There were some who made very large sums of money in the war on alcohol. I’m sure people like Al Capone didn’t mind that alcohol was illegal because it made their positions possible.
"Dealers don’t want legalization because their business will naturally go elsewhere."
True, up to a point where the government taxes the newly-legalized drugs so much, that there becomes a parallel black market for said drugs. Its happening here in California with marijuana
Can confirm. The taxes they slap onto recreational cannabis is crazy, the only way to avoid the outrageous taxes is to get a "hard" medical card that shows a recommendation from a physician. You can no longer use a paper recommendation from any old Joe Shmoe clinic like you used to. It has to be from an actual doctor. Black market prices are much better for the same quality and quantity.
Yeah I lived in Washington when it was legalized and I just kept going through the same dude I always did. In fact, I didn't even set foot in a dispensary until I went to Colorado on vacation.
That depends on the amount of taxation weighed against the quality of the product. if government licensed product is safer and more pure(i.e. not cut with filler) then it will tend to accept taxation, provided said taxation isn't democrat level taxation.
Dealers don’t want legalization because their business will naturally go elsewhere.
Not necessarily. If you operated in an "illegal" industry (ie: drugs) and it suddenly became legalized, you wouldn't immediately see a drop in sales. In fact, you'd still have a leg up in the market because you're already a known quantity in the space. That leg up wouldn't last forever without some sort of innovation of course but you'd definitely have a head start while other places try to catch up to you.
Legalization usually comes with regulation though. Ma and Pa's bud shop can't afford to do FDA testing and compliance for their backyard worth of weed. You need a warehouse-sized greenhouse to make the economics work, and several warehouses to ameliorate those costs down to a minimal level.
At a time, the Federal Reserve Branch servicing Miami had more cash on hand than all other branches combined, in the cocaine heydey. HSBC laundered untold billions, and was fined a pittance. Yes.
Yes 100%. All of the wars with an invisible enemy revolve around $ and control. The war on drugs didn't do anything to actually fight the importation of drugs into the US, our government just eliminated completion and then took over the drug trade. Look into the CIA running cocaine in the 80s and 90s.
Prohibition (war on alcohol). Same thing. People were making it and selling it all around the nation under the table. Huge amount of tax $ were missed until they finally brought it back 'legally'...
War on terror? That just ended up being who could control the terror. The US funded all of it. One you we are arming 'allies and insurgents' then next we are fighting them. Who originally funded Isis?
The only reason Prohibition was finally instituted was they found a way to replace the taxes on alcohol that the Federal government ran on - watch Ken Burns' documentary on it, it's a well researched, even handed look at the whole history of Prohibition. There was a serious problem with alcohol in the US, because the Fed looked away at abuses of alcohol sales and it's impact on society, because most of the money they ran Washington on was from booze.
Sometimes genuine movements are co-opted by people who see a potential for profit. For example, feminism had a large positive impact for employers. If you double the workforce, you can lower the standard salary. It's the same as what they do with illegals now. I'm of the mindset that anything that manages to get a lot of steam in politics or the media has someone who is benefiting from it.
Haha that reminds me of an old E Michael Jones lecture on feminism.
"I think we all agree here that feminism makes you stupid. But does feminism also make you fat? I can definitely answer - yes. Feminism makes you stupid and fat"
Then goes on to talk about how the rise of processed frozen meals, fast food and obesity was exactly coincided with women entering the work force and not having enough time to cook proper meals for their families.
I'm of the mindset that anything that manages to get a lot of steam in politics or the media has someone who is benefiting from it.
Well yes, there are always trade-offs to everything and that means there's some benefit to someone even if the decision is terrible. Just because you benefit from something doesn't mean you were the influential force to instigate it.
The war on drugs is a huge business. If the government really wanted to end illegal drugs, the war on drugs would have been won and over a long time ago. They let it continue.
Would you say that applies to ALL material wars too? Ie. "War on Drugs"
If yes, was that really the case for prohibition, which was essentially the "War on Alcohol"?
Edit: I don't know why I've gotten downvotes for a genuine question -_-
Interesting to think about.
There were some who made very large sums of money in the war on alcohol. I’m sure people like Al Capone didn’t mind that alcohol was illegal because it made their positions possible.
Dealers want decriminalization so you don’t worry about getting caught coming from their place.
Dealers don’t want legalization because their business will naturally go elsewhere.
"Dealers don’t want legalization because their business will naturally go elsewhere."
True, up to a point where the government taxes the newly-legalized drugs so much, that there becomes a parallel black market for said drugs. Its happening here in California with marijuana
Can confirm. The taxes they slap onto recreational cannabis is crazy, the only way to avoid the outrageous taxes is to get a "hard" medical card that shows a recommendation from a physician. You can no longer use a paper recommendation from any old Joe Shmoe clinic like you used to. It has to be from an actual doctor. Black market prices are much better for the same quality and quantity.
Yeah I lived in Washington when it was legalized and I just kept going through the same dude I always did. In fact, I didn't even set foot in a dispensary until I went to Colorado on vacation.
That depends on the amount of taxation weighed against the quality of the product. if government licensed product is safer and more pure(i.e. not cut with filler) then it will tend to accept taxation, provided said taxation isn't democrat level taxation.
Same here in Canada. You effectively pay 6-12x more when buying legally, in comparison.
Not necessarily. If you operated in an "illegal" industry (ie: drugs) and it suddenly became legalized, you wouldn't immediately see a drop in sales. In fact, you'd still have a leg up in the market because you're already a known quantity in the space. That leg up wouldn't last forever without some sort of innovation of course but you'd definitely have a head start while other places try to catch up to you.
The other places will be large corporations and they'll either buy you out or create their own market share from scratch.
Legalization usually comes with regulation though. Ma and Pa's bud shop can't afford to do FDA testing and compliance for their backyard worth of weed. You need a warehouse-sized greenhouse to make the economics work, and several warehouses to ameliorate those costs down to a minimal level.
JFK's dad was one of the people that got rich off prohibition. Then helped rig the election for his son. Boomers love mobsters.
At a time, the Federal Reserve Branch servicing Miami had more cash on hand than all other branches combined, in the cocaine heydey. HSBC laundered untold billions, and was fined a pittance. Yes.
Accurate, yes HSBC quickly covered that one up. This whole world is run on dirty money
If you ever feel like watching a great documentary on this check out "Cocaine Cowboys". Poppy Bush even gets in the story.
Don't forget Deutsche Bank.
Yes 100%. All of the wars with an invisible enemy revolve around $ and control. The war on drugs didn't do anything to actually fight the importation of drugs into the US, our government just eliminated completion and then took over the drug trade. Look into the CIA running cocaine in the 80s and 90s.
Prohibition (war on alcohol). Same thing. People were making it and selling it all around the nation under the table. Huge amount of tax $ were missed until they finally brought it back 'legally'...
War on terror? That just ended up being who could control the terror. The US funded all of it. One you we are arming 'allies and insurgents' then next we are fighting them. Who originally funded Isis?
The only reason Prohibition was finally instituted was they found a way to replace the taxes on alcohol that the Federal government ran on - watch Ken Burns' documentary on it, it's a well researched, even handed look at the whole history of Prohibition. There was a serious problem with alcohol in the US, because the Fed looked away at abuses of alcohol sales and it's impact on society, because most of the money they ran Washington on was from booze.
The thing that changed it? Income tax.
It ended once McShame died. He was the conduit for whoever made money off of ISIS
Think of it this way:
Sometimes genuine movements are co-opted by people who see a potential for profit. For example, feminism had a large positive impact for employers. If you double the workforce, you can lower the standard salary. It's the same as what they do with illegals now. I'm of the mindset that anything that manages to get a lot of steam in politics or the media has someone who is benefiting from it.
Haha that reminds me of an old E Michael Jones lecture on feminism.
"I think we all agree here that feminism makes you stupid. But does feminism also make you fat? I can definitely answer - yes. Feminism makes you stupid and fat"
Then goes on to talk about how the rise of processed frozen meals, fast food and obesity was exactly coincided with women entering the work force and not having enough time to cook proper meals for their families.
Well yes, there are always trade-offs to everything and that means there's some benefit to someone even if the decision is terrible. Just because you benefit from something doesn't mean you were the influential force to instigate it.
The war on drugs is a huge business. If the government really wanted to end illegal drugs, the war on drugs would have been won and over a long time ago. They let it continue.
No matter which conflict you pick, there are always those who benefit. That isn't the same as being the instigator, which was my question.
Pfizer didn't have to be the cause of the Wuhan virus simply because they're benefitting from it.