What the Pot Legalization Campaign Really Threatens: Alcohol Industry Profits

[unhappycamper]

What the Pot Legalization Campaign Really Threatens: Alcohol Industry Profits
Creators Syndicate / By David Sirota

September 23, 2010 | Here's a fact that even drug policy reform advocates can acknowledge: California's 2010 ballot initiative to legalize marijuana does, indeed, pose a real threat, as conservative culture warriors insist. But not to public health, as those conservatives claim.

According to most physicians, pot is less toxic -- and has more medicinal applications -- than a legal and more pervasive drug like alcohol. Whereas alcohol causes hundreds of annual overdose deaths, contributes to untold numbers of illnesses and is a major factor in violent crime, marijuana has never resulted in a fatal overdose and has not been systemically linked to major illness or violent crime.

So this ballot measure is no public health threat. If anything, it would give the millions of citizens who want to use inebriating substances a safer alternative to alcohol. Which, of course, gets to what this ballot initiative really endangers: alcohol industry profits.

That truth is underscored by news this week that the California Beer and Beverage Distributors is financing the campaign against the legalization initiative. This is the same group that bankrolled opposition to a 2008 ballot measure, which would have reduced penalties for marijuana possession.

By these actions, alcohol companies are admitting that more sensible drug policies could cut into their government-created monopoly on mind-altering substances. Thus, they are fighting back -- and not just defensively. Unsatisfied with protecting turf in California, the alcohol industry is going on offense, as evidenced by a recent article inadvertently highlighting America’s inane double standards.

[Scuba]

1. Plain and simple, this is a "control" issue...

...

Control profits for the alcohol industry...

Control the populace by making them into criminals, then prosecuting to fit their whim...

The war on drugs is being lost, and as Bill Hicks said "people on drugs are winning it". Huge profits for alcohol yes, but also for drug cartels, smugglers, and other non-tax-paying profiteers.

Damn, we're stupid about some issues.

[old mark]

2. Also figure in huge volume of cash going to banks in money laundering,

to politicians at various levels and to law enforcement for letting the trade flourish for all these years while picking off various bottom end users and dealers.

At the start of the "war on drugs" it was announced taht only 10% of drug traffic into the US was interdicted - after generations of the "war" they still find 10%....sounds like a good deal for everyone but the consumer.

Legal pot and decriminalization of all other drugs it a logical and very worthwhile idea that will probably never happen in the US...there is too much money in the prohibition.

mark

[KharmaTrain]

3. This Is Far From New...

Back in the stoned ages it was reported that big tobacco was all in favor of legalization (even had some "experimental farms") but were opposed by the liquor lobby. Supposedly "big liquor" copyrighted names like Acapulco Gold, Maui Woowie and others to manuever in the event pot was legalized but they also spent millions in pushing the anti-drug message (especially the "pot is a gateway drug" mantra).

As the poster above said...it's all about control. And profits.

[madrchsod]

4. i smoked and drank and so did everyone else i knew

legalizing pot is`t going to cut into alcohol consumption.

[Flipper999]

5. Exactly.

Alcohol companies are just being paranoid. As others have said, this is about control. They feel they have control over their market now. It's an old and stable market, and they're just afraid of any new variable that might effect it. However, pot legalization would have minimal effect. Lots of people use it illegally now, and *gasp* they also drink. Some people would never smoke pot even if it were legal. Believe it or not, there are lots of people who will always like feeling the alcohol buzz, and they like the taste of their favorite drink. Pot can never change this.

[Bullet1987]

11. Actually it would a little...not a lot though

Many people (like me) would prefer to smoke marijuana than drink alcohol. I want the high without the side effects of alcohol poisoning and throwing up. You can literally smoke to your hearts desire, you can't do that with alcohol because it'll begin to poison your system. I used alcohol as a substitute when I don't have any marijuana. If it were legal, I probably would never drink to be honest.

[wmbrew0206]

6. Read the article and it was more ineuendo than fact about the title of this thread.

Is it likely that pot use could cut into the alcohol market share? Yes.


Is it likely to be significant? Probably not. Pot and alcohol are closer to be compliments than substitutes in economic terms. Pot and alcohol are often used in conjunction with the other and only in statistically few cases would pot actually become a substitute for alcohol.

So it is very unlikely that alcohol companies are going to lose enough revenue to justify large donations to fight a pot legalization campaign.

I think that the cigarette manufacturers are probably the more likely opponents of pot legalization since legalization would cut into their market share big time.

[RainDog]

7. alcoholic beverage concerns have worked at the federal level to undermine sane drug policy

In 2008, "the California Beer and Beverage Distributors contributed $100,000 to the campaign against Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA). This initiative proposed to, among other things, reduce the penalty for cannabis possession in California from a misdemeanor to an infraction, similar to a traffic ticket."

"...The original bill authorizing the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign specifically banned the use of campaign funds to address underage drinking. In fact, when lawmakers attempted to amend the bill so that anti-alcohol messages could be included, the NBWA (National Beer Wholesalers Association) strongly opposed the amendment. To this day, the national Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has remained almost entirely alcohol-free."

Oh, btw, the NBWA gave more than $8 million to federal candidates between 2003 and 2008 "and ranked among the top five most generous PACs each cycle, reaching the no. 2 slot in 2005-6."

(From the book, Marijuana is Safer, pp. 90-91.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9148980&mesg_id=9148980

What the alcoholic beverage industry most fears, imo, is dissemination of the knowledge that, as far as an intoxicant goes, cannabis is safer than alcohol, has fewer side effects, has more benefits and is, thus, a superior product.

[wmbrew0206]

8. Do you really think that people are going ot stop drinking alcohol if pot is legal?

Pot is pretty much all but officially legal and is used by a large portion of the population. The legalization of pot is going to increase the number of users but those users are still going to keep drinking alcohol, and probably at about the same level.

Alcohol has been part of American culture since before its founding and will remain a large part of it for a very, very long time. Legalization of pot will not cause enough of a market share loss for alcohol producers to really care.

[RainDog]

9. No, of course not

but just as the petrol and forestry industries have benefited from the prohibition of cannabis (for hemp) the alcoholic bev. industry benefits from the prohibition of recreational mj.

Pot is NOT all but officially legal.

If you look at places with decriminalized cannabis (such as The Netherlands and Portugal) you will find that.. oops, rates of usage decreased.

I have nothing against alcohol - even tho I've a family member who had problems with it. He isn't everyone and alcohol should not be prohibited because of a few who may have problems.

Cannabis has been part of American culture since its founding. It used to be MANDATORY to grow hemp. (you can google this to see the law yourself.)

The CONSTITUTION is written on hemp (cannabis) paper - because it is the BEST fiber for paper.

Sails that brought people to this land were made out of hemp.

In WW2, the govt ran a propaganda campaign that encouraged farmers to grow hemp for the war effort in spite of the 1937 Hearst-delivered law to made cannabis too difficult for doctors to prescribe - tho they did just that until 1937 for a variety of reasons that are still valid today.

Cannabis, in other words, is JUST AS MUCH A PART OF AMERICAN LIFE AS ALCOHOL - and has served MORE USEFUL FUNCTIONS.

However, the idea that cannabis will not cause enough to a market share loss is something that may or may not be true.

what stats do you have to support your claim? I don't care one way or another if the alcohol industry is impacted - but I don't know of any actual valid reports to back up a claim like yours.

I DO know that the alcoholic beverage industry has a history of attempts to suppress sane cannabis drug laws. Why they do it - well, businesses exist for one reason - profit. They certainly aren't doing it b/c they are concerned about people using intoxicating substances.

[RainDog]

10. hemp history

hemp is cannabis - marijuana was a word that was adopted from the Hispanic population in the 1930s when Anslinger started his campaign to demonize cannabis - all cannabis - even hemp that is bred for low thc content, was made illegal by the racist campaign Anslinger waged against the American people. (He claimed, for instance, that marijuana makes those people with dark skin all uppity and makes white women seek out sex with them...and more of the same sorts of racist fear-mongering statements for the white asshole class in the U.S.)

http://www.hempmuseum.org/ROOMS/ARM%20HISTORY.HTM

[wmbrew0206]

12. This isn't a case about pot not being part of US history, but part of US culture.

Pot has been a large part of US history, but it has not always been a big part of US culture. Pot usage has always been there and has had devout users, but it was not as wide spread as alcohol. I think that is something we can agree on.

As far as stats, I haven't seen any but I don't think any have been published. However, looking at it through an economic glasses, it is much more likely that pot will be used in conjunction with alcohol, than used as a substitute for alcohol.

The $100 million question is, which situations will pot be used as a substitute for alcohol? And how much money will those situations take away from alcohol sales?

I think pot should be legalized. I think if you want to really look at who is the biggest corporate opponent of legalization, I would look to the tobacco industry.

[RainDog]

34. I disagree - cannabis has been part of U.S. culture from the beginning

but - this is something I learned when I grew up - there were lots of things in history that were excluded from the things I learned when I was younger because those facts were "inconvenient."

This is still the case - and the reason it's still the case with cannabis is because of a systemic attempt to demonize a plant. Crazy, huh? yep, it is. This history is pretty fascinating, tho, and provides a great learning experience - if you read up on the longer past as well as the past few decades you will never respect your government again. The abuse of power is simply breathtaking in its inanity.

You have to seek out information about cannabis history and culture prior to the 1960s - of course everyone knows about cannabis use that spread across college campuses and among troops serving in Vietnam - that part of the culture is known. But that's NOT the entire history of cannabis - that's a very narrow view that serves to reinforce stereotypes that allow people to continue to dismiss the abuse of power that is the history of cannabis prohibition.

What has been excluded from history is the fact that cannabis was the most widely-used medicine in the U.S. until 1937. Queen Victoria used cannabis tincture. Abraham Lincoln smoked hemp. So did Franklin and Jefferson.

Cannabis oil was most likely the oil used to anoint people in Biblical stories. "Kineboisin."

If you had been around during the WW2 era you would have seen newsreels about hemp when you went to a movie. If you had been around during the Revolutionary Era you could have paid your taxes with cannabis. If you were around when Lincoln lived you could have shared a pipe with him.

See - the truth is that information is mediated and filtered by a small group of people who own the means of production of that news - this has been the case since the turn of the century in the U.S. - and has only recently (in the last couple of decades) been significantly challenged by the internet. Hearst was one of those people. He also had interests in paper pulp/forestry concerns. It was in his interests to censor history - just as it was in his interests to stir up war fever. Because of the unchecked power he held during his lifetime - this is exactly what he did.

It has been in the interests of a few powerful people to use prohibition of cannabis as a way to suppress voting, as a way to imprison people of color (the numbers who use cannabis are roughly equal across ethnic divisions in the U.S. but blacks and Latinos are disproportionately arrested for possession, for example.) If you have a felony arrest you may not vote in some states.

Alcohol prohibition shares some cannabis history - the targeting of particular ethnic groups, the assumption that, say, the Irish were backward and unteachable - that they had no morals - that they were a threat to American values... it's laughable to see these same tired claims trotted out again and again - and yet they are - on issue after issue.

So what I'm saying is that, if information was shared without a bias, you would know that cannabis has been one of the most important parts of American cultural life since its beginning. The last 70 years are a hiccup of idiocy that I hope will soon end.

[Bullet1987]

13. I agree. It's not going to kill alcohol profits which is why I don't understand the industries

motives. But of course corporation only care about maximum profit, even losing a little when you're making multi-millions isn't good. But it's incorrect to say that marijuana is "all but officially legal." Yes, people who REALLY want to smoke will find a way to, usually through dealers. If marijuana were made legal and stores opened up to sell it, that would be a VERY different thing than the underground market we have today.

[wmbrew0206]

15. I don't live in California, but I thought it was legal for certain stores to sell it

if it is for medicinal purposes. Is that incorrect?

[Occulus]

28. I'd be cutting my beer consumption by more than half.

I'm no kid anymore and the empty calories are slowly catching up to me.

[wmbrew0206]

29. I think the question is how many people are like you and would cut their comsumption?

[Occulus]

31. More than you might think.

I know it's anecdotal, but most of the people I know would be more than happy to trade their beer or mixed drink for a toke or two if they could.

slightly off-topic, but it's going to be very interesting for us here if it passes in CA, as we have a regional, multijurisdictional drug team task force in the area (they seem to answer to no particular central authority), and they loves them some pot busts. They have outright ruined the lives of several people I know. I've gone into debt fighting these jackasses, and I'd just love to light up right in front of them.

I've never seen cannabis use ruin anyone's life- it's always been the fact that it's illegal that does the damage.

[wmbrew0206]

35. Not to get off on a seperate thread, but the question of which is more condusive to a social

environment has to come up.

I agree that pot would be used over alcohol in some situations. However in a social environment on a Friday or Saturday night, how much would pot use take away from alcohol use in these situations? I would guess maybe a couple beers or mix drinks, but not a lot.

The question is, how many beers or mixed drinks? And would it be enough for alcohol companies to fight pot being legal?

FYI, I completely agree about pot being the most healthy way to get a buzz vs alcohol. Very few of the day after effects, but some possible worse effects on the respiratory system.

[Skidmore]

14. It would also threaten the profits of the prison industry and jerk

funding away from local law enforcement agencies which are tasked with its enforcement.

[musiclawyer]

16. Legal Bud will not threaten anything

not alcohol, not cigaretts. People who like those things will continue to use them. Bud will just be ancillary for them. On the other hand us folks, who use a little Bud will probably enjoy more of it ( and pay more taxes) because the crime issue will be gone.

[JNelson6563]

17. There's the meat of the matter.

K&R

[Uncle Joe]

18. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, unhappycamper.

[felix_numinous]

19. It would be interesting to look beyond the alcohol industry

to check if they are being encouraged to front the opposition to legalization. The beer industry is not being threatened by legalization, everyone knows that. Whatever works, even if it is not the truth these days.

[Mz Pip]

22. Pharmaceuticals

probably have some reason to oppose 19, too.

[eShirl]

20. watched "Beer Wars" on Netflix streaming.. the Beer Industry spends more money lobbying than

the gun lobby or tobacco lobby

[TK421]

21. The snack-food industry would boast record profits n/t

[wmbrew0206]

23. If pot legalization does happen, I am putting a lot of money into Pop Tarts and Count Chocula!

And White Castle!

[TK421]

25. Ginos pizza rolls, bacon-horseradish dip...great investments!

[sofa king]

27. We should encourage Doritos to fund a counter-push.

[TK421]

33. And Cheetos...you can't forget about Cheetos!

[GSLevel9]

24. agreed... their lobbyists will work 24/7 to prevent it. nt

[slackmaster]

26. Utter nonsense

People who like alcohol are going to keep drinking it.

People who like to smoke pot already smoke it.

[RadiationTherapy]

30. Bill Hicks: "The war on drugs is actually a war on personal freedom.

Keep that in mind at all times, please. Thankyou."

[Ignis]

32. +++

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZqYV9KKOZQ