I don’t understand why the Mexican government maintains their antidrug laws. From what I’ve read, the whole of the north of the country is being ripped apart by drug gangs. Why not just pull a Portugal, legalise possession and production of narcotics and open the gangs up to market forces? What’s in it for Mexico maintaining these laws? Is it American pressure, or something else?
It is mostly viewed that way here. Several years ago when Fox was president he vetoed a legislation that would have decriminalized possesion of small amounts of drugs because of pressure from the USA.
The law was passed again and Calderón signed it. There has also been opposition to legalization from the far right ultra-Catholic reactionaries here but that is seen as beginning to diminish as the level of violence escalates. Some rich kids getting killed or kidnapped has changed some of their minds.
My sentiments exactly.
Luxury: Something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
I would say people who purchase illegal drugs in the US are less responsible for the situation in Mexico than people who purchase many luxuries (example iPhones) are for the situation in China (and other countries). I say less responsible, because the government keeps certain drugs illegal, forcing would-be customers to find other sources. HDTVs and the like are not manufactured in the US because it is illegal, but because it is more expensive. Also since it may not be clear, the situation I am referring to in China would be the deplorable working conditions for some workers.
Link to a recent story which talks about n-hexane poisoning workers in chinese factories.
Prohibition does not work and the result is crime and violence. It is a lesson we refuse to learn.
Legalize and tax. Make tax money, slash police and criminal costs while cutting violence, how bad is that? We have a lot of difficulty acting maturely when it comes to drugs.
As a bonus we would clean up a lot of police and legal corruption in the US. We would cut the heart out of countries whose only exports are drugs and violence. It is way past time to grow up.
Some consequences can be foreseeable, and yet you don’t necessarily share moral responsibility. If you tell me that if I don’t divorce my wife, you’ll choke a puppy, I’m not morally responsible for you choking a puppy when I fail to divorce my wife. That’s true even though your action was foreseeable. The reason, I think, is that some moral agent’s choices knowingly created the causal mechanism.
That may or may not be the case when looking at drug violence, but it’s certainly not as simple as observing that the violence is a foreseeable result of the drug demand. You have to sort out whether the intervening actions by knowing moral agents absolves your responsibility.
The following is not a plausible moral shield:
“No one could have predicted that outlawing pot would create a black market in the stuff.”
Even lawmakers up for re-election can’t be that naïve .
When you buy a drug that very well was facilitated to you via a Mexican cartel, knowing full well that you have just financially supported the perps, the you are partially culpable for peoples deaths, You financed the perps.
I genuinely disagree. Note also the word “share.” And consider that when you’re sharing out moral responsibility, it’s not like cutting a pie into wedges: it’s not a zero sum game. The person who chokes the puppy is 100% responsible, but you have a little bit of responsibility if you choose to do nothing about it. You might, for example, call animal control and let them know about Mr. Puppy Choker, at which point the foreseeable consequence is that I get dissuaded from my actions; if I still kill the puppy, you’re in the clear.
I really do think that’s what it comes down to. You’ve got nothing in life but decisions to make, and those decisions have consequences, and when something bad happens and you could be pretty sure it would happen based on your decisions, you share the responsibility for that outcome.
Snarky, your original point doesn’t stand, because I cannot possibly be expected to take it seriously.
Would anyone here disagree that drug prohibitionists are more responsible for violence caused by drug cartels than any individual drug user?
The war on drugs makes a lot of money for a lot of people. The drug dealers can charge huge amounts of money for a product that any farmer could easily grow. The enforcement industry gets to sell lots and lots of guns, sniffer dogs and helicopters and they pay lots and lots of salaries. None of those people is inclined to back off. Each of them seems to think that what they are doing is worth a few lives lost.
If the USA outlawed tomatoes tomorrow it wouldn’t automatically make me a bad person because I want a tomato. It wouldn’t make me a bad person if I bought a tomato from my friend who knew somebody who grew them. It would just mean that I am breaking the law. If the US government declared war on tomatoes around the world then the government would be responsible for any violence that resulted.
Would you agree that you are trying to change the subject?
Yes. Yes I would. I’m not trying to hijack the thread, I genuinely would like people’s opinion on my question. To be fair, I will answer the OP’s question. If you buy drugs that are ultimately trafficked by a violent organization, you are, in a very small way, contributing to violence that organization commits. However, I believe that drug prohibitionists are far more responsible for the violence committed by drug trafficking organizations than people who buy drugs. Does anyone disagree with that statement?
This is a separate thought, so I made it a separate post. In my last post I wrote that if you buy drugs that are ultimately trafficked by a violent organization, you are, in a very small way, contributing to violence that organization commits. I wanted to clarify that I believe this is a small enough contribution to be almost negligible. If you own a grocery store that happens to sells beer and cigarettes, are you responsible for customers who develop lung cancer from buying your cigarettes, or people killed in drunk driving accidents from people who drink your beer? Yes, in a very small, pretty much negligible way. You are certainly not legally liable (unless you sold them beer when they were obviously intoxicated). Ultimately the responsibility lies with the individual who chose to drink and drive or smoke, or in the OPs case, the people who chose to murder their racketeering rivals. However, I am inclined to place more blame on the prohibitionists rather than the drug users, since demand for drugs alone does not cause violence, it must be coupled with prohibition to create a situation like the one that exists in Mexico.
Your example is not a good one because there isn’t a necessary causal link between divorce and puppy choking.
I agree with you about foreseeable consequences. If the average person could not be expected to see that blood diamonds were the result of violence, or that buying drugs would cause cartel violence, they are absolved. But now they know. I didn’t know a year ago so I still do it now that I do know is not a good excuse.
I agree that decriminalization is the long term solution, and I’ve already voted for Prop. 19, but that doesn’t excuse people now. Prohibition being bad didn’t make giving money to Al Capone for booze acceptable.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that neither the users or the dealers/gangs are ultimately responsible for the violence. I think what’s happening in Mexico is really a crime and corruption problem whose root cause is poverty and iniquitous wages. Drug smuggling just happens to be the opportunity of the moment, just as immigrant smuggling is another, but without the drugs the violence would be manifested as part of some other illegal pursuit.
Notice, though, I said ultimately. That doesn’t mean the murderer who pulls the trigger isn’t still proximately responsible for a victim’s death.
I agree that the prohibitionists are at least as responsible as the users. I’m not sure I’d say they’re more responsible, and I’m not sure how saying so would make any sense. Especially since the prohibitionists are attempting to avoid a foreseeable consequence of another course of action–namely, that legalizing drugs has the foreseeable consequence of more deaths from folks who are impaired–whereas the users are just trying to avoid the foreseeable consequence of not getting buzzed.
Interesting. I’m surprised you disagree, since for me the moral intuition in that hypo is quite strong. I suppose I could try to find some even deeper intuition to wedge you on board, but I’d have to think about what that would be, exactly.
There isn’t a necessary causal link between recreational drug use and gang violence either, I don’t think. But in any case, I acknowledged that it might not apply in this case. I was just trying to refine the proper standard.
Ben Ehrenreich at the London Review of Books would seem to agree with you.
Prohibition, along with neoliberal economic policies, and a hefty dose of military involvement.