Rival drug gang killings and a possible solution

[jay gw]

This is prompted by my familiarity with the severe and deteriorating situation in Mexico regarding the trade in illegal drugs. Over roughly 15 years, the gangs in the country have become richer and more violent. The violence has increased precipitously as rival gangs try to knock off others for control of territories. This situation is found in many countries. It's best described as a state of chaos.

The drug trade is like any other. It may be technically illegal but the demand, the supply, the production, the distribution are real and the economics are similar to legal products.

There is no indication that the current strategies of interdicting shipments and arresting individuals is effective. On the contrary, they have been spectacularly ineffective in Mexico, Colombia, Thailand and all other places. They may also have created problems that didn't previously exist.

The number one priority for government should be to curb violence surrounding the trade. The violence impacts non-drug users severely and is affecting legal businesses.

So the possible solution is a decision to allow one organization in one territory to control illegal drugs, and no other. Instead of depleting resources fighting all of them, the government channels it's energy into stamping out rival organizations until the one most suited to manage the territory is left. This ends the violence between rivals almost immediately. It also leaves governments, who all have budget problems, with only one organization to monitor. Anyone wanting a career in the drug trade would be required to follow the rules set out for them.

No, this doesn't eliminate the drug trade. There will still be some violence, but greatly decreased. It will still be illegal, but laws are ineffective against it. It's a solution only to the most severe problems of rival gangs killing each other and innocents for control.

[pipelineaudio]

guns are illegal in Mexico

The gangs in mexico only break dance against each other because guns are illegal so theres no such thing as violence down there

[fuelair]

At the risk of repeating a slogan that annoys many people : when guns are made illegal only criminals have guns (note that I understand a technical problem with the slogan - obviously if guns are made illegal, anyone who has one is by definition a criminal. I go by the real meaning, which is: if guns are made illegal then the only people who have them will be people who are criminals in the sense that they were already commiting other crimes and now also are commiting the crime of having a gun. I love the type of gun control that takes all weapons out of the hands of violent criminals, non violent felons, mentally challenged and republicans(:rolleyes: ).)

[The Painter]

This is prompted by my familiarity with the severe and deteriorating situation in Mexico regarding the trade in illegal drugs. Over roughly 15 years, the gangs in the country have become richer and more violent. The violence has increased precipitously as rival gangs try to knock off others for control of territories. This situation is found in many countries. It's best described as a state of chaos.

The drug trade is like any other. It may be technically illegal but the demand, the supply, the production, the distribution are real and the economics are similar to legal products.

There is no indication that the current strategies of interdicting shipments and arresting individuals is effective. On the contrary, they have been spectacularly ineffective in Mexico, Colombia, Thailand and all other places. They may also have created problems that didn't previously exist.

The number one priority for government should be to curb violence surrounding the trade. The violence impacts non-drug users severely and is affecting legal businesses.

So the possible solution is a decision to allow one organization in one territory to control illegal drugs, and no other. Instead of depleting resources fighting all of them, the government channels it's energy into stamping out rival organizations until the one most suited to manage the territory is left. This ends the violence between rivals almost immediately. It also leaves governments, who all have budget problems, with only one organization to monitor. Anyone wanting a career in the drug trade would be required to follow the rules set out for them.

No, this doesn't eliminate the drug trade. There will still be some violence, but greatly decreased. It will still be illegal, but laws are ineffective against it. It's a solution only to the most severe problems of rival gangs killing each other and innocents for control.


Doesn't this make drugs "legal" for that one group? Just make them all legal. Takes the criminal element out of it, and you can tax them.

[jay gw]

dup post

[jay gw]

Doesn't this make drugs "legal" for that one group?In a sense yes, in a sense no. Technically they're still illegal.

Takes the criminal element out of it, and you can tax them.No government will ever produce consumer products that create severe health problems and no legal company will either. They'd be sued into bankruptcy in about 30 seconds.

