7 ms·

They make most of their money from cocaine and methamphetamine (which can be legally acquired, but that didn't stop traffic). 90% of all cocaine in the US come

They make most of their money from cocaine and methamphetamine (which can be legally acquired, but that didn't stop traffic). 90% of all cocaine in the US come from mexico. [1] Do you mean cocaine should be legalized? Alcohol is a bad analogy to legalizing cocaine, you should probably be comparing to the Opium Wars instead, which didn't really end well. [2] [1] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34215.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34215.pdf [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

debacle 14y ago
Why isn't cocaine legalized? Honest question - I've never done it nor have a I done a ton of research.
- mrtron 14y ago
  Should any substance be illegal? If we start banning substances rationally, wouldn't cigarettes top the list.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    Cigarettes, while harmful, don't result in instant death. Banning cigarettes would result in the same problem banning other drugs has created. The only things that should be "banned" are those that are so intrinsically harmful they cause severe, immediate, measurable harm to both the abuser and society. There aren't many drugs that people consume that qualify for this standard since to be able to continuously abuse something it can't kill you the first try.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      Perhaps not, but you can overdose and die from nicotine. Almost nobody does though because there is a legal form from which to get the high that is a minute fraction of what is required to kill you.
    - mrtron 14y ago
      Interesting perspective. Firstly, substances can be used without 'abuse'. Alcohol is a good example of this, you probably know many users who never abuse it. Alcohol most certainly can cause severe, immediate harm to the abuser an society. Why ban substances based on harm? Why not just enforce the rules around the actual harm? For example, enforce driving under the influence and don't ban alcohol. Is there really a need to ban things like heroin which have a high rate of causing harm to the user? It seems like it is more of social and community issue. Throwing that person in jail is hardly improving their life.
      - astrodust 14y ago
        Managing harm, as you suggest, is the best way to handle things going forward. It also covers a lot of things beyond drugs, things that are addictive for some people like gambling. In terms of priorities it should be avoiding harm to others, such as not driving under the influence as you suggest, and then avoiding harm to the individual, as might be the case with a chronic alcoholic. As a note, heroin isn't as inherently harmful as it's made out to be, but, like other things, so long as it's illegal it will really only be popular with the more hard-core drug users. It was legal before, after all.
    - iandanforth 14y ago
      I agree with the spirit of your argument, but for reference 30mg of nicotine is fatal. It's a potent neurotoxin and is actively used as a pesticide. It would easily qualify as something "so intrinsically harmful [it] cause[s] severe, immediate, measurable harm."
      - _delirium 14y ago
        True; it seems there's some more fuzzy element involved, involving how the substances are used rather than their intrinsic potency. For various reasons, turning nicotine into a more potent drug hasn't become popular. And, tobacco leaves smoked as-is are not acutely dangerous (only chronically dangerous). But, the same is basically true of coca leaves. The difference seems to be that coca leaves are refined into more potent/dangerous recreational drugs, but tobacco leaves aren't.
      - astrodust 14y ago
        By a very loose interpretation so would water and surely more people drown than die of a nicotine overdose.
  - debacle 14y ago
    I'd rather not be driving around on the same road as someone tripping on LSD.
    - randomdata 14y ago
      Even if LSD were legal, it would remain illegal to drive while under the influence of it. But more importantly, do the laws prevent someone who wants to drive while consuming LSD stop anyone from doing it now? I'm not sure about the USA, but in Canada, the number of people who use marijuana and the number of people who use tobacco are almost equal, despite only one of those substances being legal. That seems to indicate to me that the laws have no impact on consumption or the limitation thereof. If you are worried about the effects of people using drugs, you are already witnessing them.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - pjscott 14y ago
