61–70 of 187 posts
Just legalize it already. This is stupid.
[1]: https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2025/06/26/the-gold-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if they do, the cartels already own huge man & firepower. They will just move on to the next thing, maybe coffee, avocados, oil whatever. When you have accumulated so much power you can demand cash from the world around you.
Coffee, avocados, and oil aren't illegal. But I'm pretty sure if you banned coffee it would spawn criminal gangs that made 1920s prohibition look tame. There's no substitute for the margins you can get in the illegal drug trade. Take away the primary source of funding and you make it much easier to break the gangs. We've already gone through this. Just legalize it already.
"The vessel was not carrying drugs" Why wouldn't they track it and wait until it rendezvoused with people they could arrest? Also, today I learned it's illegal to operate a semi-submersible in Colombia.
I wonder how much of this is just a publicity stunt. Last time I dove deep into studying corruption in Latin America at University, Colombia was pretty much captive to the cartels. Hope it has gotten better now but I’m not sure if that’s the case given the massive Colombian diaspora that keeps increasing.
It’s a pretty batshit story that focuses on what became of the right wing death squads (they run the start of the cocaine supply chain it turns out among many other things) that’s extremely well researched and has amazing access. A strong recommendation from me https://insightcrime.org/audio-from-the-ground-up/the-shadow...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The war on drugs has failed. Everyone agrees that no-one should do meth. But the solutions presented so far by prohibition are not just conceptually flawed - they demonstrably don’t work. We literally have 50+ years of data that shows it. We need to a) legalize drugs, b) provide proper treatment to addicts, and c) get unsafe drugs off the streets. I’m speaking as someone who lost a close family member to an overdose.…
I know we have data that shows just how harmful the war on drugs has been, but I'm curious if we have data showing that legalization in a modern society, with global supply chains and marketing campaigns, does not result in a bunch of people who previously wouldn't have done drugs - for fear of legal consequences, or just because they're hard to obtain - suddenly doing drugs. I'm genuinely interested to know, this is…
Are they?
I have the feeling they are easier to obtain than if they were only sold at dedicated stores and teenagers had to show an ID, or similar to casinos addict trying to get out could ask to be put on ban list.
Having said that, legalizing would not get rid of cartels, who are very diversified and also operate illegally on legal products by taxing producers and controlling transport and distribution. It would merely allow us to spend the same amount of money on health care and prevention so that less people get addicted and those who are have more chances of rehab.
If war on drug worked, you would see addicts accross the country in the news complaining that their dealers are all in jail and they can't find a new one. Or saying that their dealers do not have any stock so they have to travel to get their fix. Has this ever happened?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll probably move onto mass producing weaponry, which, depending on the sophistication and scale, could be big issues for the rest of the world. They already partner with terrorist groups and other unsavory orgs as-is. Any group worth mentioning these days interfaces with the cartels
I don’t think weapon production is in their wheelhouse. Arms dealing maybe but not manufacturing. Facilities like those are permanent locations. Permanent locations tend to get raided and attacked. I think controlling municipalities like they are is working fine for them. No need to mass produce weapons when you can just buy them.
This strikes me as not a very good technique. With minimal help from starlink law enforcement could find every sub out there. Anyhow, what does this buy you that an offline gps connected controller does not?
This seems difficult. Even with two Starlinks: one to control it in Colombia, and one to control it at the destination coast, killing power to each. And make it autonomous on the way. This leaves the problem that there is a sudden (dis-)appearance of the link at sea, which might still make you light up like a lighthouse in analysis.
However, it would seem cartels could use a cubesat and make their own links?
Just legalize it already. This is stupid.
Which drugs exactly are you proposing to be legalized? All?
We really did not learn anything from the alcohol prohibition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The war on drugs has failed. Everyone agrees that no-one should do meth. But the solutions presented so far by prohibition are not just conceptually flawed - they demonstrably don’t work. We literally have 50+ years of data that shows it. We need to a) legalize drugs, b) provide proper treatment to addicts, and c) get unsafe drugs off the streets. I’m speaking as someone who lost a close family member to an overdose.…
I know we have data that shows just how harmful the war on drugs has been, but I'm curious if we have data showing that legalization in a modern society, with global supply chains and marketing campaigns, does not result in a bunch of people who previously wouldn't have done drugs - for fear of legal consequences, or just because they're hard to obtain - suddenly doing drugs. I'm genuinely interested to know, this is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cocaine, I could maybe see the argument. But the article also said there was another submarine seized with 4.5BN worth of meth aboard. And I really hope you aren't suggesting legalising meth. I could see the argument that if other amphetamines were legal no one would use meth, but.....I don't think that's necessarily true. All the illegal meth would have to do to keep existing is to be cheaper than legal speed.
We already have legal meth, it's branded Adderall® and we regularly prescribe it to children, grad students, and hedge fund managers. You just have to be rich enough to afford the 'scrip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already have legal meth, it's branded Adderall® and we regularly prescribe it to children, grad students, and hedge fund managers. You just have to be rich enough to afford the 'scrip.
Adderall is an amphetamine, but it is not methamphetamine. It would be closer to accurate to compare it to Dexedrine than meth.
There isn't really a whole lot of difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine. Meth is, weight for weight, stronger due to the methyl- group enabling the molecule to pass through cell membranes / the blood-brain barrier easier, and at the effect-equivalent dose most people wouldn't notice any difference.