User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Marijuana Legalization: For or Against? Page 1 [2] 3, Prev Next  
Aficionado
Suspended
22518 Posts
user info
edit post

dont give a shit

2/29/2008 12:34:10 AM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The quality you can get in Amsterdam is a lot better than in America though, on average"


that's only because it's hard to smuggle mexican dirt weed into Amsterdam.

you still haven't refuted my point that the cost of weed in the US by grade is the same as it is in Amsterdam. They are paying between $10-20 a gram for medium to high grade weed. That's almost no different than it is here already.

2/29/2008 11:00:42 AM

package2
All American
1450 Posts
user info
edit post

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lvzX8aNwxgM

2/29/2008 11:12:10 AM

DrSteveChaos
All American
2187 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"you still haven't refuted my point that the cost of weed in the US by grade is the same as it is in Amsterdam. They are paying between $10-20 a gram for medium to high grade weed. That's almost no different than it is here already."


How often do you buy booze made from a bathtub or a radiator these days? Not very often?

Liquor tends to be cheaper and of more consistent quality than during Prohibition. The economic lesson should be obvious.

2/29/2008 11:16:53 AM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

you don't ferment marijuana, so your analogy doesn't work here. Commercially grown weed will be subjected to more pesticides if cultivation is made legal than they are now.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM. Reason : you can still buy cheap moonshine today]

2/29/2008 11:21:53 AM

DrSteveChaos
All American
2187 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"you don't ferment marijuana, so your analogy doesn't work here. Commercially grown weed will be subjected to more pesticides if cultivation is made legal than they are now."


Only if you want to obliquely literal about it. Perhaps we can also disdain the comparison to other black-market goods because you don't smoke them?

The point is there's a lack of quality control which goes on in the black market - this has almost been universally true throughout history. You pay more for a lesser quality product.

In the open market, competition is greater, which puts pressure for the quality to be higher (again - how much tainted liquor do you buy these days?) and the price to be lower.

2/29/2008 11:27:06 AM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

quit acting like you have a point. black market goods are historically cheaper and have more market competition. black market amphetamine and methamphetamine is cheaper by unit weight than their prescription counterparts. marijuana is cheaper on the black market in most european countries than it is in the regions where the sale is legal.

2/29/2008 12:06:11 PM

bigun20
All American
2847 Posts
user info
edit post

Against. Anyone who has any sense will understand why.

2/29/2008 12:11:38 PM

TreeTwista10
Cool Jerk
136235 Posts
user info
edit post

against

2/29/2008 12:29:53 PM

Vix
All American
8522 Posts
user info
edit post

For. What people do to themselves in their own homes should not be regulated.

2/29/2008 12:30:59 PM

TreeTwista10
Cool Jerk
136235 Posts
user info
edit post

^but if it was legal it'd be taxed by uncle sam, assuming people bought it from 'stores' and not dealers

i'd imagine they'd have to set the store price to lower than what a dealer charges

why would you go to a 'weed' store and pay $80 for an 1/8th of good that was taxed by the govt when you could go to the dude on the corner and pay $50

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

2/29/2008 12:31:51 PM

Vix
All American
8522 Posts
user info
edit post

I don't think cigarettes, weed, gasoline, or alcohol should be taxed differently from any other goods.

If marijuana was legal, it could be mass produced in huge farms, which would probably drive the price down.

2/29/2008 12:36:08 PM

392
Suspended
2488 Posts
user info
edit post

high quality sensi can easily be produced for less than a dollar an ounce

OMG I CAN'T PROVE THAT STATEMENT SO IT MUST BE INNACCURATE!!!11

2/29/2008 12:38:25 PM

TreeTwista10
Cool Jerk
136235 Posts
user info
edit post

^^but still...a pack of cigarettes is like $4 give or take in north carolina

i'm not sure how much of that is tax, but i think its at least $1 - $1.50

i'd imagine weed would get similar treatment

^you factoring in electricity bills for halogens, keeping C/N/P ratios right, cost of time, etc?

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 12:39 PM. Reason : .]

2/29/2008 12:39:00 PM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

why would you be growing with halogens if it were legal? a greenhouse with natural sunlight and copious amounts of CO2 would work wonderfully.

2/29/2008 1:22:29 PM

RedGuard
All American
5596 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"black market goods are historically cheaper and have more market competition. black market amphetamine and methamphetamine is cheaper by unit weight than their prescription counterparts. marijuana is cheaper on the black market in most european countries than it is in the regions where the sale is legal."


Meth is not the best comparison either given that medical products have a much higher quality control standards than your typical consumer product. Medical products have the entire, costly FDA approval process built into it, a process much more expensive I imagine than the process a new tobacco or alcoholic product would require.

I don't have much experience on the European drug market, so I won't comment on it specifically. However, I would point out that you are getting something for the regulatory markup: you're getting a guarantee that your product is to a minimum standard of quality and legal recourse if it doesn't.

2/29/2008 2:25:05 PM

DrSteveChaos
All American
2187 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"quit acting like you have a point. black market goods are historically cheaper and have more market competition."


Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. The sum of history stands in contradiction. You are actually talking out of your ass, now. In fact, I would like to visit the crazy world in which you live in where this is actually a documented "fact," given that pretty much any reputable economist will tell you the opposite.

Wrong.

Quote :
"black market amphetamine and methamphetamine is cheaper by unit weight than their prescription counterparts. marijuana is cheaper on the black market in most european countries than it is in the regions where the sale is legal."


Based upon what data? And for equal potency?

Or should we just take your anecdotal "data" on face without question?

2/29/2008 2:50:19 PM

Stimwalt
All American
15292 Posts
user info
edit post

Dangerous legal drugs like Vioxx were perfectly acceptable to sell in the American marketplace until recently, even though it was obviously rushed into our market before sufficient longitudinal testing was completed. Now it appears that the worldwide Vioxx death toll is approaching 150,000 to 200,000. However, federal legislation for legal medical marijuana is still completely out of the question in American society. Why?

For.

2/29/2008 3:29:22 PM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

^^you're the one posting anecdotal statements as fact and talking out of your ass. what I've posted has been documented by the DEA and NIDA.


Do some research on the subject before you go off slandering people over shit you don't understand.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 4:54 PM. Reason : black market moonshine, pharmaceuticals, software, cars, etc are all cheaper. that's why they sell]

2/29/2008 4:42:38 PM

bigun20
All American
2847 Posts
user info
edit post

Ya'll are some sorry people that want this mess legalized. This would send the wrong message to our kids.

2/29/2008 4:45:32 PM

Vix
All American
8522 Posts
user info
edit post

I don't think sending my kids the message that doing whatever you please with your own body on your own property is sorry. I think it's good to teach kids that individual rights are important.

2/29/2008 4:50:15 PM

bigun20
All American
2847 Posts
user info
edit post

So its ok to teach them that smoking marijuana is ok. You want your kids to be a pot head.

2/29/2008 5:04:53 PM

SandSanta
All American
22435 Posts
user info
edit post

Thats actually not what he said at all.

In fact, why don't you just go ahead and write "HEY EVERYBODY, I'M A FACKIN IDIOT" because clearly you have trouble with reading comprehension.

2/29/2008 5:06:45 PM

bigun20
All American
2847 Posts
user info
edit post

He said doing what he pleases with their own bodies or own personal belongings. Thats like saying that if you want to kill yourself it is ok to do so. Ya'll emotionally damaged people are what is wrong with the world today to begin with.

Also by saying that he was implying that if his kid was to be a pothead he'd be ok with that.

2/29/2008 5:17:08 PM

SandSanta
All American
22435 Posts
user info
edit post

Actually I should correct myself in saying that Vix is a she, apparently.

Us 'emotionally damaged' people ironically seem to value personal freedom a lot more then you.

I mean why stop at drugs? Being grotesquely fat is a drain on the national economy, makes you ugly, and generally the butt of every joke in the world. Fatty foods need to be illegal.

Oh wait, but people should have personal choice in the matter of what the eat?

Right?

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh

2/29/2008 5:31:26 PM

TreeTwista10
Cool Jerk
136235 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Us 'emotionally damaged' people ironically seem to value personal freedom a lot more then you."


funny how you value personal freedoms a lot more if its weed and not cigarettes

oh wait lemme post cool like you

funny how you value personal freedoms

if its weed

but not cigarettes

2/29/2008 5:34:39 PM

bigun20
All American
2847 Posts
user info
edit post

In that context if you cant see the difference between being fat and smoking marijuana then there is no hope for you. You have to eat to live. And some poeple are just fat because they are genetically that way. I know plenty of bigger people that have plenty of goals in their life and are the best, upstanding poeple I know. The potheads I know are the people who drop out of hs and college or have trouble making something with their lives.

2/29/2008 5:36:18 PM

SandSanta
All American
22435 Posts
user info
edit post

Tree

I will write a 10 point essay on how awesome you are if you can find one page where I say

AND I BELIEVE PEOPLE SHOULD BE SMOKING WEED OUTSIDE OF BARS.

or

AND I BELIEVE PEOPLE SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED TO SMOKE TOBACCO IN THEIR OWN HOMES.

2/29/2008 5:38:12 PM

TreeTwista10
Cool Jerk
136235 Posts
user info
edit post

you say them both right here

\message_topic.aspx?topic=516432&page=2#11340596

now i want that essay 10pt and singlespaced, you dont need to keep dickriding froshkiller's shit

2/29/2008 5:39:50 PM

SandSanta
All American
22435 Posts
user info
edit post

Wow dude

Why don't you call me a mean doodo head too, while you're at it.

2/29/2008 5:42:02 PM

TreeTwista10
Cool Jerk
136235 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I will write a 10 point essay"


get to writin' bitch

2/29/2008 5:44:16 PM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"If marijuana was legal, it could be mass produced in huge farms, which would probably drive the price down.
"


and workers on the farm could smuggle some of that mass produced weed off the farm and sell it tax free on the black market.

2/29/2008 6:53:12 PM

DrSteveChaos
All American
2187 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"you're the one posting anecdotal statements as fact and talking out of your ass. what I've posted has been documented by the DEA and NIDA."


The DEA is totally unbiased as a source.

Really. Sit in on a econ class or, god forbid, pick up an actual book. It would do you wonders of good.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 11:11 PM. Reason : Pick up a book on Prohibition while you're at it - you're still wrong there.]

2/29/2008 11:10:44 PM

JoeSchmoe
All American
1219 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"\message_topic.aspx?topic=516432&page=2#11340596"


i chuckled.

2/29/2008 11:28:04 PM

IMStoned420
All American
15485 Posts
user info
edit post

If this shit was legal I wouldn't be buying it, I would be growing my own shit. That's probably why it won't ever be legalized. Shit would be hard to regulate and control.

3/1/2008 9:26:42 AM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The DEA is totally unbiased as a source"


they are unbiased as a source. You may be incredibly biased towards them, but their articles in "microgram" are very accurate and to the point.

I am curious as to how you think the black market works if they charge more for a product than it's worth. They don't pay taxes or tariffs, so they can actually stomach to sell goods cheaper than they would if they were going through legal means.

3/1/2008 10:25:10 AM

JoeSchmoe
All American
1219 Posts
user info
edit post

an interesting point

3/1/2008 3:35:35 PM

DrSteveChaos
All American
2187 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"they are unbiased as a source. You may be incredibly biased towards them, but their articles in "microgram" are very accurate and to the point."


These are the same people who still laud Prohibition as an unrivaled success. (I'm not kidding, I can gladly dig up quotes from Karen Tandy, John Walters, and others on this point if you don't believe me.) Not unbiased. They've also been called out by scholars regularly for selective and shoddy research, etc.

Meanwhile, they're the DEA. You're not telling me there's not an obvious conflict of interest in their objectivity up front?

Quote :
"I am curious as to how you think the black market works if they charge more for a product than it's worth. They don't pay taxes or tariffs, so they can actually stomach to sell goods cheaper than they would if they were going through legal means."


For any item which is illegal to otherwise posses, there's a risk premium. Namely due to the fact that any supplier who does so must do so with the knowledge that they assume a grave risk - meaning the number of suppliers is dwindled. It's econ 101 - supply and demand. Static demand with restricted supply = higher price.

The only situation in which your argument works is in the "grey market" - i.e., tax avoidance. Like when someone trucks up cigarettes from North Carolina to New York, or sells stolen tv's off the back of a truck, or smuggles legal goods past customs to avoid tariffs.

3/1/2008 3:49:26 PM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Meanwhile, they're the DEA. You're not telling me there's not an obvious conflict of interest in their objectivity up front?
"


not when we're talking about their microgram publication. some of their political figureheads may be full of shit, but the scientists who actually publish articles in their internal news bulletin only want to get the facts across about what they are seeing in the real world. They have no reason to push faulty information through microgram for propaganda reasons - the only people who are supposed to be reading the publication in the first place are other law enforcement agents.

Why are you so adament that the price increase on black market goods is higher than the government imposed taxes would be if the drugs were made legal? you even go so far as to claim that grey market goods can be sold below cost but black market goods are more expensive than their legal counterparts. That was not the case at all with the amphetamine trade in America, as diversion of legal amphetamine pills could not compete with the cost of black market amphetamines produced in labs.

