Harper tells us why he won't free the weed: "its bad"

[praktik]

Wow! Such a concvincing argument!

---------------

TheSpec.com - BreakingNews - Harper tells YouTube crowd he won't legalize pot

Even though Prime Minister Harper is using the new media to reach out to younger voters, he's not about to grant what seems to be their favourite wish.

Speaking on YouTube, Harper said his government won't legalize marijuana.

Of the questions posed to Harper in a virtual townhall meeting, those dealing with pot were the most popular.

Harper says "the reason drugs are illegal is because they're bad."

The prime minister said when people buy from the drug trade, they're not buying from their neighbour.

Harper says they're buying from "international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disorder and catastrophe all over the world."

The prime minister says even if pot was legalized, "these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people."

---------

Little does Harper realize, the pot industry is actually fairly diverse. Sure, some cash gets in the pockets of organized crime but there's also tons of "mom and pop" operations where the money is NOT going to some organization responsible for "unimaginable violence".

Also looks like someone hasn't read much about Al Capone...

[Subsonic Chronic]

[Sal De Ban]

"the public just wants what they want, blindly begging for their own interests to be fulfilled without seeing the big picture. And once their children have graduated elementary school, you won't see them fighting to keep that school open any longer."

good quote.

[maphi]

Originally Posted by praktik

Harper says they're buying from "international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disorder and catastrophe all over the world."

Yes. "international cartels" such as the one the Canadian Armed forces is defending in Afghanistan which is producing record amounts of heroin since we moved in there. Harper knows where his bread is buttered.

[praktik]

Well Afghanistan has always been a huge producer of heroin - what really needs to happen is sourcing that opium harvest for medical purposes and paying farmers the same or better than the cartels.

The problem with taking down heroin in Afghanistan is it would pretty much be like destroying all the soy and corn fields in Canada - try defeating an insurgency by destroying the livelihood of the populace ain't such a smart plan.

Part of the schizophrenic mission control there: beginning -> we're cool with opium, then fro 2004-2006 aerial spraying campaigns and burning farmers fields, now -> back to tolerating it.

You can look at other shit the same way: we arm militias in the early days, demobilize them in the middle, and now we're back to arming them again...

make up yo damn mind yo!

[Colm]

What we need is stiz dealers to start dressing in snappy suits, making grandiose statements and appearances a local fairs, and arguing with federal agents in front of the press. Let's dress weed, decked to the 9s, urbane and superficially sophisticated.

[praktik]

Ha! Looks like his response to the drugs question polled among the lowest of all his answers:

Two-in-five Canadians (40%) agree with the statement: "If drugs were legalized, these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people." Support for this notion is lowest in British Columbia, and among respondents aged 18 to 34.

[Sal De Ban]

support is among the lowest with folks that don't understand the drug trade, bottom line. Organized crime would push their way in, no problems. "nice guys" won't last. start up yer harleys.....(frickin hippies )

[praktik]

Oooh! New poll out:

[Sal De Ban]

yer either jumpin over my posts because they're either

(a) really right, and it takes the fun out of the discussion and harper bashing

or (b) they're very wrong / irrelevant

[praktik]

I have to admit post #8 is a mystery to me..

[Sal De Ban]

so (b) then? aw!

[Re: Shoe]

Originally Posted by Sal De Ban

support is among the lowest with folks that don't understand the drug trade, bottom line. Organized crime would push their way in, no problems. "nice guys" won't last. start up yer harleys.....(frickin hippies )

Not sure I agree that "nice guys" won't last. Yes, likely some elements of organized crime would welcome the opportunity to legally sell pot over the counter in a corner store. But there's two things to consider:

1. From a purely economic standpoint, would this lead to a net increase or decrease in drug revenue to an organized crime group? Would the expected increase in consumer side demand (e.g., potential pot smokers that are currently not buying weed because of the fact that it is illegal) be sufficient to counter the expected decrease in price and decrease in the gangs' market share if ordinary citizens are able to start up a corner weed shop?

