DEA: Record violence in Mexico "a sign of success in the fight against drugs"

[emzie]

When was the last time a war was fought over food?

Ethiopia?

 

[Lovebird]

No you're just supposed to engage your brain. Even your examples show a severe lack of thought. For example Cocaine over the vast course of it's history as a narcotic was not illegal, it was even an ingredient in Coca-Cola at one stage. It was only made illegal in 1914, since then a lot of people have died over it, and I'll be pretty confident I'm right in stating that the deaths began soon after the prohibition over it.

But then again you do prefer false sweeping statements over evidence, otherwise you wouldn't be for prohibition but against it.

I didn't say cocaine was illegal for most of its history, I said most of its history as an illegal narcotic has been absent any serious conflicts. Based on this, and the fact that it applies to most other currently illegal narcotics as well, it's entirely rational to deduce that the cause of Mexico's drug war is not the criminalization of certain narcotics, but must be some other factor. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clearer earlier, but I don't think I can make it much clearer than this.

 

[Berzerker]

it's entirely rational to deduce that the cause of Mexico's drug war is not the criminalization of certain narcotics

Criminalization is a pre-requisite, but the amount of violence created by it varies - often with the intensity with which the drug war is fought. When a cartel (or neighborhood dealer) is busted up, a war ensues between people applying for the job. Once a winner prevails violence decreases until the process repeats itself, over and over... US homicide rates for the 20th century show a doubling of dead people during alcohol prohibition and again under Reagan.

In the mid 80s Congress and a bunch of the states went after "crack" cocaine with hefty penalties for adults caught "dealing". Think about that a while...

What do you think happened?

Minors were recruited into gangs and the drug trade en masse and juvenile (violent) crime rates went up for years (still might be). Its both and when prohibitionists tell us "its for the children".

 

[naterator]

Doesn't matter. The limitation on the supply has nothing to do with it.

In fact, thank you for giving me a second weapon to beat you over the head with: food. You can grow yourself a crop of new food every few months, and guess what--wars are fought over food all the time. Food and oil are both legal, yet wars are fought over them all the time. Drugs will be no different; people want lots of them, and they're more profitable than either oil or food (and will remain so even if legalized), and so the answer remains no. Legalizing will not reduce drug-related violence.


Of course. It will reduce violence by gangbangers. It will not reduce violence by other people. Such as governments. Which are much better-armed than gangbangers......

Today's oil wars are not being fought by oil smugglers. They're being fought by governments. Which is worse right now? Wars being fought over cocaine, or wars being fought over oil? Obviously the second one. So what's your end goal here, bud? To reduce violence? To reduce the number of times governments steamroll entire nations to keep the oil/cocaine profits coming in? If you're looking to reduce the amount of violence in the world, legalizing things is not the way to do it. All the legal things wars are fought over (such as food and oil) serve as counterexamples.


Yes he did. He said it right here:


Dawgphood said it very plainly: he thinks the illegal status of drugs is responsible for the violence currently happening in Mexico. If I got that wrong, HE is welcome to correct me; YOU are not.

Sigh... Do you really not see why your comparisons are ridiculous? First, food and water are essential for life. Oil is essential for anything remotely to a modern society to exist. Drugs are either a way to relieve pain, or a recreational diversion. Not comparable at all. You can continue to compare them if you please, but don't expect another reiteration why your argument is dismissed.

Second, the violence of the gangs is kind of central to what we're talking about here. If legalization effectively ended the gangs (as it did here after prohibition), then who do you think the Mexican government would go to war with over drugs? Be specific. Do you think they would murder more or less Mexicans than the cartels? We are not looking to reduce the amount of governments that steamroll other nations in this thread and you will find no references to it in anything other than your babbling, so you can knock that nonsense off. The end goal here, bud, is to have a chuckle at the how stupid the government is for saying/thinks we are for believing that record violence means the war on drugs is being won; and maybe to discuss the causes and potential solutions to said violence.

Third, saying that the illegal status of drugs is responsible for the current violence in Mexico does NOT equal saying that legalizing drugs will end any violence related to drugs everywhere in the world. No one is arguing that, or oil, or food wars, or anything ridiculously off topic like that except you.

 

[warpus]

It's BasketCase, give him a break, nobody takes him seriously anyway.

 

[CaptainF]

.....that are far more profitable per pound than oil, and would remain more profitable than oil if they were legalized.

Nah, the reason coke and weed are so expensive is because they are illegal.

Oil is proof that legalizing something is not likely to reduce the violence being waged over it.

Oil is also not cocaine...capeesh?

There were. Just none that you've heard of.

Oh, I've heard of the Opium Wars. Sorry you think I'm ignorant.

Lots of wars have been fought over drugs for much of human history. While those drugs were legal. Tobacco and opium were heavily involved in the American Revolution.

"Heavily involved" meaning that the Brits sought to destroy the tobacco crop as a way to starve the revolutionaries of cash.

Oh, and the Brits also instated a prohibition of American Tobacco.

Naturally you've heard of the Opium Wars. In the 1800's, the opium trade was one of the British Empire's largest sources of revenue. Legal drugs have in fact been directly responsible for funding a lot of violence throughout history. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

Opium wasn't legal in China when the Opium Wars started. Matter of fact, that's why they started. The Brits went to war to protect the profits they gained from illegal opium smuggling into China.

So we see that prohibition of drugs doesn't really do much good now does it?