Interpol: FARC files real

[lovett]

How would that deprive the cartels of money? If anything, they'd be getting more money from not having to put so much money into smuggling and they'd still do what they're doing now. The only difference is that more cocaine would stream into the US.


The only way the drug cartel's are going to fall is either with force or we beat them at their own game, making a substance that produces a better high, little or no addictiveness and at a much cheaper cost than what the cartels are offering.

Mr Milton Friedman would disagree with you. I'll qoute.

[…] it is because it's prohibited. See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true.” - Milton Friedman

He has a pretty incontestable point. The cartels would not exist without prohibition. They wouldn't be able to compete with legitimate business', without turning into legitimate business' themselves. Me Friedman also made some other good points, which im sure he can communicate more eloquently then I.

In an ordinary free market--let's take potatoes, beef, anything you want--there are thousands of importers and exporters. Anybody can go into the business. But it's very hard for a small person to go into the drug importing business because our interdiction efforts essentially make it enormously costly. So, the only people who can survive in that business are these large Medellin cartel kind of people who have enough money so they can have fleets of airplanes, so they can have sophisticated methods, and so on.

In addition to which, by keeping goods out and by arresting, let's say, local marijuana growers, the government keeps the price of these products high. What more could a monopolist want? He's got a government who makes it very hard for all his competitors and who keeps the price of his products high. It's absolutely heaven.- Milton Friedman

There is no reason to belive we can force the cartels out of Business. There is no reason to belive we can out compete them by creating another drug. There is every reason to believe that the Raison D' Etre of the cartels is drug prohibition.

 

[Princeps]

The US and Israel try to minimize civilian casualties wherever possible. Trust me: if Israel wanted to kill all the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank, they could.

No it can't. Don't be stupid.

Israeli policy makers do not care about civilian lives -- that much is obvious from their actions -- but they can't just go on a murderous rampage because that would destroy Israel's precious PR image. And furthermore, I doubt that decent Israelis would accept such genocidal policies: Israeli state would also face an internal revolt perhaps.

The Palestinians live because the Israeli's are more civilized than the members of Hamas and Hezbollah

Yes the Israeli people is civilized sure, but the policy makers are terrorists and crooks as far as I am concerned.

FARC (And Hamas and Hezbollah) target civilians.

So does the right-wing elements in Colombia (the government, their private tyrant cronies, death squads etc) and so does the IDF. And they're all backed by the US.

Hamas and Hezbollah are small players compared to the US backed Israel. the FARC is basically made of jungle-dwelling guerillas that barely eat well. The IDF and the Colombian military (and its paramilitary support) have means of terrorism that extend well beyond FARC, Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

[Neomega]

And yet, your response to FARC terrorism was "who cares"? If you don't care about something, then obviously it isn't a big deal to you.

Yeah, because they are in a civil war. And "terrorism" is committed by both sides.

 

[Elrohir]

Translation: I'm too enthralled with the idea of a communist revolution to give a crap about innocent civilians.

Also, Tu quoque.

 

[Neomega]

Translation: I'm too enthralled with the idea of a communist revolution to give a crap about innocent civilians.

Translation: I assume NeOmega is a liberal, so I will use the same attacks I use on all liberals.

Since I personally am all about capitalism... well.. you know the rest.

P.S. I see know hypocrisy. I call it all "terrorism". I care more about the civilians than you do, I care about all of them being killed. I dont want my taxpayer money helping any of it, in any way, including funding a government that would collapse under the revolution without us.

 

[Elrohir]

Translation: I assume NeOmega is a liberal, so I will use the same attacks I use on all liberals.

Since I personally am all about capitalism... well.. you know the rest.

I don't assume you are a liberal - I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are a liberal, by American standards. You're a leftist, pure and simple - if you don't like the label, then change your politics. But pretending that you are anything but that is disingenuous.

Ninja edit:

P.S. I see know hypocrisy. I call it all "terrorism". I care more about the civilians than you do, I care about all of them being killed. I dont want my taxpayer money helping any of it, in any way, including funding a government that would collapse under the revolution without us.

Here's the difference between us:

I see terrorism performed by Al Qaeda, and the FARC, and Hamas, and other groups. I want my government, and the Israeli government, and the Columbian government, and every legitimate government to fight terrorism. I actually care about civilians. But I know that all civilian casualties cannot be avoided in war, so I don't instantly condemn the US or Israel for causing civilian casualties, when they are trying to save lives. Sometimes accidents happen, sometimes people die - that's life. But that's not terrorism. Terrorism is not simply the killing of civilians, period, that's a bogus definition. Al Qaeda, FARC, Hamas, they all target civilians, and I want them destroyed.

You don't care at all. You think the US and Israel are just as bad as Ql Qaeda, FARC, and Hamas. You're so irrational that you can't see any difference between unfortunate collateral damage and intentional massacre. I think that you think you want to help as many people as possible - but by excusing the actions of terrorist groups and by equating their action with that of the US, you are espousing a philosophy that would result in many, many more civilian deaths and increased anarchy and violence around the globe.

Sometimes you have to kill for there to be peace. Sometimes innocents die in the process. That's unfortunate. But it's not terrorism. It's a fact of life.

 

[Neomega]

I don't assume you are a liberal - I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are a liberal, by American standards. You're a leftist, pure and simple - if you don't like the label, then change your politics. But pretending that you are anything but that is disingenuous.

A leftist, pure capitalist?

And from this, you can conclude I support a revolution because its communist?

Where does that logical leap come from?

 

[Neomega]

You don't care at all. You think the US and Israel are just as bad as Ql Qaeda, FARC, and Hamas. You're so irrational that you can't see any difference between unfortunate collateral damage and intentional massacre.

I care more about the cause than the tactic.
If the cause isn't just, then the tactics aren't just. If the tactics aren't just, then the deaths from the tactics are massacre just the same.

Yup. You got me. Good call. Now what?

Sometimes you have to kill for there to be peace. Sometimes innocents die in the process. That's unfortunate. But it's not terrorism. It's a fact of life.

Sometimes. Israel, and current American foreign policy ain't one of those times. Neither was Vietnam, or Korea, Iraq I or grenada, Panama or Haiti or Somalia or Lebanon. Last time it was necessary was WW II.

 

[Elrohir]

I care more about the cause than the tactic.
If the cause isn't just, then the tactics aren't just.

No, you don't, because if you did you wouldn't be as condemning of the US and Israel as of the FARC or Al Qaeda. The US desires freedom and security in Iraq - maybe we aren't doing a very good job at accomplishing that, but that really is what we're after. (Or do you think George Bush wants Shia death squads and Sunni insurgents blowing marketplaces up?) Same with Israel. The cause is just, and so are the tactics, on the whole.

Sometimes. Israel, and current American foreign policy ain't one of those times. Neither was Vietnam, or Korea, Iraq I or grenada, Panama or Haiti or Somalia or Lebanon. Last time it was necessary was WW II

So in your view, foreign dictators should be allowed to invade neighboring countries on a whim, and terrorist organizations should be allowed to attack the US and our allies, and we shouldn't send troops overseas? Is that correct?

 

[Neomega]

So in your view... terrorist organizations should be allowed to attack the US

I'm done talking to people that put words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do it like an adult.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm done talking to people that put words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do it like an adult.

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

Sig-worthy...extremely sig-worthy.

 

[philippe]

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

Sig-worthy...extremely sig-worthy.

where, where?

 

[Neomega]

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

Sig-worthy...extremely sig-worthy.

Yeah, I gave up "debating" one person loooong ago. I think he might just be figuring it out now, though.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm done talking to people that put words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do it like an adult.

You're one to talk.

My statement, in full, was this: "So in your view, foreign dictators should be allowed to invade neighboring countries on a whim, and terrorist organizations should be allowed to attack the US and our allies, and we shouldn't send troops overseas? Is that correct?"

Now, if that is incorrect, then you should say so. I asked it in the form of a question, because I didn't want to get it wrong - but that's what you're implying with your posts, so I wanted to know where you stand.

As it is, it sounds like you're condemning every overseas military commitment the US has made since WW2. That includes the Gulf War (Where a foreign dictator invaded a neighboring country) and the war in Afghanistan (Where the Taliban harbored terrorists that had attacked the US on 9/11). Now, if you believe both of those wars are inappropriate, how can I do anything but believe that you don't think the US should go to war to defend our allies, or attack terrorist organizations that attack the US itself?

