NationStates Jolt Archive

Is Mexican government to blame for the problems caused by drugs in the US, by allowing so much drug trafficking through their country?

Or

Are the US government to blame for destroying Mexico by not tackling the demand for drugs in the US, which has led to the corruption of Mexico?

The US government is to blame for creating the demand.

Yes.

Is Mexican government to blame for the problems caused by drugs in the US, by allowing so much drug trafficking through their country?

No, that's quite silly...there are few nations that "allow" drug trafficking, and Mexico is not one of them.

Are the US government to blame for destroying Mexico by not tackling the demand for drugs in the US, which has led to the corruption of Mexico?

Also quite silly...there will always be a demand for drugs in any country, and tackling said demand is a waste of resources.

The blame lies on the U.S. government for not cutting off the flow of money to criminal organizations via legalization, not because they haven't arrested or treated enough addicts.

Until drugs are legalized, the supply will remain in the hands of criminals...it's a simple fix, really, compared to all the problems the War on Drugs creates, but no politician has the balls to speak the truth in regards to this issue, much less actually do anything about it.

the combination of thoughtless cultural values in the u.s. and laws motivated by them, there and elsewhere, and by putting economic interests ahead of real people places and things are what are to blame, in this as in many other contexts. looking to blame a who is looking for scapegoats. looking for scapegoats is how hitler screwed everything up.

not because they haven't arrested or treated enough addicts.
Those are two entirely different things with different results on demand.

Those are two entirely different things

Hence the "or"...

with different results on demand.

...your point?

Here's a bit of a question to those who argue for legalization of drugs. What is to stop the vastly richer and more influential cartels, compared to any mere startup, from simply entering the market as legitimate suppliers from that point onwards? Be it through dummy corporations or an out and out front store, they already have the infrastructure and distribution networks that would allow them to out-compete any new company.

Here's a bit of a question to those who argue for legalization of drugs. What is to stop the vastly richer and more influential cartels, compared to any mere startup, from simply entering the market as legitimate suppliers from that point onwards? Be it through dummy corporations or an out and out front store, they already have the infrastructure and distribution networks that would allow them to out-compete any new company.

this is not an argument against legalizing "drugs" but against corporate economics in general. and an excellent one considering how they (corporate capitalism, not recreationally consumed substances) have usurped and subverted every political process, whatever ideology it pays lip service to.

Here's a bit of a question to those who argue for legalization of drugs. What is to stop the vastly richer and more influential cartels, compared to any mere startup, from simply entering the market as legitimate suppliers from that point onwards? Be it through dummy corporations or an out and out front store, they already have the infrastructure and distribution networks that would allow them to out-compete any new company.

State run monopoly...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14628863&postcount=67

this is not an argument against legalizing "drugs" but against corporate economics in general. and an excellent one considering how they (corporate capitalism, not recreationally consumed substances) have usurped and subverted every political process, whatever ideology it pays lip service to.

Well, given that half the argument for legalizing them seems to involve cutting off the money supply to the cartels, I imagine what I mentioned does apply don't you think?

In either case, corporate capitalism is just the symptom of the problem of power subversion and the general mess that is special interest groups in the political structure. You could dismantle every corporation in existence overnight and pool their assets into whatever mucky muck political utopia you imagine, but sooner or later, it'll be subverted by people who want things going their way and their way only, won't be shy about messing up the government to do so and have the fortitude to make it happen.

But that's an argument for another thread anyway.

State run monopoly...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14628863&postcount=67

And how is this monopoly, that doesn't suffer from the usual problems of free ridership and whatnot that generally dictates what the state runs, going to be kept in the state? There's umpteen billion dollars floating around there that the cartels probably wouldn't mind throwing some of into a few people's pockets to "get the government out of the market".

Rambhutan is to blame

Well, given that half the argument for legalizing them seems to involve cutting off the money supply to the cartels, I imagine what I mentioned does apply don't you think?

In either case, corporate capitalism is just the symptom of the problem of power subversion and the general mess that is special interest groups in the political structure. You could dismantle every corporation in existence overnight and pool their assets into whatever mucky muck political utopia you imagine, but sooner or later, it'll be subverted by people who want things going their way and their way only, won't be shy about messing up the government to do so and have the fortitude to make it happen.