You know, there is a reason cocaine is produced illegally. You can't sue drug cartels. Maybe you've forgotten what happened to tobacco companies.

-

[Ryokan]

No government will ever produce consumer products that create health problems.

Cigarettes, alcohol and fast food?

Most of the problems with drugs comes from the fact that they're illegal.

Legalize drugs and get rid of all the Al Capones of our day.

[jay gw]

fast food?Fast food doesn't create health problems.

CigarettesAlready covered.

alcohol Alcohol is proven to be more beneficial than harmful. Can you say the same for heroin? How about LSD?

-

[Ryokan]

Fast food doesn't create health problems.

It doesn't?

Already covered.

How so?

Alcohol is proven to be more beneficial than harmful.

Really? Evidence?

Can you say the same for heroin?

The question is, would it be more or less harmful to society if it was legalized?

Seeing as how most of the problems with drugs are related to it being illegal, I'd say society would be better off with legalization.

[jay gw]

The question is, would it be more or less harmful to society if it was legalized?No, the question is: how harmful are the effects from using it? "Harmful to society" is not an objective measure.

Seeing as how most of the problems with drugs are related to it being illegalNo, most of the problems are related to the chemical composition of narcotics and their effects on humans.

[Ryokan]

No, the question is: how harmful are the effects from using it? "Harmful to society" is not an objective measure.

No, most of the problems are related to the chemical composition of narcotics and their effects on humans.

So we should just continue the war on drugs that is going so well?

People are going to use drugs no matter what. The question is if you want the criminal element in addition or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement

[jay gw]

So we should just continue the war on drugs that is going so well?

Apparently you have decided to post random things without reading the op.

[Ryokan]

Apparently you have decided to post random things without reading the op.

The OP tells us of crimes committed by drug suppliers. Legalize drugs, and these people go away.

[jay gw]

The OP tells us of crimes committed by drug suppliers.No, the op is about a possible solution to the crimes.

Legalize drugs

And then what?

[Ryokan]

No, the op is about a possible solution to the crimes.

The OP says we should party legalize the distribution of drugs. If you accept that the crimes around illegal drugs is a huge problem, why not go all the way?

And then what?

And then we accept that some people will do drugs, just like we accepted that some people will drink alcohol in the middle of last century.

[jay gw]

The OP says we should party legalize the distribution of drugs.

There is nothing in the op about legalizing drugs.

And then we accept that some people will do drugs,

That is not an answer. You're evading the question of who controls the production and distribution of drugs once they're legal.

[shuize]

If you accept that the crimes around illegal drugs is a huge problem, why not go all the way?
Yes. Legalize drugs. I for one really want to see PCP available over the counter.

Yeah, that's sarcasm.

[Ryokan]

That is not an answer. You're evading the question of who controls the production and distribution of drugs once they're legal.

I'm sorry, I didn't see that question.

Does it matter? Who makes the marihuana that is sold in the Netherlands?

[RPG Advocate]

Yes. Legalize drugs. I for one really want to see PCP available over the counter.

Yeah, that's sarcasm.

I think it's better than the alternative: massive crime that results from the "drug trade" and hundreds of thousands of other people in the prison system at taxpayer expense for no other "crime" than using drugs.

[Ryokan]

Yes. Legalize drugs. I for one really want to see PCP available over the counter.

Yeah, that's sarcasm.

I'll admit to not liking the idea myself, especially when it comes to drugs like that. But then, alcohol can also make you a raving madman.

I'll bet more people are killed by drunks every year than people are killed by psychotic PCP users.

But the drug policies as they are sure don't work (you may have noticed that people still use drugs despite them being illegal), and it's time for radical solutions.

[SteveGrenard]

So if drugs are made legal then the gangs will get involved with selling trans-fats?

[Ryokan]

So if drugs are made legal then the gangs will get involved with selling trans-fats?

Either that or computer games or Muhammed jokes.

[schplurg]

There is nothing in the op about legalizing drugs.
Oh?....


So the possible solution is a decision to allow one organization in one territory to control illegal drugs, and no other. Instead of depleting resources fighting all of them, the government channels it's energy into stamping out rival organizations until the one most suited to manage the territory is left. This ends the violence between rivals almost immediately. It also leaves governments, who all have budget problems, with only one organization to monitor. Anyone wanting a career in the drug trade would be required to follow the rules set out for them.

No, this doesn't eliminate the drug trade. There will still be some violence, but greatly decreased. It will still be illegal, but laws are ineffective against it. It's a solution only to the most severe problems of rival gangs killing each other and innocents for control.So your suggestion is for a government to allow one group to control illegal drugs and stamp out all the others. This is, in affect, legalizing drugs, at least for the parties involved who are allowed to make a profit from this. Is government corruption better than simply legalizing drugs? Totally ludicrous!

No government will ever produce consumer products that create health problems.
....

You know, there is a reason cocaine is produced illegally. You can't sue drug cartels. Maybe you've forgotten what happened to tobacco companies.I have not forgotten. They got sued. They now continue to reap billions of dollars from people who are stupid enough to willingly use their product. In fact, they only got sued for lying about their products harmful effects, not for the product itself.

Don't you think if a company could legally market and sell cocaine that they would in an instant? All you have to do is put the Surgeon Generals warning on the package and you're covered! Where do I sign up!?

Fun thread :rolleyes:

[jay gw]

Don't you think if a company could legally market and sell cocaine that they would in an instant? No company would produce narcotics if they were sued into losses for it.

All you have to do is put the Surgeon Generals warning on the package and you're covered!

And fend off lawyers 365 days a year, that is.

[Ryokan]

No company would produce narcotics if they were sued into losses for it.

But what if they weren't sued into losses for it? As far as I know, tobacco companies were sued for harmful effects that they didn't tell the public about.

In my country, no one who started smoking after the harmful effects of tobacco were made known to the public are allowed to sue tobacco companies.

And fend off lawyers 365 days a year, that is.

Why would they be sued anyway? The effects of cocaine is widely known, so if you use it you use it at your own risk.

Anyway, the way you argue now seems like the reason why you won't legalize drugs is because you fear the producers of the drugs will be sued.

Why not let the producers worry about that? In any case, isn't it better to have a company that can answer to the public rather than criminal drug cartels?

Have the cannabis suppliers in the Netherlands been sued in to bankruptcy yet?

[geni]

No government will ever produce consumer products that create severe health problems and no legal company will either. They'd be sued into bankruptcy in about 30 seconds.

Nah just employ a few scientists and lawyers to produce dislaimers that cover every known and suspected side effect.



You know, there is a reason cocaine is produced illegally. You can't sue drug cartels. Maybe you've forgotten what happened to tobacco companies.


The tobacco companies make the mistake of lying to the consumer.

[geni]

Fast food doesn't create health problems.


Somewhat questionable.


Alcohol is proven to be more beneficial than harmful.


Not it isn't. Cirrhosis of the liver is in the top 20 leading causes of death in the US.


Can you say the same for heroin? How about LSD?


I'm not aware of anyone manageing to poisen themselves with LSD. The LD50 is so far above the dose required to get an effect it is quite hard to see how you would do it.

[Rob Lister]

Mocha's heart is in the right place, even if her mind is not.

Legalizing will indeed (all but) end the distribution violence and death in a few years.

Still, I'm pretty certain the US government, on both sides of the isle, are fairly much against legalizing all the drugs Mexico and other places have to sell, no matter what the potential tax revenue.

It is not going to happen. <-- that's a period.

If it doesn't happen here, you can bet your bottom peso we'll apply every pressure we can to prevent it from happening there.

There's an analog to this exact situation: China and the US/Brit trade in the mid 1800's.