JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

originally posted in: War on drugs?
4/25/2013 12:46:34 PM
15
If you legalize drugs, drug cartels will go away. Some Columbian gangster isn't going to compete with American industry producing the crop here and selling it in a safe, regulated environment. Tell me why if you want some cocaine would you go down to Jerome on the West side in a bad neighborhood, risking getting robbed and shot, all for an unregulated, untested product when you could drive down to a store in a safer area and buy from a registered dealer that you know their product is going to be clean and you won't get jacked by the cashier? Same argument for prostitution. Legalizing all but drives most prostitutes off the streets. No one is going to pay $50 for half and half from a strung out crack whore who probably has AIDS when they can go to a brothel and know they are getting a clean girl, even if they have to pay double or triple.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Really? You don't think drug addicts would just go for whatever was cheapest? "Oh look the American gov is selling coke now...quick cut our prices, we'll still make a ton of cash, and flood the market. The fiends will lap that shit up" - A Columbian Drug Lord To say the "drug cartels will go away" is disingenuous at best.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by A Good Troll: 4/25/2013 1:05:50 PM
    Of course price is relevant. But in a legalized environment, American-produced drugs will be cheaper. Cartels still face all the costs of transporting goods from Columbia - thousands of miles of transport, trying to get it across the border (and losing a good portion in the process), and then selling it wholesale on the streets. It would still be illegal for cartels to sell drugs because they would not be licensed dealers. Look at moonshine. Does moonshine still exist? Barely. And that is produced here in America illegally, not thousands of miles away. And besides, drug use for [url=http://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE16/PPE2008-10.pdf]cocaine and meth[/url] are actually not directly higher among the poor. Rich people do cocaine at about the same rates as poor people. They would care less about price discrepancies.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Swim Good: 4/25/2013 4:06:58 PM
    I still don't see how drug cartels will let their business slip away from them without a fight. The US, for example, consumes around 40% of the world's cocaine and I don't see how anyone producing a good, of any sort, would just let nearly half their business be taken from them. The cost of drugs is also only high (for some drugs) as it goes through so many hands from source to street. Cocaine is cheap as chips (not to mention stronger) the closer you get to the producer's country and I'm sure the Colombians could happily cut out the middle men if their business was threatened. You have to think as well that drugs produced by the US Gov would have to be priced high enough to cover the cost of production, refinement, packaging and transport whilst also paying for employee wages etc not to even mention taxation that might be applied. There's nothing to suggest that the US gov coke would be any cheaper given that their overheads are going to be far in excess of those incurred by Colombian drug lords (I know it's not really comparable but I read an article the other day that said, if iPods were manufactured in the US rather than in a sweat shop in China, they'd costs thousands of dollars rather than a couple of hundred given the increased overheads). The only solution I could think of would be to buy from the source but that then legitimises Drug Cartels and, given their history of violence, I don't see that happening.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Like AGT said, just look at the alcohol market. Is there a large underground market for unregulated and untaxed booze? Not really. There used to be, during the prohibition era, but then prohibition ended, and the underground market withered. That's what happens. The cartels will try to salvage their business, of course. They'll lower their prices as much as they can and try to find ways to cut costs (like any business), but ultimately they'll be unable to compete. Also, consider this: there are a hell of a lot more booze drinkers than drug users in the U.S. Why do the cartels not also try to import unregulated booze to tap a larger market? Could it be because the legal market sells at a price so low that the cartels could not possibly compete? And why would this not also hold true for drugs, should they become legalized?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Swim Good: 4/25/2013 2:06:27 PM
    I don't think you can compare the two seeing as how cocaine has been illegal for over a century and booze has been legal (in the US) since prohibition ended. To have an accurate comparison you'd need to see what would happen if booze was made legal now after a lengthy period of illegality. The comparison becomes even more redundant when you think how making moonshine isn't cost effective in the slightest when compared with the large commercial alcohol manufacturers and that the same can't be said for the cocaine trade (or any drug trade for that matter) for the reasons I've given above. With that being said, there are problems with black market booze in a lot of countries (such as the UK). Hell, black market cigs are even becoming a big problem in the UK too. And both of those are perfectly legal. Though I'd suggest it's the massive amount of tax placed on the two in the UK that leads to there being this problem (as it makes the black market supply more cost effective than it otherwise would have been) and, obviously, the same level of taxation isn't applicable in the US. So to say that "We don't get black market booze so black market cocaine wouldn't happen" is, as far as I'm concerned, making far too many assumptions.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by RighteousTyrant: 4/25/2013 2:36:25 PM
