4 ms·
> so I'm okay that the banks were undermining western governments in the interest of free trade. I say this as someone who used to work in drug policy reform a
by chimeracoder 11y ago
> so I'm okay that the banks were undermining western governments in the interest of free trade.
I say this as someone who used to work in drug policy reform and strongly opposes the drug war: Providing money to cartels isn't exactly a noble proposition either. Banks that do that really do have blood on their hands. Between 2006-2012, over 100,000 people died incredibly gruesome deaths in Mexico alone since 2010 at the hands of these cartels[0].
I'm not going to defend the drug war, but I'm not going to defend banks that willingly funnel money to them either. And I'm not going to claim that providing money to cartels actually undermines the drug war, in any meaningful sense. The cartels are, ironically, the largest profiteers of the drug war, right alongside the LEOs and correctional facilities that enforce drug laws. Pumping money into the pockets of the drug cartels only further entrenches the current system; it does not provide pressure to dismantle it.
There are plenty of great ways to work actively to end the drug war. Funding drug cartels (or enabling their business operations) is not one of them.
[0] The number of deaths in Mexico have dropped slightly since then, but only because the violence has moved further south in Central America
- aianus 11y ago> Pumping money into the pockets of the drug cartels only further entrenches the current system; it does not provide pressure to dismantle it. I would disagree with this sentiment. There is plenty of pressure in Mexico to decriminalize/legalize drugs as a result of cartel violence.
- chimeracoder 11y ago> There is plenty of pressure in Mexico to decriminalize/legalize drugs as a result of cartel violence. First, what Mexico wants has (unfortunately) very little connection to what the US will actually do, and it's the US's drug policy that matters here. Second, this is like saying that the arrests and drug-related violence in the US creates pressure for legalization. It may in a way, because it raises the stakes, but that's not necessary to create pressure for change. And it's a rather horrible way to do so, because it involves putting people's lives at (even more) risk in the meantime. On top of that, it also further empowers the people who profit off of the status quo, providing them with even more money (and therefore power and influence) to maintain the status quo. For comparison, it's a good thing that police violence has gotten attention recently, which may ultimately lead to substantial reform. But that's not to say that facilitating (and profiting off of!) police violence in the US is a noble act. We can argue about whether the connection is nonexistent or simply 'very weak', but my point remains that it's hard to defend a profit-hungry bank funneling money into the hands of violent murders so they can profit off of more murders, all on the grounds that it will eventually translate into fewer murders later on. Especially when there are much more compelling ways of addressing the issue directly and immediately.
- nosuchthing 11y agoThe assumption of the decriminalization/legalization stance is the drug market has a demand that currently is only supplied by murderous drug syndicates which is for the most part created by the effects of prohibition.
- misiti3780 11y agoI am pretty interested in the drug war - just finished el narco and chasing the scream: http://www.amazon.com/El-Narco-Mexicos-Criminal-Insurgency/dp/1608194019 http://www.amazon.com/El-Narco-Mexicos-Criminal-Insurgency/d... http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/1620408902 http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/162... can you recommend any other good books on the topic ?