:) i think you'd be cool to smoke a bowl with.

Thanks.  Right back at ya.

A)  Simple, the leaves can be sold for cheper too.      Every rung has MASSIVE ammounts of profit in it.  THAT is what it's saying.  Otherwise they couldn't afford to lose 90% and still make a profit.

You're wrong, just admit it.  Cocaine is cheap as hell.

If the whole organization can it means everyhting can.  Otherwise there would be no profit.

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.

Oh, and one final point about the Netherland violent crime rate dropping after legalization...

Violent crime has been dropping in most places.  Inlcuding the US.  

He's not talking about production line. It's trafficking a.k.a. distribution line.  He doesn't mention where the profit loss would come from so no.. he's not perfectly clear.  I made a claim that makes sense to explain his sensationalism.  You are wrong more than you would like to admit, like that leaves cost less than $200 would you mind attaching a source to that?  Since you always use a source unlike me with my wild claims.  I'm glad we can agree on your last two sentences but I don't like the way you are acting.  Let's end the debate here.

Let us count the times you were wrong in just this thread shall we!

1) Never say NEVER,  There are gangsters, there turf wars..due to illegal drugs. source looks like they should legalize cocaine huh? more source

2) The concentrate for 70 percent of Coca-Cola’s 1.5 billion drinks served each day originates in the tax haven of Ireland, where enough concentrate for 50,000 Cokes costs $2.60—including labor. The concentrate’s main ingredient? Caramel.  That means that one penny buys enough syrup to make nearly 200 glasses of Coke! sorce

3) New retailers and investors don't know jack so they switched from high grade growers to mid grade growers.  That's from the article. That's not a crash.

4) Coca is only grown in Andean mountain region because of it's tropical climate and high elevation.  North america could never match south american quality due to the cocaine alkaloid's dependency on proper climate source. For opium, we could legalize cultivation now but we don't source.

5) Illicit drug trade is one of the primary ways in which organized criminal groups finance many of their activities source It's the place to start if you're going to stop organized crime.

6) Geographical proximity to the place of production and strict customs will obviously have an impact on price, purity and quality of the product. If you don't think so then call me crazy.  

7) Prove it!  We have evidence that 100+ keys of leaves is cheapest in columbia at $600-$700.  There is no proof a key of pure cocaine can be made for $200. I'm mean, 100 kilos of leaves equals a kilo of cocaine. source

Finaly, in support of my middleman claim I offer this reference scroll to page 79-80. Your (monopolistic) view is pg 79, my (competitve) view is pg 80.  Trafficking Organizations are not organized as you think.  Last, sometimes you are wrong because you misiterpret your own source as I'm sure happens to the best of us including me.  We are only human.  We have to admit we are wrong when we come to realise.

Again, your just making shit up and infering into it because you don't want to admit you are wrong.  What he says is 100% clear.

where does he say they will would reduce profit buy cheapening production?  no where. Where does he explain how they would make it so cheap in the US? no where.