For those arguing about the realpolitik benefits of this, you need to think about the border. Our border with Mexico is not really defensible along much of its length. Right now the armed and dangerous groups in Mexico depend on a strong U.S. economy to supply them with guns and buy their drugs. If we invade, what is to stop Mexican patriot strike teams from crossing the border and attacking U.S. civilians? Imagine if we shared an unguarded boarder with Afghanistan.
As long as US oil imports from Mexico is the first, narcotics is the second and remittances from Mexican workers abroad (mostly in the US) is the third largest contributor to the Mexican economy.
As long as the Mexican economy is dependent on the US, they will allow us to dictate their policy.
Our supplies of illegal drugs being sent to the USA isn’t through free trade. It is through smuggling. Drugs go north and are paid for with vast sums of US dollars. These US dollars buy guns that are easily obtainable in the US beccause guns are legal.
These guns are smuggled into México and used to kill people and threaten our police (plata o plomo, what would you choose?). Then many people in the USA say México has a huge problem and maybe the US should to invade because México is out of control.
All because the US has an insatiable appetite for mind altering substances. Why should we care what happens to Americans? We see how many think of us as unequal. We are only worthy to cut your lawn or clean your house.
I am all in favor of complete legalization of drugs here in México except for the fact we would have all of your junkies living on our border. Then we could post assinine things here like placing mine fields and machine gun towers on our side of the border to keep American junkies out.
Plenty of Americans are ready to grow the stuff.
In fact, you might say there’s a pilot program already underway. Domestic marijuana production has increased considerably despite intensive surveillance and eradication efforts in the major producer states.
If it was legal, no need to hide, I expect domestic production could be quickly ramped up to meet domestic demand. Cannabis doesn’t even require particularly good soil, compared to many crops.
No need to deal with the Mexican cartels at all.
It would cut into the huge margin of profit you get from dealing in an illegal commodity. When Prohibition was repealed, the bootleggers mostly didn’t move into legal booze-distribution; they moved into other fields of crime, and left booze to legitimate businessmen.
Except marijuana hasn’t been decriminalised in Canada, so I’m not sure what your point is? Possession is a federal offence, with varying sentences depending on the amount and whether it’s possession for trafficking. Conviction carries a criminal record.
I think the only reason marijuana hasn’t been decriminalized in Canada is because it would upset the Americans.
That’s right, they had better stay in line!
I guess that wasn’t very clearly put. I didn’t really mean ‘free-trade’ in the international sense, but that because firearms are legal internally the US provides an easily accessible source for the weapons that the Mexican gangs need to escalate the violence. As others have noted.
I agree this is secondary to the first problem of the massive US demand, but it’s still IMO is one of the reasons why the trouble caused by the trade has been so violent and difficult to suppress. It’s true that criminals would get weapons anyway, presumably from South America, but the process of drugs in -> weapons out just makes things ridiculously easy for them (the gangs).
I just find it interesting that some people point at this as a Mexican problem when it is in many ways an American problem exported to Mexico.
Dear God don’t invade another country please!
I’m sure there are plenty in congress who will foot the bill for a concrete separation wall:D
Legalization is simply good policy for the US, not only because we have no valid right to tell our citizens what they can and can not do to/put into their own bodies, but because the black market it’s created has led to the rise of crime in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reason, as the first Prohibition ‘experiment’ did.
*
Criminalizing something creates criminals. *
This is basic. And once we have an entire criminal class with no recourse to law enforcement in their business dealings, the rule of force will, by necessity, be the only rule that matters.
With that being said, trying to turn this into a discussion about how ‘Americans are racist because many do not have a high opinion of illegal immigrants’ is a dodge and a rabbit trail. Like so:
A pose of opposition to prejudice is spectacularly unconvincing if you can’t even differentiate between some US citizens and the US as a whole.You cannot say you are against prejudice if you, for instance, talk about how “the United States/Americans are [pejorative].” You can only claim that you’re against prejudice that targets your preferred group and at best, indifferent to (if not openly supportive of) prejudice that targets another group.
To say nothing of the fact that of course illegal immigrants aren’t “equal” to law abiding citizens, they’re here illegally and of course the demographics of illegal immigrants who’ll work menial labor are going to be substantially different from the rest of the population.
There’s no political will to do this. We didn’t have the political will to invade Cuba, how are we gonna do anything to a country when Latinos are now the largest minority in the country. (Granted they are certainly all not Mexicans).
How about we offer statehood to any Mexican state that wants to join up? That would be just as economically feasible as sending troops across the border. Plus, we might get a state named “Quintana Roo” which is really fun to say using English pronunciation.
The only action we could justify at this point is the strenthening of border security. If Mexico truly couldn’t handle this any more, and they became, almost as you seem to be inferring, an anarchic state like Somalia, then it would be (idealy) the job of the United Nations to step in and impose some sort of order. As the example of Somalia will again show, the UN fails constantly all around the world to do anything of the sort.
An invasion of Mexico by US would not, at least in my mind, fufill the idea of a just war. Perhaps if you went as far as to say that the cartels were making border attacks on the US, with the Mexican Goverment was just standing by, maybe then you could justify an invasion and an installation of a new Goverment. Until then however, were just gonna have to hold fast(heh).
I said “many” Americans. How does that equate to all? Clue: it doesn’t.
You and I have a history. So I’ll just ignore your subjectiveness.
I’m pretty sure that the only reason marijuana is illegal throughout most of the world is because of pressure from the United States.
I’d go for that, if only just settling the status of Puerto Rico had not already proven to be such an intractable headache.
With this reservation: We don’t need no stinking enclaves. No Mexican state gets into the Union unless it is contiguous with existing U.S. territory. Chihahua si, Durango no (we can consider Durango’s application after Chihuahua is already admitted).
Are we assuming that the country of Mexico is giving up sovereignty of the lands in question peaceably? 'Cause I don’t want to start a war because a chunk of mexico wants to jump the border.
Got anything but a gut check on that? Did the US put any pressure on Amsterdam when they started legalizing / decriminalizing some drugs?
Well, I used the words “offer” and “might” so my intention was that it would be the Mexican state’s decision. But, if you wanted to make a smooth transition more likely, you could say that the offer is only good if Mexico voluntarily changes its constitution to allow a state to secede an join the US, and that the state government must pass a resolution confirming a desire to secede and join the US, and that a popular vote for secession and joining the US must pass in the Mexican state by 65%. Or something along those lines.