Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations?

marginalrevolution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 183 posts

Re: Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations?

#81

Post by eric_h »

bluedino wrote: post #61

It's weird - it's very hard to find 'Mexican dirt weed' these days, since all the medical dispensaries opened up. The medical stuff costs a little bit more, but it is way better. But you can't even find the old crap if you look.

I stumbled upon stuff that was of a similar quality to 'Mexican dirt weed' (though we called it 'Mexican brick weed' back in the day) on smaller islands in the Bahamas and in a couple of places in Eastern Europe.

I agree, though, that I haven't seen anything even remotely close to that garbage anywhere in the US in the last 10 years.

And the price for the really good stuff has actually come down a fair bit (10-30%) in the last ~5 years (especially in the last 2), even on the black market.

Re: Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations?

#83

Post by Alfredo123 »

tomrod wrote: post #10

The "Drug Trafficking Organizations" are the cartels. It is important to remember they don't exist to traffic drugs, they exist for the top leader(s) to obtain and maintain power, like a state-in-waiting. As other activities become more profitable, they switch over to those. Marijuana loses its profitability, they can switch to other drugs, guns, smuggling, "coyotes", or legitimate enterprise. This is what unfettered…

That argument can always be extended and said that few people will always do bad things that hurt society irrespective of whatever.

The only problem with your reasoning is that you see all the bad things as something that have same profit-risk ratio. Human trafficking is not just a variation of drug trafficking but is a completely business. As different from Netflix and Facebook though for an outsider both of them look like internet companies.

Legalizing things that people want and does not create victims eliminates less risky options for the cartels.

Re: Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations?

#84

Post by tomrod »

ThomPete wrote: post #74
tomrod wrote: post #10

The "Drug Trafficking Organizations" are the cartels. It is important to remember they don't exist to traffic drugs, they exist for the top leader(s) to obtain and maintain power, like a state-in-waiting. As other activities become more profitable, they switch over to those. Marijuana loses its profitability, they can switch to other drugs, guns, smuggling, "coyotes", or legitimate enterprise. This is what unfettered…

Smoking pot is a victimles crime. So if you want to debate morals then making it illegal to sell and thus allow for the tens of thousands of innocent victims who get killed by the powerful cartels in the name of the War on dugs is the most immoral action a government can do.

We absolutely agree on this.

The legality, politics, and forcefulness of this aren't binary objects. The War on Drugs more or less enables the cartels.

The War on Drugs resulting in an avenue for the founding and persistence of the cartels does not absolve the cartels of their brutality, however. That was my initial point, so apologies if it didn't communicate well.

Re: Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations?

#85

Post by tomrod »

michaelchisari wrote: post #43
tomrod wrote: post #10

The "Drug Trafficking Organizations" are the cartels. It is important to remember they don't exist to traffic drugs, they exist for the top leader(s) to obtain and maintain power, like a state-in-waiting. As other activities become more profitable, they switch over to those. Marijuana loses its profitability, they can switch to other drugs, guns, smuggling, "coyotes", or legitimate enterprise. This is what unfettered…

Marijuana loses its profitability, they can switch to other drugs, guns, smuggling, "coyotes", or legitimate enterprise. Not disagreeing with your larger point, but the fact of the matter is that it's a lot harder to sell people meth, coke, heroin, etc. than it is to sell people pot. If coca cola were made illegal, something that is bad for you by many metrics but hardly life destroying, people are not going to switc…

> Not disagreeing with your larger point, but the fact of the matter is that it's a lot harder to sell people meth, coke, heroin, etc. than it is to sell people pot.

I agree with what you're saying here, with the current conditions they will take a hit. Conditions can change, however, so we can't count them as neutered yet simply because legal pot undermines a part of their portfolio.

Re: Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations?

