5 ms·

Legal Pot in the US Is Crippling Mexican Cartels?

33 points by DocFeind 12y ago

azernik 12y ago
Why the added question mark on the submission's title?
- dang 12y ago
  We added it because it's far from clear that the statement in the title is true.
Donzo 12y ago
Ouch. I guess they'll just have to make billions off of every other illegal drug.
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  Considering the amount of violence such cartels cause, I wonder if slow legalization of even the harder illegal drugs is the path we are on...
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    Legalizing it all is the only sane solution. Drugs are a product where the demand is roughly constant. People that want drugs will try and get them from somebody; even price does little to change this. Rates of use are surprisingly consistent, and tend to change based only slowly based around changes in "pop-attention", taste, or other social pressures instead of economic or legal pressures. This leaves us with a choice: who should be the supplier for that demand? The catch: there will probably be some sort of profits associated with that exchange. For some time now, we've chosen to hand those profits to the violent gangs and cartels - some of which were effectively created from this vacuum in supply. Alternatively, we can choose to give the job of supplying drugs to something we can regulate and control: a business or other sanctioned organization (co-op? gov agency?). There are, of course, many ways to accomplish this; one of the primary benefits of a regulated business is that we have options on how we choose to regulate it. It may take a few tries to find the best methods (such is life), but even partial-failure or not-quite-working regulation is significantly better than the alternative. I suspect that anybody still choosing to channel money to cartels is either engaging in magical thinking ("if we make things illegal, they will all stop doing it!"[1]), or somehow profiting from the War On (some) Drugs. [1] see "pro-life" for another example of similar "the problem will go away" magical thinking
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  They could ramp up the war on piracy, but they'll need to also push for laws that allow them to take your home for a pirated song, before trial.
- logn 12y ago
  We've had the mafias ever since prohibition. I don't think the cartels are going away. They'll diversify, maybe even outside of drugs (e.g., more kidnapping).
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    The mafia existed since before prohibition. While they got big during the Alcohol War, they definitely had the advantage of having a vice distribution network set up ahead of time. The cartels definitely were able to develop their network on the back of certain drugs, however, with marijuana being a significant amount of that money, I don't think they'd be able to maintain the level of sophistication in their network that they have now. Much like how the Mafia is a shell of its former self, the Cartels will fade once their main sources of income are eliminated.
threeseed 12y ago
It's an important topic. But can we really stop posting it to HN ? It really doesn't have anything to do with technology, hacking, internet, computing, etc. It's not even a particularly good article making baseless claims with poor evidence and out of date information e.g. banks not being able to deal with medical marijuana businesses.
- daeken 12y ago
  From the guidelines: > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. It's pure noise, no signal. To make the site a better place, just flag/ignore it and move along, then go submit stuff you'd like to see on the site. As Gandhi probably never said: Be the change you wish to see in the [site]. Edit: An aside, for 'dang: Please, please implement private comments, so I can write things like this to people without it showing up for everyone else, thus just dropping the SNR further. I'll buy you coffee/beer/dinner if you do so!
eruditely 12y ago
Nigga please. Most cannabis is clandestine domestic anyways, they use their skillsets to operate as professionals for tougher stuff ie cocaine and being approached for other stuff. for better news regarding the cartel war in mexico, check out insight news.
jqm 12y ago
Frankly this article reads a bit like the author has been doing some field experimentation. Of course the DEA is bothered by having their budgets taken away. But are they in bed with certain cartels to the point they are going to protect their routes and industry? Doubtful. And... as a reminder... two states have legalized pot. Two. Of course there are a smaller number of users with medical cards but this hardly explains the Sinaloa cartel ceasing to plant marijuana because it isn't profitable (a "fact" I highly doubt). Seriously disjointed article.

33 points by DocFeind 12y ago

azernik 12y ago

Why the added question mark on the submission's title?

dang 12y ago
We added it because it's far from clear that the statement in the title is true.

Donzo 12y ago

Ouch. I guess they'll just have to make billions off of every other illegal drug.

hkmurakami 12y ago
Considering the amount of violence such cartels cause, I wonder if slow legalization of even the harder illegal drugs is the path we are on...
- pdkl95 12y ago
  Legalizing it all is the only sane solution. Drugs are a product where the demand is roughly constant. People that want drugs will try and get them from somebody; even price does little to change this. Rates of use are surprisingly consistent, and tend to change based only slowly based around changes in "pop-attention", taste, or other social pressures instead of economic or legal pressures. This leaves us with a choice: who should be the supplier for that demand? The catch: there will probably be some sort of profits associated with that exchange. For some time now, we've chosen to hand those profits to the violent gangs and cartels - some of which were effectively created from this vacuum in supply. Alternatively, we can choose to give the job of supplying drugs to something we can regulate and control: a business or other sanctioned organization (co-op? gov agency?). There are, of course, many ways to accomplish this; one of the primary benefits of a regulated business is that we have options on how we choose to regulate it. It may take a few tries to find the best methods (such is life), but even partial-failure or not-quite-working regulation is significantly better than the alternative. I suspect that anybody still choosing to channel money to cartels is either engaging in magical thinking ("if we make things illegal, they will all stop doing it!"[1]), or somehow profiting from the War On (some) Drugs. [1] see "pro-life" for another example of similar "the problem will go away" magical thinking
higherpurpose 12y ago
They could ramp up the war on piracy, but they'll need to also push for laws that allow them to take your home for a pirated song, before trial.
logn 12y ago
We've had the mafias ever since prohibition. I don't think the cartels are going away. They'll diversify, maybe even outside of drugs (e.g., more kidnapping).
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  The mafia existed since before prohibition. While they got big during the Alcohol War, they definitely had the advantage of having a vice distribution network set up ahead of time. The cartels definitely were able to develop their network on the back of certain drugs, however, with marijuana being a significant amount of that money, I don't think they'd be able to maintain the level of sophistication in their network that they have now. Much like how the Mafia is a shell of its former self, the Cartels will fade once their main sources of income are eliminated.

threeseed 12y ago

It's an important topic. But can we really stop posting it to HN ? It really doesn't have anything to do with technology, hacking, internet, computing, etc. It's not even a particularly good article making baseless claims with poor evidence and out of date information e.g. banks not being able to deal with medical marijuana businesses.

daeken 12y ago
From the guidelines: > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. It's pure noise, no signal. To make the site a better place, just flag/ignore it and move along, then go submit stuff you'd like to see on the site. As Gandhi probably never said: Be the change you wish to see in the [site]. Edit: An aside, for 'dang: Please, please implement private comments, so I can write things like this to people without it showing up for everyone else, thus just dropping the SNR further. I'll buy you coffee/beer/dinner if you do so!

eruditely 12y ago

Nigga please. Most cannabis is clandestine domestic anyways, they use their skillsets to operate as professionals for tougher stuff ie cocaine and being approached for other stuff. for better news regarding the cartel war in mexico, check out insight news.

jqm 12y ago

Frankly this article reads a bit like the author has been doing some field experimentation. Of course the DEA is bothered by having their budgets taken away. But are they in bed with certain cartels to the point they are going to protect their routes and industry? Doubtful. And... as a reminder... two states have legalized pot. Two. Of course there are a smaller number of users with medical cards but this hardly explains the Sinaloa cartel ceasing to plant marijuana because it isn't profitable (a "fact" I highly doubt). Seriously disjointed article.