I can think of exactly one, but it's not a good enough reason.

like right now if i want i can access some fairly high quality stuff w/o much trouble. if the shit is legalized that stuff might end up costing so much or being offered by so few entities that i'd have more trouble getting my hands on it.

then again...i can access some high quality booze right now w/o much trouble.

so damn.

nevermind.

But we might as well just drive the nail into this coffin.

Access to high quality weed in Colorado has gone up, not down. Marijuana users don't need to depend on their dealer to get primo herb. And they now can select from hundreds, thousands of strains, types and thc levels.

Like you said....the quality (and safety) of booze went up exponentially after prohibition.

There's no reason to believe anything other than that the quality and safety of drugs like heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine would increase significantly with legalization. There would also be accountability for manufacturers....lawsuits and such that would ensure more safety measures. Perhaps number one......no more levamisole. And levamisole is probably the most dangerous substance that any/all of us have put in our bodies unknowingly.

that might clear it up for you.

only con of legalization

communities too.

and the folks who are currently involved in the drug trade aren't exactly spending much of their money to benefit the hood anyway.

either big pharma wouldn't pay their share, or that money would go to defense spending like everything else.

http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29066651/colorado-again-asks-voters-how-spend-marijuana-tax

^ Colorado has made so much money from cannabis tax that voters had to decide if the state should refund it or spend it on various services. the voters told the state to spend it on services.

which is really restrictive on how the government can levy state taxes, typically requiring a referendum vote.

you're not wrong, just trying to add context, because most states don't have that sort of control by the voters when it comes to taxation.

And it's tuff to argue.

There's two ways to see this. First, there's what I consider the street-lore mythology side. That these Nino Brown guys give out Thanksgiving turkeys like modern day Robin Hoods and actually serve a beneficial function in the neighborhood.

Then there's the more grassroots side which I'm trying to consider. I'm about to walk by two twenty-something crack dealers to go get my cigarettes in a few minutes. I suppose the argument is....they are making money and supporting their kids with it. Legalizing would put them out of business....or at least take the money they're making and put it in the pockets of pharma/drug manufacturers.

At the end of the day...what those guys are doing isn't sustainable. I know it's a cliché....but the fact is, they're gonna end up dead or in jail before they're 30. And the kids they're trying to support with suffer in the long run.

I don't agree with the argument...but it's hard to for me to refute it without simply retreating to my own anecdotes and observations. I'll admit there might be something more to it that I can't observe.

Local corner stores.
Loaning people money.
Helping out their kids/girlfriends/family members.

History has shown that America isn't going to want to funnel that cash back into neighborhoods that they disenfranchised on purpose. You will be taking local business away and replacing it with big box retailers that won't give anything back to the community.

BEST CASE SCENARIO is the inbetween years where corporations stay away until the legality of the scenario is worked out on the federal level and conservative suburbs zoning stores basically to the hood keeping some of the locals employed (since it won't fuck up the ecosystem of customers coming to the hood to buy drugs).

Long term though? When you can buy it at your local big box pharmacy? It's cash gone that will never come back.

how's the hood doing?

meanwhile ain't the streets all fucked up in the hood? light poles all bent up and shit? street lights barely on sometimes.

schools all tore up and shit.

and w/that cash in the hood now that might be 'gone' if big retailers get in the game - how are hood families doing?

>how's the hood doing?

As far as the above is concerned.

>meanwhile ain't the streets all fucked up in the hood? light
>poles all bent up and shit? street lights barely on
>sometimes.
>
>schools all tore up and shit.

You really think they would invest the cash back into the hood though? Unlikely.

>and w/that cash in the hood now that might be 'gone' if big
>retailers get in the game - how are hood families doing?

Im for legalization across the board, but I do think that we will be locked out of the new cash windfall+wealth that's created when this new market opens up(like all things capitalistic, thanks 'merica!) , even though we were heavily involved when it was illegal.

>>how's the hood doing?
>
>As far as the above is concerned.

i'm not convinced that cash generated by black market drug sales is propping up the hood now.

if the money is spent at convenience stores...those stores are typically owned by ppl who live outside the hood. so those sales don't benefit the hood.

if the money is spent on school clothes for hood kids...that's like maybe 5 to 10 kids. there can be dozens or hundreds of kids in a given hood. if not thousands.

considering hood fathers are routinely accused of not caring for their kids...i'm not buying this argument.

>You really think they would invest the cash back into the hood
>though? Unlikely.

the hood specifically? not necessarily. except my Colorado family tells me the streets in Denver are fucking immaculate these days. even in the hood. so my answer is 'yes'.

>Im for legalization across the board, but I do think that we
>will be locked out of the new cash windfall+wealth that's
>created when this new market opens up(like all things
>capitalistic, thanks 'merica!) , even though we were heavily
>involved when it was illegal.

'heavily involved'? i dunno.

i don't see any cartels headquartered in the hood.

The game is the number 1 employer in a lot of neighborhoods. Take that away, and what do you have?

i hear y'all but this argument fails b/c the hood is suffering under the current set-up. and i'm not convinced that the hood might not do better w/legalization. if anything this argument tells me that w/legalization there should also come some job training programs and maybe some increased social programs to prop up the folks who've been using the drug black market as some sort of extraordinarily flimsy safety net.

I'm willing to listen to this argument....i mean, it doesn't seem ridiculous on the surface. But the contention is essentially that the drug trade is a de facto 'flimsy safety net' like you said. It's just not what I see and I get the feeling it comes from a rather romanticized version of what 'the hood' is. The drug dealers in my community are not modern day robin hoods.

I've heard stories about fabled drug dealers who built basketball courts in project housing yards and all that. Never seen it in real life though. And even in cases where that something like that DID happen....it's not enough to make up for the damage they do.

and kinda trickle-downish too which is really odd

street crews, etc

sure you got alot of unemployed people.

but do as many people get shot every night without the drug trade?


***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

So many Chinese were hooked on it that it heavily affected the cultural livelihood of the Chinese people. So much so that eventually a bunch of kung-fu muthafukkas whooped a ton of ass and destroyed a ton of opium. They called this the boxer rebellion and as a result of all the damage China was further crippled due to having to pay back the UK for all the legal product that was destroyed in addition to losing Hong Kong and the income it provided as a port city for centuries. This helped pave the way for Chairman Mao to eventually rally the people against the governance plunging China into civil war.

tl;dr War?

No way we'd become indebted to other countries via product, for one...

I'm personally more for it than against it.

Re: I'm personally more for it than against it.

Me too.

you ever notice how slow and stupid zombies are? how do people ever get eaten by them?

I mean keeping it illegal aint helpin nothing but I don't see the alternative 'workin' neither

regulation. it would make the product safer with less bullshit additives that can be as or more harmful to the user than the actual heroin.

as much noddin

I know lots of people on methadone that work 9 to 5 jobs. It's easy to function on methadone.

I ain't saying they can't function
but that diet dope still be havin em out there...just not illing and nodding as much

A lot of methadone users just use the program to sustain a base level of opium in their bodies to avoid withdrawals. They don't have any intentions of abstaining from the percs/oxy/hydro/heroin. They just want that methadone in their back pocket in case they run out of money or their dealer goes dry.

