Losing marijuana business, Mexican cartels push heroin and meth instead

Most people don't go out of their way to get meth of Herroin tho. Those are pretty small nitches IMO.

They make the most money on severe addicts. So only a small population is actually purchasing it but is giving all the cash they have to get it. Which is where the buying power is.

Problem with that tho, Is they won't really push in that much more profit.

Regardless of the threats. MJ is Destroying their cartels.

As MJ isn't really a Niche, and have a much bigger market.



Cuz people are rushing out to go buy some cheap H to get hooked on it because it's obviously the drug of choice.
(Sarcasm)

a reply to: eisegesis

No, i live in the real world.

Now to quote your reference source "illicit drug users are atincreasedrisk of being exposed to microbial pathogens and are more susceptible to serious infections, say physicians writing in the Journal of Medical Microbiology".

Increased risk. Did you read that? INCREASED. So we're ALL infected? It's just that people that have drug (mental health) issues are INFECTED, as per your earlier comments...?

a reply to: eisegesis

Oh, and by the way, you've quoted the following;

"Illicit drug users are at increased risk of being exposed to microbial pathogens and are more susceptible to serious infections, say physicians in a new report".

That report's from 2011. Hardly NEW. A lot's happened since then. 2012, 2014 just for starters.

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: pseudoless

Have you been living under a rock?

HIV, Hep B/C, skin infections, bacterial infections, overall bad hygiene and depleted immune systems will cause the spread of unrelated illness.

Drug use increasingly associated with microbial infections

Illicit drug users are at increased risk of being exposed to microbial pathogens and are more susceptible to serious infections, say physicians in a new report.

Let me know when you find a "functioning" meth addict you'd like to share a soda with.

The same can be said for drunks and smokers, who are also at increased risks for various diseases and infections due to alcohol and tobacco being toxic to the body, including, the immune system.

Also, the reason IV drug users are at suck risk of infections comes down to the drugs they use being illegal. Being illegal, they are not not cut nor handled in a sanitary manner, no quality control. Then you have the user, who, because their vice is illegal, resorts to using unclean and unsanitary equipment to get high.

Loitering and vagrancy happen regardless of drug use, and are dealt with as such.

Also, I'd never share my drink with anyone, regardless of their lifestyle. Sharing drinking containers is disgusting, and you can pick up all sorts of diseases from non-druggies that way (flu, colds, strep, mono, cold sores, just to name a few).

As long as the governments are riddled with corruption, and the criminals have safe haven in South American countries to produce the dope.....the problems will persist....
If you managed to stop the current crop of drugs from being produced....there would be a dozen others take their place......
Seems that the persecution of the users could stop, and the resources turned to the really big criminal organisations......
This is where we can make some headway......

It also doesn't help that in many places, like in Florida, they have street rows of "Pain Clinics" with corrupt doctors who will give anyone who walks through the door a prescription for opiates if they claim they have any pain.

They advertise freely on billboards and in the newspaper.









I am surprised our government allows this to happen.

Many places on the east coast are seeing a new heroin epidemic of historic proportions, likely caused by the upsurge of opiate prescription use.

Can't say I didn't see this coming, just didn't think it would take this long.

originally posted by: r0xor
a reply to: eisegesis

If America is serious about its age-old 'war on drugs' policy, they should go hard or go home. Start using the assets from terrorist surveillance overseas to combat drug smuggling. Use predator drones to find and take out Cartel members even over foreign soil. We do it all the time in the Middle East right?

So that being said, apparently Islamic extremist terrorists are a bad enough threat to create and utilize those resources, assets, and technology.

And with that being said, apparently hard narcotics flooding over the border isn't a bad enough threat to utilize those same resources, regardless of who cares.

Dear God, this ^

I guess I don't understand why they are even bothering with meth. Any meth head can tell you it is cheap and easy to get, in any small town in the US. We are having a huge problem in my area.

But I have to agree with others here. Make it all legal. The way things are now certainly isn't working.

a reply to: eisegesis

Your OP raises a good case to decriminalize all drugs. It's working for marijuana, therefore it reasons we could reduce cartel imports of heroin and meth by reducing the criminal penalties for use and instead worry about treating addiction.

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: buster2010

Okay, thank you for making me understand better.

I was looking at it one-sided.

Question though, when droves of infected drug users are using public utilities and passing out in parks and movie theaters, how will that affect the ones who choose sobriety? It sounds lovely on paper, but I still think there are many unforeseen results of legalizing something. Society today is not what it was then. Different drugs produce different results and affect different markets.

Are you not familiar with this?

'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs

You are pushing propaganda and with your "infected drug user passing out on benched crap". Opiate use is through the roof right now. How often do you see drug users passed out on benches right now?

a reply to: nOraKat

This may have something to do with that:
Only Two Countries in the World Have Legalized This and the U.S. Is One of Them

What I'm talking about is direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising, that barrage of ads you see on TV and in magazines and newspapers, or on the radio and Internet. They're ads telling you to run right out and ask your doctor if this or that pill would be right for you.

Some drug companies have even taken to advertising highly specialized medical devices, like heart stents.

It's a marketing bonanza that's turned America into a medicated mass of people who've been brain-washed into thinking that taking pills will make everything better―even for ailments you might not have. But it's a brilliant move for Big Pharma, who has now turned the consumer into their very own sales rep, and a persuasive one at that. Not only is there a correlation between the amount of money drug companies spend on DTC advertising and the brand of drug patients request from their physicians, but the data shows DTC advertising rapidly converts people into patients.

As you might suspect, the use of DTC ads has grown rapidly since it was first approved in the U.S. in 1997. At that time, the ads could only be run along with lengthy consumer information warning of risks and side effects, so few companies used them. In 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revised the rule so that rather than providing a full disclosure, companies only needed to meet an "adequate standard" when it came to describing risks to consumers. For those who are wondering, the only other country that has legalized DTC advertising is New Zealand (which did so in 1981).

But hey what do I know. Maybe letting advertisements double as your doctor is a good idea.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: buster2010

Okay, thank you for making me understand better.

I was looking at it one-sided.

Question though, when droves of infected drug users are using public utilities and passing out in parks and movie theaters, how will that affect the ones who choose sobriety? It sounds lovely on paper, but I still think there are many unforeseen results of legalizing something. Society today is not what it was then. Different drugs produce different results and affect different markets.

Are you not familiar with this?

'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs

You are pushing propaganda and with your "infected drug user passing out on benched crap". Opiate use is through the roof right now. How often do you see drug users passed out on benches right now?

Slow down, no agendas here. I'm trying to spark a discussion and some people here think that just because one county has been successful that American will be too. How can anyone say that with certainty?

I am for legalization, but unless its done correctly, I think we will indirectly create a new subclass of zombies. I honestly don't think it will go as smoothly as some think, but I hope it happens either way.

It's still in the early stages.

Once the state gets too far in the game with regulations and taxes, "illegal" pot will become a profitable just like black market cigs in New York which led indirectly to the Eric Garner situation.

If it ever gets to the point where the Cartels can start undercutting the legal stuff, then they'll make a profit gleefully.

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: buster2010

Okay, thank you for making me understand better.

I was looking at it one-sided.

Question though, when droves of infected drug users are using public utilities and passing out in parks and movie theaters, how will that affect the ones who choose sobriety? It sounds lovely on paper, but I still think there are many unforeseen results of legalizing something. Society today is not what it was then. Different drugs produce different results and affect different markets.

Are you not familiar with this?

'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs

You are pushing propaganda and with your "infected drug user passing out on benched crap". Opiate use is through the roof right now. How often do you see drug users passed out on benches right now?

Slow down, no agendas here. I'm trying to spark a discussion and some people here think that just because one county has been successful that American will be too. How can anyone say that with certainty?

Because that is how it worked out after Prohibition ended as well. It's not like we as a country don't have precedent for this as well.

I am for legalization, but unless its done correctly, I think we will indirectly create a new subclass of zombies. I honestly don't think it will go as smoothly as some think, but I hope it happens either way.

Have you seen any indication that it would be done incorrectly? Look at marijuana, every state that has legalized it has setup precautions mirroring alcohol usage laws (21 year old minimum, controlled sales from registered dispensaries, no public use, no driving while intoxicated, etc).

a reply to: ketsuko

This raises a good point. With the encroachment of the state brings crime trying to undercut all the price hikes that occur due to increased regulation. You have to find a decent equilibrium between regulation and too much regulation so as not to let crime creep to far into the equation. But then again, the state ALWAYS wants more regulation.

I watched a meth documentary the other day. It was talking about an Asian country which practically ran off "yabba"... meth. The people started off feeling great, and managers would promote it to increase productivity. The end result is people burned out, using their monies for more and more meth, and managers going after younger, not yet burned out yabba users. Taking a step back? It's not about increasing productivity, it's about population control. Meth heads don't last all too long. You wear them out and get rid of them.

What's my point? I don't think it matters what system surrounds hard drug use. Addicts exploit, and are exploited in one way or another. It's a vicious cycle, and the parasites will always be looking for their own fix to get rich of the using of weak-minded individuals. Legalize it, and you simply transfer the power from one group of thugs to another, but that former group will be looking elsewhere for those services needed to push their psychopathic tendencies. If not harder drugs, than human trafficking, if not adults, children... you get the point. It just doesn't stop.

country: Thailand.

a reply to: eisegesis

The marijuana industry has propelled itself forward with such force that eventually opposition would arise. It has just manifested in ways that we couldn't comprehend from the beginning.

Anyone with a brain knows that the entire drug war needs to end, and all drugs need to be legalized.

Obviously the cartels will just make up the difference by boosting the sale of other drugs. It's such simple economics, why are people so dumb?

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Legalize it, and you simply transfer the power from one group of thugs to another,

Let's not mention the fact that addicts shouldn't be treated like criminals, and legalization actually leads to a drop in the use of hard drugs.

a reply to: eisegesis

70% of drug users are recreational and not addicts.

You probably know people who use meth injections everyday and are involved in cartel activity but you just have no idea.