The Wall

[OngBonga]

I think you're being a little naive. Obviously I didn't mean that border agents should be filtering out heroin, but letting cocaine go through. My point is that we'll gain a lot of ground in the war on drugs if we could control who and what comes across the border.

You're missing the point. Not all drugs come from Mexico. Ligter fuel can be a drug, and if you succeed in taking away every potential narcotic except for lighter fuel, then demand for lighter fuel will go up. Because, junkies don't give a fuck what they are taking, so long as it gets them high. If lighter fuel is all they had, they'd lap that shit up.

You're naive if you think that stopping drugs coming from Mexico will mean less addicts. It will simply mean demand shifting from one product to another.

No you wouldn't, and lots of people wouldn't either. If you tried to, you'd be shut down pretty fucking quick by a competitor. And when I say shut down....I really mean shot in the face.

Maybe growing for profit would be dangerous if it were £10k an ounce. But nobody is going to pay that either, so it will never reach that price. This is nonsense to be honest. Guns and weed don't tend to go together, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. If you want to talk about what's not going to happen, fine, let's also talk about stopping people getting high.

[OngBonga]

If there was already a cartel/gang in control of the weed trade in Ong's neighborhood, and Ong decided to enter that market, he'd get shot in the face.

Also, do you realise that this problem of gang control can easily be negated? Legalisation.

you're not in favor of legalization. You're in favor of decriminalization. It's different.

I know the difference and I'm in favour of legalisation. I should be allowed to grow and sell weed, perhaps under license but nonetheless without discrimination. Simply being told I can no longer be considered a criminal for possession, that doesn't go far enough, but it's a start.

[BananaStand]

Also, do you realise that this problem of gang control can easily be negated? Legalisation.

Then what? All the gangs go home? They turn in their guns and stop playing? They all get jobs as stock boys at the cocaine store?

Nixon declared war on drugs in 1970. Since then, violent crime has gone WAAAY down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_..._1973-2003.jpg

The war on drugs hasn't been a total waste

[Poopadoop]

Nixon declared war on drugs in 1970. Since then, violent crime has gone WAAAY down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_..._1973-2003.jpg

The war on drugs hasn't been a total waste

The explosion in the prison population starting around 1980 parallels the drop in violent crime almost perfectly. Locking up people ftw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarc..._United_States

And since according to you, very few of those people were incarcerated for drug-related offences, it suggests the war on drugs has had very little impact. One dealer goes down, another takes his place.

[BananaStand]

Locking up people ftw.

Good, that's where violent criminals belong. I've been hearing so much about 'mass incarceration' is an unnecessary expense, and doesn't do anything to solve crime. Well.....there's your data. More criminals in jail = less crime on the street.

And since according to you, very few of those people were incarcerated for drug-related offences,

When did I say that?

What I said was, the number of people in prison whose worst offense is drug use/possession, is microscopic. In other words, we've been successful in catching the right bad guys to have an impact on crime.

it suggests the war on drugs has had very little impact. One dealer goes down, another takes his place.

I wouldn't say it's had little impact. There is certainly a 'balloon effect' to some degree. But crime is down. If drug usage is up, it's because the other side is fighting back with more production, more potent drugs, and cheaper prices. Our war tactics must evolve to counter that. And that means stopping the flow of drugs into this country. Eventually, it will get harder and harder for the bad guys to come up with new ways to get to the market. When that happens, they'll move on to a different market. Let them take their shit to Argentina.

Or if you want to really attack the source, the cartels, you need Mexico's cooperation. But it doesn't look like that's happening any time soon. THeir corrupt government has overseen a tripling of the poppy production in the last half decade, and is openly fighting against the US's efforts to secure our own border.

We did it in Columbia. We poured 8 billion into efforts to destroy coca fields and prosecute drug lords. When the poorest of Mexican citizens can't be pushed out of the country and passed off on the US, they'll start demanding reforms, just like the Columbians did

Then we'll see who wins the war.

[Poopadoop]

I wouldn't say it's had little impact. There is certainly a 'balloon effect' to some degree. But crime is down. If drug usage is up, it's because the other side is fighting back with more production, more potent drugs, and cheaper prices. Our war tactics must evolve to counter that. And that means stopping the flow of drugs into this country. Eventually, it will get harder and harder for the bad guys to come up with new ways to get to the market. When that happens, they'll move on to a different market. Let them take their shit to Argentina.

That's not how things work. Dealers don't go 'oh geez there's a 25% chance our mules will get busted, better switch to another market'. They say 'ok 25% of our mules get busted, better raise the price'

We did it in Columbia. We poured 8 billion into efforts to destroy coca fields and prosecute drug lords.

You made hardly a dent in the coke market, if price is any indication. Not exactly a roaring success. Seriously, stop thinking Narcos is a documentary - it's not.

When the poorest of Mexican citizens can't be pushed out of the country and passed off on the US, they'll start demanding reforms, just like the Columbians did

No idea where this argument starts and where it ends.

Then we'll see who wins the war.

We've already been seeing for forty years. Drugs are still everywhere. Believing the whole 'securing the southern border' thing will change that in any significant way is wishful thinking.

[BananaStand]

That's not how things work. Dealers don't go 'oh geez there's a 25% chance our mules will get busted, better switch to another market'. They say 'ok 25% of our mules get busted, better raise the price'.

And what happens when 90% of their mules get busted?

Or if each non-busted mule is bringing a far smaller amount?

Let them raise the price. That only depresses demand, which is kinda the goal

[BananaStand]

You're missing the point. Not all drugs come from Mexico.

Tons and tons of tons do. It's no coincidence that poppy production in Mexico has more than tripled over the last 5 years.

Ligter fuel can be a drug, and if you succeed in taking away every potential narcotic except for lighter fuel, then demand for lighter fuel will go up. Because, junkies don't give a fuck what they are taking, so long as it gets them high. If lighter fuel is all they had, they'd lap that shit up.

Major exaggeration. If lighter fluid produced a high that was anywhere near as satisfying, no one would take the tremendous legal and health risks associated with shooting smack. A few might turn to lighter fluid, but I'll bet a huge number of them would just be sober.

You're naive if you think that stopping drugs coming from Mexico will mean less addicts. It will simply mean demand shifting from one product to another.

Of course there will be less addicts. If you remove the substances that are most addictive....there will be less addiction!