If they are legitimately ON the methadone program and taking (and NOT taking) what they're supposed to....they're not gonna look like zombies.

In anycase....I have used and abused every opiate under the sun. Oxy was my baddest bitch for around 4 years. And the only time I ever looked like a zombie was the 3 weeks when I kicked. Like Kilo is saying....I was taking the pharma pills so quality control was on lock. The zombies you see on the street due to heroin use are mostly looking like that cause of cutting agents. Or they're going through withdrawal.

Legalized heroin will see a lot of deaths. Especially for people who want to drink while using. But I argue there would be a lot less zombie-looking street people.

i'm moreso talkin' about the street additives used to cut product etc. it would be cleaner, higher quality drugs with less harmful shit added to it to make it stretch on the streets.

Like methadone....a lot of opiate addicts use sub to taper off. It can work....I never tried it myself but have heard that it's effective for hardcore heroin users who want to quit. I don't think it can be used long-term like methadone can though. There's people who literally take methadone for ten to twenty years while living perfectly normal lives.

i had a client on suboxone. she basically abused it and so did all her junky friends. they would steal it from her and it was pretty wide spread on the black market as well.

opiate overdoses have surpassed auto accidents as the leading cause of accidental death in the US. Most people OD because heroin purity is wildly inconsistent. Regulated heroin would be properly labeled. Drug violence would end. When's the last time someone got killed over a barrel of rye, or serving martinis in someone else's turf? People wouldn't be jailed for transporting or selling. It's a win/win/win.

Prohibition doesn't discourage use or addiction, so there is no reason NOT to legalize.

ODing but I'll chill....and just say ok

how do you successfully show restraint here?

im trying to practice by just not typing shit, but it don't work.

tv show...

a majority I know wouldn't bump w/me irl and vice versa
for those who I would, tend to come off as normal/funny so we good

so I don't too much of anything a character on tv says too seriously

it's like an interactive fish tank for me

plus if I took this place seriously I cant do a lot of back n forth before I'm ready to fight f'real so I just chill

This might be it.
Blocked at work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvFjY1mJIng

But I've seen that doc and it's not a heroin clinic per se. It's an injection site. Difference being....they don't provide the clients with drugs. They simply offer them clean needles, a safe place to use and offer counselling/lifeskills services.

This is much more a 'street person' or poverty service. 95% of addicts have no need for a service like this because they're not homeless.

heroin would be one of, if not the most important drug to legalize. controlling the quality, purity, associated supplies and other such factors would make use considerably more safe. i do not advocate heroin use but it's not going away and if we are going to have it, we might as well make it as safe as possible.

too concerned with safe dope

my city is plagued with both legal and illegal

I'm for reduction of usage and I haven't seen that work irl

ok they not od-ing and illin but these young boys pop pills like m&m's
and now we have a whole new generation of fiends on safe legal drugs

most of the conversation about drugs is either some demon deacon shit about dying after the first taste or an awkward silence that treats them as taboo. a more concrete and more frank approach to education would obviously accompany these other shifts.

and again i think if you cleaned up the despair, ennui and other causes of drug use, you'd have less of a problem with it, legal or illegal.

the harm reduction model is a multi-front model that addresses all these things. but the ability to control purity and make use safer is like the last line of defense, the thing that actually saves lives at serious risk. of course it's not a good thing that they are at risk in the first place but there is no denying that they are.

like depending on where u live/from, it's been in the forefront and very frank and honest

it might educate those who are on the outside lookin in, but not necessarily those who are in and around it or down to do it


again I'm not totally against that model but I want more solutions

These kids really don't know that they're essentially doing heroin.

I can't speak for other areas

If they knew what they were doing....they wouldn't do pills in the first place. The oxy's and the perc's and the hydro's are about 5 times more expensive than buying heroin (in terms of 'bang' for your buck). So why wouldn't they just do heroin? The answer is because of the taboo. Or lack thereof for the pills.

In different communities....different drugs get normalized. I would NEVER tell my co-workers that I've smoked crack. They would look at me like I was from outer space if I did. In my neighborhood, it's not a big deal. In the rave world....molly is normalized. Look at hip hop....cocaine has become normalized now whereas it was frowned upon in the 90's.

Right now....there are communities where percs and oxy's have become normalized. Heroin is still taboo...but the pills are normalized. This is a dangerous misconception that can be partly helped through education.

they know what's in it

but don't want the stigma of being dope fiends

it's like the Whitney coke vs crack thing

i think even in the crack-ravaged hood(s) there is still much hyperbole and false info thrown around about drugs.

than most about 2 industries

legal and pharmaceutical

i deal w/this regularly.

you still have users and addicts being used interchangeably and you still have total oversight of the gradual negative effects of drugs.

i think in a lot of communities you can see addicts and even users as an example of what not to do, but in those communities the channels to addiction are more numerous and more subtle.

lastly i just dont think you'd see a proliferation of hard drug use if it were legal, and the people who do use would be safer and have more access to help

We're still going to have substantial regulation especially for minors, yes?

at least that's the type i'm talking about.

Dependency

Issues with mental health that are not dealt with first.


Lots of reasons.

jp I'm a supporter of legalization.

return of the stick up kids?

***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

man YOU...

streets dry up... they taking YO money.. lol

??

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/us/07pharmacies.html

of course that would happen.

can you buy oxycontin, morphine freely? no. you need a prescription, and not just a regular prescription either (it's in duplicate, you pick it up monthly rather than getting refills, etc). people don't rob pharmacies for it because they are flat ass broke addicts, it's because accessibility and cost on the street are very low and high, respectively. some people probably rob it to sell it.

so you're creating a total false equivalency. we are talking about market-price substances available to people of a certain age. is that what painkillers are? no. their access is controlled very tightly.

furthermore, 600 robberies annually is practically nothing (report says 1800 over a three-year period). do you know how many robberies there are annually in the united states? in 2010 there were 367,832, and that actually represented a notable decrease over recent years. in about 40% of those, a firearm was used. this is data from the FBI. so to make this out like some outrageous number is wrong, it's a minuscule proportion of robberies or even armed robberies. 7-11s get robbed more than pharmacies, shall we outlaw the Slurpee?

a lot of pharmacies have cocaine, too (it's used in ocular, aural and nasal surgical procedures as a topical anesthetic), do you see them getting knocked over for it? not often. that's because the street supplies plenty of it, where in the other case the pharmacies are actually supplying the street. try to think about these things a little more critically instead of just looking for support for this deteriorating argument. certainly legalizing drugs is not a *perfect* solution and a lot of sensitive decisions would need to be made (that frankly i do not trust the u.s. government to make), but it's superior to the alternative we have now, which is an unmitigated disaster.

I mean, something would have to fill the void in the black market right? Illegal gambling and prostitution can only go so far. You're gonna have a lot of career criminals with no other options. Straight-up robbery and theft might increase significantly.

but armed robbery & mugging a person is something totally different. it takes a certain kinda guy to pull that off and alot of these corner kids don't have it...


