BajaNomad - US Drug War Has Met None of Its Goals

US Drug War Has Met None of Its Goals

Gypsy Jan - 5-13-2010 at 08:15 PM

By MARTHA MENDOZA, Associated Press Writer Martha Mendoza, Associated Press Writer Thu May 13, 5:15 pm ET

MEXICO CITY – After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

Kerlikowske, who coordinates all federal anti-drug policies, says it will take time for the spending to match the rhetoric.

"Nothing happens overnight," he said. "We've never worked the drug problem holistically. We'll arrest the drug dealer, but we leave the addiction."

His predecessor, John P. Walters, takes issue with that.

Walters insists society would be far worse today if there had been no War on Drugs. Drug abuse peaked nationally in 1979 and, despite fluctuations, remains below those levels, he says. Judging the drug war is complicated: Records indicate marijuana and prescription drug abuse are climbing, while cocaine use is way down. Seizures are up, but so is availability.

"To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous," Walters said. "It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcment, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

___

In 1970, hippies were smoking pot and dropping acid. Soldiers were coming home from Vietnam hooked on heroin. Embattled President Richard M. Nixon seized on a new war he thought he could win.

"This nation faces a major crisis in terms of the increasing use of drugs, particularly among our young people," Nixon said as he signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The following year, he said: "Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."

His first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it's $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation.

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

• $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

• $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

• $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

• $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

• $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."

___

From the beginning, lawmakers debated fiercely whether law enforcement — no matter how well funded and well trained — could ever defeat the drug problem.

Then-Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who had his doubts, has since watched his worst fears come to pass.

"Look what happened. It's an ongoing tragedy that has cost us a trillion dollars. It has loaded our jails and it has destabilized countries like Mexico and Colombia," he said.

In 1970, proponents said beefed-up law enforcement could effectively seal the southern U.S. border and stop drugs from coming in. Since then, the U.S. used patrols, checkpoints, sniffer dogs, cameras, motion detectors, heat sensors, drone aircraft — and even put up more than 1,000 miles of steel beam, concrete walls and heavy mesh stretching from California to Texas.

None of that has stopped the drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy says about 330 tons of cocaine, 20 tons of heroin and 110 tons of methamphetamine are sold in the United States every year — almost all of it brought in across the borders. Even more marijuana is sold, but it's hard to know how much of that is grown domestically, including vast fields run by Mexican drug cartels in U.S. national parks.

The dealers who are caught have overwhelmed justice systems in the United States and elsewhere. U.S. prosecutors declined to file charges in 7,482 drug cases last year, most because they simply didn't have the time. That's about one out of every four drug cases.

The United States has in recent years rounded up thousands of suspected associates of Mexican drug gangs, then turned some of the cases over to local prosecutors who can't make the charges stick for lack of evidence. The suspects are then sometimes released, deported or acquitted. The U.S. Justice Department doesn't even keep track of what happens to all of them.

In Mexico, traffickers exploit a broken justice system. Investigators often fail to collect convincing evidence — and are sometimes assassinated when they do. Confessions are beaten out of suspects by frustrated, underpaid police. Judges who no longer turn a blind eye to such abuse release the suspects in exasperation.

In prison, in the U.S. or Mexico, traffickers continue to operate, ordering assassinations and arranging distribution of their product even from solitary confinement in Texas and California. In Mexico, prisoners can sometimes even buy their way out.

The violence spans Mexico. In Ciudad Juarez, the epicenter of drug violence in Mexico, 2,600 people were killed last year in cartel-related violence, making the city of 1 million across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, one of the world's deadliest. Not a single person was prosecuted for homicide related to organized crime.

And then there's the money.

The $320 billion annual global drug industry now accounts for 1 percent of all commerce on the planet.

A full 10 percent of Mexico's economy is built on drug proceeds — $25 billion smuggled in from the United States every year, of which 25 cents of each $100 smuggled is seized at the border. Thus there's no incentive for the kind of financial reform that could tame the cartels.

"For every drug dealer you put in jail or kill, there's a line up to replace him because the money is just so good," says Walter McCay, who heads the nonprofit Center for Professional Police Certification in Mexico City.

McCay is one of the 13,000 members of Medford, Mass.-based Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens and others who want to legalize and regulate all drugs.

A decade ago, no politician who wanted to keep his job would breathe a word about legalization, but a consensus is growing across the country that at least marijuana will someday be regulated and sold like tobacco and alcohol.

California voters decide in November whether to legalize marijuana, and South Dakota will vote this fall on whether to allow medical uses of marijuana, already permitted in California and 13 other states. The Obama administration says it won't target marijuana dispensaries if they comply with state laws.

___

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says if America wants to fix the drug problem, it needs to do something about Americans' unquenching thirst for illegal drugs.

Kerlikowske agrees, and Obama has committed to doing just that.

And yet both countries continue to spend the bulk of their drug budgets on law enforcement rather than treatment and prevention.