3/1/2008 5:22:44 PM

DrSteveChaos
All American
2187 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"not when we're talking about their microgram publication. some of their political figureheads may be full of shit, but the scientists who actually publish articles in their internal news bulletin only want to get the facts across about what they are seeing in the real world. They have no reason to push faulty information through microgram for propaganda reasons - the only people who are supposed to be reading the publication in the first place are other law enforcement agents."


The agency has a well-established agenda to the point where part of their mission has included politicking and influencing elections (ballot initiatives). One of their chief political directives is in fact to maintain the status quo on drug laws - this was affirmed by the GAO after complaints about DEA officials campaigning against a Nevada decriminalization referendum.

NIDA steadfastly refuses to approve most any human trials for the medical efficacy of marijuana. You're telling me the fact that these highly political factors operate on the leadership has no effect on the editorial outcomes of their publications? I mean, come on.

Quote :
"Why are you so adament that the price increase on black market goods is higher than the government imposed taxes would be if the drugs were made legal?"


Because this is generally the trend with illegal goods? Again - ask any reputable economist. Google. This is not sophisticated economics.

Quote :
"you even go so far as to claim that grey market goods can be sold below cost but black market goods are more expensive than their legal counterparts. That was not the case at all with the amphetamine trade in America, as diversion of legal amphetamine pills could not compete with the cost of black market amphetamines produced in labs."


For one, this is an inapt analogy - amphetamines are a controlled substance, regulated by the Controlled Substances Act. Which means possession by an ordinary person is still de facto illegal - outside of a prescription, they are of the same legal status as say, heroin. Not exactly an "open market."

Meanwhile, the quality is apples to oranges. Methamphetamines produced with brake fluid and battery acid compare about as much to medical amphetamines as does liquor bought at the liquor store and bathtub gin. The latter may be cheaper under the right circumstances, but there's a reason - it's not a comparable product. Trying to argue that they're "cheaper" on the black market is like trying to argue that Prohibition made alcohol "cheaper" by encouraging the proliferation of distilleries in radiators and bathtubs - the fact that nobody goes blind drinking alcohol these days is evidence enough of this fact. (Or that anybody is avoiding the legal market to buy bathtub gin, at that.)

3/1/2008 6:18:32 PM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

you have absolutely no idea what "Microgram" is, do you? why don't you actually look it up and see for yourself before you go bashing it as just being an evil government conspiracy keeping you from reaching your true stoner potential.

Quote :
"
Meanwhile, the quality is apples to oranges. Methamphetamines produced with brake fluid and battery acid compare about as much to medical amphetamines as does liquor bought at the liquor store and bathtub gin. The latter may be cheaper under the right circumstances, but there's a reason - it's not a comparable product"


For the record, the majority of bootleg liquor during prohibition was being smuggled from legitimate sources in Canada and the Caribbean countries. It was NOT, as you claim, being made in a bathtub and a radiator. I guess all those books you read that made you an expert on prohibition failed to mention those facts.

methamphetamine superlabs in this country are extremely sophisticated operations run by educated scientists and experienced laboratory technicians. Just because "Dateline NBC" told you that you have all the ingredients to make meth in your garage doesn't mean that's how it's done. Then again, you seem to think bathtub gin is actually made in a bathtub, so this point is probably falling on deaf ears.

3/2/2008 2:01:29 AM

DrSteveChaos
All American
2187 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"you have absolutely no idea what "Microgram" is, do you? why don't you actually look it up and see for yourself before you go bashing it as just being an evil government conspiracy keeping you from reaching your true stoner potential."


I love how when you're called on your "facts" you don't even bother with the argument anymore - you just resort to assumption and ad hominem. Beautiful.

Quote :
"For the record, the majority of bootleg liquor during prohibition was being smuggled from legitimate sources in Canada and the Caribbean countries. It was NOT, as you claim, being made in a bathtub and a radiator. I guess all those books you read that made you an expert on prohibition failed to mention those facts."


Because the existence of moonshine never, ever occurred, much less flourished alongside smuggling in an illegal market. Product quality never suffered. People never died from tainted products in a black market. Prices were never inflated.

Quote :
"methamphetamine superlabs in this country are extremely sophisticated operations run by educated scientists and experienced laboratory technicians. Just because "Dateline NBC" told you that you have all the ingredients to make meth in your garage doesn't mean that's how it's done."


Uh, hate to burst your bubble, but most of the meth superlabs aren't even in the U.S. They're in Mexico. But I'm sure a sophisticated person like you would never miss that point. Or the point about trailer park mini-labs which are run by amateurs that were prevalent through the Midwest, that did operate off of ramshackle conditions. Kind of like the difference between a distillery and a moonshine outfit.

Quote :
"Then again, you seem to think bathtub gin is actually made in a bathtub, so this point is probably falling on deaf ears."


Seeing as I'm discussing the issue with someone who denies history itself (really, you've never heard of moonshine?), I'm supposing the converse is true. Try reading a book. Or perhaps taking up employ with the government - they love people who don't know squat about history or economics.

3/2/2008 12:40:25 PM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

you never called me out on any facts; you just take off on a tangent spewing bullshit you know nothing about. you still don't know what "Microgram" is, yet you won't back off on assuming you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Quote :
"Uh, hate to burst your bubble, but most of the meth superlabs aren't even in the U.S. They're in Mexico"


The majority of methamphetamine superlabs have been located in the US, not in Mexico. We have only seen a shift of labs back to mexico in the last couple of years since the ban of sales of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in several states has dried up precursor availability. You can't try to refute the facts that I have listed out on methamphetamine production in the US over the last 50 years by claiming that they started making more of the drug in Mexico 2 years ago because of very recent policy change. Once again, you don't seem to let facts get in the way of your arguments.

3/2/2008 3:03:30 PM

DrSteveChaos
All American
2187 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"you never called me out on any facts; you just take off on a tangent spewing bullshit you know nothing about. you still don't know what "Microgram" is, yet you won't back off on assuming you know what the fuck you are talking about."


What's the point even arguing with you when the sheer force of your ego trumps any actual facts presented to you? Or when you just call any inconvenient facts as "bullshit tangents." I love it - when all else fails, distract from the argument at hand.

Quote :
"The majority of methamphetamine superlabs have been located in the US, not in Mexico. We have only seen a shift of labs back to mexico in the last couple of years since the ban of sales of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in several states has dried up precursor availability."


Your source for this assertion is? (Oh hell, why even bother making you justify your claims?)

Quote :
"You can't try to refute the facts that I have listed out on methamphetamine production in the US over the last 50 years by claiming that they started making more of the drug in Mexico 2 years ago because of very recent policy change. Once again, you don't seem to let facts get in the way of your arguments."


Hey, it's your strategy - totally ignore the argument at hand to call your opponent wrong, a stoner, and whatever ad hominem attacks you can come up with to paper over your complete lack of understanding of any of the germane issues underlying the topic at hand. Meanwhile, all those inconvenient counter-examples of things like negative outcomes from black markets and trailer-park home labs? Pretend they don't even exist. In fact, ignore the argument all together - that's how it's done.

3/2/2008 3:17:24 PM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/13853/product.htm

Quote :
"Illegal methamphetamine production occurs in countries throughout the world; however, only methamphetamine produced in the United States, Mexico and, to a lesser extent, Southeast Asia is available in any significant quantity in the United States. There are no conclusive worldwide methamphetamine production estimates, nor are there conclusive production estimates for the three principal methamphetamine source areas that supply U.S. drug markets. Nevertheless, laboratory seizure data suggest expanded domestic methamphetamine production, while law enforcement reporting and limited laboratory seizure data indicate a significant increase in methamphetamine production in Mexico."


Quote :
"Large-scale laboratories that yield bulk quantities of methamphetamine are typically operated by Mexican criminal groups in California."


Quote :
"HIDTA reporting indicates that Mexican criminal groups, some based in the Los Angeles area, often travel to rural or remote areas of southern and central California to produce methamphetamine, subsequently returning to the Los Angeles area to distribute the drug. Many of the groups maintain close family and social ties with individuals in Culiacán and Michoacán, Mexico, to recruit laboratory workers who come to California for a few months to produce methamphetamine and then return to Mexico."


Quote :
"There are no conclusive estimates regarding methamphetamine production in Mexico; however, methamphetamine production appears to have increased sharply in Mexico since 2002. According to DEA, Mexican criminal groups, particularly those based in Colima, Michoacán, Jalisco, and Nayarit, have increased the number and size of methamphetamine laboratories that they operate in Mexico. Supporting the assertion of increased methamphetamine production in Mexico is an increase in the amount of methamphetamine seized in Mexico and at land POEs along the Southwest Border. Data from the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) indicate that the amount of methamphetamine reported seized in Mexico increased from 400 kilograms in 2001, to 457 kilograms in 2002, and 652 kilograms in 2003. Furthermore, 2003 EPIC data show that the amount of methamphetamine seized along the Southwest Border increased from 1,130 kilograms in 2002, to 1,733 kilograms in 2003, and 1,168 kilograms through July 2004.
"


Quote :
"NDIC Comment: Mexican criminal groups appear to be producing greater quantities of methamphetamine in Mexico for distribution in the United States because they have greater access in Mexico to bulk quantities of precursor chemicals, particularly ephedrine and pseudoephedrine."


I guess you can start refuting DEA seizure data by claiming how biased they are.

3/2/2008 5:11:25 PM

DrSteveChaos
All American
2187 Posts
user info
edit post

My mistake, then - my impression was that superlabs occurred primarily in the Baja peninsula, south of Los Angeles, in the wake of the precursor bans. My further understanding was that superlabs were a response to the more ready availability of high-quality precursors in industrial settings than in the piecemeal production from diversion of agricultural implements and consumer products (i.e., trailer park labs).

I'm not going to contest the DEA in terms of seizure data - clearly, it's in their interest to trumpet those numbers as loudly as possibly. My beef comes in terms of many of their other avenues of "research," which they put forth biased, incorrect, or flat-out lies to advance an agenda - typically when it is done in a policy context. And if you don't think they DEA is as much a policy shop as it is a law enforcement agency, I've got a bridge to sell you.

3/2/2008 8:46:39 PM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

"superlab" is just a denotation for a lab that is capable of producing more than 10 pounds of methamphetamine in one run. They have been around for decades, even when the main method of manufacturing was via phenylacetone instead of from ephedrine/pseudoephedrine as the starting precursor. Criminal organizations used to prefer to make the drugs in the U.S. due to the lesser criminal charges for smuggling raw precursors instead of finished product.

Also, the most recent busts seem to indicate that Mexican cartels aren't as much in control of the methamphetamine trade as was originally thought. Middle-Eastern and Chinese men have been brought down for being the ringleaders of the largest operations that have been busted up recently. The Mountain Express DEA operations reflected heavily on these findings.

You can say whatever you want about the DEA having a lot of politics involved, but they won't cook data that they publish in "Microgram" because that data is only used by law enforcement agencies to help them learn the most recent trends in drug manufacturing and trafficking. The document wasn't even available to the public until 2002, so it would have made for a shitty source of propaganda. The only data you might consider to be cooked in Microgram is the publishing of seizure values using street pricing for wholesale amounts. Since we're not arguing the economics of their publishings, that shouldn't matter.

3/2/2008 9:16:09 PM

DrSteveChaos
All American
2187 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"You can say whatever you want about the DEA having a lot of politics involved, but they won't cook data that they publish in "Microgram" because that data is only used by law enforcement agencies to help them learn the most recent trends in drug manufacturing and trafficking. The document wasn't even available to the public until 2002, so it would have made for a shitty source of propaganda. The only data you might consider to be cooked in Microgram is the publishing of seizure values using street pricing for wholesale amounts. Since we're not arguing the economics of their publishings, that shouldn't matter."


Fine, I'll buy that argument.

3/2/2008 9:28:04 PM

JoeSchmoe
All American
1219 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"You can say whatever you want about the DEA having a lot of politics involved, but they won't cook data "


because the government is always honest. especially regarding int'l politics, law enforcement and billions of dollars.


elusis is making some strong arguments about black market economics, and i'm almost convinced.

. but his constant assertation that the DEA is somehow immune to data massaging in the face of multiple instances of the Bush Administration's blatant disregard for scientific integrity in just about every single policy area, makes me wonder what his agenda is now.

3/2/2008 9:36:25 PM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"You can say whatever you want about the DEA having a lot of politics involved, but they won't cook data that they publish in "Microgram""


read the entire sentence next time. I'll be the first to rant about how future and past DEA directors have been nothing more than presidential puppets spewing out whatever agenda gets shoved down their throat from above. However, Microgram is a peer-reviewed bulletin and journal published by field agents and laboratory specialists. They don't report to the media or to the public - the publication wasn't even available outside of law enoforcement until 2002 when someone pushed the issue on the freedom of information act. What's the point of cooking data when the only reason you're writing articles in the first place is to let other law enforcement agencies know exactly what you are encountering in the field?

3/2/2008 11:10:35 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » Marijuana Legalization: For or Against? Page 1 [2] 3, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2017 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.