Study: Legalizing pot won't hinder Mexican cartels

arthurdentarthurdent Posts: 969
edited October 2010 in A Moving Train
By MARTHA MENDOZA
Associated Press Writer


SANTA CRUZ, Calif. (AP) -- Mexico's drug traffickers are likely to lose customers in America's largest pot consuming state if California legalizes marijuana, but they won't lose much money overall because California's residents already prefer to grow their own, according to a study released Tuesday.

That means the proposal on the state's November ballot to legalize marijuana also will do little to quell the drug gangs' violent and sophisticated organizations that generate billions of dollars a year, according to the study by the nonpartisan RAND Drug Policy Research Center.

Californians, who make up one-seventh of the U.S. marijuana market, already are farming marijuana at a much higher rate than in neighboring states and tend to buy domestic rather than smuggled marijuana, the study found.

"We're already growing our own in California, so it's hard to see how we'd impact Mexico's market all that much," agreed Valerie Corral, a Santa Cruz, Calif., pot grower whose farm north of the city provides medical marijuana to members of a cooperative she helped found.

California voters will decide next month whether to legalize and tax their own recreational use of marijuana. The measure is closely watched in Mexico, where more than 28,000 people have died in drug violence since Mexico's President Felipe Calderon launched his crackdown on organized crime in late 2006. Both Calderon and President Barack Obama agree the vast profits cartels collect in the U.S. - estimated between $18 billion and $35 billion a year - fuel drug wars south of the border.

RAND found that less than $2 billion of those profits come from marijuana, though, and only about 3 percent of Mexican marijuana sales are in California.

Proponents of the proposition say they want to lower prison costs and find new revenue from marijuana taxes, and that the measure could reduce violence associated with the illegal drug trade in California and Mexico.

The Obama administration disagrees, and U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske told The Associated Press that the new study backs them up.

"This report shows that despite the millions spent on marketing the idea, legalized marijuana won't reduce the revenue or violence generated by Mexican drug trafficking organizations," said Kerlikowske, head of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. "The bottom line is that increased access and availability to marijuana jeopardizes the health and safety of our citizens."

Some former law enforcement officials, however, said it's hard to imagine there wouldn't be major cartel profits at stake.

"It's ridiculous to claim that ending prohibition won't have a big financial impact on these violent criminals' bottom lines," said Stephen Downing, a supporter of Prop. 19 and a former Los Angeles Police Department deputy chief of police.

But the RAND study concludes the only way to cut into the cartels' profits would be the unlikely scenario of legal marijuana growers taking over cartel distribution elsewhere in the U.S. Under that scenario, Mexican drug trafficking organizations, currently providing at least half the marijuana in the U.S., would lose roughly 20 percent of their total drug export revenues. Their remaining profits from more lucrative drugs like cocaine and heroin would continue to flow.

"If that happens, then legalization could reduce some of the Mexican drug violence in the long run," said Beau Kilmer, the study's lead author and co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center.

But the study authors said they don't believe the federal government will stand idly by if home-grown smugglers were to capture the entire national market now held by Mexico-sourced marijuana.

"It would be difficult not to notice that the quantities produced and perhaps even taxed were vastly larger than what is needed to supply the California market alone," said the study.

But some say it's already beginning to happen.

"Smuggling in the U.S will be easy, as marijuana can be shipped to consumers in other states through our mail system, said economist John Carnevale, a drug policy expert who has worked with the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy for three administrations. "There is anecdotal information that this is already occurring."

Former San Jose, Calif., police chief Joseph McNamara says the proposed law's key goal isn't aimed at resolving Mexico's drug violence, and questioned RAND's assumptions about marijuana use and sales.

"Can a state facing a $19 billion dollar deficit casually pass up a chance to tax a product that escapes taxation only because it is illegal?" he asked.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Did they only use Humbolt county as an example? People in SoCal are not growing their own personal stashes.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • eyedclaareyedclaar Posts: 6,980
    So who is smoking that crap? I don't even know where to find shitty mexican weed these days. I live in the "green belt" though...
    Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer

    Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:

    https://www.createspace.com/3437020

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696

    http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Jason P wrote:
    Did they only use Humbolt county as an example? People in SoCal are not growing their own personal stashes.

    I think you might be supperised at how many grow personal stash.

    Godfather.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Militarize the border with troops from Iraq/SK/Afghanistan wherever else, and defend with deadly force. They will get the hint after a few thousand die for a bag of weed.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    why don't we start chopping people hands off for theft to? and beheading, we should just get some guillotenes and put em to use.


    why stop at murdering someone for a plant?
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    It can be grown here. Have you not seen how many have been killed in that shithole country because of that "plant"?

    End their ability to get it here and legalize it to be grown and sold here and we'd be doing them a favor.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    unsung wrote:
    It can be grown here. Have you not seen how many have been killed in that shithole country because of that "plant"?

    End their ability to get it here and legalize it to be grown and sold here and we'd be doing them a favor.
    if you legalize it here that would probably be enough to end the import of mexican weed.


    its really just terrible weed, and its fairly easy to grow top class weed in your basement. nobody would be buying that crap, they'd have no reason to try to bring it in. no need to call in rambo with shoot to kill orders.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I think more is coming across that border than a little grass.

    I do not support legalization of cocaine/heroin/etc.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    unsung wrote:
    I think more is coming across that border than a little grass.

    I do not support legalization of cocaine/heroin/etc.
    ...
    Or the one thing we can proudly proclaim that is still being 'Made is U.S.A.'... Methamphetamines.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • arqarq Posts: 8,049
    unsung wrote:
    I do not support legalization of cocaine/heroin/etc.

    Why not? :|
    "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"
    Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    arq wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    I do not support legalization of cocaine/heroin/etc.

    Why not? :|
    good question
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    So? Is that the intent of the bill? Why is AP (or this reporter) spinning this into a Mexican cartel issue? I haven't read the whole thing, but it doesn't sound like it was meant to study the effects on the Mexican cartels.

    Here is a link to a pdf of the report here:

    http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP315/

    Key findings include the following: (1) the pretax retail price of marijuana will substantially decline, likely by more than 80 percent. The price the consumers face will depend heavily on taxes, the structure of the regulatory regime, and how taxes and regulations are enforced; (2) consumption will increase, but it is unclear how much, because we know neither the shape of the demand curve nor the level of tax evasion (which reduces revenues and prices that consumers face); (3) tax revenues could be dramatically lower or higher than the $1.4 billion estimate provided by the California Board of Equalization (BOE); for example, uncertainty about the federal response to California legalization can swing estimates in either direction; (4) previous studies find that the annual costs of enforcing marijuana laws in California range from around $200 million to nearly $1.9 billion; our estimates show that the costs are probably less than $300 million; and (5) there is considerable uncertainty about the impact of legalizing marijuana in California on public budgets and consumption, with even minor changes in assumptions leading to major differences in outcomes.

    So…..
    (1) we THINK the price will come down, depending heavily on pretty much everything. But 80% is a good round number.
    (2) we think consumption will increase, but it depends on everything else, including (1)
    (3) Tax revenues…well, we don’t know what will happen with them. Depends.
    (4) Some people think we can either save a lot, or a LOT of money by not enforcing prohibition. this is the only ‘key finding’ listed with any quantitative data to work from, yet our estimates vary by 600%...so we’re gonna go with ‘a lot’ instead of ‘A LOT’.
    (5)Just to confirm, we don’t know what’s gonna happen. Depends.

    What a crock of shit, waste of time and money. And RAND might be non-partisan, but it is 100% establishment-influenced.


    … said Kerlikowske, head of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. "The bottom line is that increased access and availability to marijuana jeopardizes the health and safety of our citizens."
    :roll:
    Health? Maybe. Safety? No. Prohibition does much more to make your citizens unsafe.
    You can pretty much rest assured that any words coming out of a Drug Czar’s mouth are total bullshit. Will be interesting to watch the fed’s reaction to this moving forward.

    Commy wrote:
    arq wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    I do not support legalization of cocaine/heroin/etc.

    Why not? :|
    good question
    Maybe because it gives him an excuse to support shooting Mexicans at the border?
Sign In or Register to comment.