#86

Post by Feniks »

Hasz wrote: post #63
neosavvy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to debate, but why do you believe: "Not disagreeing with your larger point, but the fact of the matter is that it's a lot harder to sell people meth, coke, heroin, etc. than it is to sell people pot." Funny drug dealer quotes "I don't sell drugs, drug's sell themselves" In all reality though Pot is by far harder to conceal in small/large quantities so per pound profitability on Pot has to be lower than other dru…

I think the poster was getting at the fact that pot users dwarf meth users in quantity, for example. I think the OP got it right -- even if there was no heroin crisis in the US, the cartels would turn to some other money-making proposition. The only way to quash them is to strengthen the Mexican state, whether it be this one or a new structure.

The US war on drugs and the US insatiable demand for said drugs has destabilized the entire region. Not something the US media likes to talk about though...

The only way to quash the cartels is lowering demand. But yeah that's too hard.

Re: Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations?

#87

Post by philipkglass »

ttul wrote: post #72

Why doesn't Mexico just legalize heroin and cocaine distribution? Wouldn't this put an end to the cartels?

I don't know how popular that would be with Mexican voters, even if it drastically reduced the money flowing to cartels.

Probably more important than domestic sentiment is the inevitable retaliation that would follow from the United States government if Mexico just legalized all drugs. I wouldn't be surprised if the US government cut off trade with Mexico and started running overt and covert operations to ensure Mexican prohibitionist politicians take power again. In the worst case the US government might even deploy armed forces across the border, to ensure that American law is enforced in Mexico, like it did with Panama in 1989.

Re: Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations?

#88

Post by tomrod »

godelski wrote: post #62
tomrod wrote: post #10

The "Drug Trafficking Organizations" are the cartels. It is important to remember they don't exist to traffic drugs, they exist for the top leader(s) to obtain and maintain power, like a state-in-waiting. As other activities become more profitable, they switch over to those. Marijuana loses its profitability, they can switch to other drugs, guns, smuggling, "coyotes", or legitimate enterprise. This is what unfettered…

You can't just substitute things and expect them to keep the same market. This is because DEMAND is part of a market force. The demand for pot is substantially higher than the demand for other drugs (like cocaine, heroine, etc), guns, coyotes, etc. If a commodity can no longer be (near) monopolized into their share of the market, then demand does not magically grow for other commodities. Sure, they can pivot strategi…

> You can't just substitute things and expect them to keep the same market.

Of course not. What we face is an organized, unregulated, lawless group of dangerous criminals who find one of their primary income sources dwindling. I did not intend for my original point to debate foundations of economic theory, only to point out that they are likely to continue diversifying their product -- apparently they are switching to avocados and old-fashioned mob shakedowns, as per another comment on this thread.

Re: Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations?

#89

Post by tomrod »

losteric wrote: post #49
cname wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how you can say hierarchical organizations that use violence/coercion are in any way anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism requires voluntary engagement in a system of contracts and so forth. (Whether that could actually work in the real world is debatable but beside the point.)

Aren't consumers technically voluntary, if we assume no one's getting addicted to heroin at gunpoint?

Most of the time. Some counterexamples exist (e.g. buy from the limited healthcare options available to you or be fined [via tax]).

Re: Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations?

#90

Post by globuous »

jazoom wrote: post #65
falsprofet wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be so sure. "To make due" seems correct to me, as a foreign speaker, because the grammar suggests a noun phrase as object, because it works en lieu "to settle debt". It's easy to see how french-illiterate anglophones would mishear due as do. So I guess you make do now. And I have to ask how are you making do today?

As a speaker of English where "do" and "due" are not pronounced the same I assure you it's "do".

Don't mind me but... I double checked :D and you're right !! :)

- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_do

- http://grammarist.com/usage/make-do-make-due/

According to the second link, here's where it comes from:

'Make do is short for make [something] do well enough, where do carries the rare sense to serve a specified purpose. So this do is similar to the one used in sentences such as, “I could use a cup of coffee, but tea will do.”'

interesting !

edit: formatting

Post reply on HN