Actually, I think that post was a joke. You're still right, of course.
No he's quite serious. He doesn't value human life and thinks active steps should be taken to reduce the population.
Nations don't really need to do anything to reduce population. That's already occurring naturally thanks to smaller families. Just look at Japan, they are being sent home from work early to procreate because they can't sustain their own economy. Decreased reproduction is already affecting Europe, and it's only a matter of time until the United States follows the same path.
Actually, I think that post was a joke. You're still right, of course.
No he's quite serious. He doesn't value human life and thinks active steps should be taken to reduce the population.
Nations don't really need to do anything to reduce population. That's already occurring naturally thanks to smaller families. Just look at Japan, they are being sent home from work early to procreate because they can't sustain their own economy. Decreased reproduction is already affecting Europe, and it's only a matter of time until the United States follows the same path.
Yea, it's not like people will just have 14 babies for no reason.
It's not like poor people breed faster than anyone else...
Actually, I think that post was a joke. You're still right, of course.
No he's quite serious. He doesn't value human life and thinks active steps should be taken to reduce the population.
Nations don't really need to do anything to reduce population. That's already occurring naturally thanks to smaller families. Just look at Japan, they are being sent home from work early to procreate because they can't sustain their own economy. Decreased reproduction is already affecting Europe, and it's only a matter of time until the United States follows the same path.
Yea, it's not like people will just have 14 babies for no reason.
It's not like poor people breed faster than anyone else...
Well hello Mike Judge, it's good to see you still have work after your failed attempt at making Idiocracy a good movie. (Oh how I wanted it to be, though...)
Actually, I think that post was a joke. You're still right, of course.
No he's quite serious. He doesn't value human life and thinks active steps should be taken to reduce the population.
Nations don't really need to do anything to reduce population. That's already occurring naturally thanks to smaller families. Just look at Japan, they are being sent home from work early to procreate because they can't sustain their own economy. Decreased reproduction is already affecting Europe, and it's only a matter of time until the United States follows the same path.
Yea, it's not like people will just have 14 babies for no reason.
It's not like poor people breed faster than anyone else...
Well hello Mike Judge, it's good to see you still have work after your failed attempt at making Idiocracy a good movie. (Oh how I wanted it to be, though...)
I wasn't so much commenting on the growth of the poor, but rather that poor conditions don't stop people from breeding.
I know this is terribly on topic for this thread... but...
Why were the Cartels threatening to kill police officers unless the Chief of Police resigned? I mean, it doesnt sound like they had much to fear from the police if they were able to threaten them and also hold true on the threat... so why expend the effort? What did the Chief of Police represent that made them go out of their way to get him fired? Was he hired over some patsy/bought officer that they wanted installed as the Chief?
We don't need to go into Mexico.
The Mexican military isn't corrupt, at least not at the level that the police, the politics, and everything else in Mexico is. What we have to worry about is a military coup, because parts of the army might just get sick of watching this shit and decide that the politicians who are holding them back for the drug cartel's sake can go fuck themselves.
I know this is terribly on topic for this thread... but...
Why were the Cartels threatening to kill police officers unless the Chief of Police resigned? I mean, it doesnt sound like they had much to fear from the police if they were able to threaten them and also hold true on the threat... so why expend the effort? What did the Chief of Police represent that made them go out of their way to get him fired? Was he hired over some patsy/bought officer that they wanted installed as the Chief?
It seems more like they want to keep the police in permanent disorder and make sure that the civil government can't interfere with the drug cartel's business. The cartels can buy off lots of lower level cops (and they do) but it doesn't look like the cartels can appoint their own police chief and completely take over (yet).
Picardathon on
0
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
In a case like this, is the military taking independent action to put down the cartels really a bad thing?
We don't need to go into Mexico.
The Mexican military isn't corrupt, at least not at the level that the police, the politics, and everything else in Mexico is. What we have to worry about is a military coup, because parts of the army might just get sick of watching this shit and decide that the politicians who are holding them back for the drug cartel's sake can go fuck themselves.