"President Obama's newly released drug war budget is essentially the same as Bush's, with roughly twice as much money going to the criminal justice system as to treatment and prevention," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. "This despite Obama's statements on the campaign trail that drug use should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue."

Obama is requesting a record $15.5 billion for the drug war for 2011, about two thirds of it for law enforcement at the front lines of the battle: police, military and border patrol agents struggling to seize drugs and arrest traffickers and users.

About $5.6 billion would be spent on prevention and treatment.

"For the first time ever, the nation has before it an administration that views the drug issue first and foremost through the lens of the public health mandate," said economist and drug policy expert John Carnevale, who served three administrations and four drug czars. "Yet ... it appears that this historic policy stride has some problems with its supporting budget."

Carnevale said the administration continues to substantially over-allocate funds to areas that research shows are least effective — interdiction and source-country programs — while under-allocating funds for treatment and prevention.

Kerlikowske, who wishes people would stop calling it a "war" on drugs, frequently talks about one of the most valuable tools they've found, in which doctors screen for drug abuse during routine medical examinations. That program would get a mere $7.2 million under Obama's budget.

"People will say that's not enough. They'll say the drug budget hasn't shifted as much as it should have, and granted I don't disagree with that," Kerlikowske said. "We would like to do more in that direction."

Fifteen years ago, when the government began telling doctors to ask their patients about their drug use during routine medical exams, it described the program as one of the most proven ways to intervene early with would-be addicts.

"Nothing happens overnight," Kerlikowske said.

___

Until 100 years ago, drugs were simply a commodity. Then Western cultural shifts made them immoral and deviant, according to London School of Economics professor Fernanda Mena.

Religious movements led the crusades against drugs: In 1904, an Episcopal bishop returning from a mission in the Far East argued for banning opium after observing "the natives' moral degeneration." In 1914, The New York Times reported that cocaine caused blacks to commit "violent crimes," and that it made them resistant to police bullets. In the decades that followed, Mena said, drugs became synonymous with evil.

Nixon drew on those emotions when he pressed for his War on Drugs.

"Narcotics addiction is a problem which afflicts both the body and the soul of America," he said in a special 1971 message to Congress. "It comes quietly into homes and destroys children, it moves into neighborhoods and breaks the fiber of community which makes neighbors. We must try to better understand the confusion and disillusion and despair that bring people, particularly young people, to the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs."

Just a few years later, a young Barack Obama was one of those young users, a teenager smoking pot and trying "a little blow when you could afford it," as he wrote in "Dreams From My Father." When asked during his campaign if he had inhaled the pot, he replied: "That was the point."

So why persist with costly programs that don't work?

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, sitting down with the AP at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, paused for a moment at the question.

"Look," she says, starting slowly. "This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life, a young child's life, a teenager's life, their ability to be a successful and productive adult.

"If you think about it in those terms, that they are fighting for lives — and in Mexico they are literally fighting for lives as well from the violence standpoint — you realize the stakes are too high to let go."

Mexicorn - 5-13-2010 at 08:23 PM

Good read Jan. I think the California State government should legalize marijuana even though I dont use it. The State could tax it.
Just my two pesos.

The Above is News

Gypsy Jan - 5-13-2010 at 08:37 PM

What follows is my own, non-official speculation.

I have read that if the very large and major marijuana crops of Northern California were legalized, sufficiently regulated and taxed, then maybe there would be some help out to the crushing civil debt and the efforts of law enforcement could be more effectively directed towards violent crime.

But, what do I know? (And, if you are asking, no, I do not smoke and I do not know anyone these days who does.)

BajaBruno - 5-13-2010 at 11:16 PM

I’m always rather ashamed of the American electorate when I read politicians saying things like, “Walters insists society would be far worse today if there had been no War on Drugs.” All available evidence is that they took a bad situation and made it terrible, yet they insist that it would have been even worse had they not taken their ill-advised action. Of course, there is no way to prove that, either way, but the children of other industrialized nations are taught logic and the scientific method, and their politicians would never get away with such a silly justification.

One may think of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, down on one knee in the Bush White House to plead for his bailout plan for US banks, and the new Secretary’s insistence that “things would be far worse today if there had been no bailout” (and maybe that is right or wrong), but there is historical precedence for the actions they took. They were afraid of a second Depression and tried to avoid the mistakes of President Hoover.

The historical precedence for the War on Drugs is the war on alcohol that we call Prohibition, and we all know how that turned out. It turned a country that had its lowest alcohol use in history into a gin-swilling, gun-slinging, murdering country with no respect for the law and even less for the law enforcers.

All this may sound strangely current to the unfortunate residents of Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, and Acapulco, as well as LA, Oakland, Detroit, and New York. Several years ago I was playing poker with a prominent defense attorney, the district attorney, and the county sheriff, and I brought up the idea of legalizing marijuana. The district attorney said no, the only way to solve the drug problem is to legalize all drugs and start civil clinics for addicts. Legalize heroin? Yes, all drugs.

He explained that when one can go into any bar in the country and buy any drug you want, drugs are de facto legal already. Formally legalizing them just gives you the opportunity to cut out the abuses of the dealers, along with the murders and high taxes from bloated prisons, and put abusers into rehab. Let the functional users alone, just as we do with alcohol users. He was more eloquent and convincing than I am tonight, I suppose, because when he was finished, everyone at the table agreed with him and we went back to having c-cktails and playing poker illegally.

[Edited on 5-14-2010 by BajaBruno]

Iflyfish - 5-14-2010 at 12:03 AM

Yup, there is always a cultural lag for information like this to sink in.

It is easier to take a simple "no to all drugs" posture than to engage in a more nuanced approach and to deal with drug use as a medical problem. What an incredible waste of resources when the country needs a national health plan and infrastructure development.

It is interesting to note that the Northern California Pot growers are opposed to legalization, it would dry up their illicit markets. Hmm, dry up the markets, put them out of business, hmm?? I wonder what the Cartels think of this possibility?

The ending of Prohibition created a situation where many bootleggers became legitimate business men, the Kennedy family is an excellent example among many.

Iflyfish

BillP - 5-14-2010 at 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexicorn
Good read Jan. I think the California State government should legalize marijuana even though I dont use it. The State could tax it.
Just my two pesos.

I agree CA should legalize it, but the tax revenue angle is a fallacy IMO(no disrespect to mexicorn intended). Where's this controlled, taxable supply going to come from? The gubment? Do we create yet another overblown, costly, and ineffective bureaucracy?

Legalize it, and allow folks to grow a 5X5 plot.

BTW A very good artical

toneart - 5-14-2010 at 10:13 AM

Very good commentary by all! Right on, Jan! Thank you.

A war...

Dave - 5-14-2010 at 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gypsy Jan
MEXICO CITY – After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Never fought. :mad:

Almost 70 years ago the U.S. declared war on Japan. We promptly went to work killing as many as we could find. Four years later it was over. Had we taken the same tact with drug users/dealers this war would have been over even before it started.

Draconian?

Bajahowodd - 5-14-2010 at 01:34 PM

Although the article mentioned returning GIs from Viet Nam hooked on heroin, do you have any idea of the percentage of our kids fighting over there smoked pot virtually every day? Huge!

Besides, there's just something in human DNA that drives them to get high. Prohibition didn't work. I like the concept of legalizing everything and then dealing with the consequences. The simple fact is that legally available drugs will not have any significant increase in abuse. Abusers are generally people who are wired differently; no matter what their substance of choice is. After all, do we not now recognize alcoholism as a disease?

And sure, those NORCAL pot farmers can get their panties in a bunch, but if and when legalization is a reality, you can be certain that it will be big pharma or the big tobacco, or the distilled spirits industry, or a combination therein that will control the production and distribution.

Draconian...

Dave - 5-14-2010 at 02:09 PM

Measures DO work. Isn't that, by definition, what war is?

Given a choice between death or using illegal substances all recreational drug use would end. And those hopelessly addicted would die anyway. No harm, no foul.

DENNIS - 5-14-2010 at 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
And sure, those NORCAL pot farmers can get their panties in a bunch, but if and when legalization is a reality, you can be certain that it will be big pharma or the big tobacco, or the distilled spirits industry, or a combination therein that will control the production and distribution.

Just like the small grape growers in Guadalupe Valley who join co-ops to get their stuff processed, the small dope growers will be co-opted by the big boys when the time comes.

Bajahowodd - 5-14-2010 at 05:01 PM

Those hopelessly addicted? Define hopelessly. We have millions of stories of folks who have recovered to live productive lives. As I said, there's a percentage of us who have an addictive bent. Geez. I've know people who drink tens of cups of coffee during the day. Is that not addiction? I have to admit that I have never been able to wrap my head round the situation, but, it just seems to me that it's always all about the money. Whether it becomes private contractors working for the government, making zillions of dollars from taxpayer money or Starbucks, the final affect is that affected people, lacking the ability to change, become cash cows for government and big business. I just think that, at the end of the day, if we, as a nation placed our resources into rehabilitation, we would be far ahead, versus the idiotic war on drugs.

Cypress - 5-14-2010 at 05:10 PM

Nomads in agreement!

Legalize pot! Let everyone grow their own. Do you really think the govt. is gonna let this cash cow slip by without getting it's cut? :?:

No way.

Packoderm - 5-14-2010 at 05:22 PM

We couldn't stop people from drinking booze, couldn't stop them from driving over 55 mile per hour, and it's foolhardy to try to keep them from lighting up mary jane. The control freaks feel good for a while, and then common sense later takes over. A law against driving without seat belts makes sense, so we have not needed to make driving without seat belts a capital crime, but it would take nothing less than instant executions to stop people from picking their nose.

oldlady - 5-14-2010 at 05:27 PM

Legalize it all. Aren't people who are old enough to have the responsibility of voting old enough to assume responsibility for the foods, drugs, and beverages they put in their bodies, and concurrently determining that if they have issues whether it be obesity or addictions, to deal with those issues and pay for their own remedy?

Tax it? Why?

[Edited on 5-15-2010 by oldlady]

CaboRon - 5-14-2010 at 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave
Measures DO work. Isn't that, by definition, what war is?

Given a choice between death or using illegal substances all recreational drug use would end. And those hopelessly addicted would die anyway. No harm, no foul.

You Are Sick ....

Bajahowodd - 5-14-2010 at 07:03 PM

I'm with dusty on this. :spingrin:

Dave - 5-14-2010 at 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Those hopelessly addicted? Define hopelessly.

Don't really care. An addiction to an any illegal substance won't get any sympathy from me...Unless one can prove they were tied down and force fed. :rolleyes:

People who choose to ignore the law should accept the consequences.

toneart - 5-14-2010 at 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady
Legalize it all. Aren't people who are old enough to have the responsibility of voting old enough to assume responsibility for the foods, drugs, and beverages they put in their bodies, and concurrently determining that if they have issues whether it be obesity or addictions, to deal with those issues and pay for their own remedy?

Tax it? Why?

[Edited on 5-15-2010 by oldlady]

Tax it? Why?

1.Badly needed revenue source for economically depressed governments at all levels.

2. To mollify the moral Puritans...money will win them over!

Bajaboy - 5-14-2010 at 09:49 PM

Read my lips...no new taxes...you'll have the Tea Baggers all riled up if you tax it.

oldlady - 5-15-2010 at 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart

Tax it? Why?

1.Badly needed revenue source for economically depressed governments at all levels.

2. To mollify the moral Puritans...money will win them over!

Musical one, the sensibilities of the moral Puritans have been battered to a bloody pulp for a century or more, they have no voice.
The money is the real issue.
If one of the reasons that goverments need money is that the drug war is so expensive, eliminate the war( legalize all drugs) and its expense segment that adds strain to government budgets. That money is no longer required! Puritan or not, we are all paying a "drug tax" right now, and from the sample of this board, most of us aren't deriving the "benefit" of use.
Taxing legal drugs raises the price point and promotes an underground market and continued drug trafficking. It doesn't receive a lot of press, but more than a handful of people (lot of them on Medicare) traffic in prescription drugs because they get them for "free", paid for by insurance, and then sell them. If Wal-mart teaches us anything it is that buyers will always seek the lowest price especially for products that can be virtually commoditized.

[Edited on 5-15-2010 by oldlady]

Bajajorge - 5-15-2010 at 07:46 AM

The war on drugs was lost years ago.

toneart - 5-15-2010 at 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart

Tax it? Why?

1.Badly needed revenue source for economically depressed governments at all levels.

2. To mollify the moral Puritans...money will win them over!

Musical one, the sensibilities of the moral Puritans have been battered to a bloody pulp for a century or more, they have no voice.
The money is the real issue.
If one of the reasons that governments need money is that the drug war is so expensive, eliminate the war( legalize all drugs) and its expense segment that adds strain to government budgets. That money is no longer required! Puritan or not, we are all paying a "drug tax" right now, and from the sample of this board, most of us aren't deriving the "benefit" of use.
Taxing legal drugs raises the price point and promotes an underground market and continued drug trafficking. It doesn't receive a lot of press, but more than a handful of people (lot of them on Medicare) traffic in prescription drugs because they get them for "free", paid for by insurance, and then sell them. If Wal-mart teaches us anything it is that buyers will always seek the lowest price especially for products that can be virtually commoditized.

[Edited on 5-15-2010 by oldlady]

O.L.,
I agree with most of this. Money is the main driver. The futile War on Drugs must end and thus, the money drain and the violence.But I still see the moral Puritans all around us. They certainly do have a voice and are quite vocal and reactionary.

(A very timely sidenote: As I am writing, two male Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door. I have no tolerance for the intrusion on my property and time. When I told them I am not interested, they persisted by asking me why not, and asked me what my religion is. I told them "That is none of your business" and shut the door.) (I specified that they were male. Perhaps, if they were female and hot looking they could have raised my prurient interest and been invited in for a lively discussion). :saint:

Your Walmart example does prove a point. I do want a tax on legalized drugs though. I think it would help ailing governments, but with this condition: tax and spend on social priorities.

When prohibition ended booze was taxed. All the bottles were sealed with a tax certificate. When opened, it was illegal to refill the bottles. This was to prevent the loss of tax revenue on that bottle. Restaurants and bars were required to stick the bottle onto a metal peg and snap the neck. This is no longer required. I would suppose that there are enough controls and regulatory inspections that this is no longer an issue, as the underground market doesn't seem to exist.

Like you, I hate Medicare cheats. There has been and always be that element in our society. We have to do the best we can to catch them. The cost of these transgressions must be realistically acknowledged and built in.

There will always be users looking to find the cheapest source. They can be prosecuted when caught. At least, the cartel and underground traffic middlemen will be out of business and the violence ended.This is my main concern.

Individuals should still be allowed to grow their own, limited-by-law Marijuana for personal use. The Zig Zag Man shouldn't have to carry the stigma of shame that has unjustly been put upon him by the moral Puritans.

Mexicorn - 5-15-2010 at 10:40 AM

Legalize pot-

Packoderm - 5-15-2010 at 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexicorn
Legalize pot-

Yes we can.

Cypress - 5-15-2010 at 10:59 AM

The main reason pot hasn't been legalized is that it's too easy to grow. Pretty hard to tax a weed that can grow just about anywhere, even in the National Forest. Making moonshine whiskey, on the other hand, is way more complicated.

Packoderm - 5-15-2010 at 11:06 AM

How To Grow Tobacco
http://www.growtobacco.net/how-to-grow-tobacco

It doesn't seem to be a widespread phenomenon. I do not believe that many people grow their own pot in the Netherlands either. Once it's legally available and convenient here, growing it will be more of a hobby. It is a nice looking plant though.

oldlady - 5-15-2010 at 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart
O.L.,
I (A very timely sidenote: As I am writing, two male Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door. I have no tolerance for the intrusion on my property and time. When I told them I am not interested, they persisted by asking me why not, and asked me what my religion is. I told them "That is none of your business" and shut the door.) (I specified that they were male. Perhaps, if they were female and hot looking they could have raised my prurient interest and been invited in for a lively discussion). :saint:

You? Prurient interests? Or are you just tooting your horn?

I think you're rationale for tax is sound. In the main, I support a certain amount of taxation. The intent, application, distribution and unitended consequences of taxes is where I sometimes have issues.
That's a topic for another day that is going to come all too soon. :biggrin:

toneart - 5-15-2010 at 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady

Quote:

You? Prurient interests? Or are you just tooting your horn?

GrOUper-GAr - 5-15-2010 at 08:23 PM

When I go Buy My 1/8 of weed, it goes something like this...

1...I Look through our Weekly rags. In San Diego that's CityBeat(liberal) or theREADER(neo-con). note: BOTH the papers have the back 3+ glossy Pages packed with Weed ads. Even theReader is sucking that 'strait' money T!T. I thumb through for the best COUPONS !! Yep, coupons... A 'war' con$umers ALL like, the 'PRICE WaR'...so actually, Miss OldLady, the Prices are being Driven Down.

2...then, i Cruise to my favorite Dispensery (which used to to be a Bank, then was empty for years, and NOW the Building owner is Making Rent money again... No SH!T'n, it was a BANK!)

3... I now have the choice of 20+ internationally known strains (that don't smell like Gas OR have blood on the hands).... hmmm, I may choose JACK HERER (2 time Cannabis Cup winner), but maybe not. I may get some Hash and/or edibles too, Who knows? ? ? BUT one thing is for sure, Working behind this counter Kicks A$$ over working at Wallmart.

4... Menu Price for this strain is $55, not bad, cause 'green bud' has been $50-$60 for 25 years, and not as good. Then SHE (raising ToneArt's prurient interest-for sure) rings me up and its (oh, minus my $5 coupon) a grand total of $50 !!! Yes, $50 for the WORLD's BEST WEED (in pristine condition)!!!! ... I hand over $50 even, and casually look at my receipt, then LOW & Behold, I start to Laugh...
$4.50 OF IT IS TAX !!!

if this is a PROBLeM,
I WANT TO BE PART OF THE PROBLEM !

Packoderm - 5-15-2010 at 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GrOUper-GAr
When I go Buy My 1/8 of weed, it goes something like this...

1...I Look through our Weekly rags. In San Diego that's CityBeat(liberal) or theREADER(neo-con). note: BOTH the papers have the back 3+ glossy Pages packed with Weed ads. Even theReader is sucking that 'strait' money T!T. I thumb through for the best COUPONS !! Yep, coupons... A 'war' con$umers ALL like, the 'PRICE WaR'...so actually, Miss OldLady, the Prices are being Driven Down.

2...then, i Cruise to my favorite Dispensery (which used to to be a Bank, then was empty for years, and NOW the Building owner is Making Rent money again... No SH!T'n, it was a BANK!)

3... I now have the choice of 20+ internationally known strains (that don't smell like Gas OR have blood on the hands).... hmmm, I may choose JACK HERER (2 time Cannabis Cup winner), but maybe not. I may get some Hash and/or edibles too, Who knows? ? ? BUT one thing is for sure, Working behind this counter Kicks A$$ over working at Wallmart.

4... Menu Price for this strain is $55, not bad, cause 'green bud' has been $50-$60 for 25 years, and not as good. Then SHE (raising ToneArt's prurient interest-for sure) rings me up and its (oh, minus my $5 coupon) a grand total of $50 !!! Yes, $50 for the WORLD's BEST WEED (in pristine condition)!!!! ... I hand over $50 even, and casually look at my receipt, then LOW & Behold, I start to Laugh...
$4.50 OF IT IS TAX !!!

if this is a PROBLeM,
I WANT TO BE PART OF THE PROBLEM !

Good post. It would seem that the edible option would take away much of the health risk. The legal dispensary sounds much more dignified than getting it on the street.

Santiago - 5-16-2010 at 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
I do not believe that many people grow their own pot in the Netherlands either.

Do you know what the production and distribution systems are for pot in those countries where it is legal? I'm wondering if they have been assimilated into the normal systems for consumer products or if it is completely separate?

Bajajorge - 5-16-2010 at 07:58 AM

I guess the pot heads are all feeling warm and fuzzy as Marijuana is being legalized all over the country under the guise of medical treatment. So all of a sudden they all have some mysterious illness that can only be cured my MJ. Gimmee a break.
What the hell, lets all throw our arms in the air and say screw it, make everything legal.

Santiago - 5-16-2010 at 08:02 AM

Interesting viewpoint from the growers of pot in northern California. From the Sacto Bee a few weeks ago.

LAYTONVILLE – Along Mendocino County's Redwood Highway, just beyond the sign depicting a hovering alien spaceship, veteran marijuana cultivator Tim Blake sees the future.

He views his Area 101 spiritual retreat as the answer to the looming upheaval for a renowned California pot-growing region challenged by a November state ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use and new growing techniques.

Blake hopes his roadside haven, where local marijuana tenders gather to share smokes and tales of the harvest, will emerge as a nostalgic tourist draw – a destination honoring Mendocino's proud pot traditions.

California produces one-third of America's pot, with an estimated $13.8 billion cash crop, counting legal medicinal grows and vast illicit production. In this county of 90,000 people, it is an uncomfortable topic. Most civic leaders would rather talk about the enchanting Mendocino Coast, the picturesque mountains and the charming towns.

But weed fuels the regional economy.

"There are people who don't want to talk about it because that may seem as if they're endorsing it," said Bert Mosier, chief executive officer of the Chamber of Commerce in the county seat of Ukiah. "But this affects our community."

It isn't just the November initiative that has upset the area's pot culture and stirred calls for new approaches.

Blake and others say the local market is already in free fall. Across California, legal medical marijuana dispensaries and indoor hydroponics warehouses that grow high-potency pot are undercutting Mendocino's outdoor crop.

For years, most Mendocino cultivators have grown their "Northern Lights" and "Super Skunk" strains beneath the stars and coastal redwoods. Increasingly, their weed can't compete with the high-octane "Purple Urkles" and "OG Kushes" that flower under glowing indoor lamps.

Pot from Mendocino County fetched more than $5,000 a pound just a decade ago. Now it goes for closer to $2,000, Blake says.

"Most people up here are growing," he said. "And for every grower, you support the gas station, the dry cleaners, the health food store. But everybody's numbers are down. Nobody has any money."

On Saturday, scores of Mendocino marijuana growers and local officials met in Ukiah to ponder the impact on the county if California voters decide to legalize marijuana beyond current medical use. They brainstormed remedies to economic fallout, including promoting pot tourism and branding local medicinal products to bring recognition to Mendocino's crop and its tenders.

Anna Hamilton, a Mendocino musician who hosts a radio talk show in neighboring Humboldt County, warned that the "legalization of marijuana will be the single most devastating event" to hit the region.

But Matthew Cohen, a Mendocino grower whose Northstone Organics delivers pot to medical marijuana patients in Northern California, saw an economic opportunity. "Mendocino can have a hand-picked, boutique market," he said.

'Way of life' threatened?

Pebbles Trippet, a strictly small-time grower, says many cultivators are "worried their way of life is going to be taken away from them."

Trippet, who served jail time for pot-related offenses in three Northern California counties before she settled in Mendocino, organically farms onions, garlic, squash and medical pot on a small riverfront parcel in Cloverdale.

Others see legalization as an opportunity to reshape Mendocino's illicit culture into a legal attraction. They envision Mendocino and neighboring Humboldt County blossoming with smoke fests and meet-the-growers tours, recasting itself as the Napa Valley of pot.

"People in Mendocino County know a better way and they're ready to show it," said Marvin Levin, 35, president of the Mendocino Farmers Collective, a new union of medical pot growers. The collective hopes to market Mendocino's outdoor pot as environmentally sustainable cultivation.

Levin contends that indoor operations, many in or near cities, leave a substantial carbon footprint with excessive electricity use, fertilizers dumped into sewage systems and buildings damaged with moisture and mold.

Indoor cultivators, a minority in Mendocino, use controlled environments to produce multiple cycles a year of thick-budding designer pot strains. Outdoor growers have one large harvest producing plants 12 to 16 feet high.

At harvest time, Area 101 sponsors an annual "Emerald Cup" – honoring the best local pot. No indoor product is allowed. Levin says last year's winner was a special "Cotton Candy Kush." He calls it "a sweet-flavored weed" that is "less musty" than a similar "Diesel Kush" grown indoors.

Tradition of illegal growing

Mendocino's effort to honor its pot traditions belies its long – and continuing – role in criminal marijuana cultivating and trafficking.

Blake admits he used to illicitly truck thousands of Mendocino pot plants for distribution in the San Joaquin Valley. He says he quit the illegal trade after he was spooked by a series of federal raids. "I went from a kingpin to a no-pin," he says.

Now Blake, a 53-year-old cancer survivor, has a county permit to grow 99 medical marijuana plants, the maximum allowed on large acreage. The county allows 25 plants on parcels of five acres or less, if grown for multiple medical users.

But many growers have neither pretense of medical cultivation nor care about limits. Last September, sweeps by federal, state and local narcotics officers resulted in the arrests of numerous local residents illegally cultivating several hundred plants each in mountainous terrain near Laytonville.

Local grower James Taylor Jones, a grizzled Grateful Dead fan who came to the county nine years ago with his wife, Fran Harris, is a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. He quit cocaine 25 years ago and gave up drinking 16 years ago. He regularly attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, yet says he is a spiritual devotee to using and cultivating pot for medical purposes.

Jones and Harris, who also run a Laytonville tie-dye T-shirt shop, are part of the Humboldt Farmers Collective and have provided products for dispensaries in Mill Valley and San Francisco. They said they made $55,000 in the pot business last year. They reported it to the Internal Revenue Service as "farm income."

Jones says they're in this lifestyle to stay "no matter what the profit is." But he opposes legalizing recreational use. He believes it will drive other growers out of Mendocino County.

"If it's legalized, the market is going to plummet. There's no question," he said.

But then Jones added: "Who the hell are we to say who can have pot?"

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

castaway$ - 5-16-2010 at 10:29 AM

Whether you like it or not, whether you use it or not the legalization of Marijuana is a reality. California is leading the way and many other states will follow or if by some quirk it isn't legalized in California Oregon or some other state will push it through and most will follow.
What will happen? Well the infrastructure for growing, processing, distribution, sales and yes taxing is basically in place as evidenced by the current "stores" already selling to the "medical" users.
So why would the general user be compelled to buy from the controlled retail outlet? Same as alcohol, bring in the Wal Mart principal it will come down to volume, mass production, distribution and marketing, simply put they will sell for less than the backyard farmer. The tobacco companies are already buying up No. Cal land for farms, lets face it their industry is in decline so what a great opportunity to revive themselves by adding Mary Jane to there marketing plan, millions want it and they have the farming and marketing know how already. It's going to happen (IMO) and we will see if it will actually control the illicit nature of this particular drug and in turn curb the violence associated with this drug by putting the money (cause thats what it's really about) into corporate hands.
Corporate hands--------- Thats another problem to be tackled by different and untested solutions, however the same, it's all about MONEY!

k-rico - 5-16-2010 at 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajajorge
What the hell, lets all throw our arms in the air and say screw it, make everything legal.

In every practical sense, pot is legal in CA. San Diego medical pot storefronts are stepping all over each other selling the stuff. Pot stores are beginning to outnumber coffee shops. Check out the last several pages of The Reader, a free weekly rag that's been around forever, 1/4, 1/2 page color ads for all kinds of pot and "edibles". Tell the doc associated with the store you have insomnia and you have a Rx.

I haven't seen any medical pot store profit stats but I bet they're raking it in, nice medical specialty if you're a lazy MD. I think it's $60 an 1/8 with specials for first time customers.

But legalize everything?

IMHO legalizing dangerous, addicitve drugs is a real bad idea. Pot is neither dangerous (bad for your lungs tho) nor addictive (for most people).

[Edited on 5-16-2010 by k-rico]

Packoderm - 5-16-2010 at 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Santiago

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm
I do not believe that many people grow their own pot in the Netherlands either.

Companies grow it in greenhouses. It is actually tolerated - not legal. Some Christian groups in Holland have become unhappy that pot has become boring for Dutch youth thus things have become boring for the prohibitionists. Pot use among Dutch youth is lower than neighboring countries. There is a lack of a problem that would otherwise need fixing by the Christian saviors. The real danger comes from visitors to the Netherlands from repressive countries. For instance, some from the emerging middle class in China are visiting Amsterdam and are becoming enchanted with freedom. The governments from the corresponding repressive countries are not too happy about this. The local mayors of Dutch cities continue to champion these freedoms, but the Dutch central government is feeling the heat from conservative Christian groups and leaders of repressive countries.
http://www.francogrow.com/web2/pages/grow-area/12-countries-...

Packoderm - 5-16-2010 at 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajajorge
What the hell, lets all throw our arms in the air and say screw it, make everything legal.

In every practical sense, pot is legal in CA. San Diego medical pot storefronts are stepping all over each other selling the stuff. Pot stores are beginning to outnumber coffee shops. Check out the last several pages of The Reader, a free weekly rag that's been around forever, 1/4, 1/2 page color ads for all kinds of pot and "edibles". Tell the doc associated with the store you have insomnia and you have a Rx.

I haven't seen any medical pot store profit stats but I bet they're raking it in, nice medical specialty if you're a lazy MD. I think it's $60 an 1/8 with specials for first time customers.

But legalize everything?

IMHO legalizing dangerous, addictive drugs is a real bad idea. Pot is neither dangerous (bad for your lungs tho) nor addictive (for most people).

[Edited on 5-16-2010 by k-rico]

Is there any other medical treatment that is less expensive? The profit margin is slim for Dutch coffeshops due to competition, but I would imagine that those in financial power in the U.S. are less in favor of a free market.

Bajahowodd - 5-16-2010 at 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm

Is there any other medical treatment that is less expensive? The profit margin is slim for Dutch coffeshops due to competition, but I would imagine that those in financial power in the U.S. are less in favor of a free market.

Does anyone really think that if it gets legalized, that it won't eventually be controlled by either big tobacco, big pharma, big alcohol, or a combination thereof? The initial problem will be that it will still be illegal under federal law, and the feds will bring a great deal of pressure on any entity that tries to produce and sell it commercially.

Cypress - 5-16-2010 at 01:02 PM

Bajahowodd, Seeds! You can plant your own crop. :bounce:

Big pharma, big brother? :?:

They'll be out of the loop. :biggrin:

wessongroup - 5-16-2010 at 01:16 PM

Think they already have production, taxation and the rest taken care of already...

Have you heard of "spray" THC... developed and being used in England right now.. and is on trail in Canada... since 2005...

Would appear the direction is and has been set ... it will be made by the Phamasutical Companies, Control and taxed by the Federal and State Governments (AZ just passed a law to tax an illegal substance, pot) and the new approved product will be sold like anything else...

It will be interesting to see if "funding" programs is more important that not smoking pot .... cuz they are going to smoke it whether it is legal or not...

Another problem... where is Mexico going to sell all that good pot they grow... China? here the Chinese are taking vacations to Amsterdam ... to see what freedom is all about.. yeah and they hit the smoke shops big time.... :lol:

Cypress - 5-16-2010 at 01:24 PM

wessongroup,

Good point!

Or good points? In agreement with your take on the pot saga. :biggrin:

Bajahowodd - 5-16-2010 at 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Bajahowodd, Seeds! You can plant your own crop. :bounce:

Big pharma, big brother? :?:

They'll be out of the loop. :biggrin:

Additionally, lotsa folks grow their own tomatoes. But that hasn't put much of a dent in supermarket profits. Bottom line, and I agree with Wiley, this is a capitalist system, wherein the government will do what is necessary to provide an infrastructure for industry to make a profit.

Mexicorn - 5-16-2010 at 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Bajahowodd, Seeds! You can plant your own crop. :bounce:

Big pharma, big brother? :?:

They'll be out of the loop. :biggrin:

I cant grow anything in this soil. And lets not forget about those darn rabbits there's millions of them right now.

k-rico - 5-16-2010 at 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Packoderm

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajajorge
What the hell, lets all throw our arms in the air and say screw it, make everything legal.

In every practical sense, pot is legal in CA. San Diego medical pot storefronts are stepping all over each other selling the stuff. Pot stores are beginning to outnumber coffee shops. Check out the last several pages of The Reader, a free weekly rag that's been around forever, 1/4, 1/2 page color ads for all kinds of pot and "edibles". Tell the doc associated with the store you have insomnia and you have a Rx.

I haven't seen any medical pot store profit stats but I bet they're raking it in, nice medical specialty if you're a lazy MD. I think it's $60 an 1/8 with specials for first time customers.

But legalize everything?

IMHO legalizing dangerous, addictive drugs is a real bad idea. Pot is neither dangerous (bad for your lungs tho) nor addictive (for most people).

[Edited on 5-16-2010 by k-rico]

Is there any other medical treatment that is less expensive?

Ah, you're pullin' my leg aren'tcha?

Cypress - 5-16-2010 at 05:54 PM

Mexicorn, A little chicken wire, some water and you'll be in business.

Doug/Vamonos - 5-18-2010 at 09:56 PM

Legalize it, tax it, and mandate a 10% cut in expenditures (sworn officers - not civilians) at every police agency in California. State and city budget problems solved. No more war on drugs = peace dividend.

BajaBruno - 5-18-2010 at 11:22 PM

Doug, I think the current budget crisis has already taken care of that 10% cut in sworn officers throughout California. The budgets still aren't solved.