Bloody Drug WAR for Cartels to Kill and Make Billions of Profits by Selling Amounts of Drugs
Well - what's the point in legalizing various drugs? 1) To get rid of drug cartels which only make a portion of their profits from the sell of illicit drugs? 2) Or to take away one problem (illegal drug use)? 3) Or to deal with yet another - overcrowded prisons? 4) Or perhaps to curtail their activities, tone them down so they're less violent? 5) Quell the cartels from fighting between theirselves.
Ok - let's pretend that we make drugs legal - maybe a few extreme drugs remain illegal but most are deemed ok. Cocaine, marijuana, what else?
So - it's now legal to sell (with limits, regulations and taxes, of course, like any other legal product). It's legal to own, legal to use.
Let's set aside moral quandaries since those aren't related to the actual issue at hand.
That keeps users out of jail. Only non-drug crimes get one into jail, now (though, likely, DUI's would still be filed, etc - the routine stuff . . . we still expect people to be reasonable with their use).
How does it affect the Cartels?
They no longer have a solid crutch in the illicit drug-market. Their illicit drug market was just made legal. So, instead of gaining money illegally they, now, can gain that same profit legally. They must abide by whatever rules and regulations are now in place (licenses, fees, etc). But, they are now partially legitimate business "groups" if you will.
Problem 1) How does that, then, make them "go away" - the Cartels will still be there, they will just have a leg in a legal market - and legs in other illegal markets: weapons, auto-theft, etc. . . so, while altered, they're still *there.*
2 & 3) It does, however, keeps a lot of people out of jail, so if that's your goal then that's a plus. And certainly if you make using a drug legal then no one's using it illegally, are they? So that immediately nulls #2
4) Tone down their activities? Indeed - it will tone down their illicit-drug related activities as far as violence *only* related to drug smuggling occurs. But what about their other means of profit and violence? Weapons, auto-theft rings? What about that?
Since drugs are now legalized - the profit is severely curtailed. Note - when something is illegal the seller/provider can charge whatever they see fit - pure profit. So, if a government regulates it - then that profit has seriously been cut down . . . leaving them to possibly seeking to make up for that profit in other ways.
So, while reducing one issues: drug-related crimes. There will be an undoubted spike in other issues: non drug related crimes.
5) Will this end cartels fighting between their selves - which accounts for a good portion of issues that Mexico and other countries are dealing with?
The logical answer is no - their market has changed but their competition between each other will still there. They will still fight each other for dominance in the legal and illegal markets where they make their living, will they not?
And - as a result of altering how things currently are you come up with new Problems. . .
Problem #6) Enforcement of the rules. If drugs are purchased legally across country borders who will enforce them? Their government? Do you believe their government will be capable of dealing with a cartel merely because a portion of their business has been legalized?
If they don't keep them in check, then what?
There's no statistics to turn to - so we can only speculate.
There is one notable difference between Prohibition and our current drug legalities: Prohibition was short lived . . . it took what a lot of people enjoyed and made it bad. If they left it in place and it was still in place today would everyone have a different view of it?
How long have illicit drugs been illegal? Far longer than alcohol was illegal - it is, by majority, still socially and culturally unacceptable - unlike alcohol where more people than not drank to some degree to begin with.
I feel that this difference - well - it makes a huge difference when comparing a common and socially acceptable means of 'curing ones ails' vs a socially unacceptable means of 'curing ones ails'
So - on to Problem #7)
How do you get rid of a illegal activity?
You can't - it's been proven time and time again that you cannot completely annihilate "gang" activity - it will always be there. Weapons dealing, auto theft, jewelry theft, drugs, black market organs even.
You cannot make everything legal - there will always be illegal activity for someone to latch onto as a means of making mega profit and rendering underlings as minions in an army.
This is why we will never win the "war on terror" and why we will always have "street gangs" and other forces to fight - not everyone's a good soul or moral character.
Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 06-18-10 at 09:46 PM.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
There will be other activities that won't be worth any kind of legalization. Among these are human slavery and robbery. But while there will be a spike in those non-drug related crimes, we'll also have better resources to tackle them since we won't be going after drug-related crimes. What I mean to say is that if we make recreational drugs legal, much of the resources of the DEA can be re-tasked to other law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and the ATF, to go after other, more serious illegal activities.
To put it into perspective, let's look at a company in an already legitimate market who has engaged in business practices unacceptable to consumers: British Petroleum.
The Florida Gulf oil spill and the response to it by BP has been extremely poor. As a result of this, protesters are getting consumers to boycott the purchase of petroleum products from BP and the company is also undergoing a Congressional investigation. Their stocks has dropped and heads will roll for their complacency.
And as a result, other oil companies who have not engaged in unacceptable business practices, such as Chevron and Shell and Exxon-Mobil, will benefit.
The same thing will happen to those recreational drug companies that pursue other illegal markets. Consumers will not purchase recreational drugs from a company that has ties to illegal activities when they can purchase recreational drugs from companies that don't. Therefore, those legitimate recreational drug companies will outlast competition with those still involved with illegitimate markets.
As for foreign countries being able to still handle criminal cartels, it's iffy. I mean, yeah, organized crime could still be involved in legitimate drug companies who will influence the government. But money will also still go to companies in those countries that aren't involved in criminal cartels.
You also have to realize the kind of hectic pace modern American living demands. Most Americans work hard. Therefore, I believe they should also be allowed to play hard. Recreational drug use is a coping mechanism for stress. However, Americans have a difficult time managing stress. This is mostly because of financial and work reasons. So until such a time as Americans get more labor rights to reduce stress with such things as tax-paid maternity and paternity leave, and government enforced 8 week vacation time every year, I think Americans should be allowed to smoke a doobie or shoot up some H in order to cope with the demands of living in the society that we do.
Personally I think all drugs ought to be legal but at the very least legalize Marijuana. I think a misconception people have is that if you legalize hard drugs the usage will rise. This is entirely not true, The dutch have legalized heroin and the usage has actually dropped. Not to mention the users are supplied with sterile equipment when they buy their drugs reducing the transitions of diseases. You also would do away with a massive, MASSIVE amount of criminal activity.
Marijuana has been criminalized since the Uniform State Narcotic Act of 1932. Marijuana has been classified as a narcotic through the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs and the U.S. Controlled Substances Act. Why this is so escapes me. From the wiki page on Narcotics:
There are good pragmatic reasons to legalize marijuana. These include the observation that drug use is a health problem and not a criminal problem, the removal of a black market for drug trafficking, the undermining and reduction in criminal enterprise associated with illegal drugs, both at the street level and at the organized crime level, the fact that the War On Drugs creates crime and criminal enterprise. It even has foreign policy and national security implications as international cartels destabilize our allies in central and latin america as they supply the drug demand of the USA.A looser usage of the word "narcotic" to refer to any illegal or unlawfully possessed drug including marijuana and herion is common worldwide, although these substances are not considered narcotics in a medical or scientific context. The central drug policy making body within the United Nations, for instance, is the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, although the United Nations officially defines a narcotic drug to be "any of the substances, natural or synthetic, in Schedules I and II of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and that Convention as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961" Used in this manner the word "narcotic" is a useful if not wholly accurate label to denote any drug that is subject to the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, or similar legislation elsewhere.
However, it is not the intent of the website to rehash these arguments, which have been heard before. My intent is to focus on one thing. I aim to discuss the Principle underlying the criminalization and proposed legalization of cannabis. The principle we should use to evaluate the moral imperative of the criminalization of marijuana is what is known as the Harm Principle. Although there were previous mentions and outlines of this principle, one of the first known in writing is the Grandfather of the Constitution, John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government in 1689. This work was continued, and best enunciated, by John Stuart Mill in his On Liberty, published in 1859.
The harm principle is the bolded phrase quoted: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
– John Stuart Mill
A corollary to harm to others is regarding harm to self: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
So we must see if the use of marijuana, for medical or recreation use violates the Harm Principle. There is nothing in the smoking of marijuana which causes harm to others. Actions taken while under the influence may cause harm but that is the fault of those actions taken irresponsibly, like driving, and it is not the fault of the use of marijuana. A corollary is alcohol. It may be said that second hand smoke is harmful, but the legality of cigarettes belies this observation. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the other individual to avoid second hand smoke if they are concerned.
As shown, there is no violation of the Harm Principle. Under what principle, then, we may ask, is Marijuana to be considered criminal? The answer is none.
So, what can we do about it?
- The classification of Marijuana as a Schedule 1 Narcotic should be overturned immediately. Marijuana should not be classified as on any Schedule. It should be classified as Alcohol is, regulated but not a Controlled substance.
- All criminal code regarding Marijuana should be revised.
- The DEA should be forced to stop pursuing Marijuana crimes, including the production, transport, distribution, sale and consumption of Marijuana.
- The standards for security clearances should be immediately revised to exclude any mention of Marijuana as a substance investigated under drug use.
- Release all non-violent drug offenders from prison.
These actions are to be taken under the firm principle that Marijuana use is not a violation of the Harm Principle. Another colloquial way to say this is the phrase "No Harm, No Foul".
Last edited by reefedjib; 06-19-10 at 02:08 AM.