The downside is this: after the so-called war on drugs has Mexico has seen an increase in muggery, abduction and extortion. There is a whole criminal working class whose way of living is crime and have no respect for human life. So, if legalization ends the drug traffic business, this people will have to either learn to work honestly or find more creative ways to profit from crimes.
The truth is: Mexico is screwed.
It's sad because I live here and I love my city and some aspects of México, but I don't want to live here anymore. As soon as I get married I'm going to fly away.
What? It is all your fault! You are the freaking consumers! We have the misfortune to be the obliged way for Colombian drug dealers to pass the drug to USA, where the rich dumbasses drug-addicts live and are willing to pay.
Now you are going to take the moral high-ground here and say "eew! make that fence taller!"?
This is not just caused because of the USA. We also have addicts that increase the demand for drugs in Mexico. No one is putting a gun in the head of this people to become drug traffickers. People in Mexico are poor but I don't see anyone that is not a drug trafficker dying of hunger because they don't have money. This people just like the easy live they can get by becoming drug traffickers.
This criminal culture in Mexico is a very complex issue and it's not like it can be magically fixed if the USA and Mexico legalize drugs. To fix this we need to make profound changes in all aspects of our culture & society and it will take time if it ever happens.
I believe in sovereignty. The USA can do whatever it wants in its territory same as China(Google respect local laws or GTFO) same as Mexico.
But it is mostly the money from the monopoly prohibition has granted to that criminal class that perpetuates its existence.
If you replace the criminal drug industry with a legal drug industry, you will encourage the growth of the non-criminal-classes, people working on the drug industry will become law-abiding-tax-paying citizens that will have an interest in the rule of law, instead of criminals with an interest in undermining it by corrupting law enforcement, criminals, and the whole fabric of society.
Here is a great interview with Milton Friedman about the economic and social effects of the War on Drugs:
"But it is mostly the money from the monopoly prohibition has granted to that criminal class that perpetuates its existence."
It's not prohibition, it's illegal. I love how the pro-drug people use this word when you wouldn't say we have a prohibition on rape, murder, or burglary.
"If you replace the criminal drug industry with a legal drug industry, you will encourage the growth of the non-criminal-classes, people working on the drug industry will become law-abiding-tax-paying citizens that will have an interest in the rule of law, instead of criminals with an interest in undermining it by corrupting law enforcement, criminals, and the whole fabric of society."
I'm okay with that if you're okay with knowing that we will encourage people to sell substances that will destroy lives through addiction and kill people. The difference is that the legal drug companies are selling drugs that actually have some purpose besides getting you high.
I really don't see how a drug like crystal meth will help anyone in the long run.
It's not prohibition, it's illegal. I love how the pro-drug people use this word when you wouldn't say we have a prohibition on rape, murder, or burglary.
The distinction is important: drug prohibition is a choice, and other societies (including our own society at other times) have made different choices here, often to their benefit.
There isn't much choice about prohibiting rape, murder, burglary -- to have any social order at all, they must be prohibited.
See also the difference between conduct that is malum prohibitum versus that which is malum in se. These legal terms draw a distinction between things that are wrong because a law was chosen (regardless of their harmfulness), versus those things that are inherently wrong/harmful.
Even those who like to ban intoxicants called their period of greatest influence "prohibition", when alcohol was banned. So there are good legal and historical reasons for calling anti-drug-laws "prohibition".
"You should be able to kill yourself if you really want to, but they won't allow you."
If I own a business. Will I be allowed to not hire anyone that even touches drugs? I feel I should have the right, since those people have the right to "kill themselves".
Also, if we have a government run health care program, regular drug users should either 1) have to pay a large percentage more out of their pockets or 2) shouldn't get covered by a government plan. I shouldn't have to pay for anyone knowingly killing themselves with substances.
"Natural selection? If anybody is dumb enough to damage or kill themselves with the use of drugs it's fine with me. Same goes for cigarrettes."
You might be fine with this, but there are still people to this day that sue the cigarette companies for health bills and other related problems due to their own problems. We will also be exposing a larger percentage of the population to substances that are known to be addictive. This will result in more addicts, which can and will increase health care costs overall. How do you propose we deal with these problems?
You seem to have this idea that when we legalize all drugs, all drug-related violence will stop and we won't have any other problems. It's not as simple or as easy as this.
"You seem to have this idea that when we legalize all drugs, all drug-related violence will stop and we won't have any other problems. It's not as simple or as easy as this."
No. Read my comment above and you'll see that that's not my idea. I'm just saying that dumb people should be allowed to remove themselves from the genetic pool.
The truth is: Mexico is screwed.
It's sad because I live here and I love my city and some aspects of México, but I don't want to live here anymore. As soon as I get married I'm going to fly away.