(I am strongly pro legalisation of cannabis. I think prohibition has caused a lot of harm. I do not take cannabis, and have only ever used it a few times when I was much much younger.)
Some people who want to keep cannabis illegal claim they are reducing harm - reducing harm to users, to those users' families, and to wider society.
I think there might be causal links between cannabis and mental health problems. And there are a bunch of self-medication and masking problems too. But even though I believe this I cannot understand how people do not see the much worse harm that prohibition causes.
In England there is a problem with criminal gangs using trafficked workers, keeping those people imprisoned in houses which are then turned into cannabis farms. If Bob wants to use cannabis it is more sensible for him to buy it from a criminal gang than to grow a few small plants purely for personal use because the crime he commits by growing it is much more serious.
Reading about the situation in Mexico is horrific.
> In Mexico relatively few people take drugs. But many are murdered as a result of the export business. About 60,000 have been killed by organised crime during the past six years.
Sixty thousand? That's a mind-boggling amount. (There's a tv programme in the UK at the moment about road safety, with lots of "how do we reduce road deaths?" About 2,000 people die each year in RTAs in the UK.)
Even stupid people should know there's a serious problem when they're told there is a criminal called "the Soupmaker" who dissolves victims in vats of sodium hydroxide.
> another collaborator of Sinaloa's, Teodoro García, was captured in the coastal city of La Paz. He was accused of ordering his victims to be dissolved in barrels of acid by his henchman, known as “the soup-maker”.
I'm from Mexico, and I can tell you what is happening here is worrisome. The death toll during Calderon's presidency is way over the roof. He declared war to the cartel's like no one had ever dared to do. This caused a big uproar because know there's a real problem with trying to keep your safe route of drugs.
I'm also pro legislation (have never consumed anything) and the only thing that worries me more than what is happening right now is that maybe, with legislation, cartel's are going to jump to the next profitable illegal activity they can find (kidnapping, extorsion, whatever). I've lived in the same city all my life, and for the last 2 years, for the first time ever, I don't feel safe anymore. When I see soldiers driving around town with their hummer-esque vehicles, I can't find tranquility.
Reading this article gives me some peace, but I can't find any real assurance that this will stop any soon.
The best strategy I think is to simultaneously eliminate their revenue (legalizing drugs, and making sure US production of quality crops ramps up quickly, etc.) AND crack down on all their "legal-illegal interfaces" -- punish anyone in the police who helps them, anyone in the banking industry, etc.
At one time you're destroying their revenue side AND their cost side. Their "comparative advantage" is in senseless violence, so they're probably easier to challenge on other fronts, but at the end there may be a role for targeted killing of any organized nexuses remaining. But use economics to weaken them first.
It also seems insane to me that the whole Mexican drug industry is only a $5b/yr thing. It costs just the state of California more than that per year in law enforcement and prisons.
I'm also curious just how low the price per pound for "BC bud" quality could go, if it were totally licit and you had serious agribusiness stepping up. $440/pound quoted in the article is a bit below the Humboldt price for outdoor of decent quality, at least in relatively small quantities, but if it got grown like lettuce, it should be even cheaper than that. It would be kind of ironic replacing illegal Mexican ditchweed with US legal pot harvested by illegal/undocumented migrant workers (just like other crops..)
I would suspect with legalization the cartels would have an advantage as a legal drug seller since they already have the distribution network and systems in place.
There would also be less need for violence with the ability to take people to court for breaking contractual deals.
It's going to be difficult for many members of criminal gangs to move into mainstream employment. Violent murderers probably don't make great employees.
It's a shame that the less violent low-level offenders will also find it hard to escape the life of crime, and it'd be great if there was some Mexican legal cannabis co-operative that rehabilitated gang members.
The cartels don't have a distribution network that would scale to legal distribution. Catapulting bales of cannabis over the border isn't useful for legal businesses.
While their networks aren't much use for a legal business they are useful for more illegal business. People trafficking is a high profit business. Gun running is high profit business. Other drugs - heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, are all still illegal and unlikely to become legal any time soon.
Right, it's likely they're already in those markets (harder drugs, etc) in some way and are saturated: they can't pump more money out of them. Taking away marijuana revenue takes away a fixed amount of their income.
