Hacker News Reader

Comment by h4nkoslo | Hacker News Reader

It's too late. The cartels were allowed (even encouraged) to grow to the point where they are no longer controllable by the state. If you legalize the drug trade, they will continue to assert quasi-legal control over it the same way that mafias have historically controlled things like garbage removal, and probably branch out into other activities (as they actually have been doing, eg "taxing" avocado farmers). They have no reason to allow themselves to be "outcompeted" by a bunch of MBAs with excellent expertise in logistics but no guns.

View on HN

That doesn't jive with history. The mafia became dominant during prohibition. Alcohol becomes legal again and what happens? The corporations take over and the mafia loses some of its power although not for long thanks to bans on cocaine, heroin, marijuana. Organized crime thrives on black markets. Reduce them, and reduce their power.

That works to the extent they do not already have above-threshold control of the economy & the ability to use force sufficient to at least deter the government. Under those circumstances it becomes self-perpetuating absent a significant & violent effort to uproot it. Witness, eg, the 'Ndrangheta, which although heavily involved in the drug trade predates it and has significant other "business lines".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Ndrangheta

I don't think you realize how much intertwining there is between corporations and organized crime.

As in corporations are a form of organized crime or the mafia/cartels have infiltrated the Fortune 500?

Each of these statements are part of the truth; each are true but not the whole truth.

Care to elaborate?

Too late for what? That would arguably be a marginally better outcome than the current situation at least. I don't think many expect powerful, wealthy people with guns give up without a fight - but regulating a previously dark market will lower the bad guys' margins. Of course they will need to move their assets to some other trade, like "avocado protection". But we need to create friction wherever we can, I think.

Too late to significantly crush the power of the narcos by regulatorily affecting one particular business line. It might affect them on the margin; OTOH it might very well not, if they're able to maintain control of the trade with the advantage of legitimacy. It is certainly possible to simultaneously, eg, scale up production of "legal" drugs on your regulatorily permitted farms, and threaten to murder the children of your competitors. That looks like pure deadweight loss.

And what happens when the big corporations start getting into the business?

What are the drug cartels going to do? Attack some giant montasanto farm in the middle of flyover USA?

...with their guns?

And what happens when montasanto highers a couple off duty police officers to protect their investment?

The cartels have no power in anywhere but the border.

The US has far stronger rule of law than Mexico (one of the reasons so many Mexicans desire to come to the US), and I'm primarily talking about the difficulty of uprooting the narcos in Mexico.

That said, yes, I would expect to see a rise in cartel violence in the US at least out into the medium term. "Attack a farm" is a bit cinematic, but "threaten executive's children to extract kickbacks" is quite plausible in certain areas. Their area of influence now tracks traditional drug trafficking routes & illegal immigration routes, which covers a hell of a lot of the US. That doesn't mean they're necessarily dominant over that the same way they are in MX, but is something one should be aware of.

Their problem is that they will lose most of their income which will reduce their power. They may try some kidnappings, but then they also have to contend with the U.S. power plus the ability of the other side to buy protection.

Well for one thing criminal gangs need to spend money and resources to avoid getting caught. And they don't tend to last very long. When big corporations start getting into marijuana they can spend vast resources on research to make the product more attractive, not to say more addictive. And all this know-how will be permanent. I'm very curious how this whole legalization experiment will turn out but I'm sure we will learn a thing or two on the way.

> And what happens when montasanto highers a couple off duty police officers to protect their investment?

What could drug cartels do against a couple of off-duty police officers?

> The cartels have no power in anywhere but the border.

Chicago disagrees.

This is America. Cops getting targeted systematically would make national news, and the government would put a stop to that VERY quickly.

It is their funeral. They can enjoy their overreached, over militarized response.

If the businesses they control are legal, they have more incentives to avoid illegal activities "controlling" them. I wonder if a cartel could remake itself into a private security company?

A future where a country is essentially carved up between several PMCs, each being a law enforcement monopoly in its sector, is kinda dystopian... but surely it beats never-ending drug-fueled war between the cartels?

Yes, surely, legitimizing the power of violent thugs and drug dealers over the populace they have terrorized for decades is better than maintaining at least a semblance of the rule of law. The latter is hard and expensive!

Not to go all Godwin up in here, but appeasing violent ambition hasn't worked well in the past and it wont work here. The rare cases where it has worked have been political in nature, driven by groups with legitimate grievances, not an abundance of greed.

If the semblance of the rule of law is really mostly semblance, it may actually well be better here and now.

I lived in a country which, at a certain time period, had such a deterioration in the quality of law enforcement (corruption, lack of funds, high crime rates etc), that the local mob effectively did run the show. And while it was messy, they did actually establish some rule of law - except it was, of course, their law. But it was something businesses were willing to go along with, because some law is usually better than none; and if paying, say, 10% on a regular basis means you can generally do business normally otherwise (and your contracts are enforced if needed etc), that's not the worst place to be in.

