Legalizing drugs cuts crime in two ways. Directly, by reclassifying a bunch of formerly criminal drug users as just drug users. But also indirectly: it makes them cheap, which makes them unattractive targets for organized crime. If western politicians could just get over their taboos about drug use and let idiots stuff themselves with whatever drugs they like, not just nicotine and alcohol, we would make the US richer and safer.
And this isn't a hypothetical: more than 12 years ago, Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs -- from marijuana to heroin -- and plowed the money saved by no longer jailing addicts into treating them. The result has been lower rates of addiction and HIV infection, and higher rates of treatment:
Now possession is a misdemeanor, like a traffic violation, punishable by a fine or community service, and accompanied by a screening for risk factors of addiction, with encouragement to enter treatment programs:
It hasn't been a magic bullet, but nor has it been a disaster. And what is a disaster is the current policy: drug money fuels endless violence and murder inside the US and across central and southern America.
The social fabric of my home country (Trinidad & Tobago) is being torn apart by violence from drug trafficking, and there's nothing we can do about it as long as the amount of money to be made by risking the drug trade is so enormous. We can't lower the price, because we are not the market: the US is.
I wish more people in the US were aware that their paying $100/gram for the occasional fun evening is paying for murder on the streets of my home town. And I wish more people realized they don't have to stop taking cocaine; they just have to lower the damn price.
You missed a third way, and possibly the most important. When something goes wrong in an illegal activity, the justice/legal system can't be used to address the situation. For example if someone gets shortchanged, fails to pay, or supplies product of a different quality than expected.
Having to get justice outside of the legal system is a driver behind violence and other additional illegal acts.
I lived for years right by the Haight entrance to GGP. I wouldn't call the participants in the drug scene there hippies. There were a lot more crusties and gutter punk types, along with stereotypical thug dudes and tweakers. A lot of people were really aggro and there was some sort of fight nearly every day. A friend of mine would buy her pot over there and her dealer was a clean cut looking late 20s guy from the avenues, who used a cane because he had been shot in the leg. Gun violence didn't seem very hippie to me, either.
One of the odder things to me about the area (everything was odd to some degree, including my presence there) was that there was so much drug activity right next to the police station.
The more stereotypical flower children hang out inside the park a bit at Hippie Hill. (Some SF old-timers use the word hippie for any sort of 'street punk'.)
I feel like you missed the tongue-in-cheek aspect of this article.
It's essentially a list of positive changes stemming from legalizing marijuana under the guise of "unintended consequences" (the poor hippies!) that will also seem beneficial to many.
The funny thing is that the farms that supply dispensaries need labor and often pay under the table. One of these kids could make a few hundred bucks a day for a week trimming and then use that cash to do a fair bit of traveling. Nobody is getting disenfranchised here, it's just a bit for the article to get your attention.
EDIT: What is with people deleting comments lately? So you're comprehension on a subject wasn't perfect and sparked a discussion, big deal! It's nothing to be embarrassed about, people make mistakes. Look at my past comments, I say stupid crap all the time and nobody has taken my keyboard away....
> Unlike that issue, the main issue is whether the weed is harmful to its users.
I am pretty sure if (I'd love to say when but let's be realistic) we get proper legalization (as opposed to decriminalization), we will have to start considering regulation on smoking marijuana just like we need to regulate smoking tobacco. Perhaps not as much as smoking tobacco because we know that second-hand tobacco smoke can cause cancer but there might be further discussion on how far this freedom takes us. We might still force people to go on smoke breaks to smoke rather than let them smoke at their desks.
Do you know if the smoke "sticks" to the paint on the walls like tobacco smoke tends to do? Is comparison to tobacco even fair? Sorry, I have to resort to asking others as I don't have much personal experience in this matter.
I think it's extremely interesting. At least in California, hippies have had a lot to do with the advocacy of weed as a benign recreational drug over several decades, so they deserve a share of the credit for the quasi-legal status the drug now has. They took on most of the legal risk and while exemplifying the positive aspects (by being 'mostly harmless,' so to speak) so that you could enjoy this freedom, whether or not you personally choose to exercise it.
