United States of Mexico??

Okay, so I ran across this article today which got me thinking. At what point does the federal government step in and do something. Not specifically about finding this guy's body, but about the massive amount of destructive violence that occurring south of the border?

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/apnewsbreak-p…

Obviously we have many differing opinions on this forum about whether or not our troops should be overseas in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan but what are people's thoughts on Mexico? At what point does the federal government have to offer/demand to help out the citizens of Mexico?

Of course there are the arguments that it isn't our business, but it is certainly becoming more and more our problem. As violence increasingly spills over into our border towns at what point do we, as a nation, do something about it? What can, if anything, we do about it? Does the president authorize additional National Guard troops to head south and secure the borders? Do we use the military to conduct raids (ideally, sanctioned by Mexican officials) over the border on these towns that are controlled by cartels in an effort to drive them out? Is it all pointless because they will return after we leave? Is it our fault because our country has a drug problem?

Regards

Comments (88)

 
Oct 7, 2010 - 2:34pm

FYI, The United States of Mexico is Mexico's official name, there are 31 states.

Also, we need to do exactly what we did in Columbia use NSA and an US organization that literally has no name to gather intelligence and allow locals on the ground to kill the soldier, the drug lawyers, the accountants, anybody that gets in their way......ruthlessly efficient...I can't think of anything more capitalist.

"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
 
Oct 7, 2010 - 2:59pm

Gekko21:
FYI, The United States of Mexico is Mexico's official name, there are 31 states.

Also, we need to do exactly what we did in Columbia use NSA and an US organization that literally has no name to gather intelligence and allow locals on the ground to kill the soldier, the drug lawyers, the accountants, anybody that gets in their way......ruthlessly efficient...I can't think of anything more capitalist.

I wonder if that job pays well because I'm looking for something to do on the weekends.

Also, I think it is technically, The United Mexican States...not that it makes much of a difference.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 7, 2010 - 2:56pm

Here is the problem. Mexico is bordering on being a failed state (or closely resembling it). There are high levels of corruption and the government has lost or is losing control. We need to do something to get Mexico back on its feet. Legalizing pot in this country would take a lot of steam out of the drug cartels. It is tough situation because you are dealing with a sovereign country that really doesn't want the US taking care of things.

I personally support a southern border to eliminate a lot of drug trafficking and allow for a more systematic immigration policy. Everyone always gets upset when you mention building a wall, but you pretty much have to if you want to a) prevent drug trafficking or limit it and b) have some sort of rational immigration policy. Everyone that comes to this country should have to go through the same steps to become citizens. It is fundamentally unfair that Indian, Chinese, African, etc immigrants have to go through all kinds of hoops to stay here but our southern neighbors are allowed to just walk right on in.

Also, any mention by Mexican officials about supposed unfair immigration laws on our part should be met with a strong rebuke considering Mexico's unfair and violent illegal immigrant policy.

  • 1
  • 1
 
Oct 7, 2010 - 3:06pm

I think drugs are a part of it, but a lot of the illegal immigration is simply because of the contrasting economies. I do not fault people for wanting to come here, but it is only fair and our right as a sovereign nation to put limits and a process for those wanting to come here.

 
Oct 7, 2010 - 3:13pm

It really is an interesting, complicated situation. On one hand, you have Mexico. The country is plagued by drug violence (and apparently pirates, as mention in the article above). These people are ruthless. I've read a story where they showed up to a hotel and killed people during a wedding. Drugs are their main business, but they also demand 'payments for protection' from local businesses. I read another story about a man whose shop became successful, and then the gangs showed up and demanded payment. When he didn't pay, they came back and burned down his shop. These people are ruthless, and while they are able to handsomely profit from smuggling drugs into the USA, they are doing so at a great expense to the citizens of their state.

Which brings us to illegal immigration. Obviously this is a hot topic, especially on this board, and I am not trying to take one side or the other. I'm sure each case is different as to why Mexican's move here. Some may be coming here to mooch off us and put their kids in our schools. Some may just be trying to escape the violence. I go to school in the Bronx and so I see Mexican's working in local businesses all the time. Trust me, these guys bust their ass. No idea if they are here illegally or not, but the fact is, I've seen them work hard, and I do think that if they were able to open their own businesses in Mexico without fear of the violence occurring there, that they would do so without any hesitation.

Then their is the American drug problem. We want drugs. We want to get high. And its a shame that innocent Mexicans (and even Americans) are being terrorized by drug cartels. Do we allow drugs to be grown here? Should we legalize certain drugs?

Finally, the other link between America and Mexico is using Mexico as a manufacturing center for American multinationals. I read an article in last month's Bloomberg Markets about this (can't find it quickly enough online).

Obviously, their are many factors involved in our relationship outside of these. As close neighbors, we really do need to come up with a strategy where both of our interests are put forth, and we cooperate to achieve pre-determined objectives. Of course this will never happen. In which case, Gekko21's plan should be used. If we can't cooperate with the Mexican government to solve a host of problems that are linked to Drug smugglers, then we need to exterminate the problem. (In fact, this would probably be a solution if we cooperated with their government. These people have no respect for the laws of either country, and even if we were to develop solutions, they obviously want to profit and would continue to terrorize. Extermination is the most realistic solution).

looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
  • 1
 
Oct 7, 2010 - 5:34pm

1) Cut welfare benefits and deport illegal immigrants. This creates jobs, lowers government spending, increases the tax base, etc. Tell Juanita, Omar and John to put down the remote and get their lazy ass to work instead of collecting benefits.

2) Build an impenetrable fence (100 ft below grounds, electrified, moat with crocs) and station armed guards along the fence along with surveillance and motion equipment. This creates additional jobs. The expense will more than be covered by the cost-savings associated with illegal immigrants abuse of hospitals, jails and school systems.

3) Legalize marijuana (but impose same laws as drunk driving) - should reduce crime and increase the tax base

4) Work with political forces within Mexico to create jobs, improve education, reduce corruption, etc.

Obviously more complicated than stated above but its a start...

 
Oct 7, 2010 - 6:15pm

Use this: http://www.texasborderwatch.com/
Believe it or not, that site is actually legit, from the state.

As a native Texan, I can tell you the immigrant situation goes far beyond drugs. Many illegals come to America for one reason-To make money and send it back to their families in MX. These types of immigrants do HARD work, for next-to-nothing (definitely below min. wage). However, you have to ask yourself whether this is a bad thing for the US. To put in frankly, these people are basically exploited. Imagine having the Chinese labor force in your own backyard. That's what these people do for Texas. If you've been following along at home, you may have noticed that Texas has been relatively unscathed by the recession. Look at any list of "Top cities' economies" or "best place to work/start a career" etc-you'll find at least 4 TX cities in the top 10 every time. I believe that immigrants are a huge reason for this. The cheap labor they provide keeps things going, even in tough times.

As far as drug-related immigration is concerned, the situation is pretty cut and dry. You either try to fight the drug lords, or you legalize drugs, with the tradeoff of increased drug-use. Also, you would have to consider where to stop-Do you just legalize weed? Or will this just push the drug wars to cocaine/others? If you legalize all drugs, what kind of negative effects will you see from the hardcore ones? There's no easy answer there, but the debate is clear.
One side question-Is it possible to monitor high driving (from weed) like drunk driving? Weed stays in your system for weeks, so I'm not sure how easy that would be.

So, in my mind, the interesting thing is what to do with the first kind I mentioned. Do you crack down on them? Leave them alone? Issue special work permits?
IMO, the best option is to issue permits, control the amount let in, while taxing them to make sure they don't exploit the system. Also, I would consider letting them work below min. wage, as they do now off the books. I think you would see lots of companies forgo China to put factories in US hispanic areas, killing 2 birds with one stone.

Finally, don't underestimate Mexico. If they can get their shit together, they have all the resources to become an economic power. In fact, I've read several "expert" predictions that Mexico will become a power in our lifetime. Even now, without the violence, you'd be seeing companies move plants down there in droves.

