Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
Join us on Pete's couch.

DrugWarRant.com is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
December 2012
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Archives

More than a little, less than a lot

One of the really bizarre things to watch in drug policy — the arguments over how one expresses:

  1. the amount that a policy will hurt Mexican drug trafficking organizations, and
  2. the amount of prison population directly related to marijuana/possession/non-violent drug offenses.

Everyone seems to agree that these are both impossible to measure with certainty, and additionally, there are all sorts of broadly defined issues regarding how you interpret the parameters.

For example, with the Drug-Trafficking-Organizations, you could simply be talking about the amount of income that would be reduced. Or, you could be looking at how the change in the market would change the activities of the DTOs (going more into kidnapping and other non-consensual crime areas, etc.), or you could look at the change in the attractiveness for new players to enter the market.

For prison populations, such things as “possession” and “non-violent” can be difficult to define. Additionally, it matters whether you’re talking about merely identifying the population currently incarcerated, or how a change in laws would affect future incarceration rates overall (which could be remarkably different).

Given all this, it boggles the mind how some people get outraged over the use of non-quantitatively specific descriptors like “explosion” or “devastating.”

In Polarization, denial, and the cannabis debate, check out Kleiman’s reaction to the description of something as being potentially “devastating.”

For example, see Alejandro Hope’s comment on the thread below: apparently Tim Dickinson converted his statement that pot legalization would cost the Mexican DTOs some revenue but that “the effect would not be devastating” into the claim that it would be “a devastating blow.” Alejandro comments: “in this specific case, denial veers very close to falsification.” I’m not sure “falsification” is the right diagnosis; I’d put it down to self-delusion on the part of Dickinson and his editors. “A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.”

Now check out this article:

US drug legislation to slow Mexico violence?

One of the authors of the report, Alejandro Hope wrote in a clarification of his study that while the lost revenue depends on certain conditions in the US, the impact could be significant.

“We do think that losing marijuana revenues could have a transformative impact on the Mexican drug trafficking industry, over and beyond the direct potential reduction of marijuana export income.”

Other analysts, however, aren’t sure the new policies will put a dent in Mexican drug cartel revenue.

“Marijuana is not that profitable. Their big money comes from cocaine. They also make a lot of money from other things. This is a pinprick in terms of the Mexican cartels,” says Keith Humphreys, a former senior White House Policy Adviser on the drug trade.

Pinprick?

So, the expert says that the effect would be “significant” and “transformative,” but Kleiman is outraged that someone says “devastating,” so I can’t wait to see what he has to say about Humphreys’ “pinprick” — because certainly significant and transformative must be closer to devastating than to pinpricking. But then again, if you hate needles, a pinprick could be devastating, I guess.

You see, these are all just subjective descriptives, because we don’t and can’t know the actual numbers. So it seems pretty strange to jealously guard a particular subjectively evaluated descriptive.

The point, of course, that we in the reform community make, is that legalization will have a strong negative effect on the ability of the drug trafficking organizations to continue to exist as they have. That’s certainly true. The exact degree of this is unknowable, and it is not necessary to know that degree with certainty in order to make a reasoned judgement that this is another valid reason to support legalization.

In The truthiness of ‘The House I Live In’, Mark Kleiman takes offense with Eugene Jarecki’s description of the prison problem and with Andrew Cohen’s six-question interview with Jarecki (for not setting the record straight).

But the film strongly implies that the mass-incarceration problem consists mostly of non-violent drug dealers serving ludicrously long terms. False.

My understanding from reading the Cohen interview is that the points being made are:

  1. The drug war has been responsible for the explosion in incarceration. (True)
  2. Many of those incarcerated are non-violent offenders there for long terms. (True)

Of course, Jarecki was doing a film about putting a human face on those in prison, so he focused on individuals whose stories would resonate. That’s good filmmaking, not dishonesty.

See Lee Rosenberg’s piece for another look at how the wide picture is the important part of drug policy discussion rather than bickering over specific percentages of those incarcerated (which gets us nowhere).

Again, discussions about the war on drugs and policy have potential global incarceration impacts (both in a geographic and non-geographic sense). It’s about massive change in our entire justice system.

