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.*
Well, some of them will and some of them won't. Those recreational drug companies who are involved in other illegal markets will be targeted by law enforcement for their involvement in those other illegal markets. However, those recreational drug companies who aren't involved in other illegal markets won't be targeted by law enforcement, thus giving an advantage to the legitimate recreational drug companies.
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
That shows one of the major problems with our current drug law policies - how our legal system goes after
drug users much more ardently than they go after
drug suppliers. Drug users can go to jail so easily and for so long. Personally, I think treatment would be better than prison for most drug users. But our society would rather punish people than help them. I'm tired of potheads going to jail and junkies having to get involved in prison gangs to survive being locked up just because they've become a drug addict. I honestly think that just letting them be a drug addict until they choose to get treatment is a lesser evil than locking them up. Especially when you factor in the costs of taxpayers to pay for incarceration and drug courts. Those
receiving those taxpayer monies, however, naturally want to keep it going, however.
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.
Personally, I think that a majority of things that are illegal in this country should be legalized and regulated. The major three I can think of are drugs, prostitution, and gambling. I want all three of those activities legalized in this country on a large scale because I think doing so would lead to better results than keeping them illegal.
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.
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?
Not necessarily. Chevy and Ford don't engage in any
violent activities for market dominance. So those cartels that become wholly legitimate will
stop engaging in other violent and illegal activities. This is because if we legalize the drug market, consumers can choose which companies to buy their recreational drugs from. Since violence is an unacceptable quality consumers find in companies, consumers won't purchase products from companies that engage in it.
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.
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.
I don't think you realize how much revenue comes in from the illegal drug trade. A U.N. report in 2003 estimated the global illegal drug trade to be worth $321.6 billion. That's $321.6 billion that could be taxed and subjected to regulated competition. That would put a major dent in the pockets of criminal cartels. It would also reduce taxpayer money going to fund the enforcement and judicial process of these harsh drug laws as well as the incarceration of drug suppliers and drug users. Instead, those tax monies can be used for regulation of the drug trade and treatment of drug users.
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.
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'
This is the equivalent of saying that women shouldn't have voting rights just because for a long time they had no voting rights, or that we shouldn't ensure the civil rights and civil liberties of minorities just because we hadn't for a long time. Justification of a policy just because "it's how we've done it for a long time" is no justification at all.
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.
This may be true. However, not everyone who consumes recreational drug is evil or immoral. In the past, many people used recreational drugs for spiritual reasons. Psychiatrists have experimented with the positive use of the drug Ecstasy for therapeutic purposes.
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.