Drug war in Mexico: Do you think the US should jump in?

[Raxe]

Money makes it possible for the cartels to hire the soldiers that do the killing. Remove the MONEY and the cartels won't dissappear, just like the mafia didn't dissappear after repeal of prohibition, but they will diminish in effect just as the mafia did. Does anyone think the cartels could maintain their monopoly if their product was legal? If so, do you think the mafia runs Seagrams?

You're a few pages late, I've already explained several times how legalizing everything would not hurt the cartels but instead probably help them. They already HAVE all of the product, how would making the supply side easy hurt them?

[frankenbeemer]

Retarded at best, Nic. Retarded at best my friend. I would hope you could understand the premise of this thread but, it seems you missed it.

You don't understand and I don't fault you for that but, these issues you so blithely categorize are one on the same. Each one half of a whole. Ken C put out well. If you truly believe that producing hard core drugs and distributing them in the usa would limit violence you're one step away from insane.

I suppose I'm insane then, because I do believe it would reduce violence, and I don't know how a rational person could think otherwise.

[frankenbeemer]

You're a few pages late, I've already explained several times how legalizing everything would not hurt the cartels but instead probably help them. They already HAVE all of the product, how would making the supply side easy hurt them?

Because they don't have the ability to continue to have ALL the product. These products can be produced here, can they not?

[frankenbeemer]

After 1900, cheap Chinese field labor, four-crops yearly, economies of scale and technical
rationalization, inter-cropping with colonial rubber and tea projects, all made Javan plantation efficiency
dwarf the haphazard peasant-style coca culture of the Andes. By 1911 they captured a quarter of the
world market. Dutch industrialgrade
coca also made it to Japan, Belgium, France and even to the United States; in the 1920s,
impressed by its reliable quality, New Jersey Merck acquired its own Javan plantation, which performed
well into the 1930s. Peruvian coca/cocaine export values dropped by some 95% by the
1920s. Peruvians watched these developments helplessly, without the time, capital or technical
expertise to respond.

[AbeSonic]

Theres no money in this for U.S. As awesome as it sounds sending in a spec ops team and kill all the cartel its not worth it. "Terrorist" were our excuse to invade, what excuse will we use for Mexico?

[Raxe]

That's great, but this isn't the 1930's anymore. Nowadays people will sue you because your Big Mac made them fat.

I don't think it's very likely we'd see any heavy narcotics produced and manufactured in America. Can you even begin to imagine the lawsuits and liability American companies would face by producing these drugs? If tobacco companies are still being sued for hurting their consumers, think of the shitstorm a methamphetamine producer would face.

You can't sue someone for something you "didn't buy" on the black market.

[frankenbeemer]

That's great, but this isn't the 1930's anymore. Nowadays people will sue you because your Big Mac made them fat.



You can't sue someone for something you "didn't buy" on the black market.

What difference does the year make? I can buy cigarettes and Big Macs today. Pretty sure Merck or somebody would risk lawsuits to produce a lucrative product, so I still believe that the drug cartels monopoly exists as a result of present law, not any fear of being sued.

[StereoInstaller1]

I think if we (US companies) were in the drug business, things would change, but as that is not likely, I fear that violence spilling over the border. I feel it is inevitable and may already be here.

[frankenbeemer]

Luke, I believe you are right.

http://www.google.com/search?q=mexican+drug+violence+in+us&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5992999.ece

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9932

Form the last one at the Cato Institute:

Abandoning the prohibitionist model of dealing with the drug problem is the only effective way to stem the violence in Mexico and its spillover into the United States. Other proposed solutions, including preventing the flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico, establishing tighter control over the border, and (somehow) winning the war on drugs are futile. As long as the prohibitionist strategy is in place, the huge black market premium in illegal drugs will continue, and the lure of that profit, together with the illegality, guarantees that the most ruthless, violence-prone elements will dominate the trade. Ending drug prohibition would de-fund the criminal trafficking organizations and reduce their power.

[StereoInstaller1]

I agree with the idea of funding being eliminated...except that perhaps they have gained "critical mass" and may have enough pull to go legit. No one in the US seems to care where their drugs come from.

[blueapplesoda]

A bit late but I dgaf cause I like the topic.

to answer the Luke's discussion topic...

1: No. It costs money we don't have.
2: No. There is no money to be had, only money spent, in which we don't have.

And to the legalization of drugs...not for a long time.

But, if we did, the cartels would be selling drugs somewhere else, which would probably deter cartels from producing drugs destined for the US. Since the demand in Mexico goes down due to heightened production within the US by US pharms, cartels would just move somewhere else where there is a margin to be had. Drugs won't ever quit human society, and society won't ever quit drugs, so there will always be a market for it. It's just how bad society wants what they can't have which will ultimately determine who will be fighting for the working space.

Negating morality, and the health conditions of society, laws, and almost everything else, the question is how to end the cartel's ravaging grasp on Mexico. The answer is to oversaturate the market with the products that everyone wants, so there is no more demand, and illegal production and competition will cease. Strong demand gets met with strong supply, and an equilibrium will follow, and there will be no more fight to supply. I believe this is where the folks following legalization or decriminalization get their beliefs.

Using alcohol as a example, we can't forget that alcohol is the one of the oldest, most glanced-over mind altering substance (and extremely addictive one at that) known to mankind. It is a drug, a shitty drug, but legal to buy everywhere. When we forbade the sale of legal alcohol, the market went underground, supply became nonexistent, and the demand skyrocketed. Criminal's saw the money to be made, and attempted to fill the demand. Once we legalized alcohol, criminal's ceased production, ceased turf wars and once again the money went back into taxable sales.

No matter how bad it taste, drugs will be drugs, and society will be using them. With technology, we have created drugs that affect users in much greater and different ways, but that doesn't change the historical fact that WE LIKE ALTERED STATES. End of story. It is like eating good food, no entity will ever be able to stop the want, so the only way is to control how it is administered.

Make the demand for mexican drugs go down by producing locally, and the turf wars will stop in mexico. You don't see them producing alcohol.


A little off topic, but another thing is drugs are a part of everyones life. We have a chemical remedy for every symptom and every illness. Don't tell me it's not, because we have a fucking drugstore on every god-damned corner of every street that sells drugs. We can't ban drugs, we minus well embrace it and integrate it into society.

I mean shit, our brains secrete serotonin after dropping our car 2.5 inches and it secretes dopamine when we post pics and r3v gets a fucking hard on.

my 2c.

Derek

[StereoInstaller1]

the question is how to end the cartel's ravaging grasp on Mexico. The answer is to oversaturate the market with the products that everyone wants, so there is no more demand, and illegal production and competition will cease.

Well, I suppose if you want to get all logical and stuff that might work...

When we forbade the sale of legal alcohol, the market went underground, supply became nonexistent, and the demand skyrocketed. Criminal's saw the money to be made, and attempted to fill the demand. Once we legalized alcohol, criminal's ceased production, ceased turf wars and once again the money went back into taxable sales.

Those same criminals also escalated violence to nearly the same levels as the Mexican Cartels...only they left the innocent alone, as it was a simpler time. how soon we forget, huh?

What happened in the 30's in the US WILL happen again, don't fool yourselves.

Great post, Derek. Thanks!

Luke

[z31maniac]

What happened in the 30's in the US WILL happen again, don't fool yourselves.

What do you mean?

[dubsport87]

What do you mean?

Taking 4 loco off of the shelves is just the beginning. ;)

[bdracing]

Weird I thought all of a sudden we started talking about the great depression and an era of massive government growth