I’m sure that Mark will be pleased with Kevin Sabet’s tweet:

I agree w/ Kleiman that to say the US prison problem is bc of nonviolent drug users is false. Cohen should know better. http://t.co/xUUO4APD

I guess the fact that Cohen never said it is not a concern.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

35 comments to More than a little, less than a lot

  • kaptinemo

    Regardless of who is passionately, forcefully arguing the excruciating minutiae regarding the time/space parameters over how many angels can dance on the heads of pins legally, the fact remains that the drug laws are the number one means of filling prisons. Prisons which we cannot afford to run anymore.

    And since ALL of those cases start with possession, the claims that no one is in prison for possession is patent BS, a legal fiction suitable for room-temperature IQs to swallow with ease. Sell it to the Sophists, as I’m not buying any, thank you.

    In an aside, as the old saying goes, “You are known by the company you keep.” Does Kleiman actually want Sabet’s intellectual and moral ‘company’? Being associated with someone who worked for and maintains ties to as woefully inefefctual, wasteful, scandal-ridden agency as ONDCP has proven to be, time and again since its’ inception, I’d think I’d want to put some distance between me and that. Might get the hem of your intellectual credibility soiled by ONDCP muck…

    Well-liked Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

    • War Vet

      Because the CSA is a direct threat to our National Security, the laws are invalid. Because prison over crowding directly creates Private Prisons and because the CSA creates more prisoners (influences as well) and because the CSA is invalid, all drug offenders are being held hostage and all were kidnapped. Because private prisons generate jobs and money and forces people to work: like cleaning the bathrooms and mopping and working in the chow-hall etc -It is a violation of the laws the prohibit slavery. Because of 9/11 -the law is invalid. Because the terrorist used the law’s creation of drug money, it became non-valid. It happened earlier with the 93′ NYC WTC bombing and the U.S.S. Cole and Beirut bombing. 23 U.S. soldiers killed in Arabia. Drug money conducting terrorism during peace time. The CSA directly creates the drug black market and the CSA is a threat to our military and security and our very own cops, which means it’s an illegal law. Because drug offenders create overcrowding and over crowding creates private prisons, it’s a violation of the Sherman-Anti Trust Act as well, since one cannot make a business out of slaves to generate profit, when you or I cannot do likewise for our car wash companies and plumbing companies. Therefore private prison’s are illegal during times of Drug prohibition . . . which makes workers into felons and construction workers (because they knew it was a private prison) into felons since one cannot conspire to hold slaves (drug offenders –since the CSA is a felony to obey or profit off during a time of war or peace) in a building or make money doing so in the construction of slave chambers.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • War Vet

        Sorry, forcing a drug offender to mop a floor or sleep in a cell in a non-private prison or even in County or City, classifies as legal proof of facilitating slavery and slaves (which makes most DOC and DOJ workers into felons as well) -which legally means that most cops etc are involved in Human Trafficking since they are getting paid to arrest drug offenders (slaves -kidnapped, hostages [fines, court costs]) -which is illegal since the CSA is illegal and even legally called Treason after 9/11. Which means those who are workers in private prisons (and all the companies who supply their foods and cleaners etc and laundry) are involved in Human Trafficking since private prisons are not legal during times of drug prohibition.

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        • Duncan20903

          WV, you need to re-read the 13th Amendment. The text specifies in very plain words that convicts can be legally subjected to involuntary servitude.

          Text of the 13th Amendment

          Section 1.
          Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

          Section 2.
          Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • War Vet

          That is true about the 13th. But the CSA is a non valid law on several points and likewise for any past laws that became precedents for casting the CSA into effect. For one: the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act states that the DEA are not eligible to be a part of the Department of Justice for the purpose that the DEA won’t allow American hemp in American stores, while allowing foreign hemp in American stores, while getting paid to go to work, thus meaning in legal terms they are a private corporation and have not been granted valid legal access to place citizens under arrest.

          2) The CSA is a threat to our military –in both war time and peace time: The CSA creates the drug black market –to neutralize the CSA would be to neutralize the Drug Black market, which proves that the CSA is the drug black market. Rape and murder and theft are legal prohibitions: no murder victim, or home owner or rape victim pays money (legal market nor black market) to be victimized. The LAW (not police, but the physical letter signed and approved) directly gives the Taliban $100 Million a year. It directly gave Hamas or Hezbollah money to blow up the Marine Barracks in Beirut. Since we know Yemen is a hot bed for terrorism, camps, volunteers and leaders: the 2000 U.S.S. Cole as well. Since the Taliban originates in Pakistan, the LAW gives Pakistan and estimated $4 Billion a year in drug black market earnings. During war the Law becomes Treason. During Peacetime, the Law Becomes treason . . . to know drug money helps or creates our enemy and to do nothing about the law proves intent in legal form.

          3) The CSA is a direct threat to our National Security: The ONDCP proved (or some anti-drug group) that drug money was to blame for 9/11 with a TV commercial. This has also been verified by many other official and unofficial reports. We know that Radical Islam in Nigeria uses drug money to finance themselves: The Christmas Day Bomber of Detroit is precedents for proving that the CSA and 1961 U.N. Single Law is illegal for Africa –because it threatens Africa and America and American possession and businesses, citizens and diplomats in Africa (and every continent excluding Antarctica). If the Law facilitates at the very least, 15% extra financing for violence in that region, it’s an invalid law.

          Weaker Point: Because the Law directly creates money the law is in violation of the 1890 Sherman-Trust Act (using precedents that prove corporations/companies are people too –since the law hires people just for it’s needs and pays overtime just for its needs): if only certain entities inside the Federal Government can create Laws that directly creates money (Black or non-Black market), make revenue in more jobs because the Law creates crime and greater need for more enforcement –then every Federal Entity and just maybe even U.S. citizens should be legally allowed to create laws that directly creates money and directly creates the need for more jobs for free revenue from the People.

          Therefore if the law is not Valid, one does not have the right or authority to place someone under arrest, therefore it is legally considered kidnapping or hostage taking (since you cannot leave until you pay) and since cops and jailors and judges and DA get paid to throw you in jail for drugs, it is slavery, since people who take people by force and receive pay (reward) are in the slave trade industry by legal definition –but only when forced to do something resembling work that one would normally get paid for. It’s illegal for a cop to send you to jail for 80 kilos of heroin, because there are no legal laws giving him authority to . . . the CSA is invalid. The CSA has created illegal immigration in the form of drug smugglers and people fleeing from Mexico. The CSA has created a war in Mexico that has spilled out and affected our citizens inside our borders, which is legal grounds for the U.S. Military to deploy to Mexico because the U.S. military deployed when Pancho Villa came to Texas (legal precedents). No law shall ever place their nation in direct harm’s way. Such law is invalid and illegal.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • War Vet

          But if the law is not Valid, then one cannot be a convict, because only a violation of a valid law will the title convict be made. But if the law, let’s say, is a direct threat to National Security, our borders, our economy, our troops, it’s not valid -no reason to argue or have a vote: it’s no more, less treason be legal.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • kaptinemo

    I wish we could get the editing function back. This is getting to be a pain.

    By ‘ALL cases’ I meant all drug offense cases. A point which should be self-evident given the thrust of the blog.

    And that’s …’ineffectual’, wasteful, scandal-ridden’…. They’re also unconscionably arrogant, as well.

    Well-liked Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    • Servetus

      Sabet’s ignorance is based on B’hai religious hysteria and a hopelessly misguided childhood. Both Kevin Sabet and the abominable Dr. Gabriel Nahas were introduced to the alleged horrors of cannabis use by their fathers.

      Accompanied by their respective sons, they toured areas filled with the homeless and the derelict. The fathers told their impressionable youngsters that marijuana/hashish was the cause of the pitiful conditions they saw. Imagine if their fathers had told them the down-and-out that horrified them so much were the result of masturbation. Surely, the lives of Nahas and Sabet would have turned out to be far more neurotic than is already the case.

      In that sense, we should think of Kleinman, Sabet, and the deceased and discredited Nahas, as victims of prohibition in their own peculiar way. All are, or were, part of institutions built to keep oppression alive.

      Well-liked Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    Pfui on the impact of our prohibition on Mexico. Let’s make our case using the impact of the 18th Amendment on the Canadian economy. It’s not like this is the first time one of our next door neighbors has supplied Americans need for a naughty substance. Will somebody please interview the Bronfmans?

    Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • War Vet

      Not just with dro either Duncan, but the current CSA laws allow Canada to profit off of hemp by the DEA not allowing America to grow hemp -so Canada is making money off of hemp as well. The DEA make sure it is that way, (which is a violation of the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act) and they get paid -therefore the DEA are similar to Wal-Mart -Wal-Mart gets paid to sell foreign made goods . . . which proves that the DEA are not legally eligible to be a Federal Agency under the DOJ, unless we consider Target or Macys to be a part of the DOJ.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • darkcycle

    ” But then again, if you hate needles, a pinprick could be devastating, I guess.”
    Might be devastating if you’re a big balloon filled with hot air, too…

    Well-liked Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  • darkcycle

    My comment is awaiting MODERATION??? When have my comments ever been moderate??

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • ezrydn

    You folks be careful tonight and have a Happy New Year!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • Freeman

    I’m sure that Mark will be pleased with Kevin Sabet’s tweet:

    I agree w/ Kleiman that to say the US prison problem is bc of nonviolent drug users is false. Cohen should know better. http://t.co/xUUO4APD

    I guess the fact that Cohen never said it is not a concern.

    Perhaps he’s content with his “consensus reality”, now that Kev has shown his consensus. In that reality, Cohen said it by failing to say the opposite.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • Francis

    “Marijuana is not that profitable. Their big money comes from cocaine. They also make a lot of money from other things. This is a pinprick in terms of the Mexican cartels,” says Keith Humphreys, a former senior White House Policy Adviser on the drug trade.

    Of course, in a few years, when cannabis has been re-legalized and the debate has shifted to whether or not we should completely end drug prohibition, I’m sure the story will change (again). “Cocaine? The cartels don’t make any money from that. There’s no margin there. It’s a loss leader. Oh sure, they’ll sell you some if you ask for it, but they’re really just trying to get you to buy their bootleg DVD’s. That’s where the real money is.” And the argument that legalizing cannabis won’t hurt the cartels “that much” wouldn’t exactly be a compelling one even if it were true. So if we stopped arresting people for the “crime” of possessing a non-toxic plant that’s rightfully been called one of the safest therapeutically-active substances known to man, that might only reduce cartel-related murders by say 10%? Well, gosh, in that case, why bother?

    Well-liked Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

    • I hear the battles for public lands space is growing fierce between the cartels’ pot plantations, tobacco companies and wine grape growers. Oh wait… the tobacco companies and vintners have been restricted to private farms. Word has it they also pay taxes, wages and charitably donate to their communities… the word from the drug cartels is as expected, a grinning delcaration of “taxes? Taxes? We don’t pay no steenkeen’ taxes!”

      Anybody catch the news vid this weekend of the smugglers in AZ carrying bale after bale of pot across private ranches on the border? The border they’re crossing is just a 3 strand barb wire fence.

      Besides… LE has been stumbling over that estimated income the cartels get from selling pot in the US for years. When the cartels were a preferred bogey man, they loved inflating the numbers. Now when we embrace their original musings they wanna call take-backs. The fact they cartels have gone from being established in some 200 US cities to over 1,000 says something. And besides that… the volume (in bulk and dollars) of cocaine consumed vs weed can’t compare.

      Personally… I’d love to have coca and opium poppies in my herb garden. And common sense tells me there is no logical reason why I shouldn’t be able to. And if I get a well innoculated batch of quadrapedal manure I can also have some fun guys in the garden.

      sigh…

      Well-liked Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      • claygooding

        In July,2011 the FBI and the ONDCP reported to the Oversight Committee that the cartels derived 60% of their profits from marijuana and both agreed that a conservative estimate of 40 billion per year was given.

        We immediately flooded the comments in every article with such notable quips as “We,the people,can remove 60% of the cartels cash flow and we don’t need guns,tax dollars or helicopters,,all we need is a watercan and a hoe” and just 3 months later Rand researched and reduced the 60 billion to less than 4 billion dollars for marijuana. It had to be the most blatant propaganda ploy and most effective pencil manipulation ever.

        Well-liked Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

    • Servetus

      There are a limited number of coke customers, just like there are a limited number of potential kidnap victims, or potential human trafficking victims. The ratios are huge, though, when compared to the need for weed.

      While marijuana use can be measured in tons, or tonnes metric; a drug like heroin is imported in kilos. A DC-3 load of pot, accompanied by a kilo of heroin, was the typical transport itinerary in the halcyon days of Mexico border smuggling.

      The ratios haven’t really changed much. Thirteen freight cars can still supply all the coke the U.S. uses in a year, while one freight car can supply the all the opiates. The only drug commodity with a market known to be potentially unlimited is little ol’ weed. The cartels are happy for the pot business, and would be less happy, and much less wealthy, without it.

      Kleinman and Sabet’s misinterpretation of drug economics is based entirely upon their ignorance of economics. They are not economists. Their misinterpretation of drug harm is based on their ignorance of science. They are not scientists. Whatever they have left, they sold out. They’re academics whose academic funding and professional existence depends on supporting the government’s legal mandate for despotic social control.

      Well-liked Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      • claygooding

        Just as with value estimates on marijuana busts being inflated,,I think the government doesn’t want anyone to realize how many people smoke pot and they have no idea.

        All statistics on pot use are derived from voluntary responses and I,for one have never been counted.

        Well-liked Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

        • darkcycle

          Interesting point, Clay… Let’s have a little informal research of our own…
          How about a “show of hands”? How many people have been called by the Government and polled about their drug use? I have, TWICE. Both times I showed proper pothead form and lied my ass off. Anybody else? More importantly, did you TELL THE TRUTH?
          I really think you might be right, Clay, that the only thing they actually gather is the number of people dumb enough to admit to an agent of the Federal Government that they are engaging in an illegal activity.

          Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        • kaptinemo

          Neither have I, in all my 55 years. And I am not about to tell some faceless voice that I do (currently) illegal things.

          The (sadly) late Robert Anton Wilson had a lot to say on this subject; he called it the SNAFU Principle:

          “Communication only occurs between equals–real communication, that is–because when you are dealing with people above you in a hierarchy, you learn not to tell them anything they don’t want to hear. If you tell them anything they don’t want to hear, the response is, “One more word Bumstead and I’ll fire you!” Or in the military, “One more word and you’re court-martialed.” It’s throughout the whole system.

          So the higher up in the hierarchy you go, the more lies are being told to flatter those above them. So those at the top have no idea what is going on at all. Those at the bottom have to adjust to the rules made by those at the top who don’t know what’s going on. Those at the top can write rules about this, that and the other, while those at the bottom have got to adjust reality to fit the rules as much as they can.

          Which is why prohibs basing their policy on the admissions of schoolkids – or anyone else – smoking cannabis is so thoroughly pointless. Kids learn that survival reflex very early on. And it’s partly why, in the minds of prohibs, they can still call rank failures ‘successes’.

          Well-liked Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

        • Duncan20903

          .
          .

          I think the fact that the State of California pocketed sales tax on reported sales of $1.25 billion with a b collected by that State’s medicinal cannabis vendors for two years running is a damn good indicator that the market is orders of magnitude larger than even we think it is.

          Those numbers sure left me fish mouthing. I’d be shocked if they managed to collect more than 5% of actual gross sales which puts California’s market north of $25 billion annually. The only thing that gives me pause WRT the 5% SWAG above is that there are an awful lot of people out there who believe that taxes paid on reported sales is most assuredly in the better long term interests of the business and therefore volunteering to collect and remit that revenue to the Board of Equalization. But even at 10% of actual gross sales we’re still looking at a $12.5 billion market. Presuming identical actual gross sales in other States by population it would put the nationwide market at more than $100 billion.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Duncan20903

          .
          .

          kaptinemo, life is like a tree full of monkeys. When you’re on top and looking down all you see is a panorama of loving, smiling faces. But when you’re on the bottom branch all you can see is assholes.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • rough math from Jon Gettman…

    Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws
    http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr4/5Supply.html

    “estimate that in 2002 the total amount of marijuana that traffickers succeeded in smuggling into the country was roughly 24 million pounds”

    Ok… then we use the generally used 20% seizure rate, so 24,000,000 x 5… equals 120 million. Wholesale value at $50/lb puts that at $6 billion. But if we do like they do and attribute a street value of say $500/lb that puts the value at $60 billion.

    But what do I know, I poke smot. I don’t care what the numbers are. Whatever they are, that’s money that should be going to US workers and the companies that employ them.

    My 15 years of working rockmed factually demonstrated to me how much safer cannabis is than any other intoxicant. Safer personally and for the family/community. My 40+ years as a cannabis consumer corroborates that.

    I so look forward to the day when Mark and Kev-Kev have to get real jobs (or at least will have no say in drug policy)(and is that what their playing both sides dog and pony show is all about? No matter which way the axe falls, they will have established a firm position on the fence and will fall to whichever side the prevailing wind blows them?)

    Well-liked Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

    • kaptinemo

      Kind of hard to sit on a fence when a hurricane-force wind is building up. A point that drug prohibitionists – at least, the more intelligent of them – know by now. They are due to receive the same ‘honor’ bestowed upon them that History has given the Temperance League.

      Worse for them, the ‘Net has doomed them to having their officially-sanctioned mendacity FOREVER rubbed in their faces in the future. A future – and that future’s alternate media! – controlled by the very generation they sought to brainwash…and who bitterly resented the attempt.

      That resentment has taken the form of Washington State and Colorado, which will be followed by the rest of the country in due course.

      HL Mencken said, “Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. He put it even more forcefully in his Notes on Democracy, quoted in this article:

      “In brief, Prohibition has not only failed to work the benefits that its proponents promised in 1917; it has brought in so many new evils that even the mob has turned against it. But do the Prohibitionists admit the fact frankly, and repudiate their original nonsense? They do not.

      On the contrary, they keep on demanding more and worse enforcement statutes — that is to say, more and worse devices for harassing and persecuting their opponents. The more obvious the failure becomes, the more shamelessly they exhibit their genuine motives.

      In plain words, what moves them is the psychological aberration called sadism. They lust to inflict inconvenience, discomfort, and, whenever possible, disgrace upon the persons they hate — which is to say, upon everyone who is free from their barbarous theological superstitions, and is having a better time in the world than they are.” (Emphasis mine – k.)

      In our case, the prohibs got their much-desired ‘devices’…and no one knows exactly how many have been thrown into early graves unnecessarily thanks to them. It’s long past time the ‘bell’ is ‘tolled’ for what put them there.

      Well-liked Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

    • primus

      More ‘Rough Math’ about pot: The official figures are a joke as discussed above, so I posit that 10% of the adult population uses cannabis in one form or another. That said, let’s use the combined adult population of Canada and US, around 275 million, so that means 27.5 million cannabists. Assume an ‘average’ consumption of 1/2 oz per month, 6 oz per year. With some easy math that leads us to a grand total of over 14 tons of cannabis per DAY. If my assumptions are incorrect and the average use is 1/4 oz per month and the percentage of cannabists is, say, 5%, that is still over 3.5 tons per day. Per DAY!!!! If the retail price is, let’s say $5/g the value of all cannabis sales in Canusa is over $8Bn per year, or over $2Bn using the lower estimates. If the price is the same as today, ~$10/g, the value is double at over $16Bn ($4Bn). The PTB have no accurate idea what size the market really is. No matter the numbers, it is a vast opportunity just waiting to happen, and when legalization comes some will become wealthy quickly, and many will be astounded at the true size of the market.