2. Organized crime will be attracted to any situation where there is easy cash to be made while staying hidden from tax authorities. So while I would agree that organized crime would try to push their way in, I would argue that it would be similar to the current situation with bars/pubs/clubs. That is, there are probably plenty of crooks but there are also lots of nice guys as well (or at least corporations that play by the rules). Tax evasion by dishonest bar owners (and future pot store owners) is a separate issue that has its own potential solutions, e.g., no more cash transactions.

[Sal De Ban]

that's all valid. I am thinking less about 'pubs' as an example, and more about 'strip clubs' - gang-owned or otherwise. Legal, although up for debate on ethics, and a great front for other illegal activities (and money laundering). "pot" stores would be the same, unless there's something I'm not seeing.

[atbell]

Originally Posted by Sal De Ban

support is among the lowest with folks that don't understand the drug trade, bottom line. Organized crime would push their way in, no problems. "nice guys" won't last. start up yer harleys.....(frickin hippies )

There is no way that anyone riding a bike can match legal distribution / growth of pot.

'oh man, what's that rumbling? Looks like the bikers are shaking down old lady Cenn again. Don't they know she just grows her own to help with the parkinsons?'

Sure there's going to be some crime associated with the black market in the same way that bootlegged booze and smokes are traded right now but the fact that pot is a naturally occuring weed in Canada makes it pretty tough for any orginization, criminal or other, to gain any kind of foot hold into the legal distribution.

[atbell]

Originally Posted by Sal De Ban

that's all valid. I am thinking less about 'pubs' as an example, and more about 'strip clubs' - gang-owned or otherwise. Legal, although up for debate on ethics, and a great front for other illegal activities (and money laundering). "pot" stores would be the same, unless there's something I'm not seeing.

Like the fact that 'pot stores' could easily be the LLCBO?

Or an alternative distribution means would see pot sold at pharmacies with perscriptions being issued to control the amount people consume per time period (sure costly but an option none the less).

Your logic doesn't quite work right about the gang-owned distribution when compared to the case of prohibition in the '20s. As legalization of alcohol progressed all sorts of non-criminal, honest businesses grew out of the new legalization, we call them bars, pubs, restaurants, and corner stores. There is no reason to think that pot would progress any differently.

Unlike the taboos of stripclubs, pot is a phisical substance that can be packaged and stored in a box; naked women can not. This means that every corner store from Halifax to Sudbury to Banff will be able to carry the pot of the big guys (duMorier golds anyone? or should they be called greens?) but each store will have the option of sourcing local, just like micro brews in pubs.

The number of different valid buisness models is endless.

But then again, maybe corner store owners won't want another high return product to sell ....

[Subsonic Chronic]

Originally Posted by Sal De Ban

that's all valid. I am thinking less about 'pubs' as an example, and more about 'strip clubs' - gang-owned or otherwise. Legal, although up for debate on ethics, and a great front for other illegal activities (and money laundering). "pot" stores would be the same, unless there's something I'm not seeing.

I don't see the link if pot is made legal.

Organized crime thrives in the sorts of circumstances where its victims are doing things that are against the law. Drug dealers and prostitutes are much less likely to go to the authorities if they get robbed/threatened/extorted from, etc... due to the illegal nature of their business. If that business is made legal, they can avoid having to deal with other criminals and can now go to the cops like any other business entrepreneur if something goes wrong.

You're also usually paying a premium for shit that's illegal due to the obvious risks involved. Make pot legal and the growers and dealers won't have to associate with organized crime, and organized crime will lose an avenue of income as a result since the guys doing it properly and legally can supply it for just as cheap and with no risks.

With respect to organized crime running strip clubs, in the cases where this may happen, they're more likely involved in the illegal aspects of it whether it be drugs or prostitution. I'd be real surprised to find organized crime running squeaky clean establishments just because they like titties.

[Sal De Ban]

pot is a phisical substance that can be packaged and stored in a box; naked women can not

orly? just ask the Danish.

but seriously, you wouldn't see a genuine reduction in price because it would have the shit taxed out of it, like cigarettes. anyway, our govt's are phasing out smoking on all levels so no worries that we'll be legalizing something designed to smoke per se.

out loud here, I actually wonder how it would be marketed and regulated if it were legal. would it be similar to Amsterdam? Would it be mainly farmer's markets selling the stuff? i guess this is something we're all curious about...

[praktik]

Originally Posted by Sal De Ban

orly? just ask the Danish.

Who decriminalized - not legalized. So the continuing influence of criminal gangs is no surprise - its by design...

[Sal De Ban]

sorry praktik - i was talking about "storing things in boxes" - guess my dark humour wasn't clear after all...

everything, like a fine wine, improves with a few years in the cellar......

[WestsideWax]

Originally Posted by Subsonic Chronic

You're also usually paying a premium for shit that's illegal due to the obvious risks involved. Make pot legal and the growers and dealers won't have to associate with organized crime, and organized crime will lose an avenue of income as a result since the guys doing it properly and legally can supply it for just as cheap and with no risks.

Price won't go down that much. Legal = taxed. So, the overhead that is normally associated with organised crime will instead go to the other organised criminals.

Meanwhile, in another corner of the planet:

Marijuana legalization will be on California ballot

Under the initiative, simple possession of an ounce (28.5 grams) or less of marijuana, currently a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $100 fine, would be legal for anyone at least 21. It also would be lawful to grow limited amounts in one's own home for personal use.

While sales would not be legalized outright, cities and counties could pass laws permitting commercial distribution subject to local regulations and taxes. Retail sales would still be limited to an ounce for adults 21 and older.

[Re: Shoe]

Originally Posted by WestsideWax

Price won't go down that much. Legal = taxed. So, the overhead that is normally associated with organised crime will instead go to the other organised criminals.

Not sure that I completely agree with you. Yes, the government will try to maximize their weed tax revenue, which I think generally would mean making the tax as high as possible but in recognition that higher taxes creates an bigger incentive for black markets to avoid the tax.

However, I think that there are two factors that make it difficult to compare weed taxes to alcohol (the weed-LCBO?), cigarettes or even gasoline:

A) The capital cost and skills to enter the market are so low. It's a weed that can easily grow outside in our climate, and so long as you have decent seeds to start and have some basic gardening skills then you should be able to get a reasonable quality product (well I assume so anyways, since I've never done it myself). Tobacco is both more difficult to grow and requires more labour to process it into a form that consumers will buy. Similarly with alcohol, although I think skill is more of an issue here; almost anyone could get the capital needed to buy the limited equipment and ingredients needed to brew their own beer, but few have the skills required to make a product of comparable quality to what you can easily buy from a local microbrewery.

B) I would believe that the amount of pot that the average consumer would use, in comparison with the cost and effort required to produce that amount, is significantly less than the other examples. Yes, there will always be potheads, but from a public health perspective can you really compare even the most chronic stoner to a carton-a-day smoker or to a serious alcoholic? It doesn't compare well even for casual use; I'll have a glass of wine during a weekday dinner with my kids or a pint during a Friday lunch with my coworkers, but even if I had free legal weed I wouldn't be interested in smoking a bowl in either of those situations.

Given these factors, I don't believe that the market would support very high prices regardless of the tax regime. Without the lure of easy money in the weed business, organized crime would simply look elsewhere.

[Sal De Ban]

ah well. you're all right. and all the points are valid and have been argued time and time again. but it'll never be legalized (at least for recreational use) so i guess we can all conclude this issue has come full circle yet again.

[praktik]

Originally Posted by Sal De Ban

ah well. you're all right. and all the points are valid and have been argued time and time again. but it'll never be legalized (at least for recreational use) so i guess we can all conclude this issue has come full circle yet again.

I disagree. I think we'll see it in our lifetime.

[Wiseman]

As do I. At a certain point it just won't make any sense not to.