I agree with what you're saying here, with the current conditions they will take a hit. Conditions can change, however, so we can't count them as neutered yet simply because legal pot undermines a part of their portfolio.
Only the first time. Then the opposite is true.
Afaik many people use meth for performance enhancement and as a cheaper alternative to coke, heroin mostly comes in with people who've built up an opiate addiction through prescription opiates and a cheap escapist solution.
Add in a generally very crappy living situation, where these substances are used as means of escapism from reality, and most of the habit boils down to all kinds of circumstances, but very rarely to this urban myth of "it's just so addictive that you can't stop after the first time", as most of it has to do with building habits on top of an already destructive lifestyle.
Case in point: I've done meth and coke more than once, and never did I feel the need to "keep on doing it due to withdrawal". If anything, the side-effects of something like meth make it very unpleasant to regularly use due to being physically and mentally very taxing.
That's why I don't think there's some kind of "large untapped market" for substances like these. Most people are still rational actors and if otherwise content and happy with their life won't start with destructive behavior on the sole basis of a substance being "super addictive".
That's whats being thought on elementary school traditionally, haha.
You don't have to look far though. Look at the usage of Khat by Somalians and Kratom by Thai. If its easily available and socially accepted, its gonna fly and will be very difficult to get rid of.
I can't wrap my head around using meth. Speed alone makes my head swirl and everything go fast. Exactly which performance would be enhanced by an even stronger upper? Or is it people with undiagnosed ADHD who resort to meth?
In Europe though, I know drugs like these are used in clubs, but so is XTC (MDMA & relatives) and GHB. XTC seems to be more rare in Eastern Europe where speed is more rampant. Whereas heroin usage is on an all time low. But theres people who go to clubs Thu/Fri/Sat (yeah, it starts on Thu for some reason). And if they use multiple times a week, yep then it goes quickly downhill.
> That's why I don't think there's some kind of "large untapped market" for substances like these. Most people are still rational actors and if otherwise content and happy with their life won't start with destructive behavior on the sole basis of a substance being "super addictive".
Oh, I do! All these young goths who automutilate themselves (though a niche subculture, I admit), teenagers in general cause of being unsure as well as having to perform (study). If its more widely and easier available, its also cheaper, and more accepted.
To be fair, I've also seen people addicted to booze, weed, and cigarettes. Its just that these drugs are more socially accepted.
I've seen it very popular with people working in shifts doing physically very taxing work, like warehouse workers in logistics, often combined with alcohol as a downer.
I have atypical ADHS and a small line will keep me up (and mentally super focused) for 3 days straight. But the crash that follows is really nasty and can last for up to 2 days. Not something I'd want to go through regularly, I can count on one hand how often I do that in a year.
That's snorting tho, I've heard and read that smoking it is way different and more comparable to a heroin high (short, very intense, mostly fading away). Nothing I would want to do if I want a downer I'm happy enough with some Indica cannabis.
> teenagers in general cause of being unsure as well as having to perform (study). If its more widely and easier available, its also cheaper, and more accepted.
Imho this whole phenomenon of "experimenting teenagers overdoing it" is the direct result of decades-long prohibition and stigmatization politics. Educators and adults keep telling young people "Using this will make you instantly go crazy and addicted, all your teeth will fall out!". But when they try it they notice how it's not that bad, so they underestimate the actual long-term effects and consider them as "just more fear-mongering", which then leads to irresponsible long-term abuse.
The other side of that is the abuse of legal drugs, where people often overdo them as they consider them "safer" due to being legal. For whatever reason way too many people think this whole legal/illegal distinction is made on a scientific basis of the substances actual effects when it really isn't.
When you're 15, you don't care how your life will look like when you are 30. It feels like talking about retirement.
God I am glad this period is long over, life can be so good now (and apart from alcohol, a bit of weed and few spectacular mushroom trips I didn't do any other substance).
This comports with what I've seen. Most people who've wrecked their lives with substance abuse had some underlying problem that they were trying to medicate/escape from. Depression, low self-esteem, abuse, etc.
Other drugs you end up tapping into a deep network filled with really shady people. High chance of being ratted on, robbed, etc. Even for those dealers multiple drugs, generally multiple supply networks. Which is worse.
although yes, i did deal with my growers directly.
I think most drugs have a wide range of users. Some have more or less problem users of various kinds, notably addicts. But all also have large numbers or normative users, even heroin.
In the 80s, the most noticeable gays were transexuals, eccentrics, prostitutes or people busted in embarrassing situations. People who couldn't/wouldn't be low key. This led to the impression that gays are mostly fringey people. Same for prostitution. No one knows about the individuals with a phone number and a regular life. Same for all vice. Normative people manage to keep it under the radar. You see street users, not the 32 year old coffee machine shop owner.
I don't think there's any drug that will addict many users after one or two times. Obviously, many do lead to addiction in large numbers, so are still risky.
Funny drug dealer quotes "I don't sell drugs, drug's sell themselves"
In all reality though Pot is by far harder to conceal in small/large quantities so per pound profitability on Pot has to be lower than other drugs like Meth / Cocaine / Heroin. Especially with the rise in Opioid addiction here in the US it seems folks with a poor moral compass (drug cartels) are naturally going to flock to something like Fentanyl production to increase the potency of their heroin or opioid sales.
Kudos to the legal marijuana industry, but it does shift the "war on drugs" to areas far more dangerous, and in my opinion worth focusing on.
