They make most of their money from cocaine and methamphetamine (which can be legally acquired, but that didn't stop traffic). 90% of all cocaine in the US come from mexico. [1] Do you mean cocaine should be legalized? Alcohol is a bad analogy to legalizing cocaine, you should probably be comparing to the Opium Wars instead, which didn't really end well. [2]
Yes, I am saying cocaine should be legalized. People that want the drug today are able to obtain it anyway. We could put all kinds of restrictions on its sale and use, as long as it is easier to obtain legally than underground it would prevent the formation of wealthy criminal gangs.
As shown in the report I linked before. Meth is a highly regulated hard drug that can be obtained legally. [1] Mexican drug cartels still traffic it, still makes tons of profit from it, thousands of people die because of it. Regulating Meth didn't stop the drug war.
What exactly makes you think any other drug would be different?
When most people refer to the legalization of "drugs", they are typically implying decriminalized (or semi-decriminalized) recreational use and not tightly regulated medical use (Desoxyn).
This makes sense, since a highly regulated substance is de-facto illegal if it is unobtainable by the vast majority of its target market.
Excuse me, but it's NOT legal. It's not legal to produce and it's not legal to sell or buy. Therefore, it's not being produced or sold by legitimate operations. THAT is why Mexican drug cartels still traffic it. Because it's still illegal.
Desoxyn is pharmaceutical methamphetamine. It is extremely infrequently prescribed, but technically more legal (schedule II, along with cocaine) than LSD or Marijuana (schedule I).
IANAH, but this runs counter to my understanding. The Opium Wars are closer to what we are currently fighting, than to the results of legalization. The British (Mexico) wanted to sell opium to the Chinese (US) when it was against Chinese (US) law. There is a significant difference in that Mexico technically forbids this activity too, of course, while the British did not, but legalization by the US would move it further away from the historical situation, not closer to it.
It's impossible to run an organization like this for so long and with profits so large, without the help of some (lets call them corrupt) FBI/CIA/DEA agents or politicians inside US. I may be just a sheep but the shepherd and the dogs are always working together. We are driven to believe that all this is Columbia+Mexico vs US conflict when in reality there may be an invisible and silent war inside every country (not only US) between the ruling class and middle+lower class and the "war on drugs" is just one of the never ending battles, which will not be won by anyone as long as the rulers don't have serious interests in winning it.
The article clearly pointed out that corruption is the biggest contributor to the continued survival of the cartels. If, somehow, we were able to make everyone in law enforcement and the government honest, then the cartels would find it significantly harder, if not practically impossible, to do smuggle their goods.
It does seem like the war on drugs could be fought more by addressing those that are supposed to be fighting it and removing corruption. Perhaps huge pay increases and bonuses for turning in people that attempt to bribe?
The smuggling can be stopped in less than a year. A country so powerful and resourceful that sent a man on the moon, waged wars with countless countries, played nuclear chess with the soviets, influences and spies everyone with satellites & drones, can't get to the roots of this drug octopus ? Bullsh*t. They don't want to. They went in Iraq for a bunch of imaginary weapons and in Afghanistan for a terrorist that killed 3000 citizens. If they really wanted to stop the drug dealers they would have invaded Mexico and Columbia 3 times by now, and no one could have stopped them because drugs kill tens of thousands every year. It's all politics and the politicians can play limitless dumb when they want to and no one can arrest them for that. They never admit conspiracy, never admit betrayal of citizen's or nation’s interests, they only admit incompetence cause that is not punished by law and the fools still buy it.
That is just hilarious; you think the drug cartel can be stopped by invading Mexico??
Did you see what happened in iraq; what happens in Mexico will be many times worse, a full on insurgency, funded by drug money, paid by US citizens...
Our best example of a good way to go about reducing the drug trade is to go the way of Portugal.
It was just a way of saying that US has a huge capability (intelligence and military) which could be used and is used when the "national interests" dictates, but it's not used in this case, simply because there might be not enough national interest. Another way of viewing this: US attacks only the dealers that refuse to subordinate (the Talibans were guests in Washington, but something went wrong in this relationship).
Let me quote [1]
"An estimated 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits Mexico."
The key word here is "transits". Every other country in Central America, and some in northern South America are part of that "transit" too. Mexican just happens, to its bad luck, to be next to the biggest consumer.
Nobody is arguing to have cocaine accesible by kids at the grocery store. The argument is to legalize it to regulate it and, as someone below commented, to bring the prices down so is no longer such a profitable business.
Hi! This is the Market Economics Fairy! I help supply and demand equilibrate everywhere! If there is unmet demand for a fairly easy-to-grow cash crop, then it means that the prices are too low! Raise them, and farmland will switch from other commodities as it becomes marginally profitable to do so!
Sincerely, the Market Economics Fairy!
(Full disclosure: I'm just borrowing this character because it's suddenly relevant.)
So, if you will be legal drug seller and you will be tight on money, what you will do? Just invest into few small doses and you will have clients for life...
Cigarettes, while harmful, don't result in instant death. Banning cigarettes would result in the same problem banning other drugs has created.
The only things that should be "banned" are those that are so intrinsically harmful they cause severe, immediate, measurable harm to both the abuser and society.
There aren't many drugs that people consume that qualify for this standard since to be able to continuously abuse something it can't kill you the first try.