If you think about it, governments essentially evolved out of such bands of armed people providing "protection" to the populace (which really just means that no-one else is going to rob them). So when a government becomes so inefficient and/or corrupt that it cannot effectively provide protection anymore, well, the next challenger is going to take over - and, if successful, eventually become the new government. Somewhere down the line, people start asking questions like "why are we paying these guys", and you get all kind of fancy philosophical theories like social contract and natural rights, and the role and mechanics of government evolves accordingly... but it still has to be able to provide this one basic function: ensure that no-one else collects the money from its citizens, and no-one else can rough them up.

> legitimizing the power of violent thugs and drug dealers over the populace they have terrorized for decades

This is essentially the history of statebuilding, from Sargon of Akkad to today. There is not a great deal of distinction to be made between a Gothic warchief, a Norman knight, a Spanish conquistador, or a Mexican cartel head.

That's how we got our current governments and economic model.

That's Haiti. Their gangs are both political and criminal, and have been for a long time, since "Papa Doc" Duvalier set up the Tonton Macoutes as a government-operated paramilitary terror force around 1960. Duvalier and son are long gone, but the gangs live on.

Mexico isn't that bad.

Sounds like Margaret Atwood's MaddAddam trilogy.

You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home. The cartels can't do anything about that.

They empirically do. How do you think they control the existing MX & much of US drug trade? You must grow at scale to make it worthwhile, and then you need distribution. All of those things are vulnerable when the state can't / won't protect you, perhaps because it's illegal, or perhaps because the state is weak in the area. The later circumstance is true in Mexico.

> You must grow at scale to make it worthwhile, and then you need distribution.

I am making the exact opposite point. It is easy to grow a few marijuana plants in your own home, or even easier to grow an outdoor variety in your garden. Two or three plants is more than enough for even a heavy user.

All this is beside the point though, because as many others have already pointed out to you, the cartels would fall apart if the US legalized recreational drugs. Kidnapping, racketeering, etc. are just not nearly as profitable as the drug trade. Some drug dealers might move on to other criminal activities (though many actually have a conscience and would not do absolutely anything for money, believe it or not), but you're denying historical precedent if you don't think that legalization would wipe out the illegal drug trade and seriously undercut the cartel's ability to make money. Why is it that gangs don't still control alcohol distribution now that prohibition is over?

> You're talking about a plant that anyone can grow in their home.

People in favor of legalization try to suggest that it's about marijuana, but cartels mostly trade in higher volume/price ratio substances (esp. cocaine).

Very well aware of that, just replying to the claims of the parent comment specifically. All recreational drugs should be legalized.

> Very well aware of that, just replying to the claims of the parent comment specifically.

Fair enough -- if it read as at all speaking down to you, I did not intend for it to be that way.

> All recreational drugs should be legalized.

I very strongly disagree that _all_ recreational drugs should be legalized. To some extent, I agree on the less addictive substances (marijuana, psilocybin), but not on drugs that are surprisingly addictive, such as heroin, methamphetamine, or cocaine.

Besides interpersonal harm (such as overdoses, intoxicated driving and its victims, economic decision making, spread of disease from sharing needles), the societal impact would be non-trivial with increased availability of intoxicants for people that rely on government services or otherwise are not net contributors to society. Legalizing recreational drugs while also believing in a societal "safety net" suggests also a level of comfort of increased taxation to subsidize the increasing numbers of addicted people, as well as providing increased medical and police services to communities.

I did cocaine every day, multiple times a day for over a year. It was easy to stop though, unlike marijuana for me. I've also done heroin and meth, but I never felt compelled to do them often unlike I did with certain psychedelic drugs. Just an anecdote.

As for your other concerns, I disagree. Availability is no issue in any major US city. Overdoses happen more frequently by not knowing the purity of a substance, and when people are terrified to go to the hospital or call an ambulance because they'll be arrested. Intoxicated driving will happen with or without legalization and is a crime in itself. Spread of disease from sharing needles would be drastically reduced with basic harm reduction / needle exchange programs. The police will be plenty available to serve their communities because currently they spend an enormous amount of time policing drug crimes. Harm reduction programs and social services can be funded by taxation on the sale of recreational drugs.

Are there any statistics on cocaine and opiod overdoses from the later 19th and early 20th centuries, when there were essentially no regulations on the substances and you could buy laudanum and patent medicines at your corner druggist?

I think it was hard to recognize it as such, and perhaps difficult as purity lower, but indeed issues surrounding "snake-oil" remedies were the motivation for the first true product label regulations.

> I did cocaine every day, multiple times a day for over a year. It was easy to stop though, unlike marijuana for me. I've also done heroin and meth, but I never felt compelled to do them often unlike I did with certain psychedelic drugs.

You're an outlier -- your experience does not match addiction patterns in most people.

> Spread of disease from sharing needles would be drastically reduced with basic harm reduction / needle exchange programs.

As you did heroin, you must know that the issue is getting people to _use_ the exchange programs and resources.

> Availability is no issue in any major US city.

I legitimately do not know where to buy drugs in my current city and not wanting to deal obvious drug dealers acts as an effective barrier.

