9 ms·

And that is what the USA 'War on Drugs' is doing to the poorer neighbours.

by blrgeek 12y ago

Natsu 12y ago
And what about all the customers of this cartel who give them the money to pay people enough to do things like this?
- rhizome 12y ago
  Prohibition is the only reason those cartels have customers.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >Prohibition is the only reason those cartels have customers. Well, strictly speaking, there are more elements to the causal relationship. If no one wanted to purchase drugs, this would also preclude the cartels from having customers. In this sense, irresponsible drug consumers are at fault as well. Indeed, many conscientious drug users have turned to various dark markets for "fair trade" drug suppliers.
  - Natsu 12y ago
    Nobody is forcing their customers to give them money (save possibly the cartels themselves, I'm not sure). They could go with out or go to a country where it's legal, among other options.
    - shkkmo 12y ago
      ...because that's how addictive drugs work? Drug addicts make rational choices and have lots of money to spend on planning international trips?
      - Natsu 12y ago
        They had a choice the first time, at least, even if you claim it took that away after. It seems odd to blame one group of people for 3rd degree consequences when ignoring the rest. That seems to be an unpopular statement, but it's still true.
        neurobro 12y ago
        It's like asking people to stop voting for the least-awful of the two candidates showcased on the teevee. Yes, they should just stop for their own good and for the public good, but it's not going to happen.
        Natsu 12y ago
        I'm not expecting them to stop, I'm saying they can't simply be absolved of responsibility if you're going to blame the law as well.
        rhizome 12y ago
        I think you're making a category error. What exactly are you saying the users are responsible for in the behavior of the cartels?
        Natsu 12y ago
        The blame was in a conditional statement: if you blame the law forbidding drugs, why not the people actually funding the cartels? They may not intend for such to happen, but neither could it happen without them.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  All the more reason to encourage domestic production of drugs in regulated (ie, legal and not cartel-run) markets. Blaming the customers is ineffective, because there's no way to end the demand for drugs entirely - we have decades of prohibitions that prove that[0]. Whether or not you or I would like them to boycott these products on principle en masse is a moot point, because it's just not feasible. [0] If we can't even keep federal prisons drug-free, how could we keep the rest of the country drug-free?
  - melling 12y ago
    We probably aren't going to legalize cocaine or meth any time soon.
    - rhizome 12y ago
      That kind of cynicism is based upon an irrational distinction.
    - robryan 12y ago
      I agree. Not sure what type of event it would take to finally push people over the edge to favor an end to drug prohibition but I imagine it is so drastic that the vested interests in the cartels wouldn't be stupid enough to do it.
      - ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
        Just a younger electorate. Probably next decade.
    - ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
      That's what people said about cannabis not even 5 years ago.
  - Yardlink 12y ago
    Blaming the customers is what we do with pedophiles. It seems to work even though it's immoral.
- ripb 12y ago
  >And what about all the customers of this cartel who give them the money to pay people enough to do things like this? Drugs are a fact of life, they've been used since the dawn of man and will be used likely until the end of man. They're not going away. It's abhorrent that in order to access drugs, you've to essentially send money down the chain to people carrying out such acts...but people are going to do drugs, and in the face of no alternatives, this is where they're going to get them. The people buying these drugs, generating the income for these cartels, are so removed from the reality behind them that it may as well be totally unconnected as far as all are concerned. We, first world Westerners, are generally very disconnected from the realities surrounding many of the products we buy, from legitimate products like those manufactured by Nestle, to cheap clothing manufactured in terrible conditions in the East, through to illicit substances such as cocaine which are manufactured in South America and whose trade fuels a bloody war there. Indeed, many of our tech products that we all here use are manufactured by Foxconn, a company whose working practices are so bad that they had issues with people killing themselves on the job and tackled it by installing suicide nets around the back of the buildings and in the stairwells. As such, there is a lot of inherent immorality associated with a lot of the consumerism we here fuel, but the reality for us is that we are extremely disconnected from these issues. But what are the alternatives? Go even harder on those found with drugs, while continuing to let Western consumerism promote without any interference terrible working conditions for our manufacturers in the East? One potential solution to all these issues is to apply a similar approach to all - manufacture these in the 1st world under regulations and subsidize their sale so that the consumer points towards these regulated manufacturers rather than using products manufactured abroad. Unfortunately, while this may be the solution, it itself raises so many other issues. If we took coke production out of the hands of South America and made it in the US, for example, what in hell's name is going to happen when the vast numbers of not just cartel members, but relatively innocent coco farmers in South America can no longer derive anywhere near the same income from them? Manufacturing these things ourselves would also, if not greatly subsidized for promotion, drive prices for the consumer up and thus have them pointing in the wrong direction again. It's a complex issue and personally I'm not sure of what the best potential solution may be, but I find it hard to sit here and criticize those using coke in the US from a product containing FoxConn parts where people are miserable and ending their lives because of what our demand for the products being made there is doing to them.
jn1234 12y ago
At this point, the cartels have diversified far beyond drug trafficking. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303277704579349283584121344 http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023032777045793...
- Crito 12y ago
  And the mob survived the end of alcohol prohibition in the US. It nevertheless weakened them.
  - jn1234 12y ago
    The mob in the US didn't even reach its height until the Commission was formed and that was 2 years before the end of Prohibition. The Commission lasted for more than 50 years after the end of Prohibition. What really needs to happen in Mexico is a concerted effort between Mexican and American authorities to crack down on the cartels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commission_(mafia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commission_(mafia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apalachin_Meeting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apalachin_Meeting
    - shkkmo 12y ago
      So... your argument is that because 13 years of alcohol prohibition was sufficient to cause the creation of an organized drug network that lasted 50 years after it's repeal... we shouldn't end prohibition of other drugs? Yes, the cartels are established and entrenched and will be difficult to remove. However, ending prohibition would at least stop funneling large amounts of money to them now. We could then start the generations long process of rooting out and destroying these organizations created by our failed drug policy.
dataminded 12y ago
Many American's aren't fairing much better in the war on drugs. http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2014-chicago-murders http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2014-chicago-murders
yarou 12y ago
I think the reality is much more complicated than that. Globalization, the speed with which capital moves in an abstract way, and the Internet have caused negative externalities in developing countries. I'm not sure if legalization of all drugs would end cartels, because they would just move onto a different good or service (i.e. prostitution/human trafficking or water if its scarce). I think the system we have in the world today is irrevocably broken, but nobody wants to have a candid discussion about it. Until we have a conversation instead of a monologue, between the developed and developing world, nothing will change.

And that is what the USA 'War on Drugs' is doing to the poorer neighbours.

by blrgeek 12y ago

And that is what the USA 'War on Drugs' is doing to the poorer neighbours.

Natsu 12y ago

And what about all the customers of this cartel who give them the money to pay people enough to do things like this?

rhizome 12y ago
Prohibition is the only reason those cartels have customers.
- wyager 12y ago
  >Prohibition is the only reason those cartels have customers. Well, strictly speaking, there are more elements to the causal relationship. If no one wanted to purchase drugs, this would also preclude the cartels from having customers. In this sense, irresponsible drug consumers are at fault as well. Indeed, many conscientious drug users have turned to various dark markets for "fair trade" drug suppliers.
- Natsu 12y ago
  Nobody is forcing their customers to give them money (save possibly the cartels themselves, I'm not sure). They could go with out or go to a country where it's legal, among other options.
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    ...because that's how addictive drugs work? Drug addicts make rational choices and have lots of money to spend on planning international trips?
    - Natsu 12y ago
      They had a choice the first time, at least, even if you claim it took that away after. It seems odd to blame one group of people for 3rd degree consequences when ignoring the rest. That seems to be an unpopular statement, but it's still true.
      - neurobro 12y ago
        It's like asking people to stop voting for the least-awful of the two candidates showcased on the teevee. Yes, they should just stop for their own good and for the public good, but it's not going to happen.
        Natsu 12y ago
        I'm not expecting them to stop, I'm saying they can't simply be absolved of responsibility if you're going to blame the law as well.
        rhizome 12y ago
        I think you're making a category error. What exactly are you saying the users are responsible for in the behavior of the cartels?
        Natsu 12y ago
        The blame was in a conditional statement: if you blame the law forbidding drugs, why not the people actually funding the cartels? They may not intend for such to happen, but neither could it happen without them.
chimeracoder 12y ago
All the more reason to encourage domestic production of drugs in regulated (ie, legal and not cartel-run) markets. Blaming the customers is ineffective, because there's no way to end the demand for drugs entirely - we have decades of prohibitions that prove that[0]. Whether or not you or I would like them to boycott these products on principle en masse is a moot point, because it's just not feasible. [0] If we can't even keep federal prisons drug-free, how could we keep the rest of the country drug-free?
- melling 12y ago
  We probably aren't going to legalize cocaine or meth any time soon.
  - rhizome 12y ago
    That kind of cynicism is based upon an irrational distinction.
  - robryan 12y ago
    I agree. Not sure what type of event it would take to finally push people over the edge to favor an end to drug prohibition but I imagine it is so drastic that the vested interests in the cartels wouldn't be stupid enough to do it.
    - ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
      Just a younger electorate. Probably next decade.
  - ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
    That's what people said about cannabis not even 5 years ago.
- Yardlink 12y ago
  Blaming the customers is what we do with pedophiles. It seems to work even though it's immoral.
ripb 12y ago
>And what about all the customers of this cartel who give them the money to pay people enough to do things like this? Drugs are a fact of life, they've been used since the dawn of man and will be used likely until the end of man. They're not going away. It's abhorrent that in order to access drugs, you've to essentially send money down the chain to people carrying out such acts...but people are going to do drugs, and in the face of no alternatives, this is where they're going to get them. The people buying these drugs, generating the income for these cartels, are so removed from the reality behind them that it may as well be totally unconnected as far as all are concerned. We, first world Westerners, are generally very disconnected from the realities surrounding many of the products we buy, from legitimate products like those manufactured by Nestle, to cheap clothing manufactured in terrible conditions in the East, through to illicit substances such as cocaine which are manufactured in South America and whose trade fuels a bloody war there. Indeed, many of our tech products that we all here use are manufactured by Foxconn, a company whose working practices are so bad that they had issues with people killing themselves on the job and tackled it by installing suicide nets around the back of the buildings and in the stairwells. As such, there is a lot of inherent immorality associated with a lot of the consumerism we here fuel, but the reality for us is that we are extremely disconnected from these issues. But what are the alternatives? Go even harder on those found with drugs, while continuing to let Western consumerism promote without any interference terrible working conditions for our manufacturers in the East? One potential solution to all these issues is to apply a similar approach to all - manufacture these in the 1st world under regulations and subsidize their sale so that the consumer points towards these regulated manufacturers rather than using products manufactured abroad. Unfortunately, while this may be the solution, it itself raises so many other issues. If we took coke production out of the hands of South America and made it in the US, for example, what in hell's name is going to happen when the vast numbers of not just cartel members, but relatively innocent coco farmers in South America can no longer derive anywhere near the same income from them? Manufacturing these things ourselves would also, if not greatly subsidized for promotion, drive prices for the consumer up and thus have them pointing in the wrong direction again. It's a complex issue and personally I'm not sure of what the best potential solution may be, but I find it hard to sit here and criticize those using coke in the US from a product containing FoxConn parts where people are miserable and ending their lives because of what our demand for the products being made there is doing to them.

jn1234 12y ago

At this point, the cartels have diversified far beyond drug trafficking. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303277704579349283584121344 http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023032777045793...

Crito 12y ago
And the mob survived the end of alcohol prohibition in the US. It nevertheless weakened them.
- jn1234 12y ago
  The mob in the US didn't even reach its height until the Commission was formed and that was 2 years before the end of Prohibition. The Commission lasted for more than 50 years after the end of Prohibition. What really needs to happen in Mexico is a concerted effort between Mexican and American authorities to crack down on the cartels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commission_(mafia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commission_(mafia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apalachin_Meeting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apalachin_Meeting
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    So... your argument is that because 13 years of alcohol prohibition was sufficient to cause the creation of an organized drug network that lasted 50 years after it's repeal... we shouldn't end prohibition of other drugs? Yes, the cartels are established and entrenched and will be difficult to remove. However, ending prohibition would at least stop funneling large amounts of money to them now. We could then start the generations long process of rooting out and destroying these organizations created by our failed drug policy.

dataminded 12y ago

Many American's aren't fairing much better in the war on drugs. http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2014-chicago-murders http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2014-chicago-murders

yarou 12y ago

I think the reality is much more complicated than that. Globalization, the speed with which capital moves in an abstract way, and the Internet have caused negative externalities in developing countries. I'm not sure if legalization of all drugs would end cartels, because they would just move onto a different good or service (i.e. prostitution/human trafficking or water if its scarce). I think the system we have in the world today is irrevocably broken, but nobody wants to have a candid discussion about it. Until we have a conversation instead of a monologue, between the developed and developing world, nothing will change.