I feel like the topics Priceonomics covers have been getting less interesting over time. I suppose that's natural for a content engine, but this piece left me feeling sort of disenchanted.
I'm used to graphs and visualizations on Priceonomics, and there was a distinct lack of hard data from this piece. It felt much more subjective than what I'm used to.
In short, I don't doubt the conclusion, but this doesn't feel like a normal priceonomics piece. Just my $.02.
Yes. It's not just the decline of quality analysis/execution, but the actual topics are becoming dumber (and more overtly political). I wish they had a way to filter based on bylines. Generally the articles by Rohin Dhar are awesome.
Imagine for a moment if meth were legalized -- production would move beyond shady basements with lax safety measures, distribution would move beyond inner-city gangs and other unpleasant cartels, consumption would move beyond lonely apartments and back-alleys, and storage would move beyond dirty needles and shoddy pipes (it could even be refined into pills).
Now realize that the entire pharmaceuticals industry is born from this desire for safe production, distribution, consumption, and storage of drugs -- and the hypocrisy of selective drug prohibition.
If all drugs were legal, would people still take meth?
I suspect meth is abundant now because of logistical reasons i.e. it can be manufactured in the country it is sold, using precursors that can also be obtained there (legally or otherwise), rather than having to grow plants (coca, poppies, marijuana) which can be seized whilst growing or being imported from overseas.
A good drug policy would make meth seem like the bad idea that it is by providing superior alternatives.
I know I'm treading on very thin water here, but meth in and of itself isn't terrible. A small dosage will give a similar reaction as Ritalin. Were meth legal, Silicon Valley would be drowning in it, and not for 3 night binges.
Just wanted to point out that drugs are insufflated, smoked, or taken intravenously so that the chemicals enter the bloodstream and hit the brain quickly (so I'm not sure tablet meth would be a big hit).
Meth is a very destructive addictive substance. Legalized, it would addict and harm more people than pain pills, and not really add any benefit to society or individuals. The gang violence from keeping it illegal isn't too bad now, is it?
It is always a rough transition when government changes its policy to one of more morality and fairness. Protected business interests who have shaped their business model around shitty laws now are at a disadvantage to businesses that can spring up around new rules. That doesn't mean our laws shouldn't change for the better.
I don't think you're supposed to care. I just think its an interesting observation for a couple reasons.
One, there's modest historical significance to the hippie movement, especially in SF. Hippie culture dying out is news worthy.
Two (less interesting, more obvious), is to note that people who sold drugs illegally are hurt by legalization. That's not given, it's possible that people who sold drugs illegally would be the same people who sold drugs legally .. but that doesn't seem to be the case (or more interesting, the profit margin got squashed).
I don't think the article asking for your sympathy. Its showing (rather than telling) how effective legalization is and how many positives have come as a result
Where is the post about people working for an entire year to go on vacation for a few weeks?
Yes, rough life these guys, selling plants for extremely high prices so they can do fun stuff with the money they took.
Almost sounds like capitalists.
I agree, but there's a qualitative difference here, in that the hippies that are the subject of this story don't tend to kill or even beat up people. I've never sold any weed, but I've known enough hippies to recognize that they're basically benign black market traders rather than organized criminals, and the fact that they are sidelined in a new market is a problem for them.
Lots of people (who were not hippies) were interested in buying weed, while hippies were happy to supply the willingness to take a moderate legal risk. However, non-hippies aren't all that interested in other things that hippies like, such as hemp weaving or handicrafts - at least, not to the extent of providing hippies with any sort of livable income. So the choice is to either supply other, more risky markets - in other states, or with 'harder' and potentially more dangerous drugs - or find some other kind of employment. But other kinds of employment aren't really compatible with being a hippie, and while I don't think that's a fantastic thing to aspire to I respect that some people would rather live simpler, non-materialistic lives, or part of their their lives, and this is increasingly hard to do in a society that fetishizes private property.
My gut feeling is that it hasn't happened yet because the total payoff (I'm talking money) is worse than the status quo.
The problem with substance consumption is that it's an asymmetric negotiation. The consumer is the weakest link (for obvious reasons), so the dealers have the upper hand. You don't even need to look at illegal drugs, just look at pharma industry for an example of that.
Legalization only benefits the consumer, who have access to a better product at a lower price and zero risk. Also, creates low wage jobs. To everyone else involved (and that's a lot of people: farmers, cooks, dealers, truck drivers, cops, politicians, even consumers who sell to friends), it's the most interesting that it stays illegal.
The tendency with weed legalization is for dealers to start moving a better high, not go bankrupt. The tendency of consumers is to look for a better high also. In the places where weed is legalized, you now have higher THC breeds and hash oil. It's a forever regulation struggle (are these harmful? can it still be classified as pot?).
Legalizing weed will certainly affect organized crime in Mexico but it won't be significant. There are plenty of other drugs and other criminal activities from which organized crime gets income. Other important thing to consider is that Narco Culture is pretty strong in Mexico. This people will not stop being involved in criminal activities just because their income dropped. Moreover there will always be people willing to become involved in criminal activities, not to become rich but to make a living wage.
Hahaha. The problem here was that there was no free market in the first place. The Hippies are more akin to your cable company or some other state sanctioned monopoly or oligopoly now being opened up to real market forces. Inflated profits due to protection almost never ends well.
One of the main reasons that cannabis has failed to be fully legalized in California is because greedy dealers want the industry to stay small and contained. I remember seeing tons of "Vote No" signs in Mendocino and Sonoma counties regarding legalization (which are huge cultivation areas,) and have known many growers and distributors who were vehemently against legalizing it.
Huge cultivation areas but very low population areas. According to [1] - those areas had no significant effect on the vote. But lobbying by Prison Guard and Police Unions, and Alcohol companies (!) did.
Priceonomics sure seems to have a high regard for its belly-button lint. Their motto is "Priceonomics: The Price Guide for Everything," ...and the value guide for nothing, I presume.
Here in Priceonomics’s home city of San Francisco, however, legalization is also eroding the easy drug profits that have been a lifeline to the remnants of the hippy scene.
Yes, lets all lament the demise of the "Haighth"[1], while ignoring the political, artistic and, well, non-weed legacies of the late-60s San Francisco subcultural landscape.
I don't think you can disentangle them. I used to be close friends (until I moved abroad) with the then-head of the Haight St. merchant's association, who had opened up the first 'head shop' there and had been intimately involved with the cultural scene there since the 60s, often as curator and sponsor, as well as with a lot of political issues (beyond the scope of a HN comment). That guy arrived in SF as a young man during the summer of love and made his seed money selling LSD before setting up a more conventional business, and I presume weed as well. I don't think you can sensibly the political and cultural changes in isolation from the recreational drug use.
Could the reverse of the gateway drug theory be true? If marijuana and "lighter" narcotics were to be legalized, might potential addicts and users flock to those drugs instead of riskier substances like cocaine or heroin?
Perhaps but another key point is that mj is a gateway for dealers more than anything else. Removing it as an entry point into the biz will almost certainly mean fewer players in the biz, I believe.
News at 11. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Since Idaho is so behind the times on the legalization front, hippies are most welcome here. So if any hippies are reading this, there are many markets opening in the gateway states that lie between the cool states. Another way to look at this is, marijuana legalization will lead to the liberalization of the states that are behind the times, which is probably why fogies are fighting against it so vehemently.
For every sad Hippy in the 1st World there's hopefully 100 great stories in ravaged 2nd world countries up to their eyeballs in corruption funded by the distorted profits of an illegal trade. Maybe Marijuana really will be the "gateway drug" The first drug that marches us towards a path of i) legalizing, ii) taxing, iii) treating addicts and iv) reducing prison populations.
“The hippy kids used to be able to sell their weed real easy at high prices,” he tells us. “There were lots of customers and they made enough in a few days to travel for a few weeks. Now though...”
"Many are homeless by choice: Some are the transient underemployed or unemployed that hop railcars across the country."
Very disappointing to see no data of any kind on the Good Old Days other than the word of some people they met in a park in San Francisco. Needless to say, their word is extremely unreliable.
Two claims specifically are pretty obvious exaggerations/blatant lies:
That a marijuana dealer can make 4-times more selling in New York than in California[1]. And that street kids used to make enough in a few days to travel for weeks[2].
[1] Unless the difference is purely a matter of volume, price alone cannot account for that big of a difference, as the article seems to imply. Marijuana is more expensive in New York but it's nowhere near 4-times more expensive.
[2] I sold marijuana in the bay area in the timeframe referenced in the article, between roughly 1999 and 2001 (in the dorms, to friends and friends of friends and friends of friends of friends etc). Yes the prices were higher than they are today ($50 an 8th was standard) but wholesale prices were also much higher. In the end I was lucky to clear $100 an ounce, after smoking myself - which the street kids surely do. They'd have to have been selling a half pound or more per day at full retail to make the claim even remotely possible.
And a small piece of anecdotal evidence - I went to Haight Ashbury in search of some weed not long ago. I asked some street kids near the park. I was quoted $60 an 8th and they were unwilling to bargain. The quality was low - probably over 100% markup from what they paid. Those kinds of margins were not possible in the Good Old Days glorified in this piece.
Cliffs: don't take the word of street hippies on how great things were in the past.
That said, people who bum around can go a long time on very little cash. Imagine if you only had to pay for food and sometimes got it free crashing with friends with chickens, etc.. Housing - crashing places, parks outside, tents, etc.. Transportation - hopping trains.
[+] [-] seldo|12 years ago|reply
And this isn't a hypothetical: more than 12 years ago, Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs -- from marijuana to heroin -- and plowed the money saved by no longer jailing addicts into treating them. The result has been lower rates of addiction and HIV infection, and higher rates of treatment:
http://www.alternet.org/story/151635/ten_years_ago_portugal_...
Now possession is a misdemeanor, like a traffic violation, punishable by a fine or community service, and accompanied by a screening for risk factors of addiction, with encouragement to enter treatment programs:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...
It hasn't been a magic bullet, but nor has it been a disaster. And what is a disaster is the current policy: drug money fuels endless violence and murder inside the US and across central and southern America.
The social fabric of my home country (Trinidad & Tobago) is being torn apart by violence from drug trafficking, and there's nothing we can do about it as long as the amount of money to be made by risking the drug trade is so enormous. We can't lower the price, because we are not the market: the US is.
I wish more people in the US were aware that their paying $100/gram for the occasional fun evening is paying for murder on the streets of my home town. And I wish more people realized they don't have to stop taking cocaine; they just have to lower the damn price.
[+] [-] rogerbinns|12 years ago|reply
Having to get justice outside of the legal system is a driver behind violence and other additional illegal acts.
[+] [-] rdouble|12 years ago|reply
One of the odder things to me about the area (everything was odd to some degree, including my presence there) was that there was so much drug activity right next to the police station.
[+] [-] fizx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flomo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tankbot|12 years ago|reply
It's essentially a list of positive changes stemming from legalizing marijuana under the guise of "unintended consequences" (the poor hippies!) that will also seem beneficial to many.
The funny thing is that the farms that supply dispensaries need labor and often pay under the table. One of these kids could make a few hundred bucks a day for a week trimming and then use that cash to do a fair bit of traveling. Nobody is getting disenfranchised here, it's just a bit for the article to get your attention.
EDIT: What is with people deleting comments lately? So you're comprehension on a subject wasn't perfect and sparked a discussion, big deal! It's nothing to be embarrassed about, people make mistakes. Look at my past comments, I say stupid crap all the time and nobody has taken my keyboard away....
[+] [-] 3825|12 years ago|reply
I am pretty sure if (I'd love to say when but let's be realistic) we get proper legalization (as opposed to decriminalization), we will have to start considering regulation on smoking marijuana just like we need to regulate smoking tobacco. Perhaps not as much as smoking tobacco because we know that second-hand tobacco smoke can cause cancer but there might be further discussion on how far this freedom takes us. We might still force people to go on smoke breaks to smoke rather than let them smoke at their desks.
Do you know if the smoke "sticks" to the paint on the walls like tobacco smoke tends to do? Is comparison to tobacco even fair? Sorry, I have to resort to asking others as I don't have much personal experience in this matter.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|12 years ago|reply
Whether weed is harmful or not is totally irrelevant to what the article presents.
Zealotry is stupid, be it pro or anti weed.
[+] [-] rwmj|12 years ago|reply
Edit: You (probably) do want control cannabis sales to teenagers. Citation: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201208...
[+] [-] josh2600|12 years ago|reply
I'm used to graphs and visualizations on Priceonomics, and there was a distinct lack of hard data from this piece. It felt much more subjective than what I'm used to.
In short, I don't doubt the conclusion, but this doesn't feel like a normal priceonomics piece. Just my $.02.
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ihsw|12 years ago|reply
Now realize that the entire pharmaceuticals industry is born from this desire for safe production, distribution, consumption, and storage of drugs -- and the hypocrisy of selective drug prohibition.
[+] [-] wycx|12 years ago|reply
I suspect meth is abundant now because of logistical reasons i.e. it can be manufactured in the country it is sold, using precursors that can also be obtained there (legally or otherwise), rather than having to grow plants (coca, poppies, marijuana) which can be seized whilst growing or being imported from overseas.
A good drug policy would make meth seem like the bad idea that it is by providing superior alternatives.
[+] [-] ebiester|12 years ago|reply
It would be Erdos-style addiction.
[+] [-] jbronn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oinksoft|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] axus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j2d3|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unethical_ban|12 years ago|reply
It is always a rough transition when government changes its policy to one of more morality and fairness. Protected business interests who have shaped their business model around shitty laws now are at a disadvantage to businesses that can spring up around new rules. That doesn't mean our laws shouldn't change for the better.
[+] [-] riggins|12 years ago|reply
I don't think you're supposed to care. I just think its an interesting observation for a couple reasons.
One, there's modest historical significance to the hippie movement, especially in SF. Hippie culture dying out is news worthy.
Two (less interesting, more obvious), is to note that people who sold drugs illegally are hurt by legalization. That's not given, it's possible that people who sold drugs illegally would be the same people who sold drugs legally .. but that doesn't seem to be the case (or more interesting, the profit margin got squashed).
[+] [-] laxatives|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notjustanymike|12 years ago|reply
Man, rough life. I really feel for those guys...
[+] [-] Freestyler_3|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
Lots of people (who were not hippies) were interested in buying weed, while hippies were happy to supply the willingness to take a moderate legal risk. However, non-hippies aren't all that interested in other things that hippies like, such as hemp weaving or handicrafts - at least, not to the extent of providing hippies with any sort of livable income. So the choice is to either supply other, more risky markets - in other states, or with 'harder' and potentially more dangerous drugs - or find some other kind of employment. But other kinds of employment aren't really compatible with being a hippie, and while I don't think that's a fantastic thing to aspire to I respect that some people would rather live simpler, non-materialistic lives, or part of their their lives, and this is increasingly hard to do in a society that fetishizes private property.
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|12 years ago|reply
The problem with substance consumption is that it's an asymmetric negotiation. The consumer is the weakest link (for obvious reasons), so the dealers have the upper hand. You don't even need to look at illegal drugs, just look at pharma industry for an example of that.
Legalization only benefits the consumer, who have access to a better product at a lower price and zero risk. Also, creates low wage jobs. To everyone else involved (and that's a lot of people: farmers, cooks, dealers, truck drivers, cops, politicians, even consumers who sell to friends), it's the most interesting that it stays illegal.
The tendency with weed legalization is for dealers to start moving a better high, not go bankrupt. The tendency of consumers is to look for a better high also. In the places where weed is legalized, you now have higher THC breeds and hash oil. It's a forever regulation struggle (are these harmful? can it still be classified as pot?).
[+] [-] chrischen|12 years ago|reply
It is a $30 billion dollar industry after all. [1]
[1] http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexicos-drug-war/p13689
[+] [-] jorgecastillo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icpmacdo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] applecore|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omni_|12 years ago|reply
One of the main reasons that cannabis has failed to be fully legalized in California is because greedy dealers want the industry to stay small and contained. I remember seeing tons of "Vote No" signs in Mendocino and Sonoma counties regarding legalization (which are huge cultivation areas,) and have known many growers and distributors who were vehemently against legalizing it.
[+] [-] ojbyrne|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Humboldt-Life-Americas-Marijuana-Front...
[+] [-] ctdonath|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|12 years ago|reply
Here in Priceonomics’s home city of San Francisco, however, legalization is also eroding the easy drug profits that have been a lifeline to the remnants of the hippy scene.
Yes, lets all lament the demise of the "Haighth"[1], while ignoring the political, artistic and, well, non-weed legacies of the late-60s San Francisco subcultural landscape.
1. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=haighth
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
tl;dr it's totally interconnected, man.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Apocryphon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redwood|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zackmorris|12 years ago|reply
News at 11. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Since Idaho is so behind the times on the legalization front, hippies are most welcome here. So if any hippies are reading this, there are many markets opening in the gateway states that lie between the cool states. Another way to look at this is, marijuana legalization will lead to the liberalization of the states that are behind the times, which is probably why fogies are fighting against it so vehemently.
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dobbsbob|12 years ago|reply
In Canada price of weed dropped to $80/120 per oz of AAA kush since washington legalized and more exports come out of california
[+] [-] krosaen|12 years ago|reply
"Many are homeless by choice: Some are the transient underemployed or unemployed that hop railcars across the country."
http://24.media.tumblr.com/f57b0d94ce4e855c44891a68b21abe20/...
[+] [-] wilfra|12 years ago|reply
Two claims specifically are pretty obvious exaggerations/blatant lies:
That a marijuana dealer can make 4-times more selling in New York than in California[1]. And that street kids used to make enough in a few days to travel for weeks[2].
[1] Unless the difference is purely a matter of volume, price alone cannot account for that big of a difference, as the article seems to imply. Marijuana is more expensive in New York but it's nowhere near 4-times more expensive.
[2] I sold marijuana in the bay area in the timeframe referenced in the article, between roughly 1999 and 2001 (in the dorms, to friends and friends of friends and friends of friends of friends etc). Yes the prices were higher than they are today ($50 an 8th was standard) but wholesale prices were also much higher. In the end I was lucky to clear $100 an ounce, after smoking myself - which the street kids surely do. They'd have to have been selling a half pound or more per day at full retail to make the claim even remotely possible.
And a small piece of anecdotal evidence - I went to Haight Ashbury in search of some weed not long ago. I asked some street kids near the park. I was quoted $60 an 8th and they were unwilling to bargain. The quality was low - probably over 100% markup from what they paid. Those kinds of margins were not possible in the Good Old Days glorified in this piece.
Cliffs: don't take the word of street hippies on how great things were in the past.
[+] [-] lnanek2|12 years ago|reply
That said, people who bum around can go a long time on very little cash. Imagine if you only had to pay for food and sometimes got it free crashing with friends with chickens, etc.. Housing - crashing places, parks outside, tents, etc.. Transportation - hopping trains.