6 ms·

The current situation in Mexico is a quintessential example of a direct side effect of prohibition. The US's War On Drugs has been a failure, completely and all

The current situation in Mexico is a quintessential example of a direct side effect of prohibition. The US's War On Drugs has been a failure, completely and all the way across the board (well, except for those who profit from the industrio-prison complex). It's interesting how little coverage the US media gives the situation in Mexico. Then again, the US media currently gives very little coverage to its own war(s).

dimitar 14y ago
Another economic explanation is that the US a country with an expensive currency with many poor people and other potential customers for your drugs. Even if your poor and your life sucks your few dollars can buy the passage of drugs from abroad. Maybe sometimes its too hard to resist. European countries with where recreational drugs are still illegal are generally abuse less drugs because they have less income inequality. Even when you have only a few euros, you can afford to go to university and lead a pretty comfortable life. This may all change with mass unemployment and poverty austerity will cause, although. I really hope this will not be a race to the bottom.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  While income inequality is a popular trope to blame things on, I don't think it really applies here. In the US, the poor live quite comfortably. Even people with income of zero have consumption of about $20k/year. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt For comparison, Hungary has a GDP per capita of $21k, the Czech Republic of $26k, France and the UK of $35k. Further, inequality in the US is higher mainly because the rich earn more. That doesn't cause the life of the poor to suck, unless they get jealous or something.
  - yesbabyyes 14y ago
    There is actually a lot of research suggesting that inequality in a society is itself the cause of many problems. This is not surprising to me, since, after all, it is ridiculous to speak of wealth in absolute terms. $20k doesn't mean anything. You may call it envy if that's how you see it -- if you indeed are interesting in learning about the many problems of economic inequality, I recommend the book The Spirit Level (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level).
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      $20k has a very well defined (albeit complex) meaning: it means that the sum of the prices of goods consumed by the individual adds up to $20k. (Note that the figures I gave for other nations were adjusted for PPP, so price levels are adjusted.) I can think of no mechanism besides envy which would cause income inequality to harm anyone. It's not as if the US poor lack some good or service which is available in other, more equal societies. Note that the Spirit Level only provides a correlation between inequality and other problems. It does not show the direction of causality.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    > In the US, the poor live quite comfortably. Uh what? That individuals consume some amount of resources to live doesn't mean that they live comfortably. There is going to be some kind of minimum amount you have to pay to live, as you can't get everything for free even if you are homeless. That even those with the lowest incomes use up resources equivalent to $20k per year doesn't mean that those people are living comfortably, but we can see for Americans that there is some kind of minimum cost to living even if you can't make enough to pay for it all outright. Drugs and poverty are intersectional. Laws for drug offenses involving substances most prevalent in poor communities have and continue to have harsher penalties than for drugs that are prevalent in more affluent communities. Drugs are highly available in poor communities, both for addicts and for those that want to sell them since economic advancement through traditional channels are denied to them. Police agencies in many cities enforce crime in the poorer parts of town that are inhabited primarily by people of color much more often than in more affluent areas. The effects of drug prohibition amplify exiting social and economic issues in US society, so we know that US drug policy has been a total failure and must be changed.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      I'm not disputing that we should end the war on drug users.I'm only disputing the idea that income inequality somehow makes the lives of poor Americans suck, and they turn to drugs as a result. If you want to argue that the lives of poor Americans suck, look at absolute consumption levels, or better yet, look at the actual basket of goods available to poor Americans. Here is some data to get you started: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jakeonthemove 14y ago
  How much is "a few euros" exactly? Because you won't go anywhere without food and shelter, and last time I checked, the cheapest bread was E1.70 and a bus ticket E1.50, and it adds up pretty fast...
  - cies 14y ago
    Living in the Netherlands, uni-fees are roughly 1500e/yr (ex books), you receive a grant of 250e/mth grant possibly increased by a 500e/mth student loan and free public transportation during either the week or the weekend -- all during the nominal length of your study. Cheapest bread is .5-.8e, a cheap room is 200e/mth, take out meal is 5-10e and a beer costs 2-3e. Your student job easily pays you 10e/h.
- AJ007 14y ago
  Crystal meth and crack are one thing, but the consumption of cocaine and prescription medications is very wide spread among the upper working class -- lawyers, finance, sales, etc. These are the same people who pretty much run the US. My friends that are middle and lower class don't do drugs, although they do drink a considerable amount of alcohol. I went to high school in the city. It was common for kids to smoke weed after class and came to school drunk. As for the kids who went to school in the upper middle class town I grew up in, their problems included ODing on heroin. The kids that smoked weed might not have the most balanced careers, but that is a whole lot better than being dead because you ODed on heroin. Of course that is all anecdotal. However, I think it is a major stretch to believe drug abuse has something to do with not making enough money. The drug problem needs to be fixed first with ending prohibition. After that happens the vast resources being spent antagonizing a war can be redirected to figuring out how to fix the core problem -- people being more concerned about getting high than what the rest of their life is going to look like.
rndmize 14y ago
"Unsurprising" is the word I would use. Darfur got minimal coverage at the time when mass killings were going on, and Mexico is an even worse story - not only do you have a country approaching a degree of civil war, but the US public is effectively funding the criminal side. This is not something that's likely to play well on CNN.
- tehayj 14y ago
  What I think simply sucks is that the US brings democracy to countries if those countries want or not for whatever reasons but do not do anything about the civil war next door. The next step in human evolution is to wake up and for people to at least try to see things as they are.
  - berntb 14y ago
    >>the US brings democracy to countries if those countries want or not Per definition -- when a country is not a democracy, it is controlled by a junta that steals lots of resources and control the information to the citizens. So, just for my information, how do you decide that a country does not want to be a democracy...? Ask the (misinformed) population, which know they will be in trouble if they have the wrong opinions...?!
    - eru 14y ago
      > Per definition -- when a country is not a democracy, it is controlled by a junta that steals lots of resources and control the information to the citizens. Strange definition. That would make Singapore a democracy.
      - berntb 14y ago
        Singapore is weird, quite autocratic and not that corrupt. Maybe the city state should be seen as a corporation? I can't give three more counter examples, can you? (I might add -- the problem with kings are that even if the present one is a genius, you don't know how crazy the next one will be...)

dimitar 14y ago

Another economic explanation is that the US a country with an expensive currency with many poor people and other potential customers for your drugs. Even if your poor and your life sucks your few dollars can buy the passage of drugs from abroad. Maybe sometimes its too hard to resist. European countries with where recreational drugs are still illegal are generally abuse less drugs because they have less income inequality. Even when you have only a few euros, you can afford to go to university and lead a pretty comfortable life. This may all change with mass unemployment and poverty austerity will cause, although. I really hope this will not be a race to the bottom.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
While income inequality is a popular trope to blame things on, I don't think it really applies here. In the US, the poor live quite comfortably. Even people with income of zero have consumption of about $20k/year. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt For comparison, Hungary has a GDP per capita of $21k, the Czech Republic of $26k, France and the UK of $35k. Further, inequality in the US is higher mainly because the rich earn more. That doesn't cause the life of the poor to suck, unless they get jealous or something.
- yesbabyyes 14y ago
  There is actually a lot of research suggesting that inequality in a society is itself the cause of many problems. This is not surprising to me, since, after all, it is ridiculous to speak of wealth in absolute terms. $20k doesn't mean anything. You may call it envy if that's how you see it -- if you indeed are interesting in learning about the many problems of economic inequality, I recommend the book The Spirit Level (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level).
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    $20k has a very well defined (albeit complex) meaning: it means that the sum of the prices of goods consumed by the individual adds up to $20k. (Note that the figures I gave for other nations were adjusted for PPP, so price levels are adjusted.) I can think of no mechanism besides envy which would cause income inequality to harm anyone. It's not as if the US poor lack some good or service which is available in other, more equal societies. Note that the Spirit Level only provides a correlation between inequality and other problems. It does not show the direction of causality.
- king_jester 14y ago
  > In the US, the poor live quite comfortably. Uh what? That individuals consume some amount of resources to live doesn't mean that they live comfortably. There is going to be some kind of minimum amount you have to pay to live, as you can't get everything for free even if you are homeless. That even those with the lowest incomes use up resources equivalent to $20k per year doesn't mean that those people are living comfortably, but we can see for Americans that there is some kind of minimum cost to living even if you can't make enough to pay for it all outright. Drugs and poverty are intersectional. Laws for drug offenses involving substances most prevalent in poor communities have and continue to have harsher penalties than for drugs that are prevalent in more affluent communities. Drugs are highly available in poor communities, both for addicts and for those that want to sell them since economic advancement through traditional channels are denied to them. Police agencies in many cities enforce crime in the poorer parts of town that are inhabited primarily by people of color much more often than in more affluent areas. The effects of drug prohibition amplify exiting social and economic issues in US society, so we know that US drug policy has been a total failure and must be changed.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    I'm not disputing that we should end the war on drug users.I'm only disputing the idea that income inequality somehow makes the lives of poor Americans suck, and they turn to drugs as a result. If you want to argue that the lives of poor Americans suck, look at absolute consumption levels, or better yet, look at the actual basket of goods available to poor Americans. Here is some data to get you started: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jakeonthemove 14y ago
How much is "a few euros" exactly? Because you won't go anywhere without food and shelter, and last time I checked, the cheapest bread was E1.70 and a bus ticket E1.50, and it adds up pretty fast...
- cies 14y ago
  Living in the Netherlands, uni-fees are roughly 1500e/yr (ex books), you receive a grant of 250e/mth grant possibly increased by a 500e/mth student loan and free public transportation during either the week or the weekend -- all during the nominal length of your study. Cheapest bread is .5-.8e, a cheap room is 200e/mth, take out meal is 5-10e and a beer costs 2-3e. Your student job easily pays you 10e/h.
AJ007 14y ago
Crystal meth and crack are one thing, but the consumption of cocaine and prescription medications is very wide spread among the upper working class -- lawyers, finance, sales, etc. These are the same people who pretty much run the US. My friends that are middle and lower class don't do drugs, although they do drink a considerable amount of alcohol. I went to high school in the city. It was common for kids to smoke weed after class and came to school drunk. As for the kids who went to school in the upper middle class town I grew up in, their problems included ODing on heroin. The kids that smoked weed might not have the most balanced careers, but that is a whole lot better than being dead because you ODed on heroin. Of course that is all anecdotal. However, I think it is a major stretch to believe drug abuse has something to do with not making enough money. The drug problem needs to be fixed first with ending prohibition. After that happens the vast resources being spent antagonizing a war can be redirected to figuring out how to fix the core problem -- people being more concerned about getting high than what the rest of their life is going to look like.

rndmize 14y ago

"Unsurprising" is the word I would use. Darfur got minimal coverage at the time when mass killings were going on, and Mexico is an even worse story - not only do you have a country approaching a degree of civil war, but the US public is effectively funding the criminal side. This is not something that's likely to play well on CNN.

tehayj 14y ago
What I think simply sucks is that the US brings democracy to countries if those countries want or not for whatever reasons but do not do anything about the civil war next door. The next step in human evolution is to wake up and for people to at least try to see things as they are.
- berntb 14y ago
  >>the US brings democracy to countries if those countries want or not Per definition -- when a country is not a democracy, it is controlled by a junta that steals lots of resources and control the information to the citizens. So, just for my information, how do you decide that a country does not want to be a democracy...? Ask the (misinformed) population, which know they will be in trouble if they have the wrong opinions...?!
  - eru 14y ago
    > Per definition -- when a country is not a democracy, it is controlled by a junta that steals lots of resources and control the information to the citizens. Strange definition. That would make Singapore a democracy.
    - berntb 14y ago
      Singapore is weird, quite autocratic and not that corrupt. Maybe the city state should be seen as a corporation? I can't give three more counter examples, can you? (I might add -- the problem with kings are that even if the present one is a genius, you don't know how crazy the next one will be...)