The Alice in Wonderland Drug War: Prohibition is the Cartels' Best Ally

[RainDog]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10767143

Nice article, via New Zealand, on the state of the current drug war, by Peter Huck.

"It would be hard to point to any public policy in the US that causes so much clear and obvious friction between the federal Government and almost a majority, population-wise, of states," argues Allen St Pierre, executive director of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

(Cato Institute) Senior fellow Ted Galen Carpenter argued the savagery of Mexico's drug wars, with 42,000 dead since 2006, had made the US less safe. "Depending on the drug, roughly 90 per cent of the retail price exists because the drugs are illegal."

Legalising cannabis would remove cannabis profits, said Jones. "We would be striking a larger blow at those cartels than any law enforcement effort ever could. What's our exit strategy for the war on drugs?"

Even if the DEA does shutter pot clinics, any victory could be pyrrhic. St Pierre believes Washington's "no quarter" stance on cannabis clashes with grassroots realities. He argues the US has crossed a Rubicon, citing more cannabis-tolerant baby boomers, a need for tax revenue in a deep recession, easy access to cannabis information via the internet and empathy towards the infirm who use the drug.

Prohibition of alcohol ended during the great depression because the FDR administration thought such a move would create jobs and taxable revenue.

Estimated annual revenue from medical cannabis in the U.S., based upon lawsuits against the new govt crackdown: $1.5 billion to $4.5 billion.

Estimated annual sales tax, from the state of California: $50 to $100 million.

Even if a repeal of prohibition caused the price of cannabis to drop, the state could still collect tax revenue adjusted to move the profit from the sale of cannabis from cartels to states in order to fund tax-based services.

But, Huck notes, via Carpenter, that the greatest barrier to any change in prohibition is that politicians are afraid of being branded soft on drugs - because opportunists take such opportunities to attack.

Instead, advancements toward ending the war on drugs take place in the marketplace and at the ballot box when citizens have the opportunity to engage in direct democracy.

As St. Pierre noted, 16 states and DC have passed medical marijuana laws. Of these, approximately 2/3 of the changes in the law occurred because of voters. Of these, an overwhelming majority of voters in these states passed laws with more than 55% of the vote.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

These 16 states and D.C. comprise nearly half of the voting population of the U.S. (based upon census data for the voting population.) And that number doesn't adequately gauge the sentiments of the entire voting population because many states do not allow initiatives on their ballots to put this issue to a vote via direct democracy.

Support for medical marijuana, across the U.S. continues to poll at 77%. This support is from all demographic categories: age, gender, political affiliation and region.

We are definitely through the looking glass when the Drug Czar continues to claim there is no medical value to marijuana while 77% of the population disagrees and close to a majority of the voting population has taken action to put that disagreement into law.

What number is the tipping point at which the federal govt. can no longer continue to tout enforcement of laws that so many citizens find unlawful?

[catabryna]

1. Hmmmm...

"What number is the tipping point at which the federal govt. can no longer continue to tout enforcement of laws that so many citizens find unlawful?"

What is the tipping point for a Congress who believes that it has the power to overcome the will of the people who insist that we need to tax the wealthy to help us get out of debt?

Follow the money.

[RainDog]

3. in this case

it seems the states will simply ignore the feds because of their need for revenue.

if CA and CO legalize on the 2012 ballot, it will be a whole 'nother world and the feds will not be able to stop what the people of this nation want. they simply do not have the numbers of people to stop every business from operating. for every place they raid or shut down, two more will start up.

and it seems this needs to happen because, as you note, the federal govt has become a part of the problem. They are aligning themselves with organized crime. Or course, I think you could make a good argument that the way the .01% operates in the U.S. is simply a lock-jawed suit and tie version of a criminal gang, too, who have bought and paid for our pols.

[catabryna]

5. I'm still trying to figure out why the Feds are going after California...

but, not Colorado or Oregon. They just opened up a new cannabis club across the street from my kid's dentist's office in Portland. The selective enforcement is quite interesting.

And, as I understand it, California's governor just vetoed a simple agricultural hemp law.

Sometimes, I think the right-hand doesn't know what the left-hand is doing.

Until we take the cartels out of the business of marijuana (medical and recreational) things will remain the same. The only way to take the cartels out of the game is legalization.

Smoke and Mirrors.

[RainDog]

6. The feds have gone after dispensaries across the country

in this recent crackdown - including Montana and Washington State.

The Montana legislature this year (actually, a Republican with political ambitions) has tried to pass a law that would undo the medical marijuana statute that voters brought into being. Arizona legislators tried to do the same thing from the late 1990s, when their state voted for medical mj and, finally, voters had to vote to constrain their legislature. It took three votes to get medical marijuana on somewhat solid ground.

And, yes, the gov. of CA, a democrat, vetoed the hemp law. Cotton is doing really well in CA this year, however, even tho it's stupid to grow cotton in CA because of the need for water for that crop - not to mention that cotton is a huge source of pesticide use - and the U.S. leads in that pesticide use for cotton.

Federal-level Democrats in CA do not support local Democrats on this issue either. Check out Feinstein's record.

The irony of the recent crackdown is that I read, via NORML, I think it was, that CA has a huge med mj crop that has come into harvest. So, I guess this crackdown helps clear the way for this new harvest and keeps the price elevated for growers - CA growers, not just cartels. So maybe that's some smoke and mirrors too.

I really do hope we see legalization in 2012.

