It would. Also, it would make a huge improvement in the quality and quantity of human lives in Mexico, and the rest of Latin America. Extremely conservative estimates for Mexico alone put the death toll above 164,000+ in the past 10 years, and the number of displaced above 1.2 million, >1% of the country's population. By total number of deaths in 2016, the Mexican portion of the drug war by itself is the fourth bloodiest armed conflict on Earth[1] (after Syria, Iraq and Afganistan, above Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and the Boko Haram multinational insurgency).

Having grown up in Mexico, reading Mexican press and seeing the endless amount of mass graves people are now finding through the country (e.g. [2]), I am fairly sure there are plenty of cases not counted in the official estimates.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict... . Note: If this makes you scared about planning to visit Mexico, please also remember it is a very large country, and different areas have different levels of violence. Fourth largest conflict in terms of total yearly deaths doesn't mean "it feels like Syria" on account of the population being 100 million. But that doesn't change the vastness of the cost in human lives...

[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33671636

I just had a conversation with my Mexican's wife's brother-in-law last week. About 7 years ago I had asked him about whether he thought legalization of pot would help or hurt Mexico. He felt "bad guys" would just change their business model to harder drugs and other nefarious industries such as kidnapping, prostitution, racketeering, etc. So I was curious if he had changed his opinion.

He mentioned Tijuana for instance is already carved up amongst the various crime organizations. In his opinion it will not help Mexico though it perhaps will not hurt it either.

Personally I think the corruption goes from the top to the bottom and don't really see a quick fix. There would have to be real consequences to taking and giving bribes and other steps like that to re-enact the rule of law. I must say if I was a Mexican cop and told "take our silver or our lead", I'd probably take the bribe too so not really passing judgement. :-/

Sure, no quick fix and political reforms will be needed as well (see my other response in this thread). But changing the demand for weed and for other drugs, and having competition from legal businesses in that regard, will definitely diminish the strength of the cartels. That will make the problem of strengthening the state more tractable, although it won't solve it outright (the state as the collection of instutions, laws and practices, as opposed to our collection of corrupt high ranking politicians)

Yes, I read your comment after the fact.

I have been downvoted all to hell whenever I suggest buying drugs is supporting these murderers.

Has the (thoroughly corrupt) PRI being back in power made the violence better or worse if you know?

Unclear. For the first few years of this administration you heard less about it under Peña Nieto, but the estimated numbers keep climbing up, so it is most likely that was media spin for the most part. Also, there is the Ayotzinapa mass kidnapping/murdering of 43 students [1] which happened during his administration and where many people believe the federal government is at least complicit in hindering the Inter-American Human Rights Commission's investigation on the issue [2]. Of course, that is just one anecdotal datapoint (although a particularly shocking one). In general, the feeling is that we got the worst of both worlds: a PRI that is as authoritarian and as hostile to the press as that of the 80's and 90's and yet when it comes to controlling the cartels and local governments, it has as weak of a grip as the Calderon administration did.

Somewhat unrelated, but reinforcing your point about it being corrupt, we keep finding that president Peña Nieto owns quite a few houses he shouldn't be able to afford: [3], [4]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Iguala_mass_kidnapping

[2] http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2016/023....

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/18/mexico-preside...

[4] http://fusion.net/story/337255/jorge-ramos-another-scandal-p...

Corruption is a super tough problem to deal with. Hopefully cutting into enough revenue streams will give enough of a foothold to begin to combat the gangs.

I can't upvote this enough. Ending the War is not just about "let's all get high", it's about ending the bloodshed and corruption it fosters.

I'm hopeful but a bit pessimistic that legalizing marijuana will have much of an impact on the cartel violence in Mexico. There's so much money at stake and it's easy enough for them to switch to trafficking cocaine / heroin / meth. Any reason to think it won't just continue on pace?

Sure, and even legalizing all drugs in the U.S. and the Americas won't fix the problem, since cartels have other sources of income we will likely never legalize: human trafficking, extortion, etc. The full solution will involve painful long term reforms to the political and economical institutions of the countries involved (at least I know it will for Mexico), solving centuries long issues with structural income inequality[1], access to opportunities, race and class divisions, etc, etc.

But we are talking about closing a big revenue stream for the cartels, almost certainly one of the two or three biggest they have, maybe even the largest, just by lifting the prohibition on marijuana. That's not only a step in the right direction, it is a rather big one. In the long term, treating drug addiction as a medical / consumer protection issue in the US rather than primarily a law enforcement one, will be a huge boon towards the future of both nations (and, again, other nations in the Americas that I am not excluding but for which I feel less qualified to speak about).

In short: it won't magically fix the problem, but I do believe it will likely reduce the number of deaths and put us in a path towards a solution.

