Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mrchucklepants 1355 days ago
End the drug war and the problem will solve itself.
8 comments

This statement makes no sense. Ending the drug war will not automatically end the existence of cartels.
It just takes away 90% of their revenue, which is effective enough.
The issue is that the cartels are now endemic to the region. They're part of the government, they're extorting legal businesses, they're laundering the money and investing into legitimate businesses. You can't just undo their influence.
You can still take away 90% of their revenue. There is no credible solution that does not begin with that step.
How does ending the drug war take away 90% of their revenue. If you legalize drugs, the cartels would become legitimate producers and corner the market through fear and intimidation.
#1 The price will drop to the floor.

#2 Most drugs can just as easily be produced domestically by pharmaceutical companies.

#3 Of the drugs that can't be produced domestically, the Mexican cartels are just middlemen that can be cut out entirely. There's no reason drugs from Colombia need to transit Mexico.

#4 If you're worried about Colombian cartels - see points #1 and #2.

We already went through this with alcohol and organized crime.

It worked with alcohol, why not with other drugs?

You don't see a lot of illegal speakeasies and moonshine stills around, do you?

I think logically the path for these is to become legal business entities no?
So.... you're saying we shouldn't end the drug war? Because without a doubt that would have a massive impact on cartels.
> So.... you're saying we shouldn't end the drug war?

You might want to reread his post or take reading comprehension lessons.

No, I comprehend just fine. Parent poster is making a completely unnecessary comment in order to play devil's advocate, when we all know universally that ending the drug war is an important step in the conflict against an organized crime unit which came to prominence because of said drug war.
I think you are actually not comprehending. I never said we shouldn’t end the drug war.
The original statement was derisive without actually offering any useful criticism, and I called it out by taking it to its logical conclusion. If you want more thoughtful replies, it starts with your own comment.
They aren't only into drugs - cartels are around all products.
They don’t just sell drugs. They’re woven into whole economies from tourism to construction and beyond.
Evidence from California seems to suggest that ending the drug war locally has actually strengthened cartels: https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2022-09-08/ess...
I'm curious why growers feel it's still more advantageous to illegally grow? It must mean the risk/reward still dramatically favours illegal production. That's what needs to be addressed.

I think coffee/tobacco is probably a good example of what can be achieved with legalizing drugs. It might be the path to it is a bit slow as there's a transition, but I don't see why other drugs couldn't end up similarly to coffee.

Heck, you could argue it for everything even. Why do fruits and vegetables farms don't feel like going the illegal production route?

> Heck, you could argue it for everything even. Why do fruits and vegetables farms don't feel like going the illegal production route?

I’ve never illegally bought drugs but I know people that have. I would not be comfortable doing it, but plenty of people are. Drugs, especially legal ones, are expensive.

I’ve never illegally bought fruit and I do not know anyone who has. I don’t know anyone who would be comfortable doing it. Legal fruit is not expensive.

> Legal fruit is not expensive

Assuming we agree they aren't, why is that?

Or in other words, if we're saying it's because drugs are still too expensive and somehow illegal production can compete better on price, why is that?

Especially with weed, the process is so similar to any other commodity agricultural process.

> I would not be comfortable doing it, but plenty of people are

This seems transitory to me. If we take this separate to the price argument, I think it must be restricted to people that were already doing so prior to legal alternatives. Again, tossing the price factor out, I would suspect all new and future consumer would go to a legal source for purchase.

That said, the article talked about production, not wholesale. So it's not clear from the article that illegal sellers have risen, it's possible your street dealers have been impacted, but that legal vendors or byproduct makers are purchasing from the illegal supply chain still.

> Assuming we agree they aren't, why is that?

Cheap labor. Low threshold for consumers to pay a lot, potentially government subsidy.

Drugs have way higher testing requirements. In California cannabis has intense testing and labeling requirements. Fruit doesn’t seem to. Also taxes of course.

> would suspect all new and future consumer would go to a legal source for purchase.

Oh absolutely agree. I think there’s a cohort that would way the drugs but not be willing to engage in illegal activity.

Maintaining stores and supply chains and not a guy with a burner phone and a beat up Toyota driving to a parking lot probably raises costs too (compared to illegal drugs, not fruit obviously). Same at every step of supply chain. The costs are likely high for compliance etc.

Yes, I'm sure the narco multi-millionaires will happily go back to being peasant-farmers after legalization.
So how do you propose to do that?
alas, the cartels are not bound by normal lobbying rules.
True, but Mexico has been a major manufacturing hub for decades...its not like cartel violence has had any impact. Chances are your car, or lots of its components, were made in Mexico. Likewise for major appliances and textiles. XBoxes were manufactured there. I don't recall anyone pulling out because of cartel violence.

This feels like people saying not to build a factory in the US because of Proud Boys, Antifa and MS13.