When prohibition 2.0 ends in failure maybe some will learn that it doesn’t work.
When prohibition 2.0 ends in failure maybe some will learn that it doesn’t work.
also, it seems questionable to extrapolate the outcome of legalization in the US based on data from mexico.
You might think that but the data doesn’t really support it: http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/uscentury.gif. Homicide rates were spiking in the US long before prohibition. Likewise, after going down post WWII, homicide rates started spiking before the drug war. They had almost doubled from the previous low point by the time Nixon was elected. Nixon coined the phrase drug war, but didn’t really fund it aggressively. That was Reagan. But homicide were near the peak by the time he was even elected.
> also, it seems questionable to extrapolate the outcome of legalization in the US based on data from mexico.
Not really—the cartels supply demand for drugs in the US. And OP was blaming the US drug war for violence in Mexico.
I've noticed you have a tendency to pop into threads, lob in an out of context chart or factoid, and confidently assert a contrarian opinion. As someone who shares that contrarian impulse, I'd strongly recommend you try to master that urge. You're a very insightful commentator when you stick to what you know.
Mexico is a beautiful place of warm people, brave journalists and contradictions.
They're dangerous as shit and anyone who accidentally crosses paths with them might get killed for the hell of it. You ever read Borderlands Beat? That's real news coming out of Mejico. That country is bullshit and it can't keep its act together and never has. But, oh, my quaint villas and excellent tacos. Yeah, right. Drink the water and get back to me.
As far Chicago, that city is a mess, too. I was there just last year. It sucks there for all kinds of reasons.
You know what Chicago and Mexico have in common? Failed liberal policies.
I never said they wouldn't, there are crazy cartel members just as there are crazy gang members.
> They're dangerous as shit and anyone who accidentally crosses paths with them might get killed for the hell of it. You ever read Borderlands Beat? That's real news coming out of Mejico. That country is bullshit and it can't keep its act together and never has. But, oh, my quaint villas and excellent tacos. Yeah, right. Drink the water and get back to me.
Im literally living in Mexico, not in a resort but in a border town.
> As far Chicago, that city is a mess, too. I was there just last year. It sucks there for all kinds of reasons.
Agreed but there are nice places as well.
> You know what Chicago and Mexico have in common? Failed liberal policies.
I agree and corruption.
There's a ton of propaganda in mainstream media claiming that Mexico and America are both heaven and hell depending on what you watch but as an outsider (I'm neither Mexican or American) I can honestly tell you it's somewhere in between.
But in the end it's not so bad. It keeps Mexico interesting and unadulterated by tourists.
Some of these commenters you'd think walk around with a helmet on because they might trip and they won't risk that possibility. I'd love to see someone like that look where I've lived for five years in a beach city and tell me how bad I must have it and how much I must fear for my life in this war zone.
Some people need the air conditioned sense of suburban safety that bores me to fucking tears. Other people like a little bit of ruggedness and adventure and maybe even adversity in life. Or something in between. To each their own.
How long did you spend here to reach your conclusion that Chicago sucks for all kinds of reasons? I've been here for 6 years, and I like it better here than anywhere else I've lived (Detroit, Indianapolis, West Lafayette, and New York City).
>You know what Chicago and Mexico have in common? Failed liberal policies.
Chicago has a bustling tech scene. My rent for a big, nice apartment is only 23% of my take home pay each month. It's a fine place to live. I assume you're saying that it's a dangerous hellscape because we have a lot of homicides annually, but per capita, about 10 US cities are more violent. And the violence is really still a residual effect from the redlining practice codified in the National Housing Act of 1934, which forced black people to live in bad neighborhoods regardless of their income. Redlining was legal up until 1977, which was only about 1 generation ago, which is not long enough for a significant population to save enough to move to better neighborhoods and give their children educations that enable social mobility. And redlining was a racist policy, which is hardly "liberal" (although both major parties supported racism, until the Democrats reversed course).
So I guess I don't see the basis you use to arrive at your conclusion.
https://checkyourfact.com/2018/12/16/fact-check-percent-repu...
That ignores decades of prior history, including the 1956 act that was defeated, making "both" even more clearly incorrect.
It's so funny when people say this, especially with snark. I mean, you thought you had a real mic drop moment just then. As if there aren't a bunch of Americans who get Sparkletts delivered to their door just like Mexicans.
You get used to it on day two.
Agreed. It's time to get Tough On Crime, and declare a War On Drugs. Shame no one's thought of it before.
I’m from Spain and I’ve lived in Mexico for a decade. I’ve never seen violence or crime in front of me.
Many people think Mexico is a war zone which isn’t true at all.
> Casualties are often measured indirectly by estimated total deaths from organized crime in Mexico.[253] This amounts to about 115,000 people in the years 2007 - 2018.
That’s progress!