News Mexican Drug War: Examining Sinaloa's Power

[redpenguin]

When you take a step back to assess the original goals of prohibition; to reduce addiction, to reduce crime, and to keep drugs out of the hands of children; you'll see that we have failed miserably in every category. That is not to say everyone's intentions weren't in the right place, but it was the means by which we wanted to tackle these goals that was (and still is) the problem. Make no mistake about it, prohibition is not the only option we have for combating the use and distribution of drugs.

When we chose to ban the use and distribution of certain drugs/chemicals we did not predict the massive amount of unregulated sales would result from this action. By making drugs illegal we have inflated the value of these illicit substances, making the sale all-the-more lucrative for the entrepreneur, and the stakes even higher for protecting their investments.

When a drug dealer gets robbed, they can't go to the police to the police to report a crime. Instead they are faced with the dilemma as to whether they should arm themselves in order to gain a sense of protection. As a result, a sort of vigilantism arises from the unregulated distribution of drugs. Not to mention an inflated incentive for individuals to target drug dealers due to the lack of legal consequences they face. In this way, the Mexican drug wars are a prime example of how an unregulated market can result in uncontrolled vigilantism. This sort of violence does not happen surrounding the sale of drugs in a pharmacy or drugstore.

 

[Proton Soup]

Or you can look at it from this angle. It was determined in the past that marijuana is harmful to people when used. They made it illegal for this reason. Then later, due to a large number of people insisting on using it, a thriving black market run by criminals sells it to people. So we decide to cave to the demand and make it legal. This isn't about whether or not you think it is harmful, this is about why it was illegal in the first place.

the reason it was illegal in the first place is because "we" decided that we didn't like those people who used it, and we didn't want our children to be influenced by them. it's a lot more about "sin" and not being able to identify with another group than anything substantive like harm. because many of those same people were imbibing in their own intoxicants that they thought were just swell.

i think if marijuana is eventually legalized (and it seems to be heading in that direction), then it will be for the same reason that prohibition was repealed: because a large segment of the population identified with alcohol and people who drank and decided that they liked it. for the same reason, i don't think you will see some of the harder drugs legalized: not mainstream, and an inability to identify with people that look like walking death.

 

[Pattonias]

i think if marijuana is eventually legalized (and it seems to be heading in that direction), then it will be for the same reason that prohibition was repealed: because a large segment of the population identified with alcohol and people who drank and decided that they liked it. for the same reason, i don't think you will see some of the harder drugs legalized: not mainstream, and an inability to identify with people that look like walking death.

Finally, an argument that I can agree with. I personally don't think marijuana is the worst thing in the world, but I do worry about setting up a precedent by which other drugs can be made legal simply by argueing that it is easier to not have it legal than for it to be illegal.
Marijuana is not so bad itself, many of the arguements that are made to make it legal could just as easily be used to legitimize other drugs. I just want this to progress in such a way that avoids something like that.

 

[GRB 080319B]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/06/19/mexico.mayor.killed/index.html?hpt=T1"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/06/11/mexico.shootings/index.html"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/latin_america/10260789.stm"

 

[GRB 080319B]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/byivvOzteqw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/byivvOzteqw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[ginru]

It seems to me that the main problem isn't so much in the legalization of an addictive substance, but rather the type of organization that sells it to consumers. We don't want criminal groups to continue running the recreational drug industry for all of the obvious reasons. But then legalizing the drugs would only create a free market corporate system whose main purpose would be to maximize profits by getting large numbers of people hooked on their product. They'd use sophisticated marketing campaigns to essentially make drug addiction into a socially acceptable occurrence.

Perhaps there could be an effective middle ground by turning to the non-profit sector. The drugs in question would be legalized but the distribution would only be allowed through a strictly monitored/regulated division of nonprofit organizations that would simultaneously run rehab clinics and counseling programs. They would be required to channel most of their profits back into public health, education and community service programs.

In fact, I think all of the industries upon which criminal organizations have thrived (drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, etc.) should be legalized and put into the hands of closely regulated NPOs. This would deprive the gangs of their revenue while limiting the potential legalization side-effects of corporate greed.

 

[Pattonias]

It seems to me that the main problem isn't so much in the legalization of an addictive substance, but rather the type of organization that sells it to consumers. We don't want criminal groups to continue running the recreational drug industry for all of the obvious reasons. But then legalizing the drugs would only create a free market corporate system whose main purpose would be to maximize profits by getting large numbers of people hooked on their product. They'd use sophisticated marketing campaigns to essentially make drug addiction into a socially acceptable occurrence.

Perhaps there could be an effective middle ground by turning to the non-profit sector. The drugs in question would be legalized but the distribution would only be allowed through a strictly monitored/regulated division of nonprofit organizations that would simultaneously run rehab clinics and counseling programs. They would be required to channel most of their profits back into public health, education and community service programs.

In fact, I think all of the industries upon which criminal organizations have thrived (drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, etc.) should be legalized and put into the hands of closely regulated NPOs. This would deprive the gangs of their revenue while limiting the potential legalization side-effects of corporate greed.

Wouldn't we still have illegal abuse in this program as people could get the product without the hassle of dealing with the government? This would not solve the problem of it costing too much to stop the illegal sale of the drugs. I think a program like this would prove useful to those trying to quit, but doesn't something like that already exist? Why would it be "greedy" for a corporation to try and make a profit? At least the goals of taxation and regulation could be inforced on a corporation. Why couldn't they make a profit as well?
Isn't that why anyone does anything?

 

[Proton Soup]

Wouldn't we still have illegal abuse in this program as people could get the product without the hassle of dealing with the government? This would not solve the problem of it costing too much to stop the illegal sale of the drugs. I think a program like this would prove useful to those trying to quit, but doesn't something like that already exist? Why would it be "greedy" for a corporation to try and make a profit? At least the goals of taxation and regulation could be inforced on a corporation. Why couldn't they make a profit as well?
Isn't that why anyone does anything?

we have a methadone program. nice little cash cow for the docs.

 

[ginru]

Wouldn't we still have illegal abuse in this program as people could get the product without the hassle of dealing with the government? This would not solve the problem of it costing too much to stop the illegal sale of the drugs. I think a program like this would prove useful to those trying to quit, but doesn't something like that already exist? Why would it be "greedy" for a corporation to try and make a profit? At least the goals of taxation and regulation could be inforced on a corporation. Why couldn't they make a profit as well?
Isn't that why anyone does anything?

It's the abusive lifestyle or reckless usage of a substance that needs to be dealt with rather than worrying about people getting access to the drugs. That's why I'd require profits of legalized drug sales to be put into researching methods to help users live a balanced lifestyle while controlling their addiction (essentially what responsible drinkers and gamblers do already).

Within our society, there are many addictive activities around us (smoking, drinking, online gaming, etc.) but rather than banning any of them I’ve always felt a better strategy would emphasize a responsible managing of addiction. I simply don’t believe in prohibiting/policing the public's recreational vices since all that does is allow the criminals to prosper from the supply/demand void. Besides, when one gang is shut down then inevitably another takes its place anyway.

As for the corporate greed factor, I see nothing wrong with healthy ambition but it becomes dangerous (greed) when public well-being is disregarded in favor of greater profit margins. An example would be the colorful beer ads that glamorize drinking as a “must-have” recreational activity despite the drunken driving accidents, family abuse, and overall violence to which alcohol abuse has contributed. This is why I don’t favor legalizing drugs just to give the reigns to another set of coldly opportunistic distributors.

Instead of having commercial organizations invest millions into popularizing a drug or addiction, the non-profit strategy I mentioned would prioritize the funding of innovative approaches to promote a safer, cleaner, and more responsible recreational usage of the previously banned substances/activities. Profits would also serve cost-cutting strategies so as to permanently put the criminal groups out of business through the comprehensive creation of a better product.

 

[GRB 080319B]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/0...say-people-slain-1957045669/?test=latestnews"

 

[GRB 080319B]

http://www.thetelegram.com/Canada---World/Arts/2010-07-23/article-1606744/Prosecutors-say-18-dead-found-at-suspected-drug-gang-body-dumping-ground-in-northern-Mexico/1"

 

[GRB 080319B]

http://www.thetelegram.com/Canada---World/Arts/2010-07-23/article-1606744/Prosecutors-say-18-dead-found-at-suspected-drug-gang-body-dumping-ground-in-northern-Mexico/1"

Update:
Mexican authorities find 38 bodies hidden in mass graves.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/federal-authorities-indict-top-leaders-of-tijuana-based-drug-cartel.html"