YOUR solution to the Mexico Crisis

[mhaze]

As a resident of AZ and a cop I say first and foremost have Law enforcement and the military work hand in hand to to help plug the border. I realize it cannot be completely sealed, but for the cartels that come across armed, treat them as foreign invaders and neutralize them. The unarmed illeagals arrest them and send them back. The coyotes that smuggle the illegals, toss there asses in jail or if they are armed which most of them are, then once again treat them as foreign invaders.

It is very frustrating to have a large area of the state that is too dangerous for US citizens to travel into or through due to the amount of drug cartels smuggling their drugs.

For those who stated legalize drugs, HELL NO!!!! I deal with drug addicts on a daily basis and that would only worsen more problems than I can name in this post. Legalizing drugs would not solve the problem.

First of all, I'd appreciate your opinion on why legalizing marihuana would not HELP solve the problem by reducing income to the border gangs by that fraction, which is likely 75%.

Second, I'd suggest all of the returns to Mexico be made to Meridia, not to just right on the other side. Return them a long way from the border with the USA. EG, highly inconvenience them.

Third, WTF is wrong with requiring passports from foreigners?

 

[rustypouch]

Sorry, but that doesn't prove your claim that eliminating restrictions on harmful substances will lead to less drug users and make the Mexican cartels go away.

But there are several cases where after decriminalization was put into effect use went down. Take Portugal as an example.

 

[Bluto]

And how do we know that drug addicts are costing the world health organizations a fortune?

Yes, I know addicts often end up hospitalized and die prematurely. But, near as I can tell, getting sick and dying is still pretty popular amongst just about everybody else too.

The fact that addicts (be they alcoholics, tweekers, smokers, or whatever)conveniently check out sooner than the general populace doesn't necessarily equate with higher healthcare costs over their lifetime. I'd bet there's a whole bunch of 'em that actually saved healthcare dollars with their early demise...

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Also I do not think legalizing it would necessarily solve all of the issues we have right now. There is too much money to be made and if certain dealers were allowed to legally sell and others were ignored, I think a sort of black market would still exist and the prices would be set at a rate to undercut the legitimate business. Competitors would not just give up a multi billion dollar trade without a fight or some other scheme.

<snip>

Your logic is irrefutable.

It is obvious we should give up any thoughts of repealing the Eighteenth Amendment. The results would be catastrophic.

 

[Uncayimmy]

No country in recent history has ever made hard drugs like crack and meth commercially available. It's faith.

Please define hard drugs.

From my perspective, alcohol is a hard drug.

* The effect can be quick.
* Too much at one time can make you body react violently (puking, for example).
* It impairs gross motor skills, fine motor schools, and cognitive abilities.
* The effect is somewhat short-lived requiring the user to continue consumption to maintain the high for the evening.
* Because of the above, continued use over the long-term can lead to chronic diseases (liver, for example).
* Because it provides Calories in many forms, it can also lead to malnutrition and diabetes.
* It is relatively easy overdose in a given session, and with some types, cause blindness.
* In a short period of time one can consume so much that withdrawal symptoms can be severe.
* Serious addiction can result in death during withdrawal.
* There's a high correlation between alcohol and violence.
* The effect is felt on the body the next day (hangover), and some will remedy this with more of the drug, leading to addiction.
* The cross-reaction with other legal drugs can be very dangerous.

I don't know if that meets you definition of a "hard" drug. Please differentiate alcohol with what you consider hard drugs.

 

[jimtron]

I do not think legalizing it would necessarily solve all of the issues we have right now.

Nothing is going to solve all of the drug issues. If there's one thing we know for sure, a high percentage of human beings love to use and abuse substances (legal and illegal drugs and alcohol). Changing the legality of drugs either way isn't going to magically make the problems go away (I'm sure that we're better off without prohibition, but we still have a serious problem with drunk driving, for example). The question is, how best to minimize the problems?

When I was in high school, my friends and I tried in vain to buy beer--we looked our age, and no liquor store was foolish enough to sell to us. However, it was relatively easy to get pot or harder drugs. Drug dealers don't card.

 

[McHrozni]

1) You apparently don't know what an ad hominem is.
2) I do know they would be dirt cheap. It is a simple matter of economics. They are extremely cheap to make and market forces would drive the prices down.
3) Are you honestly so dumb to think that if junkies could buy a gram of heroin for $5 that this would not have an effect on crimes committed by junkies to get money for their fixes?

We've had this conversation a while ago.

Let me just point out to you that if heroin was $5 a gram, it is rather ridicolous to think more people wouldn't use it and that casual users wouldn't use it more often. Significantly more people and significantly more often are reasonable expectations.
Considering heroin is highly addictive, this would result in a substantial increase in number of junkies, wouldn't it?

McHrozni

 

[Beerina]

1) Legalize drugs in the US.

And /done. The rest is not necessary.

 

[McHrozni]

There is no simple fix to the cartel violence in Mexico, but reducing their revenue stream could only be a good thing.

As long as they don't try to supplement the lost income with other illicit activities, of course. In a long term (>10 years) this may result in an overall drop of violence as declining revenues take their toll.

It could just as easily lead the whole affair down an entirely opposite path, with the surge in violence and instability deterrioating the economy further to the point of (former) drug barons being the principal authority in some areas.

Anyone claiming to have found a magic bullet is, in all likelyhood, not seeing the whole picture, willfully or through casual ignorance. Legalizing drugs might help in the long run. It could also make things a whole lot worse in the short to medium and possibly the long run as well.

McHrozni

 

[GlennB]

Let me just point out to you that if heroin was $5 a gram, it is rather ridicolous to think more people wouldn't use it and that casual users wouldn't use it more often. Significantly more people and significantly more often are reasonable expectations.
Considering heroin is highly addictive, this would result in a substantial increase in number of junkies, wouldn't it?

McHrozni

Bare assertion fallacy, multiple times, in spades.

Many wealthy (or even less than plain wealthy) people could easily afford regular heroin. Yet they don't get involved. Why not?

Even more could afford to become nicotine addicts, yet they don't.

If cigarettes were half the price would smokers double their consumption?

And, in fact, it takes a concerted effort to become a heroin addict. It is far from being instantly addictive.

Your argument is piffle.

 

[McHrozni]

Many wealthy (or even less than plain wealthy) people could easily afford regular heroin. Yet they don't get involved. Why not?

I would say that the primary reason is because heroin usage carries a certain stigma, which is closely connected to it's illegal status.

If cigarettes were half the price would smokers double their consumption?

Straw man argument. I never claimed the consumption would go up by ten. It wouldn't have to, either. It wouldn't even have to double to be characterised as "significant". I'd put 30% as a treshold for a "significant" increase, but since we don't have any accurate studies (to my knowledge anyway) as to how the market would respond to a 10-fold decrease in the price, we can't really talk numbers.
The only thing I've seen was a study claiming that small price fluctuations don't produce a measurable effect. Which all fine and well, but a 10-fold drop is not a small price fluctuation.

And, in fact, it takes a concerted effort to become a heroin addict. It is far from being instantly addictive.

Which is significantly easier to achieve if it costs $5 than it is if it costs $50. In fact I would say that if it were instantly addictive the effect would be far less pronounced. How come this isn't self evident?

McHrozni

 

[Uncayimmy]

As long as they don't try to supplement the lost income with other illicit activities, of course. In a long term (>10 years) this may result in an overall drop of violence as declining revenues take their toll.

Such as?

Anyone claiming to have found a magic bullet is, in all likelyhood, not seeing the whole picture, willfully or through casual ignorance. Legalizing drugs might help in the long run. It could also make things a whole lot worse in the short to medium and possibly the long run as well.

I'm not quite sure how much worse it can get. Mexico is pretty ****ed up. There's rampant violence and widespread corruption. The USA is pretty ****ed up. We have among the highest incarceration rates and the highest percentage of drug offenders in the prison population. We spend enormous amounts on enforcement and interdiction.

So, how are things gonna get worse?

 

[Virus]

Bare assertion fallacy, multiple times, in spades.

Many wealthy (or even less than plain wealthy) people could easily afford regular heroin. Yet they don't get involved. Why not?

Even more could afford to become nicotine addicts, yet they don't.

If cigarettes were half the price would smokers double their consumption?

And, in fact, it takes a concerted effort to become a heroin addict. It is far from being instantly addictive.

Your argument is piffle.

No, your argument is piffle. There's evidence that increasing cigarette taxes reduces consumption and provides an additional pressure to quit.

"happy-hour" has also been restricted in some countries as the practice is known to increase alcohol consumption.

 

[McHrozni]

Such as?

Extortion, kidnapping, rackateering, smuggling stuff other than drugs, ...
Same as now, just with far more vigor. Turn all energy of all drug cartels into other criminal activities and see what you'll turn up.
Some people are apperently postulating that all current drug dealers will instantly turn into normal, law-abiding citizens after a life of crime. Right.

I'm not quite sure how much worse it can get. Mexico is pretty ****ed up. There's rampant violence and widespread corruption. The USA is pretty ****ed up.

That I agree with. But there are approaches which won't solve the problem. This probably is one of them. Postulating it would be an instant solution to all (or a whole bunch of) problems while ignoring all the reasons why it probably wouldn't be is childhood naivite at it's worst.

And in case you're really wondering how much worse it can get, take a look at Somalia or some other failed state and tell me what you see. Mexico looks outright plesant, right?

We have among the highest incarceration rates and the highest percentage of drug offenders in the prison population. We spend enormous amounts on enforcement and interdiction.

So, how are things gonna get worse?

You could also get a lot more addicts on the streets and a whole lot more gang on uninvolved violence.

We discussed this identical issue a while ago. My position remains unchanged since then: decriminalize drug use, maybe legalize pot and such drugs, relentlessly persecute all others, utilise even more in education and propaganda against drug use, try to figure out effective rehab, etc.

Unlike your approach, this won't solve the problem in the short run, but it may pay off in a generation or so. Also unlike your approach it won't worsen an already bad problem and, also quite unlike your approach, it doesn't set anyone down a path you cannot retrace in case it turns out those who've been telling you it's a bad idea were right all along.

McHrozni

 

[Virus]

Such as?


I'm not quite sure how much worse it can get. Mexico is pretty ****ed up. There's rampant violence and widespread corruption. The USA is pretty ****ed up. We have among the highest incarceration rates and the highest percentage of drug offenders in the prison population. We spend enormous amounts on enforcement and interdiction.

So, how are things gonna get worse?

By increasing the number of addicts and all the health-care, mental health and economic burden they will entail.

 

[Uncayimmy]

By increasing the number of addicts and all the health-care, mental health and economic burden they will entail.

What makes you think the number of addicts will increase?

The economic burden is already huge. Prison costs about $20K/year per inmate. You do the math.

 

[Virus]

What makes you think the number of addicts will increase?

I don't know. Why would making something cheap and easy to acquire increase usage? I can't think of any reason why making things cheaper would reduce consumption. I don't think price and consumption have any relation to each other at all. People who say it's a fundamental law of economics are just talking voodoo.

The economic burden is already huge. Prison costs about $20K/year per inmate. You do the math.

You do it.

 

[quadraginta]

No, your argument is piffle. There's evidence that increasing cigarette taxes reduces consumption and provides an additional pressure to quit.

<snip>

There's evidence that increasing cigarette taxes creates a burgeoning black market for cigarette smuggling. There's a more than $50 per carton profit between states less than 300 miles apart just by dodging state taxes alone.

What do you suppose is happening because of that?

 

[jimtron]

What if we took the billions spent on the War on Drugs, and spent it on treatment (maybe treating drug addicts would have better results than incarcerating them) and education. Then we regulate drugs and tax them. We'll still have drug problems, but at least we won't be throwing billions of dollars away in vain, and the crime element will be greatly reduced.

Would you really want heroin and crack in your backyard?

Alcohol is legal, but that doesn't mean I have to let winos carouse in my yard. I can ask them to leave or call the cops--we don't need drug laws for that.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I don't know. Why would making something cheap and easy to acquire increase usage?

It's already easy to acquire. Those who want it, can get it pretty easily. If *usage* increases, how much will *addiction* increase?

I can't think of any reason why making things cheaper would reduce consumption.

Is someone arguing that it will?

I don't think price and consumption have any relation to each other at all. People who say it's a fundamental law of economics are just talking voodoo.

Okay.

You do it.

Most users are not addicts in need of treatment. Incarceration runs about $20K/year/prisoner. Outpatient drug programs cost about 1/3 or less total. Even if somebody needs it three times, that's equal to just one year of prison. We haven't even gotten into the cost of law enforcement.

And then there is the ancillary damage. If drugs cost 1/10th as much and every addict still decided to steal, anything less than 10X the number of addicts would be a net reduction in property losses.

On top of that we have taxes. We're talking billions of dollars in cash transactions that are not being taxed. That's a frigging lot of money.