There have been a few incidents with (alleged) Mexican soldiers helping the cartels smuggle drugs across the border. I dunno how high this goes up the ranks, but when we have soldiers using military vehicles to make little incursions into our border, that smells of pretty awful corruption.
It would stop the demand of these drugs and put the cartels out of buisness.
Or the government could make drugs not illegal. That would work just as well.
I'm wondering if that would actually work as well as we tend to think. The only comparison I know if is the end of Prohibition, and I'm not so sure that's completely analogous. For one, the infrastructure for large scale brewing and distribution had existed legally previously and was able to quickly revive and provide the (now legal) commodity outside of the control of the mob.
That infrastructure never existed for the production and distribution of narcotics, and creating an alternative system for supplying it to market would probably take something close to a civil war at this point, since the cartels are sure to go after any legit entrant into the market. The assumption has been that they would eventually become financially unable to wreak the havoc they are now , right? But that seems to be built on the idea that someone else uses legitimate means to fulfill the now legal demand, and I don't think that's likely to happen very quickly.
Actually, I think that post was a joke. You're still right, of course.
No he's quite serious. He doesn't value human life and thinks active steps should be taken to reduce the population.
Nations don't really need to do anything to reduce population. That's already occurring naturally thanks to smaller families. Just look at Japan, they are being sent home from work early to procreate because they can't sustain their own economy. Decreased reproduction is already affecting Europe, and it's only a matter of time until the United States follows the same path.
Offtopic stuff in here
According to the CIA world fact book it is at .883%, I am pretty sure this is getting pretty close to sub-replacement rates. The real problem lies in the Deveoloping world. Of course, there is a reason that some countries have such low birth rates, and that's that they are Developed, first world, Core, etc etc. According to the Demographic transition model,
Wiki page is good as well.
Death rates fall, then birth rates fall.. this process is not occurring in the third world. Obviously if their population growth rates are not stabilized then neither will their countries, I just finished reading a book called Sex and War that relates alot of these factors together (population growth, stability, young jobless men inciting violence..
On topic - O wow I had no idea that Mexico was this messed up in the drugs. Maybe Military interention wouldn't be such a bad thing. UN military intervention anyway..
That infrastructure never existed for the production and distribution of narcotics, and creating an alternative system for supplying it to market would probably take something close to a civil war at this point, since the cartels are sure to go after any legit entrant into the market. The assumption has been that they would eventually become financially unable to wreak the havoc they are now , right? But that seems to be built on the idea that someone else uses legitimate means to fulfill the now legal demand, and I don't think that's likely to happen very quickly.
Well how much of the resources needed to supply the general demand for illegal drugs, only exists in areas vulnerable to the cartels?
A production operation in the middle of the US seems like it would be relatively safe.
That infrastructure never existed for the production and distribution of narcotics, and creating an alternative system for supplying it to market would probably take something close to a civil war at this point, since the cartels are sure to go after any legit entrant into the market. The assumption has been that they would eventually become financially unable to wreak the havoc they are now , right? But that seems to be built on the idea that someone else uses legitimate means to fulfill the now legal demand, and I don't think that's likely to happen very quickly.
Well how much of the resources needed to supply the general demand for illegal drugs, only exists in areas vulnerable to the cartels?
A production operation in the middle of the US seems like it would be relatively safe.
And wouldn't have to spend a fortune maintaining thugs and bribing the police.
Well how much of the resources needed to supply the general demand for illegal drugs, only exists in areas vulnerable to the cartels?
A production operation in the middle of the US seems like it would be relatively safe.
That's true. I suppose I thought of that for opiates and marijuana since the basic element can certainly be created here, but I'd kind of assumed that cocaine was produced in the region it was for reason aside from the geopolitical (i.e., that's where you can grow the stuff you use to make it). I know very little about that kind of thing, so I could just be wrong on that count.
How about giving us a hand and increase the US effort to stop the illegal weapon smuggling from the US to México? The mayority of the weapons used by the Drug Cartels are US made, and sold by americans to them.
I know that the government of Arizona has tried to stop the smuggling, but it's still a large border.
While weapons aren't really the cause, it would really help reduce the amount of damage they can do.
While there have been oportunities to discuss the commerce of soft drugs, unless the US legalizes it first, I can't really see it become a reality here, it's a big no-no for the US to México and we aren't really known for our socialeconomic independence from the US.
That infrastructure never existed for the production and distribution of narcotics, and creating an alternative system for supplying it to market would probably take something close to a civil war at this point, since the cartels are sure to go after any legit entrant into the market. The assumption has been that they would eventually become financially unable to wreak the havoc they are now , right? But that seems to be built on the idea that someone else uses legitimate means to fulfill the now legal demand, and I don't think that's likely to happen very quickly.
Well how much of the resources needed to supply the general demand for illegal drugs, only exists in areas vulnerable to the cartels?
A production operation in the middle of the US seems like it would be relatively safe.
Legalizing most drugs in the US would totally decimate the drug cartels in Mexico, and be the greatest possible boon for both the US and Mexico for decades.
If the drugs were legal, then suddenly the cartels go from having a well developed production network, with useful skills, and access to the best distribution networks to having a HUGELY inefficient network, with terrible employees, a useless skill set, and the worst possible distribution network overnight. Especially if the government tax on the drugs is not draconian (ie, similar to cigarettes and alcohol).
Suddenly our drug gangs are bankrupt, because who will buy from some dodgy street vendor when you can just wander into a 7-11 and pick up a carton of Super Lucky Strikes or whatever our Marijuana cigarette brand of choice is. Who needs subs and speedboats when you can just drive straight over the border with "Mexicos finest Marijuana" emblazoned on the side of the truck. And what use are killers and thugs when your greatest operational concern is giving shareholders a return on their investment.
You might say, "Well, the drug gangs won't give up the fields! They'll just kill all the legit businessmen and what not" but then they will be bankrupt in weeks when everyone just buys their stuff from Canada and South Dakota.
The US overnight creates a multi billion dollar industry, and saves itself 10s of billions in police and prison costs (I would also free anyone in jail on a Marijuana related offense. other than driving under the influence or reckless endangerment etc) Mexico is returned to the control of the government and business people. We have created a situation where the most ruthless and evil are the most efficient at making money, and we wonder why they are thriving.
Legalizing Marijuana is not just a good idea for Mexico, its a good idea for the whole continent. For every man, woman and child in the place. Lower taxes, safer streets, less crime. Prohibition failed before, it failed in America, it failed in England (gin bans) and it is failing even more disastrously with drugs.
With other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, I believe legality is the best option. But you shouldn't just walk into a convenience store and buy them. Some other method of distribution would be needed, to remove the criminal element while still retaining a strong element of "This is a bad idea" and control.
Every gang in the US finds its major source of income from drugs. Gang Murders, armed robberies, most violent crimes have drugs related to them somewhere. Whether it be directly (stealing money for drugs), secondhand (member of a gang financed by drugs), or simply associated (grew up in an area blighted by drugs, denied opportunities to succeed.)
If we legalized drugs tomorrow, then we wouldn't need a stimulus package. 10s of thousands of people would survive the year who will otherwise die and billions of dollars of new tax revenue will pour into US and Mexican coffers for no cost at all.
Commercializing narcotics might have some pretty nasty side-effects, though. I mean, how long did it take soda to replace water and juice as the sole means of hydration for a lot of Americans? Legally selling a vice shouldn't be a crime, but aggresive marketing of the stuff might create some disturbance in the force.
Commercializing narcotics might have some pretty nasty side-effects, though. I mean, how long did it take soda to replace water and juice as the sole means of hydration for a lot of Americans? Legally selling a vice shouldn't be a crime, but aggresive marketing of the stuff might create some disturbance in the force.