***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

>> alot of these corner kids don't have it...


matter of fact I know I don't agree with it

it don't take much heart to stick somebody up
burglary does

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/next-to-tribe-with-alcohol-ban-a-hub-of-beer.html?_r=0

After the lawsuit was filed, Whiteclay’s two-lane road, Highway 87, bustled with traffic driving to and from the beer stores. Dozens of people in various states of inebriation wandered along the road. Other men and women were passed out in front of abandoned buildings. A Hank Williams Jr. 45, “I’d Rather Be Gone,” was among the detritus along the road, as well as empty liquor bottles, a copy of “Tabernacle Hymns No. 3,” soiled clothing and a dead puppy.

Thomas M. White, the Omaha lawyer who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the tribe, describes Whiteclay as “Sodom and Gomorrah.” There is a lawless feeling in the town.


Though the reservation is dry, nearly every aspect of life there is affected by alcohol. Tribal leaders say four in five families on the reservation have someone with a drinking problem, and one in four babies are born with fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Rates of diabetes, teenage suicide, crime and unemployment are in some cases exponentially higher than national averages, according to federal and tribal data and officials.


The shop sells a 30-pack of Budweiser cans for $27.25 — a price higher than in New York City, and nearly twice as high as elsewhere in the country. But the drink of choice in Whiteclay is Hurricane High Gravity Lager, a malt liquor brewed by Anheuser-Busch. A 16-ounce can costs $1.50 at the Arrowhead Inn. Its alcohol content is 8.1 percent; regular beer has an alcohol content of about 5 percent

Because many of the tactics that failed here are due to their 'prohibition'.

The regular hood already has legal alcohol and it doesn't look like night of the living dead from drunks.

>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/next-to-tribe-with-alcohol-ban-a-hub-of-beer.html?_r=0
>
>After the lawsuit was filed, Whiteclay’s two-lane road,
>Highway 87, bustled with traffic driving to and from the beer
>stores. Dozens of people in various states of inebriation
>wandered along the road. Other men and women were passed out
>in front of abandoned buildings. A Hank Williams Jr. 45,
>“I’d Rather Be Gone,” was among the detritus along the
>road, as well as empty liquor bottles, a copy of “Tabernacle
>Hymns No. 3,” soiled clothing and a dead puppy.
>
>Thomas M. White, the Omaha lawyer who filed the lawsuit on
>behalf of the tribe, describes Whiteclay as “Sodom and
>Gomorrah.” There is a lawless feeling in the town.
>
>
>Though the reservation is dry, nearly every aspect of life
>there is affected by alcohol. Tribal leaders say four in five
>families on the reservation have someone with a drinking
>problem, and one in four babies are born with fetal alcohol
>syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Rates of
>diabetes, teenage suicide, crime and unemployment are in some
>cases exponentially higher than national averages, according
>to federal and tribal data and officials.
>
>
>The shop sells a 30-pack of Budweiser cans for $27.25 — a
>price higher than in New York City, and nearly twice as high
>as elsewhere in the country. But the drink of choice in
>Whiteclay is Hurricane High Gravity Lager, a malt liquor
>brewed by Anheuser-Busch. A 16-ounce can costs $1.50 at the
>Arrowhead Inn. Its alcohol content is 8.1 percent; regular
>beer has an alcohol content of about 5 percent
>

and people were walking around looking like zombies during the crack epidemic. nyc has got rid of most of the poor, but there are still places like this.

it was like this before the ban on the res, now the money is just moving across the border. just like most of the money would move out of the hood, if they legalized.

need to be a significant black market and or amount of illegal activity to supply kids with drugs.

It would be exactly like booze is. Kids looking to get older people to buy it for them.

Any black market at high schools will look more like this:

Kid gets older brother to buy drugs. Then takes it to high school and sells it to underage kids at a premium. So the product itself will still be controlled and come from legitimate manufacturers. Kids' aren't making jail-house moonshine to sell at high school.

if only to avoid taxation.

it's already the case in states with marijuana legalization.

you get more options at the dispensary, but you pay a premium for it. if you think that legalization inherently obviates black and grey markets i've got a bridge to sell ya.

(when they're underage).

heroin in high schools is still not a positive.

like denny said, it would be more of a go-between than a "black market." you don't see kids buying moonshine today, they get the booze from a store by stealing it or getting someone to buy it for them. same thing would happen. the is a vast improvement over dumb kids buying who knows what quality drugs in dangerous place from dangerous people.

Kids thinking heroin or harder drugs we know can kill are now safe. You may not die (debatable) but you can still wreck your life, body and brain with a lot of these drugs.

...and I doubt the Mexicans and Colombian cartels would just stop trying to sell drugs in the us. So this is doubtful that big pharma would ever control the drug markets providing pure safe products. They can't control them know, so I don't know how that would change.

You think that telling kids they *will* die from them (e.g. DARE) has prevented a fucking thing? Zero. In tandem with society making these things more accessible, it would also have to have more intensive and fact-based education to accompany them. And no one is saying what's legal is safe, avoiding that connotation (which we have managed to have with alcohol, unfortunately) is a major component of making a legalization strategy successful. Plus it's hard to hide the negative effects of drugs like heroin and meth. Being exposed to addicts at a young age definitely kept me the fuck away from them.

As far as the cartels, where would their market be in a society with legal drugs? Who would want to purchase adulterated, unsafe stuff at a marginal (if any!) savings versus something higher quality and safer? I do think you have touched on a significant obstacle, perhaps even more significant than big pharmaceuticals, and that is countries like Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan that depend on the drug trade for their national economies to varying extents. Big pharm could be placated by getting a slice of the action, but these countries would lose their best customers and be pretty pissed about it.

making it legal to buy drugs would discourage drug use or make it more scary than dare.

and the cartels are not going to stop selling. who says big pharma would make it cheap or cheaper? a lot of assumption on your end.

>making it legal to buy drugs would discourage drug use or
>make it more scary than dare.

who's trying to make it "more scary?" here is the problem with the traditional approach, it sets up a bunch of doom and gloom around all drugs. i remember the DARE cops had us giving up caffeinated sodas lol. and then a kid tries it, the world doesnt end and suddenly *everything* in the "educational" program is viewed as bullshit. a more nuanced look at drug use would be much more effective in allowing people to make informed decisions. i am not trying to scare anyone straight.

>and the cartels are not going to stop selling. who says big
>pharma would make it cheap or cheaper? a lot of assumption on
>your end.

uh, let's see, big pharma is trying to compete in the market, right? their pricing wouldn't be competitive? obviously it would be, and they wouldn't have the added expense of very costly, furtive smuggling across borders. if drugs were legal, local producers would put the cartels out of business within a week. we are talking about plants or semi-synthetic processes to plants. if you could grow all the marijuana, coca and opium you wanted, these things would cost almost nothing to produce.

the cartels would certainly try to keep selling, but ultimately they would fail for economic reasons. do you see the cartels selling tomatoes or rum? obviously not. there might still be some importation but it would be done through legitimate channels most likely. i only even acknowledge this possibility considering the amount of fruit and stuff we get from places like chile, honduras, etc.

or do whatever they have to do to stay in business whther it's violence or bribery.

colorado now has one of the worst heroin problems in the country and it's directly connected to weed legalization.

nearby nebraska and surrounding states, do NOT have a heroin problem.

they are going to make their money.

try to keep up here, please.

Would the cartels go into something else? Sure. Human trafficking, ivory, who the hell knows? Of course they would try to stay in business and of course we are one country, not all countries. They could intensify their operations elsewhere. But would they able to remain in the drug business in a country where all drugs were legal? In a very, very limited capacity at most. This would deal them a *huge* blow, especially if it were the United States, which I assume is what we are talking about here.

Everyone said there would be no black market.

That hasn't become true.

You're trying to scramble into a "WELL YOU DON'T KNOW BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THE FUTURE" thing. Well neither do you. So there. Jesus.

eliminating unsafe, unpure, unregulated drugs.

are there drug dealers moving in to supply those 14 year olds with jagermeister? Making moonshine in the back with amonia to give those kids cheap everclear?


>eliminating unsafe, unpure, unregulated drugs.

there's a thriving black market for stolen fine wines that cost hundreds or thousand per bottle.

the heroin, cocaine, and weed trade

but you're really endearing when you just stubbornly refuse to admit you're wrong. we have that in common lol.

i'm not wrong. you're not paying attention. despite regulation and legalization people are still buying and selling fake wines, some that are worse than bathtub moonshine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-market-wine-industry-means-you-could-be-drinking-poison_563a47a6e4b0307f2cab8ade


http://www.foodrepublic.com/2015/11/03/wine-fraud-enters-its-golden-age/

FOOD CRIMES
Wine Fraud Enters Its Golden Age

Christine Haughney, Sr. Investigations Editor, Zero Point Zero
November 3, 2015

It was perhaps the biggest victory in the global struggle against wine fraud: In August 2014, Rudy Kurniawan, the world’s most well-connected wine fraudster, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and ordered to pay $29 million in restitution for his role in a massive counterfeit-wine scheme that victimized some of the world’s most respected wine collectors.

But the story does not end there. In the 15 months since Kurniawan went to prison, industry experts say that wine fraud has become more prevalent and expanded to all price points, even more-affordable wines enjoyed by average consumers worldwide.

“People that think because Rudy is in jail this is over are really fooling themselves,” says noted wine-fraud expert Maureen Downey, who advised prosecutors during the sentencing phase of Kurniawan’s trial.

An untold number of Kurniawan’s fake wines are still in circulation, Downey says. And given what investigators know about the scope of his counterfeiting operation, the kinds of wines he claimed to be selling, the prices he was selling them for and adjusting those numbers for inflation, the amount of bogus bottles could add up to more than $500 million in further fraudulent sales.

Such is the viral nature of wine fraud: Once a counterfeit wine passes muster on the luxury wine market, it often disappears into some secluded cellar for years before being passed on to the next collector. In fact, Downey says, there are still probably fakes floating around from the last major scandal-scarred wine dealer: Hardy Rodenstock, the guy behind the infamous Thomas Jefferson bottles, which were exposed as probable fakes nearly a decade ago.

And these are just the high-profile cases. Downey points to burgeoning criminal cells across Europe that are now manufacturing fake wines, and a massive barge roaming through international waters around Asia where wine counterfeiters operate freely out of sight and largely out of reach of authorities, she says.

The problem isn’t limited to ultra-high-end bottles. Even lower-priced wines are targets for enterprising fraudsters. Downey notes that knockoffs of Hollywood power couple Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s Miraval rosé, which sells for around $20, have turned up in Europe and Asia.

For aspiring criminals, it seems, wine remains a very lucrative field. This is Kurniawan’s legacy. “Unfortunately, Rudy taught people this is a way to make money,” Downey says.

♦♦♦


Convicted fraudster Rudy Kurniawan arrived on the fine-wine scene during a heady time of big spending and little due diligence. (Photo courtesy of Wine Spectator.)
Wine fraud is an especially thorny issue in France, the world’s leading wine producer. In 2011, the French government commissioned a study on the prevalence of counterfeit wine in China, where demand for brand-name high-end wines, especially French wines, is huge. The results of that two-year study turned out to be so damning (the most glaring statistic: one of every two bottles of French wine in China is probably fake) that the French government suppressed its own findings for the next two years.

And the man appointed to spearhead that study, James de Roany, former president of the CNCCEF Wine & Spirits Commission, was dismissed from his position in November 2013 for even mentioning these results during a wine industry conference in London. In an interview, de Roany tells Food Crimes that updated findings suggest that China’s counterfeit wine problem has only gotten worse since the initial 2013 report. “Everyone think it concerns top grands crus. But it is much broader than that,” says de Roany. “French wines are in decline in China, and one of the reasons is counterfeiting.”

It is a common problem faced by manufacturers of all kinds of luxury items. But unlike the usual imitators of designer handbags and gold watches, fraudsters in the wine industry are getting so good at what they do that they’re beginning to pose real threats to legitimate top-brand winemakers.

“What we’ve learned from the last few years is that wine fraud is lucrative, it’s fun and it’s also something that really doesn’t get punished.”

Just ask David Pearson, chief executive of California’s Opus One Winery, which has been proactive in fighting knockoffs made of its wine. In other luxury industries, Pearson says, manufacturers may actually feel flattered when their products are copied because most people know the difference between, say, a fake Rolex watch and a real Rolex. But the level of fakery in wine has reached the point where it’s getting really hard to distinguish between the real and the fake. Pearson says he spoke with one wine shop owner in Shanghai who stopped selling wines from a certain prominent French château altogether because nobody seemed to trust whether it’s legit or not. “People could no longer be sure that they were getting a real bottle versus a counterfeit bottle,” says Pearson. “That undermined consumers’ confidence in buying the wine.”

To be sure, plenty of consumers still thirst for fine wine. Data tracked by Wine Spectator shows that global sales for fine wine jumped to $352 million in 2014 from $337 million in 2013. In September, Sotheby’s reported its first “white glove” wine sale in London, meaning it sold all of the lots it placed up for auction.

That’s helpful news for criminals who know there will be an audience for their bogus goods and, very likely, little prison time if they are caught. Wine fraud expert Downey notes that while Kurniawan will spend a decade behind bars for his counterfeiting activities, the rest of his accomplices, including the auction houses that sold his wines, have been spared from prosecution.

“What we’ve learned from the last few years is that wine fraud is lucrative, it’s fun and it’s also something that really doesn’t get punished,” says Downey. “Rudy got ten years, and that’s a long time. But none of the other people involved in Rudy’s crime got even a slap on the wrist.”

♦♦♦


California’s Opus One Winery has been among the most active companies in taking on counterfeiters. (Photo: Kate Guhl.)
The history of wine fraud may be as old as winemaking itself. Michael Madrigale, the wine director for Bar Boulud and Boulud Sud in New York City, who tasted many of Kurniawan’s wines while working on behalf of private collectors, notes that even ancient Greeks wrangled with the issue. “People have always been trying to get in on something that was good,” he says.

Perhaps the most famous wine-fraud case before Kurniawan came with layers of historic intrigue. In 2006, U.S. billionaire Bill Koch sued fellow rare-wine collector Hardy Rodenstock in civil court over the $500,000 sale of four bottles of wine that Rodenstock claimed once belonged to former U.S. president Thomas Jefferson, bottles that Koch later came to suspect were fakes. The case ultimately resulted in a default judgement against Rodenstock, though the accused fraudster never served any jail time.

After the Rodenstock scandal, a new posterboy for wine fraud soon emerged: Rudy Kurniawan. He appeared at a time that lent itself even more to big spending and less due diligence, according to Benjamin Wallace, a journalist and author of The Billionaire’s Vinegar, which chronicles the case against Rodenstock. “It’s the mid 2000s. You’ve got this boom going on. It’s America,” says Wallace. “There was this group, the 12 angry men, a tasting group in New York that consisted of these real estate and other entrepreneurial guys, and Kurniawan sort of fell in with them.”

Looking back, many people in the wine industry say they sensed early on that Kurniawan was a fake. Yet for years, many of them stood by while the charade continued. Their reluctance to speak up highlights a systematic vulnerability in the ultra-high-end fine-wine market: Nobody, especially not the rich and powerful, likes to admit when they’ve been duped. In a crowded auction house full of these power-broker types, you can imagine how the cycle of denial simply perpetuates itself.

“It wasn’t like three people buying Rudy’s fake wine,” says Joshua Nadel, a former sommelier at wine destinations Veritas and Cru, who spent many hours pouring wines in the presence of Kurniawan and many of his victims. “It was the global collecting community buying fake wines.”

“The passionate wine collectors with the means to chase down the best wines ever made are embarrassed to let you know that they got taken because they are heads of industry.”

Even today, with Rodenstock exposed and Kurniawan locked away, many collectors are still too embarrassed to admit just how much money they lost from wine fraud. Food Crimes contacted Kurniawan’s victims who were listed in court filings. Their names are a roster of captains of industry. Former Vornado Realty Trust chief Michael Facitelli lost $3.6 million. Quest software founder David Doyle lost $15.1 million. Film producer Brian Devine lost $5.3 million, and Andrew Hobson, former chief financial officer at Univision, lost $3.1 million. They all declined to be interviewed.

“The passionate wine collectors with the means to chase down the best wines ever made are embarrassed to let you know that they got taken because they are heads of industry,” says Madrigale. “They are very wealthy. They are well respected, personally and professionally, in their lives and they don’t want their peers or their friends in the press, they don’t want them to know they got suckered and taken because it’s embarrassing.”

Criminals also know that overburdened prosecutors don’t have the time or resources to devote to white-collar crimes like wine fraud, and there are few government agencies really charged with addressing the problem, meaning that collectors have to pursue other legal avenues, like costly civil litigation, in order to make sure that perpetrators are punished.

“The Treasury Department does a very good job in protecting the integrity of our currency; unfortunately, we do not have a police department to protect the integrity of rare wine,” says Geoffrey Troy, president of the New York Wine Warehouse, who warned Christie’s, the esteemed London-based auction house, that it was selling fake wines from Kurniawan before a 2009 sale, which nonetheless moved forward.

If the past three decades are any indicator, generations of new collectors aren’t going to rely on the lessons of the past to fix the current problem.

Says Nadel, “People have a pretty short memory when it comes to this kind of thing.”

wines can age and be stored and so forth. creating fake vintages is viable. for drugs, they have a relatively short life, all of them.

there could be imitation drugs, yes, but there isn't the same kind of ceiling for value that would make them substantially cheaper to compete with the real thing. fuck, how many straws do you plan to grasp at here?

this is a better comparison. people will buy them on the streets to save a few bucks from people who don't have the overhead (a store and taxes). even though it's breaking a minor law since cigarettes are legal, why not? and even though there's no guarantee they're no guarantee of what you're getting. a lot are fakes. http://nypost.com/2010/07/27/counterfeit-smokes-unchecked-growing-in-ny/

and five times what they do in some states.

wow, ya don't say!

there's still a huge illegal low end weed market.

while the dispensaries cater to people with more money.

sound like you learned about drug smuggling from watching "We're the Millers"

You can buy a fully formed joint, blunt sized, with over a dime bags worth of high quality stuff for under 10 bucks. Saw this with my own eyes this summer.

If anyone is buying shitty illegal low end weed it's minors and people in places where it's hard to get because of distance; this will disappear once dispensaries become more commonplace across the state and minors can beg older brothers/poor people don't gotta travel 40 miles to cop.

>there's still a huge illegal low end weed market.

http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/colorado-marijuana-legalization-2015-fighting-black-market-everyday-challenges-1913431

and whatever sales they're losing they're making up with the sale of heroin.

not the cartels.

good god you are dense.

....and in addition they've introduced a less safe, much more dangerous unregulated product to make up for the loss of sales heroin.

https://catalog.mccneb.edu/Lists/Sections/CustomDispForm.aspx?ID=52699&InitialTabId=Ribbon.Read

nobody who has replied under this thread has said anyting to disprove or undermine my point, that there'd still be a black market for drugs.

kudos to you for knowing better than me the source of the black market weed in your state.

I don't trust the American consumer and much less American industry to do it right. If it were done, the quality, safety, manufacture and distribution would have to be controlled very tightly. Advertising should be illegal, except perhaps in very specific and discreet places.

If the ad execs can make you think that Scrubbing Bubbles or Zima can get change your life and get you pussy, imagine what they can do with meth! Fuck that.

coupons and shit. daily specials. good stuff.

anyone who's been involved in the black market for drugs knows how fucking shady and unreliable drug dealers can be. that shit would end when drugs are legalized.

sure there would still be shady drug retailers/wholesalers but consumers would have so much more choice among outlets that the shady operators would be drummed out of biz pretty quickly, i imagine.

retail licenses, but that's just market principles at work.

in my area there are 2 recreational dispensaries within a half mile of each other and there isn't another one for (i think) 40 miles in any direction.

when there was just one, the customer service was pretty lousy.

when the second one opened it seemed to get better.

a free and open marketplace breeds competition that's good for the consumer. we always hear that about everything else, but i think it's especially obviously true with drugs.

suicide attempts arent illegal because you cant charge someone for self-harm

but legalizing every drug would spike society's despair

i think weed use would increase and probably cocaine. i don't think really hard drugs would see much change at all. personally i am not itching to go buy meth and heroin simply because they are legal. i have had a million opportunities to buy both and most people have had at least a few, they pass because they want to pass.

But I 100% agree that it's ludicrous to have your starting point be "well heroin is legal so now people that never would have done illegal heroin will definitely start using.

http://www.cpr.org/news/story/chart-colorado-among-states-growing-heroin-prescription-drug-abuse-problem

places that have relaxed laws and increased access have seen only moderate bumps in use if any generally. you also look at the united states, prior to prohibition use was not common and during the period of proscription we have seen various spikes in use.

like i said i think weed is going to increase but it was *already* increasing sharply. cocaine has a strong chance of seeing a push also as it becomes more available and higher quality. everything else i think wouldn't see a huge push.

two of the interesting industries with outright legalization would be 1) psychedelic experiences, the variety of shamans and sensory deprivation chambers and shit like that that would sprout up, and 2) the potential for big pharma to get into designer recreational drugs. The former would be interesting to see how it made use acceptable (and more beneficial) and the latter would be scary as fuck but certainly intriguing at the same time.

http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

kind of an odd soft policy but probably the closest to an example of what we are looking at here. obviously places like holland and norway also have fairly liberal policies in place or have at different times. that is the main thing, we dont have examples of places where drugs are outright legal and if there is only one or two, it skews the data anyway. take amsterdam for example, it became a magnet for sleaze in the way that las vegas is, but if every country/major city had a similar policy, everything would sort of disperse naturally.

as you know, cops don't care if CEO's and other rich ppl use illegal drugs.

it's only the poor ppl's lives they bother to ruin over bullshit.

Decriminalization sure - like if you are caught with some weed it's not a crime. I think "legalizing" ALL drugs would be bad.

Making them all legal has serious drawbacks:

1)People may end up doing "harder" drugs. I know most people all talking about weed- but more availability may correlate to more use. I'm not an expert - this should be studied. I *DO* believe making "prescription pills" legal would cause A LOT of people to start trying them. Needle drugs not so much - that takes a special type of person to try (people with courage.)

and

2)If drugs are *legal* then they'll be marketing like vapes+Viagra+Fan Duel. They'll be everywhere and it will cause problems.

I do think Cocaine and Heroin and Pills + MARKETING will increase usage of those drugs.

And If I was emperor I'd keep the SMOKING of weed illegal because *I* hate the smell so much.

But if you're at home taking pills and huffing paint AND NOT beating your spouse or barricading yourself in then I'm fine with it.

And either way I think privatized prisons, or any prisons that make profits, should be outlawed.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151635/ten_years_ago_portugal_legalized_all_drugs_--_what_happened_next

drug usage rates actually went DOWN.

But Peru has 10% of the population of the U.S. - that might make a difference.

And U.S. residents are a bunch of miserable fucking losers.

I'm all for more study and incremental steps at elast.

Surprisingly Portugal and Peru are 2 different countries

>Surprisingly Portugal and Peru are 2 different countries
>
>

You learn something new everyday here.

>2)If drugs are *legal* then they'll be marketing like
>vapes+Viagra+Fan Duel. They'll be everywhere and it will cause
>problems

There's no real reason for that particular drug to be legal.

... and maybe acid... but then we wouldn't have DNA research if it wasn't for acid... and Dock Ellis wouldn't have pitched a no hitter...


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

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1980468/real-life-hip-hop-horror-stories/

PCP can make you a threat to yourself and anyone in your immediate vicinity from your first hit. I can't think of another drug that does that... Maybe Ketamine in high enough doses could do it.


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

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_usZ1mwNpk

http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/28/myths-and-facts-about-angel-dust-did-pcp-drive-aaron-hernandez-to-commit-murder/

to call bullshit on the whole "cannibalism" aspect of the article. Not everyone will behave like that, in fact only a few will, but when you got a rapper with a piece of his roommate's lung in his stomach, and a father that gouged his son's eyes out and ate one, you might as well add "cannibalism" to the list of things that can happen while high on PCP.



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

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

Did the weed make him eat the face or did the weed complicate a pre-existing mental disorder? Same with pcp.

and other toxicologists have said that his behavior wasn't from just weed.

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

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

They suspect he had a mental health issue.

but all of Canada is about to go weed-friendly. Our new prime minister, Justin Trudeau just got sworn in about ten minutes ago. And he ran on a legalization platform that he would commence 'right away'. In fact....there's already two stores that have popped up in my neighborhood exactly like Colorado. Haven't been yet....I don't smoke anymore....but I can't wait to just see it for myself.

And it's not provincial or territorial law. It's federal. So our whole country is about to go the way of Colorado. The biggest reason we didn't do it before was because of the States threatening trade consequences if we did. But Colorado has opened the door again.

WIth no criminal penalty anyway.

https://www.facebook.com/MTLBlog/videos/942155405856350/?pnref=story

see K2 and the recent synthetic drug surge
a lot of the increased heroin use is due to local police forces essentially decriminalizing possession in places like philly, bmore, minny etc

sounds good in theory and will decrease drug arrests
but i could see a new era of "Crackheads" and all the issues that come with that emerging when you have poor people with easy access to affordable "self medication"

whole new generation of fiends out here now

industry in CO
that won't be anything compared to what would happen if all drugs were legalized
whole new multi billion dollar industry controlled by the people already controlling everything
with an army of lobbyists in washington to ensure they can push the boundary of responsibility
manufacturing low quality cheap drugs lord knows where (china?)
and selling it in every poor neighborhood bodega
no thanks
no conservative but i don't have enough faith in my ppl to avoid that okey doke
i'll settle for lowering drug sentencing

ameliorating poverty, creating opportunity, making suburban youth and housewives less bored/sad, etc. it's a multipronged thing but at the base of it you come back to the facts that 1) making a drug less expensive and safer to use benefits society (less associated crime, elimination of possession crimes, reduction in prison population, etc) and 2) what you put in your body is about as fundamental of a right as you can get. i love these abortion enthusiasts who throw BODILY AUTONOMY around as if it only applies to uteri. what about one's right to ingest what one wants and to explore one's mind? what could be a more intrinsic human right?

Honest question.

if you had legal pot it would be cheaper, more accessible, and, if it were on a federal level like it should be, you wouldn't have drug tests for working people, student-athletes, etc

no way does an america with legal weed so the rise in k2 and other synthetic substitutes.

i have no idea if what SPM is saying is true, but assuming it is, there's no way you can get legal weed to that price.

Not anything decent, anyway.

At the Cali collectives you have weed from $25 a an ounce (less than $1 a gram, basically what is being described here) to $500 an ounce.

BUT let's not ignore the fact that in California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, etc, there has been a strong effort to keep legal prices in step with legal prices, in fact that is even written into the legislation in CO and WA. If the market were deregulated, the prices would be much cheaper.

I read a piece talking about big tobacco getting in on the weed thing and it estimated that a pack of joints (7G) would cost about $3.25 to produce of high-grade doja. Say that's sold to the consumer at $10, again, you're very close and you're not smoking garbage.

I think his estimate is wrong anyway, the head shops I have seen selling K2 and similar products sell it in a shitty little pack for $15-$20.

why they smoke K2 instead of weed......
i never really seen K2 in stores but i imagine they come in a variety of packaging and price points from different manufacturers
if dude said he gets 6 blunts out a pack i believe em *shrug*

it's synthetic so if i had to guess i'd assume K2 would always be cheaper than weed and offer more "bang for the buck" per unit since the high is supposedly exponentially stronger than regular or dirt weed (basically what you'd get for comparable price)

if you have no regard for health and just wanna get f'd up i'm not sure how real weed could really compete with synthetic versions
yall argument boils down to why drink OE when you can sip Duvel or Chimay
doesn't really work like that in real life

for any other reason, you can smoke it. that's their market.

in SOME places, pilots or heavy equipment operators.

you want to make it legal for pilots, bus drivers and cops to use drugs?

No, obviously not, in fact our drug testings policies would become more similar to ones in places like Canada, where basically they test you not only for drugs but also alcohol in the workplace, but the tests indicate if you are under the influence, not if the drug is simply in your system.

You can't come to work drunk as fuck, can you?

And certain professions could still test for safety reasons, and naturally you'd have to work out insurance logistics.

What's the next question? ZOMG YOU WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE HEROINED-OUT AND METHED-UP ZOMBIES ON THE ROAD? No, DUI would still be illegal, and you'd still be responsible for any criminal actions you committed while under the influence (it could potentially an aggravating circumstance, even).

