The Mexican Drug Wars

Not all illegal drugs are the same, of course, and so they shouldn't be treated the same. Marijuana is a gimme. There's no rational justification for keeping it illegal even if we didn't already have alcohol as a legal example to compare it to.

Harder drugs are a harder sell, but right now there are plenty of things you can get legally that are more damaging than many illegal drugs that people partake of for recreational purposes. Making any given drug legal doesn't have to mean making it available out of vending machines, just giving it some form of legal avenue for production and distribution and a non-stigmatized role in society when used responsibly.

I can think of no better example than prohibition. It didn't work on a fundamental level. The answer to that wasn't to do the same thing, only even harder. It was to admit that it's okay if someone wants to drink every once in a while, as long as they do it responsibly. Similarly, it's okay if someone wants to get high every once in a while, as long as they do it in a way that doesn't endanger anyone or inconvenience society.

As a heartlessly pragmatic incentive, one can also consider all the government money saved from not having to enforce inherently inefficient laws. As a followup, as Tom notes, you can tax this stuff and enjoy a new cash flow, too.

edited 6th Apr '11 4:04:55 PM by Karkadinn

"So we should just give up and legalize everything?"

Hell no. If you're going to legalize drugs on the logic that there will not then be illegal drug use, you might as well legalize all forms of homicide on the logic that there will not then be murder.

"Not all illegal drugs are the same, of course, and so they shouldn't be treated the same. Marijuana is a gimme. There's no rational justification for keeping it illegal even if we didn't already have alcohol as a legal example to compare it to. "

I have a difficult time considering the legalization of a substance with all the mind-altering capability of alcohol and more negative health effects than tobacco a "gimme".

"Harder drugs are a harder sell, but right now there are plenty of things you can get legally that are more damaging than many illegal drugs that people partake of for recreational purposes. Making any given drug legal doesn't have to mean making it available out of vending machines, just giving it some form of legal avenue for production and distribution and a non-stigmatized role in society when used responsibly.

I can think of no better example than prohibition. It didn't work on a fundamental level. The answer to that wasn't to do the same thing, only even harder. It was to admit that it's okay if someone wants to drink every once in a while, as long as they do it responsibly. Similarly, it's okay if someone wants to get high every once in a while, as long as they do it in a way that doesn't endanger anyone or inconvenience society. "

The analogy between prohibition and the illegalization of drugs is fundamentally broken, simply because alcohol can be consumed responsibly where no other mind-altering drug can.

Not true. There are many people out there who can do drugs responsibly. With a few exceptions, most of the drugs that are classified are not any more addictive than alcohol, and certainly less addictive than nicotine. Pot is the big one, but most of the hallucinogens are not chemically addictive, neither are some of the harder drugs like Ecstasy. Even cocaine can be argued as "less addictive than cigarettes".

It is not (or not just) a matter of addictiveness. Nicotine is about the most addictive drug known, but it has no mind-altering properties. Alcohol has mind-altering properties, but is not nearly as addictive. Also, simply because of the way it works on the brain, drinking small quantities will have far less of an effect on judgement or reasoning than most mind-altering drugs.

"I have a difficult time considering the legalization of a substance with all the mind-altering capability of alcohol and more negative health effects than tobacco a "gimme"."

Would you like to cite sources for that? Even assuming heavy use rather than the moderate use I'm advocating, as far as I was aware, there has been no conclusive scientific evidence that marijuana is worse than either of those two legal substances.

"The analogy between prohibition and the illegalization of drugs is fundamentally broken, simply because alcohol can be consumed responsibly where no other mind-altering drug can."

This, however, I KNOW is not true. At all.

There's also the fact that while cigarettes are rather harmful. they aren't likely to completely destroy someone's life or the lives of people around the way hard drugs can.

You know what else can destroy someone's life? Guns. Let's make guns illegal so people won't shoot each other anymore.

Then they will be forced back to using other weapons, like Knives, or Grenades.

Except guns are not addictive or mind-altering, and can be (and usually are) used responsibly. No one spends themselves out of house and home, looses teeth, ruins their health, and starts stealing scrap metal to pay for a gun habit. Nor does having a gun render someone incapable of making reasoned decisions about their actions and the consequences thereof, for both themselves and others.

Drugs, on the other hand, tend to be either addictive, dangerously mind-altering at any dosage, or both. And all drugs have serious negative health effects.

If it was just a matter of people ruining their own lives, I'd have no problem with the legalization of drugs, but it is not. The kind of people who are stupid enough to use drugs in the first place don't tend to be the most civic-minded. Once they are chemically dumbing themselves down even further, they become a danger to everyone around them through sheer, self-inflicted mental incompetency. Once they start getting addicted, they become maliciously dangerous to those around them in order to pay for their addictions.

There is no such thing as responsible drug use, because the very nature of drugs is to reduce reasoning capacity, and therefore erode responsibility. Saying otherwise is the same as saying that one can undergo a voluntary full frontal lobotomy and remain responsible and mentally competent.

edited 6th Apr '11 6:40:42 PM by Wanderhome

Again, Wanderhome, cite some sources, please. Oh, and I'm particularly concerned with your "The kind of people who are stupid enough to use drugs in the first place" line. Because it's making assumptions that I doubt an objective study would support, in the first place, and because in the second place it feeds into the typical 'They deserve it' mentality, which continues to do this country no good.

edited 6th Apr '11 6:47:36 PM by Karkadinn

You need a source saying that addicts steal, guns are not mind-altering, and mind-altering drugs reduce mental capacity?

Here's one for the first, here's one for the third. I'm afraid I can't give you one for the second, because no one is bat-shit insane enough that they need to be told that guns are not psychoactive chemicals.

Hey, the smell of expended gunpowder is quite pleasant, I'll have you know.

But it irritates my eyes, else I'd have no problem with the smell of consumed gunpowder.

Of course it's pleasant. The only things that are unpleasant about guns are accidental discharges and other people firing at you.

Or possibly heavy recoil, if you aren't used to it or you fire a lot of rounds.

Ugh, Wanderhome, please don't go linking to generic drug and crime articles as though I'm some imbecile who is completely unaware of the basic effects of drugs or the basic existence of crime. It's insulting.

Sources for the marijuana health concern being worse than tobacco, if you please.

Sources for drug users being intellectually inferior to non-drug users, if you please.

Sources for all currently illegal drugs being 'dangerously mind altering at any dosage,' in your words, if you please.

Drunk Girlfriend has noted the addiction issue, which you've sidestepped by saying that drugs that are mind-altering are just as bad regardless of addictive qualities. So let's hear why smoking a joint or even doing a hit of Ecstasy is worse than getting drunk. Because we all know there are some people who just throw their lives into a bottle and never look back, but I don't see you advocating making alcohol illegal again.

"Ugh, Wanderhome, please don't go linking to generic drug and crime articles as though I'm some imbecile who is completely unaware of the basic effects of drugs or the basic existence of crime. It's insulting."

If you believe that I insulted your intelligence by giving those links, then why did you ask for them?

"Sources for the marijuana health concern being worse than tobacco, if you please. "

The negative health effects of smoking marijuana.

"Sources for drug users being intellectually inferior to non-drug users, if you please."

The recreational use of mind-altering drugs is the conscious choice to reduce your own reasoning capacity at the cost of likely addiction and long-term health problems, without any medical need to do so. If you believe that self-harming acts with no personal benefit and the strong potential to lead to even more ill-advised acts are not stupid, then what, exactly, do you consider to be stupid?

"Sources for all currently illegal drugs being 'dangerously mind altering at any dosage, ' in your words, if you please."

Cocaine intoxication, PCP intoxication, psychological effects of methamphetamine, 2C-B, 2C-E, et cetera.

" So let's hear why smoking a joint or even doing a hit of Ecstasy is worse than getting drunk. "

They are not worse than "getting drunk", as that is by definition drinking to the point of impairment. They are worse than drinking in moderation, as ecstacy has much the same effects as drinking to impairment, even in small doses, and stands a chance of being immediately toxic in even small doses, while marijuana, as noted above, has worse long-term health effects.

I do not suggest making alcohol illegal because, as I said, it is possible to drink responsibly. If someone chooses to drink themselves out of house and home, it's their own fault.

EDIT: My point about addiction and mind-altering effect being considered together rather than separately is that most all illegal drugs are mind-altering to a notable degree. The ones that are less addictive than alcohol tend to have more extreme effects, while those that are less mind-altering tend to be more addictive. While some may be less dangerous than alcohol in one of those two ways, they are, on balance, worse.

edited 6th Apr '11 8:12:31 PM by Wanderhome

Meth addicts are that way. Too dumb to know better, and once started many of them get so hooked they turn to crime to get their meth fix.

Yeah - if drugs get legalized, Meth should never be on that list.

Dentists might be against that. Nothing says $$$ like someone desperate to fix their Meth Mouth.

It's worked for every country I know of that has. Hell. Portugal (or it was spain) gives out free heroine to addicts and ever since they legalized heroine their drug abuse rates plummet.

People generally don't get a positive response for drugs when they publicly humiliate themselves to get it. Imagine how pathetic a person will feel when they walk into a clinic and ask for heroine.

The Netherlands has legalized marijuana and their usage rate is way low.

Basically, the mexican drug cartels make a living off of illegally shipping drugs. Same thing with the 1920s mafia. Pull their source of income (IE illicit goods) and they collapse like a stack of cards.

I remember this, but I don't think it was either of those two countries.

Guys, this thread isn't about the American war on drugs or legalization of drugs in America. It's about friggen Mexico. Try to stay on topic.

Karkadinn: your position so far has been that if the US wasn't so hardassed about drugs, then Mexico wouldn't have the problems its having. Kindly explain why the US should be obligated to changes its domestic policy in order to make Mexico happy.

Dammit, just when I got something good to sink my teeth into. :( Wanderhome, if you want to start a new thread with those links, then I promise I'll take that part of the discussion there.

"Kindly explain why the US should be obligated to changes its domestic policy in order to make Mexico happy."

In a broad sense, I think it's sufficiently obvious that the existence of corrupt, crime-ridden countries is inherently detrimental to first world ones - the military and policing expenses alone are astronomical, and there isn't a news day where you can't read a story about some massive American expenditure in some third world country or other. All the more so for Mexico because there is no financially feasible way to seal off the border and leave them to rot - even if that were a politically pragmatic position, which it isn't. You can't cut off drug trafficking. Even as stigmatized as drugs are, there's just no practical way to do it.

If there is excessive crime, violence, and corruption in Mexico, that will always spill over into the US. Until Mexico becomes as good as the US or until the US becomes worse than Mexico (which I would not hold my breath on, for all my criticisms of this country). The first step to stopping all that is by drying up the profit for illegal drug suppliers in Mexico, and that requires some form of legalization. Your only other options are financially, logistically, and politically infeasible.

That's all just speaking practically, of course, and ignoring the moral ramifications which I would consider to be more important.

edited 7th Apr '11 8:04:08 AM by Karkadinn

There's a big problem with going "OK X and Y and Z drugs are now legal", it legitimizes the drug runners already here. Since they have control of the supply, they make all the money, and thus nothing changes in Mexico.

If you want to propose legalization of some things, you're going to have to have a plan so that the existing drug runners and dealers aren't the de facto monopoly.

I don't think it's sensible to assume that legalization wouldn't also entail competition. I can grow marijuana as a potted plant right now if I want to, not that that drug particularly appeals to me. However, even assuming that, profit margins for drugs would have nowhere to go but down from their current levels. Pre-established drug rings then have a choice - Keep their slice of the pie in a less profitable industry, or switch to a different and more profitable criminal enterprise. The more troublesome elements will take the latter, and that's what you want - it shrinks them down to a more manageable group to police while cleaning the drug industry of its worst elements.

edited 7th Apr '11 8:31:07 AM by Karkadinn

@Karkadinn: Fair enough, "this is the best way to solve a problem" is a much more reasonable than "the US should do this for Mexico's good", which is what you seemed to be saying before. That said, given that it's primarily a Mexican problem spilling over into American territory, I think that it would be legit for the US demand that Mexico get its shit in order. Not that I think that would be effective, but earlier you seemed to be acting like Mexico is the aggrieved party in this situation, which I find backwards.