U.S. Agrees To Drug Legalization Talks

Friends of Ours ^ | 3/3/12 | Friends of Ours

[Hostage]

Your link does not support your generalizations - it shows only that a single local mob branch in Arizona bought into the legal alcohol business when Prohibition ended.

Oh really?

From the link:

To repeat: McCain’s father-in-law was the top lieutenant for Kemper Marley, the Lansky syndicate’s chief Arizona operative who acted, in turn, as the front man for the Bronfman family—key players in the Lansky syndicate.

During Prohibition, the Canadian-based Bronfmans supplied—and thus controlled—the “spigot” of liquor funneled to Lansky syndicate functionaries in the United States, including Al Capone in Chicago.

After Prohibition, Lansky-Bronfman associates such as Marley got control of a substantial portion of liquor (and beer) distribution across the country. Marley’s longtime public relations man, Al Lizanitz, revealed that it was the Bronfmans who set Marley up in the alcohol business.

There you have it in the last paragraph above. The mafia got control and so it is certainly likely that you will be handing contol to the Drug Lords, the Columbian Cartels who have been terrorizing Mexico. This is what you are letting in the door.

And don't give us that line about pot heads growing and rolling their own. Sure some will but the vast majority will be buying retail from the network just as tobacco users do now. Very few grow their own tobacco and roll it. And very few alcohol users have their own stills and breweries.

So think about it. You will be rewarding really bad people who won't stop affecting your life and the lives of others once they have control of pot distribution.

For example, look how they strike fear even to those that have fled the terrorism for the 'safety' of the USA:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2853263/posts

[JustSayNoToNannies]

"After Prohibition, Lansky-Bronfman associates such as Marley got control of a substantial portion of liquor (and beer) distribution across the country. Marley’s longtime public relations man, Al Lizanitz, revealed that it was the Bronfmans who set Marley up in the alcohol business."

There you have it in the last paragraph above. The mafia got control

No, they got control of "a substantial portion" - how "substantial" is not reported.

and so it is certainly likely that you will be handing contol to the Drug Lords, the Columbian Cartels who have been terrorizing Mexico.

Putting aside whether nonresident noncitizens will be able to invest in these legal businesses, at most they'd own a "substantial" (whatever that means) share of the distribution business - no room there for "lacing with addictive additives," any more than alcohol distibutors do now.

And if cartels are able and eager to invest in legal US businesses, why haven't they done so already?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

"After Prohibition, Lansky-Bronfman associates such as Marley got control of a substantial portion of liquor (and beer) distribution across the country."

Readers of this thread are invited to weigh for themselves the credibility of this claim (for which I can find no independent substantiation) in light of the author - below - and the site, which has a "Revisionist History" link.

'Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within and The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb.'

[Hostage]

And if cartels are able and eager to invest in legal US businesses, why haven't they done so already?

Who says they don't? They are mafia, they own and operate banks, politicians, resorts, casinos, prostitutions rings, extortion rackets.

If you were to meet a Cartel kingpin in Mexico City (that is where they live) you would find they look very nicely dressed, they live in very nice gated communities with their families, their children look very nice and go to the best schools, they go to Church (Catholic). They look and act as respectable businessmen.

They own many things around the world including in the USA. They have ties to Universal Studios in LA and many hotels in Miami.

And when you let them in to set up legal pot distribution, they and their lietenants will become permanent residents in a city near you, and proceed to finance political campaigns that will disarm you and ensure you are not threat to them. In fact they want to hold threats away from you and make you pay them 'insurance' to protect you. And if you don't pay, then you will be in danger.

That is the nature of the real enemy.

Is McCain a RINO? You bet he is. Does he talk a good conservative game? Yeah, he can fool a lot of people a lot of the time. Who does he take orders from? The people that are behind his wife's inherited liquor empire. But those people are nothing next to the brutal terror of what is behind the drug trade. And what is behind the drug trade hates the USA.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

And if cartels are able and eager to invest in legal US businesses, why haven't they done so already?

Who says they don't? They are mafia, they own and operate banks, politicians, resorts, casinos [...] They own many things around the world including in the USA. They have ties to Universal Studios in LA and many hotels in Miami.

Evidence?

[houeto]

My bet is we are going to legalize dope, and outlaw vitamins.

As absolutely bizarre and outlandish as that sounds, I can see it happening.

[Hostage]

Oh my....you want to play forum games do you?

I guess first hand evidence of knowing through some young folks in Mexico City who are best friends of children of the cartel families will not satisfy you.

And I am sure my CIA contacts will not convince you either nor would I reveal anything from them anyways.

So we will have to rely on news reports won’t we? Which of course you should be researching since it is your question. But alas lazy minds do NOT think like mine.

So here’s a freebie from me:

In addition, the cartels are increasingly investing their illegal drug money in American businesses to hide, or “launder,” the source of the money, the DEA is reporting.

http://gantdaily.com/2011/12/27/dea-mexican-drug-cartel-extortion-moving-more-into-u-s/

Any further requests will have you required to pay my PayPal account upfront at my rate of $2500 per hour which is a bargain.

[houeto]

And don't give us that line about pot heads growing and rolling their own. Sure some will but the vast majority will be buying retail from the network just as tobacco users do now. Very few grow their own tobacco and roll it. And very few alcohol users have their own stills and breweries.

I've been lurking this debate. In this instance you are comparing oranges to apples. The vast majority would grow their own because it's just a dang weed needing little to no effort.

I don't grow it nor do I smoke it, but we do make our own wine! ;-)

[houeto]

BTW, we put a lot of effort into our legal winemaking and even if pot were legal, I wouldn’t smoke it if you paid me to. That is a fact.

[Hostage]

Thanks for sharing but there’s a point missed here.

I also have friends that retired and started to make wine, cognac, beer. They really studied the details and their first batches were pretty good. They made their own labels and they kept trying season after season their wine, brew and liquor got better and better. They entered their products in contests and always had it around at summer barbecues. But they never made it a business, it was a hobby. Why is that?

Take cigarettes. What $7 or $8 a pack now? Taxed up the wazoo? It’s not hard to grow a spit of tobacco, hang it, dry it, blend it. Why don’t more people do it?

The point is we are not Talking about hobbies. The brew, wine and liquor my friends make is nothing to the giant chain distribution of such products that fill aisles in supermarkets and specialty stores.

There is no comparison.

What drug legalization is proposing is to create a new huge market of legal products that certain distributors will murder to secure rights of. The backyard hobbyists will be statistical dust next to the production and supply of the distribution channels of marijuana and derivative products.

And the derivative products will be pushing the legal limits to magic mushroom snuff, heavenly peyote, crack by any number of names, heroin or mescaline with heroin traces and on and on. There will be no end until the population capitulates and allows the drug lords to rule.

Then comes the prostitution, the loan sharking, the extortion rackets, the port heist rackets, insurance fraud and on and on.

Illegal drugs are high priced not because drug lords demand high margins, they are high priced because the middlemen delivery agents mark the product up to make the risk-reward tradeoff attractive. With legalization, the high risk middlemen delivery agents are dissolved but the drug lords still make the same and more profit because the risk is gone. Because they are criminals with criminal minds, who think laws are only for the little people, they will create hell on earth for those in their sphere and their sphere will be greatly expanded when a large part of their business is legalized and they have murdered their way to preserving their supply and distribution.

Don’t entertain little provincial fairy tales about drug users living in their rainbow worlds growing their own in peace while they toke themselves to oblivion. They are playing with fire.

For those that bow before the drug lords and stretch out their arms and hands before them while repeating a humble request to stop the violence in return for legalization, they will find they have walked into the lion’s den. These cartel monsters hate the USA and the people in it. And they will not fade away with legalization. To the contrary they will be pushing to make addicts and dopers of as many useful idiots that they can find.

[LomanBill]

Chicken-Little-meets-Reefer-Madness hysteria

Abstract

It has long been known that cannabis can elicit an acute psychotic reaction. Recent work shows that, of the 60 cannabinoid molecules in the plant, delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol is responsible for the central effects of cannabis. Here we aimed to investigate, in more detail, the psychological effects of synthetic intravenous THC in healthy subjects. Over 2 experimental sessions, participants (N=22) were administered 2.5mg IV THC or placebo under randomised, double-blind conditions. Psychological reactions were assessed using standard rating instruments and a battery of cognitive tests was completed.

Following THC, there was a significant increase in self-rated and observer-rated positive psychotic symptoms which were highly correlated (r=0.62, p=0.001).Phenomena centered on de-synchronisation of self-agency (ipseity disturbance) and hypersalience/paranoia. Participants also reported a significant increase in negative symptomatology under THC conditions, which was not explained by sedation. Finally, working memory/executive functioning was markedly and consistently impaired by THC.

Here we provide further evidence that THC can elicit an acute psychotic reaction in a proportion of healthy subjects. Acute THC-psychosis elicits positive, negative and cognitive symptoms. Compared with other drug models THC recreates symptomatology across 3 major dimensions of schizophrenic psychosis without sedation/clouding of consciousness. Here we also present preliminary evidence that the molecule cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits THC-elicited positive symptoms. Current work in our laboratory is exploring the underlying mechanisms.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0924933809703797?via=sd&cc=y

NOT.

[aruanan]

None of these effects is significantly more problematic than what is experienced under the influence of alcohol.

[LloydofDSS]

The sad part of this whole discussion is that the drug laws were put in place by nanny-state liberals who do not believe in freedom. Anyone who supports these drug laws deserves the modern liberals we have today.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

With legalization, the high risk middlemen delivery agents are dissolved but the drug lords still make the same and more profit because the risk is gone.

Nonsense - risk is gone but competition explodes so price plummets, as it did with the end of Prohibition ... Econ 101.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

In addition, the cartels are increasingly investing their illegal drug money in American businesses to hide, or “launder,” the source of the money, the DEA is reporting.

http://gantdaily.com/2011/12/27/dea-mexican-drug-cartel-extortion-moving-more-into-u-s/

Laundering is not investing - and the last thing a money launderer will do is call attention to the laundering enterprise with terrorizing violence. No support there for your anti-legalization Chicken Little-isms.

[Hostage]

Those that control the distribution reap profits without risk of conflict with law enforcement. The price goes down but the profits go up because the cost of delivery is brought down.

Therefore with legalization the drug lords win because they retain the profits and eliminate the high cost of delivery. They could care less whether price falls so long as their profits are up.

Try again and be sure to review your Econ 101 notes or try and finish that class that you either dropped out of or failed.

[Hostage]

You obviously did not read what was reported by DEA. Here it is again:

In addition, the cartels are increasingly investing their illegal drug money in American businesses to hide, or “launder,” the source of the money, the DEA is reporting.

After you take that chip off your shoulder you can take your sassy remarks to the DEA to ask them why they use the term "investing".

Ok, I am done with you as it is clear you are hot air bent on heckling. Of course you will always attempt to get the last word and progress towards a personal attack in which case I may or may not respond by linking to this post.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

the psychological effects of synthetic intravenous THC in healthy subjects.

Nobody uses THC intravenously.

Over 2 experimental sessions, participants (N=22) were administered 2.5mg IV THC

Even aside from the unrealistic route of administration, how does this dose compares to the amount a recreational user of strong weed would get? Rats get cancer from artificial sweetener when fed the equivalent of a million cans of diet soda - should we worry?

Following THC, there was a significant increase in self-rated and observer-rated positive psychotic symptoms which were highly correlated (r=0.62, p=0.001).

In research terminology, "significant" means only statistically distinguishable from no effect - it says nothing about the magnitude of the effect.

Phenomena centered on de-synchronisation of self-agency (ipseity disturbance) and hypersalience/paranoia.

While these may technically fall under the general heading of "psychotic," a smoker hiding under the bed or examining his fingers in wonder ("ipseity disturbance") is nothing you or I need to fear.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

After you take that chip off your shoulder you can take your sassy remarks to the DEA to ask them why they use the term "investing".

I know exactly why the DEA calls laundering "investing" - it makes drug dealers look more threatening, which is in the DEA's institutional self-interest.

Ok, I am done with you

Drug Warriors always tuck tail and run sooner or later.

as it is clear you are hot air bent on heckling. Of course you will always attempt to get the last word and progress towards a personal attack

The irony is priceless.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The price goes down but the profits go up because the cost of delivery is brought down.

Laughable babbling. High profits attract increased competition - from educated and experienced businessmen - until the profit margins are comparable to other legal enterprises.

Try again and be sure to review your Econ 101 notes or try and finish that class that you either dropped out of or failed.

Do you have the minimal good sense to feel embarrassed yet?