So would Mexico solve its crime problems by legalising drugs?

[griffin1977]

I just saw this (http://news.scotsman.com/news/Mexico-39should-legalise-drugs-to.6465507.jp) article about Vicente Fox's plea to his successor to legalize drugs to break the cartel's hold on power.

Now personally I am strong believer that ALOT of Mexico's problems with drug violence would go away if AMERICA legalized drugs. But I am less convinced that Mexico legalizing drugs would help matters all that much. I mean the problem is not users in Mexico buying drugs, but users in the US buying drugs. So there would still be a huge, lucrative, illegal trade across the US border irrespective of where the drugs came from. And that is the root cause of Mexico's drug violence.

What's everyone's thoughts ?

[lonestar88]

It would probably push the violence north though, out of the poor Mexican border towns into the poor US border towns.

[Peremensoe]

It couldn't hurt.

I'm sure Fox's intent is, in part, to create pressure for the change in United States policy as well.

[peledre]

Legalizing them in Mexico wouldn't solve the problem, that's not where the market is. Legalizing them in the US however...

[Grey]

Interesting reading from Foreign Affairs magazine. (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66472/robert-c-bonner/the-new-cocaine-cowboys) Note that the article by Robert Bonner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Bonner) seems steeped in his prior exposure to Colombian violence. His argument is that the violence is due to the efforts by the Mexican government to push the Mexican drug cartels out of their cozy relationships with federal and state government institutions and personnel.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Whether or not they're legalized, it's not as though suppliers will suddenly be able to cross the US border openly carrying the stuff. The money is here.

[Todderbob]

It wont stop the violence entirely, but it would do some things to slow it down, and move it (out of Mexico, into the US, probably).

At this point, the Cartels aren't just drug running gangs, they're governments unto themselves -- not democratic governments, but warlord-esque totalitarian dictatorships. They'll continue to exist, and some of them with "go straight," but some wont.

My guess is that some of them become legitimate political/corporate entities, and some die as petty street gangs. But one or two wont go away, and they'll continue to wage a war (hopefully in a way that's increasingly unsuccessful as time goes on) against the Mexican Federal Government.

[Tom Tildrum]

I just saw this (http://news.scotsman.com/news/Mexico-39should-legalise-drugs-to.6465507.jp) article about Vicente Fox's plea to his successor to legalize drugs to break the cartel's hold on power.

It seems to me that legalizing the conduct of the cartels would solidify the cartels' hold on power in Mexico, not break it. They would still be accumulating money and weapons, just with fewer restrictions.

[Markxxx]

It solves one set of problems but brings in another. There was a time when a lot of drugs were legal. Look through old copies of papers, and you will see tons of problems that heroin, cocaine and such caused before they were legal.

Alcohol is legal. Does this mean it's problem free. No, you would have all the problems alcoholics have now, but only with heroin addicts, coke addicts, meth addicts etc etc.

It's not like the users would say "OK now that it's legal I'll only use a responsible amount of the drug."

Sure you solve some problems and create others.

[Grumman]

There's nothing a drug cartel can do while drugs are illegal that they can't still do if drugs are legal. If they're each "trying to impose a monopoly by force of arms" now, there's nothing stopping them using the same tactics once their product is no longer illegal.

[peledre]

There's nothing a drug cartel can do while drugs are illegal that they can't still do if drugs are legal. If they're each "trying to impose a monopoly by force of arms" now, there's nothing stopping them using the same tactics once their product is no longer illegal.

There's nothing they can't do I suppose, but importing drugs would no longer be a profitable venutre, therefore they most likely would not do it since the 4000% profit margins would no longer exist.

[Grumman]

There's nothing they can't do I suppose, but importing drugs would no longer be a profitable venutre, therefore they most likely would not do it since the 4000% profit margins would no longer exist.
Those profit margins will only no longer exist if legal drug sellers undercut the drug cartels' current prices. But seeing as we're talking about people willing to wage war against one another to maintain their drug profits, why wouldn't they do the same thing to their new competitors?

[joebuck20]

I started a thread awhile back that kind of touched on this:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=557020&highlight=mexican+drug

[Der Trihs]

There's nothing they can't do I suppose, but importing drugs would no longer be a profitable venutre, therefore they most likely would not do it since the 4000% profit margins would no longer exist.
Those profit margins will only no longer exist if legal drug sellers undercut the drug cartels' current prices. But seeing as we're talking about people willing to wage war against one another to maintain their drug profits, why wouldn't they do the same thing to their new competitors?For the same reasons they don't bother to try to do that with other legal products. A better organized legal organization has such huge advantages in a legal market that it won't work. One of the most significant being that a criminal organization has to pay for all those thugs, while a legal organization has the government to do its fighting for it.

[peledre]

There's nothing they can't do I suppose, but importing drugs would no longer be a profitable venutre, therefore they most likely would not do it since the 4000% profit margins would no longer exist.
Those profit margins will only no longer exist if legal drug sellers undercut the drug cartels' current prices. But seeing as we're talking about people willing to wage war against one another to maintain their drug profits, why wouldn't they do the same thing to their new competitors?
Do you see many criminal organizations trying to smuggle 40 lb bags of grapes or hops over the border?

Do you see any violence associated with the production and distribution of alcohol?

[Sablicious]

Most all Western, developed countries would solve their 'drug problems'* if drug use was legalized and, of course, strictly controlled. The only reason the stuff spawns crime is because it's illegal! What 'drug trade' would their be if you could pick up an Ecstasy prescription for your night out form your local GP? A fair trade, that's what kind. Indeed, how many rubriks do you read about Ecstasy** addled ravers committing violent crime? ...About as many as politicians who haven't inhaled methinks. :rolleyes:

As far as Mexico is concerned, I doubt it would help there as it's still a 'developing country' and the population is too prone to getting hooked on substances and becoming indolent as a result. Legalizing drug use/trade there might have some impact on the organized crime, but in the medium-to-long term the negative offshoots of addicted denizens would outweigh the problems there now imo. They could at least monitor and control substance use I guess, so it may work. Better than civil war at any rate!

The hoopla that surrounds drug use is all stirred up by governments so as to stimatize the practice even though substances like alcohol and tobacco cause significantly greater societal damage. The majority of the time the 'ills' associated with illicit drugs has to do with their abuse - something that could be greatly reduced and controlled if legalized - and the illegal sale of - again, something that becomes essentially null and void if drug use/trade were legalized. There are far more industries, organizations, jobs and livelihoods dependent on illicit drug trafficking than there are drug addicts! So it's obvious why it's in govts' best interests to keep drugs the 'evil' of society, despite the notion's patent ridiculousness. I mean, what is the percentage of those who use drugs do so to an extent that the practice is a detriment to their health, those around them and society at large? Not high, I'd wager... pardon the pun!


*Term used VERY loosely as governments' idea of a 'problem' does not encompass the social problems associated with alcohol abuse, tobacco addiction, gambling... You know, the vices that are they TAXED! :rolleyes:

**Using Ecstasy as an example only, as there are myriad amphetamine, cannabis and other drugs that can be safely used without deleterious health effects if used prudently and in controlled conditions. Opium, although addictive, was used for hundreds of years without detriment to one's health stemming from the drug specifically. The 'cutting' of the drug with other compounds is what makes drugs dangerous in most cases, not the drugs themselves. Otherwise they'd be know as poisons not drugs! :p

[Grey]

Would you accept Cigarette smuggling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_smuggling)?

[gonzomax]

Those profit margins will only no longer exist if legal drug sellers undercut the drug cartels' current prices. But seeing as we're talking about people willing to wage war against one another to maintain their drug profits, why wouldn't they do the same thing to their new competitors?
Do you see many criminal organizations trying to smuggle 40 lb bags of grapes or hops over the border?

Do you see any violence associated with the production and distribution of alcohol?

Of course back during prohibition we had extreme violence and police corruption over alcohol control and distribution. Banning it makes it worse. People will see how much money can be made and do it regardless of the penalties.
Drug legalization would have a bonus of cutting the cozy relationship of governments and drug cartels. It would release the police and border agencies from the waste of interdiction. It does not work. Lets grow up and actually make intelligent decisions.

[Grey]

But right now the Mexican government is asserting its independence from drug cartel involvement. This is the second nonPRI government since 2000 and the entrenched corruption and inertia that 90 years of single party rule allows is being severely disrupted. Cozy relationships for the drug cartels seem to be being disrupted while they are actively being chased down for their own criminal activity. Hence the violence, which as far as I understand is predominantly between the cartels.

The problem being that it seems the government can not mitigate the violence and so appears to be losing the monopoly on violence that central governments work off of. As Boner points out collapsing the cartels one by one requires both reduction in drug consumption in the US, reduction in the supply of small arms into Mexico from the US and the establishment of independent government institutions.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Most all Western, developed countries would solve their 'drug problems'* if drug use was legalized and, of course, strictly controlled.

<snip>

As far as Mexico is concerned, I doubt it would help there as it's still a 'developing country' and the population is too prone to getting hooked on substances and becoming indolent as a result.
I predict that this will not go well.

[Peremensoe]

Most all Western, developed countries would solve their 'drug problems'* if drug use was legalized and, of course, strictly controlled.

<snip>

As far as Mexico is concerned, I doubt it would help there as it's still a 'developing country' and the population is too prone to getting hooked on substances and becoming indolent as a result.
I predict that this will not go well.

