of those 50 to 64 say it should be legal, compared with 28% of seniors.

Only 28 percent of Republicans support legalization, and regionally, only in the west does it enjoy majority approval. (In the midwest, which looks set to have an outsized role in presidential elections in 2012 and going forward, it’s at 42 percent.) I was thinking this morning that the positive bipartisan buzz The One’s getting for the DOJ’s new federalist policy on medical marijuana might tempt him to consider a broader legalization effort — which he once kinda sorta supported — but these numbers make it unlikely. Even with support at an all-time high he’s still 10 points in the hole, and with ObamaCare on his plate and the looming meltdown of Medicare and Social Security, ain’t no way no chance no how either side’s going to further antagonize high-turnout seniors by defending the demon weed. Exit question: 72 percent of conservatives oppose legalization? Pathetic.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Chris_Balsz on October 20, 2009 at 3:43 PM

You don’t include the 2009 figures,

And I’ll note, neither do you. I was once told that it was poor form in internet debates to question someone’s figures without probiding your own.

My guess is that poor form means nothing to you.

BTW what’s your source for “7800 AQ casualties in Iraq in 3 months”?

icasualties.org

Note the civilian figures for Aug-06, Sep-06, and Feb-07. That’s 8800 civilian casualties for those 3 months. I’m willing to accept that the vast majority of those casualties were victims of AQI bombings and shootings. If you doubt that, please feel free to prove otherwise.

For one thing, the high quality of Cuervo and Corona can’t be matched by bathtub gin.

Oh. But the cartels could match the high quality of cannabis produced by exacting standards by similar corporations who make it their business to perfect their product in competition with hundreds of other firms doing the same.

Right.

Once again, your analysis is found lacking, at best.

In fact, since your sources tell you flat out that the killings are DOUBLE what they were two years ago, they are doing a lot more killing.

Really? They’ve killed 500 officers in two years. Do you honestly expect the readers of this thread to believe that they have bribed LESS than 500 officers in those two years? Sounds to me they are doing a lot more bribing than killing.

And just who isn’t thinking clearly?

Your own source repeatedly mentions how weak the federal government law enforcement teams are compared to the cartels, who aren’t really fighting here yet.

Didn’t you say you were from Southern California? And you’re really making the claim that La Eme isn’t here, and fighting?

One again, I can’t decide if this is ignorance, or disingenuity.

As far as federal law enforcement being weak against cartels, is it your contention that federal law enforcement is systemically corrupted by the cartels, or that they can’t make arrests against them? Because there is no evidence for either contention.

As far as intimidating legitimate competition north of the border, are California medical cannabis outlets being firebombed by La Eme?

Or even illegitimate competitors. Are grow houses in Humboldt Trinity and Mendocino counties being firebombed?

Of course they aren’t. But you contend these same cartels are, after seeing the value of the market decrease by 90%, going to intimidate some of the largest firms in the world?

Please.

A druggie is gonna tout the majesty of American law enforcement?

Ah yes, the “you’re just a druggie” ad hominem.

There should be a William F. Buckley corollary to Godwin’s Law… in legalization debates, the first person to call his opponent a “druggie” automatically concedes the debate.

For the record, American law enforcement is one of the best in the world, in terms of prowess and lack of corruption. Of course, the prohibitionists prefer to follow policies that, by their nature, tend to corrupt law enforcement, so…

LCN also stopped busting up banks and machine gunning deputy sheriffs, because there was more money in union racketeering and gambling and gunrunning.

In fact, they got into a business that, in worldwide dollar terms, dwarfs all other organized criminal activities, and that business is drug running.

Congratulations to you and your prohibitionist ilk.

But let’s say pot becomes legal, and the corporations get all corporationy and duplicate the budget of the DEA, the ATF, the Texas Rangers and a hundred county sheriffs departments and win every gunfight.

They don’t have to duplicate those budgets. By removing most of the (artificial) profit from cannabis, they dry up the money going to the cartels. Less money = less capacity to perpetrate violence.

You think they’re gonna have a fight on their hands with the zoning board?

I’ll answer that when you explain to me why it is not a non sequitur.

Oh, what the hey… are you really going to tell me that legitimate corporations don’t know how to conform with all necessary and proper zoning regulations?

Once again, please. The arguments just get weaker and weaker.

Why are we importing 10,000 tons of weed from Mexico NOW? Why don’t you just grow your own to replace that?

Still having some problems with the concept of “risk premium” I see.