What we are talking about is the use of the drugs for personal consumption, and the safe manufacture/distribution/sale thereof. That's it. No other straw men.

>i have no idea if what SPM is saying is true, but assuming it
>is, there's no way you can get legal weed to that price.

According to guy in this clip https://youtu.be/IfNFnMAlXqA?t=6m1s you can get 20 joints out of a $5 pack.

and the bags were pretty big

http://www.theofficialk2incense.com/buy-k2-incense/

so i dunno wtf these dudes talkin about

and might not change anyone's mind about anything.....

But it's worth noting what Carl Hart has put forward specifically about crack addiction and the 'crackhead' behaviour we see.

So you see a guy all cracked out, talking to a pigeon and all that. It sounds really counter-intuitive to us...but it's not actually the crack that is directly causing them to behave that way. It's sleep deprivation. The problem....is an addict can't stop. A recreational user can use crack or coke....then decide the night is over, have an uncomfy comedown and hit the sack. So the addict who can't stop sometimes ends up staying awake for 3, 4, 5 days at a time. Even someone who is NOT on drugs will start hallucinating and seeing shit in the shadows and talking to pigeons if they are awake for that long. So what they REALLY need is a valium or something to make them sleep. The 'crackhead' state that they're in is extremely temporary.

I think that distinction can change the way people see the problem. When we see a violent drunk...what do we say? 'Go sleep it off'. We don't tend to think that way for a crackhead but I think it would benefit everyone if we did.

I noticed that pulling all-nighters during law school. Staying up all night writing papers without taking drugs (except caffeine) I experienced some of the same sketchiness I experience when I've been up all night partying on illegal substances.

most ppl have no interest in drugs.
and ppl that use drugs use them in spite of the legal consequences.

the only difference is with legalization, cops would no longer
be arresting people (that aren't rich) for drug use.

because, as we all know, cops don't hassle CEO's, politicians,
and other wealthy people for drug use.


>see K2 and the recent synthetic drug surge
>a lot of the increased heroin use is due to local police
>forces essentially decriminalizing possession in places like
>philly, bmore, minny etc
>
>sounds good in theory and will decrease drug arrests
>but i could see a new era of "Crackheads" and all the issues
>that come with that emerging when you have poor people with
>easy access to affordable "self medication"
>

that's delusional to think there wouldn't be more users with increased availability.

a lot of people don't want to deal with sketchy types, go to sketchy places to buy drugs or have sketchy people come to their home to deliver them.

ther'es a whole untapped market.

2. Many of the ppl responsible for the increase in use are tourists.

3. Many of those ppl smoked weed already.

4. Crime rates have not gone up.

5. After legalization I would expect a slight increase in the number of ppl who REPORT using any substance that was previously illegal. Bc most ppl don't face risk of arrest if they admit use of a legal substance vs admitting use of an illegal substance.

6. Most ppl avoid using most illegal substances bc they don't want to use the substance not just bc the substance is illegal. Like I don't smoke crack bc I don't like what I've heard about the experience not just bc possession is illegal.

There will be an increase in USE. But there will not be a correlated increase in ADDICTION.

Let me explain my perspective (yawn lol). This shit is kinda big to me cause i'm a recovering addict. If anyone's interested....Russell Brand's movie 'End the Drug War' is a perfect crystallization of what I'm about to say.

Around 10 to 20% of the population are 'addicts'. I'm one of them. We were addicts before we ever tried a drug or took a drink. It's got something to do with our personalities, our character flaws, our nurturing and our genetics. What drug we end up becoming addicted to is somewhat irrelevant because we were destined to become addicted to SOMETHING.

The rest of the population is perfectly capable of recreationally using drugs and alcohol without becoming 'addicts'. Yes, that even means heroin and crack. So an increase in USAGE for a society is not going to raise the amount of addicts from 10 to 20% to some higher number. It's true that even a 'non-addict' can become physically dependant on heroin if they do it for long enough but this rarely happens. Since they are not an 'addict'...they are not looking to fill a void...they simply won't end up seeking the drug/booze out the same way an addict (by nature) will.

The reason there was not an increase in addiction in Portugal is because for us 10 to 20 percenters.....we seek out drugs regardless of obstacles like laws and ease of access. To put it simply...nothing is gonna stop us anyways. So even though there will be increased use of hard drugs with legalization....the increases in use will be by recreational users....people who can do it on a saturday night and then put it down.

environment where hard drugs aren't demonized
music and media has spurred the popularity of things like K2, lean, and molly in recent years
i think it's more about acceptance levels more so then ppl having some innate desire

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

Movies I need y'all bastids to see so we can discuss:

Five Star - https://goo.gl/jBHbVv
Appropriate Behavior - http://goo.gl/isCzTM
Ma

The murder rates? The overpopulated prisons? All the fall-out from the drug war?

I don't really know. But I'd suspect I'd rather be there than Detroit.

have you ever spent any significant amount of time inside the city limits?

If not, then you don't know shit about Detroit and really can't speak on it.

All this shit you're seeing about Tha D right now is the same shit the media put out during the last housing crash in the 80's.... And none of it was nearly as widespread as the media had the rest of the country believing.

Don't believe the hype.

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

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

Have you ever lived in the red light district of Amsterdam?

From what I know about Detroit and Amsterdam....I'm gonna contend that the quality of life is better in Amsterdam than Detroit. If that offends you so be it.

In anycase...I've been to Detroit twice. Both times I was completely outta my head on drugs to notice the quality of living lol.

http://www.mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

and legalizing but I don't feel that strongly about it. It could work.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

Movies I need y'all bastids to see so we can discuss:

Five Star - https://goo.gl/jBHbVv
Appropriate Behavior - http://goo.gl/isCzTM
Ma

If you dispersed these things naturally, it would not be like that. As it is, half the dope fiends and whores in Europe are in Amsterdam (and that is with prostitution being legal in most countries there).

This is like saying ZOMG LOOK HOW SLEAZY VEGAS IS when your state has a slot machine initiative on the ballot.

If you have to go thru several stages to make it = illegal


I know that doesnt directly answer the question but that is how we should approach this debate.

most good marijuana takes several stages to make it.

this doesn't seem like a great distinction.

Most of our fruits and vegetables went through 'many different stages' to become what we know them as.

These naturalist arguments generally don't hold water.

... In all honesty, the movement to decriminalize everything could be tied to the growing incarceration rates of young white people for drug offenses.

The second argument is it provides an incentive for people to do hard drugs then work. I don't want someone doing hard drugs then interacting with the public period. If drugs are legal then technically it would be legal to shoot meth then go to work as wall street analyst or cafeteria cook. Nah, fuck that. Shout out to the Boxer Rebellion.

Decriminalizing weed is cool. Decriminalize weed because there are quantifiable revenue benefits like that $76 mill Colorado made last year. That money could flow back into the state governments and benefit everyone. That's where I draw the line.

Another reason is drug testing. Imagine the dramatic increase in drug testing if all drugs are decriminalized. Weed is cool but fuck everything else except herbs of the gods.

>Another reason is drug testing. Imagine the dramatic increase
>in drug testing if all drugs are decriminalized. Weed is cool
>but fuck everything else except herbs of the gods.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/05/20/director-comey-fbi-grappling-with-hiring-policy-concerning-marijuana/

"But FBI Director James B. Comey said Monday that if the FBI hopes to continue to keep pace with cyber criminals, the organization may have to loosen up its no-tolerance policy for hiring those who like to smoke marijuana.

Congress has authorized the FBI to add 2,000 personnel to its rolls this year, and many of those new recruits will be assigned to tackle cyber crimes, a growing priority for the agency. And that’s a problem, Mr. Comey told the White Collar Crime Institute, an annual conference held at the New York City Bar Association in Manhattan. A lot of the nation’s top computer programmers and hacking gurus are also fond of marijuana.

“I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,” Mr. Comey said"

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

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

not sure how legalizing it would encourage people to work while high or smacked out...

and I'm not a fan of legalizing hard drugs but the work argument doesn't hold up IMO

I agree with the other points in your post

>not sure how legalizing it would encourage people to work
>while high or smacked out...

It takes away punishment from people who would otherwise be more likely to do the hard drugs. It comes across as a covert attempt to stop incarceration rates of affluent white people that fall victim to the influence of hard drugs.

Criminalization is the only thing stopping members of certain communities from partaking in hard drugs recreationally. You and me would be drug tested frequently of course but everyone else might not receive the same treatment. Weed is cool because it's been shown to not negatively impact society to the extent that decriminalizing meth, coke, and heroin would. You're right everyone wouldn't work while high but some people would and those people would mess it up for everyone. If someone takes a bump two hours before work then it would be hard to know this while on the job anyway, allegedly. <--- That's my point.

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/5/9675478/dea-medical-marijuana-joke

"There are pieces of marijuana — extracts or constituents or component parts — that have great promise" medicinally, he said. "But if you talk about smoking the leaf of marijuana — which is what people are talking about when they talk about medicinal marijuana — it has never been shown to be safe or effective as a medicine."

1. who the fuck smokes leaves?
2. the medical industry has and is exploring all manners of different delivery systems that don't involve smoking.

DEA chief: Medical marijuana is "a joke." Science: No, it's not.

Updated by German Lopez on November 5, 2015, 11:10 a.m. ET @germanrlopez german.lopez@vox.com
Tweet (149) Share (698) +

When the new Drug Enforcement Administration chief took office, marijuana policy reformers hoped for someone a bit friendlier to their cause. But Chuck Rosenberg seems to be dashing those hopes: First, he struggled to admit that marijuana is a safer drug than heroin. And now, in his latest comments, he said it's "a joke" to consider marijuana medicine.

"What really bothers me is the notion that marijuana is also medicinal — because it's not," Rosenberg told reporters, according to CBS News. "We can have an intellectually honest debate about whether we should legalize something that is bad and dangerous, but don't call it medicine — that is a joke."

What might seem like a joke to Rosenberg is actually a lifesaver to a lot of Americans. And these people aren't just full of it: There is an ample, growing body of evidence that marijuana does indeed possess medicinal value, and there's even evidence that the plant itself — because of its combination of chemicals — can be a particularly potent medication.
The research shows marijuana has medical value
DEA chief Chuck Rosenberg speaks with reporters.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
DEA Chief Chuck Rosenberg speaks with reporters.

In his comments, Rosenberg suggested that there's no evidence marijuana can act as medicine. "There are pieces of marijuana — extracts or constituents or component parts — that have great promise" medicinally, he said. "But if you talk about smoking the leaf of marijuana — which is what people are talking about when they talk about medicinal marijuana — it has never been shown to be safe or effective as a medicine."

First, plenty of people include non-smoked forms of pot in their definition of medical marijuana. The pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project considers New York to have legalized medical marijuana even though the state doesn't allow its smoked form.

But more importantly, there's very solid research showing that marijuana — even in its smoked form — possesses medicinal value. The best study done to date, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reviewed the research and concluded that pot — again, including its smoked form — can effectively treat chronic pain and muscle spasticity. The study didn't rule out other potential medicinal benefits, but those were the two it found the best evidence for.

"The chronic pain finding suggests marijuana can literally save lives"

Other evidence has also found that some of pot's benefits are strengthened when the entire plant is used. This is because of what's known as the "entourage effect": Various compounds work together in marijuana to create a stronger effect. Since it's unclear which of pot's more than 500 active ingredients and 70 cannabinoids best compound one another, scientists aren't yet able to pick specific ingredients they want from marijuana to make a very focused drug. This means that under the current science, the best option for some patients is to use the full marijuana plant, smoked or not, as their medicine.

And while there's been a lot of worrying about whether smoking marijuana can have dangerous downsides, research on whether smoked marijuana causes lung disease or cancer has yielded conflicting results, with studies that control for tobacco smoking finding no significant effect from marijuana on lung cancer risk.

The chronic pain finding is perhaps the most promising in all the research: It suggests marijuana can literally save lives. As the country struggles with an opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic that is killing tens of thousands of people each year, the potential of a relatively safe drug like marijuana to substitute for dangerous opioids is a promising possibility.
Medical marijuana legalization literally saves lives

Since the late 1990s, the number of people dying from opioid painkiller overdoses has steadily risen — with more than 16,000 deaths reported in 2013. What's worse, one study in JAMA Psychiatry found opioid painkiller use has contributed to the rising use of heroin, which is deadlier and more addictive than painkillers. And a 2015 CDC analysis found people who are addicted to prescription painkillers are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin.

But these concerning numbers come into conflict with another medical issue: About 100 million Americans suffer from chronic pain, according to a 2011 report from the Institute of Medicine. And although there's no good evidence to suggest that opioid painkillers are a good treatment for chronic pain, they can help with acute pain and are commonly prescribed for long-term issues.

""Providing broader access to medical marijuana may have the potential benefit of reducing abuse of highly addictive painkillers""

If marijuana can relieve pain, it can substitute opioid painkillers with none of these problems. No one has ever reportedly died from a marijuana overdose. And pot isn't an opioid, so dependence — which does happen with marijuana, but at much lower rates than opioid addiction — can't lead to an addiction to heroin.

The potential benefits of the substitution effect aren't just theoretical. In a paper that looked at the effect of medical marijuana laws, RAND Corporation and University of California Irvine researchers concluded, "Our findings suggest that providing broader access to medical marijuana may have the potential benefit of reducing abuse of highly addictive painkillers." Another study published in JAMA found that medical marijuana laws may reduce opioid overdose deaths.

So what may seem like a joke to the current DEA chief actually has plenty of evidence to support it. Of course, it's the DEA's official stance that pot has no medical value, so Rosenberg's comment isn't too surprising. But positions like his increasingly fly in the face of the science — and may actually put people's lives at risk when adopted as the government's policy.

I used to think that it was just the fact they were just set in their ways.

But he's literally arguing for his job...gotta figure you take Marijuana out of the DEA's equation that's a huge chunk of funding/jobs etc.

it concerns me that apparently the head of the DEA doesn't even know what part of the marijuana plant is smoked.

how can a person charged with enforcement of drug policy be completely ignorant to how drugs work?

I knew more about weed than him when I was 13. As did probly most of us. How is that possible?