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

Rob Taylor on October 19, 2009 at 8:54 PM

The mob runs the bar scene in my hometown of Jersey and every nightclub owner has to deal with them.

The mob also runs the construction business in Jersey. It also runs the cartage business in New Jersey. It also runs the concrete business in New Jersey. And yet none of these things, AFAIK, ave ever been illegal, in Jersey or otherwise.

Maybe the fact that the Mob sells liquor in Jersey has less to do with liquor, and more to do with the nature of Jersey, eh?

It is also demonstrable fact that even though cigarettes are legal there arte Black markets for them.

There’s also black markets for alcohol… they are just tiny, and have very little effect on our macroeconomy, law enforcement, or public safety. Just like the black market in tobacco. Sure, there are a few people who will deal with gun-toting gangsters to save a few bucks on cigs. yet 99.99% of all cig sales are legal.

Just like they would be if you legalized cannabis, despite the Chicken Little claims tossed around here in spite of all economic evidence to the contrary.

JohnGalt23 on October 19, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Rob Taylor on October 19, 2009 at 9:17 PM

No they didn’t, they stayed involved. Don’t believe me open a club in Jersey.

See my above post about Jersey and the mob.

And those clubs in jersey have little (if anything) to do with black market alcohol, and everything to do with protection rackets. Well, if you are from Jersey as you say, then you know those rackets affect a lot more than just bars. Eateries, convenience stores, wholesale suppliers of every stripe… all types of businesses in Jersey have to pay protection.

And yet, in most of Southern California, Nevada, Florida, Delaware, businesses don’t have to pay that protection… even bars and package stores.

So, it would appear that Mob involvement in bars (and other businesses) has more to do with Jersey than the nature of the liquor business.

And the point is that the mob contains it’s criminality on purpose. MS-13 doesn’t. Open your pot cafe and refuse your taxes and see what happens.

I don’t have to. I can look at Amsterdam, Vancouver, and Oakland. I’ve known people in the cannabis business in all three places, and none of them ever had to pay protection to MS-13, LCN, or any other criminal organization (other than the state of California :) ). They either grew their own cannabis, or (in the case of Oakland) bought from people declared to the state as medical growers.

And yet you claim that if cannabis were made legal, these firms would be more vulnerable to organized crime?!?! Nonsense… and I think you know it.

But should people who spend their money on port get welfare? Should they be foster parents? Teachers?

I’ll assume you meant “pot”, and not “port”, as in the high potency wine. But the question works either way.

Should people who spend their money on port get welfaree? I don’t think anyone should get welfare, but I don’ think a taste for fortified wine should be a disqualifier, nor should a taste for cannabis. Should people who drink fortified wine be foster parents? I suppose it depends on how much wine they drink, and the same should be applied to cannabis. Teachers? Some of the best teachers I had smoked cannabis, and some of the worst drank wine.

I think our society can decide these questions on a case by case basis. But then again, I have a pretty high regard for my fellow citizens. I just wish all conservatives did.

JohnGalt23 on October 19, 2009 at 10:27 PM

Legalization would save them millions annually in this area – no need to pay off people to look the other way from a legal cargo. Of course the practice wouldn’t disappear entirely; there would still be other good reasons to keep politicians and police on the payroll.

Dark-Star on October 19, 2009 at 10:04 PM

But those millions pale in comparison to the billions of dollars they receive in the form of price supports, brought to them courtesy of the legitimate firms they don’t have to compete with and their unwillingness to break US law.

You legalize cannabis tomorrow, by Jan 1, Le Eme all of a sudden will be competing with Altria and RJR Nabisco.

Now, can you explain what exactly is La Eme’s competitive advantage over these firms?

JohnGalt23 on October 19, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Chris_Balsz on October 20, 2009 at 12:40 AM

Students at every school in my county manage to get booze.

And yet you can’t point out the organized crime family providing this booze to them.

Imagine that.

WeCard is actively combating the social movement to sell tobacco and alcohol illegally to minors. Which is what you think is dandy, I guess, so long as there’s no Mr. Big, who cares how fucked up kids get.

And yet you can’t point out the organized crime family providing this booze to them.

Imagine that.

You’re an idiot.

And you are an economic illiterate who likes to fellate cartel members.

See how easy ad hominem attacks can be? And they don’t add a thing to your argument, which was falling flat even before you conceded it by employing logical fallacies.

The Mexican cartels have slaughtered more people than Al Qaeda.

Not that it really matters, but… no they haven’t. AQ killed tens of thousands of people in Iraq alone, not to mention 9/11, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. But nice try to deflect attention from your lack of a coherent argument.

So what’s their “trade secret”? Arson, for starters. You gonna pretend that don’t happen in 21st century America? How often will Nabisco rebuild after $50,000 damage to its plants.

What? You mean like how many times Anheuser-Busch rebuilt after LCN burned down their breweries?

Oh… that’s right. That never happened. Because AB had the protection of legitimate authorities who could track down anyone who tried that.

The secret to la Eme’s power is not their willingness to kill, but their ability to buy off authorities, who won’t track down their killers. And where do they get that ability? They get it from price supports granted by you and your prohibitionist ilk.

Note: The Cartels aren’t burning down plants brewing Corona, or Cuervo. Why not, if they could just burn down their plants, drive them out of business, and then take over with the appropriate price spike? Because they can’t strong arm businesses that have the protection of law, in an uncorrupted environment. Like Anheuser Busch. Like Cuervo.

And Like Altria and nabisco would be after legalization.

So when we march with libertarians, we’re marching to legalize dope for kids?