Since Amsterdam now has a right wing govt in place (in great part b/c of the backlash fueled by the assassination of Theo Van Gogh and anti-immigrant sentiment), CA and CO could seriously damage Amsterdam's tourist industry. For the first time ever, this month, the Amsterdam police raided the annual Cannabis Cup competition and searched everyone leaving the site of the competition. They didn't arrest anyone, as far as I know, but did check to see that everyone was in compliance with the amount of cannabis that any one group was allowed to possess. These sorts of actions will drive away tourist dollars. Maybe not a good strategy in hard fiscal times in Europe right now, it would seem to me. In January the cannabis coffee shops will be limited to citizens of that nation.

All this will do is drive sales of cannabis into the street and create targets for other criminals.

[catabryna]

8. Your last sentence says it all.

"All this will do is drive sales of cannabis into the street and create targets for other criminals."

This is exactly what we (and, I'm speaking for myself) marijuana legalization proponents have been saying for eons.

This country has failed to understand the consequences of prohibition. I guess they have never studied history.

[nikto]

2. Cartel pay-offs are helping...

...keep US Law Officials and some politicians locked into the "anti-legal pot"
position.

The Cartels are here, people.

And they have fat wallets.

[theaocp]

4. What a crock of shit

Y'all need to understand that alcohol and tobacco need to be made illegal, get it? Prohibition is the answer, so y'all need to shut up!

[RainDog]

7. well, I supported a petition that asked just for that

...a petition that asked for alcohol and tobacco to be regulated like cannabis. I mean, if this isn't just about targeting a specific voting demographic or using prohibition as a way to create straw men to make pols look tough... why the inconsistency?

why aren't alcohol and tobacco scheduled as dangerous drugs since they're more harmful than marijuana?

I guess those two have $ome friend$ in high place$.

[Scuba]

9. "What's the exit strategy for the war on drugs?"

[RainDog]

11. I love the question, too.

Reagan started the War on Drugs when he started covert ops in Central America. Most of our money to fight the war on drugs goes to military contractors for planes that spray pesticides that get into the water of people who live downstream from the places they spray.

...but the folks who got this going seem to have favored endless war as a way of life.

just another way to go after people with brown skin.

since the war on terror (endless war II), a lot of places in South America have been able to work out their own govts - but we make sure we keep a presence via the WoD.

Endless war sounds like a psychopath's vision of America.

[Initech]

10. Bill Hicks was right - we're the bullies of the globe.

[shanti]

12. "Legalising cannabis would remove cannabis profits, said Jones..."

well, there you have it in a nutshell. :eyes: mess with someone's money, you will pay. same as it ever was.

[RainDog]

13. The Rand Report, put out before the 2010 CA legalization vote

said that, overall, since we have never had a legal cannabis market of any scale (we had a hemp industry, but not a market for cannabis grown for recreational use) it's really hard to predict what the price would be.

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2010/07/07.html

they note that it only costs a mere $300 million to enforce current laws (in CA, alone.)

RAND researchers say one effect of legalizing marijuana would be to dramatically drop the price as growers move from clandestine operations to legal production. Based on an analysis of known production costs and surveys of the current price of marijuana, researchers suggest the untaxed retail price of high-quality marijuana could drop to as low as $38 per ounce compared to about $375 per ounce today.

However, the cost of producing cannabis could drop too as people move outdoors - which would be better for the environment, as well, since the current indoor cannabis industry has a huge carbon footprint.

http://evan-mills.com/energy-associates/Indoor.html

The analysis performed in this study finds that indoor Cannabis production results in energy expenditures of $5 billion each year, with electricity use equivalent to that of 2 million average U.S. homes. This corresponds to 1% of national electricity consumption or 2% of that in households. The yearly greenhouse-gas pollution (carbon dioxide, CO2 ) from the electricity plus associated transportation fuels equals that of 3 million cars. Energy costs constitute a quarter of wholesale value.

In California, the top-producing state—and one of 17 states to allow cultivation for medical purposes—the practice is responsible for about 3% of all electricity use or 8% of household use. Due to higher electricity prices and cleaner fuels used to make electricity, California incurs 70% of national energy costs but only 20% of national CO2 emissions.

I don't think the Rand study factored in the savings if greenhouses were solar powered and out in the open.

Plus, part of the money that would result from the cannabis industry would be accessories and specialty items like baked goods and income from opening cannabis cafes where other items would be sold and where people would visit as tourists. CA already has a model for cannabis in the wine industry, it would seem to me.

but Rand said -

"A fixed excise tax per ounce may give producers and users an incentive to shift to smaller quantities of higher-potency forms of marijuana," said study co-author Jonathan P. Caulkins, the H. Guyford Stever Professor of Operations Research at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College and Qatar campus. Such a shift is another factor that could lower revenues collected from marijuana taxes.

The RAND report also investigates some of the costs to the state and society in general, such as drug treatment and other health expenses, that may change if marijuana is legalized in California.

It's unclear whether legalizing marijuana may increase or decrease drug treatment costs, according to the study. More than half of the 32,000 admissions for treatment of marijuana abuse in California during in 2009 resulted from criminal justice referrals, which could drop if legalization is approved. However, an increase in marijuana use could cause a spike in those who voluntarily seek treatment for marijuana abuse, researchers say.

--I don't know if they figured the savings to law enforcement or the cost of housing prisoners (even tho possession is a misdemeanor, growing or transporting cannabis is not decriminalized.) Plus, if CA legalized, it seems like some sentences of people who were put in jail under prohibition should be revisited.

The real threat to CA legalizing is the question of how much of the legally grown cannabis would make it to places where cannabis is still illegal. That already happens - but growers might have even greater incentive to export to other states for higher prices. so people who want to make money thru illegality would still have that option...