Legal marijuana is finally doing what the drug war couldn’t

Legal marijuana may be doing at least one thing that a decades-long drug war couldn't: taking a bite out of Mexican drug cartels' profits. The latest data from the U.S. Border Patrol shows that last year, marijuana seizures along the southwest border tumbled to their lowest level in at least a decade. Agents snagged roughly 1.5 million pounds of marijuana at the border, down from a peak of nearly 4 million pounds in 2009.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal-marijuana-is-finally-doing-what-the-drug-war-couldnt/

Good news all round then!

Washington Post wrote:marijuana seizures along the southwest border tumbled to their lowest level in at least a decade...

Of course, it could be the incompetence of the authorities in apprehending shipments, and not necessarily an accurate measure of the overall volume being imported.

American mj is crap compared to Colombian, I understand.  They say there is little elasticity between home-grown and mountain-grown crops, because they are simply not the same.  There's probably more elasticity between home-grown mj and Budweiser Beer.  Lol.

Original Quill wrote:

Washington Post wrote:marijuana seizures along the southwest border tumbled to their lowest level in at least a decade...

Of course, it could be the incompetence of the authorities in apprehending shipments, and not necessarily an accurate measure of the overall volume being imported.

American mj is crap compared to Colombian, I understand.  They say there is little elasticity between home-grown and mountain-grown crops, because they are simply not the same.  There's probably more elasticity between home-grown mj and Budweiser Beer.  Lol.

Er.....elasticity ....what`s that ?

I think that people should be careful that they're not supporting the legalisation of such drugs just to stick two fingers up at the drug cartels.

It should have never been made illegal in the first place and the fact it was has more to do with the prohibition of alcohol failing.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that people should be careful that they're not supporting the legalisation of such drugs just to stick two fingers up at the drug cartels.

But its not "such" drugs raggs its just one

drug cartels, brewery's, distillery ,tobacco manufactures no difference in real terms if cannabis was legal they would be drug company's

And if you Dont think the "legal" drug company's are "cartels" take a look at that ass hole in the states that bumped the price of a pill 2000% sure that was just blatant

but drug companys do just the same just not so blatant and over a wider range of products

Didge wrote:It should have never been made illegal in the first place and the fact it was has more to do with the prohibition of alcohol failing.

No it shouldn't

although i am not sure of the alcohol link first time i have heard that

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that people should be careful that they're not supporting the legalisation of such drugs just to stick two fingers up at the drug cartels.

But its not "such" drugs raggs its just one

drug cartels, brewery's, distillery ,tobacco manufactures  no difference in real terms if cannabis was legal they would be drug company's

And if you Dont think the "legal" drug company's are "cartels" take a look at that ass hole in the states that bumped the price of a pill 2000% sure that was just blatant

but drug companys do just the same just not so blatant and over a wider range of products  

There are people who would like to see a lot of illegal drugs become legal though, so it's just the tip of the iceberg.

So many people say that cannabis is harmless, or even beneficial, but I think that's a dangerous thing to say because it's not necessarily true.

Obviously, alcohol and tobacco are harmful as well, but they're already legal, and I can't see anyone making them illegal because there would be uproar. However, I don't see the sense in legalising cannabis. Sure, some people moan about it but it's a very different thing to legalise something compared to making common things like alcohol illegal. Why upset the status quo?

You are of course referring to Martin Shkreli who bumped up the price of Daraprim when he bought the rights to it. However, Martin Shkreli is not a cartel, and he was able to do that because nobody had developed a competitive drug at the time. Martin Shkreli is really a player in the financial markets who happens to have an interest in pharmaceuticals.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
But its not "such" drugs raggs its just one

drug cartels, brewery's, distillery ,tobacco manufactures  no difference in real terms if cannabis was legal they would be drug company's

And if you Dont think the "legal" drug company's are "cartels" take a look at that ass hole in the states that bumped the price of a pill 2000% sure that was just blatant

but drug companys do just the same just not so blatant and over a wider range of products  

There are people who would like to see a lot of illegal drugs become legal though, so it's just the tip of the iceberg.

True but i only want to see one MJ i would not like to make all drugs legall

So many people say that cannabis is harmless, or even beneficial, but I think that's a dangerous thing to say because it's not necessarily true.

Noting is completely safe to claim otherwise would be ludicrous However Nobody and i mean Nobody has ever overdosed and died from cannabis like heroine or crack or any other opiate

Obviously, alcohol and tobacco are harmful as well, but they're already legal, and I can't see anyone making them illegal because there would be uproar. However, I don't see the sense in legalising cannabis. Sure, some people moan about it but it's a very different thing to legalise something compared to making common things like alcohol illegal. Why upset the status quo?

So if its allready legal regardless that it does untold harm just leave it
But if its illegal and does very little harm keep it banned

because your criminalising people for something that does very little harm that`s there choice and has a lot of really good benefits

You are of course referring to Martin Shkreli who bumped up the price of Daraprim when he bought the rights to it. However, Martin Shkreli is not a cartel, and he was able to do that because nobody had developed a competitive drug at the time. Martin Shkreli is really a player in the financial markets who happens to have an interest in pharmaceuticals.

yes thats him and your wrong on your facts a rival company disgusted at what he did start`d selling an alternative for 1$ a pill i think it was

Martin Shkreli is not a player he is a opportunist immoral piece of shit who has been indicted in the US and i say good the smug arrogant little turd hope he rots in jail

It's not a question of overdosing Korban, it's a question of the possible negatives effects, particularly long-term ones. I see no sense in taking risks by making it legal. A lot of people do use it anyway - in fact, I've seen people on this forum and others say quite openly that they enjoy a spliff or two. I think the law is fine as it is.

Of course alcohol can have a lot of negative effects too, but as I said, they're not going to make it illegal - not without a huge fight. What they do is limit some the negative effects with drink-driving laws, laws about being drunk and disorderly, etc. I absolutely think that being drunk should never be an excuse for committing a crime.

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course, it could be the incompetence of the authorities in apprehending shipments, and not necessarily an accurate measure of the overall volume being imported.

American mj is crap compared to Colombian, I understand.  They say there is little elasticity between home-grown and mountain-grown crops, because they are simply not the same.  There's probably more elasticity between home-grown mj and Budweiser Beer.  Lol.

Er.....elasticity ....what`s that ?

'Elasticity' is a term that economists use for how 'substitutable' two products are for each other.  For example, Coke and Pepsi are highly elastic, while Coke and sweet potatoes are not elastic at all.  But the real measurement, as always, is what do the empirical data show?

A study of elasticity has some surprising results.  You expect high elasticity between products having similar functions.  For example, flying (airplanes) vs. the railroad.  But sometimes the elasticity is between traveling and simply going to the movies.  I'm sure there are better examples, but you get the point.

In this case, I suggested (tongue in cheek) that two forms of mj may not be as elastic as one form of mj and a Budweiser Beer.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Er.....elasticity ....what`s that ?

'Elasticity' is a term that economists use for how 'substitutable' two products are for each other.  For example, Coke and Pepsi are highly elastic, while Coke and sweet potatoes are not elastic at all.  But the real measurement, as always, is what do the empirical data show?

A study of elasticity has some surprising results.  You expect high elasticity between products having similar functions.  For example, flying (airplanes) vs. the railroad.  But sometimes the elasticity is between traveling and simply going to the movies.  I'm sure there are better examples, but you get the point.

In this case, I suggested (tongue in cheek) that two forms of mj may not be as elastic as one form of mj and a Budweiser Beer.

AH!! Got it never heard it used that way before
competitiveness