[1] For the HN libertarian crowd, I don't mean solving income inequality in the sense that everybody should make the same regardless of economic output (although I do believe on a safety net), I mean changing a centuries long setup in which class mobility is near zero and strongly correlated with race, and where most large scale "entrepreneurship" in the country is based of political connections (see telecommunications and media industries in Mexico for example).

Because it is a step. Just a small step but there is some hope that it could lead to decriminalization of all drug use.

Demand. There's nowhere near the demand.

That quote really makes me want to punch someone.

To be clear, that quote is made by Adelson's opponents who are trying to cast aspersions on his character. It's not like he said that.

I have no particular insight into Adelson, but if his motives are business, it strikes me as unlikely that the best investment he could make with a few million dollars is in lobbying against marijuana legalization.

It makes sense if you buy into the premise that a large subset of frequent alcohol users would make the switch to marijuana in a legal setting.

Alcohol use benefits casinos' bottom lines. Marijuana doesn't have the same wallet loosening effect.

The casinos are indirectly profiting from alcohol's prevalence, so it makes sense they'd defend it.

> Marijuana doesn't have the same wallet loosening effect.

Perhaps Mr. Adelson needs to improve the quality (and price) of the restaurants in his casinos.

The fact that he's doing good business doesn't mean he's not a punchable slimeball. He's stated publicly that he's doing this because he's "anti-addiction". A casino magnate. I suspect there's a special place in hell for those practising hypocrisy at this scale.

It's personal for him, as he had a child who died from a drug overdose.

However, I think Tvert's point is well-taken. Los Vegas casino magnates aren't exactly in a position to preach about abstinence or vices.

For a few million investment in NV he could own the new market.

Someone as wealthy as that can afford to throw a few million dollars in funding against something that makes them feel cranky, it's hardly unusual.

People's business positions often inform their moral judgments that they justify after the fact.

Unless he's heavily involved in the import of illegal marijuana.

Maybe? Honestly, I'm pretty dubious about the investment value of lobbying, full stop.

But regardless, do we have literally any evidence that his a drug baron? That seems like a hell of a thing to put out there on the basis of "he opposes marijuana legalization."

I feel like he's one of the last people you'd suspect of being involved with drugs. Adelson is already a major player in a spectacularly lucrative industry, so it'd be pretty insane to go into hardcore felonies when his legal business might actually have better margins.

The Venetian cleared >$300 million after costs in 2014. It'd be a pretty bizarro-world decision to jeopardize that for more money.

> The Venetian cleared >$300 million after costs in 2014. It'd be a pretty bizarro-world decision to jeopardize that for more money.

They also had to pay $50 million dollars the previous year to the government as a settlement for money laundering, and has been in hot water for allegedly paying bribes to secure casinos in China[1]. Their business isn't exactly squeaky clean as it is.

[1]:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/in-filing-casino-...

Absolutely - I wouldn't for a minute assume casino organizations are clean, especially abroad where they might feel safer from domestic prosecution. I just don't think diversifying into unrelated and personally-criminal activities would make much sense.

You think casinos have no involvement in illegal activities because they are already making enough money? Maybe I watch too many movies but that sounds bizarro-world to me.

I think already-rich casino magnates don't get involved in totally unrelated serious crime like importing drugs.

I'm fully aware that the casinos used to be shoulder to shoulder with the mob, and have done plenty of shady things. I guess I just meant that it would be stupid to diversify so riskily - in movie terms, it'd be like a hacker starting a sideline in gun running.

People are not rational. Drugs and legal gambling have a history.

What about the tax implications?

If these are "donations" to non-profits, wouldn't this reduce one's tax liability.

It's a quote from someone who works at a pro-legalization group; it's supposed to make you want to punch someone.

(Not advocating for or against either side.)

Aaaah, not having read the article I thought the guy they were quoting was like an employee of Adelson or something. Serves me right for not reading the article.

Or, more likely, simply highlight the hypocrisy in Adelson's actions.

To be fair, that's just an interpretation of his actions. I don't know him at all, but this paragraph may shed more light on his intentions:

...his supporters say the billionaire's crusade against marijuana should be seen as an individual decision rather than a business one. Adelson has had two sons who have struggled with drug addiction, one of whom died of an overdose in 2005. His wife, Miriam Adelson, is a doctor specializing in drug addiction.

“This is a case of someone who's been touched very deeply by drug abuse,” Kevin Sabet, of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said in an email.

Sad, yes, but obviously not an overdose of marijuana... So either an irrational crusade, or a cynical attempt to keep people addicted to gambling and drinking, neither of which is very appealing.

That's a pretty high horse to sit on for someone who handily profits from other addictions.

Adelson is also a major Trump donor. He bought a newspaper in Las Vegas and used it to give Trump his first major paper endorsement. He's said a lot of things that, to me, sound shockingly bigoted.

--

To an extent, all of us vote with our dollars. Avoid the Venetian and the Palazzo in Las Vegas and all Las Vegas Sands properties, unless you're the MIT blackjack team or otherwise an advantage player :)