I agree with the spirit of your argument, but for reference 30mg of nicotine is fatal. It's a potent neurotoxin and is actively used as a pesticide. It would easily qualify as something "so intrinsically harmful [it] cause[s] severe, immediate, measurable harm."
True; it seems there's some more fuzzy element involved, involving how the substances are used rather than their intrinsic potency. For various reasons, turning nicotine into a more potent drug hasn't become popular. And, tobacco leaves smoked as-is are not acutely dangerous (only chronically dangerous). But, the same is basically true of coca leaves. The difference seems to be that coca leaves are refined into more potent/dangerous recreational drugs, but tobacco leaves aren't.
Firstly, substances can be used without 'abuse'. Alcohol is a good example of this, you probably know many users who never abuse it. Alcohol most certainly can cause severe, immediate harm to the abuser an society.
Why ban substances based on harm? Why not just enforce the rules around the actual harm?
For example, enforce driving under the influence and don't ban alcohol.
Is there really a need to ban things like heroin which have a high rate of causing harm to the user? It seems like it is more of social and community issue. Throwing that person in jail is hardly improving their life.
Managing harm, as you suggest, is the best way to handle things going forward. It also covers a lot of things beyond drugs, things that are addictive for some people like gambling.
In terms of priorities it should be avoiding harm to others, such as not driving under the influence as you suggest, and then avoiding harm to the individual, as might be the case with a chronic alcoholic.
As a note, heroin isn't as inherently harmful as it's made out to be, but, like other things, so long as it's illegal it will really only be popular with the more hard-core drug users. It was legal before, after all.
I have never liked the line of argument where 'but alcohol or cigarettes are worse than cocaine'. they should all be legal and people should decide for themselves what is more dangerous
Even if LSD were legal, it would remain illegal to drive while under the influence of it. But more importantly, do the laws prevent someone who wants to drive while consuming LSD stop anyone from doing it now?
I'm not sure about the USA, but in Canada, the number of people who use marijuana and the number of people who use tobacco are almost equal, despite only one of those substances being legal. That seems to indicate to me that the laws have no impact on consumption or the limitation thereof.
If you are worried about the effects of people using drugs, you are already witnessing them.
I agree, and feel the same way about people on alcohol -- which, incidentally, has a much greater risk of toxicity than LSD if you overdose. Which of these substances, if any, do you think should be illegal?
And the current War on (some) Drugs isn't having a massive negative impact on you? Do you not pay taxes? Do you own nothing at all of value and never go outside?
Because there's always the risk that someone will try it out of curiosity. And since it's a highly addictive drug you might end up causing more problems than you intend to solve.
Society 1) Drugs are regulated in pretty much the same ways they are in the US, and because of this prices are high. The addict may have a family or maybe not, but has bills to pay. He spends all his money on drugs leading to neglect of his bills. He gets arrested and is now unable to hold down a job. This leads into other problems after he gets out of legal trouble. He now has to steal to obtain the drugs.
Society 2) Drugs are largely decriminalized and cheap enough that a days supply for any addict don't break the bank. He doesn't lose his job because of legal ramifications and he just spends all his free time doing cocaine. He doesn't have to steal to obtain the drugs.
I think you might have an exaggerated idea of how addictive illegal drugs tend to be compared to alcohol and tobacco. Heroin and Meth actually are more addictive[1] than legal drugs, but not magically so. Still, banning just those two drugs would be a coherent policy, unlike our current laws that also ban Cocaine, Marijuana, normal Amphetamines, LSD, etc.
Like tens of thousands dying in the global drug wars annually, mixed with the cultural destruction we see in America's inner cities and with two million people in prison from drugs?
I don't see how you're going to stand any chance of causing more problems than that.
Cocaine has gotten cheap enough that anybody can try it if they want to. In the 40 year war on drugs, they've had a nearly unlimited budget and all the time that could ever be needed, things have only continued to get worse. The Cartels have already taken over every city in America, and they literally control portions of the south west. It's time to neutralize them, and the only way to do that is by destroying their profit centers with 'free market' competition that they can never beat (government regulated ala alcohol).
Only the government can create organized crime. And it's always through prohibitions of activities that should be legal.
Bah, there is plenty of slavery without complicit governments.
Typical example: Criminals lure naive poor country girls with prospects of lots of money and a job elsewhere. As soon as they arrive to the destination country, they are held captive (they steal everything they own, and use violence) and then used as prostitutes. I fail to see government help in this scheme.
I don't know about the US, but in other countries, slavery prostitution outlets are indeed persecuted and closed once found. Other prostitution outlets are tolerated (or encouraged.)
My point is even assuming incorruptible law enforcement, these outlets would still exist, might last less if you wish.
From there to saying it's a government sponsored slavery is a big step.
The government is complicit by keeping it illegal.
If it were legal, it could be taxed and regulated like anything else. Most people are OK with letting others do what they want with their own body. It's certain puritanical, tyrannical, authoritarian and powerful government factions that don't allow that.
I think it depends on the government. If the taxes or regulatory fees on legal prostitution are too high, it can create a black market similar to that of tobacco or pharmaceutical drugs.
Methamphetamine is still illegal. That is why the cartels still traffic in it. There is no legitimate corporation to supply it and there won't be unless it's legal.
Alcohol sales are in the billions, why aren't the cartels making money from that? Because legitimate corporations are there to supply it already. (You can also produce your own alcohol at home, but most people don't.)
[1] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34215.pdf
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars