Legalizing possession is just the start. If you do that then you still have the cartels because they are the supply. A legal supply is the only threat to them. Who provides the legal supply, and does anybody really think the government will let market forces set the price. The politicians in California already start drooling every time they talk about being able to tax marijuana.
That’s something nobody ever considers. You take away 70% of profit from these criminal organizations, do you honestly think they’ll give it up and get a legitimate job? No. Drugs are not the only way to make money on the black market, and these guys will compensate for lost profit by accelerating human trafficking, weapons smuggling and such. That’s what worries me. These thugs have already showed what they’re capable of, and they essentially control Mexico today.
This will never happen anyway. Big Tobacco and Liquor won’t allow it to cut in on their slice of the substance market.
Why "or"? The two options are not mutually exclusive. Cartels can't by fiat create a demand for coke, meth, and heroin - so cartels weakened by loss of pot profits will fight and further weaken themselves. Sounds like a win to me.
Will they take their soft control over the human smuggling routes to a new level and extort more money from the illegals?
Real crimes with actual victims can't offer the same astronomical profit margins as victimless 'crimes' like drug selling.
Legalizing possession is just the start. If you do that then you still have the cartels because they are the supply. A legal supply is the only threat to them. Who provides the legal supply,
The same free market that provides the legal supply of the drugs alcohol and tobacco.
and does anybody really think the government will let market forces set the price. The politicians in California already start drooling every time they talk about being able to tax marijuana.
Only NYC has been stupid enough to tax into existence a black market in a legal drug (tobacco); the evidence is that despite themselves, political pressures pretty reliably prevent that level of taxation. And it's worth noting that the stupid NYC tax has the stated purpose of diminishing use of the legal drug - not something I think we need to worry about with CA and pot.
Can’t smoke a tobacco cigarette at a concert or in a bar anymore. Can’t buy liquor at a store between the hours of 9pm and 8am and can’t buy it under 21 etc.
There would still be plenty of laws on the books. And some employers already have a “no tobacco use” policy even off premises/after work.
What should the penalty be for someone who provides dope to teenagers? Or should it be encouraged the same way Planned Abortion encourages teen sex through SIECUS?