    [quote]So to say that "We don't get black market booze so black market cocaine wouldn't happen" is, as far as I'm concerned, making far too many assumptions.[/quote]You say this as if your theory that legal producers wouldn't be able to compete on price doesn't also rely on a butt-ton of assumptions and comparisons whose veracity even you question. *sigh* EDIT: I was going to add much more and then I got BSOD'd. To your point above about middle men, those aren't mere middle men, as we might think of them in the US for legal goods. Those guys know how to smuggle things through whatever areas they operate in. They provide a valuable and difficult-to-replace service; not just mere distribution. It's not like the drug cartels can quit using UPS and hire their own couriers for less, it's not that simple. Re: US drugs not being cheaper: do you really think that paradigm would last? Drugs aren't iPods, they're basically a processed agricultural product. We EXCEL at industrializing agriculture. Look at how many corn products you can buy, and how cheaply. What if we applied that same level of expertise to the cocoa plant? You can bet we'd have a product that can compete not only on price, but also on quality.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Swim Good: 4/25/2013 2:44:38 PM
    [quote]You say this as if your theory that legal producers wouldn't be able to compete on price doesn't also rely on a butt-ton of assumptions and comparisons whose veracity even you question. *sigh*[/quote] Which is why I said "too many assumptions" as I know I'm making a few myself :) I only questioned one comparison too seeing as how I knew someone would if I didn't. [quote]EDIT: I was going to add much more and then I got BSOD'd. To your point above about middle men, those aren't mere middle men, as we might think of them in the US for legal goods. Those guys know how to smuggle things through whatever areas they operate in. They provide a valuable and difficult-to-replace service; not just mere distribution. It's not like the drug cartels can quit using UPS and hire their own couriers for less, it's not that simple. Re: US drugs not being cheaper: do you really think that paradigm would last? Drugs aren't iPods, they're basically a processed agricultural product. We EXCEL at industrializing agriculture. Look at how many corn products you can buy, and how cheaply. What if we applied that same level of expertise to the cocoa plant? You can bet we'd have a product that can compete not only on price, but also on quality.[/quote] Fair enough, you do raise some good points though I'm still not convinced the Cartels would go quietly into the night. They may be phased out eventually but I'd have thought it'd only be after a period of strife.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • They wouldn't go "quietly into the night". But they would go, eventually. Only after a period of strife? Perhaps. But they're inflicting quite a bit of strife now, as it is (see: cartel violence in Mexico), so how would that be different?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Well I was thinking more along the lines of bringing the violence to the US rather than just gunning each other down in their own countries...

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by RighteousTyrant: 4/25/2013 3:07:18 PM
    For what purpose? To hinder the legal drug production/distribution operations? I think they'd quickly find that to be an expensive and counter-productive effort. Think about it -- they'd have all the same challenges that terrorists have, smuggling in operatives and their equipment (weapons, explosives, etc.), but they'd be constrained by the need to do it profitably, which terrorists are not (because they are motivated by ideology and not profit). Terrorists have lately not had a good track record of carrying out operations in the US, and the cartels would encounter the same difficulties. Once they realize it's not worth the cost, it would stop.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Swim Good: 4/25/2013 4:06:43 PM
    You realise how many billions the Cartels make a year, right? I have no idea why you think arming up some death squads wouldn't be something they could afford do to if their billion dollar industry was threatened. And if you have a problem with illegal immigrants getting in from Mexico, which I've heard reported in the US press, why do you think it'd be such a big problem for the Cartels to get people through? It's different than people coming from the Middle East or Afghanistan as they're so much closer to begin with and have so many different options for getting into the US. Also, what makes you think they'd just attack the production and distribution centres rather than the general populace? To be honest we're getting too far into the realm of hypotheticals, seeing as how neither of us can really prove anything we're saying, so though I disagree with you I'm going to respect that you at least made some good points and leave it at that.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Sure they could afford to, I didn't say they couldn't. That's not the question. The question is, can they afford to do it on an ongoing basis and still be sufficiently profitable despite the added cost? Getting across, like I said it's not just people, but also weapons and shit that's a bit harder to trek across miles of desert (a migrant family can walk itself; a crate of AK47s cannot). Maybe they can procure stuff here, but that depends on the nature of the operations they intend to conduct. Why would they attack their customers? This defies logic. In order to pressure us to pressure our gov't to once again make drugs illegal? If their goal is to eliminate the legal competition that is undercutting them in our hypothetical world, then they'd get a much better return on their investment by directly attacking the competition. Think about it this way: if you have one bomb to use and you want to maximize it's positive effect to your revenue, do you bomb your competition's production plant, thus hindering them and disrupting the legal supply immediately; or do you bomb some random citizens and hope that they recognize you as the culprit, understand your demands, and bend to them (which then would only begin the long legislative process of re-enacting prohibition, which is yet another delay in the realization of your desire)? I think the answer there is obvious.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Swim Good: 4/25/2013 5:09:19 PM
