4 ms·

The US is running something like $100-200 billion through Mexico for drugs while simultaneously pumping tons of money into anti-drug policies (though, an order

The US is running something like $100-200 billion through Mexico for drugs while simultaneously pumping tons of money into anti-drug policies (though, an order of magnitude or two less). We're perfectly capable of destabilizing our own neighbors through unrealistic Puritanical policies, tyvm. Mexico is a proxy war between US factions, as is the whole of drug trade in the Americas. It always has been. For reference, Mexico only has a GDP of about $1 trillion, so hundreds of billions in drugs trafficking is a major economic influence on the country. The US invaded Iraq for about $100 billion per year. Is it any surprise that giving cartels a level of funding required to wage a war, that accounts for a substantial portion of the host nation's GDP is going to mess the place up?

borp_borp 10y ago
Mexico is a proxy war between US factions. lolwut Amazing the the parent gets flagged, but this slips through. WTF are you even talking about, dude? Puritans at war with... drug people? And you take issues with the post you replied to? Pot is calling kettle black right there. This is some colossal conflation. Drugs do harm. It's not about tee-totalling nerds obsessing over out-dated sensibilities. The money that gets flushed on drugs is incidental to habitual use, and not a concerted effort to rebel against repressed, sheltered squares. If much of the money heads south from two predominant channels originating in the U.S. this does not preclude foreign actors further fomenting violence, by fanning the flames for their own reasons. You can rail against that idea, but then your own concept would be pathetically invalid, all the same.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  > Drugs do harm. It's not about tee-totalling nerds obsessing over out-dated sensibilities. The US's policy on drugs is an ideological one, not a pragmatic one. 1. Animals (not just humans) like to get fucked up. It's basically human nature to do drugs. (For reference, 70% of US adults have at least one drink each year.) 2. Policing substances (as opposed to treating it as a health issue with regulated supply) is ineffective and known to cause crime, destroy lives, etc. The US chooses the less effective method for ideological reasons. My point is that Mexico would be a disaster because of a US ideological choice to fight a war with human nature, rather than work pragmatically with it, regardless of outside interference. This takes on the dimensions of an actual war in Mexico, between people looking to fill that supply through illicit channels and the ideologues looking to stop the supply. That one side is a spontaneous reply to market forces is what's sustained the conflict, since there is no "winning" as long as the demand exists. Throwing a cup of gasoline on a forest fire isn't really changing the outcome.

borp_borp 10y ago

Mexico is a proxy war between US factions. lolwut Amazing the the parent gets flagged, but this slips through. WTF are you even talking about, dude? Puritans at war with... drug people? And you take issues with the post you replied to? Pot is calling kettle black right there. This is some colossal conflation. Drugs do harm. It's not about tee-totalling nerds obsessing over out-dated sensibilities. The money that gets flushed on drugs is incidental to habitual use, and not a concerted effort to rebel against repressed, sheltered squares. If much of the money heads south from two predominant channels originating in the U.S. this does not preclude foreign actors further fomenting violence, by fanning the flames for their own reasons. You can rail against that idea, but then your own concept would be pathetically invalid, all the same.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
> Drugs do harm. It's not about tee-totalling nerds obsessing over out-dated sensibilities. The US's policy on drugs is an ideological one, not a pragmatic one. 1. Animals (not just humans) like to get fucked up. It's basically human nature to do drugs. (For reference, 70% of US adults have at least one drink each year.) 2. Policing substances (as opposed to treating it as a health issue with regulated supply) is ineffective and known to cause crime, destroy lives, etc. The US chooses the less effective method for ideological reasons. My point is that Mexico would be a disaster because of a US ideological choice to fight a war with human nature, rather than work pragmatically with it, regardless of outside interference. This takes on the dimensions of an actual war in Mexico, between people looking to fill that supply through illicit channels and the ideologues looking to stop the supply. That one side is a spontaneous reply to market forces is what's sustained the conflict, since there is no "winning" as long as the demand exists. Throwing a cup of gasoline on a forest fire isn't really changing the outcome.