This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Economics Of Breaking Bad
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics
The Economics Of Breaking Bad
Breaking Bad is the story of Walter White, a cash-strapped, suburban 50-year old high school chemistry teacher, who following a life-changing cancer diagnosis hooks up with his drug-dealing former student, Jesse Pinkman, to cook and sell crystal methamphetamine. Immediately thrown in at the deep end, White undergoes a vast personality change; from mild-mannered Father into the lying, murderous gangland drug lord Heisenberg; first cooking methamphetamine wearing an apron in a winnebago, then working in a high-tech underground laboratory for the Chilean gangland kingpin Gustavo Fring — who White eventually kills — and finally amassing a multi-hundred-million-dollar pile of cash.
A key dynamic in the show is White’s relationship with his brother-in-law, DEA agent Hank Schrader. It is Schrader who first introduces White to the idea that selling methamphetamine can pay — boasting of multi-hundred-thousand-dollar drug hauls, and even taking White out on a DEA raid of meth lab, where White first encounters his former student Pinkman. As White’s famously pure blue methamphetamine grows in popularity, Schrader becomes increasingly obsessed with its influx, yet spends the course of almost the entire series unaware that its source is his own brother-in-law.
There is another layer of irony, though. For it is not just that Schrader drew White into the drug trade through informing him of its lucrativeness, and then taking him out on a drug raid. In economic terms, Walter White’s illicit drug empire — and all the killing and carnage that spews from it — is utterly dependent upon the protection of Federal agents like Schrader. Breaking Bad is very much a parable of the failed drug war.
As Milton Friedman famously noted:
If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That’s literally true.
There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana. Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven’t even included the harm to young people. It’s absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes.
Why are drugs so lucrative? Why are users forced to pay such a premium over the cost of production? Because of drug prohibition. The more Federal money spent on drug prohibition, the more drugs seized, the higher the markup. Could criminal elements charging a one-thousand percent markup compete with a legal and free market? Of course not; nobody would buy drugs from a wild-eyed gun-wielding dealer when a pure product is available openly for a fraction of the cost.
So it is the Federal drug prohibitionists enforcing drug prohibition — both in the universe of Breaking Bad, as well as the real world — who are empowering the drug cartels, and criminal elements like Walter White who simply get around the law. Supply and demand rule this world. If society demands narcotics, they will be supplied; the only question is how.
As Abraham Lincoln noted:
Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and make crime out of things that are not crimes.
The economic costs have been massive:
According to DEA estimates we capture less than 10 percent of all illicit drugs. Does $30 billion a year for a 90% failure rate seem like a good investment? And how much would it cost to stop the other 90%? $100 billion? $500 billion?$1 trillion?
And the resultant swollen prison population is not only a huge cost to the taxpayer, it also takes people out of the economy who could instead be working and producing. 59% of federal prisoners are incarcerated for drug chargers, compared to only 2.5% incarcerated for violent crimes.
The war on drugs also stretches scant police resources. 717, 720 Americans were arrested in 1997 for murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (combined), while 695, 200 were arrested for marijuana offences alone. The time and resources spent on investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating nonviolent drug users is time and resources that has not been spent investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating violent criminals.
Walter White exemplifies the failure of the drug war. Without the folly of prohibitionism White could have profited legally from his obvious talent for supplying a popular recreational pharmaceutical product without having to become part of a vicious and brutal criminal underworld. Under prohibitionism, White was again-and-again forced to either kill or be killed, unleashing his previously-dormant psychopathic potential. The real story of Walter White is that only something as absurd as prohibitionism — and the lucrative criminal underworld that prohibitionism breeds — could provide the catalyst for a mild-mannered chemist to become a wild, murderous psychopath.
»
- 29711 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The AA General Services Office in New York is who gave permission.
Look on the bright side, Vast-Dom! You now have several interactions with me, here, that you can add to your personal inventory for Step 10.
no resentments you are simply a jerkoff and you do not comprehend what you are copying and commenting on. but that's okay if it's on teh interweb and someone somewhere approved it and you pasted it here -- yeah i'm wrong you're right....jerkoff.
Good! Now on to Step 11, or are you still working Step 5? Doesn't matter, as long as you are working your program.
Love you, man.
yeah the fake butchered fucked up version that you, with no comprehension but total certainty copy and pasted here and got approrpiately down-voted on? that book's 12 basterdized steps? and then the nerve to tell somone to follow that? wow man....jerkoff!
vast-dom
No. No fucking program works unless the addict has the mind set to terminate their addiction.
I gave up drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes all at once. never looked back. When I got Cancer and had to use perscription drugs I had zero issues limiting to prescribed amount or less.
I know people who have been in and out of rehab, who down drugs like candy and drink like fish. I know people who have drunk dreams.
It just isn't in there make up to stay clean, their minds don't work that way.
Therapy is all about what insight the client discovers on their own not what they are told. If you are incapable of doing the self work you are incapable of growth.
About ten years ago there was an article stating that a minority of the population who hit riock bottom have the ability to pull themselves out. The rest can't.
They just are not built that way.
"0% guarantee that it will work!"
This story was kinda from CNN ...
They compared Apple to Breaking Bad ...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/31/tech/innovation/apple-breaking-bad/
Just saying ... not exact same, but CNN did the story 4 days ago and I doubt this story would be here without that idea.
Only complaint ... I like reading original work, and Zerohedge is awesome for that, but this isn't really original.
They compared Apple to Breaking Bad ...
What should we compare this to: Stolen from the FBI, of all places.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/04/hackers-leak-1-million-apple-devi...
Walter White exemplifies the failure of the drug war.
He exemplifies the failure of Libtard California. There are millions of Walter White's getting squeezed because of out of control taxation, regulation, crime and open borders. The scum lib politicians in Calif are in bed with the drug cartels.
The "drug war" is a big business like the "war of terrorism." How many Presidents have been involved in Mena, Arkansas and the drug dealers? Bush, Clinton, Bush where totally involved in Mena. Amnesty Mullah Obama is owned by the cartels.
My soccer moms friends why it should stay illegal : if it's legal, every 12 years old will be able to buy it legally and they will all become addicts!
/let's forget that when it becomes legal, usage drops
//and let's forget that all the violence/prison/corruption/police abuse/civil rights violated of the drug war is in another country/happens only to ``bad people`` so they don't give a fuck
///the road to hell is paved with good intentions... and stupid people
Yes,
let me only fix this for you;
the road to hell is paved with good intentions... and the corpses of stupid people
the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
_______________________
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is also paved with bad intentions.
The road to paradise is paved with good intentions. Is it also paved with bad intentions?
And is it paved more with good or bad intentions?
Well, you got #3....kinda blurry on #1 and #2...
Keep going and you will figure it out for all of us.
Actually, the christians had to answer to the question.
Did not work well for them. And they still can not provide an answer.
OnAndOnymous just had to say "road"... <snickers>
OnAndOnymous' road to hell, paradise...or anywhere...is paved with human feces.
Indeed the muchly is this true.
The road to the home of AnAnonymous is paved with his roadside droppings.
One would think the nature of rubber boots is eternal in the Chinese Citizenism countryside. Maybe it already is. I dunno.
The road to hell is paved with the Satanic Tribe!
Teenagers are far more attracted by that which they are not supposed to have than they are by that which is forbidden.
This is the bullshit that banned Joe Camel and other icons. People take drugs because it makes them feel good, not because they get off on "being bad." Teenagers don't smoke to "look cool" they smoke 'cos nicotine is a psychoactive drug.
Awsome show. I never found meth to be that addicting. Now Ectasy, THAT was addicting.
Meth is far more addictive than ecstasy in the human population. It's not a matter of opinion.
Addiction potential for meth is almost as great as for nicotine, and it blows heroin away.
You didn't snort that. Someone else did.
No...I did. I really did. I was there.
Well then someone gave you some help? Perhaps, a great teacher?
Junked you for nonsense.
Probably you don't know speed from xtc. (there's plenty of combination pills out there) So unless you have lab reports that show it was pure MDMA, you can't be sure. Everyone's different, but you've stated it (your personal experience) as general fact, so I felt compelled to write this reply.
I've worked a couple of years as a gov. paid researcher in the field in the nineties, and have first hand research results still sitting here in my closet. This research has been conducted since by many governments in div. european countries. And it was coupled with extensive laboratory testing in independent laboratories (as it should!).
1. MDMA is not addictive (and shares this with most other psychotropic substances). This is proven fact, not conjecture. Moreover, at some point 70% of all <21 year olds in the Netherlands and Germany had used it. If your statement would be true, these countries would not enjoy high productivity and extremely low number of addiciton.
2. It's always about the a. SET b. SETTING c. SUBSTANCE - Of course ppl. can get addicted to ANYTHING even eating dirt.
3. The DEA knowingly falsified their research, that was the basis of their infamous "holes in the brain" campaign. They had switched the results from Methamphetamine (which is horrible toxic crap) with that of MDMA (which is only toxic if you literally drink a bucket of the stuff (practically impossible). When the german gov. tried to duplicate the results their labs found this out. It's NEVER been corrected, and the DEA are a bunch of lying sacks of shit, for all I care.
Don't get me wrong, I think that ppl. can do without MDMA fine, but it's generally a more pleasant experience to party in an XTC crowd than a bunch of drunk fucktards. (though I do enjoy a good beer of wine)
----
The "War on Drugs" as you probably know was made into national policy by Nixon, who (ignoring his scientist team who he hired to do research and investigate) thought it would be a good idea to use it as a stick to beat his opponents with.
As a whole it's OBVIOUS why Cannabis is still an illegal substance. MOST research goes to preventing the growing, sale and use of hemp. It's a powerful and easy to use anti-carcinogen, our bodies have two types of cannabinoïd receptors, one in the brain, but another in the organs, which, when triggered, releases hormones that give the body the message to destroy cancer cells. On top of that, it's possible to use it as fuel (in cars as well as electrical plants), it's possible to use it to replace plastics and polyester resin, it's biodegradable but yet very durable, non-poisionous, very nutricious to eat, and you can cook with the oil. And also it makes ppl. smarter (!), and makes them stop and think what is their role on the "Big Farm" and "what if?". And the obvious reasons of power and money written in the article above.
One caveat; some beneficial characteristics of Cannabis disappear if it's abused; i.o.w. overdosed. But that's with H2O no different.
On top of that it DESTROYS the system of law enforcement, because it overpowers it, and draws funds away from crimes that do have victims, like fraud, murder, rape etc.
The perfect trick the NWO fuckers played to destabillise western society. Ordo ab Chao.
Until the moral hazard is addressed, nothing changes. Remember, if you own congress then you decide what is legal or not. Where the fuck is John Corzine?!?!?!?
Good article.Try explaining this to your average citizen and they will think something is wrong with you. I use this argument all the time with people when the conversation about drus come up. They all look at me like I'm insane,but they have nothing else to offer. all they can say is" I don't know what the solution is".
americans are incapable of independent, logical thought. unless the MSM spoon feeds it to them-"Drugs-bad" "Iran,Syria-bad" etc.
Americans and the rest of the West are sheep controlled by TV and Hollywood. If you watch their shit and pay cable or sat TV bills then you enable the whole ***king MATRIX.
Don't leave out talk radio, Freddie. They're all in the same gang.
The average citizen cant find their butt with both hands. Using them as a benchmark other than to be krill for the whales is foolish...
The argument is very simple: What's the business of the government to tell or not a grown adult what he or she can put or do with their own body?
[ This applies to any and all "moral laws", including those to do with sexual behaviour ]
Usually what one hears next (at least in Europe) from the pro-prohibition people is some argument about the health-care costs of addicts.
The answer for that is to say that by the same logic the government should make fatty and sugary foods illegal. In fact, those two cause far, far more deaths that drugs.
Thanks, Acet. Don't see many arguments about Natural Law in regards to drugs. If you really want to explode some heads, talk about how everyone has the inherent natural right to do as much drugs as they want. This goes even beyond the ignored Constitutional right. Then say that you have the natural right to not pay for a padded cell for anyone who fries their brain, and you have the natural right to shoot anyone who would rob you to pay for their habit (though this wouldn't be necessary if Wal-Mart could exercise its natural right to sell cheap drugs). Expect a bunch of spluttering about how it is more compassionate to feed people to a corrupt and violent monster.
I agree completely. My mother dislikes trampling of Constitution, but wants to make sure no one is allowed to use drugs. Cannot seem to identify the link between the two... Incidentally, a robust "War On Drugs" is militarizing police forces while diverting same resources away from imprisoning all of us who still love freedom. It will be a sad day when the "War On Drugs" ends, and those same resources are suddenly available for use with no mission to justify their expense. Anyone without a Facebook account will be a suspect; "No posting on FB? Why aren't you posting if you have nothing to hide"?
I've always believed that drugs are illegal because large pharmaceutical companies are funding lots of lobbyists to protect their business model. Government has become the ulitmate protection racket.
That and also can be used as an excuse to rape the constitution and the bill of rights.
Yes, and per usual, they do more harm than good.
Drugs death outnumber traffic fatalities
look up sativex by gw pharma. patent on medicine from cannabis that is used for ms. coming soon and currently used in uk and canada. big o turned on medical marijuana after promising to leave the states with approved mmj laws alone. money talks.
YES! The GMO side is another trick they'll play.
Sad for them, the complete combination of chemicals of this plant (including the psychotropic active THC and others) are anti-carcinogen, not just one isolated chemical.
here's a patent from a few years ago. I think it speaks for itself.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL...
It's all one big dirty lie. And the more law-abiding sheeple are, the more they believe the BS about the effect (addiciton, crimininality) predating the cause (criminalisation), conveniently ignoring totally different results from ANY other part of the world.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-port...
Banning hemp that anyone can grow and can often be a substitute to commercial antidepressants is the classic protection racket.
I wouldn't be surprised if healthy food and exercise would be banned to increase the sales of phentermine and topirimate drugs.
They "fixed" that just recently.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/04/organic-foods-no-better-nu...
Fumbling the label "organic" and then claiming it's no different from regular sheeple food.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html
But all the "green" pundits have taken the bait. hahahaha
Next step is of course to "outlaw" the term "organic".
Search for "Codex Alimentarius". It's all laid out what they've planned in there.
The real revolution is in controlling the worlds nutricious food (and herbal medicine, and substances). Money control is just a prelude.
"scant police resources"? these small,mid town cops have $ thrown at them. new cop cars, stations, BP vests, more weapons than a NG unit. they all make $80K+ a year easily just to write tickets and harass teenagers. one down the street from me put in a $50K in ground pool this summer to go along with $85K in vehicles in his garage. also- the show is just ok- kind of depressing
Where do you live, Beverly Hills? In Ohio and other states, cops are getting min wage.
broke-assed IL. ALL these cops are high paid. county/state cops make $120K and retire at 50 w/ 80% pensions. podunk towns $80K-its a joke
SheepDog... I live in Ohio too.. My nephew is a cop.. I have many friends that are cops.. They don't make min wage.. That was a silly statement. They start around 40k and one with good experience and an advencement or two can easily make 60k+..
Don't forget their 'hush' money and rehypothecated drug-bust money.
YAY for FREE DRUGS!
'Americanism' and drugs. Huge love story...
Drugs use is old, several thousand years old.
But suddenly, as 'Americanism' rose and spred, drugs have turned into an enormous societal problem.
'Americans' have used drugs in order to subdue people into their 'American' economics schemes, beginning with the Indians, the Chinese...
'Americans' would like to kick the can on technology, claiming that the drugs have grown more addictive.
But yet, and unfortunately for 'Americans', the world was diverse enough to show that the problem did not lie with the technology but with 'americanism' itself as some societies that used to do drugs for millenia were dismantled after contact with 'Americans' while keeping using the same drugs they used for millenia with no existential danger.
As 'Americanism' spreads, so does the dangerous uses of drugs, to degrade, put into shackles, weaken human beings.
'Americans' run a business of extorting the weak, farming the poor. And indeed, when in this line of business, drugs are something welcome and handy to keep down the extorted and the farmed.
Also exposed by Breaking Bad is the little-known facts of places like the Ukraine and other places make america look like drug amateurs.
'Americans' shame everyone else as drug amateurs.
People living in Ukraine does not mean that they are not 'Americans'
Since 1776, criminals of all countries, of all colours, of all races, have been fascinated by 'Americanism'
When walking in Japan, if a guy drives a US made car, he likely is a Yakuza because they all are in love with the big gangster country.
'Americanism' has developed a strong gangster culture. Gangsters are worshipped in 'American' societies.
The favourite movie of gangsters around the world is an 'American' movie: Scarface.
Last point: the 'american' love for their gangster culture shows how deep racism is ingrained in 'Americanism'.
Negroes are late comers in the great making of the 'american' gangster culture. But since they have joined the production of gangster culture, more and more Indo Europeans are voicing their concerns about the gangster culture.
Go figure: 'Americans' would prefer to sacrifice their gangster culture rather than allowing the negroes to join that production.
What ? You never saw the movie "American Gangster" about a black brother who built a huge heroin empire around the end and after the Vietnam war. I always loved the quote from the supplier in the golden triangle. He told him "Armies will come and go, but the flowers will always be here"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765429/
Sorry AnAnonymous youre clearly just talking out of your ass.
He is right that the US DEA and FBI fight out their drug wars often on european soil, but for the rest, it's indeed garbage. ;-)
The original recipe for COCA-COLA used cocaine which was replaced with caffiene when cocaine became a controlled substance. That's why the 50's were Happy Days.
they took the "Coke" out of CC in the 1880s
Fonzi jumped the shark because he was all coked up.
