5 ms·

This really isn't a HN story. However, the American consumer funding both sides on the war on drugs for half a century seems a bit insane. https://en.wikipedi

This really isn't a HN story. However, the American consumer funding both sides on the war on drugs for half a century seems a bit insane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

ASalazarMX 4y ago
And not only that, the American pressure for other states to do the same makes the problem bigger instead of smaller. It should be evident that it doesn't work, because the same system creates opportunities: when they take a drug dealer, another one pops out in their place, when they make it harder to traffic heroin, opiates or other drugs take its place. I certainly don't want hard drugs to run unchecked in Mexico, where I live, but fostering a black market is not the solution either.
- lefstathiou 4y ago
  So what do you believe is the solution that prevents hard drugs from running “unchecked” while not fostering a black market? “Education” about how bad drugs are for you?
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Start with not forcing producer countries into disastrous trade agreements that upend their labor markets (especially in agriculture) and food sovereignty.
    - alasdair_ 4y ago
      How are they forced? Would they be better off if they didn’t sell to the US?
      - AngriestLettuce 4y ago
        Are you better off if I punch you in the face or kick you in the groin? It's a false choice, and it's pretty psychopathic.
      - miguelazo 4y ago
        The US meddles directly in the politics of other countries to ensure that pro-US business leaders take power. That’s not a secret. Other countries can sell to the US while maintaining strong industrial policy, just look at Switzerland.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        They'd be better off with free flow of both labor AND capital; in my humble opinion. Allowing flow of goods/capital but not (in general) labor seems pretty cruel IMO, as all the capital can get sucked out to where it can see highest profits (US) while labor is left to languish and compete to the bottom due to losing the efficiencies their capital provided. NAFTA and its successors are a nasty deal to the common Mexican. I don't think they were fucked over by the US so much as their own politicians, though. Their government could have said "we're not gonna sign NAFTA unless there is generous visa-free flow of non-criminals across the border" or whatever and honestly I think they could have strong armed America into agreeing to it, we're "greedy" enough we would have went with it.
        miguelazo 4y ago
        "their own politicians" gained power with the help of the US, and paid them back with policies that benefitted the US: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-20-mn-4009-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-20-mn-4009-s... It's absurd to suggest Mexico could have strong-armed the US.
        notch898a 4y ago
        I mean realistically the US has little to lose by letting Mexicans (actual Mexicans with Mexican citizenship) into the US the sort of way an (USA)American can go the other way. Frankly it's a pretty weak concession. I think we would have done it in exchange for free flow of capital if pressed.
        miguelazo 4y ago
        I think that’s completely off the table in the US politically. Look at how hard it is to even get existing quotas raised or legal immigration processes streamlined. Most of the country would be extremely opposed to such a policy, and many for less “noble” reasons than economics. What matters is real life, and when a huge part of the population suddenly has to contend with labor competition willing to work for 1/4 the price, you’re talking about a civil war.
      - ASalazarMX 4y ago
        Do you think the decisions developing countries make are screened through their citizens? They're typically corrupt authoritarian regimes, only the hands of the political and rich elites are greased, the general public has little power.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
    Remove the profit motive by letting junkies get their fix at pharmacies just like the rest of us.
- notfunnyrando 4y ago
  why do you think their goal is to do what their propaganda says it is?? clearly if their real objectives weren't getting accomplished they would have changed their strategy already, therefore the war on drugs has not failed it's just that the real objectives are not what we were told
ProAm 4y ago
Wait until you see all our other wars. America is a war faring country. The economy is dependent on them being at war. It's political fodder. Economic necessity. If there is always a war on drugs at the border, we'll always fund the departments to go fight it.
LatteLazy 4y ago
The minute there is an ethical supplier/government available, I will switch. Until then, c'est la vie

ASalazarMX 4y ago

And not only that, the American pressure for other states to do the same makes the problem bigger instead of smaller. It should be evident that it doesn't work, because the same system creates opportunities: when they take a drug dealer, another one pops out in their place, when they make it harder to traffic heroin, opiates or other drugs take its place. I certainly don't want hard drugs to run unchecked in Mexico, where I live, but fostering a black market is not the solution either.

lefstathiou 4y ago
So what do you believe is the solution that prevents hard drugs from running “unchecked” while not fostering a black market? “Education” about how bad drugs are for you?
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Start with not forcing producer countries into disastrous trade agreements that upend their labor markets (especially in agriculture) and food sovereignty.
  - alasdair_ 4y ago
    How are they forced? Would they be better off if they didn’t sell to the US?
    - AngriestLettuce 4y ago
      Are you better off if I punch you in the face or kick you in the groin? It's a false choice, and it's pretty psychopathic.
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      The US meddles directly in the politics of other countries to ensure that pro-US business leaders take power. That’s not a secret. Other countries can sell to the US while maintaining strong industrial policy, just look at Switzerland.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      They'd be better off with free flow of both labor AND capital; in my humble opinion. Allowing flow of goods/capital but not (in general) labor seems pretty cruel IMO, as all the capital can get sucked out to where it can see highest profits (US) while labor is left to languish and compete to the bottom due to losing the efficiencies their capital provided. NAFTA and its successors are a nasty deal to the common Mexican. I don't think they were fucked over by the US so much as their own politicians, though. Their government could have said "we're not gonna sign NAFTA unless there is generous visa-free flow of non-criminals across the border" or whatever and honestly I think they could have strong armed America into agreeing to it, we're "greedy" enough we would have went with it.
      - miguelazo 4y ago
        "their own politicians" gained power with the help of the US, and paid them back with policies that benefitted the US: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-20-mn-4009-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-20-mn-4009-s... It's absurd to suggest Mexico could have strong-armed the US.
        notch898a 4y ago
        I mean realistically the US has little to lose by letting Mexicans (actual Mexicans with Mexican citizenship) into the US the sort of way an (USA)American can go the other way. Frankly it's a pretty weak concession. I think we would have done it in exchange for free flow of capital if pressed.
        miguelazo 4y ago
        I think that’s completely off the table in the US politically. Look at how hard it is to even get existing quotas raised or legal immigration processes streamlined. Most of the country would be extremely opposed to such a policy, and many for less “noble” reasons than economics. What matters is real life, and when a huge part of the population suddenly has to contend with labor competition willing to work for 1/4 the price, you’re talking about a civil war.
    - ASalazarMX 4y ago
      Do you think the decisions developing countries make are screened through their citizens? They're typically corrupt authoritarian regimes, only the hands of the political and rich elites are greased, the general public has little power.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
  Remove the profit motive by letting junkies get their fix at pharmacies just like the rest of us.
notfunnyrando 4y ago
why do you think their goal is to do what their propaganda says it is?? clearly if their real objectives weren't getting accomplished they would have changed their strategy already, therefore the war on drugs has not failed it's just that the real objectives are not what we were told

ProAm 4y ago

Wait until you see all our other wars. America is a war faring country. The economy is dependent on them being at war. It's political fodder. Economic necessity. If there is always a war on drugs at the border, we'll always fund the departments to go fight it.

LatteLazy 4y ago

The minute there is an ethical supplier/government available, I will switch. Until then, c'est la vie