But that's an argument for another thread anyway.

well yes and no. but i do see it as being the same point of the same discussion. and sure, those who found this means would look for and possibly find another in the abscence of it.

and it IS political heavy handedness that motivates the chemical escapism trade in the first place. not only the demand side, but the supply side as well.

and that can certainly be blamed on both parties and the dominant culture of the mostly consuming one.

Rambhutan is to blame

World War II was my fault as well

World War II was my fault as well

Yep your the jew responsible for the Holocaust.

Here's a bit of a question to those who argue for legalization of drugs. What is to stop the vastly richer and more influential cartels, compared to any mere startup, from simply entering the market as legitimate suppliers from that point onwards? Be it through dummy corporations or an out and out front store, they already have the infrastructure and distribution networks that would allow them to out-compete any new company.
They've also grown accustomed to their product having an inflated monetary value and there being no government standards or oversight. Legalization would take that away, and probably do a fair bit to kill the "romance."
The worst case scenario is that legalization results in the creation of one more unethical, international corporation selling a harmful product. Oh dear.

They've also grown accustomed to their product having an inflated monetary value and there being no government standards or oversight. Legalization would take that away, and probably do a fair bit to kill the "romance."

How would legalization bring standards to cocaine fields in say, Colombia? It's not like they'd be subjected to any better scrutiny than factories in China, and we both know there's been quite a bad track record in that category.


The worst case scenario is that legalization results in the creation of one more unethical, international corporation selling a harmful product. Oh dear.

Still puts to paid the argument that it'd put an end to, or seriously harm, the cartels doesn't it?

How would legalization bring standards to cocaine fields in say, Colombia? It's not like they'd be subjected to any better scrutiny than factories in China, and we both know there's been quite a bad track record in that category.



Nothing like lead in my coke to start the day.

Still puts to paid the argument that it'd put an end to, or seriously harm, the cartels doesn't it?

no, only the argument for linear absolutism as the prevailing norm in a fundamentally statistical universe.

international economic interests profiting in harmful ways. gee, ever hear of guns? to say nothing of callus disregard for environments individuals and even whole cultures depend, or once did, upon for they're very day to day survival.

How would legalization bring standards to cocaine fields in say, Colombia? It's not like they'd be subjected to any better scrutiny than factories in China, and we both know there's been quite a bad track record in that category.
I meant standards at the POS. Insuring that cocaine isn't cut with poisons, for instance, and guaranteeing whatever level of purity on the bottle.
There will still be problems on that front, but I'm talking from a pragmatic standpoint where the goal is to reduce damage. You can't end the drug trade, but it could be brought into line.
Still puts to paid the argument that it'd put an end to, or seriously harm, the cartels doesn't it?
It might. It would, at least, put a leash on them and limit their damage to the usual realms of corporate malfeasance.

Nothing like lead in my coke to start the day.

Try polonium. It's guaranteed to be much more energetic.


international economic interests profiting in harmful ways. gee, ever hear of guns? to say nothing of callus disregard for environments individuals and even whole cultures depend, or once did, upon for they're very day to day survival.

Which seems to be an indicator of just plain old short sighted human nature, rather than the merits or failings of laws in restricting their actions.

Try polonium. It's guaranteed to be much more energetic.



Even I know to avoid Russian Coke.

Which seems to be an indicator of just plain old short sighted human nature, rather than the merits or failings of laws in restricting their actions.

which is neither human no nature. not inherently nor specifically at any rate.

no law (other then a law of nature) can prevent anyone from doing, or at least attempting to do, anything, once. it can only attempt to deny those who fail to restrain themselves the opportunity to do so again.

it IS also an indicator, perhaps because of what is being CALLED "human nature", what laws can and cannot be expected to accomplish. this being far less then what cultural values that come to prevail can.

you can probably prevent most men from doing most things by pointing a gun at them and telling them not to. as long as you're there holding the gun.

there is a somewhat obvious, or i should think obvious, shortcoming to this approach. several.

need i detail them?

at any rate, my point remains the pointlessness of blame.