Bali and 5 kilos of coke...
Discussion
just me said:
Reason drugs cost so much is because they have been made illegal. Price would be a lot lower if they were legal, as the "suppliers" wouldn't have to go to such lengths/expense to bring them in.
As long as demand exists, so will the supply. If you restrict supply, price will merely go up. It's as simple as that. Thinking that drug use can be ended with a better-funded effort, or more draconian punishments, is beyond foolish.
Your first point is possibly true, but with the cost additions i suggested in an earlier message i doubt it would be as cheap as some imagine, and i further doubt that the legal stuff could ever be as cheap as the guy on the corner. Perhaps the exception would be cannabis, but even here the problem would remain that the unfettered illicit trade would be able to offer new products and variations without any of that long winded and expensive clinical testing that the legal stuff would likely as not require. For the rebels, would they prefer the nice mellow official canabis, or the stronger meaner stuff? As long as demand exists, so will the supply. If you restrict supply, price will merely go up. It's as simple as that. Thinking that drug use can be ended with a better-funded effort, or more draconian punishments, is beyond foolish.
The point about demand always existing, and that punishment as a deterrent is foolish is odd. By the same token I could argue that since millions break the law by speeding every day there is no point in speed limits, or the punishments attached to breaking them. Whilst abolishing limits might be popular with some, as a principle its flawed. I mean, where do you stop when it comes to abandoning laws that are hard to enforce?
Oakey said:
What are you on about 'possibly true'? That is the reason unless you think something dramatically happens to a kilo of cocaine between leaving Colombia and arriving in the UK to push the price up from £1000 to £50,000.
You do know that just about everything sold in the UK is far cheaper in the country of its production? Coffee? Tea? Even vegetables are much, much cheaper in the places like South america and india and africa where they are grown. The add on costs of "official" distribution channels in the uk mean we pay through the nose. Why would drugs be so different? Even with just the "official" costs to compete against, the illegal drug trader would still have a handsome profit, and this is before the government has taxed it, or the illegal trader has devised a new illegal high that you cannot buy in the shops.
Also, nobody has addressed the point i made earlier about how legalisation could lead to more crime. Even just one more addict means the potential for the level of crime as a result of the need to feed that habit is increased - even if the drugs are cheaper!
andymadmak said:
You do know that just about everything sold in the UK is far cheaper in the country of its production? Coffee? Tea? Even vegetables are much, much cheaper in the places like South america and india and africa where they are grown. The add on costs of "official" distribution channels in the uk mean we pay through the nose. Why would drugs be so different?
I'm fairly certain an iPad doesn't retail at 50x more than it's production costs but feel free to prove me wrong on that one. said:
Even with just the "official" costs to compete against, the illegal drug trader would still have a handsome profit, and this is before the government has taxed it, or the illegal trader has devised a new illegal high that you cannot buy in the shops.
No, they wouldn't, because someone buying a £50k kilo of high quality cocaine from someone who has illegally imported it has to make his money back, which he does so by cutting that kilo four or five times with crap thus reducing the quality. Either you keep the quality high and charge £100 a gram or you sell crap at £30 a gram. God only knows how poor quality it would be for them to try to bring the price down to £10 a gram. How is he going to compete with the likes of Glaxo who isn't paying £50,000 a kilo and even with tax, duty, etc on top can still sell it cheaper than the illegal dealer?
As for drug dealers 'inventing' a new illegal high, um, yeah, that isn't really what happens.
said:
Also, nobody has addressed the point i made earlier about how legalisation could lead to more crime. Even just one more addict means the potential for the level of crime as a result of the need to feed that habit is increased - even if the drugs are cheaper!
How's that working out for Portugal?pidsy said:
i sincerely hope the British consul leave well alone in this case.
they say that she will probably avoid the death penalty as she helped sting the other 4. they wont be so lucky (or unlucky depending on if you have seen the prison conditions out there).
I hope that the British Consul ensures that they get a fair trial, so that I can be sure they are really guilty, before I comment on their sentence. they say that she will probably avoid the death penalty as she helped sting the other 4. they wont be so lucky (or unlucky depending on if you have seen the prison conditions out there).
In the event that there really is mitigation, that they did this under threat of death of family members, I'd like to think that justice is properly served.
In the event that after a fair trial, it is shown that they are just drug smuggling scum, then I'd like to think a long well publicised and drawn out appeals procedure, followed by death, would be enough to put others off the idea.
New POD said:
pidsy said:
i sincerely hope the British consul leave well alone in this case.
they say that she will probably avoid the death penalty as she helped sting the other 4. they wont be so lucky (or unlucky depending on if you have seen the prison conditions out there).
I hope that the British Consul ensures that they get a fair trial, so that I can be sure they are really guilty, before I comment on their sentence. they say that she will probably avoid the death penalty as she helped sting the other 4. they wont be so lucky (or unlucky depending on if you have seen the prison conditions out there).
In the event that there really is mitigation, that they did this under threat of death of family members, I'd like to think that justice is properly served.
In the event that after a fair trial, it is shown that they are just drug smuggling scum, then I'd like to think a long well publicised and drawn out appeals procedure, followed by death, would be enough to put others off the idea.
andymadmak said:
You do know that just about everything sold in the UK is far cheaper in the country of its production? Coffee? Tea? Even vegetables are much, much cheaper in the places like South america and india and africa where they are grown. The add on costs of "official" distribution channels in the uk mean we pay through the nose. Why would drugs be so different?
Compare Columbia for coke and coffee. Processed coffee ~£1 a kilo in Columbia, ~£2 a kilo wholesale, on the docks, price in the UK. Processed pure coke in Columbia ~£1000 a kilo, ~£50k wholesale UK price. That leaves a lot of room for the cost of official distribution channels and tax. andymadmak said:
Your first point is possibly true, but with the cost additions i suggested in an earlier message i doubt it would be as cheap as some imagine, and i further doubt that the legal stuff could ever be as cheap as the guy on the corner. Perhaps the exception would be cannabis, but even here the problem would remain that the unfettered illicit trade would be able to offer new products and variations without any of that long winded and expensive clinical testing that the legal stuff would likely as not require. For the rebels, would they prefer the nice mellow official canabis, or the stronger meaner stuff?
The point about demand always existing, and that punishment as a deterrent is foolish is odd. By the same token I could argue that since millions break the law by speeding every day there is no point in speed limits, or the punishments attached to breaking them. Whilst abolishing limits might be popular with some, as a principle its flawed. I mean, where do you stop when it comes to abandoning laws that are hard to enforce?
You stop at the point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Cost to enforce, that is. Or, if it is legal, cost to bring to market. The point about demand always existing, and that punishment as a deterrent is foolish is odd. By the same token I could argue that since millions break the law by speeding every day there is no point in speed limits, or the punishments attached to breaking them. Whilst abolishing limits might be popular with some, as a principle its flawed. I mean, where do you stop when it comes to abandoning laws that are hard to enforce?
Similarly, with speeding, ideally the limit would be set at a point where the decrease in productivity outweighs the increase in safety. Problem is, how do you calculate the loss in productivity for each mile per hour that the national and local speed limit is lowered by, and what value do you assign to a life lost or an injury or other vehicular mishap? Some good insights here: The Price of Everything, by Eduardo Porter, but it's by no means the only authority on the subject.
So, politics and emotion have invaded the debate, and led to completely unintended consequences. It's the nanny brigade vs. the daredevils, if you were to believe the rhetoric. Science and logic have been abandoned, for the most part, and it's almost completely ruled by emotion.
Edited by just me on Thursday 31st May 18:32
Some really good reading on the subject:
Cocaine, an Unauthorized Biography by Dominic Streatfield.
http://www.amazon.com/Cocaine-Unauthorized-Biograp...
Cocaine, an Unauthorized Biography by Dominic Streatfield.
http://www.amazon.com/Cocaine-Unauthorized-Biograp...
Edited by just me on Thursday 31st May 08:35
andymadmak said:
Your first point is possibly true, but with the cost additions i suggested in an earlier message i doubt it would be as cheap as some imagine, and i further doubt that the legal stuff could ever be as cheap as the guy on the corner. Perhaps the exception would be cannabis, but even here the problem would remain that the unfettered illicit trade would be able to offer new products and variations without any of that long winded and expensive clinical testing that the legal stuff would likely as not require. For the rebels, would they prefer the nice mellow official canabis, or the stronger meaner stuff?
The point about demand always existing, and that punishment as a deterrent is foolish is odd. By the same token I could argue that since millions break the law by speeding every day there is no point in speed limits, or the punishments attached to breaking them. Whilst abolishing limits might be popular with some, as a principle its flawed. I mean, where do you stop when it comes to abandoning laws that are hard to enforce?
If something is in demand, then making it illegal merely serves to drive the economy underground, and drive the profits sky-high, causing mafias to step in and take control of the market. If it is deemed a social evil (drugs would be an example of this), it would be far more prudent to keep the economy above ground, make it legal, and simply control the distribution. You can affect demand by regulating prices, and having the same disproportionate legal consequences. Result = more revenue, better management of the problem, large degree of control on the movements and distribution of substance as well as demand for consumption. Look at nicotine (same -ine class as morphine, coca-ine, etc.).The point about demand always existing, and that punishment as a deterrent is foolish is odd. By the same token I could argue that since millions break the law by speeding every day there is no point in speed limits, or the punishments attached to breaking them. Whilst abolishing limits might be popular with some, as a principle its flawed. I mean, where do you stop when it comes to abandoning laws that are hard to enforce?
andymadmak said:
Oakey said:
What are you on about 'possibly true'? That is the reason unless you think something dramatically happens to a kilo of cocaine between leaving Colombia and arriving in the UK to push the price up from £1000 to £50,000.
You do know that just about everything sold in the UK is far cheaper in the country of its production? Coffee? Tea? Even vegetables are much, much cheaper in the places like South america and india and africa where they are grown. The add on costs of "official" distribution channels in the uk mean we pay through the nose. Why would drugs be so different? Even with just the "official" costs to compete against, the illegal drug trader would still have a handsome profit, and this is before the government has taxed it, or the illegal trader has devised a new illegal high that you cannot buy in the shops.
Also, nobody has addressed the point i made earlier about how legalisation could lead to more crime. Even just one more addict means the potential for the level of crime as a result of the need to feed that habit is increased - even if the drugs are cheaper!
None - because there aren't any, because they can't compete with legal (heavily taxed) spirits.
If your line of business was made illegal overnight, and yet you decided to quietly carry on doing it, would you overnight want a lot more money for doing what you do, in order to compensate you for the risk of going to jail? Of course you would.
andymadmak said:
The point about demand always existing, and that punishment as a deterrent is foolish is odd. By the same token I could argue that since millions break the law by speeding every day there is no point in speed limits, or the punishments attached to breaking them. Whilst abolishing limits might be popular with some, as a principle its flawed. I mean, where do you stop when it comes to abandoning laws that are hard to enforce?
Driving at 80mph through a 30 zone carries a signifcant risk to other road user and pedestrians.Consuming a narcotic substance poses no* risk to others.
- with the caveat that I accept that anything that changes a person's behaviour could make them a risk to others. But we accept that (small) risk in respect of alcohol, so it's a moot point.
wormburner said:
andymadmak said:
Oakey said:
What are you on about 'possibly true'? That is the reason unless you think something dramatically happens to a kilo of cocaine between leaving Colombia and arriving in the UK to push the price up from £1000 to £50,000.
You do know that just about everything sold in the UK is far cheaper in the country of its production? Coffee? Tea? Even vegetables are much, much cheaper in the places like South america and india and africa where they are grown. The add on costs of "official" distribution channels in the uk mean we pay through the nose. Why would drugs be so different? Even with just the "official" costs to compete against, the illegal drug trader would still have a handsome profit, and this is before the government has taxed it, or the illegal trader has devised a new illegal high that you cannot buy in the shops.
Also, nobody has addressed the point i made earlier about how legalisation could lead to more crime. Even just one more addict means the potential for the level of crime as a result of the need to feed that habit is increased - even if the drugs are cheaper!
None - because there aren't any, because they can't compete with legal (heavily taxed) spirits.
If your line of business was made illegal overnight, and yet you decided to quietly carry on doing it, would you overnight want a lot more money for doing what you do, in order to compensate you for the risk of going to jail? Of course you would.
However, I think I read somewhere that 25% of tobacco sold in this country is now illegal contraband - taxes have driven the market price for the legal stuff too high
TTwiggy said:
Driving at 80mph through a 30 zone carries a signifcant risk to other road user and pedestrians.
Consuming a narcotic substance poses no* risk to others.
I am really not sure I can agree with this. Take cocaine and drive a car? Smoke a few joints and operate machinery or drive a bus? I think not. Consuming a narcotic substance poses no* risk to others.
- with the caveat that I accept that anything that changes a person's behaviour could make them a risk to others. But we accept that (small) risk in respect of alcohol, so it's a moot point.
New POD said:
pidsy said:
i sincerely hope the British consul leave well alone in this case.
they say that she will probably avoid the death penalty as she helped sting the other 4. they wont be so lucky (or unlucky depending on if you have seen the prison conditions out there).
I hope that the British Consul ensures that they get a fair trial, so that I can be sure they are really guilty, before I comment on their sentence. they say that she will probably avoid the death penalty as she helped sting the other 4. they wont be so lucky (or unlucky depending on if you have seen the prison conditions out there).
In the event that there really is mitigation, that they did this under threat of death of family members, I'd like to think that justice is properly served.
In the event that after a fair trial, it is shown that they are just drug smuggling scum, then I'd like to think a long well publicised and drawn out appeals procedure, followed by death, would be enough to put others off the idea.
if you choose to try and make some quick money being a mule, its your problem when you get caught. do not then play the game of crying to the British government to save you when you realise you are in over your head.
why she even entertained the idea of trnsporting that large quantity "to protect her family" is mad.she should have/could have gone to the authorities. she was quick enought to offer up her accomplices who dont seem to have mentioned any alibi to her story.
she got caught with nearly 5 keys in her bag - whether she was just a sacrificial lamb while a few tonnes went through elsewhere is beside the point. she has to serve the penalty. the government should not provide any more than they need to and should in no way pander to her crying and "please save me, i'm a british citizen" rubbish.
if you need cash and decide that you want to mule drugs - dont do it to a country where the penalties are so severe. do it somewhere where you will get extradited or they have comfy prisons. or just dont do it.
sorry if anyone disagrees with my view, but it is just my view.
andymadmak said:
I am really not sure I can agree with this. Take cocaine and drive a car? Smoke a few joints and operate machinery or drive a bus? I think not.
You do know that cocaine / cannabis do not incapacitate you like alcohol or opiates, right? Bomber pilots were given amphetamines and quite capable of operating 'heavy machinery'youngsyr said:
No-one is advocating making drugged driving/operation of machinery legal.
On the other hand,Bill Hicks said:
s
t man, not only do I think marijuana should be legalized…I think it should be mandatory. I’m a hardliner. Think about it, man. You get in traffic behind somebody like: huuuh, huuuh. (making car horn noises)
‘Shut up and smoke that: it’s the law.’
‘Oh sorry, I was taking life seriously. Oh, man! Who’s hungry?’
That would be a nice world, wouldn’t it? Quiet, mellow, hungry, high people everywhere. Just Dominos’ pizza trucks passing each other. Every single highway, parades of Dominos’. Let them get stuck in traffic: all our pizzas will be free. I’m a fking dreamer, man! But I’m not the only one. Dreamers, man. Pot is a better drug than alcohol – fact! Fact. Stop your internal dialogue. ‘But Bill, alcohol’s a blah blah blah—’ Shut up! You’re wrong, get over it. K? K. I’ll prove it to you, man. You’re at a ball game, or a concert and someone’s really violent and aggressive and obnoxious. Are they drunk? Or are they smoking pot? Which is it?
They’re drunk. I have never seen people on pot get in a fight because it is fking impossible.
‘Hey buddy!’
‘Hey what?’
‘Hey.’
‘Hey’
End of argument. Say you get in a car accident, and you’ve been smoking pot… you’re only going four fking miles an hour.
‘st, we hit something.’
‘Oh, uh-uh, uh-uh. We got rear-ended by a Dominos’ truck, man.’
t man, not only do I think marijuana should be legalized…I think it should be mandatory. I’m a hardliner. Think about it, man. You get in traffic behind somebody like: huuuh, huuuh. (making car horn noises)‘Shut up and smoke that: it’s the law.’
‘Oh sorry, I was taking life seriously. Oh, man! Who’s hungry?’
That would be a nice world, wouldn’t it? Quiet, mellow, hungry, high people everywhere. Just Dominos’ pizza trucks passing each other. Every single highway, parades of Dominos’. Let them get stuck in traffic: all our pizzas will be free. I’m a f
king dreamer, man! But I’m not the only one. Dreamers, man. Pot is a better drug than alcohol – fact! Fact. Stop your internal dialogue. ‘But Bill, alcohol’s a blah blah blah—’ Shut up! You’re wrong, get over it. K? K. I’ll prove it to you, man. You’re at a ball game, or a concert and someone’s really violent and aggressive and obnoxious. Are they drunk? Or are they smoking pot? Which is it?They’re drunk. I have never seen people on pot get in a fight because it is f
king impossible.‘Hey buddy!’
‘Hey what?’
‘Hey.’
‘Hey’
End of argument. Say you get in a car accident, and you’ve been smoking pot… you’re only going four f
king miles an hour. ‘s
t, we hit something.’‘Oh, uh-uh, uh-uh. We got rear-ended by a Dominos’ truck, man.’
andymadmak said:
wormburner said:
andymadmak said:
Oakey said:
What are you on about 'possibly true'? That is the reason unless you think something dramatically happens to a kilo of cocaine between leaving Colombia and arriving in the UK to push the price up from £1000 to £50,000.
You do know that just about everything sold in the UK is far cheaper in the country of its production? Coffee? Tea? Even vegetables are much, much cheaper in the places like South america and india and africa where they are grown. The add on costs of "official" distribution channels in the uk mean we pay through the nose. Why would drugs be so different? Even with just the "official" costs to compete against, the illegal drug trader would still have a handsome profit, and this is before the government has taxed it, or the illegal trader has devised a new illegal high that you cannot buy in the shops.
Also, nobody has addressed the point i made earlier about how legalisation could lead to more crime. Even just one more addict means the potential for the level of crime as a result of the need to feed that habit is increased - even if the drugs are cheaper!
None - because there aren't any, because they can't compete with legal (heavily taxed) spirits.
If your line of business was made illegal overnight, and yet you decided to quietly carry on doing it, would you overnight want a lot more money for doing what you do, in order to compensate you for the risk of going to jail? Of course you would.
However, I think I read somewhere that 25% of tobacco sold in this country is now illegal contraband - taxes have driven the market price for the legal stuff too high
Nobody in the UK is making contraband tobacco, are they? Because they (A) would get caught and (B) couldn't sell it at a price to make the risks worth it.
So if you apply the alcohol and tobacco situations (legal, lucrative for the state, and uneconomic to do illegally) to cocaine we would:
- make a fortune in tax
- straighten out a huge part of the black economy
- make it much safer by literally keeping it clean
- deal a blow to those who use drug revenues to fund other illegal activities
- make addiction a 'visible' problem, and so be better able to help addicts
- save an unimaginable amount of money and effort on not fighting a contrived and unwinnable 'war'...
Edited by wormburner on Thursday 31st May 11:59
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff