What can the US do to help Mexico finally stop the cartels?

Politicians constantly talk about stopping the illegal immigrants that are coming from Mexico, but putting a wall has never and will never be a solution since the reason why so many displaced keep coming across the border is mostly to escape the crime, corruption, inequality, and violence of they have to live in their home countries. The worst part is that most of these terrible things is that happen in third world countries are rooted in constant subversion by developed countries, primarily the US. I feel like since we caused this (even if in part) we should help stop it now, even if we didn’t publicly admit guilt to save face.

So, how do we do it? Do we straight up invade Mexico and go on a full out war against the cartels like we did against Osama Bin Laden?

If not, why not? And, is there anything that can be done?

I would like to keep things civil. Please, let’s keep this respectful as I know this is a tough issue and there is anger on both sides of this issue.

southsamurai,
@southsamurai@sh.itjust.works avatar

Snort less coke, mainly.

chepox,

Demand will never wane. It is human nature. It’s like yelling really loud “stop being hungry humans!” (well kinda, hunger is not a good analogy but the opinion is that drugs are a fundamental flaw with our human design. Just asking to stop does not work. Also, jailing those who do doesn’t help any either.

The attack has to be financial. Outsell them. Legalize, tax and monitor. Make it a health concern not a law breaking issue. If it is no longer profitable to export, cartels will hurt and weaken and that is how this very powerful organizations are taken down. Take their money away.

seathru,

Legalize all the drugs. Stop providing them a market.

BobGnarley,

They would rather the addicts all die from Fentanyl laced bullshit than do that. They make way too much money with it being illegal

AbsurdityAccelerator,

Including stuff like fentanyl and tranq and allow anybody to buy it?

seathru,

Yes. The same as alcohol.

TWeaK,

No. Regulate and offer known recreational drugs pure.

Very few people take fentanyl on its own or intentionally. Even tranq (which I hadn’t heard of but just looked up) is primarily harmful because it’s often tainted with fentanyl or other potent yet potentially fatal additives. Fentanyl does not need to be legally sold, because there is no real market for it.

Hell, even fucking weed is tainted, primarily with silica-based desccants, in countries where it’s still illegal (cough UK cough).

However if people could get pure, laboratory tested recreational drugs then these issues could disappear overnight. Heroin is bad when you fall deep into addiction, but most heroin users wouldn’t get into that state if they could take the drug legally without taboo or victimisation of illicit dealers. 100 years ago opium dens were a thing, and there were some people deep in the poppy - but there were also people just as deep in their alcohol suffering worse. Alcohol is less of a problem today, and back in the 90s there was a study funded by DARE (and subsequently unpublished because they didn’t like the results) that determined most heroin users were in fact business men and women earning large salaries with enough income to support their habit with high quality product.

Just like digital piracy is a service problem, drug addiction is a societal mental health problem, and criminalising it only allows the problem to fester to extremes.

Decriminalise possession, keep supply of the most fatally harmful drugs illegal, legitimise and tax known recreational drugs.

j4k3,
@j4k3@lemmy.world avatar

I’d argue to legalize everything including the extremes and price the extremes to barely undercut and drive out any illicit market. It is always better to have control over a legitimate market than it is to have a black market. There is no way to regulate demand and creating market choke points is totally ineffective. So use state run capitalism to make the market uncompetitive and drive out any competition to gain full control. The State as the dealer makes more sense than the State playing wack-a-mole in the middle.

TWeaK,

I dunno, I think it’s more complicated than that. First off, there are some things that should be prohibited - it’s illegal to privately own nuclear weapons, for the most extreme example. Second, many of these truly harmful drugs have tiny markets, and these markets are in fact propped up by other, more conventional drugs being illegal. If heroin were legal, very few if any people would even consider fentanyl, such that fentanyl could be prohibited entirely without having an out of control illegal market.

In some sense, though, we do already have a controlled legitimate market for these prohibited things. Even cannabis, even during the prohibition, had some legal purchase avenues for the purpose of research. Even nuclear, that’s manufactured by private businesses with permission from the government. That works for the vast majority of drugs, it only fails with popular, relatively low harm recreational drugs where the law just isn’t reasonable against the potential harm.

novibe,

But if you legalise all drugs, as you say, no one will want to use shit like fent at all. Fent was legal for decades, it’s older than most opioids. It wasn’t an issue until the crackdown on pills.

TWeaK,

I think possession of any drug should be legal. However, the intent behind its use can still be illegal. If you have fentanyl and can demonstrate you only have it for some genuine use, and aren’t looking to cause harm with it, then that shouldn’t be a problem. Supplying fentanyl is much more likely to be a harmful circumstance, and its supply should be controlled.

novibe,

Imo spending the effort to educate people instead of cracking down on sellers or producers makes much more sense.

In a world with clean accessible morphine, no drug user will seek our fentanyl, no matter how easy it is to find.

militaryintelligence,

No one wants that crap. When I did drugs I wanted pain pills but they kept cracking down, so here we are with worse stuff.

djsoren19,

Here’s the thing - most people aren’t actually interested in trying hard drugs. The people who are, will probably obtain them irregardless of legality. Given that, what is the harm in mass legalization? It keeps money out of the cartels and back into the community via taxation; it ensures the drug is pure and safe to consume with no additives; and for the individuals who afterward decide it is not for them, they can get the help that they need without worrying.

Cheers,

I’d imagine some sort of NIST to maintain a standard would make it more expensive, which would result in people looking for their local dealers again.

Altofaltception,

Exactly this. When Portugal decriminalized drugs, they saw a decrease in usage-related deaths, drug crimes, and an increase in rehabilitation. Overall, there has been a decline in drug use as a result.

BobGnarley,

Dont you love how every country in the world just acts like this didnt happen (and still is very successfully)?

NightAuthor,

But you have to put the money into the treatment. Oregon isn’t quite doing that yet, and the lag between legalizing the drugs and actually increasing services has been pretty bad for everyone involved.

Hopefully we get it straightened out in the next year or two.

intensely_human,

Predictable dosing will save lives from overdoses.

Lemminary,

Just a reminder that, while drugs are the cartels’ biggest income, it’s not the only one. They’ll just move onto produce and other goods like avocados and lemons. This was news years ago but I’m not at the computer to link.

intensely_human,

Good. Let them justify their private armies to the accountants when police protection for legal operations is free.

Lemminary, (edited )

Yeah, that’s why they do end up legitimizing after some time for some of these reasons. lol So maybe it’s a good thing in the grand scheme of things, even if it’s kind of shitty for the people who played fair to get to where the others got for free.

joyjoy,

You say that as if illegal operations is a valid justification (to the law) for having a private army.

odium,

A. Consume less cartel produced drugs.

B. Stop giving the cartels guns

Although there are about 78,000 gun dealers in the U.S.,[56] ATF suggested that gun shows, thefts and private sales may be a greater source of trafficked Mexican guns than licensed dealers.[34] Gun smugglers are known to coerce[57] or pay U.S. residents or citizens to purchase semi-automatic rifles and other firearms from gun shops or gun shows and then transfer them to a cartel representative.[9][58][59][60][61][62] This exchange is known as a straw purchase.

HurlingDurling,
@HurlingDurling@lemmy.world avatar

Honestly, we shouldn’t consume drugs at all, but to each their one I always say.

However, I completely agree that the ATF should change their policy and prohibit ALL gun sales without a US identification and simple background check at least.

Adalast,

I would also add “Repeal Section 1” to this list. Let Philip Morris, Phizer, and their ilk deal with the problem. The cartels think they have power, they have no idea.

HurlingDurling,
@HurlingDurling@lemmy.world avatar

Never heard of this, do you have more information on this section 1?

I’m going to search it up myself, but if you have a good source, please share a link.

Adalast,

I meant schedule 1. My brain is much today. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538457/

HurlingDurling,
@HurlingDurling@lemmy.world avatar

Ah gotcha, makes sense, and I absolutely agree, however we still need some form of control on the sale and distribution (like what we have on alcohol for example), as well as a system to be able to help addicts with the medical help they need to get out of addiction.

TWeaK,

Wtf is Section 1??? That’s not specific enough.

Adalast,

Ah, my bad. Feeling like crap today. Schedule 1. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538457/

TWeaK,

No worries.

I think you’re referring to the Controlled Substances Act, which details all the shit.

Fun fact, all the links I found at the top of a search about this law seem to have “DEA” in the URL, rather than any regular link to actual legislation. It’s almost as if they’re monitoring them. Most of them were broken lmao.

The thing is, a law needs to exist, it just needs to be written by people who don’t chew crayons. I’m not talking about those tasty ones the Marines gnaw on, but the dodgy import ones that the DEA think make them look classy.

In all seriousness, we don’t need to remove the law (which has a pretty solid name) we just need to reclassify all the drugs and change the penalties to be appropriate for the good of society. Possession of anything in general should not be a crime, except for possession of a significant amount of a potentially fatal drug, as such possession could only reasonably point to intent to supply. Supply of fatal drugs (eg fentanyl, maybe certain bath salts or whatever) should remain illegal. Beyond that, recreational drugs would be better legitimised such that any issues with them can be faced in daylight, instead of dark alleyways. Even the worst of the major recreational drugs wouldn’t be all that harmful if people had support around them - certainly no more harmful than alcohol.

However drug policing is literally the DEA’s bread and butter, they’re not going to give up their job for the greater good.

someguy3,

Universal healthcare in the US if breaking bad is right.

BlueLineBae,

From what I understand, the US is actively investing in the Mexican economy right now in order to both shift our manufacturing reliability away from China and also to provide economic stability in Mexico to shift power away from the cartels. Please take this with a grain of salt as I do not remember where I read this and cannot provide a source. But from what I recall, the long term plan is to setup manufacturing in Mexico for the above reasons with the bonus of reducing shipping costs, time, and shipment vulnerability. I really hope it works, because if you think about it, it just makes sense all around. If we make Mexico our biggest trade partner, we both benefit in big ways. And the more options people have in Mexico for jobs, the less they have to rely on the cartel.

Aside from that, I used to agree that legalizing drugs would take the market away from the cartels, but then you have to remember that the cartels have since diversified. So stop eating Haas avocados??? I don’t know, I’m just a graphic designer ¯_(ツ)_/¯

TWeaK,

That’s exactly true, I can only imagine it isn’t widely published because the GOP would rather rant and rave about TEH IMMAGRINTS!! and take any opportunity to say the government isn’t making things better. Meanwhile, a Republican President (you know which one) would rather sell even more production to China with no checks whatsover in exchange for a very cheap bribe.

BlueLineBae,

I think what kick-started this was all the tariffs that were implemented under the Trump administration. It led corporations to move their manufacturing to other countries and in the process, it was generally discovered to work best to move manufacturing to Mexico. Now under Biden, they are trying to actively encourage moving things from China to Mexico.

TWeaK,

BUT THE WALL!!

Reverendender,

There are definitely some good ideas in this thread, I would like to know, however, where I can go to escape the crime, violence, inequality, and corruption in the United States?

HurlingDurling, (edited )
@HurlingDurling@lemmy.world avatar

Canada? IDK

I guess we keep going up right? /jk

But seriously, it’s very concerning how much worse the corruption in the US is getting

Reverendender,

Definitely. It’s built right into the system. Fucking lobbying. How does any rational person let that continue? We need the zombie of Teddy Roosevelt to run in ‘24.

(Is there a high demand for process managers with decent AI skills in Canada?)

Bye,

People are posting all kinds of ridiculous solutions that they know are impossible. Legalize drugs. Use less drugs. The cartels run more than just drugs! They run fucking avocados!! And electronics!! They have diversified. Never mind that it’s politically impossible to do anything like that. It can’t happen.

Invading Mexico and shooting the cartels CAN happen. It gives money to the defense industry, which itself is enough reason that it could happen. It’s probably even in the USA’s best interest to try and de-corrupt Mexico (never mind that this would be a bloody mess with huge loss of life). My point isn’t that it’s a good idea, it’s that it’s a solution that could actually happen in real life.

BobGnarley,

Heres an idea, reguate the drug and prostitution trade and let them keep their electronics and avocadoes and shit. They will take a major hit financial wise and be forced to be merchants selling Avocadoes and electronics

Bye,

You know they’d still be shooting people, right?

tyler,

The majority of illegal immigration into the US has nothing to do with walking across borders anywhere. It’s people overstaying their visas, and they got to the US on a plane. The whole Republican thing about immigrants marching across the borders is one of the most fantastical stories they’ve made up to make democrats look bad.

paf,

“do we straight up invade… like we did…” Do you know the mess that actually comes from there? And How much it had enforced extremist behaviour in other countries.

“What US needs to do?” Start by taking care of your own issues like guns, they will inevitably end up in dark market serving cartels and others, it would also stop massive killing happening in your own country at the same time… Priorities to education and healthcare, Stop invading countries (can’t remember last US invasion which was actually useful…), start supporting smart guys instead of bad/extremist guys so they don’t get more powerful (exemple: Masoud instead of Bin Laden in Afghanistan against Russia).

Floufym,
@Floufym@lemmy.world avatar

Had to scroll way to long to find this. Funny to see how Americans think imperialism is a solution.

« Best way to help Mexico ?» stop capitalism and switch to a social system.

PP_BOY_, (edited )
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

While it’s true that the U.S. is the most convenient market for Mexican cartels, it’s worth knowing that it’s far from the only one. Mexican drug cartels have major connections to markets across the globe. and that Mexico specifically is the de facto administrator of drug trade in the western world. For example, a drug bust in India found fentanyl that had been purchased in Mexico from China. . That’s not the sort of arrangement that the US can ever hope to do away with through domestic legislation without undermining the autonomy of dozens of states around the globe.

While removing the cartels’ access to the American market via decriminalization would certainly take away a lot of funds, let’s not act like black market operations don’t exist in legal markets anyway.

In this hypothetical situation where the US is responsible for Mexico’s drug cartel problem (which I disagree with), I don’t think the road to success ends at the US legalizing drugs.

HurlingDurling,
@HurlingDurling@lemmy.world avatar

This is true, another example is Ecuador who is fighting an incredible surge in gang violence because the Mexican cartels are now operating in the south American country.

TheGalacticVoid,

When there’s a clean supply of drugs green-lit by a superpower like the US, wouldn’t it naturally be exported to other countries? Sure, the cartel would still exist, but for the drug trade specifically, better availability of safe, quality drugs internationally would reduce international demand for cartel drugs, no? Wouldn’t other countries start manufacturing said drugs to import into the US as well, making it easier to fill the black market with regulated products?

Draedron,

The US could stop buying the drugs or stop supplying the weapons. The CIA was heavily involved in the creation of the cartely so the US should stay the fuck out of it. Whenever you try to fix stuff you make it worse. Mostly because you only act like you try to fix it while at the same time looking how to profit from it.

blahsay,

L E G A L I Z E

Cartels gone overnight. Handle addiction as a medical problem. With legal MDMA, mushrooms, weed and acid, the hard stuff isn’t going to be anywhere near as big an issue as it is currently.

HelixDab2,

That doesn’t stop the cartels, not by a long shot. Ending prohibition in the US didn’t eliminate the organized crime families in the US, it just moved them to different areas of corruption. If it’s not alcohol, it’s drugs. If it’s not drugs, then it’s gambling, tax evasion, prostitution, loan sharking, organized theft, and so on and so forth. And without correcting the underlying issues driving alcoholism and drug addiction in the US–particularly poverty–complete decriminalization would lead to huge problems. Has led to huge problems in some cities.

While decriminalizing drugs would help to a degree, you need to correct the underlying problems that have allowed cartels to amass so much power in the first place, like weak governments, lack of opportunities, and high rates of poverty.

blahsay,

Dude it’s 90% of their income - of course it will hit them. They won’t disappear but believe me legalisation is the biggest thing they fear.

HelixDab2,

All I can do is point to how much power the mob amassed in the US during prohibition, and how long they held that power after prohibition ended. Sure, their revenue took a hit, but they moved fairly smoothly into other areas, and corrupted other power structures in order to build and maintain illicit revenue streams. It wasn’t until the 80s and 90s that the mob families in NYC really saw significant consequences.

As an example? Mozarella cheese on pizza. That was fully controlled by the mob for a long time.

blahsay,

Who cares man? Gambling, prostitution, cheese, trash? Those are legit businesses.

As long they’re out of the murder and dismemberment game that’s the win right?

HelixDab2,

Gambling should never be considered a legit business. IMO casinos et al. should be shut down, for the same reason that payday lenders should be beaten to death in the streets: they’re fundamentally predatory businesses.

The problem with prostitution and organized crime is that it’s not victimless once the mob gets involved. “Bitch better have my money” is a threat; you pay the pimp, or you get beaten, and possibly killed. You want to hire an independent escort? I’m fine with that. But significant amounts of prostitution involve sex trafficking, esp. “agencies” that constantly advertise “new girls”.

All of the businesses that the mob–or any organized criminal gang–is in end up increasing costs due to corruption, and involve the threat of violence if anyone disrupts their money. People that try to compete in sectors controlled by criminal groups tend to end up dead very, very quickly, regardless of what the nature of the business is.

blahsay,

“Prohibition…goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.” - Abraham Lincoln

I get that you personally might have moral issues with gambling etc. but making something illegal doesn’t stop it, it just pushes control into the hands of criminals. Want to give me a single instance where prohibition has ever worked?

If you want to stop cartels legalisation is literally the only path.

HelixDab2,

but making something illegal doesn’t stop it,

That’s… Not a good argument. Child pornography and prostitution is illegal because it’s morally reprehensible, and incredibly, profoundly harmful to children. Same with murder, robbery, theft, etc. By definition, anything that is illegal is going to be done–or controlled–only by people that are criminals.

Does prohibition stop those things entirely? No, of course it doesn’t. But it gives society tools to fight against them in a way that decriminalizing does not.

blahsay, (edited )

Prohibition doesn’t give society tools, it removes them.

Take prostitution. Legalisation immediately leads to registration of hookers (blocking most human trafficking), gives oversight to inspectors, forces safety standards, allows for checks on welfare etc… It also removes criminals from the chain, pimps, violence, drugs etc… If you do a little research on this you’ll see it’s the better option. If you are a moral person your imperative should be on keeping all parties safe. And you have to realise prohibition never stops it.

HelixDab2,

Legalization of prostitution is a problem by itself, because the regulatory costs end up being borne by the sex workers (more on that in a tic). For prostitutes that are working at a subsistence level or only doing sex work occasionally as a stop-gap–which is the majority of voluntary prostitution–that’s not going to work. And what do you do, for instance, when a registered sex worker suddenly tests positive for HIV, or hepatitis C? Revoke their license, and then…? Legalizing doesn’t eliminate trafficking, it just pushes the prices for trafficked prostitutes down, because trafficked prostitutes are slaves.

There are definitely harm-reduction models that can, and do, work for sex work, but legalization and regulation–when that regulatory costs are paid by either the sex worker or the customer–will not work the way you think for harm reduction. For the system to work as intended, you would also need things like national single-payer healthcare (…that isn’t constantly getting funding slashed by conservatives), and licensing that was both on-demand and free to the licensee, and you would need something to deal with the loss of income if they contracted an incurable STI. (Otherwise they would continue working, which would be a public health risk.) Inspections, compliance measures, et al. could not be a cost borne by the sew worker/clients or else you’d see non-compliance with regulatory measures. Most sex-worker advocates call for decriminalization rather than legalization/regulation because that’s the model that moves the most risk away from the sex worker, but you do need to also balance the needs of the worker against the the needs of society to a degree.

blahsay,

You seem to be using the cost of regulation as an excuse against decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution which i find wild.

Firstly a slightly higher cost to cover overhead would be fine for most johns if they didn’t have to risk jail I’d imagine. I’m also sceptical that would even be needed. My understanding is currently in the US pimps take the majority of what sex workers earn.

Remember theres also tax revenue generated here so that would easily cover any government oversight…or does in other countries.

Also take into account that cost of not regulating is far far far higher. It’s like the cost of homelessness - it costs massive amounts to a community oddly! The medical, policing, social services etc etc not to mention cost in terms of violence from criminal behaviour, drug addiction etc etc… At the end of the day it bringing people into society is a far better option for all.

BobGnarley,

I think a lot of the issue with your interpretation of this is that you feel like Prostitution and Gambling are morally wrong. But that will never stop people from doing those things. You regulate and control it to get the criminals out like they did with gaming commisions to cut the mob out of the gambling. If a woman is getting paid fairly and chooses to be a hooker (which is how it would be if regulated, no pimps probably just a pre pay at the counter kind of thing) and they are tested regularly how is that not a net positive for society? Less STDs, less rapes, no human trafficking because it turns out that a lot of women would absolutely choose to do that work without a pimp that can and probably will hurt you breathing down your neck. Same with gambling we regulated it and people who choose to do it should be allowed to make that choice. Also, did you know that Cocaine and Methamphetamine are not schedule 1 drugs? This is because the US government manufactures controlled amounts of them for legitimate pharmacutical uses. Google it if you dont believe me. Its funny becuase, the cartel has zero control over that and never will. What makes you think that can’t be scaled up and adopted to a wider market? The US government literally manufactures lab grade cocaine and methamphetamine and all kinds of other shit too Ketamine and Opiates and the drug cartels make zero dollars and zero cents off of that process. So to say it can’t be done is ignoring facts.

HelixDab2,

I don’t take a stance on either from a morality basis.

In regards to gambling, I see it as a fundamentally predatory business model that preys on the people that are least able to afford it. If a rich guy wants to blow a million dollars on blackjack, I don’t fucking care, that’s not my problem. If a poor person is buying $500 in scratchers because that’s they’re only hope for excaping poverty, that’s a problem. Or a retired person that pushes a button as fast as they can on a slot machine, burning through their retirement savings, because that’s the only thing that lights up their dopamine receptors anymore. And there’s a lot more of the latter two than the former. There are also a whoooooole lot of people with gambling problems, and a person that’s blowing all their money on gambling ends up becoming a problem for the people around them, as they are no longer able to take care of their own needs.

The only issue I see with prostitution–aside from the fact that a not insignificant amount is from trafficked victims–is the public health risks. Given that healthcare in the US is outrageously expensive, there’s not a great way for people that are usually working at a near subsistence level to treat STIs. And, for certain STIs (HIV, hepatitis C), they are strongly disincentivized in regards to informing customers, as there’s not cure and long-term treatment is deeply burdensome.

did you know that Cocaine and Methamphetamine are not schedule 1 drugs

Yes. Cocaine and meth are both schedule II, which is used for drugs with a high probability of abuse, but still have recognized medical uses. (Marijuana is currently schedule I, but I believe that the FDA has been asked to re-evaluate it an move it to schedule III, which would make decriminalization much easier, and would mean that it would no longer be a prohibiting factor for buying a firearm.) Cocaine is–or was–used for surgery in highly vascular areas (esp. nose and sinus surgery) because it acts as a vasoconstrictor. Amphetamines used to be issued to soldiers, esp. pilots, that needed to be alert and focused for long periods of time. See also: Aimo Koivunen. The fact that certain drugs do have legitimate medical uses doesn’t mean that the abuse/addiction is not a material problem. Try chatting with anyone that has been prescribed anxiolytic medication, and has tried to titrate their dose down, or discontinue their use entirely (same goes for certain SSRIs, TBH). Yes, drugs are a personal choice, right up until they’re functionally not a choice any more because you’ll suffer serious physiological effects from cessation. And it’s not like the US has a great track record of providing effective assistance for people that want to get cleaned up. Full legalization or all recreational drugs, without also building the necessary social supports, would create far more problems than it would solve.

BobGnarley,

I do see how the poor person with the scratchers can be a negative for society as a whole, but if you take that freedom of the choice from people many will still choose to do it and then criminals are the only ones controlling it. I think for the prostitution to work (like it does with many tight restrictions in certain counties in Nevada) you would have to enforce safe sex practices and mandatory sti testing for ALL of the possible different ones and this can be achieved with the assloads (lol) of money legalized prostitution would be raking in. As far as the drug conversation goes I pointed that out to show you that drugs can be produced and manufactured and distributed without any criminality involved if you do it correctly. Yes, drug use can affect society negatively and that is why you would use some of the absolute mega fuckton amount of money that industry would be making and require that thr manufacturers themselves (and taxes only on the sales of those goods) are paying for increased treatment and homeless prevention and rehabilitation. I dont think you are considering the obscene amount of money these industries would make if legalized. You use a portion of that money to fix the problems behind it, much like they make tobacco companies do that right now in the us. They did that and slowly but surely tobacco smoking has gone down. Vapes are a bit different but thats another good example of how outlawing something and not regulating it correctly (pods) made the problem significantly worse now we have disposable batteries poisoning the earth because they just can not choose to regulate the things people will do no matter what. It truly dpesnt make any sense to me except from a viewpoint of absolute boot crushing control. Thats the only reason

HelixDab2,

Gambling: Legal gambling doesn’t stop illegal gambling. Like dog fights, cock fights (which–disappointingly–involve chickens), or people that are out of money and credit; they’re still going exist. It would be healthier for society to make gambling unpopular, rather than squeezing every last bit of revenue out people that usually can’t afford it.

Prostitution: Legalizing under the Nevada model does nothing to illegal prostitution, because the Nevada model puts it out of financial reach for most of the clientele and restricts the locations to places that the clientele usually aren’t (e.g., they’re a long way out of the city, and you have to drive several hours from Vegas to get to the closest one). An (illegal) independent escort in Las Vegas will typically cost $350-500 per hour, and quite possibly far, far more. A sex worker at a legal brothel will easily cost more than $1000 for the same time period. A sex worker controlled by a pimp is going to be $200 or less, and have less ability–or no ability–to refuse acts that s/he doesn’t want to do. The cost of compliance with regulations is on the sex worker, who passes it on to the clientele; that regulatory model means that legal avenues will end up being less affordable to people than illicit avenues. (And, given that you can pretty easily find escorts working in Vegas despite legal options being available in the state, I think it’s pretty clear that people will be price sensitive.

Drugs: Same issue. Regulatory oversight–which is necessary for recreational drugs to not kill people unintentionally–increases costs, and those costs get passed to the consumer. For a very real-world example, a single 10mL vial of 200mg/mL testosterone cypionate costs about $60 at Costco, and over $100 at Walgreens, et al.. (Testosterone cypionate is a schedule III drug.) You can buy a 20mL vial of 300mg/mL testosterone cypionate on the black market for anywhere from $30-60. You can buy raw hormone powder for under $2/gram (e.g., the raw hormone used in the black market 20mL vial costs the producer $12 or less). A therapeutic dose will be perhaps 150-200mg/week, depending on your own physiology, and what you’re target blood values are. An IFBB pro bodybuilder is going to go through a minimum of 3,000 mg/week during a bulk. If an IFBB pro were to buy their testosterone cypionate legally–if they didn’t need a prescription–it would cost $90/week, versus $15-30. (This ignores all the other shit they take, too.) IFBB guys have been using their black market suppliers for years, maybe decades; what’s their incentive to pay 3-6x as much for something they aren’t going to see a difference in? Legal marijuana has depressed prices for illegal marijuana, but it’s still cheaper to buy a quarter from my local guy than it is to buy in a dispensary.

much like they make tobacco companies do that right now in the us.

Organized crime makes a fuckton of money by forging tax stamps on cigarettes to evade taxes. Before prices started going up dramatically on cigarettes (which I think was a good thing, since smoking doesn’t end up costing just the smoker), that kind of fraud and tax evasion was chump change. Now it’s millions.

shinigamiookamiryuu,

We can only hold the problem back as long as Mexico isn’t vigilant enough on them. If I was president, I wouldn’t invade Mexico but I’d definitely be suing them (and then maybe use the money to pay off national debt; what Mexico has been doing surely makes them indebted/owe us, right? Right?)

ICastFist,
@ICastFist@programming.dev avatar

The obvious answer: Start producing locally

So, how do we do it? Do we straight up invade Mexico and go on a full out war against the cartels like we did against Osama Bin Laden?

That sure went well, huh? Afghanistan sure is a better place now! Oh, wait…

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • asklemmy@lemmy.world
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #