5 ms·

You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home. The cartels can't do anything about that.

by 3131s 10y ago

h4nkoslo 10y ago
They empirically do. How do you think they control the existing MX & much of US drug trade? You must grow at scale to make it worthwhile, and then you need distribution. All of those things are vulnerable when the state can't / won't protect you, perhaps because it's illegal, or perhaps because the state is weak in the area. The later circumstance is true in Mexico.
- 3131s 10y ago
  > You must grow at scale to make it worthwhile, and then you need distribution. I am making the exact opposite point. It is easy to grow a few marijuana plants in your own home, or even easier to grow an outdoor variety in your garden. Two or three plants is more than enough for even a heavy user. All this is beside the point though, because as many others have already pointed out to you, the cartels would fall apart if the US legalized recreational drugs. Kidnapping, racketeering, etc. are just not nearly as profitable as the drug trade. Some drug dealers might move on to other criminal activities (though many actually have a conscience and would not do absolutely anything for money, believe it or not), but you're denying historical precedent if you don't think that legalization would wipe out the illegal drug trade and seriously undercut the cartel's ability to make money. Why is it that gangs don't still control alcohol distribution now that prohibition is over?
mjolk 10y ago
> You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home. People in favor of legalization try to suggest that it's about marijuana, but cartels mostly trade in higher volume/price ratio substances (esp. cocaine).
- 3131s 10y ago
  Very well aware of that, just replying to the claims of the parent comment specifically. All recreational drugs should be legalized.
  - mjolk 10y ago
    > Very well aware of that, just replying to the claims of the parent comment specifically. Fair enough -- if it read as at all speaking down to you, I did not intend for it to be that way. > All recreational drugs should be legalized. I very strongly disagree that _all_ recreational drugs should be legalized. To some extent, I agree on the less addictive substances (marijuana, psilocybin), but not on drugs that are surprisingly addictive, such as heroin, methamphetamine, or cocaine. Besides interpersonal harm (such as overdoses, intoxicated driving and its victims, economic decision making, spread of disease from sharing needles), the societal impact would be non-trivial with increased availability of intoxicants for people that rely on government services or otherwise are not net contributors to society. Legalizing recreational drugs while also believing in a societal "safety net" suggests also a level of comfort of increased taxation to subsidize the increasing numbers of addicted people, as well as providing increased medical and police services to communities.
    - 3131s 10y ago
      I did cocaine every day, multiple times a day for over a year. It was easy to stop though, unlike marijuana for me. I've also done heroin and meth, but I never felt compelled to do them often unlike I did with certain psychedelic drugs. Just an anecdote. As for your other concerns, I disagree. Availability is no issue in any major US city. Overdoses happen more frequently by not knowing the purity of a substance, and when people are terrified to go to the hospital or call an ambulance because they'll be arrested. Intoxicated driving will happen with or without legalization and is a crime in itself. Spread of disease from sharing needles would be drastically reduced with basic harm reduction / needle exchange programs. The police will be plenty available to serve their communities because currently they spend an enormous amount of time policing drug crimes. Harm reduction programs and social services can be funded by taxation on the sale of recreational drugs.
pessimizer 10y ago
Have the new legalization laws generally made home-growing legal? From the commentary I've come across, they've thrown up a huge amount of obstacles to growing, where even medium-sized business find it onerous to enter the industry. The qualifications for growing seem to have been designed to throw directly to cronies. Easy individual growing could depress the market enough that the state tax boon that legalization has been promoted as would be largely eaten up. It would basically be a license for individuals to grow enough to supply a small number of people by proxy. In that case, if there isn't an Uber for it within days, I'd be surprised. Pragmatically, what states are trying to do is replace the cartels (and grab their profits) rather than eliminate them; laws are likely to look like what the cartels would write if they were the state.
- cvwright 10y ago
  > Have the new legalization laws generally made home-growing legal? Here in Oregon, they made it legal for people to grow some small number of plants at home. Maybe 4 or 6 or something like that. I'm not sure how popular this is in practice. Personally I don't know of anyone doing it. But on the other hand, I think the plants are required to be out of sight (eg in the back yard). So for all I know there are probably a few in my neighborhood and I'll never know.
- baobrain 10y ago
  The ones off the top of my head: ME, MA, OR, CO all allow noncommercial small scale grows at home, generally 6-12 plants. I know the WA allows growing at home for medical use, but not recreational unless you follow the laws for a grower or processor.

You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home. The cartels can't do anything about that.

by 3131s 10y ago

You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home. The cartels can't do anything about that.

They empirically do. How do you think they control the existing MX & much of US drug trade? You must grow at scale to make it worthwhile, and then you need distribution. All of those things are vulnerable when the state can't / won't protect you, perhaps because it's illegal, or perhaps because the state is weak in the area. The later circumstance is true in Mexico.

3131s 10y ago
> You must grow at scale to make it worthwhile, and then you need distribution. I am making the exact opposite point. It is easy to grow a few marijuana plants in your own home, or even easier to grow an outdoor variety in your garden. Two or three plants is more than enough for even a heavy user. All this is beside the point though, because as many others have already pointed out to you, the cartels would fall apart if the US legalized recreational drugs. Kidnapping, racketeering, etc. are just not nearly as profitable as the drug trade. Some drug dealers might move on to other criminal activities (though many actually have a conscience and would not do absolutely anything for money, believe it or not), but you're denying historical precedent if you don't think that legalization would wipe out the illegal drug trade and seriously undercut the cartel's ability to make money. Why is it that gangs don't still control alcohol distribution now that prohibition is over?

mjolk 10y ago

> You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home. People in favor of legalization try to suggest that it's about marijuana, but cartels mostly trade in higher volume/price ratio substances (esp. cocaine).

3131s 10y ago
Very well aware of that, just replying to the claims of the parent comment specifically. All recreational drugs should be legalized.
- mjolk 10y ago
  > Very well aware of that, just replying to the claims of the parent comment specifically. Fair enough -- if it read as at all speaking down to you, I did not intend for it to be that way. > All recreational drugs should be legalized. I very strongly disagree that _all_ recreational drugs should be legalized. To some extent, I agree on the less addictive substances (marijuana, psilocybin), but not on drugs that are surprisingly addictive, such as heroin, methamphetamine, or cocaine. Besides interpersonal harm (such as overdoses, intoxicated driving and its victims, economic decision making, spread of disease from sharing needles), the societal impact would be non-trivial with increased availability of intoxicants for people that rely on government services or otherwise are not net contributors to society. Legalizing recreational drugs while also believing in a societal "safety net" suggests also a level of comfort of increased taxation to subsidize the increasing numbers of addicted people, as well as providing increased medical and police services to communities.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    I did cocaine every day, multiple times a day for over a year. It was easy to stop though, unlike marijuana for me. I've also done heroin and meth, but I never felt compelled to do them often unlike I did with certain psychedelic drugs. Just an anecdote. As for your other concerns, I disagree. Availability is no issue in any major US city. Overdoses happen more frequently by not knowing the purity of a substance, and when people are terrified to go to the hospital or call an ambulance because they'll be arrested. Intoxicated driving will happen with or without legalization and is a crime in itself. Spread of disease from sharing needles would be drastically reduced with basic harm reduction / needle exchange programs. The police will be plenty available to serve their communities because currently they spend an enormous amount of time policing drug crimes. Harm reduction programs and social services can be funded by taxation on the sale of recreational drugs.

pessimizer 10y ago

Have the new legalization laws generally made home-growing legal? From the commentary I've come across, they've thrown up a huge amount of obstacles to growing, where even medium-sized business find it onerous to enter the industry. The qualifications for growing seem to have been designed to throw directly to cronies. Easy individual growing could depress the market enough that the state tax boon that legalization has been promoted as would be largely eaten up. It would basically be a license for individuals to grow enough to supply a small number of people by proxy. In that case, if there isn't an Uber for it within days, I'd be surprised. Pragmatically, what states are trying to do is replace the cartels (and grab their profits) rather than eliminate them; laws are likely to look like what the cartels would write if they were the state.

cvwright 10y ago
> Have the new legalization laws generally made home-growing legal? Here in Oregon, they made it legal for people to grow some small number of plants at home. Maybe 4 or 6 or something like that. I'm not sure how popular this is in practice. Personally I don't know of anyone doing it. But on the other hand, I think the plants are required to be out of sight (eg in the back yard). So for all I know there are probably a few in my neighborhood and I'll never know.
baobrain 10y ago
The ones off the top of my head: ME, MA, OR, CO all allow noncommercial small scale grows at home, generally 6-12 plants. I know the WA allows growing at home for medical use, but not recreational unless you follow the laws for a grower or processor.