    Of course they can. They still have around 60% of their trade unaffected (as we seem to be only discussing legalisation in the US) so could fund as many death squads as need be. [quote]Think about it -- they'd have all the same challenges that terrorists have, smuggling in operatives and their equipment (weapons, explosives, etc.), but they'd be constrained by the need to do it profitably, which terrorists are not (because they are motivated by ideology and not profit).[/quote] That was also the bit where it seemed like you were saying they wouldn't be able to afford to do it within their profit margins. [quote] if you have one bomb to use and you want to maximize it's positive effect to your revenue, do you bomb your competition's production plant, thus hindering them and disrupting the legal supply immediately; or do you bomb some random citizens and hope that they recognize you as the culprit,[/quote] Why limit yourself to just one bomb and what makes you think they couldn't bomb both types of target in the same campaign? One to disrupt production and supply and the other to instill panic, foment unrest etc. They could even target the Gov directly or target the infrastructure of the US to further disrupt production and supply Why are you thinking that all US citizens are their customers too? That's ridiculous unless you mean potential customers. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel#The_cartel_and_terrorism]Here's[/url] something that shows the Cartels aren't beyond killing civilians in order to get their way despite those same civilians being potential customers. Also, why do you think civilians attacks would go unclaimed? Surely that defeats the purpose of having done them in the first place. Out of interest, seeing as you're just picking holes for the sake of it despite having no evidence and no real substantiated points, do you really think the US would be able to mass produce a crop that really only grows in one very specific region of the globe, in a very specific climate whilst also keeping overheads down so as not to price their final product out of the market? Even though they'd have to spend hundreds of millions just to get to the point where they could produce and distribute? If you do I'd suggest you don't know what you're talking about to be honest.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Whether you have one bomb or a thousand, the same question of cost-to-benefit arises and should dictate how you allocate that resource. An attack on the general population of the US would likely cause a shift in how the US views the drug trade and drug users, and would likely have the effect of decreasing overall consumption. Attacks meant to cause disarray and chaos would also have the ultimate effect of reducing consumption, in much the same way that we saw reduced consumption of just about everything after 9/11/2001. People don't usually go out and buy stuff if they're scared of getting blown up in the process. As for that list of attacks on civilians, you've probably noticed none of them took place in the US. Do you think there are perhaps some reasons for that phenomenon? Plus, this is a strawman; I never said the cartels were above killing civilians -- Mexico's experience over the last few years shows that that's clearly not the case. What I did say is that it would likely be counterproductive for the cartels to do that in the US. The attacks would probably be claimed, you're right, but that's still a long way from them having the desired effect. Islamic extremists have been bombing us off-and-on for 30 years (counting from the 1983 Beirut embassy bombing), and we've gotten MORE involved in the Mid-East as a result, not less as they desired. I suspect the cartels are aware of this history and are not keen to see it repeated on their turf (yes, the US already does a lot in that part of the world, but it pales in comparison to our involvement in the Mid East). Good point on the climate, I hadn't really thought about that but you're right, there probably isn't much potential to grow that in the US. But, ultimately it boils down to this -- is it easier (and therefore cheaper) to transport a legal good or an illegal one? Of course, it is cheaper to move something legal, and thus those doing it legally will have a cost advantage as well as a price advantage (because if I, consumer, am taking the risk to buy an illegal good, it must be cheaper than its legal equivalent, or I will buy the legal product), and the cartels will be unable to compete.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Swim Good: 4/25/2013 7:59:12 PM
    Fair enough, talk about whether or not Colombians would start bombing the US if they lost the drugs trade is probably pushing the hypothetical boundaries a bit too far anyway :) As for the money, you are right that it's easier to transport goods legally. I guess the question is whether this, and the money the Cartels would lose by having to sell cheaply, would be offset by the money they'd save, compared to the US gov, by not having to spend a ton of money growing it, by not paying workers, not having to conform to laws about health and safety or chemical waste management etc and not having to build expensive factories to refine it in. Neither of us have the figures so it's probably something you could argue either way endlessly and never get a conclusive answer.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon