In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com>, allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes: >>  >> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod): >>  >>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up? >>  >>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide. >>    No comparison. >>  >> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey >> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and >> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate. >> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of >> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a >> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it. > >	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more >	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation.  >	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military >	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower. > >	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into >	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its >	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or >	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical. >	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on >	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and >	thus it is economical.          Here's a question:  If most marijuana is domestic and producing it here is economical, why would we expect it to be imported?  >       Of note though ... domestic reefer >	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way. >	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a >	good dollar/pound deal.          Yet it was done.  Done quite successfully for a number of years. *Somebody* thought it was worth the risk.  >	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area. >	It would not be economic to smuggle them in.          Your assumption is that this "low" dollar/pound area is sufficiently low as to make gun-running unprofitable.  On what do you base this?           And given that smuggling channels are already established, and given the economies of scale, would it really add significantly more expense to start smuggling firearms, especially considering doing so would be less hazardous (in terms of getting caught) than drugs?  >       All production >	would have to be local.          Now *that* was a jump.  In any case, define "local."  It's a big country.   >       There are not all that many people >	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile >	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could >	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and >	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would >	pay through the nose for it.          Wow, you gotta love the speculation.         As I posted before, we import billions upon billions of raw ores across the Mexican border.  Not only that but ships come in and out of U.S. harbors every day full stuff.  And customs doesn't even have the extra advantage of being able to sniff them out.           I'd be willing to wager that a shipload of handguns would be worth more than a shipload of raw ore, *and* you're virtually guaranteed to get it past customs, because they'd have to hand search every hold of every ship which came through.         It's not simply a matter of how much money are they worth, but how much *more* money are they worth than other goods, based on the likelihood of being caught.  Less money than drugs, but also a safer thing to smuggle.