It is extremely risky right now to grow any amount, much less large amounts of cannabis in the US, because of federal laws, and the stiff penalties associated with them. It is much less risky to grow it in Mexico (and increasingly Canada), and smuggle it over here, for a number of reasons. The high cost of penalties associated with growing it here, or even smuggling it in, represents the “risk premium” the consumer must pay to the producers/marketers.

Make it legal, and the risk of growing it here falls to zero. Thus, instead of being worth the $3000-4000 per pound it is nowadays (the cost of the inputs plus risk premium, plus normal profits), the cost would fall to the $50-100 per pound cost of inputs, plus normal profits.

Now, why would I need to go to Mexican cartels, deal with psychopathic killers to buy something for thousands of dollars a pound, when I could produce it for $50-100 per pound. And if, as you irrationally claim, the hundreds to thousands of firms looking to sell cannabis to my neighbors were all intimidated out of business by these superhuman cartels you seem to fear, why wouldn’t I just increase my grow space, and provide it to them for a nominal fee, or even better, teach them how to provide it for themselves?

You haven’t answered that question. And you and I both know full well that you haven’t, because you can’t, because the facts and the economics are against you.

I don’t know who taught you your economics lessons, but you should go back to them and demand your money back. They didn’t do a very good job.

JohnGalt23 on October 20, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Shambhala on October 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Good to hear. One step closer to a sane social policy.

I feel redeemed. :)

JohnGalt23 on October 20, 2009 at 7:55 PM

You don’t include the 2009 figures,
And I’ll note, neither do you. I was once told that it was poor form in internet debates to question someone’s figures without probiding your own.
My guess is that poor form means nothing to you.

Your deliberate omission of the figures is to mislead, as is demonstrated below.

BTW what’s your source for “7800 AQ casualties in Iraq in 3 months”?
icasualties.org
Note the civilian figures for Aug-06, Sep-06, and Feb-07. That’s 8800 civilian casualties for those 3 months. I’m willing to accept that the vast majority of those casualties were victims of AQI bombings and shootings. If you doubt that, please feel free to prove otherwise.

A guess, but thanks for some math from somewhere.

For one thing, the high quality of Cuervo and Corona can’t be matched by bathtub gin.

Oh. But the cartels could match the high quality of cannabis produced by exacting standards by similar corporations who make it their business to perfect their product in competition with hundreds of other firms doing the same.
Right.
Once again, your analysis is found lacking, at best.

Well I wasn’t there, but Dashiell Hammett, Rex Stout, Scott Fitzgerald, John P. Marquand, and many others were, and there’s a constant theme in Prohibition pop culture as to the relative reputation and price of white lightning, bootleg booze, and genuine prewar booze. You yourself have argued that anybody’s homegrown would compare just as well with Nabisco’s, so I think it a valid distinction.

In fact, since your sources tell you flat out that the killings are DOUBLE what they were two years ago, they are doing a lot more killing.

Really? They’ve killed 500 officers in two years. Do you honestly expect the readers of this thread to believe that they have bribed LESS than 500 officers in those two years? Sounds to me they are doing a lot more bribing than killing.
And just who isn’t thinking clearly?

Downplaying the massacre again. The figures in question, given in the long article here http://www.newcriminologist.com/article.asp?nid=2131
are 2700 people in 2007, 6000 in 2008, and 400 in January 2009, for a total of 9100 in 25 months. Not 500.

Your own source repeatedly mentions how weak the federal government law enforcement teams are compared to the cartels, who aren’t really fighting here yet.

Didn’t you say you were from Southern California? And you’re really making the claim that La Eme isn’t here, and fighting?

Nothing on the scale they do at home. Yet. Are you saying La Eme is willing to fight in America?

One again, I can’t decide if this is ignorance, or disingenuity.
As far as federal law enforcement being weak against cartels, is it your contention that federal law enforcement is systemically corrupted by the cartels, or that they can’t make arrests against them? Because there is no evidence for either contention.

I concur with your source that the cartels are usually as well armed, or better, than the American feds they bump into.

As far as intimidating legitimate competition north of the border, are California medical cannabis outlets being firebombed by La Eme?

No…from what DA Trautanich says, they may already be a tendril of the Mexican octopus. They’re all banned from taking cash for grass, and many do anyhow.

Or even illegitimate competitors. Are grow houses in Humboldt Trinity and Mendocino counties being firebombed?

No, neither are they in line to drive the illegal traffic out of existence through quality customer service and low low prices.

Of course they aren’t. But you contend these same cartels are, after seeing the value of the market decrease by 90%, going to intimidate some of the largest firms in the world?
Please.

Long before it got that bad, they’d use the arms at hand and start slaughtering on a moderate scale up here. Starting slowly, say, only 1 murder a day.

A druggie is gonna tout the majesty of American law enforcement?

Ah yes, the “you’re just a druggie” ad hominem.
There should be a William F. Buckley corollary to Godwin’s Law… in legalization debates, the first person to call his opponent a “druggie” automatically concedes the debate.

That would be as bogus as the misuse of Godwin’s Law, which only refers to the certainty of the Nazis being mentioned. He never held that any reference to the alien intruder Nazis renders an argument about human society invalid. As if Nazis are not born of woman, but instead, spring fullgrown from moistened comet spores.

For the record, American law enforcement is one of the best in the world, in terms of prowess and lack of corruption. Of course, the prohibitionists prefer to follow policies that, by their nature, tend to corrupt law enforcement, so…

So they’re crooks, but I’m not to say so?

LCN also stopped busting up banks and machine gunning deputy sheriffs, because there was more money in union racketeering and gambling and gunrunning.
In fact, they got into a business that, in worldwide dollar terms, dwarfs all other organized criminal activities, and that business is drug running.

No, “La Cosa Nostra” didn’t.

But let’s say pot becomes legal, and the corporations get all corporationy and duplicate the budget of the DEA, the ATF, the Texas Rangers and a hundred county sheriffs departments and win every gunfight.
They don’t have to duplicate those budgets. By removing most of the (artificial) profit from cannabis, they dry up the money going to the cartels. Less money = less capacity to perpetrate violence.

Your own source also says they have hefty revenue from meth and cocaine, which would not be affected. I do not bother trying to guess how much of their $25 billion a year is grass, but I would bet it ain’t half. In any event, it only has to be more than a taxpaying for-profit can waste on protection.

You think they’re gonna have a fight on their hands with the zoning board?
I’ll answer that when you explain to me why it is not a non sequitur.
Oh, what the hey… are you really going to tell me that legitimate corporations don’t know how to conform with all necessary and proper zoning regulations?
Once again, please. The arguments just get weaker and weaker.

I’m sure most towns regret not having regular gunfights with full automatic weapons.

Why are we importing 10,000 tons of weed from Mexico NOW? Why don’t you just grow your own to replace that?

Still having some problems with the concept of “risk premium” I see.
It is extremely risky right now to grow any amount, much less large amounts of cannabis in the US, because of federal laws, and the stiff penalties associated with them. It is much less risky to grow it in Mexico (and increasingly Canada), and smuggle it over here, for a number of reasons. The high cost of penalties associated with growing it here, or even smuggling it in, represents the “risk premium” the consumer must pay to the producers/marketers.

You can’t have it that pot is both too risky to consider raising on your own and transporting 50 miles, but great to transport 500 miles from the border, and too common to repress.

Make it legal, and the risk of growing it here falls to zero. Thus, instead of being worth the $3000-4000 per pound it is nowadays (the cost of the inputs plus risk premium, plus normal profits), the cost would fall to the $50-100 per pound cost of inputs, plus normal profits.

But the PRICE will not plummet, because they will not offer it at cost. If Joe and Moe will pay a thousand a pound this week, why cut them a break? And if somebody cuts in on you…

Now, why would I need to go to Mexican cartels, deal with psychopathic killers to buy something for thousands of dollars a pound, when I could produce it for $50-100 per pound. And if, as you irrationally claim, the hundreds to thousands of firms looking to sell cannabis to my neighbors were all intimidated out of business by these superhuman cartels you seem to fear, why wouldn’t I just increase my grow space, and provide it to them for a nominal fee, or even better, teach them how to provide it for themselves?

Gee I dunno—I don’t go to them at all. But they are there, and why should they go away without a fight? You don’t become a career drug warrior because you couldn’t afford barber’s school.

You haven’t answered that question. And you and I both know full well that you haven’t, because you can’t, because the facts and the economics are against you.

For one thing they don’t because most people don’t turn to drugs out of an excess of organization skill, community spirit and salesmanship.

Chris_Balsz on October 20, 2009 at 8:46 PM

I am about as fiscally conservative as it gets and a Christian, but I have long supported legalization of marijuana, especially for medical purposes. I remember a long, exhausting exchange of posts on the subject a few months back, and I haven’t changed my mind. If someone can kick back in the evening with a scotch on the rocks after a long day of work, why can’t I kick back with a joint? (I promise I won’t inhale – /sarc).

College Prof on October 20, 2009 at 8:47 PM

DUDE!

like ………………. uh

uh ………. like WOW!

uh … FAR OUT!!!

ummmm … uh …..

GIT IT ONNNNNNN!! …..

Yeah …. ………..

Fer Sher!!

Ummmmmm…..

DUH……..

(to be continued)

bannedbyhuffpo on October 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM

bannedbyhuffpo on October 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM

An excellent demonstration of the mental capacity of the majority of the pro-pot crowd.

Dark-Star on October 20, 2009 at 10:28 PM

It’s a plant.

bigjack on October 20, 2009 at 10:59 PM

Chris_Balsz on October 20, 2009 at 8:46 PM

When in a hole, stop digging Chief.

Well I wasn’t there, but Dashiell Hammett, Rex Stout, Scott Fitzgerald, John P. Marquand, and many others were, and there’s a constant theme in Prohibition pop culture as to the relative reputation and price of white lightning, bootleg booze, and genuine prewar booze.

From David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

highly toxic wood alcohols found their way into much of the available bootleg liquor. When denatured industrial alcohol was not sufficiently diluted, or was consumed in large quantities, the result was paralysis, blindness and death. In 1927, almost twelve thousand deaths were attributed to alcohol poisonings, many of these among the urban poor who could not afford imported liquors. In 1930, U.S. public health officials estimated that fifteen thousand persons were afflicted with “jake foot,” a debilitating paralysis of the hands and feet brought on by drinking denatured alcohol flavored with ginger root.

A good rule of thumb: Don’t get your sense of history from Dashiell Hammett novels.

Prohibition liquor didn’t even come close to the quality of legitimately produced liquor. And now you know the facts.

Downplaying the massacre again. The figures in question, given in the long article here http://www.newcriminologist.com/article.asp?nid=2131
are 2700 people in 2007, 6000 in 2008, and 400 in January 2009, for a total of 9100 in 25 months. Not 500.

That was 500 officers, not people. Nice attempt at conflation. Another sign of losing an argument.

I know you’re an economic illiterate, but I give you credit for the ability to read plain English. Perhaps I presume too much.

So they’re crooks, but I’m not to say so?

Odd, I could have sworn I wrote they were relatively uncorrupted.

Once again, you either have trouble reading, or you are disingenuous. I’m not sure which is worse.

No, “La Cosa Nostra” didn’t.

Yeah, they did…

From FBI:

Charles “Lucky” Luciano became the new leader. Maranzano had established the La Cosa Nostra code of conduct, set up the “family” divisions and structure, and established procedures for resolving disputes. Luciano set up the “Commission” to rule all La Cosa Nostra activities. The Commission included bosses from six or seven families.

Luciano was deported back to Italy in 1946 based on his conviction for operating a prostitution ring. There, he became a liaison between the Sicilian Mafia and La Cosa Nostra.

From Wikipedia:

Luciano is considered the father of modern organized crime and the mastermind of the massive postwar expansion of the international heroin trade.

So, Charlie Luciano, father of the modern LCN was the mastermind of the expansion of the heroin trade, and you claim LCN wasn’t involved in drug trafficking?

Do you know how ridiculous you are starting to sound?

I do not bother trying to guess how much of their $25 billion a year is grass, but I would bet it ain’t half.

And just like with most of the claims you have made on this thread, you would be wrong.

From CBS:

More than 60 percent of the cartels’ revenue — $8.6 billion out of $13.8 billion in 2006 — came from U.S. marijuana sales, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Try doing your homework. It will save you looking like an idiot… well, it saves most people from looking like idiots.

I’m sure most towns regret not having regular gunfights with full automatic weapons.

And where are these gunfights around the booze trade?

Oh, that’s right… they stopped with the end of Prohibition.

You still haven’t demonstrated why you think they will be able to intimidate thousands of legitimate US businesses, when they can’t even do so with growers and sellers in the uS who don’t have legal recourse…

…because you can’t.

You can’t have it that pot is both too risky to consider raising on your own and transporting 50 miles, but great to transport 500 miles from the border, and too common to repress.

It’s not too risky… lots of people do it. But the risk premium for that is reflected in the much higher prices for it than for Mexican or Canadian pot.

In short, the transport is far less risky than having it in the field for 4-6 months, and the penalties and risk associated with growing it in Canada or Mexico is much less than in the US.

Do you understand now? No? I’m not surprised.

But the PRICE will not plummet, because they will not offer it at cost. If Joe and Moe will pay a thousand a pound this week, why cut them a break?