No. I’ll type slowly, to match your reading ability…

When you use “the children” to argue for abrogating liberties of free men, you adopt the tactics of those on the left who have no better argument for trying to violate the liberties of free men by seizing their guns. It is becoming more obvious that you are comfortable in the company of these leftisits, just like it is obvious that you are comfortable giving mafias tools to enrich themselves.

The idea my life is diminished in any way by your pothead pals doing time cleaning trash by the highway.

Well, those examples were used to refute a point saying simple possession never ends in people doing time. But once again, your ability to read for comprehension is found wanting, so….

JohnGalt23 on October 20, 2009 at 1:31 AM

Chris_Balsz on October 20, 2009 at 8:15 AM

That’s the toll of the cartels. Tens of thousands.

Uh, no it’s not. From CNN (sorry, HA apparently doesn’t like CNN links):

Mexico tallied around 5,400 slayings in 2008, more than double the 2,477 reported in 2007, officials said.

7800 in 2 years. 7800 represents 3 months of AQ bodies in Iraq at the height of hostilities.

Now, as to the makeup of those casualties. You make a big deal about the cartels killing police officers. Well, as of a year ago 500 of those killed were police officers. A high body count, to be sure, but only 7% of the 7000 killed. Who were the rest. Well, surely some of them were innocent bystanders. But the vast majority, in all likelihood, were rival gang members. Rivals, who by definition, had no legal recourse, escept the way of the gun.

Once again, I point out, that the cartels are not trying to firebomb or gun down Cuervo and Corona out of business. A point that is notably unrefuted.

You’re ignorant. It’s not that they buy off the cops first. It’s that they kill cops. They kill cops’ kids. They kill the chief of police. Then they start offering life and some cash to look the other way.

Absolute nonsense, rooted either in your ignorance or your being disingenuous. From The New Criminologist

Ayuso concludes, “it’s very easy for them to influence people. They say: ‘Accept our bribes or we”ll kill you and your family.’ It’s pretty effective.”

IOW, the cartels offer the bribes first, and will kill only if unaccepted. Once again, your claims of cartels resorting to violence first is at odds with the facts.

Bud doesn’t hire people to melt corpses and chop kids. The Mexican mafia does. They will not roll over like Budweiser. They will not fade away like Budweiser.

Budweiser doesn’t have to. Budweiser has the force of a (relatively) uncorrupted American law enforcement establishment backing them, and they also have the money and legal right to employ private security. Which is why LCN never even attempted, AFAIK, to firebomb AB out of business.

Another point which you have failed to refute.

But let’s have some fun with this, and demonstrate how your claims fail to comport with economic and business realities.

BAM!! Oct 21, 2009, cannabis is legalized in the USA at the federal leval, and California and other medical cannabis states follow suit, treating it the sme way they treat the market for beer. (And there was much rejoicing… yeah…)

What happens to the market. Well, Altria, RJR Nabisco, and hundreds of other firms start to produce cannabis for legal recreational consumption.

Then, according to your theory, the Mexican cartels start firebombing production facilities of legal producers and killing their executives until the legitimate businesses get out of the market, leaving the entire market to the cartels.

Do I have that so far.

Okay. So, they are going to intimidate literally hundreds, if not thousands of American businesses out of a profitable venture, including some of the largest firms in the world, that in fact maintain their own private security forces. That’s a pretty impressive task for organizations that have only killed 500 Mexican police officers, and have had very little success in bringing DEA or other federal or state law enforcement agencies to heel. But let’s assume they do.

How far does it go down the line. Because if it is now legal to produce cannabis, why would consumers pay black market prices to cartels, when they could grow their own. it’s not tough to do, thousands of people do it every day. And if it were legal, the only reason to not do so is that commercial producers, employing economies of scale, could provide it cheaper to you than you could yourself.

But the only reason cartels are interested in providing it is the unusually high prices due to price supports resulting from lack of competition. Make it legal, and everyone who can produce it is a potential competitior. Now what do the cartels do? Firebomb everyone who produces cannabis in their closet?

And all this violence against hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of now legal producers of cannabis is happening in an environment of falling revenues for the cartels. The pounds of cannabis that fetch $3000 on the black market are being produced by individuals for around $50-100 a pound. All those firebombings and shootings cost a lot of money. How is the cartels business model going to hold up under such shrunken revenues?

The answer is, of course, that they won’t.

Once again, your claim doesn’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. A sure sign of the prohibitionist talking out of his/her arse.

So I’m refuted. Kids get booze, the government is fighting a social movement to provide kids booze, but it don’t MATTER, see.

You are refuted on the count that organized crime will survive to provide underage consumers, because it simply doesn’t happen, because the government has a fair amount of control over the suppliers.

Imagine that.

Now if you can admit that you are refuted on your asinine claims of the cartels ability to intimidate entire sectors of American industry out of a profitable venture, maybe we can get somewhere.

Will your political vision mean we don’t punish drug use by kids? Don’t track drug use by kids? Accept drug use by kids?

We will punish drug use by kids the same way we punish alcohol use by kids. Track drug use by kids the same way we track alcohol use by kids. Accept drug use by kids to the same extent we accept alcohol use by kids.

Straight answers to the red herrings so often employed by the Left… “We have to restrict your liberties FOR THE CHILDREN“… an argument conservatives should be ashamed to make.

But then again, in my experience, prohibitionists really have no shame, so…

I am using your examples to demonstrate another idea–see how tricky facts are?

Okay, so your feelings about drug users are facts now?

Riiiiiiiggggghhhhtttt.

more like, you are using your emotions to attempt to deflect from the fact that you have no facts, and your claims are at odds with the truth.

JohnGalt23 on October 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM