Mr.Duck on 24/7/2012 at 21:58
So I read this (
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-winslow/mexico-war-on-drugs_b_1688907.html) article today and found it interesting, could do with some more in-depth analysis of course, but hey. It certainly doesn't say much that's new to me, but hearing it shouted out from across the border's always interesting. What do you guys think? :)
As most can imagine it is an important topic, the War on Drugs, down here. Though any opinions outside of Mexico are greatly appreciated.
Please keep the shitflinging and name calling to a minimum (zero, preferably), please.
Cheers :)
YcatX on 24/7/2012 at 22:15
I totally agree with that article. Its all about supply and demand. USA really doesn't give a shit unless the murders cross the border. Guns sell. If the 'war' is won, where will the profits be? Profits on both sides, and I'm not just talking guns and drugs.
gunsmoke on 25/7/2012 at 02:08
The war on drugs is batshit insane. Mexico is the new Columbia in our administration's eyes, and it is a damn shame. Decriminalization works. People are going to get high no matter what we try to do to prevent or punish it. Sending addicts to prison with no options to better themselves, declaring war on the border, and then watching the politicians patting themselves on the back for a job well done? Unacceptable.
Tocky on 25/7/2012 at 03:52
I've heard this before but I don't think you can blame the addict for giving the dealer money. It's true we haven't been able to stem the drug trade but not for lack of trying. Billions have been poured into trying to curtail it through law inforcement. We haven't ignored "societal rot" and just because we have fought a losing war (actually who knows how much worse it would be had we not fought) doesn't mean all blame lies with the consumer. It's true that legalizing pot and concentrating more on treating addiction would be a course correction worthy of trying but Winslow is an idiot for insinuating we purposely fund drug cartels.
And I sure as fuck don't want meth legalized and prices brought down to such levels the teeth rotters kill more people, rape more kids, and all mannner of rabid jitterbrained crap I've known them to do over my lifetime. I'm sorry but some folks you cannot save and I would as soon they were locked up as out and about legal causing mayhem. Then too I've known a stint in jail long enough to clean them up to do them good. Once away from it they can clear thier heads enough to stay away. They can finally take account of life and what it is that's causing them problems. Easy cheap access without consequence? Fuck that.
Shug on 25/7/2012 at 06:38
My understanding is that something has to change pretty promptly, because the US prison system is already untenable
demagogue on 25/7/2012 at 07:25
I'd agree with the idea that this is a transnational Mexican-US issue, and both the US and Mexican governments should address it in a more or less unified policy & effort.
Part of this argument could be spun that America should do more within Latin America, but you know, the US already has a bad reputation for intervention. You had the US supporting Columbia, including troops on the ground & CIA cloak & dagger stuff, in what was basically a drug-fueled civil war, you have US interventions in Nicaragua, and even in one case in 1989, you have the US actually overthrowing the Panama administration (Noreaga) to install a new one, largely over drugs. Well it's political; some people were happy to see the US interventions and other people hated it, but anyway it's a sensitive topic.
And as for what the US does in its own borders, there are still wounds from hardline crackdowns in the 1980s - 90s when you could actually make a single about cop-killing and people could see your point. And I agree with Tocky legalization has its limits. Pot okay, that's one thing, but hardline drugs... Is there really anything of social-good to be gained from legalizing crack? It destroys entire neighborhoods worse than twisters on, uh, crack.
I gotta run just now... Haven't entirely said everything I wanted & might add more later. Anyway, yeah, the idea makes a lot of sense -- US should feel more ownership in what's happening in Mexico (I think a lot of people in the government already realized that; it's just not in the public's perception much). But even realizing that, it's not clear what the US response should be to things happening within Mexico's own borders.
Thirith on 25/7/2012 at 07:42
Quote Posted by demagogue
And as for what the US does in its own borders, there are still wounds from hardline crackdowns in the 1980s - 90s when you could actually make a single about cop-killing and people could see your point. And I agree with Tocky legalization has its limits. Pot okay, that's one thing, but hardline drugs... Is there really anything of social-good to be gained from legalizing crack? It destroys entire neighborhoods worse than twisters on, uh, crack.
I don't think there's much evidence that this is helped by criminalising users, though. If law enforcement didn't have to use resources on the users (and possibly small-time dealers), the freed-up resources could go into going after bigger fish. It's highly unlikely that there'd be many more people using hard drugs on a regular basis if possession (in small amounts) and use were legal.
DDL on 25/7/2012 at 07:45
Tocky: I don't necessarily think legalising drugs would also require legalising 'mayhem': if someone on meth killed someone else, that's still an offence, regardless of the current legal status of meth. That methhead would be put in jail for that offence, and would thus have an opportunity to get clean, again regardless of the current legal status of meth.
One could even argue that legal methheads would ahave less associated stigma, and thus be less secretive, and thus be more amenable to earlier intervention.
Ultimately a methhead is still a methhead whether it's legal or not, so the legality of meth doesn't really make any difference.
The big question, really, is whether legalising would significantly increase drug use: "how many people are there out there for whom 'illegality' is the sole impediment to their drug use?"
Now given that that number is unlikely to be zero, we can safely assume that drug use WOULD increase if drugs were legalised, but to what extent? I don't know anybody who would happily get all smacked up if only it were legal. Existing smackheads yes, but they're ALREADY a problem, so not relevant to this question.
"Crack destroying neighbourhoods" is largely due to aggressive pushing by drug dealers: it's firmly in their best interests to get as many people hooked as possible, so they do their damndest to achieve exactly that. Cut them out and you cut out a huuge part of the problem.
If the societal ills associated with illegal drug-taking (infections, deaths from poor quality product, massive fucking drug cartels and gangland violence etc) are greater than those that would be incurred by legalising drugs, it would seem stupid to leave them illegal.
It would be nice to see someone at least trying to test the theory.
Unfortunately I can't really see this happening anytime soon. The "drugs == bad" mindset is so firmly engrained into the collective consciousness that even getting people to look at the statistics to the contrary is generally a futile effort (see Prof. Nutt in the UK).
Thirith on 25/7/2012 at 08:43
Quote Posted by DDL
Unfortunately I can't really see this happening anytime soon. The "drugs == bad" mindset is so firmly engrained into the collective consciousness that even getting people to look at the statistics to the contrary is generally a futile effort (see Prof. Nutt in the UK).
IMO it's a general thing: whatever seems counter-intuitive to people (e.g. legalising drug use may lead to fewer societal problems with drugs) is almost impossible to implement, especially in a political climate that is childishly moralistic ("X is baaaad and you should feel bad for doing it!") rather than looking at consequences and taking an evidence-based approach. By and large, politicians want to be seen (and voters want to see them) doing The Right Thing rather than the thing that gets the right results.
Sometimes I think that a
Deus Ex-like scenario with a computer making dispassionate decisions on the basis of evidence sounds pretty damn attractive... (No, I don't seriously think this - but one can dream, can't one? :p)
demagogue on 25/7/2012 at 11:56
Yes, there's the issue about what's politically viable and what the average conservative Joe thinks, but the only really interesting debate IMO is what's practically the best regulation from a wonk's perspective...
Quote Posted by DDL
"Crack destroying neighbourhoods" is largely due to aggressive pushing by drug dealers: it's firmly in their best interests to get as many people hooked as possible, so they do their damndest to achieve exactly that. Cut them out and you cut out a huuge part of the problem.
I can sympathize with some of your gist but not sure how far it goes. But this part I quoted was one point I don't buy as much. Cigarette companies have famously pushed just as aggressively to get as many people hooked on tobacco as possible with tricks about as dirty as they get this side of questionably legal. Not to mention being legal just gives you a marketing platform and economy of scale that a blackmarket I don't think could touch... I mean who sells more than Coke & Viagra?
I guess if drugs were legalized, they'd have to come incredibly regulated... You don't want advertising... I can't imagine the regulatory standards... I mean the FDA won't allow the sale of legal (pharmaceutical) drugs that have bad side-effects; what possible standards would they have for hard (recreation) drugs? You don't want people cutting doses with who knows what toxic chemical, but even "safe" doses are still leaps and bounds worse than pharma drugs the FDA bans, and that's for drugs people want to take to heal from some awful disease...
Crack destroys neighborhoods because it's so addictive, cheap, physically draining, and fucks with people's decision-making system -- and apparently the stuff sold itself. Granted, most of what I know is from a documentary on crack and hiphop culture.
