from the Don't-get-high-off-your-own-supply-and-demand. dept.
Proving what drug legalization advocates have been saying for decades, the rather minor steps towards marijuana legalization in the US have caused the wholesale price in the Sinaloa state of northern Mexico to collapse from $100/kilo to less than $25/kilo. For the first time in recent history, the farmers there have stopped all new marijuana plantings.
But the farmers are not willing to go quietly. They've diversified into growing heroin poppies instead as wholesale prices have basically doubled since 2012.
That same pricing increase has been "filling the coffers of the Taliban" who also grow poppies in Afghanistan. Will the competition from Mexican farmers end up weakening the Taliban resurgence? Perhaps canceling the war on drugs is the easiest way to win the war on terror.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday May 11 2014, @05:19PM
"Perhaps canceling the war on drugs is the easiest way to win the war on terror."
If both exist solely to run a profit, how is that a good idea?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by cellocgw on Sunday May 11 2014, @06:13PM
"Perhaps canceling the war on drugs is the easiest way to win the war on terror."
If both exist solely to run a profit, how is that a good idea?
First of all, WHOOOOOOSH.
Second of all, wherever did you get the idea that terrorists are in it for the money?
Physicist, cellist, former OTTer (1190) resume: https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @06:28PM
"Second of all, wherever did you get the idea that terrorists are in it for the money?"
Third of all, WHOOOOOOSH.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday May 11 2014, @07:27PM
It's not the 'terrorists' who are in it for money. It's the people (the actual terrorists) waging war on the 'terrorists' who are in it for money. Those nudie scanners and magic voodoo dowsing rod bomb detectors are very profitable.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 12 2014, @02:51AM
Notice how it's called "The war on terror," not "The war against terror." Now wonder why the War on drugs is not the War against drugs. It seems that in both cases, the insane American leadership is high on both, despite that they claim to be against those things.
First principles.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Dunbal on Sunday May 11 2014, @07:46PM
Where did you get the idea terrorists are NOT in it for the money? I'm not talking about the poor idiot they manage to convince to strap himself to a bomb, I'm talking about the bosses. It's just feudalism, and that has always been about power and money.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday May 12 2014, @05:50AM
They aren't, but we are working hard on creating more home-grown terrorists, as it makes privacy-invading legislation so much easier to pass, and we save bundles of cash on gas for our drones, as we just use them locally instead of flying them all over the middle east.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday May 11 2014, @06:39PM
> If both exist solely to run a profit, how is that a good idea?
If a 75% drop in revenue isn't enough to make a for-profit business give up, how much does it take? 90%? 99%?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Sunday May 11 2014, @07:48PM
Not entirely true. They did give up since they are now switching crops and more or less officially leaving the weed marketplace in the US as well as Mexico.
They don't have a choice. Weed can now be sold safer and cheaper in many spots in the US. If you don't think there isn't a way for the major growers to shift their business to legal means, you would be surprised. All the real talent and knowledge that was required to grow weed is finding an emerging legal marketplace that allows them to enjoy less risk leading to lower costs of production. It's literally a weed. The costs can go *really* low. You may actually spend more growing some herbs and spices.
What makes it worse now for them is that the people at the ground level are emboldened by the current environment to not care and start growing their own. If they only grow 1 or 2 plants discretely they perceive themselves to be at less risk. That provides additional competition.
The costs of growing it in Mexico may be cheap, but the costs of their overall operation and distribution networks into the US are quite high. Mexico more than anybody wants legal weed everywhere in the US since that could cut the legs off the only real competition and threat the government of Mexico has. If they didn't switch to heroin production they could lose power and influence.
If you want to see a real shit storm down there legalize all drugs.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Sunday May 11 2014, @09:48PM
> If you want to see a real shit storm down there legalize all drugs.
Yep, it is going to get worse before it gets better. Just like prohibition created organized crime in the US and violence went up for a while after it was repealed. 35 years of the war on drugs has created a lot of criminality, it will take decades to bleed it all off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2014, @09:57AM
Imagine what would happen if they allowed Big Pharma to make LSD/Ecstasy and such. If it was managed by the FDA and the production plants were regularly inspected. If they were allowed to perform R&D into safer highs and reduced addiction. If you could get LSD as safe and cheap as aspirin?
I work in a sterile plant making injectables, and I know first hand the amount of paperwork involved, everything from how the vials are pre-washed, to put through automated inspection. It's one of the reasons why I'd never do recreational drugs, because I know just how much effort is put into making products safe to consume, that I'm certain that LSD manufactures (being illegal, mostly) are most certainly not bothered doing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Sunday May 11 2014, @08:20PM
Missing the point. The implication was not that terrorists are only "in it" for profit. The point is that terrorists (or guerillas, rebels, whatever) are funding their activities via the profit largely from the sale of controlled substances (and other black market activities). Legalizing and regulating the sale of those controlled substances through legitimate channels both collapses the inflated black market prices and helps to redirect the remaining flow of cash away from said black market entirely. Hence one of the best ways to combat organized terrorist groups is to essentially de-fund them by legalizing all controlled substances.
It's simple economics. I'm astounded and depressed every day that we learned absolutely nothing from the damage caused by Prohibition.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Sunday May 11 2014, @09:41PM
THIS.
Some misogynistic misanthrope determined to bend the world to his ways and views for whatever reason will find it really hard when he doesn't have the money to even rent a truck.
You allow him to make hundreds of millions on the black market and all of the sudden he can afford to spread his views more effectively, recruit other low lifes that love money and the vice that comes with it, and purchase a dirty bomb from the DPRK. As for getting it here, it's amazing how millions of dollars starts opening doors that would otherwise be closed.
If the Taliban never had access to drug money they would have imploded a long time ago. It was already very hard on them hiding in caves. Imagine hiding in caves and being broke?
Drugs are not the only ways to make money to be fair, but getting rid of an entire black market just by making drugs a public health issue instead of a costly and expensive war should be a fucking no-brainer decision regardless of whatever value judgments you have about drug use.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @07:24PM
Will the US military help protect them?o ops-are-protecting-afghan-opium-u-s-occupation-lea ds-to-all-time-high-heroin-production/5358053 [globalresearch.ca]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/drug-war-american-tr
And will the banks help them launder the money like they laundered billions for the drug lords?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday May 11 2014, @07:49PM
Money is not tainted and money is not dirty. Otherwise you would have to renounce ALL money. At the end of the day money in your hands once belonged to someone else who might not have been parted from it by ethical means. And since we're on the subject - whose morals count here, yours or mine?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday May 11 2014, @10:10PM
Sure it is, it's just that the filth and corruption generally rubs off on the first recipient and stays there.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday May 11 2014, @10:14PM
Not only that but there is no "World Law". What is illegal in the US is not necessarily illegal in Afghanistan. No matter how hard politicians try to push IP laws : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pendorbound on Monday May 12 2014, @04:43PM
Sounds like it's working out perfectly. It's proof we should legalize more drugs. The "war" on drugs causes enormous amounts of capital to become available to people willing to commit horrific acts of violence to ensure continued flow of money. Legalizing their product, thus deflating the price they're able to charge for it deprives them of that capital and would undoubtedly over time greatly curtail their ability to continue violence -- guns and bullets cost MONEY.
The fact that they've moved on to a more profitable crop just means that you need to repeat the exercise and deflate the value of that crop. Next up is coca leaf, and probably meth (which would mean I could walk into a pharmacy and buy cold medicine without getting the Third Degree, so bonus there...)
I simply cannot believe that a substantive number of people would say to themselves, "Heroin's legal now, I guess I'll start shooting up!" Instead, the few people who want it can afford it without robbing grandmothers, they may or may not OD & kill themselves off, and the world moves on. Meanwhile in various places where drug money fuels daily murders and drug lord regimes, both the money and the incentive it gives to murder people dry up. Win all around.
And if you're worried about the social costs of drug addiction, I'd say shift 100% of the money currently used on enforcement and building paramilitary police forces to drug education and (and possibly general education) and rehabilitation programs. I doubt you'd need to maintain the level of spending for more than five years before the problem pretty much took care of itself, and you could do something more productive with the money.