Well, it is clear that no only is the relatively simple concept of risk premium beyond you, so apparently is the extremely simple concept of supply and demand.

A grower of legal marijuana can try charging what he did when it was illegal, but the problem is he is now competing with all types of people who would also like to charge the highest they can get. So, producers will lower their price to try to get a greater share of the market, thus forcing their competitors to follow suit, and cut their prices even lower to try to get a greater share of the market… and so on until you reach an equilibrium prie.

Now, the question is where is that equilibrium price? Under legalization, you are in fact going to have an increase in demand, which will tend to push the price up. But the penalties for consuming cannabis are far less than the penalties for growing it, so that effect is going to be fully washed out by the increase in supply, and then some.

So, the determinant variable is how many more people/firms are going to grow cannabis if it is legal. Growing it really isn’t difficult, so if you try charging black market prices, you are going to attract lots of growers seeking that price, which they will never get, because of… wait for it… competition.

How much will the price fall, then? Well, William F. Buckley estimated that the difference between black market profits and normal profits for illicit drugs to be 5000%. So, let’s look at the profits for $3000 a pound cannabis. If we assume that the inputs for that cannabis were $100, then it’s black market profits are $2900. Without the risk premium, we expect the profits to be 1/50th of that, or $58. Bringing the price up to $158.

Yeah, for $58 dollars a pound, the cartels are going to try to drive thousands of American businesses out of the cannabis trade.

Once again, the business model you propose for the cartels is unsustainable to say the least. It is asinine to say the most.

But they are there, and why should they go away without a fight?

Because, unlike you apparently, they have enough of an understanding of business and economics to recognize an unsustainable business model.

For one thing they don’t because most people don’t turn to drugs out of an excess of organization skill, community spirit and salesmanship.

No, they turn to the black market drug trade because of artificial price supports provided by drug warriors who are so economically illiterate that they cannot recognize that the laws they support provide enormous price supports to them for no better reason than a willingness to break the law and to kill those who compete with them

Funny how that simply doesn’t happen in normal markets.

JohnGalt23 on October 20, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Prohibition liquor didn’t even come close to the quality of legitimately produced liquor. And now you know the facts.

That is what I said.

For one thing, the high quality of Cuervo and Corona can’t be matched by bathtub gin.

You are the one who says ‘if massive industrialized industries can’t be supplying the US market, home growers will fill the gap’ without any obvious loss in quality. Which seems economically invalid, btw; EITHER an economy of scale will prosper at low cost OR labor intensive craftsmanship can prosper at low cost; but not BOTH.

If you’re getting lost in the shuffle I might as well stop. It takes a good ten minutes to answer you point by point, if you’re not reading it why bother?

“From CBS:

More than 60 percent of the cartels’ revenue — $8.6 billion out of $13.8 billion in 2006 — came from U.S. marijuana sales, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Try doing your homework. It will save you looking like an idiot… well, it saves most people from looking like idiots. ”

You introduced me to a later source, that put their earnings at $25 billion in 2008.

Charles “Lucky” Luciano became the new leader. Maranzano had established the La Cosa Nostra code of conduct, set up the “family” divisions and structure, and established procedures for resolving disputes. Luciano set up the “Commission” to rule all La Cosa Nostra activities. The Commission included bosses from six or seven families.

Luciano was deported back to Italy in 1946 based on his conviction for operating a prostitution ring. There, he became a liaison between the Sicilian Mafia and La Cosa Nostra.
From Wikipedia:

Luciano is considered the father of modern organized crime and the mastermind of the massive postwar expansion of the international heroin trade.
So, Charlie Luciano, father of the modern LCN was the mastermind of the expansion of the heroin trade, and you claim LCN wasn’t involved in drug trafficking?

Do you know how ridiculous you are starting to sound?

Once Luciano was deported he was “out” of “Our Thing”. LCN warned him on pain of death not to write a memoir. Post-Luciano the mafia introduced the death penalty for made men who dealt drugs. Plenty of them broke it, but that was a rule and it was enforced up until the 1990s.

Your notion that pot is a harmless vice is false.
Your notion that money spent harassing it is false.
Your notion that harassment of potsmokers is immoral is false.
Your notion that a safe, clean and efficient trade would develop if we simply legalized it is false.

Chris_Balsz on October 20, 2009 at 11:40 PM

It’s not a question of legalization. It needs to be RELEGALIZED!!!!!!!!!

Get government out of my life…..On the left it’s naturally “legalize it and tax it.” No, I’ll grow my own and spend the “tax” money(wealth redistribution) the way I see fit in a free market…I’m an American and I want my freedom and liberty back. The Constitution says so….

adamsmith on October 21, 2009 at 8:44 AM

bannedbyhuffpo on October 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM

An excellent demonstration of the mental capacity of the majority of the pro-pot crowd.Dark-Star on October 20, 2009 at 10:28 PM

An excellent example of the argumentative fallacy of hasty generalization, one I would not let my freshman argument students get away with. Evidence?

College Prof on October 21, 2009 at 9:36 AM

All i can say is with 1187 days 4 hrs 23 min to go. I might need some.

Greed on October 21, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Dumb idea.

Its the same fantasy based “hope and change” mentality that got Maobama elected.

Would we be the first country to have pot legal?

Itchee Dryback on October 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Chris_Balsz on October 20, 2009 at 11:40 PM

You are the one who says ‘if massive industrialized industries can’t be supplying the US market, home growers will fill the gap’ without any obvious loss in quality.

You put words there in quotes that I do not recognize as mine, and attributed them to me. Either point to where I said them, or admit that you are deliberately misquoting (read: lying about) me.

I’ve never said that small producers can fill the gaps as efficiently, just that they would fill the gaps to a sufficient extent that mafias wouldn’t be able to compete.

But I’m glad that you finally admitted, in plain language, that legitimate industry produces a better product cheaper than black market industry. So now that we have finally dragged a clear statement out of you, why don’t you explain to the board why anyone would deal with a mafia for cannabis when they could buy it on the legitimate market from any of a thousand producers for less money and a better product.

Oh, I know why you don’t answer that question… because you can’t. And you and I, and in fact the readers of this board all know that you can’t.

Of course, you still haven’t pointed out how, given a 90% drop in revenue, the cartels would be able to afford to drive thousands of businesses out of the market, so I’m not surprised by your attempts to deceive members of this board with misquotes.

Typical of the lying prohibitionist.

Once Luciano was deported he was “out” of “Our Thing”

Once again, from the FBI:

Luciano was deported back to Italy in 1946 based on his conviction for operating a prostitution ring. There, he became a liaison between the Sicilian Mafia and La Cosa Nostra.

It would appear yet another of your claims appears to be you talking out of your arse.

Post-Luciano the mafia introduced the death penalty for made men who dealt drugs. Plenty of them broke it, but that was a rule and it was enforced up until the 1990s.

Apparetnly you haven’t heard of the Havana Conference

One of the key topics at the Havana Convention was the global narcotics trade and the mob’s operations in the United States. A longstanding myth has been the supposed refusal of Luciano and the Cosa Nostra to deal in narcotics. In reality, only a few bosses such as Frank Costello and the other bosses who controlled lucrative gambling empires opposed narcotics.

and…

During the Havana Conference, Luciano detailed the proposed drugs network to the bosses. After arriving in Cuba from North Africa, the mob would ship the narcotics to US ports that it controlled, primarily New York City, New Orleans, and Tampa. The narcotics shipped to the New York docks would be overseen by the Luciano crime family (later the Genovese) and the Mangano crime family (later the Gambino). In New Orleans, the operation would be overseen by the Marcello crime family, led by Carlos “Little Man” Marcello. In Tampa, the narcotics shipments would be overseen by the Trafficante crime family led by Louis “Santo” Trafficante Jr.. The Havana Convention delegates voted to approve the plan.

And yet another of your myths falls by the wayside, under even the most minimum of scrutiny.

Your notion that pot is a harmless vice is false.
Your notion that money spent harassing it is false.
Your notion that harassment of potsmokers is immoral is false.
Your notion that a safe, clean and efficient trade would develop if we simply legalized it is false.

And the final step in the prohibitionist argument comes into play. Try using false claims, hoping nobody will catch them as falsehoods. If they prove your claims are false, then call them names like “druggie” or “pothead”. When they point out that these are ad hominem arguments, boldly declare their claims are false, without having to offer any proof or argument against them.

An example of intellectual cowardice at its finest.

Just so we have everything on the record though…

Please point to me where I said cannabis smoking was a “harmless vice”, or admit that you are lying about my claims.

Please point out where I ever brought morality into the question, or admit that you are lying about that claim. Just so you know, while I think there are valid moral arguments for ending the WOD, my economic training has taught me to look for positive arguments, rather than normative rguments.

Obviously your training has led you to try to avoid legitimate arguments, as this sad final step makes painfully clear.

JohnGalt23 on October 21, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4