|
 Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The profits wouldn't be as much where the legal drugs are.
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
I don't see how.
NP, I already wrote how. You just have to put the pieces together. I can’t think for you
 Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Keeping it illegal, makes trade in these highly risky but also extremely lucrative. There is a reason why there's no cartel competing with Marlboro, but e.g. Camel and Nevada are.
There.
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
One of the major drivers of the heroin epidemic is the fact that the drugs are so friggen cheap. Add to that, the fact that the cartels have a monopoly on production, and ask yourself 'why in the world would they lower the price?'.
Perhaps cheap to make, but to the addict, it becomes incredibly expensive. Krokodil is also one of those.
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
If drugs were legal, that would significantly reduce the risk associated with manufacture, shipping, and distribution. Less risk = less cost.
Profit = Revenue - Expenses
If revenue remains constant, and expenses decrease, what happens to Profit?
Which is why the cartels wouldn’t ever want for drugs to be realized. It’s just not in their best interest for drugs to ever, ever, ever be legalized. None they produce, “market” and ship anyway.
I’ll reiterate
 Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Keeping it illegal, makes trade in these highly risky but also extremely lucrative. There is a reason why there's no cartel competing with Marlboro, but e.g. Camel and Nevada are.
Thanks for making my point for me. I made it before though, but still, it’s good to see that you came around to the same conclusion.
|