• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does pot legalization stop the war on drugs?

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,272
Reaction score
55,006
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well...

California seizes $30 million in black market cannabis from illegal pot shops - Los Angeles Times

California authorities have tripled the number of raids on unlicensed cannabis shops in the last year and seized $30 million in pot products, but legal industry leaders say enforcement is still inadequate to break the dominance of the black market in the state.

So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...

Hmm, maybe legalization hasn't really fixed anything. Maybe all it did was cut the state government in on the trade.
 
Well...

California seizes $30 million in black market cannabis from illegal pot shops - Los Angeles Times



So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...

Hmm, maybe legalization hasn't really fixed anything. Maybe all it did was cut the state government in on the trade.

I expect price is a factor that will keep bootlegged pot on the market for a while. It's not a reason to stop the trend toward legalization. Unless you think that repealing prohibition was a failure too.
 
Well...

California seizes $30 million in black market cannabis from illegal pot shops - Los Angeles Times



So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...

Hmm, maybe legalization hasn't really fixed anything. Maybe all it did was cut the state government in on the trade.

"Legalize it so that it can be taxed and regulated" we were told. Well what if people do not want to pay more for those taxes and regulations in order to have their highs? Back to square one, I suppose.
 
I expect price is a factor that will keep bootlegged pot on the market for a while. It's not a reason to stop the trend toward legalization. Unless you think that repealing prohibition was a failure too.

Realizing that I am in the most minute minority, I will state that I think Prohibition was overall a good policy, but was improperly implemented. First, it should not have been made a Constitutional Amendment. Second, it should have had more agents as we had barely enough agents to stop the sale and distribution. Third, rather than criminalizing the demand, we criminalized supply when it should have been the reverse. If prohibition was to work, the possession of alcoholic beverages should have been criminalized, not the production, sale and distribution. We do not for example simply jail gun runners but let the people try to buy guns on the black market go free. We do just jail people who produce child pornography, but let the people trying to purchase the child pornography off the hook. So too must people who try to purchase drugs be criminally prosecuted, not just the people making, distributing and selling the drugs. That is why drug prohibition works in countries like Japan and Korea and their rates of drug addiction are through the floor compared to us; because they go after the people who purchase illegal drugs, not just the people selling the drugs.
 
"Legalize it so that it can be taxed and regulated" we were told. Well what if people do not want to pay more for those taxes and regulations in order to have their highs? Back to square one, I suppose.

So because there are those that sell illegal cigarettes, should we ban smoking and throw millions in jail in a massive authoritarian government program?

Legalization is a relatively new phenomenon, there will be bumps along the way and the fact that it’s likely the United States will continue to have a federal prohibition and a patchwork of state laws will make things harder to normalize the industry’s doesn’t help things.

I don’t know the exact history but when prohibition ended, I’m sure not every illegal supplier disappeared overnight, but over time the industry normalized itself.

The same will happen here, just because it hasn’t happened overnight doesn’t mean we should continue to support a massive government program that throws millions in jail over nothing really and it will take time for illegal suppliers to disappear and if people want to pay less to get their highs from unknown and potentially dangerous sources that use unknown pesticides and so forth, well I guess that may exist for awhile longer.
 
So because there are those that sell illegal cigarettes, should we ban smoking and throw millions in jail in a massive authoritarian government program?

No. But if we consider illegal cigarette sales a real problem in society that has to be curbed, then by necessity those who knowingly purchase and possess illegal cigarettes must be prosecuted just as harshly as those who sell illegal cigarettes, if not more so. It is simple economics at this point, albeit regarding an underground economy. Criminalizing the suppliers of illegal goods and services will rarely lower the incidence rate of any particular crime because there will almost inevitably be someone who will rush in to fill the illegal demand. The only way to curb the incidence rate of particular criminal activities is to prosecute and punish those who demand the illegal goods and services.

This holds true whether you are talking about drugs, alcohol, prostitution, purchasing child pornography, purchasing illegal firearms, etc. It is not merely the supply which must be criminalized, but those who demand it if you wish to staunch the rate of occurrence.
 
Last edited:
I expect price is a factor that will keep bootlegged pot on the market for a while. It's not a reason to stop the trend toward legalization. Unless you think that repealing prohibition was a failure too.

Pot is a whole lot different than prohibition. Marijuana is a weed. Absolutely anybody can grow the stuff. It requires little to no special equipment or expertise to get a functional product. Trying to tax such a product will only be just so effective ESPECIALLY in a place like southern California which will have a 12 month growing season.
 
"Legalize it so that it can be taxed and regulated" we were told. Well what if people do not want to pay more for those taxes and regulations in order to have their highs? Back to square one, I suppose.

Not back to square one in Colorado.

Regulated retail sale of marijuana products...legal.

Purchase of retail marijuana products...legal

Growing marijuana for personal use...legal.

If your objection is taxes and regulations, grow your own. Simple as that.
 
Well...

California seizes $30 million in black market cannabis from illegal pot shops - Los Angeles Times



So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...

Hmm, maybe legalization hasn't really fixed anything. Maybe all it did was cut the state government in on the trade.

The problem is that state legal pot stores cannot get bank loans and have to rely on their own cash reserves so the prices are high because the risk is high. Decriminalizing pot federally will open up these distributors to bank loans and easier cash reserves which will drive prices lower.
 
"Legalize it so that it can be taxed and regulated" we were told. Well what if people do not want to pay more for those taxes and regulations in order to have their highs? Back to square one, I suppose.

The existence of some degree of black market does not indicate failure, especially where legal shops are doing a large volume of business. That's absurd. You might as well advocate a return to prohibition because there is still some black market liquor out there. Moreover, it's the kind of logic that leads to absurd results if we take the principle - the failure of a law to completely stop a practice - and apply to it to any other law. For example, robbery. There are laws against robbery. Have they deterred some people who might otherwise rob? Maybe. But some people are never going to be deterred. Doesn't mean the law itself is somehow inherently flawed.

But as for pot, there is no reason to think a black market will completely vanish when it is legal in only a small minority of states. National legalization would seriously shrink the black market. I doubt you could ever get rid of it at this point, just like there is still some degree of black market in liquor or wine even (ie, counterfeits).

The fact of the matter is that in legalization states, more and more users turn to the legal shops. States are making revenue. The experiment is going just fine. In a legal shop you know exactly what strains you're getting. You know exactly how much you're getting. You generally also get a readout of how much THC, CBD and other cannaboids are in it. Because it's well-regulated, you can be assured the grower isn't using any pesticides or anything that might remain on the flower and harm you, etc. You can buy edibles you don't have the equipment at home to make (nor are sold on a black market). Etc. The fact that some people might still seek even cheaper stuff on the black market does not indicate some kind of failure.






But the "back to square one" position has a further and bigger flaw: it shouldn't be illegal, period. I should never have been illegal. It's the safest recreational drug, way more so than alcohol. And the bottom line is the only thing keeping it illegal did was create huge drug cartels.

So "oops, there's still some black market" is by no means "back to square one".




Well...

California seizes $30 million in black market cannabis from illegal pot shops - Los Angeles Times

So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...

Hmm, maybe legalization hasn't really fixed anything. Maybe all it did was cut the state government in on the trade.

Um, what? This is not logically coherent.

1. What was "fixed" was the huge socio-economic damage resulting from putting people in jail for smoking pot.

2. Yeah, DUH it cut the state in. That was part of the selling point to politicians.

3. It's different in any state. For example, in MA an individual can grow 6 plants; 12 for a couple. As long as not in public view (borrowing from 4th Amd. definition) and in a locked enclosure. You can grow your own/and or go to shops. The more people do that, the less on the black market.

4. Produce anything for sale without a license if you need a license (or without following relevant regs) and it'll get seized. I'm not sure what you expected legalization to mean, but none of the serious suggestions were "let's just have a pot free for all with no regulation". The fact that someone still tries to occupy a black market is not some kind of flaw in legalization given what legalization was intended to fix: the complete idiocy of jailing people for something that is by leaps and bounds safer than booze.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that state legal pot stores cannot get bank loans and have to rely on their own cash reserves so the prices are high because the risk is high. Decriminalizing pot federally will open up these distributors to bank loans and easier cash reserves which will drive prices lower.

There is no chance whatsoever that taxed and regulated marijuana will be priced lower than unregulated, untaxed marijuana. Maybe if Califirnia decided to subsidize the production and sale of marijuana instead of tax it they could get the price down to black market rates.
 
There is no chance whatsoever that taxed and regulated marijuana will be priced lower than unregulated, untaxed marijuana. Maybe if Califirnia decided to subsidize the production and sale of marijuana instead of tax it they could get the price down to black market rates.

The only way to get the price down is to federally decriminalize marijuana so they have the same access to bank loans as alcohol producers do. You cannot tell me that not allowing any bank loans makes a business less risky. It's quite simple, the war on drugs was a failure and just like alcohol prices eventually lowered after prohibition so will this.
 
The only way to get the price down is to federally decriminalize marijuana so they have the same access to bank loans as alcohol producers do. You cannot tell me that not allowing any bank loans makes a business less risky. It's quite simple, the war on drugs was a failure and just like alcohol prices eventually lowered after prohibition so will this.

The loans aren't such a big deal for pot because the capital requirements are minimal.
 
The existence of some degree of black market does not indicate failure. That's absurd. You might as well advocate a return to prohibition because there is still some black market liquor out there.

This is especially true where legalization is hardly national. Of course there's going to be black market entry into legalization states if it's still illegal in most states.

Well, Mr Person, yes, I am certainly supportive though not a drum-pounding advocate of Prohibition, certainly. I think the consumption of alcohol causes so many negative externalities that I believe it would be proper to make it illegal for regular consumption in large quantities for anything except a cooking additive.
 
There is no chance whatsoever that taxed and regulated marijuana will be priced lower than unregulated, untaxed marijuana. Maybe if Califirnia decided to subsidize the production and sale of marijuana instead of tax it they could get the price down to black market rates.

And yet an ounce of taxed regulated marijuana in the shop in Salem, MA is the same price or cheaper than the ounces of black market pot I previously got.

I'm sure there is still poorer quality black market pot around, but again, your seeming objections to legalization do not provide the slightest basis for reversing course.
 
Well, Mr Person, yes, I am certainly supportive though not a drum-pounding advocate of Prohibition, certainly. I think the consumption of alcohol causes so many negative externalities that I believe it would be proper to make it illegal for regular consumption in large quantities for anything except a cooking additive.

The perils of editing....

I added more of an essay after first replying.

The existence of some degree of black market does not indicate failure, especially where legal shops are doing a large volume of business. That's absurd. You might as well advocate a return to prohibition because there is still some black market liquor out there. Moreover, it's the kind of logic that leads to absurd results if we take the principle - the failure of a law to completely stop a practice - and apply to it to any other law. For example, robbery. There are laws against robbery. Have they deterred some people who might otherwise rob? Maybe. But some people are never going to be deterred. Doesn't mean the law itself is somehow inherently flawed.

But as for pot, there is no reason to think a black market will completely vanish when it is legal in only a small minority of states. National legalization would seriously shrink the black market. I doubt you could ever get rid of it at this point, just like there is still some degree of black market in liquor or wine even (ie, counterfeits).

The fact of the matter is that in legalization states, more and more users turn to the legal shops. States are making revenue. The experiment is going just fine. In a legal shop you know exactly what strains you're getting. You know exactly how much you're getting. You generally also get a readout of how much THC, CBD and other cannaboids are in it. Because it's well-regulated, you can be assured the grower isn't using any pesticides or anything that might remain on the flower and harm you, etc. You can buy edibles you don't have the equipment at home to make (nor are sold on a black market). Etc. The fact that some people might still seek even cheaper stuff on the black market does not indicate some kind of failure.






But the "back to square one" position has a further and bigger flaw: it shouldn't be illegal, period. I should never have been illegal. It's the safest recreational drug, way more so than alcohol. And the bottom line is the only thing keeping it illegal did was create huge drug cartels.

So "oops, there's still some black market" is by no means "back to square one".

Basically, the thread is silly. Sure, we're going to have black markets until it's legalized nationally, and even then I have no doubt that someone is going to be out there trying to make a quick buck by illegally growing/selling. So what? Their problem when they get arrested.

The main point is that people should not go to jail for this stuff - that is, consumers - and if you want to financially damage cartels and drug gangs.....you siphon of customers, even if not all the customers, via legal shops.
 
"Legalize it so that it can be taxed and regulated" we were told. Well what if people do not want to pay more for those taxes and regulations in order to have their highs? Back to square one, I suppose.

Prices are far cheaper, even with taxes, than it was when it was on the black market.
There is no chance whatsoever that taxed and regulated marijuana will be priced lower than unregulated, untaxed marijuana. Maybe if Califirnia decided to subsidize the production and sale of marijuana instead of tax it they could get the price down to black market rates.


what to you mean no chance? It already happens. In Colorado, used to pay 300-350 for an ounce on black market, now you can get ounces for $125 or even lower
 
Last edited:
"Legalize it so that it can be taxed and regulated" we were told. Well what if people do not want to pay more for those taxes and regulations in order to have their highs? Back to square one, I suppose.

Maybe eventually CA will be reaping in the revenues but they are not getting the billions originally forcast. Future projections have been downgraded to millions.
People do not want to pay more for anything and until the state gets the black marketeers/unlicensed vendors under control, yes, we are back to square one.
 
So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...
sigh

Anyone who expected everything to be fixed overnight is not paying attention... including to the articles they share on web forums. :mrgreen:

The article mentioned some, but certainly not all, of the factors that encourage a continued black market in MJ:
• Municipalities blocking dispensaries
• Taxes are too high
• Regulations can be onerous, making a high barrier to entry
• Because of federal laws, dispensaries have lots of problems working legally (e.g. they have lots of issues with banks and credit cards) and needing to work with cash
• Enforcement is underfunded and relies heavily on municipalities
• Inconsistent laws in other states encourages CA growers to illegally export, and non-CA residents to enter the state and buy
• Customers can't always tell the difference between licensed and unlicensed dispensaries
• Due to the attempts to prohibit marijuana, we've created entrenched illegal organizations and networks that don't want to give up, especially when they can still sell unregulated and untaxed products in areas that still bar sales

As to cutting the state in? We've heard that before, with the end of prohibition on alcohol, with lotteries, and with legal gambling. You might as well say the same about sales taxes on all goods and services.
 
Pot is a whole lot different than prohibition. Marijuana is a weed. Absolutely anybody can grow the stuff. It requires little to no special equipment or expertise to get a functional product. Trying to tax such a product will only be just so effective ESPECIALLY in a place like southern California which will have a 12 month growing season.

People made alcohol at home during the prohibition; bathtub gin, anyone?
 
"Legalize it so that it can be taxed and regulated" we were told. Well what if people do not want to pay more for those taxes and regulations in order to have their highs? Back to square one, I suppose.

Evidently enough people want to pay for those taxes and regulations that we have substantial, legitimate marijuana industries emerging all over the world, while they're creating big revenues for states like Colorado so I guess we won't be going 'back' there after all.



Well...

California seizes $30 million in black market cannabis from illegal pot shops - Los Angeles Times



So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...

Hmm, maybe legalization hasn't really fixed anything. Maybe all it did was cut the state government in on the trade.

Creating an industry that demonstrably expands the tax base and economy, and in the long term will probably diminish the black market sale of the drug is a pretty positive outcome.

You're always going to have a tax, tariff and regulation free black market; this applies for booze and tobacco as well (among other products), and it's always going to require enforcement. It's less a 'war on drugs' at this point and more a war on tax evasion and at times, dangerous corner cutting.
 
Last edited:
Pot is a whole lot different than prohibition. Marijuana is a weed. Absolutely anybody can grow the stuff. It requires little to no special equipment or expertise to get a functional product. Trying to tax such a product will only be just so effective ESPECIALLY in a place like southern California which will have a 12 month growing season.

I do not know about the US, but any adult in Canada can make their own wine and or beer at home. Kits for them are sold at stores, and it is from what I understand a fairly easy process

As for pot

The taxes are too high, and the legal product has not been registered and tracked as well as it should be. The illegal stores should be easy to identify and then shut down. Then the majority of casual users will go to the legal stores and purchase legal product rather than work to find dealers at their homes or from the street.

Heck legalization of alcohol did not stop the production of illegal alcohol for a long time, as seen by Nascar arising from moonshine runners in the south east US


Appalachian moonshining continued to thrive even after Prohibition’s repeal thanks to the persistence of dry counties and a desire to evade hefty federal alcohol taxes. “Moonshiners didn’t want to share the tax revenue or any of this enterprise they had built from scratch with the federal government,” says Neal Thompson, author of Driving with the Devil: Southern Moonshine, Detroit Wheels, and the Birth of NASCAR.

How Prohibition Gave Birth to NASCAR - HISTORY
 
People made alcohol at home during the prohibition; bathtub gin, anyone?

They did. My great grandparents had a wine press in the basement and my grandparents had all kinds of stories. There was also quite the market for "medicine" and other DIY alcohol products. The problem was that a lot of the stuff was really awful and some of it was deadly. Guys make "pruno" in prison cells but the only reason anyone drinks it is because there aren't any other options.

Getting a crop of decent weed going is a whole lot easier than cooking up a batch of bathtub gin or basement wine.
 
They did. My great grandparents had a wine press in the basement and my grandparents had all kinds of stories. There was also quite the market for "medicine" and other DIY alcohol products. The problem was that a lot of the stuff was really awful and some of it was deadly. Guys make "pruno" in prison cells but the only reason anyone drinks it is because there aren't any other options.

Getting a crop of decent weed going is a whole lot easier than cooking up a batch of bathtub gin or basement wine.



I don’t know; I think the still produces before the seeds sprout.....
 
Back
Top Bottom