Selling and marketing vices as destructive as hard drugs pretty much means your country will probably be a shit hole.
Commercializing narcotics might have some pretty nasty side-effects, though. I mean, how long did it take soda to replace water and juice as the sole means of hydration for a lot of Americans? Legally selling a vice shouldn't be a crime, but aggresive marketing of the stuff might create some disturbance in the force.
Nonsense. Consumption, just like with alcohol, will remain exactly the same. Heck, you certainly would subject them to the same laws as cigarette makers feel. So no commercials, a solid (but reasonable tax), no consumption in public buildings and no sale to minors.
Soda replaced juice because it became cheaper than juice, and is better tasting than any juice you can get for a comparable price. Soda also fills a need (fluid and calories), whereas drugs do not. Personally I don't care less whether people drink a lot of booze, smoke a lot of cigarettes, or get high. They all only affect them, each requires them (or would require them) to pay a tax, and each has associated regulations to prevent endangering others (no drink driving etc)
If you think it is currently more expensive to get weed than alcohol then you are sadly mistaken. What it is right now is inconvenient and annoying. We've spent trillions, killed thousands, and destroyed lives to make it slightly annoying for someone to get their hands on a relatively harmless plant!
Commercializing narcotics might have some pretty nasty side-effects, though. I mean, how long did it take soda to replace water and juice as the sole means of hydration for a lot of Americans? Legally selling a vice shouldn't be a crime, but aggresive marketing of the stuff might create some disturbance in the force.
Selling and marketing vices as destructive as hard drugs pretty much means your country will probably be a shit hole.
Firstly you wouldn't allow marketing, and secondly, why? You can destroy your life just as thoroughly with alcohol, or with overeating, or laziness, or prescription drugs, or religion, or by taking up boxing and we allow all those things? Heck, we even allow them to be advertised.
Commercializing narcotics might have some pretty nasty side-effects, though. I mean, how long did it take soda to replace water and juice as the sole means of hydration for a lot of Americans? Legally selling a vice shouldn't be a crime, but aggresive marketing of the stuff might create some disturbance in the force.
Selling and marketing vices as destructive as hard drugs pretty much means your country will probably be a shit hole.
Firstly you wouldn't allow marketing, and secondly, why? You can destroy your life just as thoroughly with alcohol, or with overeating, or laziness, or prescription drugs, or religion, or by taking up boxing and we allow all those things? Heck, we even allow them to be advertised.
Commercializing narcotics might have some pretty nasty side-effects, though. I mean, how long did it take soda to replace water and juice as the sole means of hydration for a lot of Americans? Legally selling a vice shouldn't be a crime, but aggresive marketing of the stuff might create some disturbance in the force.
Nonsense. Consumption, just like with alcohol, will remain exactly the same. Heck, you certainly would subject them to the same laws as cigarette makers feel. So no commercials, a solid (but reasonable tax), no consumption in public buildings and no sale to minors.
Soda replaced juice because it became cheaper than juice, and is better tasting than any juice you can get for a comparable price. Soda also fills a need (fluid and calories), whereas drugs do not. Personally I don't care less whether people drink a lot of booze, smoke a lot of cigarettes, or get high. They all only affect them, each requires them (or would require them) to pay a tax, and each has associated regulations to prevent endangering others (no drink driving etc)
If you think it is currently more expensive to get weed than alcohol then you are sadly mistaken. What it is right now is inconvenient and annoying. We've spent trillions, killed thousands, and destroyed lives to make it slightly annoying for someone to get their hands on a relatively harmless plant!
Actually, I've heard some sodas actually have a dehydrating balance.
How long after legalizing drugs will it take for drugs to be available from sources that aren't connected to organized crime?
Depends on the way the law is framed. If we demand that drug sources be inspected and licensed, and that retailers apply for government authorization for sale then it could be some months before significant legitimate sources emerged. I imagine that quite simply the cigarette companies would retool themselves and their distribution networks for use in Marijuana sale. Otherwise any number of other companies would be in a position to use existing networks to distribute and sell. There is certainly also no shortage of farmland available, and almost all drugs grow quickly, in poor soils, and require little in the way of expensive fertilizers.
After prohibition there was literally alcohol available for purchase the next day, although that was because legal companies in canada could literally turn their trucks south to thirsty Americans. Drug networks would take longer, but that is only because there are no distributors of inspected, quality controlled product who could simply divert it.
Certainly the transition time would be short, since every investor in the world would want to jump in to get their slice of the pie, and nothing speeds things up like a free flow of cash.
Honestly legalizing marijuana would not kill the cartel. Lets compare the cartel to the LEETZ INTERWEBS HAXXORS. When we get some company to screw our DRM/make it hard to use a program, hackers within a day find a way to break through. Lets bring Spore into this case with the DRM issue. People who bought the game had more troubles than those who downloaded. What the cartel is going to just adapt to the changes find new markets/demands and continue their stronghold. Legalizing Marijuana will only make the underground surface and make the cartel filthy rich corporations....now do we need that?
Horus on
“You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You're on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...”
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Honestly legalizing marijuana would not kill the cartel. Lets compare the cartel to the LEETZ INTERWEBS HAXXORS. When we get some company to screw our DRM/make it hard to use a program, hackers within a day find a way to break through. Lets bring Spore into this case with the DRM issue. People who bought the game had more troubles than those who downloaded. What the cartel is going to just adapt to the changes find new markets/demands and continue their stronghold. Legalizing Marijuana will only make the underground surface and make the cartel filthy rich corporations....now do we need that?
Your analogy is backwards. Legalizing the drugs would be like eliminating DRM, thus making piracy an unattractive choice not due to strong anti-piracy measures, but due to a safe and available product that does not require association with unsavory characters. As to your second point, about the underground surfacing and all these ruthless killers suddenly donning business suits and playing by the rules at least to some degree: why is that not a good thing?
Hard drugs will never be legalized in the US. It's moronic to really even discuss it.
No it's not, because ideas and people change. When enough people who've had this discussion rise to infuencial positions and lobby for this, it might get on the political agenda.
That doesn't mean it will automatically happen, but at least there's the possibillity of researching the idea and maybe even test it.
Honestly legalizing marijuana would not kill the cartel. Lets compare the cartel to the LEETZ INTERWEBS HAXXORS. When we get some company to screw our DRM/make it hard to use a program, hackers within a day find a way to break through. Lets bring Spore into this case with the DRM issue. People who bought the game had more troubles than those who downloaded. What the cartel is going to just adapt to the changes find new markets/demands and continue their stronghold. Legalizing Marijuana will only make the underground surface and make the cartel filthy rich corporations....now do we need that?
Well, no, the idea is this:
1. The drugmartket is a free, uncontrolled and higly profitable market.
2. People tend to be greedy bastards.
3. Make it a closed and controlled market, where supply is meeting demand at a reasonable price.
Honestly legalizing marijuana would not kill the cartel. Lets compare the cartel to the LEETZ INTERWEBS HAXXORS. When we get some company to screw our DRM/make it hard to use a program, hackers within a day find a way to break through. Lets bring Spore into this case with the DRM issue. People who bought the game had more troubles than those who downloaded. What the cartel is going to just adapt to the changes find new markets/demands and continue their stronghold. Legalizing Marijuana will only make the underground surface and make the cartel filthy rich corporations....now do we need that?
Absolutely, even your example (which is the absolute worst possible outcome of the legalization) where the cartels simply escape punishment for past crimes and become Drug Cartel inc is a 1000 times better than the current state. Why? Because Drug Cartel Inc will sell through licensed and authorized dealers, who have quality control standards. Drug Cartel Inc will have to produce tax documents, and submit to inspections like every other mexican business. Drug Cartel Inc won't need to gun down policemen, hire thugs, and enslave people. Drug Cartel Inc pays taxes to the Mexican government, as do the people who work for it. Drug Cartel Incs products are subject to import duty into the US and so forth.
And there really is no chance that the drug cartels would end up in charge of the business. They don't have a good distribution network, or useful talents, or skilled employees, or good brand managers. They can't attract investors. How does the ability to hire the best gunmen help when you don't need any? How do your submarine and coastgaurd contacts help when what you really need is contacts with 7-11 and the truckers union. How does your network of street dealers help when what you really want is a new packaging design and so forth.
All their advantages in the current market are weaknesses in the open market. Most likely they would turn on each other and destroy each other as they went bankrupt fighting over the tiny illegal market, mainly human trafficking, that remained.
edit - As an example, do you buy beer which is brewed with pride by the Al Capones Mafia Hit Squad Brewery?
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
The point is that we have existing evil corporations that would gladly crush the upstart cartels if it came to being able to legally sell drugs to americans.
Hard drugs will never be legalized in the US. It's moronic to really even discuss it.
No it's not, because ideas and people change. When enough people who've had this discussion rise to infuencial positions and lobby for this, it might get on the political agenda.
That doesn't mean it will automatically happen, but at least there's the possibillity of researching the idea and maybe even test it.
Its only not on the political spectrum now because the minority who support the war on drugs are more vocal than the majority who want it to end. Legal Marijuana is at most 10 years away.
Posts
He was hilarious.
That's more what I was thinking, actually. :P
Nations don't really need to do anything to reduce population. That's already occurring naturally thanks to smaller families. Just look at Japan, they are being sent home from work early to procreate because they can't sustain their own economy. Decreased reproduction is already affecting Europe, and it's only a matter of time until the United States follows the same path.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Yea, it's not like people will just have 14 babies for no reason.
It's not like poor people breed faster than anyone else...
Well hello Mike Judge, it's good to see you still have work after your failed attempt at making Idiocracy a good movie. (Oh how I wanted it to be, though...)
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
I wasn't so much commenting on the growth of the poor, but rather that poor conditions don't stop people from breeding.
Why were the Cartels threatening to kill police officers unless the Chief of Police resigned? I mean, it doesnt sound like they had much to fear from the police if they were able to threaten them and also hold true on the threat... so why expend the effort? What did the Chief of Police represent that made them go out of their way to get him fired? Was he hired over some patsy/bought officer that they wanted installed as the Chief?
MWO: Adamski
The Mexican military isn't corrupt, at least not at the level that the police, the politics, and everything else in Mexico is. What we have to worry about is a military coup, because parts of the army might just get sick of watching this shit and decide that the politicians who are holding them back for the drug cartel's sake can go fuck themselves.
http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2009/02/21/news/associated_press/doc499fd050f08a1753923195.txt
It seems more like they want to keep the police in permanent disorder and make sure that the civil government can't interfere with the drug cartel's business. The cartels can buy off lots of lower level cops (and they do) but it doesn't look like the cartels can appoint their own police chief and completely take over (yet).
We don't go to Mexico.
There have been a few incidents with (alleged) Mexican soldiers helping the cartels smuggle drugs across the border. I dunno how high this goes up the ranks, but when we have soldiers using military vehicles to make little incursions into our border, that smells of pretty awful corruption.
I'm wondering if that would actually work as well as we tend to think. The only comparison I know if is the end of Prohibition, and I'm not so sure that's completely analogous. For one, the infrastructure for large scale brewing and distribution had existed legally previously and was able to quickly revive and provide the (now legal) commodity outside of the control of the mob.
That infrastructure never existed for the production and distribution of narcotics, and creating an alternative system for supplying it to market would probably take something close to a civil war at this point, since the cartels are sure to go after any legit entrant into the market. The assumption has been that they would eventually become financially unable to wreak the havoc they are now , right? But that seems to be built on the idea that someone else uses legitimate means to fulfill the now legal demand, and I don't think that's likely to happen very quickly.
Offtopic stuff in here
On topic - O wow I had no idea that Mexico was this messed up in the drugs. Maybe Military interention wouldn't be such a bad thing. UN military intervention anyway..
Well how much of the resources needed to supply the general demand for illegal drugs, only exists in areas vulnerable to the cartels?
A production operation in the middle of the US seems like it would be relatively safe.
And wouldn't have to spend a fortune maintaining thugs and bribing the police.
That's true. I suppose I thought of that for opiates and marijuana since the basic element can certainly be created here, but I'd kind of assumed that cocaine was produced in the region it was for reason aside from the geopolitical (i.e., that's where you can grow the stuff you use to make it). I know very little about that kind of thing, so I could just be wrong on that count.
I know that the government of Arizona has tried to stop the smuggling, but it's still a large border.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-guns10-2008aug10,0,86326.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801654.html
While weapons aren't really the cause, it would really help reduce the amount of damage they can do.
While there have been oportunities to discuss the commerce of soft drugs, unless the US legalizes it first, I can't really see it become a reality here, it's a big no-no for the US to México and we aren't really known for our socialeconomic independence from the US.
Legalizing most drugs in the US would totally decimate the drug cartels in Mexico, and be the greatest possible boon for both the US and Mexico for decades.
If the drugs were legal, then suddenly the cartels go from having a well developed production network, with useful skills, and access to the best distribution networks to having a HUGELY inefficient network, with terrible employees, a useless skill set, and the worst possible distribution network overnight. Especially if the government tax on the drugs is not draconian (ie, similar to cigarettes and alcohol).
Suddenly our drug gangs are bankrupt, because who will buy from some dodgy street vendor when you can just wander into a 7-11 and pick up a carton of Super Lucky Strikes or whatever our Marijuana cigarette brand of choice is. Who needs subs and speedboats when you can just drive straight over the border with "Mexicos finest Marijuana" emblazoned on the side of the truck. And what use are killers and thugs when your greatest operational concern is giving shareholders a return on their investment.
You might say, "Well, the drug gangs won't give up the fields! They'll just kill all the legit businessmen and what not" but then they will be bankrupt in weeks when everyone just buys their stuff from Canada and South Dakota.
The US overnight creates a multi billion dollar industry, and saves itself 10s of billions in police and prison costs (I would also free anyone in jail on a Marijuana related offense. other than driving under the influence or reckless endangerment etc) Mexico is returned to the control of the government and business people. We have created a situation where the most ruthless and evil are the most efficient at making money, and we wonder why they are thriving.
Legalizing Marijuana is not just a good idea for Mexico, its a good idea for the whole continent. For every man, woman and child in the place. Lower taxes, safer streets, less crime. Prohibition failed before, it failed in America, it failed in England (gin bans) and it is failing even more disastrously with drugs.
With other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, I believe legality is the best option. But you shouldn't just walk into a convenience store and buy them. Some other method of distribution would be needed, to remove the criminal element while still retaining a strong element of "This is a bad idea" and control.
Every gang in the US finds its major source of income from drugs. Gang Murders, armed robberies, most violent crimes have drugs related to them somewhere. Whether it be directly (stealing money for drugs), secondhand (member of a gang financed by drugs), or simply associated (grew up in an area blighted by drugs, denied opportunities to succeed.)
If we legalized drugs tomorrow, then we wouldn't need a stimulus package. 10s of thousands of people would survive the year who will otherwise die and billions of dollars of new tax revenue will pour into US and Mexican coffers for no cost at all.
Selling and marketing vices as destructive as hard drugs pretty much means your country will probably be a shit hole.
Nonsense. Consumption, just like with alcohol, will remain exactly the same. Heck, you certainly would subject them to the same laws as cigarette makers feel. So no commercials, a solid (but reasonable tax), no consumption in public buildings and no sale to minors.
Soda replaced juice because it became cheaper than juice, and is better tasting than any juice you can get for a comparable price. Soda also fills a need (fluid and calories), whereas drugs do not. Personally I don't care less whether people drink a lot of booze, smoke a lot of cigarettes, or get high. They all only affect them, each requires them (or would require them) to pay a tax, and each has associated regulations to prevent endangering others (no drink driving etc)
If you think it is currently more expensive to get weed than alcohol then you are sadly mistaken. What it is right now is inconvenient and annoying. We've spent trillions, killed thousands, and destroyed lives to make it slightly annoying for someone to get their hands on a relatively harmless plant!
Firstly you wouldn't allow marketing, and secondly, why? You can destroy your life just as thoroughly with alcohol, or with overeating, or laziness, or prescription drugs, or religion, or by taking up boxing and we allow all those things? Heck, we even allow them to be advertised.
No man is an island.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I too wish people would stop doing cocaine at me.
Actually, I've heard some sodas actually have a dehydrating balance.
Depends on the way the law is framed. If we demand that drug sources be inspected and licensed, and that retailers apply for government authorization for sale then it could be some months before significant legitimate sources emerged. I imagine that quite simply the cigarette companies would retool themselves and their distribution networks for use in Marijuana sale. Otherwise any number of other companies would be in a position to use existing networks to distribute and sell. There is certainly also no shortage of farmland available, and almost all drugs grow quickly, in poor soils, and require little in the way of expensive fertilizers.
After prohibition there was literally alcohol available for purchase the next day, although that was because legal companies in canada could literally turn their trucks south to thirsty Americans. Drug networks would take longer, but that is only because there are no distributors of inspected, quality controlled product who could simply divert it.
Certainly the transition time would be short, since every investor in the world would want to jump in to get their slice of the pie, and nothing speeds things up like a free flow of cash.
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
Your analogy is backwards. Legalizing the drugs would be like eliminating DRM, thus making piracy an unattractive choice not due to strong anti-piracy measures, but due to a safe and available product that does not require association with unsavory characters. As to your second point, about the underground surfacing and all these ruthless killers suddenly donning business suits and playing by the rules at least to some degree: why is that not a good thing?
No it's not, because ideas and people change. When enough people who've had this discussion rise to infuencial positions and lobby for this, it might get on the political agenda.
That doesn't mean it will automatically happen, but at least there's the possibillity of researching the idea and maybe even test it.
Well, no, the idea is this:
1. The drugmartket is a free, uncontrolled and higly profitable market.
2. People tend to be greedy bastards.
3. Make it a closed and controlled market, where supply is meeting demand at a reasonable price.
4. Profit.
Absolutely, even your example (which is the absolute worst possible outcome of the legalization) where the cartels simply escape punishment for past crimes and become Drug Cartel inc is a 1000 times better than the current state. Why? Because Drug Cartel Inc will sell through licensed and authorized dealers, who have quality control standards. Drug Cartel Inc will have to produce tax documents, and submit to inspections like every other mexican business. Drug Cartel Inc won't need to gun down policemen, hire thugs, and enslave people. Drug Cartel Inc pays taxes to the Mexican government, as do the people who work for it. Drug Cartel Incs products are subject to import duty into the US and so forth.
And there really is no chance that the drug cartels would end up in charge of the business. They don't have a good distribution network, or useful talents, or skilled employees, or good brand managers. They can't attract investors. How does the ability to hire the best gunmen help when you don't need any? How do your submarine and coastgaurd contacts help when what you really need is contacts with 7-11 and the truckers union. How does your network of street dealers help when what you really want is a new packaging design and so forth.
All their advantages in the current market are weaknesses in the open market. Most likely they would turn on each other and destroy each other as they went bankrupt fighting over the tiny illegal market, mainly human trafficking, that remained.
edit - As an example, do you buy beer which is brewed with pride by the Al Capones Mafia Hit Squad Brewery?
Its only not on the political spectrum now because the minority who support the war on drugs are more vocal than the majority who want it to end. Legal Marijuana is at most 10 years away.