SeniorBuzz
Member
Is our medicinal marijuana helping cartels profit?
The problem with partially legalizing marijuana is that it creates a legal leg for illegal operations to stand on. In Denver and in Colorado demand for medical marijuana has grown so fast in the past few months that few legal sources of the drug are incapable of producing an adequate supply. DEA officials believe many illegal cartels and international crime syndicates are now providing marijuana to the medicinal dispensaries.
"Dispensaries are popping up like mushrooms," said DEA special agent-in-charge Jeffrey Sweetin, according to the Denver Post. "Now we have thousands of 20- to 25-year-olds carrying cards. And the cartels are getting rich off this law." And such is the danger of only giving partial exemption to an otherwise illegal activity. Libertarians and liberals alike support the move to legalize the drug, while conservatives often move to delegitimize it as much as possible. In reality, there is little room for a middle of the road solution.
While many conservatives admit they do not mind the idea of legalized, and regulated, controlled substances such as alcohol, the notion of providing illegal drug cartels with a loophole seems counterintuitive to the preservation of peace. A recent bi-national task force has announced that America’s second amendment rights may be responsible for the cartel violence on the US-Mexican border; but no word yet on how much of America’s insatiable appetite for drugs has contributed to the cartel’s success and accumulation of power.
To add to the difficulties drug enforcement officers face, is the fact that the number of legal dispensaries in Colorado are not tracked by the department of health or any other entity. Also, the number of pot plants a legal supplier can grow is limited to six. By contrast DEA officials recently busted a massive outdoor growth of over 14,000 plants near Chatfield reservoir. The quasi-legality of marijuana seems only to have equipped criminals with a more liquid and camouflage market.
"Supply (of marijuana) is not directly addressed in (state law), and we think it's one of the areas that could lead to criminal elements being involved," said Longmont city attorney Eugene Mei. And he is right. DEA officials have a difficult time investigating dispensaries that are in state compliance, and therefore have a difficult time determining the contribution of illegal suppliers.
Moreover, the quasi-legalization of marijuana in Colorado has spawned a front for otherwise illegitimate cartels to conduct business at greater profits. A case can certainly be made for legalization of pot, but the contribution to violent gangs and dealers should be more heavily considered in the argument. After prohibition the government did not exactly allow random and unrestricted access, distribution or production of liquor. Such a nonsensical move would have only enriched the likes of Al Capone. It was restricted and regulated to ensure criminals were not capable of controlling the market. To learn from history it should be noted that while total prohibition routinely fails to produce the desired outcome, so does apathy toward the crimes committed.
While conservatives are labeled as drug hating, morally suppressed, individuals; it should be noted that it is not the concept of free trade or free choice that is at the heart of the legalized marijuana argument. Conservatives are not the new temperance movement; but they certainly are not anarchists either. Rather, it is the attempts from the left to legitimize an illegal activity that upsets the conservative movement so much. Consider for a moment the law passed a few years ago that legalized (or de-criminalized) up to an ounce of marijuana in Denver. Without proper orders from a doctor it is illegal to grow, sell, purchase or smoke an ounce of pot. But in Denver, if an ounce magically appeared in your pocket and you intended to do nothing with it, you would theoretically not be charged. This sort of apathy for the crimes involved is what undermines attempts at limiting the profits and influence of the drug cartels.
Perhaps marijuana should be legal; if we were to treat it like cigarettes with the appropriate warnings and restrictions, and treat it like alcohol with the respective limitations. (i.e.: no driving and smoking, no distributing to minors etc. etc.) Such legalization would not run contrary to the conservative ideology of free choice and trade. But the current system of quasi-legalization only impairs the DEA’s ability to adequately gain control of the violent and illegal suppliers on the black market.
Steps recently taken to legitimize, not legalize, the drug have greatly increased the violence and activity of illegal producers. Partial legalization seems to be more of a way to enrich the criminals than providing citizens with more freedoms.
http://www.examiner.com/x-11748-Jef...ur-medicinal-marijuana-helping-cartels-profit
The problem with partially legalizing marijuana is that it creates a legal leg for illegal operations to stand on. In Denver and in Colorado demand for medical marijuana has grown so fast in the past few months that few legal sources of the drug are incapable of producing an adequate supply. DEA officials believe many illegal cartels and international crime syndicates are now providing marijuana to the medicinal dispensaries.
"Dispensaries are popping up like mushrooms," said DEA special agent-in-charge Jeffrey Sweetin, according to the Denver Post. "Now we have thousands of 20- to 25-year-olds carrying cards. And the cartels are getting rich off this law." And such is the danger of only giving partial exemption to an otherwise illegal activity. Libertarians and liberals alike support the move to legalize the drug, while conservatives often move to delegitimize it as much as possible. In reality, there is little room for a middle of the road solution.
While many conservatives admit they do not mind the idea of legalized, and regulated, controlled substances such as alcohol, the notion of providing illegal drug cartels with a loophole seems counterintuitive to the preservation of peace. A recent bi-national task force has announced that America’s second amendment rights may be responsible for the cartel violence on the US-Mexican border; but no word yet on how much of America’s insatiable appetite for drugs has contributed to the cartel’s success and accumulation of power.
To add to the difficulties drug enforcement officers face, is the fact that the number of legal dispensaries in Colorado are not tracked by the department of health or any other entity. Also, the number of pot plants a legal supplier can grow is limited to six. By contrast DEA officials recently busted a massive outdoor growth of over 14,000 plants near Chatfield reservoir. The quasi-legality of marijuana seems only to have equipped criminals with a more liquid and camouflage market.
"Supply (of marijuana) is not directly addressed in (state law), and we think it's one of the areas that could lead to criminal elements being involved," said Longmont city attorney Eugene Mei. And he is right. DEA officials have a difficult time investigating dispensaries that are in state compliance, and therefore have a difficult time determining the contribution of illegal suppliers.
Moreover, the quasi-legalization of marijuana in Colorado has spawned a front for otherwise illegitimate cartels to conduct business at greater profits. A case can certainly be made for legalization of pot, but the contribution to violent gangs and dealers should be more heavily considered in the argument. After prohibition the government did not exactly allow random and unrestricted access, distribution or production of liquor. Such a nonsensical move would have only enriched the likes of Al Capone. It was restricted and regulated to ensure criminals were not capable of controlling the market. To learn from history it should be noted that while total prohibition routinely fails to produce the desired outcome, so does apathy toward the crimes committed.
While conservatives are labeled as drug hating, morally suppressed, individuals; it should be noted that it is not the concept of free trade or free choice that is at the heart of the legalized marijuana argument. Conservatives are not the new temperance movement; but they certainly are not anarchists either. Rather, it is the attempts from the left to legitimize an illegal activity that upsets the conservative movement so much. Consider for a moment the law passed a few years ago that legalized (or de-criminalized) up to an ounce of marijuana in Denver. Without proper orders from a doctor it is illegal to grow, sell, purchase or smoke an ounce of pot. But in Denver, if an ounce magically appeared in your pocket and you intended to do nothing with it, you would theoretically not be charged. This sort of apathy for the crimes involved is what undermines attempts at limiting the profits and influence of the drug cartels.
Perhaps marijuana should be legal; if we were to treat it like cigarettes with the appropriate warnings and restrictions, and treat it like alcohol with the respective limitations. (i.e.: no driving and smoking, no distributing to minors etc. etc.) Such legalization would not run contrary to the conservative ideology of free choice and trade. But the current system of quasi-legalization only impairs the DEA’s ability to adequately gain control of the violent and illegal suppliers on the black market.
Steps recently taken to legitimize, not legalize, the drug have greatly increased the violence and activity of illegal producers. Partial legalization seems to be more of a way to enrich the criminals than providing citizens with more freedoms.
http://www.examiner.com/x-11748-Jef...ur-medicinal-marijuana-helping-cartels-profit
