Marijuana is now legalized in a number of states, either fully or partially.
Now the gangs from Mexico are smuggling in hard drugs in higher quantities. It's more lucrative.
Rejoice! The slippery slope theory has been proven. :bulb:
Printable View
Marijuana is now legalized in a number of states, either fully or partially.
Now the gangs from Mexico are smuggling in hard drugs in higher quantities. It's more lucrative.
Rejoice! The slippery slope theory has been proven. :bulb:
How's that a slippery slope? Just shows that if one business becomes less lucrative, people shift to another. The slippery slope would be if people who now start to smoke marijuana suddenly all also start using hard drugs - which I doubt happens (possibly actually decrease since you no longer have to go to a shady dealer to get your weed).
If legalizing (or decriminalizing) marijuana is the "slippery slope".....Big Pharma is hanging on a cliff with their fingernails. :donkey:
Flixy: I had a slightly different slippery slope argument. GGT: No, it's the opposite! In the marijuana decriminalization arguments across the internets, many people combined that with the War Against Drugs and said that if you just legalize marijuana, the War Against Drugs will disappear. The slippery slope argument (that I'm talking about) says that the gangs will just find something worse and more addictive to sell, which these hard drugs are, and it will make that hard drug problem worse. Well, since those hard drugs are being found at a much bigger rate it makes sense to assume that someone is buying and using them. I do agree with your economics rationale, Flixy, but not your conclusion. :)
What? Criminal gangs, and organized crime, can only extort profits from illegal activities. They'd like nothing more than politicians prohibiting activities like drinking, gambling, or even birth control.....by driving them "underground".Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Hard drug use (most notably Heroin) is traced to pharmaceutical prescriptions for opioids like morphine or oxycontin, not marijuana. Are you suggesting a new standard for MDs?Quote:
Well, since those hard drugs are being found at a much bigger rate it makes sense to assume that someone is buying and using them. I do agree with your economics rationale, Flixy, but not your conclusion. :)
Ending prohibition did not end the organized crime gangs either, but that's not a reason to keep it banned. And to be fair they already were in hard drugs anyway. And does the increase in that compensate for the losses from marihuana?Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Alternatively now the gangs from Mexico are no longer profiting off marijuana. Rejoice, that was the idea! Plus now law enforcement can concentrate on stopping the hard drugs rather than being forced to try and stop a flood of marijuana too - an increase in detection of hard drugs could mean the hard drug problem is getting better not worse, that law enforcement are better equipped to concentrate on a smaller target and/or that the now limited drug dealers and smugglers are being forced to make mistakes now they can't hide hard drugs amongst the flood of soft ones. There has always been some demand for hard drugs and if people were buying soft drugs illegally then its much easier to buy the hard drugs illegally too.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
It was prohibition that made Capone rich, as it is prohibition that has led to drug cartels. Since there is a much greater market for marijuana than for harder drugs, the drug cartels and drug dealers are now catering to a much more niche market - which law enforcement is now able to concentrate on. Unless the hard drug market becomes as big as the marijuana market (unlikely) that is progress.
Quite. What it shows is that marijuana is no longer profitable for them to smuggle in and sell. Which is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Ok, Rand, that makes some sense, but I am doubtful that this 300-500% increase in seizures is just because marijuana seizures are down. Maybe a combo.
What?!? I mean that the slippery slope is not decriminalizing marijuana, it is that the war against drugs will disappear because marijuana is decriminalized. But many (including me) said no, the gangs just switch to trying to sell more "hard drugs".Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
???Quote:
Hard drug use (most notably Heroin) is traced to pharmaceutical prescriptions for opioids like morphine or oxycontin, not marijuana. Are you suggesting a new standard for MDs?
The gangs always sold hard drugs though and the argument was that marijuana was a gateway drug, that a dealer that was selling you marijuana would be the same person who sold you the harder stuff.
Now if people aren't getting involved with a dealer at all it takes a conscious decision now to seek out a dealer specifically for the harder stuff. Plus whereas previously almost everyone would know someone who knew someone who could get drugs, now if only the most extreme cases are it'll be harder to get connected. The gangs aren't going to "switch" to hard drugs, they already had hard drugs in their repertoire.
Even if legalization of weed caused more hard drugs to be sold it shouldn't matter. Its an issue of freedom.
Good ol' Lewkowski! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Ah so you think we should get rid of freedom due to potential social ills? I guess you're in favor of banning gambling, alcohol and tobacco too? Oooh what about fast food joints? After all heart disease is one of the leading causes of death.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
My comment was more towards your predictable response. :heart: I am not against legalization of weed, as long as you don't smoke it within 50 feet of my house, or have your windows closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Why shouldn't they have the windows closed?
They should.