I think the OP got it right -- even if there was no heroin crisis in the US, the cartels would turn to some other money-making proposition.
The only way to quash them is to strengthen the Mexican state, whether it be this one or a new structure.
I also read the farmers get nearly nothing for their crop, and obviously the high end cartels take all the profits anyways.
How would the US possibly strengthen the Mexican Government though, barring massive investment?
Not creating uncertainty by constantly threatening to pull out of NAFTA would be a good start. Helping to strengthen Mexico's economy was once a mainstream republican position seen to mutually benefit both countries. [1]
[1] Excerpt on illegal immigrants from Regan/Bush 1980 primary debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok
Not that I think such an action would be a good idea, or that threatening it is either, but what about the previous 20 years of NAFTA make you believe that it’s strengthening the Mexican state?
I was more focusing on the uncertainty created by the unclear messages from Washington, which does materially delay investment and confidence within Mexico, and makes it harder for the state to focus on defeating the cartels. Though I do believe that trade generally has a positive impact on economies as a whole.
Imagine if Mexico had the manufacturing capability of China, plus a growing middle class, fueled by no-education-necessary manufacturing jobs.
As a business, you don't have to deal with BS joint ventures, no time zone delay, no 3mo ship journeys, etc. The US is more than capable of boosting Mexico to this state.
More excessive pollution? We don't need another China.
This would also be a boon to agricultural nation's in Africa.
Here is the thesis:
----
Ongoing food and clothing donations to countries in need cause more harm than good.
While short term donations are able to help bridge emergency situations, such as after a natural disaster, ongoing donations lead to dependence.
Local producers of food and clothes are unable to compete with free, donated goods, and so switch their production to other goods or stop producing altogether.
If and when the supply of donated goods runs out, the country has already lost their ability to provide for themselves.
Thus, when supplying aid to countries in need, it is essential to promote local independence in addition to filling their immediate need, taking care to avoid the creation of a dependency.
In kind food aid is essentially unintentional predatory pricing.
I think the big difference is that people, intending wholeheartedly to do good and help these countries, instead cause significant damage.
Things like this are one of the reasons I find the Gates Foundation's way of working so interesting. They spend a lot of time and effort, supported by a lot of money, to help entire societies to improve. Things like enabling women to take control of their own reproduction, which has a huge stabilising effect on an economy. Moving the needle on that issue takes a significant amount of work, and is much harder than simply sending aid.
The problem with this is of course, that it is expensive and takes time.
Often countries really do need aid, and fast. If people remain willing to send aid, it's a hard sell to say "actually, we don't want that free food, thanks", not least of all because they might need more aid in the future!
The economically honest change would be to cut the subsidy, give out a welfare payment of a similar amount, and then let the market sort itself out. Nobody is a net loser, but the economy can reallocate resources out of farming if it wants. In this case, presumably foreigners would pick up food production and the Americans would go build infrastructure or something instead of farm.
I dunno how feasible the politics is, but that is the basic "everyone wins" case. Arguably the farmers might be worse off because they have to find something else to do.
Additionally the original argument was that cartels will seek out whatever means they can to make money.
It'll just shift their efforts towards other money making schemes, ie human trafficking or kidnapping and ransom.
Lets look at a historical example, after prohibition did human trafficking and kidnapping jump up enormously because the gangs were going to make money somehow?
Or did the number of violent crimes and influence of gangs drop off because there wasn't a huge river of cash flowing into their pockets afterwards?
Sure we have an issue with legitimate drugs. Decriminalizing will not stop our drug problem, but it will reduce our, and especially mexico's crime problem. And I, and I bet all of north mexico would rather have a drug problem than a crime problem. (For one drug's only directly affect the user, but crime affects everyone)
The only way to quash the cartels is lowering demand. But yeah that's too hard.
As I jokingly stated though, drugs sell themselves.
Education doesn't work either - look at the D.A.R.E. program.
I doubt selling pot is more profitable than the rest of their activities combined. Take The Knights Templar as an example, they operated within a single state and made around a Billion USD in 2013 from Iron ore alone.
https://nypost.com/2014/03/17/mexican-drug-cartel-moves-from...
Further, a lot of the other crime by cartels is funded by their marijuana business. It has been a cornerstone of their overall businesses the last 40 years.
That example of you gave, is fringe. The Knights Templar are not doing $25+ billion in annual revenue, which is what the implied extrapolation would be. The total annual 'revenue' for all Mexican cartels, is likely to be closer to $10 billion than not (RAND corporation estimated $6.6 billion for their drug trade, which is the majority of what they do).
There's a critical distinction between traditional corruption and illegal activities by gangs and similar, which is plentiful in 100+ of 195 nations, and the specific effects of the war on drugs. The war on drugs aspect of it, can be relatively easily neutered.
This is a well studied topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-dru...
Not disagreeing with your larger point, but the fact of the matter is that it's a lot harder to sell people meth, coke, heroin, etc. than it is to sell people pot.
If coca cola were made illegal, something that is bad for you by many metrics but hardly life destroying, people are not going to switch to hard liquor in the same way.
Kidnapping, hard drugs, smuggling, all of these are sources of income, but they're dwarfed by pot sales. The hope is that the cartels can only maintain the empires they have with a huge money maker like marijuana, and without it, they may get more desperate and expand the worst of their operations, but they will still shrink in their influence, power, geography and labor force.