      Well-liked Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  • Peter

    sounds like mexicos new goverent are busy moving the deckchairs around. seems they didnt like the way the old gov had them lined up

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • War Vet

    Its one incarcerated generation raising the soon to be next incarcerated generation. This is how ghettoes get grimier overtime –rusted and broken down. The Controlled Substance Act loves divorce and broken families. Jr. cannot get diapers because dad or mom’s money is tied up in court and legal fees . . . he lost his job for being too poor to bail out and get to work: All for some weed or coke or dope or crack or junk or x. The larger the hood, the greater the odds that some young man raised up by drugged up parents or his grandparents (who are struggling themselves) is going to start dealing his way out. Because gangs proliferate directly in areas that have more residents incarcerated at one point or time (or even over night in jail for some dro) and because gangs do sell drugs and make their money to buy guns off the trade –the CSA law has set up ways for the innocent and even proven guilty to be made hostage inside a neighborhood. Kids are hostages to the downward life of dad busted for dealing crack or killed because of it . . . Homes of the those not involved in the drug game what so ever live with the real possibilities of being robbed or mugged more often –drive bys . . . fights across the streets, hookers, drunks, hoods and gunshots . . . Police Harassment. If a law allows people to be kept as hostages inside an areas, this law is deemed an illegal law. Locking up drug offenders directly affects the violence in Mexico as seen in drug prohibition creating the Dec 2006-present war. Decriminalization would clean up the ghettos of America, but not solve Mexico, which is a threat to our boarder, therefore the CSA is an illegal law. Making it easier for D.O.J. and D.O.C. workers to get hurt or killed on the job (more problematic ghettos –more violent . . . more prisoners –over crowding –an increase in more hardened criminals because of the previous dope offense –the more invalid the CSA is since the CSA cannot contain a physical direct consequence of threatening their workers –like undercover cops, since said cop would not be doing drug buys if drugs were legal . . . since undercover cops are needed in the field of other crimes, (when dealing with the argument: legalize robbery or rape –though it’s still held in the Draconian mind to use such an argument) i.e. human slavery –no human slave pays money to be enslaved . . . but every drug user who buys their drugs while they are illegal, buys it off the black market . . . the dope is an inanimate object –human slave or animal isn’t . . . home owners don’t pay money to steal, nor do crooks –they don’t pay, which would mean theft is a valid prohibition (which defines crime) Drugs are not a crime, nor is dealing drugs. We have physical evidence to prove that the CSA law is the Drug Black Market in disguise, which proves conspiracy of any politician or DOJ/DOC worker who adhears to the drug laws: to create a law that directly distributes dope without taxing it at inflated prices: If we were to invent the CSA –the drug black market is open –dissolve the CSA law –you neutralize the drug black market (and if you know that a law creates more crime and black markets, yet don’t stop the law, you are creating intent based on no longer being ignorant –which proves intent to conspire as well). The CSA is an illegal law based on a bunch of direct causes and harms and correlations: i.e. more drug dealers with illegal firearms –does create more gun battles with cops (legalize drugs, you can reduce gun battles between suspect and officer by 18% or whatever the accurate stat is . . . damn be a lot fewer dope cooks up for weeks straight with shotguns always ready and always ready to get the cops hiding in his cupboards and under his floors and out in his barn and fields. –correlation proven.)

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • primus

      Sounds like you want to argue this on the basis of logic. Can’t be done. Hyperbole, hysteria and fearmongering is all the prohibinuts have. If the public were interested in logic this would have ended decades ago.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • oh those kooky Israelis…

    Studying Marijuana and Its Loftier Purpose

    Israeli researchers say cannabis can be beneficial for a variety of illnesses and conditions, from helping cancer patients relieve pain and ease loss of appetite to improving the quality of life for people with post-traumatic stress disorder and neuropsychological conditions. The natural ingredients in the plant, they say, can help with digestive function, infections and recovery after a heart attack.

    The marijuana harvest, from plants that can grow over six feet tall, is processed into bags of flowers and ready-rolled cigarettes. There are also cannabis-laced cakes, cookies, candy, gum, honey, ointments and oil drops. The strain known as Eran Almog, which has the highest concentration of THC, is recommended for severe pain. Avidekel, a strain rich in CBD and with hardly any psychoactive ingredient, allows patients to benefit from the drug while being able to drive and to function at work.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  • Servetus

    Marijuana/drug bigots and probiscites Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly lost big chunks of their TV audiences for miscalling the presidential election results.

    Hannity is down 50-percent, and O’Reilly is down 30-percent in December’s viewership polls.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Servetus

    Now is your chance. See Mexico and die.

    The U.S. government is hiring temps for the Mexico drug war. Temps, indeed.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0