Legalization of drugs and the effects on South America.

[EkBalam]

Re: Legalization of some drugs

I was having a discussion about the legalization of drugs, and I was told that if America were to do so, South America would no longer be an area of the third world. The corruption and crime would evaporate from Mexico and the rest of Latin America for that matter. Without the corruption Mexico might turn into a place that's worth staying in.

I thought I'd bring up the topic and let a few you guys kick it around.

Well it depends which drug, not all drugs are the same. Marihuana should be Legal and not Criminzalized.

But, Cocaine, Crack and meths, are evil and must be criminalized and forbidden.

 

[Jay R]

The legalisation of narcotic substances would be a bonanza for the murderers presently making a fortune from it, and the corrupt b***ards in their pockets, they'd be laughing. Would that break their control over Latin America? Of course not, it would simply take the smuggling and fighting out of it, saving the drug barons those costs. With their money and the lack of criminalisation they would be cemented into absolute power, either through corrupt regimes or armed dictatorships. Hell, Burlusconi is shady enough and he's a media billionaire, you think legitimizing drug money is a good idea.

And then you'd have the effects on the drug consuming markets. Gang crime may diminish as narcotics goes straight, but gangsters are only half of the problem for the US and Europe. Addicts have serious health and mental health problems, and don't function well as citizens. Theres no evidence to prove that legalisation would reduce drug use, and all conventional logic says that it would increase. More addicts would not only be an unmitigated disaster for what remains of European Socialism, but it would also hit America hard economically, aside from drugs, addicts are poor consumers and both US and EU economies need consumers.

I was eager to see what Chavez and the other Latin American Socialists can do, but his stance on coca has me very concerned. Why? Because if my government gave me a gun and a paycheck and said "go kill drug barons in Afghanistan or Columbia" I'd see that as an opportunity with real job satisfaction. Socialist I may be but that means I value my society, drugs are damaging enough as it is, I don't see legalisation making a good contribution to my society.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

The legalisation of narcotic substances would be a bonanza for the murderers presently making a fortune from it, and the corrupt b***ards in their pockets, they'd be laughing. Would that break their control over Latin America? Of course not, it would simply take the smuggling and fighting out of it, saving the drug barons those costs. With their money and the lack of criminalisation they would be cemented into absolute power, either through corrupt regimes or armed dictatorships.[ Hell, Burlusconi is shady enough and he's a media billionaire, you think legitimizing drug money is a good idea.

I disagree. It is my feeling that the legalization of these substances would draw entrepenuers and the capitalists into the region. They would have to be legit. The killing would have to stop. Consumers don't want to buy a product with blood on it because the blood is then on them. Would you buy a product if you knew that it's price was 14.95 + tax + the slavery of countless people in a far away land? You could liken this to the plight of oil. We buy Oil from all kinds of unsavory characters and it has the price of keeping unsavory characters in power and hurting innocents. The difference is that you can't say no to oil. The multiple sources as well as the nature of the competing market would alleviate the problem of your Warlords and dictatorships.

Home grown superblow picked by the hands of (let's be honest) illegal immigrants, or foriegn grown Vanilla Ice picked by the broken hands of the unfortunate slaves of your drugland scenario? Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" of the market would decide, I would wager.

And then you'd have the effects on the drug consuming markets. Gang crime may diminish as narcotics goes straight, but gangsters are only half of the problem for the US and Europe. Addicts have serious health and mental health problems, and don't function well as citizens. Theres no evidence to prove that legalisation would reduce drug use, and all conventional logic says that it would increase. More addicts would not only be an unmitigated disaster for what remains of European Socialism, but it would also hit America hard economically, aside from drugs, addicts are poor consumers and both US and EU economies need consumers.

Don't you think the role of personal responsibility should enter somewhere? If you want to be a drug addict... If you don't want to be a drug addict... Granted: John Stuart Mill's harm principle certainly restricts at least some rights, but here I'm not sure that you can argue efficiently that a person's choice to ruin his life, as one could view it, is a choice for one to make rather than another. Moral Agency requires 3 things: 1) Adequate Cognitive Capacity, 2) Access to relevant information, 3) The ability to say yes, or no.

It is my opinion that for a truly "moral," society must be given moral agency. It seems to me that if anything giving a society this kind of responsibility would, in the long run, greatly benefit our society.

How can you tell someone "Just say no" when the decision has already been made for them?

 

[MrFungus420]

Re: Legalization of some drugs

But, Cocaine, Crack and meths, are evil and must be criminalized and forbidden.

One simple question: Why are they "evil"?

 

[Jay R]

I disagree. It is my feeling that the legalization of these substances would draw entrepenuers and the capitalists into the region. They would have to be legit. The killing would have to stop. Consumers don't want to buy a product with blood on it because the blood is then on them. Would you buy a product if you knew that it's price was 14.95 + tax + the slavery of countless people in a far away land? You could liken this to the plight of oil. We buy Oil from all kinds of unsavory characters and it has the price of keeping unsavory characters in power and hurting innocents. The difference is that you can't say no to oil. The multiple sources as well as the nature of the competing market would alleviate the problem of your Warlords and dictatorships.

You wearing sneakers while typing that? :lol: , sorry the consumer generally couldn't give a damn where his produce comes from as long as it's price is to his liking. As for venture capitalists jumping in, just one question, how? The drug cartels have the influence in the principle growing regions, they have a monoploy on the skills base, all the experience, and are already geared up for industrial production. The only way Warren Buffet and his ilk are going to invest is if the Colombians decide to float on the stock exchange! Could you grab an engineering degree and get into business competing with General Motors and Toyota making cars? Of course not, better to buy some shares in the market leaders than waste your money trying to overcome them starting from scratch.

Home grown superblow picked by the hands of (let's be honest) illegal immigrants, or foriegn grown Vanilla Ice picked by the broken hands of the unfortunate slaves of your drugland scenario? Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" of the market would decide, I would wager.

Yeah I guess it would. Will the government be subsidising the US farmers to protect them from the foreign crops? :2razz: Or will they have to send the Marines in to bust up Latin America and get them growing drugs the American way? And then there's the Asian 'Golden Triangle', you shoot up there and you get executed, the product increases in value so spectacularly the closer it gets to western markets that your boss won't stand for any sampling of the crops. It's already the land that drugs paid for out there, and no-one does drugs. Funny that.

It is my opinion that for a truly "moral," society must be given moral agency. It seems to me that if anything giving a society this kind of responsibility would, in the long run, greatly benefit our society.

How can you tell someone "Just say no" when the decision has already been made for them?

Good point. I don't necessarily agree, but it's well made. I'll dwell on it a while.

 

[Thorgasm]

It would definitely be a step in the right direction. I wonder if Columbia would shange it's name to Pfizer. :doh

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If the illegality of drugs is the only thing stopping you from becoming a drug addict, yours is a false morality. (Not that I think drug use is immoral)

To me either all should be decriminalized or alchohol and tobacco should be made illegal. Its all or nothing, and I despise prohibition.