4 ms·
"In Mexico relatively few people take drugs. " Really? Where are the stats to back this up? "the president, has said that if Americans cannot bring themselve
by paulhauggis 14y ago
"In Mexico relatively few people take drugs. "
Really? Where are the stats to back this up?
"the president, has said that if Americans cannot bring themselves to stop buying drugs, they ought to consider “market alternatives”, by which he means legalisation. Vicente Fox and Ernesto Zedillo, the two previous presidents of Mexico, have reached the same conclusion."
So, the leaders of Mexico can't seem to stop corruption and blame the US.
"That would make it more expensive than imported Mexican pot. But home-grown marijuana is much better quality than the Mexican sort."
Which is why there will always be a market for Mexican pot. You would think that people wouldn't buy junk quality items...but Walmart is still a billion dollar business.
Legalizing it will just make it easier for the cartels to get over the borders with their product. The violence will not stop because the Mexican government can't get their shit together and police their own country.
The reason the end of prohibition in the US meant the end of gangster-owned territories is because you couldn't buy off any cop, official, or judge in the country.
"IMCO reckons. Exports of other drugs, from cocaine to methamphetamine, would become less competitive,"
Less competitive? Let's say the Cartels are all selling 3 main drugs: cocaine, MJ, and meth. MJ goes away. cocaine and meth are now more competitive than ever.
For being called "the economist", the sure don't understand how business works...
- paulhauggis 14y agoI feel like pot is like the hypnotoad on Futurama and I can't really trust the opinions of its users.
- apendleton 14y agoHistorically speaking, there's not strong evidence of this. Despite bootleggers' existing alcohol production and distribution infrastructure at the end of prohibition in the US, they didn't end up as major players in the liquor market after prohibition was repealed, and it's pretty easy to see why: no sane consumer would choose to buy a product from a gangster in an alley when they could just as easily buy from a reputable liquor store down the street. This was all magnified by the fact that government regulation and corporate oversight ensured safer and higher-quality products at lower prices. There's no reason to think the same thing wouldn't happen with pot: if you could buy it at the pharmacy, why would you go through a dealer? Maybe if there were huge discrepancies in cost because of high taxes, there might be an opportunity at the margins for some arbitrage, the same way there is for cigarette smuggling in Europe, but I'm skeptical, especially because most of the cost, today, of buying pot isn't paying for direct production costs (materials, fertilizer, electricity, etc.), but rather compensating the various players involved for the risk they assume in producing and distributing the product. This all goes away with legalization.