dos

1/18/2009 8:10:50 AM

Besides who would deal with a drug dealer for marginal savings when you can have the convenience of Rite Aid?

1/18/2009 10:53:20 AM

I don't think that anyone is arguing that legal channels couldn't easily undercut the current distribution of drugs.

1/18/2009 11:00:43 AM

^
eleusis is:

Quote :

"legalizing drugs won't make these cartels go away. black market drugs will still end up cheaper than anything that comes out of our pharmaceutical industry because of a lack of taxes and industry regulation. The only thing that would change is the ability of our government to prosecute the people selling drugs."

...of course, he's wrong. Everyone knows that black market prices are always higher. Where does nearly everyone get their cigarettes and liquor from? (Hint: It's not the black market.)

Quote :

"1) the "medicaments" you speak of have addictive chemicals in them, so they are partially responsible for harm. when taken, it's nearly impossible to stop using."

No, I disagree. Objects can't harm anything, in and of themselves. Some intentional or negligent act is generally needed. No one puts a gun to your head when you decide to sniff coke all week. You knew the danger. Have you ever been addicted to anything?...or really close to being addicted, but you "felt" the addiction starting, so you quit for good? Well, if you haven't, many others have. That demonstrates that trying highly addictive drugs (responsibly,) without becoming addicted is possible. Many people develop quite a tobacco or caffeine habit for many years, but successfully quit for the rest of their lives. I'm sorry, but your "they are partially responsible for harm. [because the drugs are] nearly impossible to stop using" argument fails. Personal responsibility is paramount.

Quote :

"2) i've yet to meet a crackhead that uses drugs responsibly because they are seeking relief for their addiction."

How many "crackheads" have you met? Just because all of the ones you've met were addicted and were seeking relief for their addictions, doesn't logically mean that everyone who uses crack cocaine is the same way. (I tend to agree with your generalization, although I've only met a couple crackheads....) Again, it's a matter of personal responsibility.

Quote :

"responsible drug use may not perpetuate harm, but how many responsible drug users are out there (vs. irresponsible)?"

Even if, everything else aside, the clear majority of drugs users were irresponsible, why justify prohibiting drugs from those that are responsible because of the actions of others? Do you like gambling? Some people have a problem and lose all of their money, so should you and I be prohibited from gambling too? Is the government our "nanny"?...is it the government's obligation to step in and protect us from our own allegedly irresponsible actions, before we've even done them? Also, the fact that drugs are prohibited increases the tendency for drug use to be irresponsible. If everything were out in the open, drugs had no legal stigma, and were regulated and accountable, irresponsible drug use would occur less. "Daylight is the best disinfectant." -- Brandeis

1/18/2009 12:18:52 PM

Quote :

"legalizing drugs won't make these cartels go away. black market drugs will still end up cheaper than anything that comes out of our pharmaceutical industry because of a lack of taxes and industry regulation."

This may be the dumbest argument for legalization drugs i have ever heard. Last time i checked we do not have a major issue with bootleggers in this country. Billy Bob may have his still to produce some moonshine for personal consumption but its not profitable enough or worth the risk to sell his liquor to other people even after the markup on ABC liquors.

The only drug you may be able to argue this for is pot and maybe shrooms. Otherwise for processed drugs like cocaine, meth, ecstasy, etc it just does not imho hold up. Why would i risk getting unpure product, getting jacked, or arrested to buy black market blow when i can go the Coffee Shop and get my gram of blow.

1/18/2009 12:20:58 PM

Quote :

"I think fat people stuffing their guts with triple thick burgers are infringing my rights when their obesity related health problems cost me to pay higher premiums on my insurance, when they can take up part of my seat in the airplane, etc"

If this argument continues to be made for legalizing drugs, the government's response will be to ban cheeseburgers.

So could you potheads please not take away my cheeseburgers? Thanks.

1/18/2009 12:28:49 PM

^
If they did that, you couldn't use "hamburger" as drug slang when buying your quarter-pound of weed...

Quote :

"when i can go the Coffee Shop and get my gram of blow"

What would they call that?...a "Grande Mocha Coca" or a "Cup'a Snow"?

