Sunday, June 29, 2014

Do the math - why the illegal business is thriving

from pbs.org


from 1998

By Oriana Zill and Lowell Bergman






Zill was a producer and Bergman was series reporter for FRONTLINE's "Drug Wars" series
Globalization hit organized crime over the last decade and now is integral to its most profitable business -- the international narcotics traffic. Once a regional problem involving a customer base of a few million, and barely a billion dollars in sales, the illegal drug industry is now a worldwide enterprise with tens of millions of hard core consumers spending hundreds of billions (see the chart) on opiates, cocaine and amphetamines and marijuana, as well as other drugs.



The single largest marketplace for illegal drugs continues to be the United States. Although the market has decreased dramatically since its heyday in the mid-80's, close to thirteen million Americans still think nothing about occasionally buying a gram of cocaine, a few hits of ecstasy or a quarter ounce of weed to party with their friends on the weekends. A hard core group (see the chart) estimated at between 5 and 6 million have more serious drug habits, and may spend $100-$500 dollars a week on purchasing their drugs. These two groups - hard core users and casual users - spend approximately $60 billion dollars a year, according to U.S. government estimates.
Imagine a typical weekend in New York City. Experts estimate that at least one percent of the population - 80,000 plus - spends $200 on illicit drugs. That alone would amount to $16 million dollars a week or $832 million a year. And that's just New York.

All those drug sales mean that large amounts of cash accumulate in stash houses and collection points around the country. For the multi-billion dollar narcotics business - like any commodities business -- it is essential that the suppliers and transporters be paid. That means the money must make its way south, and the traffickers, aided by specialists in money laundering, have devised myriad methods to insure the efficient and safe delivery of their profits.
What keeps the drug industry going is its huge profit margins.Estimates on how much money is sent south each year range from $10 to 30 billion. For Mexican traffickers along the Southwest border, the money is literally driven across the border in bulk amounts and then deposited into Mexican banks. "Steve," who was involved with the Mexican cartels in money laundering, explains this process.

For Colombians, the process is more complicated because dollars are not negotiable in the Colombian economy due to currency controls. That, combined with the fact that Colombia can only be reached by sea or air, has led to all kinds of ingenious methods for repatriating their proceeds.

When the drug money ultimately makes its way into the foreign economy, it is used to pay the salaries of shippers and processors, as well as the bribes that supplement the incomes of government officials on both sides of the border. Whole regions of Mexico, Colombia and points in between have become dependent on the demand for drugs in the United States.

Large scale drug organizations such as the once powerful Cali cartel in Colombia or the Mexican Arellano Felix brothers are said to resemble corporate organizations with division of labor and huge cash reserves designed to keep their operations moving smoothly.

What keeps the drug industry going is its huge profit margins. Producing drugs is a very cheap process. Like any commodities business the closer you are to the source the cheaper the product. Processed cocaine is available in Colombia for $1500 dollars per kilo and sold on the streets of America for as much as $66,000 a kilo (retail).Heroin costs $2,600/kilo in Pakistan, but can be sold on the streets of America for $130,000/kilo (retail). And synthetics like methamphetamine are often even cheaper to manufacture costing approximately $300 to $500 per kilo to produce in clandestine labs in the US and abroad and sold on US streets for up to $60,000/kilo (retail).

The C.I.A and other U.S.intelligence sources believe that synthetics like amphetamines and designer drugs like Ecstasy will garner a larger and larger share of the market in years to come.

No agriculture based commodities industry in the world operates on the same price differentials as cocaine and heroin, while requiring relatively little in the way of expertise.

"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," says Robert Stutman, a former DEA Agent. "Now think of the analogy. GM builds a million Chevrolets a year. Doesn't sell 900,000 of them and still comes out profitable. That is a hell of a business, man. That is the dope business."

Losses in the narcotics business through seizures or theft are rarely catastrophic. The United Nations estimates that current drug interdiction efforts intercept approximately 13% of heroin shipments and 28 to 40% of cocaine shipments. It was because of the failure to stem the flow of product that US officials started turning to tracking and seizing the money the resulted from drug sales. In the last decade federal and state law enforcement have seized over $8 billion in drug cash and assets.

"If a load of coke gets seized, they kick out more coke at fifteen hundred dollars a kilo--cost," says former IRS investigator Michael McDonald. "If you seize money, it's dollar for dollar. They're in business to make the money."

Like any cash rich business, drug trafficking organizations invest in the legitimate economy of their own country and use investment advisors in financial instruments available in the international marketplace. "[For] the bad guy, from the very beginning, there is an attempt of integration [of illegitimate and legitimate money]." says DEA money-laundering expert Greg Passic. "You don't have the Swiss bank account with a $110-200 million bucks sitting in it. What you have is five, ten, 15 million dollars moving around, acquiring assets or companies. So when you do go in and try to dissect and pull the drug money out of it, it's hard because there's a lot of legitimate money in there."

During the 1980's, while other Latin American nations faced major recessions, the influx of billions of dollars in drug proceeds helped keep Colombia out of trouble. It is difficult to say how much money came into the country. At least 6% of the economy is thought to be directly involved in narcotics business, with a minimum of $5 billion in profits per year.

"From a pure economic sense, it's good for any country," says Passic. "But after a while, what you create are systems that are outside of the formal channels. You can't be taxed. You destroy jobs. I think there was the realization that U.S. drug money actually was hurting Colombia's economy. It was funding the extremist groups, the purchase of weapons and the other bad things that go along with it."

In Mexico, it is harder to determine the exact percentage of drug money flowing into the economy. Some regions like the rural areas around the city of Culiacan in Sinaloa state have been primarily dependent on poppy and marijuana production for decades. And resort areas have seen a sudden explosion in construction and real estate prices when the drug economy is booming.
"I think it's very difficult to know because of that gray area of drug, non-drug activities. 

It's not that clear-cut in many cases," says Mexican scholar Jorge Castañeda. 

"There are regions of the country where the drug economy really is central to the local economy. There are regions of the country or times at which the drug economy is enormously important. To come up with an overall estimate is very difficult because by definition this is all untraceable." Castañeda also says that there was widespread corruption in Mexico's dominant political party in the 20th century, the PRI. Because of this, Mexican drug money often became intermingled with other types of corruption money from privatization and bribes, making it difficult to sort our which was which.

While the drug money may provide much needed influxes of capital to these economies, experts now agree that over time the money can devastate legitimate business and long term development. "A normal businessman, he needs money, he needs capital and he's going to borrow that," says former State Department official Jonathan Winer, "He's going to pay 6%, 8%, 10% [interest] on that money. He's going to earn a profit on it to pay that back. But the drug trafficker is happy to pay 6% or 8% or 10% loss, reverse interest, to have that money laundered. So they have a competitive advantage over everybody. So they go into a business--they can take that business over. And no one can compete."

While the US drug user may not intend to invest in this international drug economy, every dollar spent purchasing those weekend escapes is ultimately fueling a mammoth and destructive system that depends on our drug dollars to survive. 

"That population of hard core users generates the funds," says former IRS agent Mike McDonald. "They generate the dollars that go back to Mexico and go back to Colombia. They generate those dollars that in Colombia and in Mexico are turned into power, turned into extortion, turned into homicides, turned into corrupting foreign governments, arms dealing, and expanding criminal enterprises around the world."

DRUG USER EXPENDITURES (In Billions of Dollars)**


Drug

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

Cocaine

76.9

61.3

49.4

42.2

41.3

39.0

Heroin

21.8

17.6

10.9

10.5

11.7

11.6

Marijuana

11.3

13.5

12.5

11.4

9.0

10.7

Methamphetamines

2.4

2.4

1.6

2.1

2.1

1.5

Other Drugs

3.3

2.2

1.5

2.6

2.7

2.3

TOTAL

115.7

97.0

75.9

68.6

66.8

65.0

** Source: Abt Associates Inc., What America's Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1988-98
Amounts are in constant 1998 dollars. 

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

How the U.S. can solve its immigration crisis: Legalize drugs

from theweek.com

By  | 6:07am ET


The drug war is the real culprit here


Sending hopeful immigrants back toward the trains from which they came is not the answer.
Sending hopeful immigrants back toward the trains from which they came is not the answer. (John Moore/Getty Images)