Yep, with drugs made legal, nothing would stop 'Americans' to pepper food and drinks with some kind of addictive substances.
Would beat the marketing budget.
And once done, those middle class creatures, the corporations, will fight teeth and nails to offer the most addictive food and drinks in order to win the competition.
Welcome to an 'American' possible future.
WTF, next time say spolier alert! he kills Gus!
Old news, he killed Gus last season.
To be fair I guess we had plenty of time to watch the show. And I spoiled someones F1 race earlier this year.
NO VICTIM NO CRIME!
Wasn't it Lord Hilsenrath? I'm so puzzled today I even can't remember the surname of Big Ben.
The gist of this argument is that self destruction is part of our inalienable rights. So the state has no right controlling the sale of these products.
Self regulating markets, self regulating toxic intake, self regulating serial killing, self regulating bank robberies, self regulating vigilante action; sounds like a perfect self regulating Galapagos ISland eco system.
Survival of the fittest!
Who needs a sate. Just be a T-Rex and "act" for the best. If you be bugs bunny thats just tuff shit! You better run fast and never look back.
Moral hazard is indeed a bitch, but at the end of the day, I am all in favor of real consequences for bad behavior AT ALL LEVELS of society.
I think the questions here are :
1° What constitutes bad behaviour from society's viewpoint (not from that of individual) and who determines it?
2° Is this a violation of the individual's rights if it is imposed on him by regulators within society? What is the yardstick for doing this?
3° If the individual is free to do what he feels is his right, who decides punishment of consequences of his acts on others?
4° When evaluating the trade off between individual free will and imposed regulation how does this work? On an economic basis or on a moral one?
Just some questions that living together imposes on us all. Its a recurrent thing and society has to adjust as the next "problem" area will not be like the last one! We are social mutants! And victims of our own innovation.
Yes indeed, especially as innovation is quickly co-opted for the benefit of the kleptocrats. Nature has seemed to have figured it out, time for the "animal spirits" to awaken.
In other words, the problems of the day seem to always be solved through blood and iron. same as it ever was.
"Without the folly of prohibitionism White could have profited legally from his obvious talent for supplying a popular recreational pharmaceutical product..."
Is it April 1st.? Is this person serious? Meth may be many things, but to euphemize it as a popular recreational product does not mitigate the damage it causes. Would addicts suddenly become less brain damaged, strung out, abusive, or lose less teeth because the cost of their meth decreased? Of course not. That's why it's called an addiction. All that would happen if meth was marked up less would be that more people would become addicted, since the price was cheaper, and addicts would ruin their lives, the lives of those around them, and their own health with greater speed, no pun intended.
I don't know what drug laws are like in the state where the author lives, but in our state the use of drugs is not illegal, only holding them or distributing them. The author is obviously treading on an equivocation when he uses the noun "offences" to imply someone merely sitting around stoned will be tossed in jail.
This line of reasoning might hold up with something as relatively harmless as marijuana. I don't think it holds up when you are arguing for legalization of meth.
ZH can publish a better class of article than this.
You are such a very typical idiot. I am sure you also believe we should practice a particular religion, the one you follow of course. I bet you also think any person with political beliefs that differ from yours is a fool. We are not you. We do not think like you. We do not believe what you do. Try this out for a change - I will do whatever the fuck I want, and as long as it does not cause you harm, then piss off. I believe that is what they call FREEDOM. I know, I know, you think that freedom should be defined by YOU. Sorry about that.
One possible outcome would be that the folks who truly can't cope with their addiction would DIE, thus eliminating the problems their drug-consumption may cause others.
A BIG problem with criminalizing meth is that it's so freakin' easy to manufacture, and the precursor ingredients can't be effectively criminalized.
Did you ever consider whether it's better to let someone kill himself or to shoot a few innocents trying to prevent a suicide?
That "possible outcome" already has legal precedent with the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and sugar. They are addictive, legal and potentially fatal if used to excess.
The only people who can truly stop someone harming themselves are people who care about them - so get the govt out of this issue entirely. What you do to yourself is not the govts problem - especially if there's no socialized medicine.
Any talk of anything other than natural growing plants being legalized is non-sense. How we have federal penalties on the use of mushrooms, peyote or marijuana is beyond me. These things exist in nature and exist on this earth not by man-made intervention.
The answer to legalization of marijuana is a cross between someone making an argument to eliminating Public Domain (personal use and growing only) from the equation and showing that the Federal legalization of Indian Tribal Church is a strict racist policy, of which the latter in unconstitutional (from a limiting liberty perspective), for which the remaining valid Consitutional thread and point is to ensure the Feds never cross into the Private Domain (other than exceptions to exercising potential penalties/taxes when used in Public Domain) on its use in that domain.
A man's personal property is a mans right to his own personal/private domain. The Federal government shouldn't be able to cross it in cases where the public imminent domain of pubic "health and safety" policy is strictly limited to infringing on ones property, specifically when the existence of such a natural product is inherently the trump card in any consideration of Public Domain. If it exists, it exists right? Saying it doesn't, is purely lies. If it was here first, then to say it is illegal, is illogical and ignores base facts on the natural evolution of man and the Earth in general.
Don't bother me, we don't bother you is my mantra.
Just another racket.
From Dmitry Orlov's "Reinventing Collapse". (Very good read IMHO)
My fault.
Afghanistan: America's Source for Heroin {(90% World's Crop)(Trillion's $$$'s... and not Billions)}
Ref: Afghanistan's 'Opium Crop' the "MKA Helmand Valley Project [1946? soil samples/core samples, etc., etc,...]& Helmand River" __ ??? Inadvertently created by U.S. Engineers via Morris & Knutson ???
http://www.webstation19.8k.com/afghan.htm
nice read Aziz :-))
thankyou tyler
Pot should be legal and available from the local chemist (pharmacy).
Legalize it ALL!
Better yet, get rid of these wanker political class and their monopoly on law.
The real reason, the money is laundered to black ops and foriegn countiies, therefore our government doesn't have to count it in the money supply.
I only watch the History channel.
my only response Tyler is:
YouTube - Breaking Bad's Psycho Meth Mex Cowboy Tuco Salamanca says: "Tight! Tight! Tight!"
I saw a man in a wheelchair smoking pot openly at a downtown intersection. The police talked to him but he just showed them a licence and they went away. I think our new Harper govt might be putting an end to that type of display.
Mild-mannered chemist? Dude, we like to blow things up for fun...
Don't forget to bring a towel
"In economic terms, Walter White’s illicit drug empire — and all the killing and carnage that spews from it — is utterly dependent upon the protection of Federal agents like Schrader.
That drug empire? He didn't build that.
This will all be rendered moot soon enough. Either 1) there will be total anarchy and lawlessness and people will do anything and everything they want with no judicial consequences, or 2) the security state will take a rigid hold and technology already available which can "sniff" even a few molecules of any outlawed substance will be mounted every six feet with everyone corralled into camps or "cities of the future". It'll probably the first, followed by the latter, though with a greatly diminished population.
The greatly diminished population might make it all rather palatable.
I hear ya'. But, problem is, it's going to take a vast army of laborers to maintain even a skeleton crew of industries to provide all the stuff that's going to be needed just to maintain, or dispose of, all the nuclear waste already created. That stuff has to be maintained for many thousands of years, millions in the case of some of it. My guess is, they'll dig a huge pit somewhere, probably a bunch of them, that go right down to the earth's magma, and force doomed slaves to tote all that shit to the hole. I guess some kind of equipment will be needed to keep scraping the top off the magma to keep it penetrable and to load the waste into some kind of big bullets to be fired into the magma, as well as some kind of mechanism to filter the atmosphere from escaping radioactive vapors. Ever read that thing about how it takes dozens of industries all over the world just to make a PENCIL? It's going to take massive resources to secure all that waste. I mean, IF TPTB even get things regimented enough and care enough with the long viability of the human race. If the NWO gets control, they'll be safe in some kind of glass cities secure from superbugs and radiation. They often talk about securing nature from the masses and reducing the population to 500 million. It's going to take a rigid top-down heirarchy, with most at the bottom and working in horrendous conditions under armed thugs to do their bidding. Or, it just won't get done and every mammal on Earth will perish from radiation poisoning within a few centuries. I can't see how it gets done, with all that's surely to come, from wars, nuclear blasts, superbugs, Twelve Monkeys shit, etc. Mammals will soon be extinct.
NWOrange - thanks for the reply. Looking 500 or more years out, I am not sure I care about survival of our species. On the most basic level, I do want human kind to continue and maybe someday even be able to live in space or on other planets. But on another level, when I think about the species that have come and gone and the willful mistakes we've made, it doesn't add up that we pull it off.
Based on my experience, TPTB are as scared as everyone else. Often, even more so because they know the thread by which we all hang. I have a rather chilling 9/11 story that I really ought to put into public words someday. Your jaw would drop over the confusion and lack of direction that I witnessed firsthand.
The more repressive and restrictive a government is, the more cunning and crafty the citizens become.
So with all this we need to ask the question.... WHY?
How else does the government run their illegal wars all over the world... drugs will never be legal.
Alcohol is responsible for 100,000 deaths each year in the U.S. alone, and yet it's cheap and legal. What's up with that?
They tried making it illegal, but that didn't work out. It did facilitate the creation of a large, ruthless organized crime industry and an even more ruthless state police agency that still exists long after the prohibition experiment was over.
Well, after reading the comments on this controvertial topic let me give you my two pennys worth.
I'm over here in England (for those of you who don't know!). Me and my best friend, who grew up together, had kids around the same time time together, and are now entering our fourties together I can tell you lot one one thing. A lot of you folks have no idea what You are talking about. My mate has smoked dope, margiauna, green, whatever the fuck you want to call it from being 18 year old. I know of no other drug as I don't personally see the point, but thats an aside.
And over the years, and like I say we arer both fourty this year, he is nowhere near the man he was. Drugs affect you wether or not you can see the effects or not. He cannot, as he only looks from the inside looking out. His wife can, and my wife can, and I most certainly can. He isn't stupid, or different in any way other than he now stryggles to hold a job for any length of time. He seem very lost at times, and holds a conversation in a totally different way from what he used to.
But, he has been a moderate user in all fairness, but every day. And I don't care what any study or government sponsored bullshit you tell me. Drugs and the only one I have known first hand is through my mate which is dope, do effect you. My friend is a changed person, and I have seen him most days since I was 16 years old, and I will not change my stance. He is not the man I knew years back. Dope has done this. Unless you know someone who you care about do this to themselves, and fuck, what has it got to do with me anyway? Just an observation, drugs do have an effect. I have nearly lost a good friend through them. And here, this is what his wife also tells me. So to you who say drugs do nothing. Watch a mate for twenty plus years do it and come back and sing your praises then.
Better ban alcohol, then...
Did someone in this thread claim drugs do nothing to you longterm? I guess I missed that. Anyone who's done them has to lack all self-insight to think that. I think what most said here was that the harm that comes from making dope illegal greatly exceeds the harm from dope itself. That cure is far worse than the disease. Drug laws greatly multiply the harm, and shift a lot of harm from the user who chose to use them onto other people.
That's three times today I've greened you, NWOrange. I'm frightened by those who can't see it.
New world,
I understand exactly what you are saying. But drugs here are illegal and it has never made a difference over twenty years of my life. The effects though, and most posters here miss it, is that drugs, never mind if they are banned are not, and one as inocuous as dope? Really do effect you. My mate is a living breathing walking different man than he was twenty years ago.
His wife still loves him but cannot understand why he is the way he is, it has gradually crept up and changed him. And she still loves him and has real hope he will be the man he can never be again. Dope has ruined my friend. And after so long watching it. And me personally, do what the fuck you want to yourself, you are not hurting me anyway, but he is my best friend and his wife is also my best friend. For gods sake how do I seperate the two? She cannot see the gradual differnce, and I don't have the heart to tell her he is not the man she knew. Shame on me yes. But that is what drugs do. Drag us all into something we would rather be without. I hope you understand what I am getting at here. Drugs hurt, and I know all about them through my friend. (dope mind)
please see my other post, for some positive encouragement.
I understand your frustration. Please note that it's the SET, SETTING and SUBSTANCE in combination.
Your friend has a problem. First step to solve this, is that he must become aware that there is actually a problem.
Not that it helps you, but in a decriminalised society, addicts can actually be helped better because they don't have to hide their addiction.
He could've been addicted to anything. Be glad it's not sleeping tablets or otherwise he wouldn't be around anymore.
Good luck.
I've known a few folks who went through comparable changes after they started watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh.
I wish I were making that up.
I think in general, you can incur really nasty side-effects from ANY strong environmental factor if you're unfortunate enough to be susceptible to the influences.
I also think, in general, drug use a bad idea for most folks, and it should be avoided. I'm not about to threaten folks who partake with guns or imprisonment, though. Social problems are best left to self-correct.
The point isn't whether something is harmful or not - it is not the governments job to protect people from themselves - thats what freedom and free will are about. Freedom is risky, and sometimes bad decisions might be made - but for me, I sure as hell prefer to take my own chances, and rely on myself than be made to obey someone elses idea's by force.
If I want to drink, smoke, or even put a gun to my head - thats not the business of the govt - thats up to me, and god willing friends and family who might care enough to intervene.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend.
Of course for some people, it's better to not light up, because they are highly prone to become addicted.
And that's what seems to be the case here. Every day means the THC never leaves your friend's body.
He needs professional help if it interferes with his functioning in his daily life or has a severe negative effect on his health.
But he needs to recognise this, himself. It's his own responsibillity (as a free person capable of making descisions).
As a positive anecdote, a good friend of mine that I've known for over 23 years just quit, cold turkey. He was successful in life, a job, house, wife kid, hobbies whatever, but it was obvious smoking big blunts every day at some age just takes it's toll. So, he quit, by himself.
Keep on encouraging him to do so. If he doesn't, buy him a vaporiser, which minimises the intake of toxic chemicals (products of burning it).
Good luck!
"And how much would it cost to stop the other 90%? $100 billion? $500 billion?$1 trillion?"
How's about our freedom?
Did the last bastion of of ZH Traders just disappear?
Prior to the Great Limburger Fromage of 2008 and being a Mainstreeter, I kept my mouth shut, while I read about the mounting and unsustainable Economic, Monetary, and Fiscal excesses and monstrosities-to-be. In a Cold-Steel manner, the postings and comments would unwind the insanity to find a buck to made in the seams. It was what it was, and if that was what the World and the Markets wanted to become, so be it.
When the SHTF, the supposed Cure presented a particularly complicated unwinding of the situation to be. ZH named the foolishness, noted the correlating asset classes, and called Ben's one-man effort to retrieve the Housing Market and Bankshits, the Minsky Melt-up which it came to be. Central Planning would become the New Normal Rage, and the bad debt for bad debt bread and circuses performances would ensue. The only positive upward pressure on the value of DirtLand would be a result of the abundance needed for everybody to keep their heads well implanted, as the Denial River was already in an overburdened state that made DC commuter traffic jams look like open fields.
Without notice, an attrition has taken place. Has there been an opt-out due to the unrelenting skewing of semi-clear markets by way of contrived exchange plumbing, open season on individual traders vs safe season for large-House criminal trading, and Central Bank policy/news driving the bus? Has the now long absence of the Pricing Mechanism wearied its most avid admirers?
Anyway,...With Gov't payroll and income tax revenues tanking, tax revenues on booze continue to rise. You legalize pot and tax the shit out of it. You save the lives of 600K Americans/year, which are ruined far more by a criminal record than anything the pot could do. coke and meth go the way of 180 proof grain alcohol moonshine. 100s of thousands of Mexican and Colombian citizens get to not have their heads blown off.
Some sucky US jobs are created, which is better than none for the time being. The gov't gets a nice revenue stream. Which won't stop them from pissing it away on wars and Banks which are a tax on the American people, because they are such shitty inefficient operations. But that's a discussion for many other days to come.
And individuals can decide whether or not they shun pot and people who use it. Each year, two major motor vehicle accidents will be attributed to drivers being too stoned, because their blood won't be tested for alcohol.
I don't have a crystal ball, but some of these things have a good chance of happening.
I haven't partaken in decades, but I never got the Scarlett M Syndrome. Between 1969-1975, greater than a majority of College Students smoked pot in some instances or other. Most who approached it as a hobby, would outgrow it.
If you want a coincident reason to criminalize it, we went on to become the Boomers.
The argument that our destructive behavior has been a result of brain damage, is simple to make. Tying the cause to past pot-smoking, instead of commitment to stupid and illegal forms of greed may do well with the DoJ. But I don't think it will play in the general population.
If I've got to live in the Brave New World, I best get my motherfuckin' soma bitchez!!!!!!!!!!
If I've got to live in the Brave New World, I best get my motherfuckin' soma bitchez!!!!!!!!!!
whatever maxine waters' virtues, she was absolutely correct when she stated that the government was selling cracking in la to raise money for its wars of imperial aggression....one of the reasons for viet nam was to produce dead bodies to haul drugs back to the states to sell to raise more money for imperial aggression....
in addition to being the world's biggest terrorist state, the usa is also its biggest drug dealer courtesy of the bush crime syndicate....and all of that money gets laundered by wall street - something which kept wachovia afloat long past its prime...
drug laws will never be changed because the profit to the government and bcs is too great....just recall bcci and a host of related bcs activities in central america.....manuel noriega isn't in prison because of murder...