It really is sad when those with a public platform are so irrationally opposed to discussions of legalization, that they go out of their way to attempt to downplay the importance of drug revenue to Mexican trafficking organizations and the impact of legalization (see Daksya’s comment there for an important correction to Humphreys) or, on the other hand, to suggest that drug testing those on parole or probation would reduce revenue to the drug traffickers by as much as 40%.
- DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy
Join us on Pete's couch.
Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to: Recent Comments
on Marijuana and toxicology in ancient Greece and Rome: “The Journal of Sex Research: Link” Apr 1, 22:16
on Marijuana and toxicology in ancient Greece and Rome: “Speaking of Socrates, I wonder if you have seen the video “Socrates versus Freedom” by Filthy Heretic?” Mar 31, 17:02
“Hard drugs account for around 80 percent of Mexico’s drug-trafficking revenue. Mark Kleiman says that to solve the problem we would need to eliminate the heavy use of about 3 million Americans…”
The whole “drug testing those on parole/probation” thing would work if and only if we went out, arrested, and jailed 3 million people.
I wonder if the writer of that short article knows how asinine that is. If arresting millions of people -already- doesn’t work in practice, how can they suggest that arresting twice that many would work better?
Oh, and we have a problem that goes even further. Drugs flow freely through some prisons. If they are already jailed, what can you possibly do to stem their drug use?
You see, if you take things apart LOGICALLY, you can only arrive at one conclusion: the surest way to stifle drug cartel profits is to set up a legal supply network that they would have to compete with. The black market will live on until there is a white market that can offer the same things.
Just watched the first episode of Ken Burns ‘Prohibition’ …. if ever there was a perfect example of what N.T. writes: “the black market will live on until there is a white market that can offer the same things,” the prohibition on alcohol and its subsequent re-legalization is it.
Burns is also spot-on with the anti-immigrant background of prohibition 1 and the white protestant urge to regulate other peoples behavior…. I look forward to many more parallels with prohibition 2 in future episodes.
more from the “reality-based” crowd. Whee! here we go, another rabbit hole! Who stole the tarts?
Nice hat and pocket watch, Kieth.
You’ve spelled Keith wrong. My mother was a school teacher.
I’m a PhD in the soft sciences. I misspell evrything.
😉
Again (and again!…)who is considering the drug testing industry’s involvement/profiteering angle? What are the names of the corporations and who [insert person with a name] ensures that money is funnelled into lobbying efforts? Who gets the money?
.
.
Answers:
1) Nobody except us chickens.
2) Peter B. Bensinger & Robert L. DuPont M.D.
http://www.bensingerdupont.com/
3) same as #2
I’m surprised that they note that Mr. DuPont’s is a mad dog. It’s even stranger that nobody cares. Yes, yes, I thought M.D. stood for “Medical Doctor” at first but that “first, do no harm” thing rules that out. The foaming at the mouth is further supporting evidence for that assertion.
“MOCOs”? Really? They’re calling them MOCOs?
Do you follow Sylvia Longmire on Twitter, Pete? If not, you should. She’s Humphreys’s 1st citation in the “drug-profits are minority share of cartel revenue” line of argument.
She’s responsive to debate on Twitter, and I find her to be reasonable. She’s really focused on the Latin American aspects of the Drug War, though. Not so much domestic US policy.
She has supported pot legalization(Despite an op-ed claiming that pot legalization would not decrease the violence in Mexico or hurt the cartels much). I’m hoping she comes around on broader legalization sooner rather than later.
Thanks, Ben. I wasn’t, but I’m following her now.
I think it is too late for the propaganda down playing of weeds importance to the cartels,,they used it as a scare tactic,the 60% income from weed in a committee hearing just last year and have given no evidence of change in the amount of drugs and users.
And it was testified by both the ONDCP and FBI that the 60% figure was accurate.
Their numbers don’t add up,,and with Americans paying more attention now to budget cuts by reducing services,not stopping wasteful spending,they’re efforts are too blatantly attempts to save their budgets.
We just need to keep hammering ONDCP for it’s complete failure to stop,remove or even reduce drug use for the last 40 years.
American tax payers will catch on. IMO
.
.
Now that’s a good one Clay. I’m glad there was no liquid in my mouth when I read that knee slapper.
Why do I feel that the boys and girls at RAND never really sat down over margaritas to have a candid conversation with say, the head of the Mexican mafia, or various cartel leaders, bankers, or other people who might really know something solid about how much of what crosses the border on any particular day, and over a given time?
In research, there’s a meaningful difference between primary evidence and the unreliable secondary evidence of the sort being proffered by the RAND report, especially when dealing with surreptitious activities.
And it’s easy to discount something if it’s first been unduly exaggerated. For example, is every serious crime in Mexico linked to the drug cartels? According to RAND, the non-profit that takes in $230 million-per-year and is satirized as “The Bland Corporation†in Dr. Strangelove, it would seem so.