If you do favor one of those wars, or I'm somehow misrepresenting your position, then say so, don't just get all huffy on me. I'm trying to actually figure out what you think, but you aren't cooperating, which means I have to take the most likely understanding of what you've said - which is a very bad one. If that's wrong, then correct me. If it's right, then why are you upset?

 

[Cutlass]

Mr Milton Friedman would disagree with you. I'll qoute.



He has a pretty incontestable point. The cartels would not exist without prohibition. They wouldn't be able to compete with legitimate business', without turning into legitimate business' themselves. Me Friedman also made some other good points, which im sure he can communicate more eloquently then I.



There is no reason to belive we can force the cartels out of Business. There is no reason to belive we can out compete them by creating another drug. There is every reason to believe that the Raison D' Etre of the cartels is drug prohibition.

Don't count on Friedman to get much of anything right. There is no proposal to legalize drugs that would lower the revenue of the drug cartels. They are already the low cost producers, no one could take their market away. And there would always be the illegal market for selling to teens.

 

[lovett]

Don't count on Friedman to get much of anything right. There is no proposal to legalize drugs that would lower the revenue of the drug cartels. They are already the low cost producers, no one could take their market away. And there would always be the illegal market for selling to teens.

Considering that he won a Nobel Prize in Economics, is certainly the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century (perhaps all of it) and is one of the few thinkers to have visibly altered the direction of civilization then I'd say yeah, he is a respectable source. Especially when talking about his professional field.

As for low cost producers, the cartels are not producers. They are distibutors, primarily. They pay farmers a small sum (relative to street prices) for their produce. They then make their money by distributing this with massive mark-ups, either to local organizations or to their own people.

They're able to charge such high prices because of the costs of getting drugs into the country. I.e, because of policies imposed by prohibition. Without said policies, they simply wouldn't exist. There would be absolutely no demand for them.

As for selling to the underaged, It's really not big enough business. Teens are poor, usually. There's not that many of them. They tend to focus on bulkier softer drugs, with less margin for profit. Thus, it's not a particularily appealing market. Which is shown by the fact that there's no criminal organizations geared towards supplying exclusively teens with alcohol or tobacco.

 

[Neomega]

You're one to talk.

My statement, in full, was this: "So in your view, foreign dictators should be allowed to invade neighboring countries on a whim, and terrorist organizations should be allowed to attack the US and our allies, and we shouldn't send troops overseas? Is that correct?"

Now, if that is incorrect, then you should say so. I asked it in the form of a question, because I didn't want to get it wrong - but that's what you're implying with your posts, so I wanted to know where you stand.

As it is, it sounds like you're condemning every overseas military commitment the US has made since WW2. That includes the Gulf War (Where a foreign dictator invaded a neighboring country) and the war in Afghanistan (Where the Taliban harbored terrorists that had attacked the US on 9/11). Now, if you believe both of those wars are inappropriate, how can I do anything but believe that you don't think the US should go to war to defend our allies, or attack terrorist organizations that attack the US itself?

If you do favor one of those wars, or I'm somehow misrepresenting your position, then say so, don't just get all huffy on me. I'm trying to actually figure out what you think, but you aren't cooperating, which means I have to take the most likely understanding of what you've said - which is a very bad one. If that's wrong, then correct me. If it's right, then why are you upset?

I put it in bold for you in the offending post. You can figure it out.

 

[Cutlass]

Considering that he won a Nobel Prize in Economics, is certainly the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century (perhaps all of it) and is one of the few thinkers to have visibly altered the direction of civilization then I'd say yeah, he is a respectable source. Especially when talking about his professional field.

And his legacy is that leftism is on the march throughout Latin America Look up a few of the other crackpot theories that won Nobel Prizes in economics. It's not a recommendation. His 2 signature policies are laises faire and monetarism, neither of which work and both of which have the primary effect of giving rise to communist movements.

As for low cost producers, the cartels are not producers. They are distibutors, primarily. They pay farmers a small sum (relative to street prices) for their produce. They then make their money by distributing this with massive mark-ups, either to local organizations or to their own people.

What's your point? That's what any other business in the trade will do. Only they have the advantage of already having the situation set up.

They're able to charge such high prices because of the costs of getting drugs into the country. I.e, because of policies imposed by prohibition. Without said policies, they simply wouldn't exist. There would be absolutely no demand for them.

Legalizing drugs doesn't make the demand for drugs vanish in a puff of smoke. So instead of paying a huge amount of money to smuggle the drugs into the US, they'll box it up and call UPS and ship it for a few bucks a kilo. What you are proposing is to massively reduce their costs. That's sure to put them out of business.

As for selling to the underaged, It's really not big enough business. Teens are poor, usually. There's not that many of them. They tend to focus on bulkier softer drugs, with less margin for profit. Thus, it's not a particularily appealing market. Which is shown by the fact that there's no criminal organizations geared towards supplying exclusively teens with alcohol or tobacco.

There will always be teens and other groups who use drugs illegally. There will always be suppliers of that. There's no organized beer to teen smugglers because the "War on Drugs" has made pot, pills, and coke cheaper for teens than beer is.

 

[Neomega]

Legalizing drugs doesn't make the demand for drugs vanish in a puff of smoke. So instead of paying a huge amount of money to smuggle the drugs into the US, they'll box it up and call UPS and ship it for a few bucks a kilo. What you are proposing is to massively reduce their costs. That's sure to put them out of business.

$3 a kilo for processed cocaine (the process makes it $.50 a kilo profit) or $1 a kilo for coffee, or tulips, or other legitimate crops?

(the profit of processed cocaine would be less per kilo than that of other crops, and the demand would not be nearly as high for bulk)

What do you think would happen if the price of drugs suddenly plummeted? The whole world would go crazy on crack?

there's no organized beer to teen smugglers because the "War on Drugs" has made pot, pills, and coke cheaper for teens than beer is.

pot and coke are from plants. They are essentially free. The only reason they cost money is the risk of growing and distributing them.

 

[lovett]

And his legacy is that leftism is on the march throughout Latin America Look up a few of the other crackpot theories that won Nobel Prizes in economics. It's not a recommendation. His 2 signature policies are laises faire and monetarism, neither of which work and both of which have the primary effect of giving rise to communist movements.

Many economists/policy makers would strongly disagree with you, and saying that the nobel prize is not a recomendation is a bit asinine. Regardless, this is hardly the right thread to discuss Mr Friedmans' life works.

What's your point? That's what any other business in the trade will do. Only they have the advantage of already having the situation set up.

No they don't. They have a smuggling situation set-up. This is quite dramatically different to how import/export is done in any other industry. What's more, introducing serious competition into the business would, by definition, break up the cartel. Distribution would become very cheap, and these saving would, by necessity, be passed on to both the consumer and producers. Otherwise the cartels would be out-competed. It is conceivable that the former catels continue to compete effectively. They're very entrepeneurial. However, to do so they would have to shape up and imitate normal import/export business'. And that means no gang wars, kidnappings or ransoms. At which point there isn't all that much to object too.

Legalizing drugs doesn't make the demand for drugs vanish in a puff of smoke. So instead of paying a huge amount of money to smuggle the drugs into the US, they'll box it up and call UPS and ship it for a few bucks a kilo. What you are proposing is to massively reduce their costs. That's sure to put them out of business.

Nobody said it did. It makes the demand for smuggling vanish. The cartels generally make their money from distribution, I.e smuggling. For them, smuggling is not really a cost, per se. It's a product. Calling it a cost is like calling the manufacture of automobiles a cost to General Motors - Sure, it costs them money, but without it they wouldn't exist.

There will always be teens and other groups who use drugs illegally. There will always be suppliers of that. There's no organized beer to teen smugglers because the "War on Drugs" has made pot, pills, and coke cheaper for teens than beer is.

A highly dubious claim. Drugs are usually far more expensive then alcohol, especially cheap alcohol. And teenagers are hardly famed for being connoiseurs of fine booze. And, if you care to, explain how the 'war on drugs' has made drugs cheaper?