4 ms·

> If a cartel is alone in the forest carrying out no kidnappings, assignations, drug sales, or other physical effects that can be policed by conventional means.

> If a cartel is alone in the forest carrying out no kidnappings, assignations, drug sales, or other physical effects that can be policed by conventional means... does it matter? Yes, because that's a made up scenario. What are they doing in the forest if they're not doing something to make money? If they aren't doing anything illegal, they're a business, not a cartel. Ultimately they want money in the same system as everyone else. If you let people set up companies where the owner can't be discovered in some way, businesses set up for laundering money become an expected cost. Shut one down, another pops up. The only way you stop that is to find the people facilitating it. Having billionaires is bad enough. Anonymous billionaires is a nightmare.

XorNot 2y ago
I find that scenario even funnier because there's literally an alternate version which no one in the US will even consider but would be much more effective: legalise the drugs. Let people sell them in stores. Earn taxes on the sales! The only reason drug cartels exist is because of the insatiable US demand for drugs.
- donmcronald 2y ago
  It's an extremely difficult problem because you end up with drug addicts either way and those people aren't productive. I would consider myself a proponent of legalized marijuana, but hard drugs are a completely different scenario.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you end up with drug addicts either way If you end up with addicts either way and taxes only one, that seems to imply an obvious better choice?
    - donmcronald 2y ago
      On the surface, yeah. I didn't explain very well, but what I meant is that you end up with drug addicts either way and you'd want to figure out which solution costs the least overall. If it were possible to calculate, it would be easy to decide which solution is best. My opinion is that things feel like they've gotten worse in Canada as we've softened drug enforcement. It's a feeling, not a fact because I can't factor out all things that cause an increase in drug use, so it's hard to say if we've seen things get worse because of softer policing or in spite of it. Every single person I know that works in a related field tells me that stuff like safe injection sites and soft on drugs policies have had a negative collateral effect on homelessness, the need for medical services, the need for police, etc.. That makes me hesitant to buy into the idea that making access to drugs easier will improve things.
- legitster 2y ago
  > The only reason drug cartels exist is because of the insatiable US demand for drugs. Yes and no. Drugs are the market that cartels currently serve, but they also thrive because of weak local governments. Keep in mind the mafia has existed for literally centuries in some places before drugs and alcohol - on nothing more than violence and protection rackets. We've seen the newer cartels willing to diversify into other criminal activities like taking hostages or even avocado rackets. Legalization may shrink the resources of the cartels, but you would probably see an increase in other unsavory activities that would still create refugees and trade problems for us.

XorNot 2y ago

I find that scenario even funnier because there's literally an alternate version which no one in the US will even consider but would be much more effective: legalise the drugs. Let people sell them in stores. Earn taxes on the sales! The only reason drug cartels exist is because of the insatiable US demand for drugs.

donmcronald 2y ago
It's an extremely difficult problem because you end up with drug addicts either way and those people aren't productive. I would consider myself a proponent of legalized marijuana, but hard drugs are a completely different scenario.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > you end up with drug addicts either way If you end up with addicts either way and taxes only one, that seems to imply an obvious better choice?
  - donmcronald 2y ago
    On the surface, yeah. I didn't explain very well, but what I meant is that you end up with drug addicts either way and you'd want to figure out which solution costs the least overall. If it were possible to calculate, it would be easy to decide which solution is best. My opinion is that things feel like they've gotten worse in Canada as we've softened drug enforcement. It's a feeling, not a fact because I can't factor out all things that cause an increase in drug use, so it's hard to say if we've seen things get worse because of softer policing or in spite of it. Every single person I know that works in a related field tells me that stuff like safe injection sites and soft on drugs policies have had a negative collateral effect on homelessness, the need for medical services, the need for police, etc.. That makes me hesitant to buy into the idea that making access to drugs easier will improve things.
legitster 2y ago
> The only reason drug cartels exist is because of the insatiable US demand for drugs. Yes and no. Drugs are the market that cartels currently serve, but they also thrive because of weak local governments. Keep in mind the mafia has existed for literally centuries in some places before drugs and alcohol - on nothing more than violence and protection rackets. We've seen the newer cartels willing to diversify into other criminal activities like taking hostages or even avocado rackets. Legalization may shrink the resources of the cartels, but you would probably see an increase in other unsavory activities that would still create refugees and trade problems for us.