Kasz216 said:
snyps said:
That's your argument! "You're wrong, just admit it." Speak for yourself.
So rather than admit that a producer can't sell a kilo for $200 you tell me to admit I'm wrong. You funny! I went into detail for you.. from the prices and hands it's exchanged through. I made it simple, I said in a scenario where there is only ONE middleman your $6 coke is feasible. I could explain for days but you just aren't able to refute my points.
You do understand that thousands of kilos of coke made in one country and consumed by the gram in another country gets bought and sold many times in between? That is the reason a kilo brings in a grand total of $66,000, each person it touches doubles the price and cuts it. When your article said the grand total of profits could be reduced 90% he means by cutting out the middle men. From the article: "the closer you are to the source the cheaper the product."
I'm sure you just woke up in the middle of the night feeling cranky so I won't take it to heart, but please don't bother replying if you don't have the time to give me a decent argument. I have no problem admiting I'm wrong. I was wrong about over regulation, I was wrong about coke being so cheap at the source, I was wrong that there weren't gangsters and turf wars in Amsterdam over illegal drugs, I was wrong about the rehabilitation of thugs after prohibition ends, I was wrong about the tiny profits the bottom feeder gangster makes selling drugs. I'm wrong about a lot of things. When are you wrong?
;)
|
What the guy is saying is perfectly clear. He isn't talking about shrinking middlemen or anything like that. He's talking about the entire production line.
"The average drug trafficking organization, meaning from Medellin to the streets of New York, could afford to lose 90% of its profit and still be profitable,"
That is 100% clear. That all the costs to get it to New York is only 10% of what it brings in New York currently. All the costs are 10%. Which means that there is plenty of room for downward pressure, that would allow Cocaine to be sold for up to 90% discount and still make a profit.
He doesn't mention one middle man or anything like it, that's just something you invented that isn't supported by what he said. You are just reading into it because you want it to be true.
When am I wrong? In a debate like this... pretty much never, because I actually source my arguements before I post, unlike you who are basically going off of intution and opinion.
The only times I'm wrong is when specific sources are wrong... because i generally don't let personal opinion get in the way of policy and understading what policy would do.
Afterall, I think all drugs should be legal, because people should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies. That said, i'm not going to pretend that allowing people to do so will be some amazing utopia with no downsides.
|
