7 ms·

It's too late. The cartels were allowed (even encouraged) to grow to the point where they are no longer controllable by the state. If you legalize the drug tr

It's too late. The cartels were allowed (even encouraged) to grow to the point where they are no longer controllable by the state. If you legalize the drug trade, they will continue to assert quasi-legal control over it the same way that mafias have historically controlled things like garbage removal, and probably branch out into other activities (as they actually have been doing, eg "taxing" avocado farmers). They have no reason to allow themselves to be "outcompeted" by a bunch of MBAs with excellent expertise in logistics but no guns.

jacobush 10y ago
Too late for what? That would arguably be a marginally better outcome than the current situation at least. I don't think many expect powerful, wealthy people with guns give up without a fight - but regulating a previously dark market will lower the bad guys' margins. Of course they will need to move their assets to some other trade, like "avocado protection". But we need to create friction wherever we can, I think.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  Too late to significantly crush the power of the narcos by regulatorily affecting one particular business line. It might affect them on the margin; OTOH it might very well not, if they're able to maintain control of the trade with the advantage of legitimacy. It is certainly possible to simultaneously, eg, scale up production of "legal" drugs on your regulatorily permitted farms, and threaten to murder the children of your competitors. That looks like pure deadweight loss.
int_19h 10y ago
If the businesses they control are legal, they have more incentives to avoid illegal activities "controlling" them. I wonder if a cartel could remake itself into a private security company? A future where a country is essentially carved up between several PMCs, each being a law enforcement monopoly in its sector, is kinda dystopian... but surely it beats never-ending drug-fueled war between the cartels?
- akiselev 10y ago
  Yes, surely, legitimizing the power of violent thugs and drug dealers over the populace they have terrorized for decades is better than maintaining at least a semblance of the rule of law. The latter is hard and expensive! Not to go all Godwin up in here, but appeasing violent ambition hasn't worked well in the past and it wont work here. The rare cases where it has worked have been political in nature, driven by groups with legitimate grievances, not an abundance of greed.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    If the semblance of the rule of law is really mostly semblance, it may actually well be better here and now. I lived in a country which, at a certain time period, had such a deterioration in the quality of law enforcement (corruption, lack of funds, high crime rates etc), that the local mob effectively did run the show. And while it was messy, they did actually establish some rule of law - except it was, of course, their law. But it was something businesses were willing to go along with, because some law is usually better than none; and if paying, say, 10% on a regular basis means you can generally do business normally otherwise (and your contracts are enforced if needed etc), that's not the worst place to be in. If you think about it, governments essentially evolved out of such bands of armed people providing "protection" to the populace (which really just means that no-one else is going to rob them). So when a government becomes so inefficient and/or corrupt that it cannot effectively provide protection anymore, well, the next challenger is going to take over - and, if successful, eventually become the new government. Somewhere down the line, people start asking questions like "why are we paying these guys", and you get all kind of fancy philosophical theories like social contract and natural rights, and the role and mechanics of government evolves accordingly... but it still has to be able to provide this one basic function: ensure that no-one else collects the money from its citizens, and no-one else can rough them up.
  - douche 10y ago
    > legitimizing the power of violent thugs and drug dealers over the populace they have terrorized for decades This is essentially the history of statebuilding, from Sargon of Akkad to today. There is not a great deal of distinction to be made between a Gothic warchief, a Norman knight, a Spanish conquistador, or a Mexican cartel head.
3131s 10y ago
You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home. The cartels can't do anything about that.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  They empirically do. How do you think they control the existing MX & much of US drug trade? You must grow at scale to make it worthwhile, and then you need distribution. All of those things are vulnerable when the state can't / won't protect you, perhaps because it's illegal, or perhaps because the state is weak in the area. The later circumstance is true in Mexico.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    > You must grow at scale to make it worthwhile, and then you need distribution. I am making the exact opposite point. It is easy to grow a few marijuana plants in your own home, or even easier to grow an outdoor variety in your garden. Two or three plants is more than enough for even a heavy user. All this is beside the point though, because as many others have already pointed out to you, the cartels would fall apart if the US legalized recreational drugs. Kidnapping, racketeering, etc. are just not nearly as profitable as the drug trade. Some drug dealers might move on to other criminal activities (though many actually have a conscience and would not do absolutely anything for money, believe it or not), but you're denying historical precedent if you don't think that legalization would wipe out the illegal drug trade and seriously undercut the cartel's ability to make money. Why is it that gangs don't still control alcohol distribution now that prohibition is over?
- mjolk 10y ago
  > You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home. People in favor of legalization try to suggest that it's about marijuana, but cartels mostly trade in higher volume/price ratio substances (esp. cocaine).
  - 3131s 10y ago
    Very well aware of that, just replying to the claims of the parent comment specifically. All recreational drugs should be legalized.
stale2002 10y ago
And what happens when the big corporations start getting into the business? What are the drug cartels going to do? Attack some giant montasanto farm in the middle of flyover USA? ...with their guns? And what happens when montasanto highers a couple off duty police officers to protect their investment? The cartels have no power in anywhere but the border.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  The US has far stronger rule of law than Mexico (one of the reasons so many Mexicans desire to come to the US), and I'm primarily talking about the difficulty of uprooting the narcos in Mexico. That said, yes, I would expect to see a rise in cartel violence in the US at least out into the medium term. "Attack a farm" is a bit cinematic, but "threaten executive's children to extract kickbacks" is quite plausible in certain areas. Their area of influence now tracks traditional drug trafficking routes & illegal immigration routes, which covers a hell of a lot of the US. That doesn't mean they're necessarily dominant over that the same way they are in MX, but is something one should be aware of.
  - tomjen3 10y ago
    Their problem is that they will lose most of their income which will reduce their power. They may try some kidnappings, but then they also have to contend with the U.S. power plus the ability of the other side to buy protection.
- random_upvoter 10y ago
  Well for one thing criminal gangs need to spend money and resources to avoid getting caught. And they don't tend to last very long. When big corporations start getting into marijuana they can spend vast resources on research to make the product more attractive, not to say more addictive. And all this know-how will be permanent. I'm very curious how this whole legalization experiment will turn out but I'm sure we will learn a thing or two on the way.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > And what happens when montasanto highers a couple off duty police officers to protect their investment? What could drug cartels do against a couple of off-duty police officers? > The cartels have no power in anywhere but the border. Chicago disagrees.
rpedela 10y ago
That doesn't jive with history. The mafia became dominant during prohibition. Alcohol becomes legal again and what happens? The corporations take over and the mafia loses some of its power although not for long thanks to bans on cocaine, heroin, marijuana. Organized crime thrives on black markets. Reduce them, and reduce their power.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  That works to the extent they do not already have above-threshold control of the economy & the ability to use force sufficient to at least deter the government. Under those circumstances it becomes self-perpetuating absent a significant & violent effort to uproot it. Witness, eg, the 'Ndrangheta, which although heavily involved in the drug trade predates it and has significant other "business lines". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Ndrangheta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Ndrangheta
- macawfish 10y ago
  I don't think you realize how much intertwining there is between corporations and organized crime.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - rpedela 10y ago
    As in corporations are a form of organized crime or the mafia/cartels have infiltrated the Fortune 500?
    - xorxornop 10y ago
      Each of these statements are part of the truth; each are true but not the whole truth.
      - rpedela 10y ago
        Care to elaborate?
Aldo_MX 10y ago
My biggest concern is that having marijuana legalized will divert the cartels attention towards other illegal activities less prone to getting legalized, such as sex trafficking. I don't want to live in a country where the state is incapable of controlling the cartels...

jacobush 10y ago

Too late for what? That would arguably be a marginally better outcome than the current situation at least. I don't think many expect powerful, wealthy people with guns give up without a fight - but regulating a previously dark market will lower the bad guys' margins. Of course they will need to move their assets to some other trade, like "avocado protection". But we need to create friction wherever we can, I think.

h4nkoslo 10y ago
Too late to significantly crush the power of the narcos by regulatorily affecting one particular business line. It might affect them on the margin; OTOH it might very well not, if they're able to maintain control of the trade with the advantage of legitimacy. It is certainly possible to simultaneously, eg, scale up production of "legal" drugs on your regulatorily permitted farms, and threaten to murder the children of your competitors. That looks like pure deadweight loss.

int_19h 10y ago

If the businesses they control are legal, they have more incentives to avoid illegal activities "controlling" them. I wonder if a cartel could remake itself into a private security company? A future where a country is essentially carved up between several PMCs, each being a law enforcement monopoly in its sector, is kinda dystopian... but surely it beats never-ending drug-fueled war between the cartels?

akiselev 10y ago
Yes, surely, legitimizing the power of violent thugs and drug dealers over the populace they have terrorized for decades is better than maintaining at least a semblance of the rule of law. The latter is hard and expensive! Not to go all Godwin up in here, but appeasing violent ambition hasn't worked well in the past and it wont work here. The rare cases where it has worked have been political in nature, driven by groups with legitimate grievances, not an abundance of greed.
- int_19h 10y ago
  If the semblance of the rule of law is really mostly semblance, it may actually well be better here and now. I lived in a country which, at a certain time period, had such a deterioration in the quality of law enforcement (corruption, lack of funds, high crime rates etc), that the local mob effectively did run the show. And while it was messy, they did actually establish some rule of law - except it was, of course, their law. But it was something businesses were willing to go along with, because some law is usually better than none; and if paying, say, 10% on a regular basis means you can generally do business normally otherwise (and your contracts are enforced if needed etc), that's not the worst place to be in. If you think about it, governments essentially evolved out of such bands of armed people providing "protection" to the populace (which really just means that no-one else is going to rob them). So when a government becomes so inefficient and/or corrupt that it cannot effectively provide protection anymore, well, the next challenger is going to take over - and, if successful, eventually become the new government. Somewhere down the line, people start asking questions like "why are we paying these guys", and you get all kind of fancy philosophical theories like social contract and natural rights, and the role and mechanics of government evolves accordingly... but it still has to be able to provide this one basic function: ensure that no-one else collects the money from its citizens, and no-one else can rough them up.
- douche 10y ago
  > legitimizing the power of violent thugs and drug dealers over the populace they have terrorized for decades This is essentially the history of statebuilding, from Sargon of Akkad to today. There is not a great deal of distinction to be made between a Gothic warchief, a Norman knight, a Spanish conquistador, or a Mexican cartel head.

3131s 10y ago

You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home. The cartels can't do anything about that.

h4nkoslo 10y ago
They empirically do. How do you think they control the existing MX & much of US drug trade? You must grow at scale to make it worthwhile, and then you need distribution. All of those things are vulnerable when the state can't / won't protect you, perhaps because it's illegal, or perhaps because the state is weak in the area. The later circumstance is true in Mexico.
- 3131s 10y ago
  > You must grow at scale to make it worthwhile, and then you need distribution. I am making the exact opposite point. It is easy to grow a few marijuana plants in your own home, or even easier to grow an outdoor variety in your garden. Two or three plants is more than enough for even a heavy user. All this is beside the point though, because as many others have already pointed out to you, the cartels would fall apart if the US legalized recreational drugs. Kidnapping, racketeering, etc. are just not nearly as profitable as the drug trade. Some drug dealers might move on to other criminal activities (though many actually have a conscience and would not do absolutely anything for money, believe it or not), but you're denying historical precedent if you don't think that legalization would wipe out the illegal drug trade and seriously undercut the cartel's ability to make money. Why is it that gangs don't still control alcohol distribution now that prohibition is over?
mjolk 10y ago
> You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home. People in favor of legalization try to suggest that it's about marijuana, but cartels mostly trade in higher volume/price ratio substances (esp. cocaine).
- 3131s 10y ago
  Very well aware of that, just replying to the claims of the parent comment specifically. All recreational drugs should be legalized.

stale2002 10y ago

And what happens when the big corporations start getting into the business? What are the drug cartels going to do? Attack some giant montasanto farm in the middle of flyover USA? ...with their guns? And what happens when montasanto highers a couple off duty police officers to protect their investment? The cartels have no power in anywhere but the border.

h4nkoslo 10y ago
The US has far stronger rule of law than Mexico (one of the reasons so many Mexicans desire to come to the US), and I'm primarily talking about the difficulty of uprooting the narcos in Mexico. That said, yes, I would expect to see a rise in cartel violence in the US at least out into the medium term. "Attack a farm" is a bit cinematic, but "threaten executive's children to extract kickbacks" is quite plausible in certain areas. Their area of influence now tracks traditional drug trafficking routes & illegal immigration routes, which covers a hell of a lot of the US. That doesn't mean they're necessarily dominant over that the same way they are in MX, but is something one should be aware of.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  Their problem is that they will lose most of their income which will reduce their power. They may try some kidnappings, but then they also have to contend with the U.S. power plus the ability of the other side to buy protection.
random_upvoter 10y ago
Well for one thing criminal gangs need to spend money and resources to avoid getting caught. And they don't tend to last very long. When big corporations start getting into marijuana they can spend vast resources on research to make the product more attractive, not to say more addictive. And all this know-how will be permanent. I'm very curious how this whole legalization experiment will turn out but I'm sure we will learn a thing or two on the way.
pessimizer 10y ago
> And what happens when montasanto highers a couple off duty police officers to protect their investment? What could drug cartels do against a couple of off-duty police officers? > The cartels have no power in anywhere but the border. Chicago disagrees.

rpedela 10y ago

That doesn't jive with history. The mafia became dominant during prohibition. Alcohol becomes legal again and what happens? The corporations take over and the mafia loses some of its power although not for long thanks to bans on cocaine, heroin, marijuana. Organized crime thrives on black markets. Reduce them, and reduce their power.

h4nkoslo 10y ago
That works to the extent they do not already have above-threshold control of the economy & the ability to use force sufficient to at least deter the government. Under those circumstances it becomes self-perpetuating absent a significant & violent effort to uproot it. Witness, eg, the 'Ndrangheta, which although heavily involved in the drug trade predates it and has significant other "business lines". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Ndrangheta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Ndrangheta
macawfish 10y ago
I don't think you realize how much intertwining there is between corporations and organized crime.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rpedela 10y ago
  As in corporations are a form of organized crime or the mafia/cartels have infiltrated the Fortune 500?
  - xorxornop 10y ago
    Each of these statements are part of the truth; each are true but not the whole truth.
    - rpedela 10y ago
      Care to elaborate?

Aldo_MX 10y ago

My biggest concern is that having marijuana legalized will divert the cartels attention towards other illegal activities less prone to getting legalized, such as sex trafficking. I don't want to live in a country where the state is incapable of controlling the cartels...