A refugee crisis has blown up along the American border in the last couple months. Something like 50,000 refugee children have arrived in the United States in 2014, an increase of more than 90 percent from last year.
As Greg Sargent points out, this is a genuinely tricky issue as a matter of immigration law and policy. But if we step back, there is one big step we might take to address the root of the problems in Latin America that are behind the flood of refugees. Namely, we can end the drug war.
Where are refugees coming from? Not Mexico as much as one might have thought; rather Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are the main sources of the increase. The refugees are fleeing apocalyptic gang violence. Honduras in particular is now the murder capital of the world. (Just to be clear, Mexico is no success story, either. It isn't showing the same skyrocketing increase in refugees as Honduras, but that means it is still past 12,000 so far this year.) Additionally, some people have reportedly have gotten the idea that the U.S. government is now treating immigrant children more leniently.
What is driving the violence is a complex question. The best thing I've ever seen on the problem is this Washington Monthly piece by Elizabeth Dickinson. She details how Colombia successfully beat back a leftist insurgency with aggressive use of military force, and then in the mid-2000s exported — with the U.S.'s help — that same strategy throughout Latin America as a way to deal with organized gang violence. But that strategy hasn't worked elsewhere. On the contrary, it sparkedmore chaos and violence, as upstart drug gangs shoot it out over who will take control over turf and control vacated by toppled kingpins.
What Latin America should do about crime is for them to decide. It seems clear to me that their militarized approach has been a disaster, but, frankly, America should stay out of it; we've already done enough damage.
However, it is unquestionably the case that a major source of conflict is the struggle over the United States drug market. The U.S. drug market is on the order of $100 billion in size, making probably the most important source of revenue for most gangs. Though some have diversified into things like iron ore, as Dickinson's piece and other studies make clear, control of U.S. drug trafficking routes is a key strategic asset for criminal gangs, one for which they will fight like mad.
Therefore, by taking a more sensible approach to our own drug problem, we can cut out a major source of money and power for the gangs, and reduce the incentive to fight over trafficking routes. In other words, this isn't a matter of trying to micromanage other nations' political systems. Instead, it's about moderating our existing actions to reduce their negative effects — actions which are causing serious problems here at home.
Ending the drug war could involve many different policies, but the most important part when it comes to clamping down on gang violence is removing drug supply from the control of criminal gangs. Decades of utterly failed coercive policy shows that it is simply impossible to stop drug trafficking by force. Anything that moved from the drug war model to a more treatment-based, harm reduction model would be a positive step. For a more aggressive policy, we might institute a strict government monopoly on all currently illegal drugs, and say that any addict certified by a doctor can get a supply at cost from the government, with the deliberate intention that enough will leak out to supply current demand. Drugs are easy to make; it would be trivially easy to beat the cartels on price.
Another alternative would be to fully legalize all drugs. Personally, I favor mostly full legalization for less harmful drugs like MDMA, psychedelics and marijuana, with stricter controls on harder stuff like heroin (and alcohol, which could stand much higher taxation). But the idea is to undercut the most important profit center for the drug gangs. It wouldn't solve all crime problems at once, but it's a good idea on the merits, and it would vastly strengthen the relative position of the forces of law and order in Latin America.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

N.Y. set to legalize medical marijuana

from usatoday



Joseph Spector and Jon Campbell, Gannett12:43 a.m. EDT June 20, 2014

AP_NY_MEDICAL_MARIJUANA_NY_65166434

ALBANY, N.Y. – New York is poised to legalize medical marijuana in non-smokeable forms for patients with serious illnesses.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders announced Thursday an agreement that would allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to those with diseases or disorders such as cancer, AIDS and epilepsy, but wouldn't allow patients to smoke the drug.
At a news conference Thursday, Cuomo called the medical-marijuana agreement "the best of both worlds." Marijuana will be made available to patients in need, but there are safeguards in place to ensure the program isn't abused, he said.
"There are certainly significant medical benefits that can be garnered," Cuomo said. "At the same time, it's a difficult issue because there are also risks that have to be averted — public-health risks, public-safety risks — and we believe this bill strikes the right balance."
Lawmakers were expected to approve the bill — which hadn't yet been printed Thursday evening — late Thursday night or early Friday. The state's medical-marijuana program would aim to be up and running within 18 months and would include a clause that would allow the governor to suspend the program on the advice of his health or police commissioner. The drug would be taxed at 7 percent of gross sales.
Kate Hintz of North Salem said she was pleased a deal was reached, but wanted to review all the details. She's been a regular at the Capitol to lobby for the bill. Her 3-year-old daughter, Morgan, suffers from Dravet syndrome, a rare form of epilepsy that has responded favorably to oil-based treatments in other states.
"From what I heard today, this will be a bill that will be able to serve the pediatric population and also the epileptic population," Hintz said. "Obviously, these are very broad details."
Unlike some other states, the bill would not allow patients to smoke marijuana, which had been opposed by Cuomo. Instead, other forms of delivering the drug — including vaporization and oil-based cannabis extracts — would be authorized. About a dozen diseases could be treated under the regulations that would be developed by the Health Department.
Advocates said they were concerned about the limited availability of marijuana, but were pleased that an agreement could be reached. New York would become the 23rd state to have a medical-marijuana program, according the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group. Other states, including Florida and Utah, have approved programs that allow only oil-based cannabis extracts.
"New York has finally done something significant for thousands of patients who are suffering and need relief now. They will benefit from this compromise," said Gabriel Sayegh, the group's director. "That said, this is not the bill we wanted."
Cuomo had been opposed to medical marijuana early in his term, but in January announced he would unilaterally allow up to 20 hospitals to prescribe the drug for research purposes.
But advocates were critical of Cuomo's plan for not being broad enough, and state Sen. Diane Savino and Assemblyman Richard Gottfried continued to push a bill that would authorize medical marijuana more broadly.
Savino said Thursday it was important to reach an agreement to help those in need before the session ends for the year this week.

Spector and Campbell report for the Gannett Albany (N.Y.) bureau







Tuesday, June 10, 2014

RIVERSIDE: City sues registrar to block marijuana ballot measure

from pe.com


Initiative would legalize and regulate a handful of pot dispensaries; city argues it would violate state, federal law



BY ALICIA ROBINSON / STAFF WRITER
Riverside City Attorney Greg Priamos has filed a lawsuit to block a medical marijuana measure from appearing on the ballot.
, FILE PHOTO
Less than a month after medical-marijuana supporters learned they had collected enough signatures to get their measure on Riverside’s ballot in 2015, the city has filed a lawsuit to stop the county registrar from putting the issue before voters.
Riverside currently bans all marijuana dispensaries through its zoning code. Last year, the state Supreme Court sided with the city in a legal challenge to the ban.
The ballot measure would legalize, tax and regulate dispensaries in the city, allowing a small number of them in restricted locations.
The initiative is unlawful and “goes beyond the legislative powers of the electorate” because it would force the city to violate state and federal laws, including the federal Controlled Substances Act, the city’s attorneys argue in a June 4 court filing.
Interim Riverside County Registrar of Voters Rebecca Spencer said she can’t comment because she has not yet been served with the suit.
Attorney Jason Thompson, representing initiative backers Riverside Safe Access, called the city’s move “the nuclear option to interfere with the democratic process” and added that typically cities will let an election play out before acting, since the ballot measure might not pass.
The lawsuit against the registrar was filed at the City Council’s direction, Riverside spokesman Phil Pitchford wrote in an email. He declined to comment on why officials chose to sue now rather than waiting to see if voters approved the measure.
On Monday, City Attorney Greg Priamos was out of the office and Deputy City Attorney Neil Okazaki was in court, and neither responded to a request for comment.
The suit argues that the ballot measure would cause the city to break local and state laws requiring its rules not conflict with state or federal legislation, and that it would create zoning rules that violate federal drug laws.
The intersection of federal and state marijuana laws is “a hornets’ nest of conflicts” but many states – including California – have chosen to allow medical use of marijuana despite the federal prohibition, said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Riverside’s argument, that the local marijuana measure exceeds voters’ authority, is common in fights over ballot issues, she said.
Levinson said she hasn’t read the proposed initiative or Riverside’s suit, but if the city is right, “It’s not contravening the democratic process. ... It says, ‘This is illegal, so why should it go through the democratic process?’”
Thompson said he’s surprised the city would take this step on the heels of a May 30 vote by the U.S. House to stop federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
If the city prevails, Thompson believes the decision could invalidate other cities’ attempts to regulate medical marijuana. “They’re arguing to take away the rights of the local municipality,” he said.
City Council members backed the attempt to block the ballot measure, but they appear to have mixed feelings on the issue of medical marijuana.


Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Nikki Haley Signs Medical Marijuana Bill Into Law

from huffpost



The Huffington Post  | By Shadee Ashtari

Posted: 06/03/2014 4:49 pm EDT Updated: 06/03/2014 4:59 pm EDT



NIKKI HALEY



South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) signed the Medical Cannabis Therapeutic Treatment Research Act into law Monday, clearing the way for children with severe epilepsy to use cannabidiol oil (CBD), a non-psychoactive derivative of cannabis, to help reduce their seizures if recommended by a licensed physician.
The bill, which passed the Senate unanimously and cleared the House with a 92-5 vote, will also designate a new clinical trial at the Medical University of South Carolina dedicated to evaluating the effectiveness of CBD in controlling epileptic seizures.
Seven other states -- Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah and Wisconsin -- have also implemented similar CBD-only medical marijuana proposals in the past four months.
In Iowa, Gov. Terry Branstad (R) initially opposed similar legislation but signed the bill into law Friday under pressure from parents seeking to ease their epileptic children’s seizures.
“This bill received tremendous support and truly shows the power of people talking to their legislators and to their governor about important issues to them, to their families and to their children,” Branstad said before signing the bill at a statehouse rotunda ceremony.
On Thursday, Minnesota became the 22nd state in addition to the District of Columbia to legalize medical marijuana.
According to a February HuffPost/YouGov poll, the majority of respondents, 70 percent, supported legalizing medical marijuana while 17 percent thought it should be illegal.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

Legal Marijuana Across The U.S.
1 of 23 
 

Sunday, June 1, 2014

House's Pro-Medical Marijuana Vote Shocks Even Longtime Supporters

from huffpost
Ryan J. Reilly Headshot





WASHINGTON -- Even longtime supporters of marijuana legalization were surprised early Friday morning when the House of Representatives voted for an amendmentthat would prevent the Drug Enforcement Administration and federal prosecutors from targeting medical marijuana in states where it is legal.
"Quite frankly, many of us who were sponsors of this amendment… didn't expect to win and were surprised by the margin of that victory this morning," Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said at a press conference Friday morning, less than nine hours after the vote.
"While I always knew it would happen sooner than most political observers thought, it's still hard to believe this just happened," said Tom Angell, the chairman of Marijuana Majority.
"Based on our internal whip count I knew there was a chance this might pass, but we had to just about run the table with our swing votes. When I saw the vote total, I was shocked -- not so much that it passed, but by the margin," said Dan Riffle of the Marijuana Policy Project. "I figured we might get lucky and pass it by 5-10 votes, but never thought a 30 vote margin was a possibility."
At the press conference with backers of the amendment Friday morning, members of the House said the vote should send a message both to the administration and to the medical marijuana industry.
"The heart and soul of the Republican party is that pro-freedom, individual philosophy that Reagan talked about," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), the primary Republican pushing the amendment. "I think that what we've got now and what we have here in the Republican vote last night were people who took a lot of those words and the philosophy of Ronald Reagan to heart."
The amendment the House passed is attached to an appropriations bill that would fund the DEA and Department of Justice, among other agencies. While both the amendment and the bill aren't guaranteed to make it through the messy appropriations process, supporters said it should leave no doubt where the House stands.
"This is a will of Congress vote," said Polis. "We all are realists here, we know that we haven't had an appropriations process in some time, it's likely that it will be omnibuses in the future. We don't know where this particular amendment and particular bill are going. It's the will of Congress: it has ramifications for banking, for insurance, for a number of other issues that effect the industry."
"The president famously said that he had bigger fish to fry, but there are 93 U.S. attorneys and the DEA, and some of them are frying those smaller fish," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.). "There continues to be uncertainty. There are now many small businesses who are perfectly legal in these jurisdictions that are operating under a cloud. There have been lives that have been disrupted. This is not something that is theoretical."
Blumenauer especially hoped the message would get through to DEA chief Michele Leonhart, who has repeatedly made dubious statements about the dangers posed by marijuana and reportedly even said that the day a hemp flag flew over the U.S. Capitol was the worst day in her 33-year career at the DEA.
"The hemp flag flying over the Capitol was the lowest point in this person's career? Give. Me. A break!" Blumenauer said. "Maybe this will be a signal to the administration that they can't sort of tap dance around this, that they need to get their signals aligned and hopefully they're aligned with what the House did and where America is going."
A DEA spokeswoman referred a request for comment to the Justice Department, where a representative said the department was reviewing the medical marijuana amendment, as well as two pro-hemp amendments that also passed overnight.
Blumenauer said the vote should give Attorney General Eric Holder political cover to move ahead with initiating the rescheduling of marijuana next year. The federal government currently classifies it as a Schedule 1 drug with no legitimate medical purpose. Holder told HuffPost last month that while he would be willing to work with Congress to reschedule marijuana, the administration had made the political decision not to unilaterally do so, given all of the other executive actions it had taken on criminal justice reform.
"This is an integral part of why we need smarter sentencing reform, because we've had people trapped in this nightmare, and you've got non-violent people doing time for doing things that the majority of people in America now think should be legal," Blumenauer said Friday.
"That's why I said not this year, but as you move things forward, I think it's an easy way for them to unwind some of this and get out of the impossible situation," he said. "I hope Congress can do it, but it's not likely to happen this Congress, and it'll be a bit of a stretch next Congress, but it'll happen."

ALSO ON HUFFPOST: