Thursday, September 22, 2011

Yes, drug cartels will play nice, and Michael Moore will convert to Conservatism

Yeah, guys like Edgar "La Barbie" Valdez just SCREAM
honest businessman . . .
I've written a couple of articles about how I think ending the War on Drugs and legalizing drugs will not solve any problems.  In those articles, one of the main premises that I hit on was the fact that doing so will do nothing to end the violence.

Many scoffed at me, thinking that the forces of free-market capitalism would prevail and coerce the cartels into playing fair and nice because it would be more profitable.  I think someone made the point that it would be more difficult for them to be all illicit because of increased government oversight and regulation and what not.

I thought to myself, "well I guess it makes some sort of sense.  Why be violent when you can do business in the light of day and turn a profit?"

Actually, it's the very capitalistic notion of competition that would keep things unchanged.  Let's take something like crystal meth for example.  It's something that anyone can make in their own home.  Pharmaceutical companies could make some seriously pure shit easily, sell it, and make a profit.  How do you think a cartel would respond to that sudden intrusion on their territory?

If you have heard anything about the Zetas down in Mexico, you would easily see how they handle competition.  Just the other day, Zeta gunmen unloaded 35 murdered bodies onto a Mexican highway, blocking traffic.  How many of those guys do you think were caught?  So far, zero.  And it's not like the police and Mexican army don't know who to go after.  Sure they get some of the high level guys, but is that really stopping them?

And what would government regulation really do to stop them from killing people to remove their competition?  I mean, right now they face the full force of government regulation.  A lot of these guys are wanted DOA, so what difference would it really make?

"Well, Jack, their product would be banned on the markets if their business practices are illegal."  Yeah, just like it's banned on the market right now?  Do you really think bombing factories and slaughtering workers would be beneath the cartels?  They have no problem throwing severed heads into water fountains in broad day light, and you think the forces of capitalism are somehow going to make them toe the line?

The people involved in the drug trade are monsters.  If drugs are legalized, they're not going to start coming out of the woodwork and into the sunlight just to start legitimate businesses.  They know that if they did, they'd be arrested and likely executed for all the horror they have wrought.  If drugs are legalized, the cartel people will stay underground and increase the brutality and scale of their crimes in order to scare off anyone from encroaching on their business.

Afterall, if they were reasonable men to begin with, they wouldn't treat mass murder as a legitimate business practice.


Silverfiddle said...

Amen. The libertarian in me also says legalize it all, but as you state, it is naive to think this would end criminal activity that swirls around the drug trade.

Anonymous said...

This war has as much of a chance of being won as our "wars' in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other with our flower power approach. The bad guy's rights, constitutional or otherwise,alongside the corruption factor, take precedence over all else. The govt's know where these animals are and also know that annihilating them would end the income stream among bureaucrats created by this cottage industry known as the drug trade. Money, greed, money, greed, money, greed trumps all else.
Keep in mind that the characters in charge also have the mailing addresses of the Somali pirates yet allow them to roam free.

Jack Camwell said...

Why is "wars" in quotation marks? War is war, no matter what politicians want to call it.

Jersey McJones said...

We should legalize marijuana, not coke and meth and heroine and extacy, and all that other crap.

We should relatively decriminalize usage (as long as it does not endanger anyone else), but we should continue to fight vigorously against the sale and distribution of hard drugs and prescriptions on the streets.

In no way does your argument contradict or in any way disagree with mine. You just need to focus on the business of dangerous drugs, and not casual use.

As foe the "war" misnomer - it's because "war" has rules. By definition, this stupid "Drug War" has none. We boxing at shadows.

Leave war to the military. leave drugs to smart domestic and foreign policy. War is not necessary or good or profitable or
rational way of dealing with the drug problem, if it's all that much of a problem in the first place.

Honestly, I don't know why people think it's a good idea to impose the government on people getting high. What's your problem? Don't get high enough?


Harrison said...

Were it legalized, the term "hostile takeover" would be truer than ever. You can't apply reason in a situation involving drugs and the people who make/distribute/sell them.

Anonymous said...

Traditionally, historically "Wars" are fought by persuing then killing the motherfuckers trying to do the same to you. Today's "Wars" mean day care centers on aircraft carriers, soldiers in the killing fields building civilian lemonade stands and taking a bullet before firing upon the enemy. While we are winning the hearts and minds of that ever hostile enemy the hearts and minds of our men in uniform end up at Dover AFB.