5 ms·

$100 million on censors? How about legalize some of the softer drugs they are flying so it becomes less profitable for them to carry out such operations in the

$100 million on censors? How about legalize some of the softer drugs they are flying so it becomes less profitable for them to carry out such operations in the first place?

InclinedPlane 14y ago
Why not legalize all of the drugs? We've proven that we can't stop people from using drugs. What advantage is there in ensuring that the billions spent on drugs gets funneled into the hands of hardened criminals?
- jamierothfeder 14y ago
  Imagine our elected representatives trying to come up with laws, regulations, tax policies, public health issues (think big tabacco), arrests (there are currently many more alcohol related arrests than drug related arrests). Not saying that this isn't something that shouldn't be considered, just pointing out that it isn't without cost.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Again, what part of this is in any way worse than funneling tens of billions of dollars a year into the hands of the most violent career criminals?
    - rwmj 14y ago
      When you said "violet career criminals" I thought of the military industrial complex. They are also being enriched by this, since (for some unknown reason) if it's drugs + a border that seems to mean it deserves a military-style response.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    Treat them like alcohol. They already have all the answers to those questions solved for it, and, in some cases (driving while impaired, for instance), they already are treated mostly the same.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  There's a lot of different arguments. I can't remember them all, but the first one that comes to mind is the hope that legalizing softer drugs would reduce demand for harder, still-illegal drugs. Especially if legalization reduces prices of the softer drugs. This could be powerful, for example, if we identify that a certain drug is fairly safe but its relatives are not. Legalize the safer form, not the dangerous forms, and market incentives will cause most people to favor the now-legal form. Everybody wins (Though this presumes we have "comparables" to pick between)
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- jayfuerstenberg 14y ago
  I won't pretend to know enough about all drugs to advocate legalizing them all, but certainly some like Marijuana aren't exactly making Amsterdam and Vancouver collapse overnight. If you make something illegal you make them more scarce and therefore more valuable. Erase the value by erasing the scarcity and the problem actually just goes away. For harder substances I am not certain if this makes sense.
  - mietek 14y ago
    Portugal has decriminalized all drugs in 2001. "Serious drug use is down significantly, particularly among young people; the burden on the criminal-justice system has eased; the number of people seeking treatment has grown; and the rates of drug-related deaths and cases of infectious diseases have fallen."
    - intended 14y ago
      Heh, I think I brought up this very point in HN, and it was pointed out that the burden had shifted to medical services now.
      - alttab 14y ago
        Better that then sending non-violent criminals into for-profit prison systems, destroying lives of the families impacted, and generally making the wrong people rich(er) for the wrong reasons. Hemp is illegal in America for christ sake. Not because "its related to weed" either. Its because we can make anything out of hemp and that doesn't generate profit. How anything naturally made by earth (weed, hemp, opium) can be labeled "illegal" is arrogant of the human race. What makes us think we know better than nature? There are plenty of natural poisons out there that could kill us instantly. Why dont we make poison dart frogs illegal? Why aren't venomous snakes illegal?
        rprospero 14y ago
        In many states, the possession of venomous snakes is illegal. Same goes for poison dart frogs.
- kitsune_ 14y ago
  They need to legalize all drugs. Regulate and tax them. Classify heavy addiction as a disease and treat it as such. Support the addicts with the taxes from the drugs.
  - viraptor 14y ago
    Support addicts... and their families and child services in some cases. I don't want to turn this into "think of the children", but in case we're talking about addicts which need to be taken care of by the government, it's unlikely that the effect will be limited to that single person only. In case that person needs to be treated in a special way, that person may affect the nearby environment too.
    - pessimizer 14y ago
      >it's unlikely that the effect will be limited to that single person only It's unlikely that the effect has been limited to that single person only. We don't care about the families now when we put their parents in prison - so why would keeping parents out of prison and reducing the price and risk associated with their drugs give us more of an obligation to their families?
BigTigger 14y ago
The economies of scale are crazy as well. the US government spends $100 million on sensors yet the catels stand to make (if you can believe the figures) "$16 million wholesale" for one shipment of cocaine via this method. The drug cartels stand to make more selling drugs than the US government spent trying to stop them in merely 7 trips with an ultralight
- positr0n 14y ago
  $16 million is revenue, not profit, but I agree the scale is amazing. I know the price of cocaine in America is thousands of times more than straight out of the lab in Columbia. I wonder how big of a cut each group takes from the massive profit as it works it's way to America...
  - base698 14y ago
    You can get Columbian coffee for $7/pound in a grocery store in the US. It can't be that much different in the raw manufacturing costs.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - lwat 14y ago
      The manufacturing cost is about zero but there are other costs, like transport.
      - alberich 14y ago
        Indeed.... "There’s a reason coke and heroin cost so much more on the street than at the farm gate: you’re not paying for the drugs; you’re compensating everyone along the distribution chain for the risks they assumed in getting them to you. Smugglers often negotiate, in actuarial detail, about who will be held liable in the event of lost inventory. After a bust, arrested traffickers have been known to demand a receipt from authorities, so that they can prove the loss was not because of their own negligence (which would mean they might have to pay for it) or their own thievery (which would mean they might have to die). Some Colombian cartels have actually offered insurance policies on narcotics, as a safeguard against loss or seizure."(source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-makes-its-billions.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-dru...)
zerostar07 14y ago
It might be more profitable to just sell them the vehicles.

$100 million on censors? How about legalize some of the softer drugs they are flying so it becomes less profitable for them to carry out such operations in the first place?

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Why not legalize all of the drugs? We've proven that we can't stop people from using drugs. What advantage is there in ensuring that the billions spent on drugs gets funneled into the hands of hardened criminals?

jamierothfeder 14y ago
Imagine our elected representatives trying to come up with laws, regulations, tax policies, public health issues (think big tabacco), arrests (there are currently many more alcohol related arrests than drug related arrests). Not saying that this isn't something that shouldn't be considered, just pointing out that it isn't without cost.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Again, what part of this is in any way worse than funneling tens of billions of dollars a year into the hands of the most violent career criminals?
  - rwmj 14y ago
    When you said "violet career criminals" I thought of the military industrial complex. They are also being enriched by this, since (for some unknown reason) if it's drugs + a border that seems to mean it deserves a military-style response.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  Treat them like alcohol. They already have all the answers to those questions solved for it, and, in some cases (driving while impaired, for instance), they already are treated mostly the same.
sliverstorm 14y ago
There's a lot of different arguments. I can't remember them all, but the first one that comes to mind is the hope that legalizing softer drugs would reduce demand for harder, still-illegal drugs. Especially if legalization reduces prices of the softer drugs. This could be powerful, for example, if we identify that a certain drug is fairly safe but its relatives are not. Legalize the safer form, not the dangerous forms, and market incentives will cause most people to favor the now-legal form. Everybody wins (Though this presumes we have "comparables" to pick between)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
jayfuerstenberg 14y ago
I won't pretend to know enough about all drugs to advocate legalizing them all, but certainly some like Marijuana aren't exactly making Amsterdam and Vancouver collapse overnight. If you make something illegal you make them more scarce and therefore more valuable. Erase the value by erasing the scarcity and the problem actually just goes away. For harder substances I am not certain if this makes sense.
- mietek 14y ago
  Portugal has decriminalized all drugs in 2001. "Serious drug use is down significantly, particularly among young people; the burden on the criminal-justice system has eased; the number of people seeking treatment has grown; and the rates of drug-related deaths and cases of infectious diseases have fallen."
  - intended 14y ago
    Heh, I think I brought up this very point in HN, and it was pointed out that the burden had shifted to medical services now.
    - alttab 14y ago
      Better that then sending non-violent criminals into for-profit prison systems, destroying lives of the families impacted, and generally making the wrong people rich(er) for the wrong reasons. Hemp is illegal in America for christ sake. Not because "its related to weed" either. Its because we can make anything out of hemp and that doesn't generate profit. How anything naturally made by earth (weed, hemp, opium) can be labeled "illegal" is arrogant of the human race. What makes us think we know better than nature? There are plenty of natural poisons out there that could kill us instantly. Why dont we make poison dart frogs illegal? Why aren't venomous snakes illegal?
      - rprospero 14y ago
        In many states, the possession of venomous snakes is illegal. Same goes for poison dart frogs.
kitsune_ 14y ago
They need to legalize all drugs. Regulate and tax them. Classify heavy addiction as a disease and treat it as such. Support the addicts with the taxes from the drugs.
- viraptor 14y ago
  Support addicts... and their families and child services in some cases. I don't want to turn this into "think of the children", but in case we're talking about addicts which need to be taken care of by the government, it's unlikely that the effect will be limited to that single person only. In case that person needs to be treated in a special way, that person may affect the nearby environment too.
  - pessimizer 14y ago
    >it's unlikely that the effect will be limited to that single person only It's unlikely that the effect has been limited to that single person only. We don't care about the families now when we put their parents in prison - so why would keeping parents out of prison and reducing the price and risk associated with their drugs give us more of an obligation to their families?

BigTigger 14y ago

The economies of scale are crazy as well. the US government spends $100 million on sensors yet the catels stand to make (if you can believe the figures) "$16 million wholesale" for one shipment of cocaine via this method. The drug cartels stand to make more selling drugs than the US government spent trying to stop them in merely 7 trips with an ultralight

positr0n 14y ago
$16 million is revenue, not profit, but I agree the scale is amazing. I know the price of cocaine in America is thousands of times more than straight out of the lab in Columbia. I wonder how big of a cut each group takes from the massive profit as it works it's way to America...
- base698 14y ago
  You can get Columbian coffee for $7/pound in a grocery store in the US. It can't be that much different in the raw manufacturing costs.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - lwat 14y ago
    The manufacturing cost is about zero but there are other costs, like transport.
    - alberich 14y ago
      Indeed.... "There’s a reason coke and heroin cost so much more on the street than at the farm gate: you’re not paying for the drugs; you’re compensating everyone along the distribution chain for the risks they assumed in getting them to you. Smugglers often negotiate, in actuarial detail, about who will be held liable in the event of lost inventory. After a bust, arrested traffickers have been known to demand a receipt from authorities, so that they can prove the loss was not because of their own negligence (which would mean they might have to pay for it) or their own thievery (which would mean they might have to die). Some Colombian cartels have actually offered insurance policies on narcotics, as a safeguard against loss or seizure."(source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-makes-its-billions.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-dru...)

zerostar07 14y ago

It might be more profitable to just sell them the vehicles.