      I agree, and feel the same way about people on alcohol -- which, incidentally, has a much greater risk of toxicity than LSD if you overdose. Which of these substances, if any, do you think should be illegal?
      - debacle 14y ago
        I don't mind if people kill themselves on drugs. I just don't want that to negatively impact me.
        rwmj 14y ago
        And the current War on (some) Drugs isn't having a massive negative impact on you? Do you not pay taxes? Do you own nothing at all of value and never go outside?
  - nikcub 14y ago
    I have never liked the line of argument where 'but alcohol or cigarettes are worse than cocaine'. they should all be legal and people should decide for themselves what is more dangerous
- elorant 14y ago
  Because there's always the risk that someone will try it out of curiosity. And since it's a highly addictive drug you might end up causing more problems than you intend to solve.
  - adventureful 14y ago
    Like tens of thousands dying in the global drug wars annually, mixed with the cultural destruction we see in America's inner cities and with two million people in prison from drugs? I don't see how you're going to stand any chance of causing more problems than that. Cocaine has gotten cheap enough that anybody can try it if they want to. In the 40 year war on drugs, they've had a nearly unlimited budget and all the time that could ever be needed, things have only continued to get worse. The Cartels have already taken over every city in America, and they literally control portions of the south west. It's time to neutralize them, and the only way to do that is by destroying their profit centers with 'free market' competition that they can never beat (government regulated ala alcohol). Only the government can create organized crime. And it's always through prohibitions of activities that should be legal.
    - Zakharov 14y ago
      There's plenty of organized crime arranged around things that should be illegal, for example slavery.
      - adventureful 14y ago
        There's no organized slavery without complicit governments.
        koide 14y ago
        Bah, there is plenty of slavery without complicit governments. Typical example: Criminals lure naive poor country girls with prospects of lots of money and a job elsewhere. As soon as they arrive to the destination country, they are held captive (they steal everything they own, and use violence) and then used as prostitutes. I fail to see government help in this scheme.
dllthomas 14y ago
IANAH, but this runs counter to my understanding. The Opium Wars are closer to what we are currently fighting, than to the results of legalization. The British (Mexico) wanted to sell opium to the Chinese (US) when it was against Chinese (US) law. There is a significant difference in that Mexico technically forbids this activity too, of course, while the British did not, but legalization by the US would move it further away from the historical situation, not closer to it.
- ElCabron 14y ago
  It's impossible to run an organization like this for so long and with profits so large, without the help of some (lets call them corrupt) FBI/CIA/DEA agents or politicians inside US. I may be just a sheep but the shepherd and the dogs are always working together. We are driven to believe that all this is Columbia+Mexico vs US conflict when in reality there may be an invisible and silent war inside every country (not only US) between the ruling class and middle+lower class and the "war on drugs" is just one of the never ending battles, which will not be won by anyone as long as the rulers don't have serious interests in winning it.
  - Osiris 14y ago
    The article clearly pointed out that corruption is the biggest contributor to the continued survival of the cartels. If, somehow, we were able to make everyone in law enforcement and the government honest, then the cartels would find it significantly harder, if not practically impossible, to do smuggle their goods. It does seem like the war on drugs could be fought more by addressing those that are supposed to be fighting it and removing corruption. Perhaps huge pay increases and bonuses for turning in people that attempt to bribe?
    - ElCabron 14y ago
      The smuggling can be stopped in less than a year. A country so powerful and resourceful that sent a man on the moon, waged wars with countless countries, played nuclear chess with the soviets, influences and spies everyone with satellites & drones, can't get to the roots of this drug octopus ? Bullsh*t. They don't want to. They went in Iraq for a bunch of imaginary weapons and in Afghanistan for a terrorist that killed 3000 citizens. If they really wanted to stop the drug dealers they would have invaded Mexico and Columbia 3 times by now, and no one could have stopped them because drugs kill tens of thousands every year. It's all politics and the politicians can play limitless dumb when they want to and no one can arrest them for that. They never admit conspiracy, never admit betrayal of citizen's or nation’s interests, they only admit incompetence cause that is not punished by law and the fools still buy it.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jlmendezbonini 14y ago
Let me quote [1] "An estimated 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits Mexico." The key word here is "transits". Every other country in Central America, and some in northern South America are part of that "transit" too. Mexican just happens, to its bad luck, to be next to the biggest consumer. Nobody is arguing to have cocaine accesible by kids at the grocery store. The argument is to legalize it to regulate it and, as someone below commented, to bring the prices down so is no longer such a profitable business.
- vlisivka 14y ago
  What will happen to consumers when prices will be so low, so no body will want to sell drugs, because they are no longer profitable?
  - pjscott 14y ago
    Hi! This is the Market Economics Fairy! I help supply and demand equilibrate everywhere! If there is unmet demand for a fairly easy-to-grow cash crop, then it means that the prices are too low! Raise them, and farmland will switch from other commodities as it becomes marginally profitable to do so! Sincerely, the Market Economics Fairy! (Full disclosure: I'm just borrowing this character because it's suddenly relevant.)
    - vlisivka 14y ago
      So, if you will be legal drug seller and you will be tight on money, what you will do? Just invest into few small doses and you will have clients for life...
      - jpadkins 14y ago
        yet somehow we allow nicotine to be sold... or sugar. both are highly addictive.
        vlisivka 14y ago
chrischen 14y ago
Do you have a source on your claim that most of their money comes from cocaine and meth? The first link provided actually says they are the largest foreign supplier of marijuana.
guelo 14y ago
Yes, I am saying cocaine should be legalized. People that want the drug today are able to obtain it anyway. We could put all kinds of restrictions on its sale and use, as long as it is easier to obtain legally than underground it would prevent the formation of wealthy criminal gangs.
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  As shown in the report I linked before. Meth is a highly regulated hard drug that can be obtained legally. [1] Mexican drug cartels still traffic it, still makes tons of profit from it, thousands of people die because of it. Regulating Meth didn't stop the drug war. What exactly makes you think any other drug would be different? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
  - doktrin 14y ago
    When most people refer to the legalization of "drugs", they are typically implying decriminalized (or semi-decriminalized) recreational use and not tightly regulated medical use (Desoxyn). This makes sense, since a highly regulated substance is de-facto illegal if it is unobtainable by the vast majority of its target market.
  - WayneDB 14y ago
    Excuse me, but it's NOT legal. It's not legal to produce and it's not legal to sell or buy. Therefore, it's not being produced or sold by legitimate operations. THAT is why Mexican drug cartels still traffic it. Because it's still illegal.
    - rdl 14y ago
      Desoxyn is pharmaceutical methamphetamine. It is extremely infrequently prescribed, but technically more legal (schedule II, along with cocaine) than LSD or Marijuana (schedule I).
WayneDB 14y ago
Methamphetamine is still illegal. That is why the cartels still traffic in it. There is no legitimate corporation to supply it and there won't be unless it's legal. Alcohol sales are in the billions, why aren't the cartels making money from that? Because legitimate corporations are there to supply it already. (You can also produce your own alcohol at home, but most people don't.)

debacle 14y ago

Why isn't cocaine legalized? Honest question - I've never done it nor have a I done a ton of research.

mrtron 14y ago
Should any substance be illegal? If we start banning substances rationally, wouldn't cigarettes top the list.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Cigarettes, while harmful, don't result in instant death. Banning cigarettes would result in the same problem banning other drugs has created. The only things that should be "banned" are those that are so intrinsically harmful they cause severe, immediate, measurable harm to both the abuser and society. There aren't many drugs that people consume that qualify for this standard since to be able to continuously abuse something it can't kill you the first try.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    Perhaps not, but you can overdose and die from nicotine. Almost nobody does though because there is a legal form from which to get the high that is a minute fraction of what is required to kill you.
  - mrtron 14y ago
    Interesting perspective. Firstly, substances can be used without 'abuse'. Alcohol is a good example of this, you probably know many users who never abuse it. Alcohol most certainly can cause severe, immediate harm to the abuser an society. Why ban substances based on harm? Why not just enforce the rules around the actual harm? For example, enforce driving under the influence and don't ban alcohol. Is there really a need to ban things like heroin which have a high rate of causing harm to the user? It seems like it is more of social and community issue. Throwing that person in jail is hardly improving their life.
    - astrodust 14y ago
      Managing harm, as you suggest, is the best way to handle things going forward. It also covers a lot of things beyond drugs, things that are addictive for some people like gambling. In terms of priorities it should be avoiding harm to others, such as not driving under the influence as you suggest, and then avoiding harm to the individual, as might be the case with a chronic alcoholic. As a note, heroin isn't as inherently harmful as it's made out to be, but, like other things, so long as it's illegal it will really only be popular with the more hard-core drug users. It was legal before, after all.
  - iandanforth 14y ago
    I agree with the spirit of your argument, but for reference 30mg of nicotine is fatal. It's a potent neurotoxin and is actively used as a pesticide. It would easily qualify as something "so intrinsically harmful [it] cause[s] severe, immediate, measurable harm."
    - _delirium 14y ago
      True; it seems there's some more fuzzy element involved, involving how the substances are used rather than their intrinsic potency. For various reasons, turning nicotine into a more potent drug hasn't become popular. And, tobacco leaves smoked as-is are not acutely dangerous (only chronically dangerous). But, the same is basically true of coca leaves. The difference seems to be that coca leaves are refined into more potent/dangerous recreational drugs, but tobacco leaves aren't.
    - astrodust 14y ago
      By a very loose interpretation so would water and surely more people drown than die of a nicotine overdose.
- debacle 14y ago
  I'd rather not be driving around on the same road as someone tripping on LSD.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    Even if LSD were legal, it would remain illegal to drive while under the influence of it. But more importantly, do the laws prevent someone who wants to drive while consuming LSD stop anyone from doing it now? I'm not sure about the USA, but in Canada, the number of people who use marijuana and the number of people who use tobacco are almost equal, despite only one of those substances being legal. That seems to indicate to me that the laws have no impact on consumption or the limitation thereof. If you are worried about the effects of people using drugs, you are already witnessing them.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - pjscott 14y ago
    I agree, and feel the same way about people on alcohol -- which, incidentally, has a much greater risk of toxicity than LSD if you overdose. Which of these substances, if any, do you think should be illegal?
    - debacle 14y ago
      I don't mind if people kill themselves on drugs. I just don't want that to negatively impact me.
      - rwmj 14y ago
        And the current War on (some) Drugs isn't having a massive negative impact on you? Do you not pay taxes? Do you own nothing at all of value and never go outside?
- nikcub 14y ago
  I have never liked the line of argument where 'but alcohol or cigarettes are worse than cocaine'. they should all be legal and people should decide for themselves what is more dangerous
elorant 14y ago
Because there's always the risk that someone will try it out of curiosity. And since it's a highly addictive drug you might end up causing more problems than you intend to solve.
- adventureful 14y ago
  Like tens of thousands dying in the global drug wars annually, mixed with the cultural destruction we see in America's inner cities and with two million people in prison from drugs? I don't see how you're going to stand any chance of causing more problems than that. Cocaine has gotten cheap enough that anybody can try it if they want to. In the 40 year war on drugs, they've had a nearly unlimited budget and all the time that could ever be needed, things have only continued to get worse. The Cartels have already taken over every city in America, and they literally control portions of the south west. It's time to neutralize them, and the only way to do that is by destroying their profit centers with 'free market' competition that they can never beat (government regulated ala alcohol). Only the government can create organized crime. And it's always through prohibitions of activities that should be legal.
  - Zakharov 14y ago
    There's plenty of organized crime arranged around things that should be illegal, for example slavery.
    - adventureful 14y ago
      There's no organized slavery without complicit governments.
      - koide 14y ago
        Bah, there is plenty of slavery without complicit governments. Typical example: Criminals lure naive poor country girls with prospects of lots of money and a job elsewhere. As soon as they arrive to the destination country, they are held captive (they steal everything they own, and use violence) and then used as prostitutes. I fail to see government help in this scheme.

dllthomas 14y ago

IANAH, but this runs counter to my understanding. The Opium Wars are closer to what we are currently fighting, than to the results of legalization. The British (Mexico) wanted to sell opium to the Chinese (US) when it was against Chinese (US) law. There is a significant difference in that Mexico technically forbids this activity too, of course, while the British did not, but legalization by the US would move it further away from the historical situation, not closer to it.

ElCabron 14y ago
It's impossible to run an organization like this for so long and with profits so large, without the help of some (lets call them corrupt) FBI/CIA/DEA agents or politicians inside US. I may be just a sheep but the shepherd and the dogs are always working together. We are driven to believe that all this is Columbia+Mexico vs US conflict when in reality there may be an invisible and silent war inside every country (not only US) between the ruling class and middle+lower class and the "war on drugs" is just one of the never ending battles, which will not be won by anyone as long as the rulers don't have serious interests in winning it.
- Osiris 14y ago
  The article clearly pointed out that corruption is the biggest contributor to the continued survival of the cartels. If, somehow, we were able to make everyone in law enforcement and the government honest, then the cartels would find it significantly harder, if not practically impossible, to do smuggle their goods. It does seem like the war on drugs could be fought more by addressing those that are supposed to be fighting it and removing corruption. Perhaps huge pay increases and bonuses for turning in people that attempt to bribe?
  - ElCabron 14y ago
    The smuggling can be stopped in less than a year. A country so powerful and resourceful that sent a man on the moon, waged wars with countless countries, played nuclear chess with the soviets, influences and spies everyone with satellites & drones, can't get to the roots of this drug octopus ? Bullsh*t. They don't want to. They went in Iraq for a bunch of imaginary weapons and in Afghanistan for a terrorist that killed 3000 citizens. If they really wanted to stop the drug dealers they would have invaded Mexico and Columbia 3 times by now, and no one could have stopped them because drugs kill tens of thousands every year. It's all politics and the politicians can play limitless dumb when they want to and no one can arrest them for that. They never admit conspiracy, never admit betrayal of citizen's or nation’s interests, they only admit incompetence cause that is not punished by law and the fools still buy it.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jlmendezbonini 14y ago

Let me quote [1] "An estimated 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits Mexico." The key word here is "transits". Every other country in Central America, and some in northern South America are part of that "transit" too. Mexican just happens, to its bad luck, to be next to the biggest consumer. Nobody is arguing to have cocaine accesible by kids at the grocery store. The argument is to legalize it to regulate it and, as someone below commented, to bring the prices down so is no longer such a profitable business.

vlisivka 14y ago
What will happen to consumers when prices will be so low, so no body will want to sell drugs, because they are no longer profitable?
- pjscott 14y ago
  Hi! This is the Market Economics Fairy! I help supply and demand equilibrate everywhere! If there is unmet demand for a fairly easy-to-grow cash crop, then it means that the prices are too low! Raise them, and farmland will switch from other commodities as it becomes marginally profitable to do so! Sincerely, the Market Economics Fairy! (Full disclosure: I'm just borrowing this character because it's suddenly relevant.)
  - vlisivka 14y ago
    So, if you will be legal drug seller and you will be tight on money, what you will do? Just invest into few small doses and you will have clients for life...
    - jpadkins 14y ago
      yet somehow we allow nicotine to be sold... or sugar. both are highly addictive.
      - vlisivka 14y ago

chrischen 14y ago

Do you have a source on your claim that most of their money comes from cocaine and meth? The first link provided actually says they are the largest foreign supplier of marijuana.

guelo 14y ago

Yes, I am saying cocaine should be legalized. People that want the drug today are able to obtain it anyway. We could put all kinds of restrictions on its sale and use, as long as it is easier to obtain legally than underground it would prevent the formation of wealthy criminal gangs.

vibrunazo 14y ago
As shown in the report I linked before. Meth is a highly regulated hard drug that can be obtained legally. [1] Mexican drug cartels still traffic it, still makes tons of profit from it, thousands of people die because of it. Regulating Meth didn't stop the drug war. What exactly makes you think any other drug would be different? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
- doktrin 14y ago
  When most people refer to the legalization of "drugs", they are typically implying decriminalized (or semi-decriminalized) recreational use and not tightly regulated medical use (Desoxyn). This makes sense, since a highly regulated substance is de-facto illegal if it is unobtainable by the vast majority of its target market.
- WayneDB 14y ago
  Excuse me, but it's NOT legal. It's not legal to produce and it's not legal to sell or buy. Therefore, it's not being produced or sold by legitimate operations. THAT is why Mexican drug cartels still traffic it. Because it's still illegal.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Desoxyn is pharmaceutical methamphetamine. It is extremely infrequently prescribed, but technically more legal (schedule II, along with cocaine) than LSD or Marijuana (schedule I).

WayneDB 14y ago

Methamphetamine is still illegal. That is why the cartels still traffic in it. There is no legitimate corporation to supply it and there won't be unless it's legal. Alcohol sales are in the billions, why aren't the cartels making money from that? Because legitimate corporations are there to supply it already. (You can also produce your own alcohol at home, but most people don't.)