> The police will be plenty available to serve their communities because currently they spend an enormous amount of time policing drug crimes.

I'd like to see some statistics on this -- my understanding is that police typically end up finding drugs as a secondary crime to responding to an existing issue (e.g. noise complaint/erratic behavior/etc).

> As you did heroin, you must know that the issue is getting people to _use_ the exchange programs and resources.

I snorted heroin, I'm not a fricking junkie :) But seriously, do you expect people to use needle exchange programs when doing so is tantamount to admitting to illegal behavior? It is very common for US police to bust drug users and pressure them into becoming confidential informants, and then work their way up the chain.

> I legitimately do not know where to buy drugs in my current city and not wanting to deal obvious drug dealers acts as an effective barrier.

I'm guessing you're not interested in using drugs, right? There's your explanation. If you are though, then I can only ascertain that you feel you have a right to use them, while other people, like the non net contributors to society you mentioned earlier, do not.

> I'd like to see some statistics on this -- my understanding is that police typically end up finding drugs as a secondary crime to responding to an existing issue

Ok, now you must be trolling! You need me to dig up numbers to show that US police spend significant time and resources on drug crimes? By the FBI's own numbers, drug violations account for more arrests than any other crime [1]. Speaking about policing more broadly, there are entire agencies like the DEA that deal exclusively with drug crime, and the NSA participates in efforts to catch drug dealers by coordinating with city police departments. Even Fox News will tell you that we've spent over a trillion dollars fighting the war on drugs [2]. That's not even getting into the money spent in the courts, prisons, probation system, etc.

[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

The highest number of arrests were for drug abuse violations (estimated at 1,552,432 arrests)

[2] http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/ap-impact-years-tril...

> I snorted heroin, I'm not a fricking junkie :)

;)

> But seriously, do you expect people to use needle exchange programs when doing so is tantamount to admitting to illegal behavior?

Yes, and some users do. I used to work in an office with line of sight to one and people would even line up outside (I suspect mostly for treatment/replacement dispensary schedules).

> It is very common for US police to bust drug users and pressure them into becoming confidential informants, and then work their way up the chain.

I don't think it's as common as you think. They're addicts and life isn't a spy novel. Some heroin addict isn't going to lean his way "up the chain."

> I'm guessing you're not interested in using drugs, right? There's your explanation.

I stated that I don't want to deal with obvious drug dealers (e.g. "coke, smoke?" guys). Extrapolate what you want.

> If you are though, then I can only ascertain that you feel you have a right to use them, while other people, like the non net contributors to society you mentioned earlier, do not.

That's accurate. Government services should be used for basic food, shelter, health, not paying for someone's high. Similarly, vodka and soda shouldn't be covered by SNAP -- if I want to burn some money from a paycheck, that's on me, but the nice grandparents that live next door shouldn't be paying for me to roll face or get drunk instead of work.

> Ok, now you must be trolling! You need me to dig up numbers to show that US police spend significant time and resources on drug crimes?

I was speaking about local police, not 3-letter agencies in the US. Have you considered that patrol police will go for a drug charge when they suspect a problem/crime and need probable cause? It's not as if weed is unscented and subtle when smoked. It's not as if police set up outside subways to test for internal possession in people acting normally.

> By the FBI's own numbers, drug violations account for more arrests than any other crime [1]. Speaking about policing more broadly, there are entire agencies like the DEA that deal exclusively with drug crime, and the NSA participates in efforts to catch drug dealers by coordinating with city police departments.

Your suggestion is free flow of drugs into society? You earnestly believe that ready access to heroin and meth production should be legal?

Have the new legalization laws generally made home-growing legal? From the commentary I've come across, they've thrown up a huge amount of obstacles to growing, where even medium-sized business find it onerous to enter the industry. The qualifications for growing seem to have been designed to throw directly to cronies.

Easy individual growing could depress the market enough that the state tax boon that legalization has been promoted as would be largely eaten up. It would basically be a license for individuals to grow enough to supply a small number of people by proxy. In that case, if there isn't an Uber for it within days, I'd be surprised.

Pragmatically, what states are trying to do is replace the cartels (and grab their profits) rather than eliminate them; laws are likely to look like what the cartels would write if they were the state.

> Have the new legalization laws generally made home-growing legal?

Here in Oregon, they made it legal for people to grow some small number of plants at home. Maybe 4 or 6 or something like that.

I'm not sure how popular this is in practice. Personally I don't know of anyone doing it. But on the other hand, I think the plants are required to be out of sight (eg in the back yard). So for all I know there are probably a few in my neighborhood and I'll never know.

The ones off the top of my head: ME, MA, OR, CO all allow noncommercial small scale grows at home, generally 6-12 plants.

I know the WA allows growing at home for medical use, but not recreational unless you follow the laws for a grower or processor.

My biggest concern is that having marijuana legalized will divert the cartels attention towards other illegal activities less prone to getting legalized, such as sex trafficking.

I don't want to live in a country where the state is incapable of controlling the cartels...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com