HN Explorer

Ask HN: Could US cocaine legalization halt Mexican cartels?

3 points by jmartrican ↗ HN
If the US government allowed the growing and selling of cocaine in the US, would this halt the power and wealth of Mexican cartels? The US government is powerful, but it seems to be incapable of removing markets that American citizens really want. Maybe the US needs to be more flexible.

13 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 36.7 ms ] thread
LinuxBender
Could US cocaine legalization halt Mexican cartels?

Is cocaine their only revenue? I think it would have to include anything they are bringing into the country that gets entirely legalized such as making fentanyl non-RX. I can not imagine pharma lobbyists being OK with this.

Assuming cocaine was their only revenue and I am just guessing but perhaps if federal, state, county and city governments did not add bureaucracy, gave businesses a quick path to being productive and did not put a high tax burden on them then maybe. Anything that adds friction or high cost overhead could give cartels a competitive advantage. There is a higher cost overhead to operating a business legally. Subsidizing a few years of startup costs and giving major tax incentives for a decade may help to change purchasing behavior.

Quequau
Given how many cartels have expanded operations to include synthetic opioids, methamphetamines, and human trafficking I am sceptical of efficacy of such a policy viewed only through the lens of defeating organised crime in Mexico.

Also, given how American policy seems to have to explore and exhaust all the bad options before settling on some mediocre option, I expect that the first policy choices might actually turn out to be harmful.

raincom
Cartels are moving away from cocaine, heroine, and marijuana, as they need to depend on farmers. Second, they need to source Cocaine from Colombia, Ecuador, Peru; they grow opium in Sinaloa. Dependence on farmers, land, weather, climate change just add complexity. That's why they have switched to synthetics: just set up pharmaceutical factories in Mexico itself, import ingredients from China, and hire and train chemists.
Ekaros
So only real option is to wholesale legalize all of the drugs.
jmartrican
Yes. Or it could be the case that cheap cocaine might reduce use of synthetics?
raincom
Yes, but it won't happen, as states, cities, and feds are suing pharmaceutical companies, even pharmacies like Walgreens into oblivion. (Walgreens paying $290M to the city of San Francisco after a recent lawsuit.) And doctors don't want to be in that practice of prescribing opioids. In other words, even if all synthetics are legalized, there won't be any doctors to prescribe them, there won't be any pharmacies who want to sell them. That's why people flock to the underground market to get synthetics, even if you legalize all drugs in the states.
Ekaros
Then just need to remove need for prescriptions like it is with ethanol, THC and nicotine. Allow dispensaries to setup taxed sale channels.
jarsin
I don't see any solution that involves mexico remaining an independent country. Corruption is so deep they will just find the next thing to make money off. Illegal pharmaceuticals etc.

It would never happen but why not annex Mexico? Send in special forces to wipe out the biggest cartels and put the entire country under Marshall law for x amount of years until they are transitioned into US states.

The southern border of Mexico is much easier to manage. Would give us full control of gulf etc. US could be more influential on some of those smaller Mexican border countries.

jmartrican
Wow I never even thought of that. It sounds hard to do. The issue with this is that the demand from the American drug users will shift the cartels to another country. I just think the market for drugs in the US is so high, that you cannot fight it. You can only allow it and try to control it.
jprd
wow.

"I don't see any solution that involves UKRAINE remaining an independent country. Corruption is so deep they will just find the next thing to make money off. Illegal pharmaceuticals, etc.

It would never happen, but why not annex UKRAINE? Send in special forces to wipe out the biggest bureaucrats and put the entire country under Marshall Law for x amount of years until they are transitioned into RUSSIAN REPUBLICS.

The southern border of UKRAINE is much easier to manage. Would give us full control of Black Sea, etc. RUSSIA could be more influential on some of those smaller UKRAINIAN border countries."

I mean. This is HN so I'm presuming no /s tag was inferred? You want to invade a sovereign country because the US has an insatiable drug habit?

Beyond that, your argument was scarily like you were shitposting while LARP-ing as Putin.

HarryHirsch
Given that cartels have moved into avocado, the answer would be a resounding no. (Maybe an avocado prohibition, like back then LaGuardia did with artichokes would be a start, but we shouldn't hold our breath.)
cc101
I don't think that it would do much good. Compare the difference between your proposal and abolishing Prohibition. When the US abolished Prohibition, beer truck drivers became beer truck drivers. Bartenders became bartenders. Brewmasters became brewmasters. BUT the criminal element just moved into other criminal enterprises like: corruption, drugs, gambling, protection; etc.

The drug industry is huge. These people have become accustomed to a better lifestyle. They are not going back to growing corn on a dusty hillside or working as unskilled laborers. I would expect the consequence of abolishing cocaine prohibition to result in a huge increase in other criminal activity. Protection would probably be the biggest, and that could easily spread across borders.