 
Oct 7, 2010 - 6:46pm

Although it's a compelling argument and has some merit, I'm not sure that legalizing all drugs would stop the violence. It seems to me that there will still be a struggle amongst the cartels to be the supplier, and thus, the money maker.

The other thing to consider is the impact of legalizing drugs. This country is strapped for cash as it is. Who will be footing the bill for the abusers and druggies who "need" rehab, etc.? Also, much of the violence, at least in the states, that stems from drugs has more to do with the ability to supply (turf wars) and the inability to purchase due to lack of funds, not availability. So in that instance, the drugs would be available at stores, but the person wouldn't be able to afford them, thus enticing the user to steal or rob for the money need to supply the habit.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
  • 1
 
Oct 7, 2010 - 7:14pm

cphbravo96:
Although it's a compelling argument and has some merit, I'm not sure that legalizing all drugs would stop the violence. It seems to me that there will still be a struggle amongst the cartels to be the supplier, and thus, the money maker.

The other thing to consider is the impact of legalizing drugs. This country is strapped for cash as it is. Who will be footing the bill for the abusers and druggies who "need" rehab, etc.? Also, much of the violence, at least in the states, that stems from drugs has more to do with the ability to supply (turf wars) and the inability to purchase due to lack of funds, not availability. So in that instance, the drugs would be available at stores, but the person wouldn't be able to afford them, thus enticing the user to steal or rob for the money need to supply the habit.

But of course legalization will have two massive benefits:

(1) The price will plummet, so there will be far less money in it, reducing the influence of the cartels.
(2) The number of druggies and abusers will go down, because it won't be nearly as cool as it was when you were bucking the system.

If you don't believe me, look at Portugal:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 2:21pm

cphbravo96:
Although it's a compelling argument and has some merit, I'm not sure that legalizing all drugs would stop the violence. It seems to me that there will still be a struggle amongst the cartels to be the supplier, and thus, the money maker.

Regards

If we legalize every drug at this very moment Mexican cartels would be out of business within a month; do you honestly think that a bunch of Mexicans will be able to compete with American agricultural firms? There would be no struggle between cartels since they wouldn't have the revenues to buy the arms to conduct any substantive battle.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
  • 1
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 7:55pm

eokpar02:
cphbravo96:
Although it's a compelling argument and has some merit, I'm not sure that legalizing all drugs would stop the violence. It seems to me that there will still be a struggle amongst the cartels to be the supplier, and thus, the money maker.

Regards

If we legalize every drug at this very moment Mexican cartels would be out of business within a month; do you honestly think that a bunch of Mexicans will be able to compete with American agricultural firms? There would be no struggle between cartels since they wouldn't have the revenues to buy the arms to conduct any substantive battle.

What's the name of this fantasy land you live in? You think legalizing drugs will be like flipping a light switch? Now their here..whoop...now their gone? Just isn't going to happen. It is also worth noting that Mexicans are necessarily behind a large portion of the drug trade. I will also point out the inherently racist implications your statement has. The last time I checked you can stock pile weapons and ammo...they aren't exactly the most perishable items around. AK-47s and 7.62mm bullets don't curdle.

I'm still unsure of why people think drug cartels are just going to go on vacation.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 7, 2010 - 8:27pm

Disagree. Legalizing drugs will only stop the cartels from engaging in a profitable business. These people are vicious, and they will turn to other sorts fo violence (human trafficking, robbery, etc) to maintain their lifestyle. The only real way to end this would be neutralization.

looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
 
Oct 7, 2010 - 9:06pm

<span><a href=//www.wallstreetoasis.com/finance-dictionary/what-is-london-interbank-offer-rate-libor>LIBOR</a></span>:
Disagree. Legalizing drugs will only stop the cartels from engaging in a profitable business. These people are vicious, and they will turn to other sorts fo violence (human trafficking, robbery, etc) to maintain their lifestyle. The only real way to end this would be neutralization.

I have to agree, having a price decrease would likely full the violence because it becomes all that much more important to be THE ONLY supplier in the market.

Also, I find it hard to believe that there is a massive amount of people who only do drugs because it's illegal. I also would not put the few that do in the category of druggies and abusers. Most people who are druggies or abusers are addicted to the drug, not breaking the law.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 7, 2010 - 9:22pm

cphbravo96:
<span><a href=//www.wallstreetoasis.com/finance-dictionary/what-is-london-interbank-offer-rate-libor>LIBOR</a></span>:
Disagree. Legalizing drugs will only stop the cartels from engaging in a profitable business. These people are vicious, and they will turn to other sorts fo violence (human trafficking, robbery, etc) to maintain their lifestyle. The only real way to end this would be neutralization.

I have to agree, having a price decrease would likely full the violence because it becomes all that much more important to be THE ONLY supplier in the market.

Also, I find it hard to believe that there is a massive amount of people who only do drugs because it's illegal. I also would not put the few that do in the category of druggies and abusers. Most people who are druggies or abusers are addicted to the drug, not breaking the law.

Regards

I disagree with both of you. Yes the cartels will find other ways to make money, however nothing even comes close to the profit narcotics bring in. Human trafficking and robbery are easier to stop because they are easier to detect; it's not like you can mix a human with potassium thiocyanate to make him/her undetectable like you can with cocaine. Furthermore legalizing drugs would cut close to 3 billion dollars and 11,000 employees from the DEA alone, not to mention various other law enforcement agencies engaged in counter-narcotics operations, freeing up valuable resources for the detection and prevention of other crimes.
Legalize prostitution while you're at it.

As for a decrease in price fueling the violence why would that happen? Cocaine, heroin and marijuana are all plant derived, what's stopping anyone with a plot of land from growing it themselves? And yeah most people who abuse drugs are addicted, but it's not like the laws are preventing them getting the drugs. Why not let them get what they want, at a reasonable price, without the threat of violence or incarceration? This is America dammit.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 2:27pm

<span><a href=//www.wallstreetoasis.com/finance-dictionary/what-is-london-interbank-offer-rate-libor>LIBOR</a></span>:
Disagree. Legalizing drugs will only stop the cartels from engaging in a profitable business. These people are vicious, and they will turn to other sorts fo violence (human trafficking, robbery, etc) to maintain their lifestyle. The only real way to end this would be neutralization.

Libor, what other illicit activity would they turn to? Their current activity is only profitable because of America's stupid penchant for "conservatism". I can't even imagine another market as profitable as drugs, can you?

America has done this before, it was called prohibition.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
  • 1
 
Oct 7, 2010 - 9:36pm

Many of you guys take the highly simplistic approach, there is a lot more to this situation than drugs. One thing that we as Americans (unfortunately) do not have a firm grasp on anymore is national pride. You can call it xenophobia, ethnocentrism or nationalism, but simply put it's being proud of where you're from and believing in "your people".

I would say that the American generation which spawned the Baby Boom was the last to truly fit this description.

I get at this side of the issue because Mexicans have a very nationalistic view towards the Southwestern U.S. Namely, they feel that it is their land. America bombs the shit out of so many places (it's cool, all empires do) that we often forget the bad blood we leave with defeated nations. You may think that Pancho Villa's not around these days, but he certainly is in the hearts and minds of many Mexicans. You may think that the Panama Canal is just a waterway, but did you know that some of the most fervent anti-American rabid communist written propaganda in the Western Hemisphere comes from...Panama?

There are many many such harbored hostilities towards the U.S. worldwide. Some warranted, some not. The point is, no I don't think Mexico (as a state) would ever invade the U.S. but the Mexican invasion of America has been going on for quite a while. This (amongst many others) is the reason I cannot support a leftist American government (and foreign policy by extension). The understanding that Mexicans (not Latinos, Mexicans) can be a huge part of the voting populous down the line for them, is the motivation of the left's pro illegal immigration policies.

Two stories worth googling:

1) U.S. city with most kidnappings

2) Couple killed in Texas lake by Mexican pirates

These and a multitude of other similar horror stories are the reason we have seen a rise in anti-Mexican (again, not anti-Latino) fervor in recent months.

Countries survive, flourish and sometimes fall on the basis of pride and vengeance. Mexico still hasn't forgotten that much of the Southwestern U.S. was once theirs. Funny how we think the things that happen everyday around the world can never happen to us here at home. Guess what...they're happening.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 1:48pm

Midas Mulligan Magoo:
Many of you guys take the highly simplistic approach, there is a lot more to this situation than drugs. One thing that we as Americans (unfortunately) do not have a firm grasp on anymore is national pride. You can call it xenophobia, ethnocentrism or nationalism, but simply put it's being proud of where you're from and believing in "your people".

I would say that the American generation which spawned the Baby Boom was the last to truly fit this description.

I get at this side of the issue because Mexicans have a very nationalistic view towards the Southwestern U.S. Namely, they feel that it is their land. America bombs the shit out of so many places (it's cool, all empires do) that we often forget the bad blood we leave with defeated nations. You may think that Pancho Villa's not around these days, but he certainly is in the hearts and minds of many Mexicans. You may think that the Panama Canal is just a waterway, but did you know that some of the most fervent anti-American rabid communist written propaganda in the Western Hemisphere comes from...Panama?

There are many many such harbored hostilities towards the U.S. worldwide. Some warranted, some not. The point is, no I don't think Mexico (as a state) would ever invade the U.S. but the Mexican invasion of America has been going on for quite a while. This (amongst many others) is the reason I cannot support a leftist American government (and foreign policy by extension). The understanding that Mexicans (not Latinos, Mexicans) can be a huge part of the voting populous down the line for them, is the motivation of the left's pro illegal immigration policies.

Two stories worth googling:

1) U.S. city with most kidnappings

2) Couple killed in Texas lake by Mexican pirates

These and a multitude of other similar horror stories are the reason we have seen a rise in anti-Mexican (again, not anti-Latino) fervor in recent months.

Countries survive, flourish and sometimes fall on the basis of pride and vengeance. Mexico still hasn't forgotten that much of the Southwestern U.S. was once theirs. Funny how we think the things that happen everyday around the world can never happen to us here at home. Guess what...they're happening.

Well I guess it's about time for these Mexicans that feel that the SE U.S. is theirs need to face reality.

Who was the last president to pass amnesty for illegals? Which political party was that? So don't refer to it as just the left. Both R's and D's are in the same boat.

 
Oct 7, 2010 - 9:40pm

Have to agree with surfer here. Yall are missing the whole point. If it becomes legal, more (US) suppliers will enter the market. Therefore the Mexican druggies will be needless. Go to any small town in Colorado and you will already see boatloads of marijuana dispensaries, many of which advertise "locally grown" weed.
Robbery etc is not nearly as profitable, and it is harder to carry out consistently. It's much easier for the gov't to protect people than actively seek out and stop drug traffickers. It's easier to play defense than offense in war.
Also, I don't think human trafficking would be as huge. First of all, I just don't think the demand is the same. Second, it is much easier to stop, as you are dealing with living beings who are much larger than a bag of coke. Transport options are very limited to avoid detection.

I do agree that legalization would raise the number of drug-users. If nothing else legalization sends a message that it's somewhat safe. Currently, lots of people may be more scared of the drug's side effects than getting caught. Just take the example of cigs vs. weed. Pot has been proven safer (maybe arguable), but is used much less than cigs, despite all the warning labels in the world.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 12:07am

And Midas is certainly on to something. This a new "global" generation much more concerned about equality and fairness (see: Arizona) than national pride.

A quick did you know:

By 2050, the population of Texas is expected to be over 50% hispanic. (about 80-85% of Texas hispanics are Mexican). I'm sure other border states have the same trend.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 3:28am

Border states do have that. I think California is close or already minority majority.

Legalize it, and then we take a lot of money from these criminals, they will not be able to finance their huge following (these guy's seriously have armies). Then we can start effectively help the Mexican Government to reestablish itself. We can not send troops their, due to it will turn locals against us. We will look like an invading force. That is why we supply drones and training to the Mexicans then we can start to see the downfall of the cartels. My opinion, sorry if you disagree.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 10:07am

I think some of you folks are flat out mad if you think these drug cartels are just going to standby and let the money get taken out of their pockets. I get the impression (given the torture, beheadings, murders, etc.) that these folks will stop at nothing to be in charge, make the money. Unless the US and the companies in it are selling the drugs at rock bottom prices, there is still room for the cartels. They will enslave people (probably already do) to grow and manufacture these drugs and still bring them into the US, to sell for a cheaper price, thus getting them back the money they were losing out on with the legalization.

Also, there's a stigma around drugs and likely will be for the foreseeable future, even if they are legalized. I know I have zero intention of growing pot or cooking up amphetamines in my bathroom, so there will still be grow houses and farms, etc., all targets to be robbed, taken over, whatever.

As far as not having anymore DEA and drug police, etc., someone will have to enforce the law no matter which way you slice it. If selling any drug on the street is legal then you will have addicts and assholes pushing bags of leftovers from beneath their kitchen sinks. Who enforces the efficacy of the products? What happens when someone ODs and it's discovered that the dealer is pushing junk? You would almost have to create a market like we have now where there are drug companies that have to pass test, etc in order to put the products on the street, otherwise you run the risk of lots of people dying. At that point, you are essentially back to square one where you have a group of people controlling the supply and price and people will find it cheaper, more efficient to grow/make the drugs at their house, etc...thus the need for law enforcement officials.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this problem but maybe I am complicating the matter more than what is necessary.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 1:43pm

cphbravo96:
I think some of you folks are flat out mad if you think these drug cartels are just going to standby and let the money get taken out of their pockets. I get the impression (given the torture, beheadings, murders, etc.) that these folks will stop at nothing to be in charge, make the money. Unless the US and the companies in it are selling the drugs at rock bottom prices, there is still room for the cartels. They will enslave people (probably already do) to grow and manufacture these drugs and still bring them into the US, to sell for a cheaper price, thus getting them back the money they were losing out on with the legalization.

Also, there's a stigma around drugs and likely will be for the foreseeable future, even if they are legalized. I know I have zero intention of growing pot or cooking up amphetamines in my bathroom, so there will still be grow houses and farms, etc., all targets to be robbed, taken over, whatever.

As far as not having anymore DEA and drug police, etc., someone will have to enforce the law no matter which way you slice it. If selling any drug on the street is legal then you will have addicts and assholes pushing bags of leftovers from beneath their kitchen sinks. Who enforces the efficacy of the products? What happens when someone ODs and it's discovered that the dealer is pushing junk? You would almost have to create a market like we have now where there are drug companies that have to pass test, etc in order to put the products on the street, otherwise you run the risk of lots of people dying. At that point, you are essentially back to square one where you have a group of people controlling the supply and price and people will find it cheaper, more efficient to grow/make the drugs at their house, etc...thus the need for law enforcement officials.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this problem but maybe I am complicating the matter more than what is necessary.

Regards

I don't see any "alcohol" or "cigarette" cartels out there. If you legalize drugs the cartels will be out of the drug business.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 7:48pm

txjustin:
cphbravo96:
I think some of you folks are flat out mad if you think these drug cartels are just going to standby and let the money get taken out of their pockets. I get the impression (given the torture, beheadings, murders, etc.) that these folks will stop at nothing to be in charge, make the money. Unless the US and the companies in it are selling the drugs at rock bottom prices, there is still room for the cartels. They will enslave people (probably already do) to grow and manufacture these drugs and still bring them into the US, to sell for a cheaper price, thus getting them back the money they were losing out on with the legalization.

Also, there's a stigma around drugs and likely will be for the foreseeable future, even if they are legalized. I know I have zero intention of growing pot or cooking up amphetamines in my bathroom, so there will still be grow houses and farms, etc., all targets to be robbed, taken over, whatever.

As far as not having anymore DEA and drug police, etc., someone will have to enforce the law no matter which way you slice it. If selling any drug on the street is legal then you will have addicts and assholes pushing bags of leftovers from beneath their kitchen sinks. Who enforces the efficacy of the products? What happens when someone ODs and it's discovered that the dealer is pushing junk? You would almost have to create a market like we have now where there are drug companies that have to pass test, etc in order to put the products on the street, otherwise you run the risk of lots of people dying. At that point, you are essentially back to square one where you have a group of people controlling the supply and price and people will find it cheaper, more efficient to grow/make the drugs at their house, etc...thus the need for law enforcement officials.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this problem but maybe I am complicating the matter more than what is necessary.

Regards

I don't see any "alcohol" or "cigarette" cartels out there. If you legalize drugs the cartels will be out of the drug business.

Legalizing drugs doesn't magically create supply. It will still have to come from somewhere and there will still be competition revolving around price so unless the US government or the companies within the US who will manufacture/grow/cultivate the drugs can do so in a financially competitive way there will be other cheaper options from elsewhere.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 10:54am

1) I have no problem with Mexicans being a large % of the south. Italians make up a large % of certain states. We are all American and as long as people start thinking of themselves as American it is cool with me.

2) We should build a fence and then have drones fly over Mexico and conduct strikes whenever we see fit. Plain fact is Mexico cannot enforce its laws and that is causing issues in the USA. We have every right to enforce their laws for us. Just as we bomb sites in Pakistan without asking permission we don't need permission to kill warlords in Mexico. Even if we did need permission, what are they really going to do? Pissing and moaning is something the USA is used to hearing from countries so we might as well as Mexico to the list.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 3:40pm

Anthony .:
1) I have no problem with Mexicans being a large % of the south. Italians make up a large % of certain states. We are all American and as long as people start thinking of themselves as American it is cool with me.

I don't have a problem with them being a large percentage either, but the second part is where the trouble comes up. From my experience, many Mexican immigrants speak little to no English and still consider Mexico as their homeland. Just watch a US-MX soccer game in the states. Half the stadium will be wearing green.The language barrier could especially create a big problem, both in psycologically and logistically. These people need ot speak English to avoid distrust, and to be able to communicate with the rest of the population.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 11:36am

If we simply put up a huge wall and simplified the immigration process for our southern neighbors things would be a lot easier. Plain fact is we need to screen people coming into this country to make sure they are not criminals or they have a plan for working once over here, just like we do for everyone else. I am always surprised when people complain about a wall when in fact a wall is just a man made barrier when their is lack of a natural barrier. The Atlantic ocean is a "wall" to everyone on the other side who want to come here. I just look at it as equalizing things.

Predator drones should fly over Mexico and whenever a drug lord is located we should strike. The USA has every right to fire on foreign soil if that soil is not being policed and enforced and the consequences are being felt by us.

I also have no issues with Mexicans in this country. I think we need to be reinvigorated with our American spirit and really start making people feel and realize that they are now Americans. People might think this is lame or old fashioned, but that is what makes this country unique and great. No one ethnic group can claim true American heritage, we are all Americans because we buy into and share a common path. George Washington was our founding father regardless of color or creed.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 11:55am

Mexico is down and out now due to their drug violence and a large portion of their manufacturing base hollowed out in favor of China. But eventually they will get their act together. The inevitable legalization of marijuana in the US will be a step. As China gradually loses its competitiveness in lower value-added goods due to currency appreciation (or trade barriers), increases in wages, worsening demographics and increases in fuel costs, Mexico is poised to regain its place at the table. When this happens, the US will have a greater stake in ensuring stability. Note that this will happen over a long time period.

Ibintx, that is an interesting perspective that I haven't considered before. Texas is obviously doing several things right (on a relative basis) but that makes a lot of sense.

LIBOR, I completely disagree. Think about it this way - a corporation is forced out of its main market and has to move into lower margin businesses. Banks can no longer sell exotic derivatives and instead focus on corporate lending. What happens to headcount in the financial industry?

The viciousness may increase in the short run (as the pain resulting from dislocations in economies is often the worst as they are unwound) but will decrease in the long run.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 1:20pm

macro:
...LIBOR, I completely disagree. Think about it this way - a corporation is forced out of its main market and has to move into lower margin businesses. Banks can no longer sell exotic derivatives and instead focus on corporate lending. What happens to headcount in the financial industry?

The viciousness may increase in the short run (as the pain resulting from dislocations in economies is often the worst as they are unwound) but will decrease in the long run.

I don't comprehend how people can, or are willing to, compare a legitimate business with a criminal enterprise?!?!? Bank's don't chop off the heads of people who disagree with them or refuse to launder their money or run their drugs, how is it even remotely similar?!?

I've always wondered why we can't create some pseudo Americas else where? Why not assist Mexico with getting back on it's feet, run the drug lords out and create a country that can function as a junior America with free markets, etc.? Creating a place that offered similar opportunities to what the US offers would help alleviate some of the immigration mess that we having going on now. It's like the "teach a man to fish" parable.

I'm thinking we absorb Mexico in a big brother style adoption and work out some of their kinks. Plus, I think it would be much easier to police their southern border than ours, lol.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 12:40pm

I just want to chime in on the whole drug issue. I tend to lean towards legalization, but do we really want to legalize anymore substances which make us lazier and more stupid as a whole? I mean just like cigarette, alcohol and the lottery, I am sure drugs will be used by lower income people more so than upper income people. Do we really need to make our losers more loser-ish.

Let's legalize drugs, but only for college graduates who pay taxes.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 1:53pm

Anthony .:
Let's legalize drugs, but only for college graduates who pay taxes.

That won't solve the problem at all. The end consumers of much of the drug trade aren't college graduates who pay taxes. Those people will still resort to illegal and violent activity to get their merch. Plus graduating from college has become a pretty weak signaling tool, unless we include "target schools" and "GPA cutoffs."

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 2:07pm

For everybody throwing out "legalize drugs" as a fix to the problem, it is a sad day when our state is forced to change its own laws and principles in order to deal with threats developing a foreign nation.

Whether you agree with legalizing drugs or not, quelling violence from Mexico is no justification for our people being forced to live under a set of laws determined by the way others treat us. What happens elsewhere, by all rights, should have no impact on what our government decides to do as a state in accordance with what is deemed philosophically correct by the American people. Legalizing drugs as a fix to the problem is akin to appeasement of a foreign terrorist organization. If you are going to play the "legalize drugs" card, make your argument on the merits of that issue alone. The American government needs to be able to protect American citizens on the American border regardless of what drugs may or may not be legal, or, further, regardless of any internal law for that matter.

Dealing with the separate issue of American lives being threatened by violence spawned in a foreign land: Our military, which is, first and foremost, enlisted to protect the interests of the American people, is capable of overwhelming force. We have firepower and intelligence capabilities that could blow these cartels back to the stone age if they so much as looked at us funny along the border. Historically, the most effective way of dealing with the violent sadism of one group of people towards another has been through cold hard martial law; a take no prisoners, one strike and you are incinerated kind of attitude. The bottom line is, not only with this matter, but with other matters all over the world concerning our inability to quell violence, if we really wanted it and really put our power towards stopping it, we could do so with scary effectiveness. The sad truth is that those who commit violence against Americans simply "want it more" than us, and that is no way for us to win.

  • 1
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 2:31pm

rebelcross:
For everybody throwing out "legalize drugs" as a fix to the problem, it is a sad day when our state is forced to change its own laws and principles in order to deal with threats developing a foreign nation.

Whether you agree with legalizing drugs or not, quelling violence from Mexico is no justification for our people being forced to live under a set of laws determined by the way others treat us. What happens elsewhere, by all rights, should have no impact on what our government decides to do as a state in accordance with what is deemed philosophically correct by the American people. Legalizing drugs as a fix to the problem is akin to appeasement of a foreign terrorist organization. If you are going to play the "legalize drugs" card, make your argument on the merits of that issue alone. The American government needs to be able to protect American citizens on the American border regardless of what drugs may or may not be legal, or, further, regardless of any internal law for that matter.

Dealing with the separate issue of American lives being threatened by violence spawned in a foreign land: Our military, which is, first and foremost, enlisted to protect the interests of the American people, is capable of overwhelming force. We have firepower and intelligence capabilities that could blow these cartels back to the stone age if they so much as looked at us funny along the border. Historically, the most effective way of dealing with the violent sadism of one group of people towards another has been through cold hard martial law; a take no prisoners, one strike and you are incinerated kind of attitude. The bottom line is, not only with this matter, but with other matters all over the world concerning our inability to quell violence, if we really wanted it and really put our power towards stopping it, we could do so with scary effectiveness. The sad truth is that those who commit violence against Americans simply "want it more" than us, and that is no way for us to win.

I can't speak for everybody, but I consider myself most aligned with Libertarian beliefs so therefore I believe having drugs illegal is unconstitutional.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 2:34pm

rebelcross:
For everybody throwing out "legalize drugs" as a fix to the problem, it is a sad day when our state is forced to change its own laws and principles in order to deal with threats developing a foreign nation.

Our current prohibition of drugs is rather un-American. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they found out that the Federal Government was usurping States on such a trivial matter.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
  • 1
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 2:44pm

rebelcross:
For everybody throwing out "legalize drugs" as a fix to the problem, it is a sad day when our state is forced to change its own laws and principles in order to deal with threats developing a foreign nation.

Whether you agree with legalizing drugs or not, quelling violence from Mexico is no justification for our people being forced to live under a set of laws determined by the way others treat us. What happens elsewhere, by all rights, should have no impact on what our government decides to do as a state in accordance with what is deemed philosophically correct by the American people. Legalizing drugs as a fix to the problem is akin to appeasement of a foreign terrorist organization.

You don't legalize drugs because you're forced to by foreign influence, you legalize drugs because prohibition is FUCKING RETARDED. Didn't we learn anything from the 1920's?

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 2:50pm

Edmundo Braverman:

You don't legalize drugs because you're forced to by foreign influence, you legalize drugs because prohibition is FUCKING RETARDED. Didn't we learn anything from the 1920's?

I know; this is a topic that drives me crazy. Do people not realize that Americans were killing each other for the ability to feed America's desire for alcohol consumption?

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
  • 1
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 2:59pm

Edmundo Braverman:
rebelcross:
For everybody throwing out "legalize drugs" as a fix to the problem, it is a sad day when our state is forced to change its own laws and principles in order to deal with threats developing a foreign nation.

Whether you agree with legalizing drugs or not, quelling violence from Mexico is no justification for our people being forced to live under a set of laws determined by the way others treat us. What happens elsewhere, by all rights, should have no impact on what our government decides to do as a state in accordance with what is deemed philosophically correct by the American people. Legalizing drugs as a fix to the problem is akin to appeasement of a foreign terrorist organization.

You don't legalize drugs because you're forced to by foreign influence, you legalize drugs because prohibition is FUCKING RETARDED. Didn't we learn anything from the 1920's?

I see you missed the point completely. It's not the fucking argument. The argument is how do we protect Americans on the border. Let's deal with one issue at a time. Legalizing drugs is its own argument and has no place in this one. The problem is when we lump them together.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 2:32pm

Cph -

How have the cartels been able to maintain their power?
(1) Bribery
(2) Fear created by their manpower and armaments
What are these based on? Drug revenues. It goes without saying that extortion, kidnappings, etc are less scalable and much lower margin businesses. Without the money, their entrenched power can continue for a short period of time but will not be sustained. They can torture and murder people all they want but if their market is extinct they are done.

Legalized drugs, even with significant taxes, would be much cheaper and of significantly greater quality than anything the cartels can produce. Do you see any bootleggers in business today?

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 8:04pm

macro:
Cph -

How have the cartels been able to maintain their power?
(1) Bribery
(2) Fear created by their manpower and armaments
What are these based on? Drug revenues. It goes without saying that extortion, kidnappings, etc are less scalable and much lower margin businesses. Without the money, their entrenched power can continue for a short period of time but will not be sustained. They can torture and murder people all they want but if their market is extinct they are done.

Legalized drugs, even with significant taxes, would be much cheaper and of significantly greater quality than anything the cartels can produce. Do you see any bootleggers in business today?

Personally I think bribery is used as a professional courtesy of sorts. It seems to me that bribery is a nice way to hand business...and expensive...it's much cheaper to kill or threaten to kill someone or their family, etc. I also don't think guns and ammo are exceptionally expensive and are more or less viewed as an investment. I think it is also reasonable to assume that the drugs cartels haven't spent every dollar they've ever made on guns and ammo...they probably have a fair amount set aside. Again, as to my previous point, I just don't think it is that reasonable to assume the market is going to disappear. There is an awful lot of things the US government would have to deal with if drugs were legalized (I mentioned some of these in a previous post).

I also question just how profitable and cheap that drugs can be if they were legalized given that cartels have a significant amount of margin built into their products to begin with,not to mention they could further reduce costs by switching to a slave labor business model (assuming they don't already fully utilize that).

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 2:47pm

Arguments against the legalization of drugs are fairly unsubstantial but appeal to the masses. They all revolve around this stupid supposed conservative morality foisted on the American public. For example, I will hear people my parents age state that Marijuana should be illegal because it is "bad". Marijuana has NEVER EVER been proven to be "bad" for people. In fact, Marijuana has NOT killed a single person since it has been made illegal. Not a single person died last year from the consumption of Marijuana even though more than HALF of college age adults smoke marijuana.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

85 thousand people died from alcohol consumption last year.
435 thousand people died from tobacco consumption last year.
32 thousand people died from prescription drug consumption last year

The basis of all government intervention in consumption should be harm reduction. Not this stupid namby-pamby "conservative" garbage about morals.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
  • 1
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 8:11pm

eokpar02:
...Marijuana has NEVER EVER been proven to be "bad" for people. In fact, Marijuana has NOT killed a single person since it has been made illegal. Not a single person died last year from the consumption of Marijuana even though more than HALF of college age adults smoke marijuana...

I just find that almost impossible to believe. Do you have proof? Is there actually anyway to prove that...seems like wishful thinking to me? As far as HALF of college age adults smoking marijuana, that seems to be rather high (no pun intended) although I'm not an expert. I will point out that of the people I know who smoke with any regularity nearly all of them work the grill at some local restaurant chain (or some similar, under achieving type position). Coincidence?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 10:33pm

cphbravo96:

I just find that almost impossible to believe. Do you have proof? Is there actually anyway to prove that...seems like wishful thinking to me? As far as HALF of college age adults smoking marijuana, that seems to be rather high (no pun intended) although I'm not an expert. I will point out that of the people I know who smoke with any regularity nearly all of them work the grill at some local restaurant chain (or some similar, under achieving type position). Coincidence?

Regards

Dude, use freaking GOOGLE!!!! How does an adult think that Marijuana is lethal? There have been TONS of studies about marijuana;

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-…

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

Marijuana is not lethal... Period.

I know tons of people who smoke marijuana. Those who I know closely are all applying for jobs, applying for medical school, law school and other rather ambitious things.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
  • 1
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 3:12pm

Legalization would protect Americans on the border. I live within hours of the Texas/Mexico border and I don't fear for my life. No cartel is dumb enough to come to America and do what they do in Mexico. They'd be wiped out in a few days. Of course there will be some very remote cases of American deaths, but I am confident it is at fault of the American going places they knew they shouldn't have.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 3:45pm

It's a separate argument. We shouldn't have to change any law for anybody else ever. Americans have the right to argue for legalization based on the merits of that issue alone and how that effects the American people. That is an issue that Americans have to deal with internally based on the kind of nation they desire to have.

However, nobody in a foreign country has any right to harass American citizens within the US because our laws might be conducive to their violence, EVER...PERIOD. It doesn't matter what the fuck we outlaw or make legal, as a sovereign nation those decisions should not have any bearing on the safety of our people. And, so, in dealing with this issue, the government needs to step up on the protection front (as stated above). Argue for your libertarian principles, when that is the debate on the table...NOT WHEN safety is the debate on the table.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 4:10pm

rebelcross:
It's a separate argument. We shouldn't have to change any law for anybody else ever. Americans have the right to argue for legalization based on the merits of that issue alone and how that effects the American people. That is an issue that Americans have to deal with internally based on the kind of nation they desire to have.

However, nobody in a foreign country has any right to harass American citizens within the US because our laws might be conducive to their violence, EVER...PERIOD. It doesn't matter what the fuck we outlaw or make legal, as a sovereign nation those decisions should not have any bearing on the safety of our people. And, so, in dealing with this issue, the government needs to step up on the protection front (as stated above). Argue for your libertarian principles, when that is the debate on the table...NOT WHEN safety is the debate on the table.

Americans that have been killed recently, a very very small number, were in Mexico. Most of the people being kidnapped are drug cartel affiliated. If an American goes to Mexico after being warned how dangerous it is, they deserve whatever they get in my opinion.

"Argue your libertarian principles, what that is the debate on the table". It's on the table. I follow the Constitution of the United States. So I believe that was established before this recent debacle with the cartels was.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 7:56pm

I think rebelcross makes a solid point here. We should not choose to legalize drugs for this reason alone. (For the record, I am in the camp that thinks that legalization won't even deter the violence perpetuated by these cartels). This issue is something we should consider on its own here in our own country.

Aside from that, the issue of gang violence, illegal immigration, and drug smuggling are all intertwined, and a solution to any of these problems should consider the implications on the other factors involved. Personally, I think forced military aggression is the proper response. The US military, or some other government institution, should work with the Mexican governments to effectively neutralize the enemy. These cartels have shown little respect for the laws of either country, nor the decency of humanity because of the crimes they have committed. Forced military action is necessary in order to prevent the spread of this violence.

I also think that military action would help to solve other problems as well. With the cartels neutralized by the Americans, Northern Mexicans can once again open businesses and engage in legitimate trade. Illegal immigration would slow because potential illegal immigrants would have better opportunities in Mexico, and be afraid to try and sneak past the American military on the border.

I am usually not an advocate for war but I think in this situation it is entirely necessary and justifiable. A nation needs to use its military power to enforce its laws (which are being broken) and protect its own economic interests. Our economic interests are being undermined by drug cartels and illegal immigrants, and proper action is necessary for both countries to move past this problem.

looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
  • 1
 
Oct 8, 2010 - 3:46pm

Well I will agree that we have done a poor job of Americanizing recent immigrants. Allowing a dual language society is an issue. English needs to be taught and promoted. I see no problem with people cheering for Mexico, especially for soccer (lets face it, Soccer is not an American sport). This is a problem historically faced with every recent wave of immigrants. It takes a couple generations to adopt to our culture. Further complicating the issue if the fact that their native country is so close. Not like coming over from China or India.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 4:04pm

The difference between immigrants from Mexico versus ones from Ireland or Korea is that their homeland is close and easily accessible. They have much less of an incentive to assimilate and adopt the cultural identity of their new homeland. Excessive concentration also contributes to this. All of this pertains to Mexican immigrants in the South/Southwest, ones in other parts of the country are a bit different.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 4:50pm

As for the guy, he might have been in Mexico, and it is well known in that area not to mess around on that lake. Sad story but it's not like he was frolicking on the shore when El Beardo Negro sniped him from a crow's nest.

As for the larger argument, I lean towards marijuana legalization. Price will fall, we can grow domestic, get rid of the bloated dollar black hole that is the DEA/war on drugs etc, tax the weed, make some money, every body wins. We do need some stringent border protection, obviously, but far more for the people coming over than for the products. If we could snap our fingers and build a wall, that would be grate but it's obviously a tad more involved.

Mexico will be messed up for the foreseeable future regardless of the actions we take towards immigration/drugs.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 7:19pm

Well, I find it funny how when government goes into a country to help them, they are seen as "invaders." But if we don't help them everyone says we only care about ourselves. This world we live in!

But if we take away their cash crop that means price will plummet. But the problem is that Mexico is also involved with the Colombian's drug trade as well. If we legalize marijuana, they will just start putting more effort into the cocaine business. It is a terrible situation, but marijuana is not worth the money to fight. Lesser of two evils.

 
Oct 8, 2010 - 9:03pm

Well, they will just get their arms elsewhere. There is always a demand for the weapons. And America could become the Wal-Mart and Cartels could be like Mom and Pop stores! (It is a joke.)

Bravo, I respect your posts, but many pot smokers are actually well off. Stephen King, Woody Harrelson, Branson, Bloomberg, and many more. I do not smoke, but I feel it is not fair to generalize that a certain group is all failures.

 
Oct 9, 2010 - 12:10am

As far as weed goes, there are definitely far less negative side effects than cigarettes, and even alcohol. No one has ever died from marijuana. The main negatives with weed are laziness (solvable- dont smoke when you've got work to do), and driving impairment (once again, solvable like booze). Depending on how you smoke, there can still be bad effects on the lungs, but still not as bad a cigs. As far as smokers being unsuccessful, that is definitely a generalization that may be true for some, but definitely not all (or even most). I know many successful people who smoke(d), and many other college students that smoke often and will have great shots at getting into banking in the next year or so. My school is very competitive and hard-working, yet weed is common. There are even people who barely drink that smoke pretty regularly. Weird, I know, but it's true.

For those suggesting to support Mexico in fighting the cartels, the problem is simple: The cartels are not only as powerful as the Mexican government, but they are richer too (thanks to drug money). It would take an all out war on the part of the US to bring them down through brute force. The easiest way to stop the cartels is to stop the drug business. If it were possible to seal off the border completely, and make drug smuggling impossible, that would be great. Unfortunately, this is an impossible solution. Drugs will always be able to be smuggled, whether it's by boat, plane, foot, via other countries, etc. For these reasons, I see legalization as the most practical way of solving the problem. As soon as American companies enter the market, weed becomes about as lucrative as selling bananas. Cartels will not be fighting over this. Their money will disappear, and they will not be able to buy more guns. The violence won't stop overnight, and may even increase at first due to outrage and need for another source of income (kidnappings, robbery). But as the gov't keeps capturing/killing more gangsters and their weapons, stockpiles will dwindle and the money will be gone to buy more. Over the long run, the problem is solved.

Trust me, under no normal circumstances would I promote the legalization of drugs (except maybe weed). It truly does scare me to think of the possible effects some hardcore drugs could have on society if legalized. Regardless, this situation is not going to get better until drugs are legalized. At least pot needs to be legalized.

Where I struggle is the other drugs. Without legalizing them, I am afraid the cartels will just shift from pot to everything else. Or would the other drugs not be demanded enough to maintain their profits? I do not know. On the other hand, I do not want an American society of heroin-addicts. The question for me is how/where to draw the line. Do you legalize just pot? Pot and coke? Everything?

 
Oct 9, 2010 - 12:50am

squirtlez:
The cartel will just shift from drugs to something far more cynical, selling credit default swaps,naked short selling and pitching shitty deals to your grandma.

Goldman Sachs doesn't have OCR in Tijuana.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
  • 2
 
Oct 10, 2010 - 10:00am

Mexico is just Pakistan with an alcohol license

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 
Oct 11, 2010 - 10:56am

This is the issue with the situation as a whole. I don't feel like you can pick and choose which drugs to legalize. Either it is unconstitutional to ban drugs or it isn't...you can't have it part way. Same issue with guns right? You can't say the Constitution only meant to say you can carry muskets but not pistols or assault rifles, just like you can't say the phrase "All men are created equal" was actually implying that all white mean are created equal. This whole legalization feels like it is part of the leftist agenda and they just nose around until they find enough things to justify, like medicinal uses, budget deficits, stopping violence in another country.

Nobody addressed the issues I pointed out earlier when I was walking myself through the process. So if drugs are legalized, who manufacturers them? If individual people do it, them you will likely have inefficiency that allow the cartels to utilize their slaves/mules to create a product that is more cost effective, thus a lower price, thus more appealing to the people buying it. The flip side being American companies take up the manufacturing process (in theory). So how about the liability issue? We live in a country in which a person who over eats and suffers from self induced medical problems can sue McDonald's for getting them addicted to fatty Big Macs. How will this play out with drugs? Who gets sued when someone ODs on some manufactured meth/crack/etc?? What if these companies recognize the liability issues with manufacturing said drugs or decide they don't want to take part for philosophical reasons? Then won't we back to square one with the drug cartels providing a product that no one else can provide in a cost effective manner?

I'm not saying I have a solution. Personally, I don't think anyone can realistically say with any amount of certainty that one way is the best way to address this issue without doing a large amount of research as there are far to many human variables involved. I think the view that things would change overnight (like flipping a light switch) is naive and comes across as supporting an alternative motive of some sort.

As others previously mentioned, legalizing something just to reduce the violence elsewhere would imply that we are essentially being held hostage and that we are willing to negotiate with said terrorists, which I don't support. If it is a question of constitutionality, then so be it, but argue for the cause based on the cause's merits, not some tertiary "justifications".

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 11, 2010 - 3:14pm

cphbravo96:
This is the issue with the situation as a whole. I don't feel like you can pick and choose which drugs to legalize. Either it is unconstitutional to ban drugs or it isn't...you can't have it part way. Same issue with guns right? You can't say the Constitution only meant to say you can carry muskets but not pistols or assault rifles, just like you can't say the phrase "All men are created equal" was actually implying that all white mean are created equal. This whole legalization feels like it is part of the leftist agenda and they just nose around until they find enough things to justify, like medicinal uses, budget deficits, stopping violence in another country.

The constitution does not mention consumption at all. No one is saying that it is unconstitutional; we are just saying that prohibition is irrational.

The constitution does not mention the colloquialism, "guns", It mentions arms. While guns are arms, not all arms are guns. Arms range from .22 caliber pistols to surface to air missiles.

The whole "legalization" is more of a "liberal/libertarian" thing. The FEDERAL government, has no business telling us what we can consume. "Conservatives" are usually against it because they are generally undereducated and rather malleable.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 
Oct 11, 2010 - 3:23pm

cphbravo96:

Nobody addressed the issues I pointed out earlier when I was walking myself through the process. So if drugs are legalized, who manufacturers them? If individual people do it, them you will likely have inefficiency that allow the cartels to utilize their slaves/mules to create a product that is more cost effective, thus a lower price, thus more appealing to the people buying it. The flip side being American companies take up the manufacturing process (in theory). So how about the liability issue? We live in a country in which a person who over eats and suffers from self induced medical problems can sue McDonald's for getting them addicted to fatty Big Macs. How will this play out with drugs? Who gets sued when someone ODs on some manufactured meth/crack/etc?? What if these companies recognize the liability issues with manufacturing said drugs or decide they don't want to take part for philosophical reasons? Then won't we back to square one with the drug cartels providing a product that no one else can provide in a cost effective manner?

If drugs are legalized, than American companies and corporations would produce them. Individuals don't produce anything in the USA. This is beyond obvious.

I would imagine that companies that produce drugs will have the same liability issues as companies that produce tobacco products. Mexican cartels simply are incapable of competing with American firms.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 
Oct 11, 2010 - 6:07pm

eokpar02:
If drugs are legalized, than American companies and corporations would produce them. Individuals don't produce anything in the USA. This is beyond obvious.

Have you ever been to a farmer's market, where little lady Thompson brings a basket of the tomatoes she grows in the garden to sell? Seem a little less obvious now?

eokpar02:
I would imagine that companies that produce drugs will have the same liability issues as companies that produce tobacco products. Mexican cartels simply are incapable of competing with American firms.

In your search for drug facts, did you come across the amount of people who died the first time they smoked a tobacco product because their hearts raced so fast it shut down or they became so delusional they jumped off a 30th floor balcony? Drugs, in the sense we are speak of them, have nowhere near the same liability possibilities as tobacco.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 11, 2010 - 11:03am

Oh C'mon CPH. Everyone knows the USA doesn't bow to terrorist wishes even if it infringes on our sovereign rights (sarcasm).

 
Oct 11, 2010 - 3:18pm

Cph -

Even assuming the cartels use slave labor, they would be uncompetitive producers because of expenses involved with transport (mules, etc) and inherent losses (at the border and due to robberies, internal theft, etc). That is where a significant portion of their costs come from. Like Eokpar says above, don't underestimate the American entrepreneur.

As for the reasons behind legalization, it would have nothing to do with reducing violence. Stabilizing the Mexico situation would simply be a beneficial byproduct. The US is eventually going to legalize because of

  1. extra tax revenues (because we're broke)
  2. money saved by ending the war on drugs (because we're broke)
  3. changing social perceptions and acceptance (as this was the initial cause of prohibition)

Good debate we have going here.

 
Oct 11, 2010 - 3:28pm

macro:
Cph -

Even assuming the cartels use slave labor, they would be uncompetitive producers because of expenses involved with transport (mules, etc) and inherent losses (at the border and due to robberies, internal theft, etc). That is where a significant portion of their costs come from. Like Eokpar says above, don't underestimate the American entrepreneur.

As for the reasons behind legalization, it would have nothing to do with reducing violence. Stabilizing the Mexico situation would simply be a beneficial byproduct. The US is eventually going to legalize because of

  1. extra tax revenues (because we're broke)
  2. money saved by ending the war on drugs (because we're broke)
  3. changing social perceptions and acceptance (as this was the initial cause of prohibition)

Good debate we have going here.

  1. American drugs laws are the reason for excessive incarceration, especially for minorities.
I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 
Oct 11, 2010 - 6:02pm

eokpar02:
macro:
Cph -

Even assuming the cartels use slave labor, they would be uncompetitive producers because of expenses involved with transport (mules, etc) and inherent losses (at the border and due to robberies, internal theft, etc). That is where a significant portion of their costs come from. Like Eokpar says above, don't underestimate the American entrepreneur.

As for the reasons behind legalization, it would have nothing to do with reducing violence. Stabilizing the Mexico situation would simply be a beneficial byproduct. The US is eventually going to legalize because of

  1. extra tax revenues (because we're broke)
  2. money saved by ending the war on drugs (because we're broke)
  3. changing social perceptions and acceptance (as this was the initial cause of prohibition)

Good debate we have going here.

  1. American drugs laws are the reason for excessive incarceration, especially for minorities.

You are absolutely incorrect. The laws aren't the reason for the excessive incarceration, it's the person's inability to follow them. Consequently, I've been a US citizen all my life and are governed by the same laws as everyone else, yet I've never land in jail/prison. If the laws are the problem..then how is that possible?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 11, 2010 - 4:04pm

Yeah, agree with the others that corporations would obviously be the ones producing the drugs. I actually remember reading an article a while back (like a year or 2 ago) about companies standing to gain the most from marijuana legalization, and their top one was one of the big agriculture companies (cant remember which-Monsanto or ConAgra maybe?- the name is escaping my mind, but you get the point, it's one we've all heard of).

Regarding liability, I can't speak for the other drugs, but marijuana is far safer than alcohol, and tobacco too. Hell, maybe even caffeine. Those companies have obviously figured out how to deal with that problem. This kind of goes back to the question I posed earlier though-where do you draw the line? Liability on weed shouldnt be an issue, but it may be for the others. I don't know enough about those to say.

Finally, another thing people forget is that once the corporations get involved in production, the science and regulation behind these drugs will skyrocket. Drugs will become much safer, and the products will be developed, both in terms of safety and quality. Obviously, the safety part is huge. Also, the scientific advancements will make it much harder for Mexican cartels to keep up (in terms of product quality), further putting them out of business.

 
Oct 11, 2010 - 5:59pm

Funny, because I have seen numerous instances where someone gets their home raided and it turns out it is nothing more than a green house...so individual people to manufacture drugs...like a meth lab posing as mobile home.

I just find it ironic that no one is arguing for abolishing the mandated drinking age or anything of the sort. The problem with most liberal arguments (not trying to fling mud, just providing insight from the other side's perspective) is that they want things both ways when depending on whatever is most convenient.

The government shouldn't be telling anyone what they can or can't consume but they should be able to tell us who can own guns or what type of guns and what type of ammo? Or "arms"...like that matters. If anything, the terms "arms" leaves it the more encompassing. I guess I should be allowed to purchase rocket launchers and surface to air missiles then.

And budget deficits are not a rational reason to legalize something. If an engine is leaking oil, you don't just keep pouring oil in the top and say everything is fine. At the rate our budget is hemorrhaging we will have to legalize prostitution, human trafficking and slavery just to keep up.

And regardless of what people say, drugs will always include an element of crime. If it isn't from the people selling it, it will be from the people buying it because unless it's free a person who wants/needs the drug will have to be able to pay for them. If they don't have money then they will need to find it/steal it in order to purchase the drugs or they will have to rob the pharmacies or dispensaries.

And how do you manufacture meth/crack/coke in a safe manner? These drugs all have to potential to kill you the first time you try/use them because of bad interactions with your system...not just because they were of a lesser quality. Legalizing weed is not the answer to the violence because all of these other drugs exist, therefor the suppliers (the cartels) will still be supplying them, unless US companies are going to do it and then suffer the consequences when some straight A student from white, middle class suburbia gets a hold of one of the aforementioned drugs and dies from an OD.

In my eyes there is too much of a liability concern for American companies to produce any of the "hard" drugs and they won't be able to shift any liability to the medical system (doctors) because doctors aren't going to be prescribing meth/coke/etc.

Some of you guys are living in some pre-Obama inauguration days when we were going to talk our way to peace with hope and change and blah, blah, blah. The problem is...reality exists...and within that reality live people of all types (nice, mean, racist, poor, rich, dumb, smart) who don't live by or play by the same rules as we do. Legalizing marijuana is not going to stop the violence in Mexico and will only be a band-aid for the budget, so the problems will still exist with the only difference being that you will legally be high and probably care less, lol.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Oct 11, 2010 - 9:27pm

cphbravo96:
Funny, because I have seen numerous instances where someone gets their home raided and it turns out it is nothing more than a green house...so individual people to manufacture drugs...like a meth lab posing as mobile home.

And budget deficits are not a rational reason to legalize something. If an engine is leaking oil, you don't just keep pouring oil in the top and say everything is fine. At the rate our budget is hemorrhaging we will have to legalize prostitution, human trafficking and slavery just to keep up.

Cph- Yes individuals produce drugs, but that is NOW, while it is illegal. Corporations cannot produce them for obvious reasons (the law). Remove those reasons and in come the corp's. And yes there are farmers markets, but that is a very small percentage overall, and even those prices would be much higher if it weren't for competition from the local supermarket.

Personally, I'm just looking at this situation from a practical view (I'm not even liberal), and the drinking age has nothing to do with MX drug crime. In fact, I would not oppose an age limit on pot (or other drugs) if legalized. This is about legalizing drugs to stop crime, just like ending prohibition did.
Similarly, the budget isn't the primary reason here (at least for me). Stopping drug violence is. Budget aid is just a nice benefit on the side. This thread is about how to fix the MX immigration/drug violence problem.

To address your point on the dangers/liabilities of drugs. Tobacco might not kill in one use, but alcohol certainly can, and does. Liquor/beer companies survive. Weed cannot kill instantly (maybe not at all).
Other drugs you may be right on, and as I've said a billion times in this thread, these drugs are where the debate should center.

 
Oct 13, 2010 - 1:18pm

cphbravo96:
Funny, because I have seen numerous instances where someone gets their home raided and it turns out it is nothing more than a green house...so individual people to manufacture drugs...like a meth lab posing as mobile home.

I just find it ironic that no one is arguing for abolishing the mandated drinking age or anything of the sort. The problem with most liberal arguments (not trying to fling mud, just providing insight from the other side's perspective) is that they want things both ways when depending on whatever is most convenient.

The government shouldn't be telling anyone what they can or can't consume but they should be able to tell us who can own guns or what type of guns and what type of ammo? Or "arms"...like that matters. If anything, the terms "arms" leaves it the more encompassing. I guess I should be allowed to purchase rocket launchers and surface to air missiles then.

And budget deficits are not a rational reason to legalize something. If an engine is leaking oil, you don't just keep pouring oil in the top and say everything is fine. At the rate our budget is hemorrhaging we will have to legalize prostitution, human trafficking and slavery just to keep up.

And regardless of what people say, drugs will always include an element of crime. If it isn't from the people selling it, it will be from the people buying it because unless it's free a person who wants/needs the drug will have to be able to pay for them. If they don't have money then they will need to find it/steal it in order to purchase the drugs or they will have to rob the pharmacies or dispensaries.

And how do you manufacture meth/crack/coke in a safe manner? These drugs all have to potential to kill you the first time you try/use them because of bad interactions with your system...not just because they were of a lesser quality. Legalizing weed is not the answer to the violence because all of these other drugs exist, therefor the suppliers (the cartels) will still be supplying them, unless US companies are going to do it and then suffer the consequences when some straight A student from white, middle class suburbia gets a hold of one of the aforementioned drugs and dies from an OD.

In my eyes there is too much of a liability concern for American companies to produce any of the "hard" drugs and they won't be able to shift any liability to the medical system (doctors) because doctors aren't going to be prescribing meth/coke/etc.

Some of you guys are living in some pre-Obama inauguration days when we were going to talk our way to peace with hope and change and blah, blah, blah. The problem is...reality exists...and within that reality live people of all types (nice, mean, racist, poor, rich, dumb, smart) who don't live by or play by the same rules as we do. Legalizing marijuana is not going to stop the violence in Mexico and will only be a band-aid for the budget, so the problems will still exist with the only difference being that you will legally be high and probably care less, lol.

Regards

I disagree with your second paragraph. That's not a liberal argument, that's a human nature problem. As stated above, I align myself with Libertarian beliefs. Please do not confuse that with modern liberal beliefs.

 
Oct 11, 2010 - 8:33pm

macro:
Cph -

I did not say those were the reasons why legalization should happen, I said those are the reasons why it will happen.

Got it.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Start Discussion

Popular Content See all

This Fucking Sucks
+49OFFby Prospective Monkey in Investment Banking - Mergers and Acquisitions">Prospect in IB-M&A
Why would any associate+ banker choose a BB over EB?
+31IBby Intern in Investment Banking - Mergers and Acquisitions">Intern in IB-M&A
PE isn’t the best way to get into b-school
+27BSCHby 2nd Year Associate in Private Equity - LBOs">Associate 2 in PE - LBOs
Share a day that looked like a Suits/Billions episode
+21IBby Intern in Investment Banking - Generalist">Intern in IB - Gen
What's Wrong with Warburg Industrial & Business Services?
+16PEby 1st Year Analyst in Investment Banking - Mergers and Acquisitions">Analyst 1 in IB-M&A

Total Avg Compensation

February 2021 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (9) $911
  • Vice President (31) $349
  • Associates (158) $231
  • 2nd Year Analyst (97) $151
  • Intern/Summer Associate (92) $144
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (23) $145
  • 1st Year Analyst (366) $131
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (304) $82

Leaderboard See all

1
LonLonMilk's picture
LonLonMilk
98.5
2
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.4
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.3
4
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
97.9
5
redever's picture
redever
97.8
6
frgna's picture
frgna
97.6
7
Addinator's picture
Addinator
97.6
8
NuckFuts's picture
NuckFuts
97.5
9
bolo up's picture
bolo up
97.5
10
Edifice's picture
Edifice
97.5