Cartels make far more money off "hard drugs" than they do off marijuana, and smuggling hard drugs is easier just due to size (a kilo of cocaine is tiny compared to a kilo of marijuana) and relative lack of tell-tale signs like odors (dogs can sniff out packaged cocaine and meth, humans can sniff out packaged marijuana). I served on a grand jury a couple of years ago and a DEA agent, testifying in a big meth smuggling indictment, said the local authorities had cracked down so efficiently on small, local meth labs that it opened a big door for cartels to become the suppliers. Violence and volume rose rather immediately. I think legalizing marijuana is probably a good step, and it will take >0 dollars from cartels, but I highly doubt it would be a serious impediment to them, the will continue with other drugs, local (to Mexico) activities like kidnapping and extortion, and branching out into other organized crime activities (fraud, loansharking, etc...)
Because it's the prohibition that causes the absurd profit margins they are accustomed to. It's unlikely that they would accept an average profiting legal product rather than go after the next absurdly profitable illegal product. Also, their entire business is based around providing a prohibited product. They wouldn't likely be keen to completely change business models.
Just this. It's called weed for something. Sure, growing high grade stuff it's expensive and hard, but that's not what most people are consuming anyway.
Actually, growing your own is still illegal in Washington. Colorado limits each person to 6 plants. Will be interesting to see how the difference effects the markets.
Is a likely possibility; but there its not a sure thing; remember that after the end of the alcohol prohibition in the USA the crime rate did dropped[0]. Also, the jobs opportunities that legalization creates may help this become the case.
I get you. If I were a drug dealer or bootlegger, I'd be holding out for legalization also. But, and I may be completely wrong, let's think it out. Look at who you're employing. Likely school dropouts who have been taught violence is the appropriate counter-measure to problems. You've got a few notorious crews, a distribution network that knows how to void police, and many street level people.
Now, I'm changing my outfit the second it goes legit. I'm in storefronts, I've got catchy packaging, I've got customer incentive programs, and everyone will know my website and Twitter.
So, now that I'm shipping UPS and insuring your product, what happens to my former crew? The hardcore bunch that did my killing? The street gangs? The people who escaped police? They're the ones looking for a new grind. They're schooled in the ways of the evading cops, killing, and terror tactics. They're going to use the tools they have to make money. They may even be angry at their former employers who are now legitimately wealthy. And seeing how popular kidnapping has become in South America? No reason it couldn't catch on in Mexico as well, given the right circumstances.
The thugs would be ratting the drug lords out all over the place to get plea bargains.
The biggest winner in the war on drugs are criminal enterprises, just because of the profit margins. These are agricultural products that anyone could produce given some soil and modest investments. How could this sustain the lavish lifestyles the top of the cartels have gotten used to?
I'm not sure if you're serious, but there are a few problems with that.
First, there's a lot of crime that goes along with running a cartel. Selling marijuana may be legalized, but most of the cartel people have long criminal histories that aren't going away. Murder, torture, bribery, kidnapping and all that are still crimes.
Second, a good deal of a drug cartel's infrastructure is devoted to violence and smuggling. Obviously violence can't be part of a legitimate business. And unless they're trying to evade taxes, the smuggling stuff is just overhead compared to other shipping methods.
A benefit of legalization is that it allows the justice system to be used. When pot is illegal then the resolution to problems is violence. How do you report tampered product, broken contracts (of the business kind), theft etc?
Some people who want to keep cannabis illegal claim they are reducing harm - reducing harm to users, to those users' families, and to wider society.
I think there might be causal links between cannabis and mental health problems. And there are a bunch of self-medication and masking problems too. But even though I believe this I cannot understand how people do not see the much worse harm that prohibition causes.
In England there is a problem with criminal gangs using trafficked workers, keeping those people imprisoned in houses which are then turned into cannabis farms. If Bob wants to use cannabis it is more sensible for him to buy it from a criminal gang than to grow a few small plants purely for personal use because the crime he commits by growing it is much more serious.
Reading about the situation in Mexico is horrific.
> In Mexico relatively few people take drugs. But many are murdered as a result of the export business. About 60,000 have been killed by organised crime during the past six years.
Sixty thousand? That's a mind-boggling amount. (There's a tv programme in the UK at the moment about road safety, with lots of "how do we reduce road deaths?" About 2,000 people die each year in RTAs in the UK.)
Even stupid people should know there's a serious problem when they're told there is a criminal called "the Soupmaker" who dissolves victims in vats of sodium hydroxide.
(http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/09/mexicos_...)
> another collaborator of Sinaloa's, Teodoro García, was captured in the coastal city of La Paz. He was accused of ordering his victims to be dissolved in barrels of acid by his henchman, known as “the soup-maker”.