1/18/2009 12:33:45 PM

Quote :

"Everyone knows that black market prices are always higher. Where does nearly everyone get their cigarettes and liquor from? (Hint: It's not the black market.)"

have you never heard of smuggling cigarettes from NC and VA to the northeast US or to Europe? How fucking obtuse are you to think I'm wrong just because you're ignorant. The black market isn't always some gang sitting on the corner slinging dope; sometimes it's the restaurants and gas station chains that buy their alcohol or tobacco products from organized smuggling organizations that make money by avoiding the ridiculous taxes on these items. Sometimes these smugglers even operate under legitimate businesses with warehouses and trucks.

Also, black market crystal meth is approximately 10 times cheaper at retail prices than it's pharmaceutical counterparts. Black market heroin is cheaper than pharmaceutical oxycontin and dilaudids. If anything, the black market is always CHEAPER than the legal counterpart, due to the tax evasion and lack of government regulation in manufacturing.

1/19/2009 8:57:57 AM

Quote :

"Why would i risk getting unpure product, getting jacked, or arrested to buy black market blow when i can go the Coffee Shop and get my gram of blow."

Same reason that people in Amsterdam buy outside of coffee shops - they can afford it on the black market. Your gram of blow at the coffee shop is going to be twice as much as it will be in the alley beside the coffee shop, and cocaine isn't known for being a poor man's drug.

1/19/2009 9:02:10 AM

^^
Um, any idiot can clearly see that both points you just tried to make are "comparing apples to oranges"
Are you trolling? (Does anyone know eleusis? Is he trolling?)

1/19/2009 9:23:20 AM

Quote :

"Also, black market crystal meth is approximately 10 times cheaper at retail prices than it's pharmaceutical counterparts. Black market heroin is cheaper than pharmaceutical oxycontin and dilaudids. If anything, the black market is always CHEAPER than the legal counterpart, due to the tax evasion and lack of government regulation in manufacturing."

What about economies of scale? One way or the other, the cost of producing the item and getting it on the store shelves is cheaper for a 'legitimate' operation (perhaps 'industrial' would be a better word). Is it possible that extra engineered costs (like vice taxes) could push it over the illegitimate option? I would hesitantly say yes.

There's no limit to how much you can tax an item, but the natural difference in price between the two channels is orders of magnitude. From what I understand, tobacco is as difficult, if not more difficult to produce than marijuana, and a cigarette goes for 20 cents while a joint goes for 20 dollars. Someone was making the point that this price difference is different for each drug. That's true, but it's always there and it's always huge. Meth labs in trailers are not efficient hydroponic closet weed farms are not efficient.

Seriously, 99% of the over-the-counter cost would have to be tax or regulatory burdens in order for people to stay with their dealers. The example of people shipping cigarettes to stores in different states is a matter of redirecting the product of the industrial machine later down the line. That hasn't bypassed the system. Something similar could happen in the case of other drugs as well, since the majority of the cost is tax, smuggling some of the factory's output would be attractive.

I'm not extremely familiar with Amsterdam's case, but I'm sure it still follows the laws of economics. If we legalized all drugs here, people wouldn't have a problem with going to the store for them. Because we're a nation of lazy fat asses, and no one is going to find any value in going to the dealer for the 'novelty' of it.

1/19/2009 10:15:45 AM

Quote :

"Meth labs in trailers are not efficient hydroponic closet weed farms are not efficient. "

methamphetamine superlabs and massive outdoor growing operations are efficient. They also account for the bulk of the black market production.

Quote :

"From what I understand, tobacco is as difficult, if not more difficult to produce than marijuana, and a cigarette goes for 20 cents while a joint goes for 20 dollars."

you can buy a high grade pot in Amsterdam for about $15-20 a gram, and it's practically legal there. You can buy high grade pot in the US for the same cost per gram. The legality doesn't seem to have much effect on the cost.

1/19/2009 12:05:08 PM

yo brah can i get the triple baconator thickburger, with the super size fries, a 5pc-chicken nug, Xtra large coke, and a gram of marijuana on the side.

1/19/2009 12:09:03 PM

No, I want my herb on the burger.

1/19/2009 12:17:29 PM

Never mix your stash with your munchies

What kind of fucking noob are you

1/19/2009 1:51:00 PM

Quote :

"What kind of consequences would have for the United States, and what options does the United States have?"

We'd probably do what we've done in the past with the drug cartels playing the role of Pancho Villa. The US military would go in, take control over strategic areas, and send guys out to target the cartels. I can certainly see international organizations (the UN) participating, but it's hard to say. The US would be wanting to act fast to contain the problem on our border, and those organizations are known for dragging their feet.

I'm not sure how long it would take or how much good it would do. The cartels and their allies extend well beyond Mexico into South America, where the hard stuff comes from. The leadership could easily fly the coop and wait until things settled down.

Politically, we'd work on a track to quickly re-establish a functioning democracy, which we would then load up with money and guns. This part wouldn't be too hard; unlike, say, Somalia, Mexico has had a functioning government for quite some time.

1/19/2009 3:20:31 PM

I didn't read the whole thread, but this would obviously give the United States all the excuse it needed to fully militarize the U.S.-Mexico border--and perhaps all of our borders. An overwhelming majority of citizens would no doubt demand this.

1/19/2009 4:26:52 PM

I have a feeling the amount we would spend on a big ass fence and fully manning a militarized border would cost way more than social costs of a few wetbacks and drug mules sneaking in.

Lets please do waste more money showing off that we are Amurica and got Big Gunz

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : a]

1/19/2009 4:38:20 PM

^ First, you are an idiot. Second, the border at issue is much more dangerous than idiots like you realize--because, well, you are ill-informed idiots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov_6umepg08

1/19/2009 5:00:22 PM

you are right hooksaw cause DEY TUKKER ER JERBS!

1/19/2009 5:01:29 PM

^ QED.

1/19/2009 5:03:26 PM

I just know how to push all your buttons hooksaw

1/19/2009 5:07:23 PM

Quote :

"have you never heard of smuggling cigarettes from NC and VA to the northeast US or to Europe?"

Sure, I've heard of the practice. I know people who brew their own too. Yet I've seen folks buy legal alcohol and cigarettes far more often. The black market doesn't dominate for those substances. Why would marijuana follow magically different rules?

Quote :

"We'd probably do what we've done in the past with the drug cartels playing the role of Pancho Villa."

Would the government be so willing recreate the embarrassment of Pershing's wild goose chase?

1/19/2009 8:51:24 PM

You with your FACTS. Bah.

1/19/2009 10:08:53 PM

^^I'd like to think we'll have learned something from Pershing's mistakes, as well as our own in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the very least, we've gotten quite a bit of experience in recent years pursuing a mobile enemy on their home turf.

I also suspect that Barack Obama would have the good sense to work with the remnants of Mexico's political and military infrastructure, which would have legitimacy and probably want assistance. I suspect these remnants would be fairly substantial, and while they would certainly be factious there would probably be a decent chunk loyal to democracy.

Ultimately I'm not sure we'd have a choice. Having a failed state on our (already porous) border is not good for this country, and it certainly wouldn't be good for Mexico. Even if we legalized every drug under the sun, a failed state is a perfect breeding ground for whatever nefarious moneymaking crime that took their place.

1/19/2009 10:41:40 PM

Quote :

"Yet I've seen folks buy legal alcohol and cigarettes far more often."

you had no way of knowing if the alcohol and cigarettes you've witnessed being purchased are black market or not unless you were there when the deliveries were made and the taxes were paid. You're not going to see a large black market if all you're observing is NC and VA either, since this is the land of tobacco.

In the EU, they are estimating that well over a billion dollars worth of black market cigarettes are imported in each year. Brazil estimates that ~30% of the cigarettes consumed in their country are black market. Numerous reports are indicating a surge in the purchase of black market cigarettes in New York and California due to their increased state taxes. Some of these black market vendors are as sophisticated as generating fake tax stamps, while others are just online sites that simply "forget" to report sales to the purchaser's state.

1/19/2009 10:44:16 PM

^^ That's a good point. Argument of drug legalization aside, things might have already gone too far in Mexico for that alone to rectify the situation.

1/20/2009 1:45:45 AM

^I'm sure of it. Legalization will force the cartels to restructure and diversify, but taking the huge profit margins out of drugs isn't going to make them throw up their hands and say, "Well, shit. I guess now I have to go to school and get a legitimate job."

1/20/2009 1:50:58 AM

^
While I agree that

Quote :

"things might have already gone too far in Mexico for [drug legalization] alone to rectify the situation."

...I think it's funny (yet sad,) watching you all delude yourself into thinking that legalizing [all] drugs would somehow fail to NEARLY DESTROY these groups, by bankrupting them. Stop being so stupid as to think this would merely dent their efforts. (*laughs*)

Without taking the billions of dollars from the millions of north american who constantly demand drugs, where are the billions gonna come from? Hookers? Guns? Do you honestly think that people spend ANYWHERE NEAR as much on hookers and guns as they do on drugs? Drop in the fucking bucket. Drugs are like food -- people buy and consume them daily for most of their lives.

So where's the money coming from? Robbery? I doubt there's that much to steal, but guess what? Robbery is actually a real crime -- one that government need not spend half it's money on simply trying to convince people that it actually is a crime! (Read: society will not tolerate rampant thievery.)

Quote :

"Legalization will force the cartels to restructure and diversify"

Into what? No really, into what? What possible restructuring and diversifying would allow them even one quarter of the money, power and influence that they currently get though supplying illegal drugs?

1/20/2009 7:35:41 AM

Quote :

"you had no way of knowing if the alcohol and cigarettes you've witnessed being purchased are black market or not unless you were there when the deliveries were made and the taxes were paid."

Having worked at places selling alcohol, I've helped with deliveries. I'm not certain about taxes, but I've seen posted licenses. In any cases, there's an enormous difference between a business selling illegal beer openly and drug deals conducted under constant fear of the cops. Cigarettes and alcohol have a more efficient distribution system than marijuana. I know exactly where to get them. I'd have to work to score some weed. (For the record, I don't use any of those three substances.)

Quote :

"I also suspect that Barack Obama would have the good sense to work with the remnants of Mexico's political and military infrastructure, which would have legitimacy and probably want assistance."

Assistance, yes. US boots on the ground? I don't know. While the Mexican elites might accept such a move, it'd inevitably cause resentment across the region. Nonintervention has been a major Latin American position for ages now.

1/20/2009 10:25:11 AM

Quote :

"...I think it's funny (yet sad,) watching you all delude yourself into thinking that legalizing [all] drugs would somehow fail to NEARLY DESTROY these groups, by bankrupting them. Stop being so stupid as to think this would merely dent their efforts. (*laughs*)"

Or perhaps you need to think the quote through and the fact that maybe, just maybe, that the existing Mexican government and other social institutions have been so destabilized that even if you broke the power of the cartels, the damage done to the system could take decades to repair if at all possible? Mexico was hardly a happy, sunshiny rainbow paradise before the drug problem spun out of control, and now that the cartels have broken public confidence in Mexican government and law enforcement, a variety of other, non-drug related elements and issues that they previously had in check could reemerge.

Corruption is a good one: the drug trade established new heights to the culture of corruption in Mexico. Even after you remove drug money from the system, that culture is not going to disappear, and its presence is going to hobble real economic growth. There's also the growing violence and the arms already brought into Mexico. Just because the cartels disappear doesn't mean that the additional firepower they brought into the nation is going to vanish with them. There's other things too: violence, vigilantism, and kidnappings. Yes, Mexico can certainly clean these things up, but given how bad things are right now, it could take years, maybe decades, to restore "former" levels especially since their economy was already stalled before the drugs and current economic slump hit.

1/20/2009 10:35:11 PM

Quote :

"you need to think........the existing Mexican government and other social institutions have been so destabilized that even if you broke the power of the cartels, the damage done to the system could take decades to repair if at all possible"

I know -- I already said, "I agree that things might have already gone too far in Mexico for [drug legalization] alone to rectify the situation." I just think that many are underestimating how much black market revenue would completely and permanently disappear were drugs to be made legal.

Quote :

"after you remove drug money from the system, that culture is not going to disappear"

Well, some of it would disappear, because many drug smugglers are opportunistic. Also, much of it would simply move from mexico to somewhere that still prohibits drugs -- so it can continue to get that easy money. Certainly at least a small amount of it would, as GrumpyGOP said, "go to school and get a legitimate job." However, whatever amount of that culture that would remain, would have well under half of its money.

1/21/2009 8:15:30 AM

The entire focus of this conversation is stupid frankly. If you legalize drugs, the drug cartels will not continue to exist in their current form. It's pointless to discuss whether they'd get bigger or smaller. They won't be there anymore alright.

If you truly have legalization of the popular drugs that can really really fuck people up, then you will be ushering an entirely new era for the underbelly of society. The hard drugs would be cheaply available, and probably millions of people would be using them to the limits of their body. Ironically, they may not go entirely broke doing this. Currently you can easily spend $100,000 per year on Cocaine (outside of the means of most) and not kill yourself. In this new world, it's possible that a $5,000 binge could push you to the limit and realistically kill you. This will shut down many current cartels, but incorporate many new addicts on a scale not previously seen. Out with the old and in with the new.

Stop focusing on what will happen to the current drug lords. It doesn't matter! You will have bigger problems! Crime will not disappear, but stop asking what will happen to the current criminals. They will find some new way to be criminals. They are a very flexible workforce.

1/21/2009 9:55:38 AM

Quote :

"then you will be ushering an entirely new era for the underbelly of society. The hard drugs would be cheaply available, and probably millions of people would be using them to the limits of their body. Ironically, they may not go entirely broke doing this. Currently you can easily spend $100,000 per year on Cocaine (outside of the means of most) and not kill yourself. In this new world, it's possible that a $5,000 binge could push you to the limit and realistically kill you. This will shut down many current cartels, but incorporate many new addicts on a scale not previously seen. Out with the old and in with the new. "

I can't believe we ended alcohol prohibition. How could our fearless leaders not perceive the wide spread binge drinking that would overtake our country with legal cheap booze. Alcoholics are widespread and as I walk downtime I must step over senseless inebreated drunks that litter the sidewalks. Driving down Western every second is a fight for my life as i must dodge drunk drivers who can not control their urges; consuming copious amounts of cheap alcohol even when they have to drive!

You are either trolling or a complete idiot. Even if cocaine were legalized I severely doubt people would be raiding the pharmacy to blow down everyday no more than how your everyday responsible adult doesn't make a beeline to the bar after work to pound shots. Get real and stop taking your drug facts from DEA propraganda.

When it came to alcohol I drank way more heavily before I was 21 when it was illegal. By the time I was 22 and the novelty of the bars wore off; my drinking became a lot more limited. I just don't think its a big deal, I will drink 3-4-5 maybe 6 drinks but i do not pound beers nearly as much as I did back when I was a "law-breaker" drinking. I think the same would hold for other drugs as not every alcohol user becomes an alcoholic. Therefore what proof do u have that every cocaine user will become a cocaine addict.

[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 10:08 AM. Reason : a]

1/21/2009 10:04:03 AM

Cocaine is worse than alcohol.

1/21/2009 10:08:51 AM

Quote :

"They will find some new way to be criminals. They are a very flexible workforce."

Yes, but they'd have less than half of the money they once had.

Quote :

"Out with the old and in with the new."

You can already get drugs. People already abuse them. If drugs were made legal, the number of new drug abusers that would be created would be very small compared to the number of existing drug abusers that, because of the removal of all legal stigma, would only then attempt to receive treatment. Also, there'd be more treatment available. Also, who cares if someone is dumb enough to OD? A few examples of bad-decision making tend to deter such irresponsibility in others. (Remember the wrecked cars MADD put on your high school campus? Makes you think, doesn't it?)

[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM. Reason : ]

1/21/2009 10:16:50 AM

I hate MADD

1/21/2009 10:23:32 AM

Quote :

"You can already get drugs. People already abuse them. If drugs were made legal, the number of new drug abusers that would be created would be very small compared to the number of existing drug abusers that, because of the removal of all legal stigma, would only then attempt to receive treatment. Also, there'd be more treatment available. Also, who cares if someone is dumb enough to OD? A few examples of bad-decision making tend to deter such irresponsibility in others. (Remember the wrecked cars MADD put on your high school campus? Makes you think, doesn't it?)"

I agree with some of your points. It WILL be easier to get treatment, and it will make much less sense to avoid getting it if all drugs are legal.

However, the number of users WILL increase. The increase will not be small (compared to the number of current users), and there will be significant cultural implications, just as there are significant cultural implications of alcohol being legal. There will be alcohol bars and everything bars to whatever extent the local, state, and national governments allow them to exist.

I didn't mean to focus on people ODing. My point was that in the world we're talking about, you can affordably be a vegetable. We would have a new drug culture, that is unavoidable in the process of legalizing hard drugs.

I look around during exam week now and think that maybe 0.5 % of the people walking around are doing cocaine or meth. If everything is legal, I can see this being 5 % easily. Note how I'm not implicating anything close to a majority as being irresponsible (or anyone for that matter), but with decreased stigmas and lower costs there will be an extremely large number of adopters compared to the current number of users. Also, I think that anyone who has done cocaine would concede that the extra 4.5% will affect the curve. That is an example of a cultural implication that affects everyone - there will be many more.

I'm not arguing against legalization. I'm speaking to the advocates for legalization; you must be aware and accepting of certain consequences of such a direction instead of trying to discredit them.

1/21/2009 11:04:39 AM

^ We got an armchair statistician.

"Let me pull random statistics out of my ass to prove my argument to the drug argument"

Beside I think most people hear do not necessarily agree with legalization of hard drugs. Just b.c something is illegal does not mean we have to spend $billions on enforement, lock away otherwise innocent non-violent offeners, breaching the civil rights of people in the name to stop drugs, all other aggressive gov't/police policies use in teh so called War on Drugs.

What we need is a sensible drug policy based on facts not myths and propraganda spread through the DEA

[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM. Reason : a]

1/21/2009 11:34:28 AM

Quote :

""Let me pull random statistics out of my ass to prove my argument to the drug argument""

Excuse me for illustrating a point.

[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 12:23 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2009 12:22:23 PM

Unfortuantly your ECE205 simple understanding of Macroeconomics often does not perfectly align in the real world. Other variables like price elasticity would have a major effect on your argument. This is even ignoring the fact that people do not behave like robots and will not always partake in the most rational action.

I binged drank a lot more when alcohol was illegal and took effort to get. Now that i'm 21+ its no big deal to run to the quickie mart to get beer and its just not a big deal anymore.

1/21/2009 12:26:54 PM

so he's wrong for making up statistics to prove his point, but your own individual experience is fair game, I see


this argument is so stupid

1/21/2009 12:50:13 PM

Quote :

"...I think it's funny (yet sad,) watching you all delude yourself into thinking that legalizing [all] drugs would somehow fail to NEARLY DESTROY these groups, by bankrupting them."

Well, here's problem #1, which is that far fewer people want to legalize all drugs. Marijuana? No question. Hallucinogens? Maybe. Crack and heroin? Not a chance in church. I take that side myself, in large part because I think that legalizing some of the harder shit would cause us more trouble than the drug cartels.

Problem #2 is that this part of your post was virtually unreadable between the parentheses, brackets, caps, italics, and whatever that last thing is called.

Quote :

"Without taking the billions of dollars from the millions of north american who constantly demand drugs, where are the billions gonna come from? Hookers? Guns? Do you honestly think that people spend ANYWHERE NEAR as much on hookers and guns as they do on drugs?"

I think I made it clear that the "huge profit margins" were going to go away. That being said, who knows what they'll go into? Organized crime doesn't need drug sales to exist or even thrive, only to enjoy truly ridiculous wealth. A criminal organization as large, well-armed, and well-coordinated as the cartels might decide to get out of regular crime altogether in order to do something more dangerous, like outright taking over Mexico or some part thereof.

The fact is that we don't know what they'd go into next, but it seems highly unlikely that many of them would go into legitimate society. Which means you still have a lot of hoodlums with nice guns running around looking for something to do.

Quote :

"Assistance, yes. US boots on the ground? I don't know. While the Mexican elites might accept such a move, it'd inevitably cause resentment across the region."

If Mexico were an outright failed state in which the drug cartels had complete freedom from the intervention of its government, and in which presumably factions were vying for power, I've no doubt we'd end up with boots on the ground. And while some people would resent it, I don't think the majority would. Typically in situations such as this the recent trend has been allowing multinational regional forces to handle it -- the African Union in Sudan, for example. Well, we're the big regional power. I'm sure there would be a multinational effort, but not only our strength but our proximity to the conflict would make it logical that we led it and made up the lion's share.

Quote :

"Also, much of it would simply move from mexico to somewhere that still prohibits drugs -- so it can continue to get that easy money."

That still leaves the actual personnel, who have enough trouble getting into this country. What are they going to do? Move to Idaho and smuggle drugs into Canada?

Quote :

"Even if cocaine were legalized I severely doubt people would be raiding the pharmacy to blow down everyday no more than how your everyday responsible adult doesn't make a beeline to the bar after work to pound shots."

Cocaine? Probably not, unless to get ingredients for crack (if that is indeed how the crackmaking process works). Heroine? Meth? Yeah, I could see it.

Alcohol is dangerous in its own way but it isn't as addictive as some drugs. It takes a while to develop a tolerance, let alone a physical need for it.

Quote :

"Yes, but they'd have less than half of the money they once had."

So the fuck what? Historically poor people with guns are pretty goddamn scary.

1/21/2009 1:01:23 PM

are you people trying to have a serious political conversation about legalizing heroin and cocaine?

I haven't been to soap box in a while but I thought it was better than this at least

1/21/2009 4:55:47 PM

Quote :

"If Mexico were an outright failed state in which the drug cartels had complete freedom from the intervention of its government, and in which presumably factions were vying for power, I've no doubt we'd end up with boots on the ground. And while some people would resent it, I don't think the majority would."

I suspect many Mexicans and others would bitterly oppose any US intervention. I can't say for certain that it'd be a majority, but such a move would reverberate in Latin American foreign policy for decades at a minimum. Countless voices rejected our meddling during the Mexican Revolution, a situation far more chaotic than what could likely develop from the current crisis. I think you're underestimating the anger US military action would cause.

1/21/2009 4:59:59 PM

gee it will suck when we have our entire military in the middle east when we are actually facing a problem of our own

1/21/2009 5:02:33 PM

Quote :

"I suspect many Mexicans and others would bitterly oppose any US intervention."

Certainly the cartels and various other criminal elements would. There would also be some political extremists and other outliers, sure.

Quote :

"Countless voices rejected our meddling during the Mexican Revolution, a situation far more chaotic than what could likely develop from the current crisis."

I'm wondering if the issue is that you don't understand the concept of what it means to be a "failed state," or if you've just got your usual peace-at-all-costs blinders on.

If the issue in Mexico were as simple as a revolution I suspect we'd pick a side and offer guns and supplies. Obviously we'd piss off the side we didn't pick, but it wouldn't really be boots on the ground. If the state actually failed, collapsed into anarchy, essentially became Somalia -- that's a very different situation. It wouldn't just be us on the ground, as I said; it would probably be an international force with the most emphasis on the US but also including forces from Canada and Central and South American countries. Nobody in the Western Hemisphere has an interest in seeing a failed Mexico except for the drug cartels.

1/22/2009 10:26:44 AM

So you're suggesting the current problems will lead to something worse than pitched battles, regular assassinations, and violence spilling over the border? The Mexican Revolution led to over a million excess deaths. Simple indeed.

1/22/2009 10:54:08 AM

1) This thread is discussing potential, hypothetical scenario in which Mexico collapses into anarchy. I did not say that "current problems" will lead to anything. I said that a collapse of Mexico into anarchy would lead to certain things.

2) I did not say anything about one situation being worse than another, only that it would be more chaotic.

That said, the current problems are pitched battles, regular assassinations, and violence spilling over the border. There is a difference in scale, sure, and the actors aren't political ones, but everything you describe already exists in Mexico today. And they would get much, much worse with a total collapse of order, as opposed to the partial collapse we have right now.

Back to the subject of your reading comprehension, "simple" doesn't imply peaceful, nonviolent, good, what have you. The Holocaust was simple enough -- a simple ideology motivating a simple goal. The only thing complicated about it was the infrastructure needed to carry it out. The Mexican Revolution had a limited number of actors, each with clear motivations and capabilities, for the most part confined to one country. Compared to a failed state scenario, it was simple.

1/22/2009 6:14:00 PM

Tell Pedro to keep his tacos and violence back south of the border

1/22/2009 7:05:35 PM