Gyroscopic Investing

IMCO reckons they could be. It calculates that the cost of growing marijuana legally is about $880 per kilo. Adding on a decent mark-up, plus the taxes that would be applied, it puts the wholesale price of Washington marijuana at just over $2,000 per kilo. The cost of illegally transporting the drug adds about $500 per kilo for every thousand kilometres that the drug is hauled, it calculates, based on the fact that pot gets pricier the further you get from the Mexican border. So smuggling legal Washington dope to New York, for instance, would add about $1,900 to the cost of a kilo, giving a total wholesale price not much below $4,000.

That would make it more expensive than imported Mexican pot. But home-grown marijuana is much better quality than the Mexican sort. The content of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the part that gives you the giggles, is between 10% and 18%, whereas in Mexican pot it is only about 4% to 6%. Once you adjust for quality, Washington pot would be about half the price of the Mexican stuff, even after it had made its expensive illegal journey to New York. IMCO reckons that home-grown marijuana from Colorado, Oregon or Washington would be cheaper than the Mexican stuff virtually everywhere in the country, with the exception of a few border states where the Mexican variety would still come in a bit cheaper.

As a result, it estimates that Mexico’s traffickers would lose about $1.4 billion of their $2 billion revenues from marijuana. The effect on some groups would be severe: the Sinaloa “cartel”? would lose up to half its total income, IMCO reckons. Exports of other drugs, from cocaine to methamphetamine, would become less competitive, as the traffickers’ fixed costs (from torturing rivals to bribing American and Mexican border officials) would remain unchanged, even as marijuana revenues fell.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... c30b6f1709

I'm pro-legalization, but the study showing an increase in crime around medical marijuana dispensaries is disturbing.  I wonder if broader legalization so it wasn't so localized would combat this or if the crime surge would just be wider in scope.

This is why I'm glad California did it first.  I'm more than happy to allow them to be our guinea pig.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/07 ... e-20120606

RuralEngineer wrote: I'm pro-legalization, but the study showing an increase in crime around medical marijuana dispensaries is disturbing.  I wonder if broader legalization so it wasn't so localized would combat this or if the crime surge would just be wider in scope.

This is why I'm glad California did it first.  I'm more than happy to allow them to be our guinea pig.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/07 ... e-20120606

You hit the nail on the head. Broad legalization will be needed to curb crime of this nature. I really feel badly for Mexico. They have been absolutely brutalized by our insane attempt at prohibition.

Before making any sweeping generalizations based on observations of crime in California, first watch what happens to crime in Washington and Colorado. They both legalized recreational marijuana use in this past election.

If Washington and Colorado crime levels remain fairly constant, that may be evidence that the crime levels have far more to do with race and socioeconomic status than the legal status of marijuana alone.

Why would crime increase if one of the most common types of crimes (i.e. petty drug offenses) is dno longer illegal?

MediumTex wrote: Why would crime increase if one of the most common types of crimes (i.e. petty drug offenses) is dno longer illegal?

Because they act as "Marijuana Magnets" and attract unsavory elements.  It is a huge problem for Denmark Netherlands, Portugal, etc. with their "marijuana tourism".

I'm in agreement that half-baked decriminalization solutions isn't going to work.

Simonjester wrote: dilution is the solution to pollution..
i support the change and letting states experiment with alternatives to having it illegal, but i suspect you are right about it having a problem if it focuses to much activity in to small a region..

Nuevo León, Mexico: Hola. My name is Pancho Montana and I’m writing from deep inside Mexico. Pancho Montana’s not my real name. And I'm not a “real journalist,”? because that would be a real stupid profession for me to be in here in Mexico, tops in the world when it comes to murdered journalists. And journalists don’t die quickly here either—they die in a variety of nasty (and incredibly creative) ways.

So yeah, my native country is not a fun place to be a reporter. As for the name “Pancho Montana,”? that’s something I chose some time ago when, out of the blue, I started writing an irregular “Narco War”? column for The eXiled Online, issuing reports from the front lines of the Mexican narco-war, from my home state of Nuevo León.

Back when I sent my first narco-war dispatch — in 2008 I think it was — the American media didn’t really give a shit about the narco-war in Mexico. To them, it was just a bunch of savage beaners icing each other. So I thought that I should get the story out — and what interested me the most wasn’t so much a kind of “holy shit, you have to hear this!”? compulsion to get the story out; the truth is, I was really curious about what looked to me like a new type of 21st century conflict: a civil war with non-state actors, and I wanted to share that curiosity with others who might find it interesting. And yeah, mostly I wanted to score some bragging rights with you Scarface-obsessed gringos, showing you that Mexico was a giant death-match zone packed with thousands of bloodthirsty Tony Montanas, armed with way more firepower and shitloads more drugs than that Cubano cockaroach ever had — literally thousands of tons of whatever your druggie sweet-tooth fancies: from weed to coke, to heroin and ecstasy, and even piles of crystal meth for the redneck demographic.

http://nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/narco-war-update

I am in Seattle, WA where legalization just passed. I am curious how it will play out. This is going to be a classic states rights vs. federal power issue. I think it will only be successful in the long run if other states come out and legalize as well. If this happens eventually the Feds will give up, which will be painful for many agencies because they will have to give up on one of their favorite cat and mouse games.

melveyr wrote: I am in Seattle, WA where legalization just passed. I am curious how it will play out. This is going to be a classic states rights vs. federal power issue. I think it will only be successful in the long run if other states come out and legalize as well. If this happens eventually the Feds will give up, which will be painful for many agencies because they will have to give up on one of their favorite cat and mouse games.

The police and prison guards' unions and the district attorneys are all going to fight it to the bitter end.

Illegal marijuana is basically one giant make-work program for the whole criminal justice system.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny because it is so freaking ridiculous that we have this enormous organizational infrastructure committed to preventing people from igniting the leaves of a plant and inhaling the smoke it produces.

It would have made a great Star Trek episode to have the Enterprise visit a planet where a significant portion of its population was either locked up or had restrictions on their liberty in place for a significant portion of their lives because they inhaled the smoke from the burning of the wrong plant.

***

Captain Kirk: "Bones, in your opinion...as a doctor...what do you make of these people?  What they're doing to each other...over this plant?  I'm trying to grasp it, but I can't...quite...put the pieces together."

Dr. McCoy: "Dammit Jim!  There's nothing to make of this!  These people are batshit crazy and if they'll lock up their own species for inhaling smoke, what do you think they might do to a couple of men from outer space?"

[Kirk looks knowingly at Dr. McCoy and pulls out his transmitter.]

Captain Kirk: "Scotty, beam us up."

That's going right into the internet snippets file, MT!

MediumTex wrote:
Captain Kirk: "Bones, in your opinion...as a doctor...what do you make of these people?  What they're doing to each other...over this plant?  I'm trying to grasp it, but I can't...quite...put the pieces together."

Dr. McCoy: "Dammit Jim!  There's nothing to make of this!  These people are batshit crazy and if they'll lock up their own species for inhaling smoke, what do you think they might do to a couple of men from outer space?"

[Kirk looks knowingly at Dr. McCoy and pulls out his transmitter.]

Captain Kirk: "Scotty, beam us up."

[glow=red,2,300]Priceless, absolutely priceless![/glow]

Tortoise wrote: Before making any sweeping generalizations based on observations of crime in California, first watch what happens to crime in Washington and Colorado. They both legalized recreational marijuana use in this past election.

If Washington and Colorado crime levels remain fairly constant, that may be evidence that the crime levels have far more to do with race and socioeconomic status than the legal status of marijuana alone.

+1 - I think you'll find that marijuana users are relatively peaceful, non-criminals.  Unless assault on a pack of White House sliders is a criminal offense in your jurisdiction...

MachineGhost wrote: Because they act as "Marijuana Magnets" and attract unsavory elements.  It is a huge problem for Denmark Netherlands, Portugal, etc. with their "marijuana tourism".

In the Netherlands, attempts to outlaw the sale of marijuana to foreigners created more problems than the free trade of the past. Criminals immediately started catering to the needs of the foreign shoppers and offered tourists not only the soft drug marijuana but also misc hard drugs...

I say, legalize and tax it. Everywhere. As soon as possible.

Didn't we already have a large scale experiment with this less than 100 years ago with the prohibition of alcohol that we could learn some lessons from?

Apparently not.

notsheigetz wrote: Didn't we already have a large scale experiment with this less than 100 years ago with the prohibition of alcohol that we could learn some lessons from?

Apparently not.

I'm always more surprised that more people don't make this connection. Then again, the last person I talked to on the subject thought the original prohibition was a good idea too.

MediumTex wrote: Captain Kirk: "Bones, in your opinion...as a doctor...what do you make of these people?  What they're doing to each other...over this plant?  I'm trying to grasp it, but I can't...quite...put the pieces together."

Dr. McCoy: "Dammit Jim!  There's nothing to make of this!  These people are batshit crazy and if they'll lock up their own species for inhaling smoke, what do you think they might do to a couple of men from outer space?"

[Kirk looks knowingly at Dr. McCoy and pulls out his transmitter.]

Captain Kirk: "Scotty, beam us up."

Love it!  Fortunately, I feel that this is one of those issues where people are slowly coming around.

One thing that's being eroded, I think, is the stigma that only potheads could ever be for marijuana legalization and why, I am no pothead!  The truth, of course, is that we all benefit from an environment where people allow one another to live as they please.

Perhaps this lesson just has to be periodically relearned.  It's similar to the plainly obvious truths that markets work or that racial and ethnic balkanization are awful things, two lessons that politicians love to forget at every opportunity.  History will teach you all of this stuff for free, but unfortunately many insist on (re)learning the hard way.

Lone Wolf wrote: One thing that's being eroded, I think, is the stigma that only potheads could ever be for marijuana legalization and why, I am no pothead!  The truth, of course, is that we all benefit from an environment where people allow one another to live as they please.

I feel the same way, and heck, I don't even drink! But I do know that it's none of my business what other people put in their own bodies.

Pointedstick wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote: One thing that's being eroded, I think, is the stigma that only potheads could ever be for marijuana legalization and why, I am no pothead!  The truth, of course, is that we all benefit from an environment where people allow one another to live as they please.

I feel the same way, and heck, I don't even drink! But I do know that it's none of my business what other people put in their own bodies.

Especially when the stuff that the pharmaceutical companies are putting into people's bodies to treat stress, anxiety, and insomnia have WAY more side-effects than the smoke from this plant.

Ad Orientem wrote: {to Rural Engineer}You hit the nail on the head. Broad legalization will be needed to curb crime of this nature. I really feel badly for Mexico. They have been absolutely brutalized by our insane attempt at prohibition.

I'm pro-legalization, too, and would love to see it sold at Walmart and heavily taxed. However, I find your logic to be strange. Could we put just a little blame on the corruption in Mexico? I'm no jingoist, but we can hardly blame the formation of the cartels or the brutalization of Mexican citizens on our nation's desire to outlaw cannabis.

Dualstow,

What would be the argument for "heavily taxed"? 

Where I come from, the provincial government has the monopoly on distribution and sale of most alcohols and it is heavily taxed.  To accompany that, there are laws prohibiting people to distill their own stuff so government monopoly is protected. 

One of the results: people drink cheap wine because it is expensive and the offer is not diversified.  No really a good deal for the consumer.

CA PP wrote: Dualstow,

What would be the argument for "heavily taxed"? 

As a (would-be) consumer I would be ok with it being lightly taxed, but the government needs revenue. It would be so amazing to see it legal throughout the fifty states that I think people would be ok with an excise tax. But, I am not pressing for high taxes.

Kudos to MT for the Star Trek dialogue!

The shift in attitudes toward legalization is wonderful to see.  You wouldn't even need a tax to get some serious financial benefits.  Hemp would become legal again, and suddenly there will be a new industry for paper production that doesn't require leveling forests, textiles that are more durable and cheaper to produce than cotton, food products, etc.

Did you know that marijuana is the only known drug with no LD50 - that's the dose at which 50% of the experimental animals die.  It's less dangerous than pretty much anything sold in pill form at your local drugstore, and that includes vitamins.

Interesting. I assume LD = Lethal Dose.

Sigh, for now, we have to get our hemp paper from our neighbors to the north.

    First they came for the socialists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

This quote refers to political/religious organizations, but it's applicable in so many ways, it's really quite sad.

It has been my experience that the vast majority of people (and I'm talking VAST) only care about freedoms that they themselves take advantage of.  Most are more than willing to stand back and watch the freedoms of others be taken and do nothing because it's not worth it to them, they aren't directly impacted.  People are silent as the minority has things precious to them taken/banned and when the government finally gets around to things important to the bystanders, they suddenly find themselves in the minority.  Either we're all free, or none of us are free and our turn on the block just hasn't come yet.

The nanny-state big government folks can take their free refill and large soda bans and their "Meatless Mondays" and stick them where the sun don't shine.

Storm wrote:

Tortoise wrote: Before making any sweeping generalizations based on observations of crime in California, first watch what happens to crime in Washington and Colorado. They both legalized recreational marijuana use in this past election.

If Washington and Colorado crime levels remain fairly constant, that may be evidence that the crime levels have far more to do with race and socioeconomic status than the legal status of marijuana alone.

+1 - I think you'll find that marijuana users are relatively peaceful, non-criminals.  Unless assault on a pack of White House sliders is a criminal offense in your jurisdiction...

I'm assuming you meant White Castle Sliders. Although White House Sliders might be interesting to eat once you get through all the red tape to eat them