Hey, maybe if they get indolent enough, they'll stop coming over the border looking for work!









:dubious:

[Ludovic]

It's not like the users would say "OK now that it's legal I'll only use a responsible amount of the drug."

Sure you solve some problems and create others.

But it would be easier to take a responsible amount of the drug, if you regulate the dosage and labelling similar to that of alcohol. Right now, the dosages vary so widely that it is difficult to taper down even if you want to because you don't know how strong any given street substance will be.

[griffin1977]

I started a thread awhile back that kind of touched on this:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=557020&highlight=mexican+drug

The key difference is that the OP was asking about JUST Mexico legalizing drugs. To me its a no-brainer that if the US legalizes drugs Mexico's problems (as in a drug war that is threatening the stability of the state itself) go away overnight (there will be still be crime and violence aplenty, but without an income that is 60% of the country's GPD it becomes a law and order issue, not a national security one).

But I am not so sure Mexico legalizing drugs would have the same affect. The illegal income is still there, you still need smuggling routes into the US, and still need to protect those routes from your competitors. Its just instead the drugs coming from Columbia, or illicit factories, they come from regular legal factories and retail outlets (which would find themselves in the frontline of a new drug war).

And then what would the US have to say about it ? They wouldn't be very happy from the get go, but when the drugs are coming direct from factories regulated and licensed by the Mexican government (and inevitably controlled to some degree by the cartels), that could go from "unhappy" to "clear and present danger".

[Mtgman]

It solves one set of problems but brings in another. There was a time when a lot of drugs were legal. Look through old copies of papers, and you will see tons of problems that heroin, cocaine and such caused before they were legal.

Alcohol is legal. Does this mean it's problem free. No, you would have all the problems alcoholics have now, but only with heroin addicts, coke addicts, meth addicts etc etc.

It's not like the users would say "OK now that it's legal I'll only use a responsible amount of the drug."

Sure you solve some problems and create others.
I was talking with a co-worker a few days ago and he was relating stories of his childhood. His parents were ultra-liberal and told him that they'd prefer he come to them with requests for alcohol, drugs, contraceptives, etc. instead of finding them for himself and getting involved in the illicit side effects of these types of underground transactions. While it seems to have worked for him, he said he didn't take them up on most of that offer(contraceptives being the exception), he felt it was the right way to do things and he would do the same if he had kids(he married a woman with children near his own age, older in one case, so it didn't ever come up). I found myself reflecting on my own children and I can see some of them where that approach would work, and some who would totally destroy themselves if I were to supply their desires in these areas.

Generalizing to the larger population, legalization, in Mexico or in the US, would lead to a different set of problems, not a lack of problems. People who are more susceptible to the disease of addiction would still get addicted(possibly in larger numbers due to greater availability) and the problems of addiction don't go away easily. So I think I'm on the same page as Markxxx. Some people would be able to handle a world where easy access to drugs was common(like my co-worker), and some would destroy themselves(like my brother-in-law). It's probably better that we don't have legal drugs in the US.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Peremensoe]

Generalizing to the larger population, legalization, in Mexico or in the US, would lead to a different set of problems, not a lack of problems. People who are more susceptible to the disease of addiction would still get addicted(possibly in larger numbers due to greater availability) and the problems of addiction don't go away easily. So I think I'm on the same page as Markxxx. Some people would be able to handle a world where easy access to drugs was common(like my co-worker), and some would destroy themselves(like my brother-in-law). It's probably better that we don't have legal drugs in the US.

How many people are now avoiding addiction only because of poor availability of drugs? Is your brother-in-law really not able to destroy himself presently, if so inclined?

[jaxbus4000]

Would not make a bit of difference if they legalized drugs in Mexico. As long as they are illegal in the states, the profit margine will be there. And in true Mexican form, the cartels would only become stronger and more dangerous. They already run the entire border, why would they give any territory up?

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

It might help, but it won't really solve the problem. Until the Mexican wealth gap is narrowed, there will always be too many people who are unable to afford the barest necessities through honest employment. It's been my contention that even if drugs were legalized on both sides of the border--or better yet let's just imagine they didn't exist at all--then kidnapping and extortion would still be popular among the criminal element, as an alternative source of income.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Would you accept Cigarette smuggling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_smuggling)?Would you accept underage drinking?

I agree that even legal, regulated commodities can be sold illicitly, but as a total piece of the crime pie these violations are very minor.

[Uber_the_Goober]

So responding to the Thread Title, and only the Thread Title:

Yes.

If it isn't a crime to possess or use drugs, then the "illegal" aspect is gone. Not illegal, not a crime.

So technically, it would decrease the amount of crimes committed.

However, I ignored all the posts after the OP...so maybe my point is moot.