Huge Cocaine haul off sailing boat!

[FlyingCloud1937]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The complaint about your paying more taxes...???
Thought pointing out a more efficient use and the benefits for the same amount or possibly less might please you..
But then again.. ever known a state reduce taxes for other than the few who have loadsa $$$ already:biggri n:

Again it seems you missed my POINT.

Let us just stop and think for a moment.

The new money is that, that is shifted to the producer, it goes out of the local economy.

Any dollars spent on addiction is money already in the local economy.

Any money spent on enforcement is also money already in the local economy.

So every dollar going to the over seas producer is money drafted from the local economy.

That means all of those dollars are not available for the non drug indicted economy.

So we lose on the over seas transfer, as well as the addiction, and the interdiction.

The only winner is the overseas producer.

Lloyd

[robert sailor]

I'm still trying to get your point, I'm assuming that your point suggests the current situation fits your point. If drugs are legalized and the government controls and taxes the drugs and shuts down all the forces trying to win the ******** war on drugs then what's the difference? If drugs are legal then local producers can grow the stuff just like they do tobacco.

[soverel]

I suppose they could have used the cost of pharmaceutical cocaine to estimate the value of the seizure.

As long as the government continues to harass doctors in what they can prescribe in the way of opiates the illegal trade in heroin and opiates will continue.

Big pharmaceutical companies dont like competition and they cant make the big bucks on natural generic available rxs.



Sent from my HUAWEI-M931 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Turnone

If this was directed at me, I agree. They are different levels. My point is that some drugs seem horrible but upon examining the evidence aren't as bad as we were lead to believe.

LSD, ecstasy, shrooms, etc. Vs alcohol, tobacco.

Wasn't actually directed at anyone in particular, just don't think all drugs should be grouped together, my personal belief is that Marijuana if legalized would cause a whole lot less social problems than say Cocaine or may other "hard" drugs, and that different substances should be treated differently.
When I said I have un-popular opinions about drugs, well here they are.
My belief is the government should literally give them away, but here is the catch, take them and you become a registered drug user, and a registered drug user is not eligible for the government programs that feed and house people. A registered drug user can't operate a motor vehicle nor vote and you cannot use them in public.
I would however give for free all the treatment that a person could handle to help them break their addiction, but not free medical care for conditions that their abuse has caused.
I think this would pretty much end the "war" on drugs
It would give addicts at least some support in assisting with them breaking the addiction
It does not set up a society of "free loaders" that the rest of us would have to pay for.
There are of course major holes in this plan, as there would be in all simple plans, like Pregnant women and children, how do you handle that? As in Pregnant users and children of users.
No the darn problem isn't easy.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

If drugs are legal then local producers can grow the stuff just like they do tobacco.

Excellent point really, I assume you could grow your own tobacco if you really wanted, you can even make your own wine or beer, but try to distill your own liquor and see what happens. Why? I have no idea, the alcohol apparently isn't the same.

US laws, don't have a clue about elsewhere

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Wasn't actually directed at anyone in particular, just don't think all drugs should be grouped together, my personal belief is that Marijuana if legalized would cause a whole lot less social problems than say Cocaine or may other "hard" drugs, and that different substances should be treated differently.
When I said I have un-popular opinions about drugs, well here they are.
My belief is the government should literally give them away, but here is the catch, take them and you become a registered drug user, and a registered drug user is not eligible for the government programs that feed and house people. A registered drug user can't operate a motor vehicle nor vote and you cannot use them in public.
I would however give for free all the treatment that a person could handle to help them break their addiction, but not free medical care for conditions that their abuse has caused.
I think this would pretty much end the "war" on drugs
It would give addicts at least some support in assisting with them breaking the addiction
It does not set up a society of "free loaders" that the rest of us would have to pay for.
There are of course major holes in this plan, as there would be in all simple plans, like Pregnant women and children, how do you handle that? As in Pregnant users and children of users.
No the darn problem isn't easy.

Dump your plan on going cruising and get into politics, I'd vote for you!

[HappyMdRSailor]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Prior to alcohol prohibition the mafia was a small time operation mainly involved in protection, gambling and petty theft. Prohibition created a huge business opportunity for the mafia that made them trillions of dollars and funded an organization that remains a global problem today.

I'll vote for organized crime all day long over:

"Disorganized Crime"

Nobody had to worry about Salami Sal or Tony Tea Bags carjacking mom in the Walmart parking lot...

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by HappyMdRSailor

I'll vote for organized crime all day long over:

"Disorganized Crime"

Nobody had to worry about Salami Sal or Tony Tea Bags carjacking mom in the Walmart parking lot...

Except for the fact that possibly the only business where trickle down economics really works is in criminal enterprises.

Organized crime at the top encourages disorganized crime at the bottom.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by FlyingCloud1937

Again it seems you missed my POINT.

Let us just stop and think for a moment.

The new money is that, that is shifted to the producer, it goes out of the local economy.

Any dollars spent on addiction is money already in the local economy.

Any money spent on enforcement is also money already in the local economy.

So every dollar going to the over seas producer is money drafted from the local economy.

That means all of those dollars are not available for the non drug indicted economy.

So we lose on the over seas transfer, as well as the addiction, and the interdiction.

The only winner is the overseas producer.

Lloyd

I grasp your point quite well.. its just that you don't seem to grasp the economics of the drugs game..
For example I can go to Morocco and buy quality compressed cannabis for £200/kilo inland where its produced and pressed..
That's 34ozx£120 in the UK... estimated on 10yr old prices on the street.. so that's £200 going out of the economy and £4000 being generated inside the economy..
The same applies to all the other drugs.. source price is peanuts.
Dya get my point..

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The same applies to all the other drugs.. source price is peanuts.

Yes, cost at the source is cheap. It's the overhead from inventory losses in the transportation and local distribution that drives up the cost.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Yes, cost at the source is cheap. It's the overhead from inventory losses in the transportation and local distribution that drives up the cost.

Yup... it'll cost you £15,000 to hire a driver for a fast rib to transport 300 odd kilos at a time across to Spain.. from there its just car hire.. sell to a dealer at £60-75 an oz then he breaks it down to the lump buyers and the street man gets around £20/oz profit..
As always.. its the middle man makes the killing..

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Yup... it'll cost you £15,000 to hire a driver for a fast rib to transport 300 odd kilos at a time across to Spain..

I am not going to ask how you know this. Maybe you just read about it in the newspaper.

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by Turnone

I don't figure that. Lot's of Doctors, other than you have studied it directly and all found that Alcohol was much more harmful than Cocaine. Cocaine isn't good for society.

How many other drug OD's have you seen from prescription drugs? Alcohol?

If it was regulated, it would be even less harmful. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying that every civilization since the beginning of civilizations has used drugs. I suspect every future one will as well.

Over 700,000 arrests in the US alone for cannabis annually. The stats are undeniable that the drug war doesn't work.

Kids can get illegal drugs easier than legal drugs.

And we can't keep drugs out of prisons, with armed guards, tall fences and razor wire, I'm pretty sure we can't keep illegal drugs out of anywhere.

Therefore, I'm for the less harmful approach of using that money to work on abuse and prevent crime, not arrest and imprison the masses the dealers or the users.

I'm hopeful that I will live to see the day that we don't try to imprison our way out of a drug epidemic.

Chris

You bring up good points. My point as a physician in this post was to refute the assertion that cocaine isn't harmful. Cocaine is very dangerous medically.
Relative harms can be debated, and the legality argument can also be debated.
I am certain my post had no opinion on other drugs or legalities if you re-read




Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Group9]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I grasp your point quite well.. its just that you don't seem to grasp the economics of the drugs game..
For example I can go to Morocco and buy quality compressed cannabis for £200/kilo inland where its produced and pressed..
That's 34ozx£120 in the UK... estimated on 10yr old prices on the street.. so that's £200 going out of the economy and £4000 being generated inside the economy..
The same applies to all the other drugs.. source price is peanuts.
Dya get my point..

It's peanuts because it's illegal and they adjust the price because buyers aren't going to paid huge prices for a product they may lose.

Once there is no risk, the people who are world's largest manufacturers and importers of drugs, with the largest and most extensive subject matter expertise in drug production, and the facilities already in place and operating, the cartels in Mexico and South America, are probably going to remain the world's largest legal manufacturer and importer of drugs.

Remember, the Mafia didn't even make alcohol. They just bought it and smuggled it in. The people who produced whiskey, etc., during prohibition, are a lot of the same companies who are doing it today, they just operated out of Canada, Cuba, and other nearby countries. Why wouldn't the cartels just open offices in the US and flood us with their drugs, running any small time local operations out of business? And, it's worse this time. This time, the manufacturers and the smugglers and the mid level dealers are all the same type people (not people you want to meet in dark alleys).


Why would history repeat itself this time? It's not the same preceding situation. And, the billionaires who run theses cartels didn't become billionaires by being stupid, or giving up easily. They have more business savvy that most of Wall Street and are a hundred times more ruthless. Legal or not, they are going to control the drug market for a long time.

How long you think a company like Merck would want to compete with the cartels when the CEO comes home and finds his children and wife in pieces and hanging from the ceiling?

Or do you think they will all find Jesus when drugs are legalized? I guess that could happen.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Dump your plan on going cruising and get into politics, I'd vote for you!

You know a long time ago I was going to, the political party of my choice was even OK with my parents being married, but they drew the line when they found out they were married to each other and I was dis-allowed