• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mexico is just getting worse

Cigarettes and coffee have addictive properties too. Nicotine and caffeine are drugs too. There are adverse health effects for both nicotine and caffeine. But we allow them to be legal.


Nicotine, in particular, is actually far more addictive than a number of street drugs.
 
Will marijuana legalization solve the problem? Probably not. But it will reduce the influence of cartels by robbing them of a significant chunk of their income. You're right, probably, that the profit margins are higher for meth and heroin, but there's also a much smaller market for those drugs. I've seen different estimates as to how much of cartel revenue stems from pot, but it's somewhere between 25%-60%. Even if it's the low end number, a 25% reduction in revenue is a body blow to those organizations.
Im totally on board for legalizing pot for reasons totally unrelated to mexicos drug war problem. if as a residual effect it improves their situation? Well...winner winner.
 
Frankly, the Mexican government is just about as corrupt as the drug cartels. The officials are easily bought off, and answer to no one.

As for sending some of our troops- hell no.

And the reason why the Mexican government is so corrupt is because they can't generate enough tax revenues to compete with criminal cartels.

And the reason why they can't generate high enough tax revenues is because they cannot develop their economy to one that is more modern and diversified.

And the reason why they can't modernize and diversify their economy is because drug cartels control one of their biggest markets - the manufacture and transport of recreational drugs.

If Mexico were to legalize recreational drugs they could tax it, which would generate a revenue stream for the government, which would allow them to pay their government official decent wages, which would help them become less corrupt as well as allow that money to diversify into other economic sectors.
 
You're likely right with the Afghanistan/poppy analogy, but I would think that with the level of industriousness among the Mexican people, they would be able to come up with some other industries which could enrich the country as a whole.

They could - but the incredible violence of the drug cartels is stifling that industriousness. Which means we need to take away the power of the drug cartels. And the most efficient way to do that is to legalize the drug trade.

Free the use of recreational drugs and you free the ability of the Mexican people to develop their own economy.
 
Im totally on board for legalizing pot for reasons totally unrelated to mexicos drug war problem. if as a residual effect it improves their situation? Well...winner winner.


I totally agree that there are other reasons to legalize marijuana. It's basically harmless and has no meaningful impact on anyone. Since we ostensibly live in a free society, we really shouldn't need reasons to make something legal, we should need reasons to make something illegal.
 
so - it's a lose-lose situation.

Illegal = drug cartels, individuals and dealers are violent and dominating
Legal = drug manufacturers, individuals and dealers are violent and dominating

The % spread of who's violent and what they do - that's what changes. Aren't we tapped out with it being illegal already?

If drug were legal, we would still get drug users who engage in violence of a sort.

What we will take away, though, is violence caused by criminal organizations.

There is a difference between having drug addicts who individually flip out and commit acts of violence because they get high on a certain drug and having a large organized paramilitary force that is capable of slaughtering an entire town and commit political assassinations.

If I had to choose between the two, I would pick the former any day.
 
They could - but the incredible violence of the drug cartels is stifling that industriousness. Which means we need to take away the power of the drug cartels. And the most efficient way to do that is to legalize the drug trade.

Free the use of recreational drugs and you free the ability of the Mexican people to develop their own economy.

But they weren't doing anything of the sort prior to the advancement of the drug cartels, and corruption of Mexican officials has been common for decades, if not longer. I really think the problem is much deeper than the cartels.
 
It doesn't necessarily stop usage, which is true.

But what is does do is stop violence caused by criminal organizations who seek to control the drug trade while it is criminalized.

It will also allow us to spend our tax revenue on prohibiting much more important crimes, such as human trafficking and sex slavery, which are huge problems right now. So what I would like to see is the elimination of the DEA but for the money we spent on that to prohibit the modern slave trade.

I think that is a much worse problem that trying to stop people who want to use drugs themselves.
Heres the thing about drug cartels. They are in it to win it. Marijuana was easy til it wasnt. Heroin and meth is the new thing. Shut off the profitability of marijuana and they will find another more vicious and viable drug to import. Cocaine was not all that bad a drug to manage until they started to rock it. Now...crack is a bitch to fight. We can change our game and they will adjust tactics, tools, types. At some point...mejico is going to have to do real battle with their cartels. Its going to be brutal. People need to realize who we are talking about. We are talking about people that have been for the last several years leaving headless bodies strewn across their countryside.
 
But they weren't doing anything of the sort prior to the advancement of the drug cartels, and corruption of Mexican officials has been common for decades, if not longer. I really think the problem is much deeper than the cartels.

No, you are right. For example, their inability to modernize their economy, and their historical reliance as a source of cheap physical labor. Historically, there are many factors to all that.

But I think right now, in this contemporary time, the emerging narco-terrorist state that Mexico is becoming is inhibiting the development of their country much more than any other factor.
 
Heres the thing about drug cartels. They are in it to win it. Marijuana was easy til it wasnt. Heroin and meth is the new thing. Shut off the profitability of marijuana and they will find another more vicious and viable drug to import. Cocaine was not all that bad a drug to manage until they started to rock it. Now...crack is a bitch to fight. We can change our game and they will adjust tactics, tools, types. At some point...mejico is going to have to do real battle with their cartels. Its going to be brutal. People need to realize who we are talking about. We are talking about people that have been for the last several years leaving headless bodies strewn across their countryside.

Which is why I, personally, am an advocate for legalization of absolutely all recreational drugs.

I admit that I am a radical in this, and so I don't speak for all those who favor drug legalization.

But my thoughts on drug legalization is that allowing people to do recreational drugs - including extremely hard ones such as meth and cocaine - is less of a societal blight that what criminalization of those drugs cause.

That's my very personal opinion, though. I'm fine with people getting high with whatever they want to. I'm tired of paying so much money trying to stop people from doing it.
 
Which is why I, personally, am an advocate for legalization of absolutely all recreational drugs.

I admit that I am a radical in this, and so I don't speak for all those who favor drug legalization.

But my thoughts on drug legalization is that allowing people to do recreational drugs - including extremely hard ones such as meth and cocaine - is less of a societal blight that what criminalization of those drugs cause.

That's my very personal opinion, though. I'm fine with people getting high with whatever they want to. I'm tired of paying so much money trying to stop people from doing it.

This is the only problem I have with legalization across the board: With American culture the way it is, what we would end up with is a never-ending string of addicts which we would be supporting with tax dollars. It would become a "disability", and we would be paying for perpetual rehab for basically non-productive people (much more than we currently have on the rolls). If we could legalize, and make it the responsibility of the users to pay for their own rehab, and pay for their own means of living, I'm with you on the issue.
 
Which is why I, personally, am an advocate for legalization of absolutely all recreational drugs.

I admit that I am a radical in this, and so I don't speak for all those who favor drug legalization.

But my thoughts on drug legalization is that allowing people to do recreational drugs - including extremely hard ones such as meth and cocaine - is less of a societal blight that what criminalization of those drugs cause.

That's my very personal opinion, though. I'm fine with people getting high with whatever they want to. I'm tired of paying so much money trying to stop people from doing it.
Im all for the legalizing of all recreational drugs...provided that ANY users be denied ALL government social services.
 
Im all for the legalizing of all recreational drugs...provided that ANY users be denied ALL government social services.

You have obviously never been stuck on a Las Vegas hotel elevator with a meth freak at 2 AM.
 
Last edited:
This is the only problem I have with legalization across the board: With American culture the way it is, what we would end up with is a never-ending string of addicts which we would be supporting with tax dollars. It would become a "disability", and we would be paying for perpetual rehab for basically non-productive people (much more than we currently have on the rolls). If we could legalize, and make it the responsibility of the users to pay for their own rehab, and pay for their own means of living, I'm with you on the issue.

We could set up the structures for these things.

Hell, at the very least we would allow those people who are wealthy enough who can afford their addiction and possible rehab to no longer support criminal organizations. Just because someone is a drug addict doesn't inherently mean they can't earn a living while an addict.
 
Im all for the legalizing of all recreational drugs...provided that ANY users be denied ALL government social services.

How about we make a compromise?

Our compromise will be that any tax revenue generated from sales of all recreational drugs will be used for social support programs for drug addicts. That way, collectively as a group, they will be supporting themselves.

Is that fair enough?
 
We could set up the structures for these things.

Hell, at the very least we would allow those people who are wealthy enough who can afford their addiction and possible rehab to no longer support criminal organizations. Just because someone is a drug addict doesn't inherently mean they can't earn a living while an addict.

To the bolded: I agree, but alot of folks would see it as an easy way out.
 
How about we make a compromise?

Our compromise will be that any tax revenue generated from sales of all recreational drugs will be used for social support programs for drug addicts. That way, collectively as a group, they will be supporting themselves.

Is that fair enough?

As a libertarian, I advocate for freedom to do things which may be harmful, but along with that, comes the responsibility to fix your own screw-ups.
 
To the bolded: I agree, but alot of folks would see it as an easy way out.

Then let's build together a society in which people don't feel they need to take drugs as an easy way out.
 
As a libertarian, I advocate for freedom to do things which may be harmful, but along with that, comes the responsibility to fix your own screw-ups.

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist and understand that economies of scale are a good thing. So we can attain them in regards to social support by having them pay for it collectively. We could also ban such social programs from achieving funding in any way other than through taxes on these drugs. That way, other people won't be paying for social programs to drug users as a whole.
 
Then let's build together a society in which people don't feel they need to take drugs as an easy way out.

That would take an entire cultural change, which isn't going to happen at any time in the forseeable future. The life of a drug addict is so tied in with emotional and psychological factors, that they are going to do the drugs regardless of legality, health risk, or any other deterrent. They wouldn't take them as an easy way out. They would become addicted, and then try to find the way to continue supporting their habit without any input of their own.
 
How about we make a compromise?

Our compromise will be that any tax revenue generated from sales of all recreational drugs will be used for social support programs for drug addicts. That way, collectively as a group, they will be supporting themselves.

Is that fair enough?
Im all for compromise...especially since I dont see us really dictating policy! ;)

However...Id offer sale of Marijuana, but while I wouldnt arrest people for using heroin/crack, etc, I damn sure wouldnt allow for commercial sales.
 
Nicotine, in particular, is actually far more addictive than a number of street drugs.

Physically, yes. Psychologically, no. Nicotine isn't mind-altering, except that you might get a little pick-up in mental energy. As someone who did quite a bit of experimenting when I was in my late teens, I assure you there is no comparison.
 
Im all for compromise...especially since I dont see us really dictating policy! ;)

However...Id offer sale of Marijuana, but while I wouldnt arrest people for using heroin/crack, etc, I damn sure wouldnt allow for commercial sales.

How about we permit commercial sales, because then that would allow the government to easily regulate the quality of manufactured drugs as a safety measure, but prohibit advertisement to consumers, limit the quantity that can be purchased via a databank, and allow them to be purchased only at licensed distributors, such as pharmacies?
 
We could set up the structures for these things.

Hell, at the very least we would allow those people who are wealthy enough who can afford their addiction and possible rehab to no longer support criminal organizations. Just because someone is a drug addict doesn't inherently mean they can't earn a living while an addict.

Keith Richards, Rush Limbaugh, Jack Kennedy, Hunter Thompson, Billie Holliday, Plexico Burgess (if he wasn't a drug addict he should have been), Ted Haggard, to name a few.
 
Back
Top Bottom