Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Legal marijuana is taking a bite out of drug cartels' profits

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 238 posts

Re: Legal marijuana is taking a bite out of drug cartels' profits

#141

Post by Zigurd »

sanderjd wrote: post #89
oxide wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only problem is that drug tests don't prove current intoxication unless it's specifically designed to do so. the drug tests you are referring to, pre-employment and workers comp drug tests, are urinalysis. you'd know this already if you weren't naive

I've made the argument with lots of strongly pro-legalization folks that they should be investing in efforts to develop a reliable test for current intoxication. A lot of the strongest (in my view) anti-legalization arguments stem from the current difficulty to detect things like driving and coming to work under the influence.

Why? It would only feed a new industry of expensive arrests and trials for no good reason.

Re: Legal marijuana is taking a bite out of drug cartels' profits

#142

Post by jacobolus »

chrishynes wrote: post #133
jacobolus wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a manufacturer or distributor sells a bunch of guns off-the-books to a criminal gang, and one of those is then used in a murder, the distributor should be liable in some way. If there were a proper gun registry and if improper gun use resulted in liability for the last documented owner, it would be much more difficult for criminals to hide the guns’ ownership / distribution history, because distributors and owners…

A manufacturer or distributor selling guns "off the books" is already highly illegal. Anyone doing that will incur a fat stack of felonies. Are you unaware of that? Or proposing that we make it even more illegal?

Here are the first two results in a 20 second web search I just did. I don’t have the weeks of free time it would take to make a comprehensive research report on this subject (feel free to do that as an exercise, I’d love to read your final document), but needless to say, the current level of gun registration and tracking in this country is nowhere near as complete as the tracking of e.g. automobiles. The Wikipedia article above about the “gun show loophole” also does a reasonable job filling in some context.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/gu...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/gun-crime-tracing-w...

Re: Legal marijuana is taking a bite out of drug cartels' profits

#143

Post by jeffdavis »

caseysoftware wrote: post #32

> The latest data from the U.S. Border Patrol shows that last year, marijuana seizures along the southwest border tumbled to their lowest level in at least a decade. That does not mean there are less drugs being imported, just that less are being seized. I worked with the Border Patrol years ago and it was astounding how they tracked success: - When arrests increased, they celebrated that enforcement was working. - W…

The best numbers to use are the prices, which they also cite.

Granted, there are still multiple factors at work and you need to take several measurements.

Re: Legal marijuana is taking a bite out of drug cartels' profits

#144

Post by niels_olson »

PixelB wrote: post #82
random_upvoter wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But failing a marijuana drug test says absolutely nothing about weather you are under the influence of marijuana. I'm not so sure of that. Failing a marijuana drug test means that there's a measurable amount of THC in your body.

You may not be so sure of that, but I am. A "marijuana drug test" usually means testing for THC metabolites, not active THC in your blood stream. These can show up on test results a month after you ingested anything. Imagine if tomorrow you were called in and they did a test to see if you had a single beer/glass of wine in the last month. Would you pass that test? If you would, great.. I'm willing to put down money t…

There are quantitative tests for THC and its metabolites. A quantitative test can be dialed to whatever threshold you want, within the lower limit of detection for the methodology.. Demonstrate that most people are "under the influence" at a threshold value, then set policy to that value. This is just a matter of political will and influence. Many studies have been done, enough to design specific 'influence' studies (for driving, etc).

Re: Legal marijuana is taking a bite out of drug cartels' profits

#145

Post by cmurf »

facetube wrote: post #140
School-Cotton wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people (at least from the Southwest) know about this; otherwise Donald Trump's desire to "build a wall" would be incoherent.

Donald Trump's desire to "build a wall" is incoherent.

Donald Trump's incoherent.

Re: Legal marijuana is taking a bite out of drug cartels' profits

#146

Post by mystikal »

conceit wrote: post #102
mystikal wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also if you are prone to developing a psychotic disorder (prevalence of psychotic disorders is ~3%), pot consumption before the age of 20 increases the chances of it happening.

Which is probably just a consequence of other complications.

This is a fairly neutral review of the literature:

http://cannabisandpsychosis.ca/more-information/what-do-we-k...

Re: Legal marijuana is taking a bite out of drug cartels' profits

#148

Post by harshreality »

facetube wrote: post #140
School-Cotton wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people (at least from the Southwest) know about this; otherwise Donald Trump's desire to "build a wall" would be incoherent.

Donald Trump's desire to "build a wall" is incoherent.

The desire to "build a wall" is a reaction of locals along the border to the realities there, and that reaction diffuses through the rest of the population who aren't on the border but who see problems that they perceive (or are persuaded to perceive) might be solved by curtailing illegal immigration. They may be wrong about, or miscalculating, the ultimate consequences of a wall, but the perceived need for some kind of "wall" is coherent in an immediate sense.

What do you think is incoherent? A plan to build some kind of physical wall (barrier), or a serious plan to keep people from crossing the border outside of the normal immigration process, or both?

Re: Legal marijuana is taking a bite out of drug cartels' profits

#149

Post by gregpilling »

School-Cotton wrote: post #83
gregpilling wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of the US Border, it is way more porous than many people think. Here is a photo of the 2 strands of barbed wire that make up the border fence near Locheil Arizona. If you ride your dirt bike along the border there (I did), then you will find a few dirt roads that cross the border that look heavily used. I spent 8 hours down there and was not approached by any Border Patrol (Saw some from 100 feet away, but n…

I think most people (at least from the Southwest) know about this; otherwise Donald Trump's desire to "build a wall" would be incoherent.

I am surprised by the number of Tucson, AZ residents (where I live) that think there already is a large wall, all across the USA. You certainly see a large wall in Nogales, AZ/ Nogales SON. It is only there for the TV cameras, since a few miles out of town it is back to dual strand barbed wire cattle fence. Everybody who lives within a few miles either side of the border knows this - people in Tucson 60 miles away are not so clear.

They watch the evening news, see a big wall on TV, hear Trump talk about extending the wall, assume it's the same wall all across the USA, and then continue on with their life like normal humans.

http://tomohalloran.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/wall-noga...

compare that to the photo of the barbed wire fence along the border in the other comment.

Re: Legal marijuana is taking a bite out of drug cartels' profits

#150

Post by doktrin »

facetube wrote: post #140
School-Cotton wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people (at least from the Southwest) know about this; otherwise Donald Trump's desire to "build a wall" would be incoherent.

Donald Trump's desire to "build a wall" is incoherent.

It may be unrealistic, but it seems coherent enough to me. What's so crazy about border control?
Post reply on HN