thank you. I should have known this comments section would degenerate into discussions about gangs 🙄 ah, but the gangs of coked up boozehound executives continue to roam free, the blood(thirsty capitalist)s and the crip(pling the economy and robbing us all blind)s if you will…
If we're going to talk about the effects of the Drug War, we have to talk about gangs. And money laundering banks, Delaware Corporation real estate tax shelters, and corrupt law enforcement, of course.
uh huh… if you’re talking about distribution networks in the illicit market you do, but if you’re bringing up how “low IQ” people form gangs because they enjoy or gravitate towards violence, as that person was, it’s pretty unnecessary and not really based in reality to my knowledge. gangs might do the heavy lifting of buying from cartels, turning coke into crack, producing (mostly biker gangs with meth), and stepping on product, but studies have pretty consistently shown over the last 20 years that substance abuse is significantly higher in suburbs than inner cities (not a lot of gang activity in suburbs) and rural areas also have higher rates then cities, high rates of alcohol as drug of choice, and substance abuse begins earlier in life. it sounds like you’re talking about looking at the illicit drug trade from a purely economic standpoint, as far as who benefits and how the supply chain operates/persists, and that’s cool, but i tend to focus more on how drug abuse manifests in communities, health outcomes and the societal aspects. gangs and cartels in the drug trade profit off the high demand for drugs in this country, so i think looking at that demand and being real about it makes a lot of sense.
It's imperative to include the social impacts of fueling a massive criminal economy, and the political economy and social milieu of gangland is an integral part of that problem. Declining to address the situation only allows the Drug Warriors who fixate on "how “low IQ” people form gangs because they enjoy or gravitate towards violence" to supply their narrative without contradiction.
You aren't going to oppose that narrative by ignoring it, hand-waving it, or by simply responding with accusatory retorts at the people propounding it. You need to talk about the situation and its ramifications. The Drug Warriors built the Pleasure Island that lures the unwary into the drugs trade and gang life as minors, and then snaps the trap shut once they turn 18. That construction has to be investigated and unpacked. Although personally, I've done enough investigation and unpacking, and I'm long past ready to get on with the dismantling.
There are a lot of twists and turns in the narrative, but the reality is that the Drug War is criminogenic and corrupting. Across the board, low and high. It's as dishonest to view the illicit drugs economy through a lens of accusation as primarily the responsibility of decadent affluent suburbanite consumers as it is to view it as some corrupting influence mysteriously emanating exclusively from "the inner city", etc etc. That just leads to finger pointing and people chasing their tails, and nothing gets accomplished. It's also intolerable to have a criminalization policy in place that for all practical purposes ordains a de facto criminal monopoly over the illicit drugs trade, and then decline to enforce the laws against open retail street dealing, because Social Justice. That's fake policy.
just to be clear, it’s not accusatory to say i’m unsurprised at the trajectory some people will take an honest debate about drug policy, and it’s not my job to make persuasive arguments to every tom dick and harry with an ignorant take. there are plenty of examples of gangs doing horrific things. there are also examples of gangs doing things that are demonstrably positive for the community. does that counteract their overwhelmingly negative actions that endanger and hurt the community? of course not. but that dichotomy is so much of the history organized crime, is the godfather to the sopranos to scarface, is why policy should not carve out space for bad actors and criminal organizations to then exploit their communities and connections for profit. if you really think that legal drug manufacturers have the same responsibility as organized crime affiliates, i disagree. i think resources matter, social acceptance matters, generational wealth matters, risk of violence matters, and in all these nuanced elements that absolutely do impact culpability, there is greater understanding of the economic arguments about drugs. the thing big pharma shares the most with illicit drug trade organizations is the ability to meet a demand for drugs that exists. did cartels in mexico grow to dominate the country by selling drugs to mexican people? no. no they didn’t. that is not even close to where a majority of profits came from. and where did they get the weapons they rely on for social political and economic dominance? oh. that’s right. the us. we give big pharma tools to inflict death and damage too, and these days the cartels ARE moving drugs in mexico - mostly meth, because workers can work longer when they’re on it. i guess i just don’t know why you’re under the impression that suburbanite consumers are responsible for anything except a high demand for drugs, or why you think… that it’s necessary or possible to attribute “blame” to any one geographic group or any other type of group of people when it comes to demand. this is a policy and public health issue, full stop. medicine and drugs are issues that affect humans, human bodies, every society in history. i agree with you on some things but like i said you seem to see policy responses as being primarily driven by economic factors whereas i see policy responses as needing to be driven by public health factors. big pharma isn’t fucked up because drugs are their product nearly as much as they are fucked up because of their political power, their practices, their lack of accountability, the corporatism, the wealth hoarding… like i just see industry issues with big pharma as not entirely sector specific. it’s insurance as well, and it’s deregulated capitalism ultimately. i don’t see gangs as being their street equivalent. i see gangs as a lot of things, but that would be a conversation about societal violence, weak states, community justice and “savage order” types of things (a good book about violence). i used to be the drug dealer for pretty much my whole high school, and i wasn’t in a gang and neither was my plug and neither was his plug. it’s only part of the story and given the complexities of gang violence, the variety of organizations, the factors that have to do with masculinity and lack of opportunity and seeking fraternity, the…idea that selling drugs is “criminal” but murder is CRIMINAL and people are acting like you can talk about both at the same time in a real, ethics centered way… idk man. i just don’t think i’m the person for any convo of the kind you’ve outlined for “deconstructing” when i see the construction pretty differently.
"policy should not carve out space for bad actors and criminal organizations to then exploit their communities and connections for profit."
Agreed. That's my sole point. All the rest is commentary, not directed at you personally but at whatever might be murkying up the process of disconnecting the cables, overturning the tables, and crafting better answers. As a reply to your posts, some of my observations are arguably a bit scattershot. But I'm weary of the issue of the Drug War being sidelined and subordinated as a handy axe-grinding tactic for other, more sweeping political visions and agendas, whether ideological, inchoate, or partisan cosplay.
Something has to be done, on this specific issue. Particularly because the improvement is doable. There are so many issues that defy a ready solution, and require protracted effort. But reforming a disastrous legal code is not one of them.
The Drug War needs to end- and in order to do that, we need a coherent replacement. It isn't as simple as "legalize everything", or any of the other bumper-sticker slogans. Without outlining the specifics of reform with a well-detailed proposal, bashing the Drug War will merely continue to be some empty rhetorical trope, even as it continues on unhindered. Working, as it does, as the dry rot of public policy efforts, and one of the chief motivators of social corrosion and political alienation in this country.
Simply in terms of cannabis law reform, I don't think that drug law reform and regulation should be left in the hands of Big Cannabis. I look at the regulation requirements for growers in legal states, and some of them have "regulatory capture" written all over them. It's interesting that the official regs promoted by the venture capital corporate Big Cannabis Industry is insisting on a level of purity and ingredient profiling that exceeds practically any other agricultural commodity. (And for crying out loud, imagine if similar requirements were to be placed on the tobacco cigar industry.) Those stringent requirements can most easily (and profitably) be fulfilled only by indoor warehouse growing operations. That's ridiculous. Cannabis had very little problem with fungal or insect pest problems- and no requirement for pesticides or herbicides- until it got cultivated in large plots by commercial profiteers, particularly indoors. The electrical power used by indoor operations is an enormous waste of energy, often using carbon-based power. LED lighting only lessens the energy problem somewhat. Nothing beats sunlight.
Cannabis wants to be grown outdoors in optimal microclimates. Its quality is improved by a terroir that allows for a full expression of entourage effects in conjunction with a proper (moderate potency) THC/CBD balance. It wants to get a light dusting of pollen every once in a while, instead of being grown in an ag factory as all-female clones from clones of clones in the name of "product uniformity" and Super THC. Maximum THC content and a friendly, productive, social cannabis high are two entirely different priorities.
The chief advantages of the regulations that favor indoor grows don't accrue to buyers. They accrue to the big investors, who are able to suppress competition by crowding out the cottage industry garden plots of small outdoor cultivators.
Indoor grows are also encouraged by the current status of Federal illegality, because every legal state has to have its in-house source. Massachusetts can't legally import pot from Mendocino.
100% agreed. i think you’re talking about two different sort of… rhetorical priorities. one is related to persuasion and education: most people are busy and not interested in policy specifics, but what they are interested in is propping up criminal networks and generational drug abuse with alcoholism that they have seen and experienced; ditto nicotine. a dark joke between my mom and i is that we have no idea what cancers or diseases “run in our family” because cirrhosis of the liver and emphysema have killed literally every single relative. so i think there’s a lot to work with there so far as, we have age requirements for purchase for a reason, we have regulations, but there are safer drugs that could be used in small quantities for relief, escapism, and as a “social lubricant”. that’s a grassroots thing, that has to happen in communities, and that’s part of the long game. the other thing you’re talking about is the regulatory framework for integration of marijuana and beginning to shift that conversation through federal legislation. i think it’s important to keep in mind with that that like…big weed is a product of deregulated capitalism, and it will remain dominant until more structural campaign finance and lobbying and regulatory issues are addressed and perused. so i see that as pretty much a long game effort too. i think that’s basically what you’re saying, and i agree with the points you’ve made, esp the fucking ridiculous interstate commerce issues this has brought up and the distinction between highest THC levels and good product. drives me crazy the direction VCs took legal weed in so goddamn fast 🫠
When 'potheads' start to murder and rape and torment people the way alcoholics do, we can start viewing the two groups the same.
thank you. I should have known this comments section would degenerate into discussions about gangs 🙄 ah, but the gangs of coked up boozehound executives continue to roam free, the blood(thirsty capitalist)s and the crip(pling the economy and robbing us all blind)s if you will…
If we're going to talk about the effects of the Drug War, we have to talk about gangs. And money laundering banks, Delaware Corporation real estate tax shelters, and corrupt law enforcement, of course.
uh huh… if you’re talking about distribution networks in the illicit market you do, but if you’re bringing up how “low IQ” people form gangs because they enjoy or gravitate towards violence, as that person was, it’s pretty unnecessary and not really based in reality to my knowledge. gangs might do the heavy lifting of buying from cartels, turning coke into crack, producing (mostly biker gangs with meth), and stepping on product, but studies have pretty consistently shown over the last 20 years that substance abuse is significantly higher in suburbs than inner cities (not a lot of gang activity in suburbs) and rural areas also have higher rates then cities, high rates of alcohol as drug of choice, and substance abuse begins earlier in life. it sounds like you’re talking about looking at the illicit drug trade from a purely economic standpoint, as far as who benefits and how the supply chain operates/persists, and that’s cool, but i tend to focus more on how drug abuse manifests in communities, health outcomes and the societal aspects. gangs and cartels in the drug trade profit off the high demand for drugs in this country, so i think looking at that demand and being real about it makes a lot of sense.
It's imperative to include the social impacts of fueling a massive criminal economy, and the political economy and social milieu of gangland is an integral part of that problem. Declining to address the situation only allows the Drug Warriors who fixate on "how “low IQ” people form gangs because they enjoy or gravitate towards violence" to supply their narrative without contradiction.
You aren't going to oppose that narrative by ignoring it, hand-waving it, or by simply responding with accusatory retorts at the people propounding it. You need to talk about the situation and its ramifications. The Drug Warriors built the Pleasure Island that lures the unwary into the drugs trade and gang life as minors, and then snaps the trap shut once they turn 18. That construction has to be investigated and unpacked. Although personally, I've done enough investigation and unpacking, and I'm long past ready to get on with the dismantling.
There are a lot of twists and turns in the narrative, but the reality is that the Drug War is criminogenic and corrupting. Across the board, low and high. It's as dishonest to view the illicit drugs economy through a lens of accusation as primarily the responsibility of decadent affluent suburbanite consumers as it is to view it as some corrupting influence mysteriously emanating exclusively from "the inner city", etc etc. That just leads to finger pointing and people chasing their tails, and nothing gets accomplished. It's also intolerable to have a criminalization policy in place that for all practical purposes ordains a de facto criminal monopoly over the illicit drugs trade, and then decline to enforce the laws against open retail street dealing, because Social Justice. That's fake policy.
just to be clear, it’s not accusatory to say i’m unsurprised at the trajectory some people will take an honest debate about drug policy, and it’s not my job to make persuasive arguments to every tom dick and harry with an ignorant take. there are plenty of examples of gangs doing horrific things. there are also examples of gangs doing things that are demonstrably positive for the community. does that counteract their overwhelmingly negative actions that endanger and hurt the community? of course not. but that dichotomy is so much of the history organized crime, is the godfather to the sopranos to scarface, is why policy should not carve out space for bad actors and criminal organizations to then exploit their communities and connections for profit. if you really think that legal drug manufacturers have the same responsibility as organized crime affiliates, i disagree. i think resources matter, social acceptance matters, generational wealth matters, risk of violence matters, and in all these nuanced elements that absolutely do impact culpability, there is greater understanding of the economic arguments about drugs. the thing big pharma shares the most with illicit drug trade organizations is the ability to meet a demand for drugs that exists. did cartels in mexico grow to dominate the country by selling drugs to mexican people? no. no they didn’t. that is not even close to where a majority of profits came from. and where did they get the weapons they rely on for social political and economic dominance? oh. that’s right. the us. we give big pharma tools to inflict death and damage too, and these days the cartels ARE moving drugs in mexico - mostly meth, because workers can work longer when they’re on it. i guess i just don’t know why you’re under the impression that suburbanite consumers are responsible for anything except a high demand for drugs, or why you think… that it’s necessary or possible to attribute “blame” to any one geographic group or any other type of group of people when it comes to demand. this is a policy and public health issue, full stop. medicine and drugs are issues that affect humans, human bodies, every society in history. i agree with you on some things but like i said you seem to see policy responses as being primarily driven by economic factors whereas i see policy responses as needing to be driven by public health factors. big pharma isn’t fucked up because drugs are their product nearly as much as they are fucked up because of their political power, their practices, their lack of accountability, the corporatism, the wealth hoarding… like i just see industry issues with big pharma as not entirely sector specific. it’s insurance as well, and it’s deregulated capitalism ultimately. i don’t see gangs as being their street equivalent. i see gangs as a lot of things, but that would be a conversation about societal violence, weak states, community justice and “savage order” types of things (a good book about violence). i used to be the drug dealer for pretty much my whole high school, and i wasn’t in a gang and neither was my plug and neither was his plug. it’s only part of the story and given the complexities of gang violence, the variety of organizations, the factors that have to do with masculinity and lack of opportunity and seeking fraternity, the…idea that selling drugs is “criminal” but murder is CRIMINAL and people are acting like you can talk about both at the same time in a real, ethics centered way… idk man. i just don’t think i’m the person for any convo of the kind you’ve outlined for “deconstructing” when i see the construction pretty differently.
"policy should not carve out space for bad actors and criminal organizations to then exploit their communities and connections for profit."
Agreed. That's my sole point. All the rest is commentary, not directed at you personally but at whatever might be murkying up the process of disconnecting the cables, overturning the tables, and crafting better answers. As a reply to your posts, some of my observations are arguably a bit scattershot. But I'm weary of the issue of the Drug War being sidelined and subordinated as a handy axe-grinding tactic for other, more sweeping political visions and agendas, whether ideological, inchoate, or partisan cosplay.
Something has to be done, on this specific issue. Particularly because the improvement is doable. There are so many issues that defy a ready solution, and require protracted effort. But reforming a disastrous legal code is not one of them.
The Drug War needs to end- and in order to do that, we need a coherent replacement. It isn't as simple as "legalize everything", or any of the other bumper-sticker slogans. Without outlining the specifics of reform with a well-detailed proposal, bashing the Drug War will merely continue to be some empty rhetorical trope, even as it continues on unhindered. Working, as it does, as the dry rot of public policy efforts, and one of the chief motivators of social corrosion and political alienation in this country.
Simply in terms of cannabis law reform, I don't think that drug law reform and regulation should be left in the hands of Big Cannabis. I look at the regulation requirements for growers in legal states, and some of them have "regulatory capture" written all over them. It's interesting that the official regs promoted by the venture capital corporate Big Cannabis Industry is insisting on a level of purity and ingredient profiling that exceeds practically any other agricultural commodity. (And for crying out loud, imagine if similar requirements were to be placed on the tobacco cigar industry.) Those stringent requirements can most easily (and profitably) be fulfilled only by indoor warehouse growing operations. That's ridiculous. Cannabis had very little problem with fungal or insect pest problems- and no requirement for pesticides or herbicides- until it got cultivated in large plots by commercial profiteers, particularly indoors. The electrical power used by indoor operations is an enormous waste of energy, often using carbon-based power. LED lighting only lessens the energy problem somewhat. Nothing beats sunlight.
Cannabis wants to be grown outdoors in optimal microclimates. Its quality is improved by a terroir that allows for a full expression of entourage effects in conjunction with a proper (moderate potency) THC/CBD balance. It wants to get a light dusting of pollen every once in a while, instead of being grown in an ag factory as all-female clones from clones of clones in the name of "product uniformity" and Super THC. Maximum THC content and a friendly, productive, social cannabis high are two entirely different priorities.
The chief advantages of the regulations that favor indoor grows don't accrue to buyers. They accrue to the big investors, who are able to suppress competition by crowding out the cottage industry garden plots of small outdoor cultivators.
Indoor grows are also encouraged by the current status of Federal illegality, because every legal state has to have its in-house source. Massachusetts can't legally import pot from Mendocino.
100% agreed. i think you’re talking about two different sort of… rhetorical priorities. one is related to persuasion and education: most people are busy and not interested in policy specifics, but what they are interested in is propping up criminal networks and generational drug abuse with alcoholism that they have seen and experienced; ditto nicotine. a dark joke between my mom and i is that we have no idea what cancers or diseases “run in our family” because cirrhosis of the liver and emphysema have killed literally every single relative. so i think there’s a lot to work with there so far as, we have age requirements for purchase for a reason, we have regulations, but there are safer drugs that could be used in small quantities for relief, escapism, and as a “social lubricant”. that’s a grassroots thing, that has to happen in communities, and that’s part of the long game. the other thing you’re talking about is the regulatory framework for integration of marijuana and beginning to shift that conversation through federal legislation. i think it’s important to keep in mind with that that like…big weed is a product of deregulated capitalism, and it will remain dominant until more structural campaign finance and lobbying and regulatory issues are addressed and perused. so i see that as pretty much a long game effort too. i think that’s basically what you’re saying, and i agree with the points you’ve made, esp the fucking ridiculous interstate commerce issues this has brought up and the distinction between highest THC levels and good product. drives me crazy the direction VCs took legal weed in so goddamn fast 🫠