She Tweeted Against the Mexican Cartels. They Tweeted Her Murder

The US before 1970 (CO/WA for MJ obviously 2014). Amsterdam, Vancouver, Uruguay, Portugal, The Wire (only kidding).

Would you rather stop someone from smoking a joint or actively help fund an army/cartel through policy?

It isn't as easy as that no, but the problem we are trying to fight has caused incredible harm in blowback, and is only just beginning. We don't want to fund armies south of the US any further. We saw what happened in the 80's in South America, now it has spread up to Mexico, and now along the border quite frequently. In 30+ years it has only increased the violence and caused immeasurable harm over that time. When do we start ratcheting it down?

The War on Drugs has not stopped drugs from their destination, in fact it makes it more of a demand product and the benefactors concentrated within criminal organizations. Drug abuse isn't that high for illegal drugs, it is a manageable problem and safer regulated. It is more pharmaceutical drugs that are the problem now in terms of abuse. We don't create a War on Pharma because that is silly, we know people will abuse them and we help them. We don't lock them up and give them felonies unless they are transporting outside of regulation.

Really all we have done with the War on Drugs is make criminals rich and they bought lots of guns. The War on Drugs hasn't, nor will it, stop people from using drugs. Moral laws do not work, history consistently reminds us. If people are going to use anyways and that is the case, the only solution is a non-violent/non-criminal response and tax it like tobacco. People aren't going to go out and start doing drugs tomorrow if they are legal, if they do them they already do them. Where people do use though it is safer with a regulated market as in Vancouver/Amsterdam/etc.

But the real question is... If people are going to do it anyway and stopping it with force won't work, then where should most of the revenues of drugs go? Regulated, taxed and tracked or to criminals to build armies. That is really the question. The War on Drugs is a failure in that it has only made the demand higher and riches from it more concentrated to criminals.

College kids drink and smoke weed sometimes. Do you want your son/daughter, or their friends, to happen to do this at college and have to deal with possible criminal elements if they do, or would you rather it be safer. Why do we think it is safer to have kids deal with dealers that are possible criminals "to keep them safe".

Someone who can prevent their own misfortune by taking known steps yet doesn't take them is exhibiting behavior deserving of criticism. Finding someone else to blame doesn't change that, so what point are you trying to make by finding even more people to blame?

I'm not sure if legalization of all drugs would end cartels, because they would just move onto a different good or service (i.e. prostitution/human trafficking or water if its scarce). I think the system we have in the world today is irrevocably broken, but nobody wants to have a candid discussion about it. Until we have a conversation instead of a monologue, between the developed and developing world, nothing will change.

How is it possible to know this?

And besides, saying to drug users "Just don't buy the drugs" is like saying to the cartels "Just stop killing and terrorising people." People will buy drugs regardless of what we do—the war on drugs has proven this—and black markets (controlled by cartels) will meet the demand.

You ignore the point that the vast majority of the consumers of the cartels' product is not in Mexico. If these drugs were legal in the target markets, local producers would crop up and cut the cartel's profits. Given the choice, would you buy Cartel Brand® coke or Free Trade Cocaine®?

Large corporations are forced to be accountable to their supply chain, and markets have shown time and time again that consumers will pay a premium for ethically produced products.