Drug Czar Warns of “Black Market” for Marijuana -- file under WTF (RE: CA legalization)

[nashville_brook]

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/07/19/drug-czar-warns-of-black-market-for-marijuana/


Drug Czar Warns of “Black Market” for Marijuana
By: Michael Whitney Monday July 19, 2010 10:02 am


Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske fears the creation of “a black market that would come into play” if California votes to legalize marijuana. Question for Kerli: what the hell would you consider the $45 billion annual industry in the US that exists despite marijuana prohibition? Kerlikowske made the curious remarks to NPR’s Michel Martin on Friday when questioned about the administration’s stance on marijuana legalization. Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

MARTIN: One of the arguments, though, that many people make is that just our whole philosophy toward drug use is just flawed, that there are those who of course who favor a dramatic liberalization of drug laws.

That they argue really the issue is prohibition and that if we have the same attitude toward illegal drugs now that we had to with prohibition, it didn’t work then, it’s not going to work now. And what do you say to that?

Mr. KERLIKOWSKE: Well, we know that certainly California is poised to and will be voting on legalizing small amounts of marijuana. And that vote is scheduled for November of this year.

(snip)


If marijuana were legalized, regulated, and taxed, as California’s Prop 19 would do, the “black market” that currently exists for the sale of marijuana would be largely irrelevant. A black market exists, by definition, for illegal transactions. Prop 19 would bring this huge industry out of the shadows, where the millions of current marijuana users could make their purchases from legitimate, regulated businesses, as opposed to from dealers that more likely than not buy their pot from Mexican drug cartels. Those cartels, in turn, would see their cash crop of marijuana dry up and defund the rest of the cartels’ dirty work. Marijuana legalization is the ultimate killer of black markets.

The second part of the Drug Czar’s argument seems to be that if marijuana were legalized, California wouldn’t see much, if any, tax revenue; that marijuana usage would increase; and that people would evade taxes on marijuana. All those false conclusions appear to be based on a recent study from the RAND Corporation. That study blared dire headlines about the use and cost of marijuana, though the substance of the study stated quite differently.

An analysis of the study by Drug War Rant found that the study’s author’s grossly spinned the actual findings.

There have been a lot of media reports in the past few days talking about the new RAND study that shows how California legalization will result in as much as an 80% decrease in marijuana prices and doubling of marijuana use.

Except, of course, that the RAND report doesn’t really say that at all.

It’s a 55 page report with lots of interesting stuff in it, but when it comes to an actual projection of change in marijuana use with legalization, they have absolutely no idea.

(snip -- read the rest at link)

[JuniperLea]

1. Start brain...

Before putting mouth in gear.

What a moron! What the hell, indeed!

[Bobbieo]

2. Does Kerli protest too much, if so why?

[nashville_brook]

4. too much "national treasure" tied up in the drug war?

[JuniperLea]

12. My first thought is always Big Pharma...

Then I think Hearst and the ban on hemp... then I starting thinking of the long list of things that are produced from hemp, which is the ultimate gift of a renewable resource. It's a damn weed... it grows... like a weed. Short growing season. Think of the trees that could be saved... think of the cheap high blood pressure and glaucoma medicines. Think of the synthetic (petroleum) fabrics we could do without.

Paper, cloth, plastic... it boggles the mind why we aren't using this resource.

And as for smoking or eating it... you can't even compare it to booze.

[nashville_brook]

13. excellent points.

[walldude]

3. Hehe...

It's hard to believe that with opponents this brilliant, that drugs aren't legal yet. :evilgrin:

[nashville_brook]

5. so true...so sadly true.

[elehhhhna]

6. Czar. What kind of commie shit is that, anyway?

[boobooday]

7. LOL . . . and WTF?

These guys got nothing!

:rofl:

Oh, and I have to add that yesterday I saw the opposite argument: that the Wal-mart-ization of pot was going to put small time dealers out of business.

[ThomThom]

28. of course it will...who would pay $300 for illegal when Rite-aid has

it for $50
There are facts about how much consumption will increase from places that have legalized. The facts are that initially there is an increase but over the long term consumption goes down, The facts are there are no down sides to legalization.

[conscious evolution]

8. Kicking the stupid

[shanti]

9. i'm voting for it

but have my reservations about whether or not the powers that be will allow it to pass. i wouldn't put it past them to involve some voting shenanigans to accomplish it either. :(

[spanone]

10. drug czar, what bullshit. they make a lot of drugs at eli-lilly in indianapolis

[obxhead]

11. What an ass. nt

[asdjrocky]

14. Gil Kerlikowske is one of the reasons I started losing faith in our President.

This man is so inapt it's embarrassing.

[Gravel Democrat]

15. He's right about one thing...

"California is poised to and will be voting on legalizing small amounts of marijuana."

Prop 19 is constantly referred to in the media as Total Legalization.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Furthermore, since the initiative would keep possession of amounts greater than one ounce illegal and likewise maintain the illegality of private sales of any amount, the overall impact that the initiative would have on ending the drug war, reducing arrest rates and saving on prison costs would be negligible, at best..."

"As an example of how highly misunderstood this initiative and its potential impact on the drug war is, the California NAACP recently pledged their support for the initiative based on the belief that it will put an end to the disproportionately high number of African-American youth going to jail “over a joint.” <7> But in reality, the initiative will have no impact on this phenomenon whatsoever. As it is now, the State of California does not jail people for having a joint; it is not an arrestable offense. And, as mentioned above, possession of up to one ounce is on its way to being reclassified from a misdemeanor to an infraction—which carries no criminal-record stigma. The state does, however, incarcerate people for selling small amounts of marijuana. And since this initiative keeps private marijuana sales illegal, no matter the quantity, there will be no decrease in the number of African Americans—or anyone else—arrested for selling a joint."

WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE THE 2010 TAX CANNABIS INITIATIVE: 18 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW
“People think it’s legalization, it’s being sold as legalization—even though it’s the opposite of legalization.” - Dennis Peron, author of Prop. 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html

People need to take a close look at the fine print.

[slay]

18. Great link - the fine print makes the law look rather bad

I'm just amazed that people think it's OK to have legal alcohol, but not OK for marijuana. That's just wrong. We need REAL legalization across the country. Keeping it illegal when not only do people want it, but it does medical good for many of them, it's bullshit. Don't trust any politician who doesn't want to legalize weed! (of course Gravel did, and was right up there with Kucinich in who I wanted our nominee to be).

[asdjrocky]

21. Thant is a very cool picture.

A PO Box, wow, just wow.

[Gravel Democrat]

22. Many say the "Drug War" is a failure...I think it's one of the most successful

Government "programs" ever dreamed up.

Take a harmless plant that provides relaxation and health benefits to most everyone alive, (and has for more than 10,000 years) demonize it, lie about it, scare people and divide the population.

Then claim many more new "tools" are needed to enforce the insane law because this "new drug" is "dangerous" and "out of control".

Voila: Phones tapped, bank accounts seized, roadblocks, sometimes people outright killed in full sunlight, to take land (Don Scott).

The Drug war was a spectacular success. And the only way it could have worked is by including Cannabis because the numbers have never been there to justify it with drugs like heroin or cocaine.

And why did it take a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Booze and not Cannabis?

The Commerce Clause (or, claws). The same rationalization for the Health Insurance Ripoff and Enslavement act of 2010.

Even at best, big gov only works half the time-the half when your team writes the laws.

[nashville_brook]

26. you have to imagine that plenty of the privatized surveillance economy is aimed at this.

[asdjrocky]

20. It's about getting, and keeping people out of prison.

It's beyond economics, it's beyond maintaining the integrity of strains, it's about getting people out of prison.

I'm curious, have you, or anyone you've known gone to prison for cannabis?

[Gravel Democrat]

24. yes and that's why i think the law should be scrutinized.

Sometimes a new law makes things worse. Unless you're a lawyer.

Did you know that this only "legalizes" < 1 oz? and keeps *all* private sales illegal?

I did not, until I read this:
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html

[asdjrocky]

25. The law will be challanged.

The feds will come after us, some counties will fight it. The propitiation, as written, is a bit flawed, but it does get people out of prison, it will keep people out of prison and it will change and grow.

We let the naysayers kill this now, it won't come back in our lifetime.

Again I ask, do you know anyone in prison for cannabis?

[shanti]

31. wow!

what an eye opener! thanks for the link, i'm passing it on. will this supersede 215? btw, exactly who was the sponsor of this bill?

[Gravel Democrat]

32. who was the sponsor of this bill? Great question....

Richard Lee, the person that runs Oaksterdam, the Cannabis College, bankrolled the petition gathering.

"Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market.
Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive. Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one of them). In Oakland, the city that’s setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.

Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)

And this:
Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5’x5’ space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person. If you share a residence with other people, you’ll be sharing a 5’x5’ grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5’x5’ (3-6 plants) will still apply. <11> Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlord—which they may be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.

This bill stinks.

I challenge anyone that disagrees to read the entire post.
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html

This is not legalization. This is centralized control. Backed by guns,fines and jail time.

$30K per license PER YEAR and the bill would make private sales illegal.

What a trojan horse.

[Sta au]

34. Great...

Shadowrun was right. The future is now.

[mitchum]

16. He's just working hard for that money from the pharmaceutical,plastics,and prison industries

He's a whore who fakes it really well

[slay]

19. +1

it's always about the money.. all would stand to lose if marijuana were legalized. fucking sucks we're up against mega corporations and our leaders don't give a shit about us or what WE want.

[Old Troop]

17. I was afraid that might happen.

:dunce:

[Socal31]

23. This guy is a winner.

[ThomThom]

27. He is required by law to oppose all legalization

so any thing he says will sound foolish but this is really over the top.

[RainDog]

29. the problem is that the Federal govt doesn't want to admit it is wrong

but the simple and easiest way to deal with this is to IMMEDIATELY reschedule cannabis because study after study demonstrates it has medicinal value.

the lies start there, in federal policy.

14 states are calling the fed. govts liars to its face every day by their enactment of medical marijuana laws.

The majority of the American people know the federal govt is lying. What does that do for their credibility on a host of issues? It makes people skeptical about just about anything that comes from the govt. And rightly so, since the history of marijuana prohibition is a history of lies, racism and class war.

You know what else is interesting? apparently drug laws don't make a difference, in terms of usage. The difference they make is in terms of how citizens are treated - whether a criminal class is created by racist laws or whether citizens are respected for their right to decide whether or not to ingest cannabis.

[Canuckistanian]

30. Ouch

The stupid, it BURNS, master! Make it STOP!

[JoeyT]

33. Translation:

"Go ahead and legalize it. We're still going to raid you on a regular basis. And if we can manage it we'll kick in the wrong doors and shoot some people or pets. Yeehaw!"

[Sta au]

35. I'm just wondering

Why has Obama put these people in charge? There aren't supposed to be anymore raids in California (not sure what he said about other states) that allow the sale of medical marijuana. Has it stopped? From the news I hear it hasn't. So just why would they still do it?