/biz/ - Business & Finance

What you're missing is that your point is ridiculous. Criminals are just going to keep being criminals.

>>417924
Well, yes, however my question is what exactly will they do now that their main source of income has been taken away from them?

What criminal enterprise, if any, would take its place?

assuming we move to full embrace of drugs, they can all be guinea pigs to make new drugs

if they're big thuggish guys, security

>>417929
>What criminal enterprise, if any, would take its place?
Hopefully, none.
Isn't that kinda the point of pushing to legalize "victimless crimes"?

>>417952
This might apply to the users, but not necessarily to the dealers and distributors. These people are legitimately criminals and engage in other criminal acts aside from the "victimless crimes" you speak of.

They have neither the means nor the willingness to find legitimate work. So what exactly will they do when their only source of income is taken away?

>>417952
he's right but you'll end up with displaced "workers".
What skills does a gangster have for traditional employment?

>>417929
Their main source of income won't be taken away.

If the US gov't ever legalized all drugs they would probably be taxed heavily much like cigarettes. So the manufacturer would pass prices down to the "drug shops" and onto the consumers.

If your street drug dealer was still getting drugs from south of the border tax free, prices on the street would remain the same. They would definitely lose some customers to the legal shops, but a majority I think would seek out their drugs from the source with the cheapest price.

As far as a "safety valve" the stupid uneducated drug dealers who "went legit" would simply turn their business legit. Opening up a small storefront to sell drugs, hiring other uneducated slobs to work the counter, make deliveries. They would find their place in a legal drug world.

>>417962
>but a majority I think would seek out their drugs from the source with the cheapest price.
I certainly agree with that, but I disagree with you that illegal drugs would still be the cheapest source. In fact I think a large proportion of a drug's current cost comes from its illegality. Legal drugs, even if taxed heavily, would likely still be cheaper.

>As far as a "safety valve" the stupid uneducated drug dealers who "went legit" would simply turn their business legit. Opening up a small storefront to sell drugs, hiring other uneducated slobs to work the counter, make deliveries. They would find their place in a legal drug world.
Hmm, well I suppose some of the more clever ones would be capable of this but I imagine that they would be a minority. Why would the businesses of these drugs function any differently than any other business, after all?

>>417962

black market prices are going to be higher, too much risk involved and the markup is fucked up because of import inflation.

Same thing would happen with alcohol prohibition. Once you legalize them the criminal element goes out of business.

Our economy would save a ton on crime, administration costs, policing costs, jail costs, etc

Drug use would probably go down. A lot of drug users are stuck in this feedback loop where drug-dealing is a good source of income for uneducated idiots, they start doing it, then they get hooked on drugs, and the cycle repeats.

Drug dealers also employ a lot of poor shitheads which corrupt our society.
Legalizing drugs would be a great improvement

>>418041
>Same thing would happen with alcohol prohibition
Disagree. The bootleggers came about because of prohibition. And peoples desire for booze which they legally drank for years.

Drugs have always been illegal, so the drug black market won't disappear as quickly (or at all) as the bootleggers did.

>black market prices are going to be higher, too much risk involved and the markup is fucked up because of import inflation.
Why would black market prices be higher? If the cartels and dealers want to stay in business they need to compete with legal private sector "drug stores". You know that if drugs were legalized the gov't would tax the shit out of them, and that all carries over to the consumer.

Black market doesn't pay taxes, so that is a savings right there. Competition drives the free market.

>Drug use would probably go down
Eventually maybe. There would be an influx of people experimenting with softer drugs, once they are legal just because they want to try it. In x number of years, you will see usage drop.

>>417919
Uh, they would keep selling drugs. Only it would be legal so they wouldn't be thrown into prison for it.

They would open a bank account, register an LLC with the state and enjoy their profits because they would be way better at selling drugs than people who hadn't done it before.

>>417962
This is what I was going to say. I used to know a guy who sold weed. He made on average $3,000 a day. He always said his lawyer will have all the paper work ready to sign at the first announcement of legalization.

>>417919
Also bootlegging. Is a big business too. Bigger than drugs. You have a bigger less frowned upon market.

>>418250
Do your homework
>>418257
Do you seriously think they can compete with Big Pharma? Sure they might be on the supply chain like a rite-aid or 7-eleven

>>418273
Multi-billion dollar corporations are going to start producing crack, weed, and speed....?

No

In a fictional world where all drugs are legal, "big pharma" would create better "medical" alternatives. Heroin on the street<-->Oxy in the pharmacy.

There will be street drugs for poor people and designer pharmacy drugs for those with money.

>>418257
Going on history this is highly unlikely. Professional criminals tend to stick to professional crime. There's a reason we don't have Al Capone breweries today. The skills and qualities that allow one to rise in a criminal enterprise are completely different from the skills required of a competitive businessman.

Selling drugs isn't different from selling anything else. Black markets are often supply controlled economies and as such they don't know or care about advertising, market research, or customer satisfaction. You see buisness as having to compete with mobsters, what actually happens is that mobsters now have to compete with every buisnessman that wants a cut of the market. The traditional methods of resolving this issue in a black market is violence and coercion. But since you've removed the illegality of the object there's simply too much competition. A mob can't suppress the much bigger and better organized army of legitimate businessmen that would flood the drug trade.

>>418360
except we don't see that with alcohol. during prohibition you had rot gut liquor that would make you blind, the crack equivalent of that black market. But since legalization you have major brewers, micro brewers, and home brewers. Even the people that make illegal moonshine (mostly to get around ABV limits), make a safer and consistent product than during prohibition, because they now compete with the standards of legal liquor.

In a world where you can buy or make any custom stimulant cocktail you want there is no reason to make crack or meth. The legal market creates a baseline for safety and quality standards.

>>417919
well for one, who exactly would take that risk. As things currently stand, you really can't sue a person if they sold you a drug and you overdosed. With a legalized market, the FDA would have to regulate it. Companies would have to make a safe product. Prices will go up and thus nothing good will come out of that. I'm talking about potent drugs by the way, drugs which are can lead to overdose and are nothing more than chemicals. Pharmaceuticals are highly regulated and have very minute doses, often below the 10% concentration levels. Recreational drugs are used to get high so they need to ingest more till they do. Any unwanted side effects will make those companies liable. Disputes often bring down companies. Banks of companies who get too many chargebacks will cancel the accounts and put them on the The No Merchant list. It is highly problematic. You can't issue protection from liability to companies, as they can and will make a dangerous mistake that leads to deaths. With current pharmaceuticals, no matter what it is, they often dilute it with water to reduce the potency of it and if it is in fact toxic, the toxic is diluted. With drugs, although you can dilute it, people will take it until they achieve a high. No company would want to undertake that. And as for DIY drugs, those in themselves are dangerous as well. So in reality it comes down to safety. Just look at alcohol in itself. Look at the numbers on Jaundice, liver damage, kidney damage, death, overdose, etc. Drugs have even more serious health afflictions. The scales goes weed, tobacco, alcohol and then other drugs. Obviously those 3 are within the parameters of moderate toxins. The others are on a whole different level.

>>418757
>'m talking about potent drugs by the way, drugs which are can lead to overdose and are nothing more than chemicals.
what, everything's a chemical
>. Pharmaceuticals are highly regulated and have very minute doses, often below the 10% concentration levels. Recreational drugs are used to get high so they need to ingest more till they do.
you wut m8
>companies, as they can and will make a dangerous mistake that leads to deaths. With current pharmaceuticals, no matter what it is, they often dilute it with water to reduce the potency of it and if it is in fact toxic, the toxic is diluted. With drugs, although you can dilute it, people will take it until they achieve a high. No company would want to undertake that.
what the fuck are you on about? Of course some drugs are per mcg 1000x more potent than other similar ones, that's not some insightful thing that you have to put 3 times in your post

>>418759
You are a fucking idiot.
They are Hazmat chemicals.
Typical pharmaceutical drugs are only at 10% concentration. If you have 1 mole of HCL, then as a pharmaceutical it will have 9 moles of another chemical to that HCL, a 1:9 mole to mole ration yielding a 10% concentration of HCL.
Okay drugs are potent. If anyone gets sick, companies get sued when someone falls ill, even though it wasn't fully understood what should have happened is my point.

>>418762
>a 1:9 mole to mole ration yielding a 10% concentration of HCL.
10% concentration means that on weight basis it's 10% (10 grams per 100 milliliters total product for example), not on mole basis
>They are Hazmat chemicals.
go back to treehugger

>>418765
haha wow are you that fucking retarded? It's based on moles fucktard. Look it up. Grams are meaningless. Molarity gives us a meaningful approach to concentration.
>10 grams per 100 milliliters lmfao
do you realize you just talked about mass and volume in the same sentence?
Do people actually take you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_concentration
>>They are Hazmat chemicals.
>go back to treehugger
lmfao retard HazMat stands for Hazardous Materials.
http://www.burleighco.com/uploads/cms/177/hazmat-classification.jpg
I'm not making any shit up. That's the legit truth.

>>418782
>do you realize you just talked about mass and volume in the same sentence?
From the wikipedia link you just posted:
>however, more commonly the unit mol/L is used. A solution of concentration 1 mol/L is also denoted as "1 molar" (1 M).
I feel like I'm getting trolled. Did you finish high school yet?

ttyl, g2g

>>418784
Dude you are a total moron. A mole is actually the amount of atoms in a given quantity. You only use grams to calculate that. Mass and volume produce density, not concentration.

>>417957
Walmart greeter.

Brightening families' days.

>ITT: Science majors.

It would function just like most other products (probably with a few extra regulation, like with tobacco or alcohol).

>What would the unemployed people to
They would either adapt or starve. It isn't a case of them seeking legitimate work, drug dealing is a source of income, they would seek another source of income legitimate or not.

>Necessary safety value for uneducated,
No. Drug dealing is the best source of income for their given time and qualification. When they lose that, they go back into the job market (Legal or otherwise) and employers (again, legal or otherwise) would start hiring people at a reduced wage, given the increased competition.

Very few criminals do crime for their passion for crime. They do it because it is the best source of income for them for their given resources. Legalising drugs would not create a crime spree, (though some of them will switch to other questionable sources, drug dealers aren't murderers. The neighbourhood wouldn't descend into Gotham City). Some of them will go the legitimate route.

>>417924
Actually I'm not so sure. Most dealers I've known and used are college or school students, often otherwise law-abiding. If they couldn't deal they'd just get jobs.

>>417919
They would have no choice but to seek out legitimate work, normal types of crime like robbery and other shit doesn't pay nearly as well as selling drugs.

>yes, they actually will go get a job

It'd cost a shit on of money if all these drugs were legalised.

Want heroin/crack, utterly useless in life: Steal
>Increased policing needed
>Insurance losses to increased crime
>Increased insurance premiums
>Increased healthcare costs associated with overdosing
>Increased healthcare costs associated with poor diet
>Reduced efficiency of workforce

>>418846
except that's bullshit and you know it

>>418852
Nope. the working classes won;t be able to afford the drugs regularly and in high enough doses to keep them satisfied. It's not like tobacco.

>>418846
You're just assuming many more people would use if it were legal, but citation heavily needed, it doesn't necessarily follow.

>>418866
So where is this artificial price increase going to come from? It's like buying a can of fucking spinache to eat every week.

The only reason it would be overly expensive is government restrictions and taxes on producing it.

Which will in turn cause many of the same symptoms as the war on drugs does, not as severe, but some of them.

>>418884
And when the symptoms return because Heroin is legal but the price of a hit jumped up to $40, the only solution the big government Democrat criminals will propose is to enslave them again, expand the government and police state even more, etc.

>>418866

Are you stupid?

Drugs are more expensive on the streets than in a regulated market

I will compare my own country Denmark and Holland:

In Denmark cannabis is illegal and the cheapest kind of hashish you can find is around 5-6 Euros for a gram, and that is bad bad hash which tastes like the gasoline they use to extract the oil. Buying at a good dealer or in large amounts can of course drive down the costs, but now we are looking at the raw gram price

When you go to Amsterdam, which is a tourist cannabis mekka, you can buy a gram of cheap hash for 3,5-4,5 Euros, and the quality is of the same that you would give 6-7-8-9 Euros for in Denmark (I should know, have visited Amsterdam numerous times and smoke weed often and have been/somtimes are a daily smoker)

Point is: quality goes up and price goes down when drugs get decriminalized. The organised criminals take as much in overprice as the state would take in taxes and then some.

>>418891
In this scenario prices on things like Opium or Heroin would be low because if they weren't, every tom dick and jimbob like me could grow a field full of it and introduce more supply and competition.

If the restrictions and taxes include where it can be produced, the price may very well be shit and then the government will try to re-introduce the war on drugs with even more police state and big government nanny-statism spending.

In a free market like in Colorado, the prices would be low.

>>418725
This man is correct.

>>417919
>economic growth from new legitimate business enterprise
And what are these people going to do if drugs aren't legalized? How do you know it won't introduce fewer jobs than it removes?

I would assume the dug dealers and thugs would add such things to their resume' I know if I owned a dispensary I would hire such people who can almost as a second nature can grow, gather, and separate the product. Perfectly rolled joints for purchase and still the authentic feel of buying from a dealer. Idea! A legal weed shop where the interior looks like a street corner or an alleyway and the counter guy is all thugged up and is an ACTUAL drug dealer so people can have the authentic drug buyin experience. As an option of course.

>>418915
That's a stupid idea because most people don't have that kind of drug buying experience, also they would wish to avoid that situation entirely.

They want clean CVS pharmacies and gas stations selling bomb ass weed.

>>417919
drugs are a big part but criminals will always find some kind of crime to do to make money where there a will there a way

The prison situation won't benefit anyone, they're going to pose an absolutely massive legislative nightmare. What do you do with all the people in prison for marijuana possession? What about those that are in for life because of a three strikes felony possession conviction?

It seems like "let them out" is the obvious answer, but it is much more complicated than that, and appellate courts would likely be bogged down for years to come.

>>419086
Ideally temporary courts or committees would likely be established. To find people who only have drug charges on their record and immediately exonerating them, and leaving the more complicated three strike situations to the regular appeals process.

Even with decriminalization I would expect some states to be major dicks about it though. Especially for people with a charge like resisting arrest. It has been argued before, successfully, that a conviction for that can still stick even in the case of an illegal arrest, so getting exonerated for your drug crime may not matter that much if your initial conviction was heavily padded with such charges.