Study: Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations? The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on US Crime
Citation: Gavrilova, E., Kamada, T. and Zoutman, F. (2017), Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations? The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on US Crime. Econ J.
Abstract: We show that the introduction of medical marijuana laws (MMLs) leads to a decrease in violent crime in states that border Mexico. The reduction in crime is strongest for counties close to the border (less than 350 kilometres) and for crimes that relate to drug trafficking. In addition, we find that MMLs in inland states lead to a reduction in crime in the nearest border state. Our results are consistent with the theory that decriminalisation of the production and distribution of marijuana leads to a reduction in violent crime in markets that are traditionally controlled by Mexican drug trafficking organisations.
'The Sinaloa cartel can buy a kilo of cocaine in the highlands of Colombia or Peru for around $2,000, then watch it accrue value as it makes its way to market. In Mexico, that kilo fetches more than $10,000. Jump the border to the United States, and it could sell wholesale for $30,000. Break it down into grams to distribute retail, and that same kilo sells for upward of $100,000 — more than its weight in gold. And that’s just cocaine. Alone among the Mexican cartels, Sinaloa is both diversified and vertically integrated, producing and exporting marijuana, heroin and methamphetamine as well.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-dru...
Maybe this is a west coast perspective but I would have guessed that even before it was legal the vast majority of the marijuana market was served by domestic producers versus imports, whereas cocaine is all imported.
Edit: Some googling produces estimates ranging from 30 to 70 percent imports, depending on the point the article is trying to make, so let's just call it 50% domestic nationwide.
Totally is. I live on the East Coast in an illegal state and all weed around here is either imported from legal states or grown locally. It's not hard to find grow ops or people who will ship weed here. In a world where mass quantities of drugs are so easily available on the darknet, it seems ridiculous to think the domestic MJ market is primarily run by cartels.
That doesn't compare it to Pot sales. They might get good margins on cocaine but what proportion of their profits is what would matter here. That is they could be making even better margins on cocaine than that today, but if 90% of their profits come from marijuana sales...
There has to be a demand for all of that cocaine. If they flood the black market with cocaine the value would drop and so would their profits per kilo.
I don't know how popular that would be with Mexican voters, even if it drastically reduced the money flowing to cartels.
Probably more important than domestic sentiment is the inevitable retaliation that would follow from the United States government if Mexico just legalized all drugs. I wouldn't be surprised if the US government cut off trade with Mexico and started running overt and covert operations to ensure Mexican prohibitionist politicians take power again. In the worst case the US government might even deploy armed forces across the border, to ensure that American law is enforced in Mexico, like it did with Panama in 1989.
They should legalize the raw materials, unprocessed coca leaves, which people could chew. Unprocessed poppies, unprocessed Marijuana, meaning that hash, hash oil, etc would be illegal.
I don't think that the US government would react drastically if Mexico legalized cannabis. I think that it would react drastically if Mexico legalized "hard" drugs, as ttul suggested.
On further consideration, I don't know if legalizing all drugs in Mexico would really hurt drug smuggling profits. The value of the product would still be much higher on the US side of the border. Legalization would just decrease the costs to source the drugs in Mexico. Lower barriers-to-entry into the smuggling business might reduce profit margins for smugglers as a group, depending on how violent the competition is. For a historical parallel, I guess I should read up on how Canada's economy and violent crime rates were affected by US Prohibition, when alcohol became much more valuable on the US side of the border than the Canadian side.
Since production of alcohol in Canada was legal during the US prohibition, presumably all of that production was done by legitimate businesses. Then licorice macularis would be on the right side of the law until they cross the border. Thus there would be no need for criminal activity until you reached the border. Right?
Would you mind elaborating how the US heavily punished Portugal for its actions around drugs?
Or for that matter, what crippling sanctions the US placed on Canada for legalizing pot?
The peaks days of the drug war are long over. The US has no real capacity to do anything to nations for such decisions, that has become very clear. As more nations and US states legalize and decriminalize, the pro war on drugs group will be and or is being shown to have very little actual power. At this point even the Republicans are increasingly coming around to the drug war being an absurdity. Jeff Sessions & Co. are dinosaurs on the way out rather rapidly, the US will probably have a majority of states legalized re pot within the next decade.
Don't know why you get downvoted. I also think that states legalising drugs with a sound plan won't face retaliation. Dutch laws on consumption of weed also haven't hurt their relationship to the US.
Marijuana has never been legal in the Netherlands. Laws against cultivation are quite strictly enforced. Only sale and consumption are tolerated, but still technically illegal.
I'll guess that Portugal does not have a strong relationship with the US, which limits the level of sanctions that could be used. And the European Union would protect one of its member, I think.
It's simply that Portugal hasn't legalised anything, so they're not in conflict with their treaty obligations. The same as the Netherlands, use is simply decriminalised, not legalised.
> Why doesn't Mexico just legalize heroin and cocaine distribution?
Well, aside from treaty obligations and public opinion, because...
> Wouldn't this put an end to the cartels?
Maybe, and the cartels own a lot of the politicians, and can kill a lot of the rest on a whim. And Mexican legalization would weaken the cartels over the long term by enabling new entrants, but wouldn't destroy their power overnight, before they were able to inflict punishment.
And legalizing would also weaken the government, as a lot of US aid is dependent on anti-drug cooperation. And that impact would be a lot quicker than the impact to the cartels.
It would still be a problem, because its illegal in the US, where the market is. The U.S. having it illegal actually does a lot of damage to drug producing countries.
I stumbled upon stuff that was of a similar quality to 'Mexican dirt weed' (though we called it 'Mexican brick weed' back in the day) on smaller islands in the Bahamas and in a couple of places in Eastern Europe.
I agree, though, that I haven't seen anything even remotely close to that garbage anywhere in the US in the last 10 years.
And the price for the really good stuff has actually come down a fair bit (10-30%) in the last ~5 years (especially in the last 2), even on the black market.
But then again if the Mafia runs legal businesses and pay their taxes, what's the differences to any other conglomerate? If the Russian Mafia runs restaurant chains for diversification that also doesn't necessarily make those bad (unless the money earned goes into illegal activities of course).
I have a testimonial about that. A friend of mine is County Counsel in a California County. He goes after illegal grow ops and shops, shuttling them down. Permits and license fees are required and many choose not to do that. He’ll go after anyone, some are just dumbasses who didn’t check the laws, and others are hardcore criminals with long, gang-related rap sheets.
I was curious too. The only noteworthy conclusion I could make from my research is that there are a lot of people associated with the company that have sort-of-Russian-sounding names. That's a pretty weak argument that they are Russian Mafia, however, and I didn't see any stronger evidence.
On the internet, that flies. It might not seem completely trustable but then again nothing on the internet should be taken alone. Further, it’s not like there are many safe ways to make such a claim.
Agreed. Obviously the mafia doesn't participate in surveys so, barring criminal charges or conviction, anecdotal evidence is the best one can hope for.
I don’t know where retail will get it, but I’d wager almost all the street weed in Mass. (which is now high quality) comes from an informally organized and politically active network of small local growers.
The traffickers and criminal organizations in Mexico are distinct. The cartels responsible for trafficking today only use marijuana to enhance their people smuggling bottom line. The big marijuana industry from Mexico and Colombia were greatly diminished years ago. There is still a thriving local illegal marijuana market in Mexico and Colombia as well today, the ounce costs around $20-$50 depending where you are, there are some good wild strains too that fetch high-dollar in the states among connoisseurs, that market is not cartel controlled. Mexico's politics will be better determined based on what happens in the United States and Canada in coming months. Marijuana was partially legalized in Mexico in 2016, it is quite likely that Canada and Mexico will collaborate closely on this.
I recently had a candid conversation with an ex-Con about this very subject while vacationing in MX.
Yes, pot exports have declined, but MX is importing the latest growing and manufacturing processes from CO, WA, CA, OR innovators (and presumably serving their domestic pot needs).
If they really wanted to cripple the cartels, they would impose a tax on all drugs sold by the cartels. This can be done without legalization. If caught with drugs and no tax stamp, you get charged with tax evasion.
Will it just create another blackmarket with another organized crime taking control? I'm not sure about legalized states in America but in Canada, from what I hear all the dispensaries in Vancouver and beyond source it from the black market.
Also unlikely that the overwhelming demand will be filled by the legal producers after July 1st, it seems like such a long road to true legalization.
Tobacco is legal and yet allegedly about 1/3rd of tobacco sold in the Ontario area are also smuggled from the US.
The "Drug Trafficking Organizations" are the cartels. It is important to remember they don't exist to traffic drugs, they exist for the top leader(s) to obtain and maintain power, like a state-in-waiting. As other activities become more profitable, they switch over to those. Marijuana loses its profitability, they can switch to other drugs, guns, smuggling, "coyotes", or legitimate enterprise.
This is what unfettered capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) looks like. I like capitalism, generally, but divorcing morality (or, alternatively, failing to separate socially-contracted power to coerce action) from economic gain results in the violence and brutality.
Marijuana loses its profitability, they can switch to other drugs, guns, smuggling, "coyotes", or legitimate enterprise.
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.
> 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.
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.
If they get hit hard financially from legalized marijuana shops, won't they just come in and extort them for protection money? Or just flat out destroying them or threatening the owners. These guys are not really into fair competition.
You need more "infrastructure" to blackmail all Californian weed shops than you need to sell weed. And police (except for federal police) can and will help shop owners. I doubt it's as profitable.
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.
> Exactly which performance would be enhanced by an even stronger upper? Or is it people with undiagnosed ADHD who resort to meth?
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.
You are correct, but also overestimate how rational young&desperate perceive these self-destructing habits. It's far more emotional, desire to give big FU to all adults and their rules, and not giving a slightest damn about consequences on one's body.
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).
> 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".
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.
Thing generally about pot and other drugs is, pot dealers generally do not traffic other drugs. One reason is the supply networks are different. With pot dealers usually deal with growers or a middle man directly. High level of trust, makes the business generally safe.
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.
High School is also a unique market place with very low sales. You can offer a large variety of products when one bottle from your mom’s prescription is all you need to stock a product.
As someone who's had his door kicked in by the cops, tens of pounds of buds seized, kilos of powder, along with stacks of cash, money counters, and firearms....i can tell you that high volume west coast bud/concentrate dealing is the same as, and often in concert with every other illicit thing a person may deal in. you're right about the trust tho, trust is a big thing.
although yes, i did deal with my growers directly.
Is it? I remember being told this about pot, as a 12 year old.
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.
Just to debate, but why do you believe: "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."
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 agree with the fact that the Mexican state needs strength to deal with this. I think I just heard on NPR this morning that more poppies are being grown in Mexico as of late due to perfect climate.
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?
> 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]
> Not creating uncertainty by constantly threatening to pull out of NAFTA would be a good start.
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?
It's a general impression from years of reading newspapers. I'm not an expert, I haven't worked out the probabilities of what Mexico would be like without NAFTA, and there are dozens of other confounding factors such as corruption, competition from Asia, war on drugs, innovation-stifling industrial policy (see Carlos Slim's fortune) etc..
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.
Let Mexico take the manufacturing the US doesn't want -- heavy industrial, low wage, quick turn assembly. You get to cut China/SE Asia, boost Mexico, and provide a competitive advantage to US business.
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.
End US crop subsidies. Small Mexican farmers can't compete with large, mechanized, subsidized operations in the US. Subsequently they aren't working paying taxes.
This would also be a boon to agricultural nation's in Africa.
A thesis I've been hearing a lot about recently goes something like the following. It doesn't speak directly to subsidising food production costs, but is related to the same idea - what is wrong with cheap and plentiful food?
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.
It's basically just the same problem as with the predatory pricing strategy called "dumping". You price your product below your cost to produce it to make your competition go out of business, then you can raise prices to exploit your monopoly position.
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!
Ah, so that's sort of like what I've always heard about using bird feeders -- that the birds will get dependant on it, and if you stop filling them, a lot of birds will die off.
Food subsidies are a transfer payment to the people buying food. But the theory is that subsidies create waste - resources are diverted to creating food that wouldn't be if it were unsubsidesed.
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.
But those avenues are far less profitable than drugs, and easier to stop.
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 US war on drugs and the US insatiable demand for said drugs has destabilized the entire region. Not something the US media likes to talk about though...
The only way to quash the cartels is lowering demand. But yeah that's too hard.
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.
The total all-inclusive marijuana market is solidly a ~$60-$80 billion market in just the US. A legalized marijuana market would be larger than the cocaine, meth and heroin markets combined in the US. If you remove the marijuana market, the cartels lose half of their revenue.
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 what unfettered capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) looks like. I like capitalism, generally, but divorcing morality (or, alternatively, failing to separate socially-contracted power to coerce action) from economic gain results in the violence and brutality.
no. the cartels are what you get when you actively block organizations that are serving huge needs (recreational drugs), from access to peaceful means of conflict resolution and contract enforcement.
(and worse, you've got governments regularly going in and attempting to destabilize the cartels with force, so that even if they wanted to build up more peaceful resolution mechanisms, they'd be punished for doing so.)
> no. the cartels are what you get when you actively block organizations that are serving huge needs (recreational drugs), from access to peaceful means of conflict resolution and contract enforcement.
That’s how cartels get power in the first place, but once they’re there, they’re in the business of preserving revenue streams and territory and thus power.
Once they’re large enough, their raison d’être is no longer simply fulfilling a market need but maintaining and expanding revenue and power, creating market need as required to keep the machine running (e.g. protection rackets)
> That’s how cartels get power in the first place, but once they’re there, they’re in the business of preserving revenue streams and territory and thus power.
An anarchocapitalist would note that this is straight out of the statist playbook. What distinguishes cartels from roving bandits that pivot to stationary? It's hard to lay the blame for this on capitalism per se.
>What distinguishes cartels from roving bandits that pivot to stationary?
You're asking the wrong question, I think. The 64 trillion dollar question, IMO:
"what allows market incumbents to remain stationary"
The 'blame', as ever, lies in human frailty. Avarice and greed. Alternatively, you could look at avarice and greed as malformed extensions of self-preservation instinct.
Bad actors are omnipresent and relying on market forces to expel them from markets is like trying to pray cancer away.
You only say that because you don't like the answer, as it demonstrates that statist barriers on the market are the true causes of this problem, and a free market economy would render this issue entirely moot.
As the history of all communist states demonstrate, state-impose barriers to market creates all sortes of economical,social and criminal problems. Drug trafficking is one of them.
Because the person you are replying to is projecting. The gp never mentioned communism or really any of the things accused of them in the reply. I suspect when you have a system with little government oversight and people unafraid to use violence you naturally end up with something akin to what's going on with the Mexican cartels.
Yeah, but one of the reasons they are so hard to eliminate is they have enormous bank rolls for guns and money.
If their markets were eliminated through legalization they might turn to violence for a little while, but eventually the organizations would starve. You can't run a 8.6 billion dollar kidnapping business.
"abuses of power and nasty behavior" ... "produce things like"... how is this "question" supposed to be addressable?
how would you defend the historical abuses of power and nasty behavior by government? there's a lot more democide to answer for than there are murders by malign corporations.
I’d suggest that you spend 10 minutes to familiarize yourself with what companies like Standard Fruit Company and United Fruit did in Central America.
Their behavior, from undermining the local government to monopolizing trade to death squads is all activity consistent with what the cartels have done. Cartels have better margins, but bananas were pretty deadly.
The point is in reference to your extremist position that if only drugs were not contraband and subject to the rule of law, you wouldn’t have the cartels. That position Has been demonstrated many times to be incorrect. Using the Central American model, you can also contrast with Costa Rica, where there is a stable government and the rule of law is more mature.
> I’d suggest that you spend 10 minutes to familiarize yourself with what companies like Standard Fruit Company and United Fruit did in Central America.
The problem is you're contrasting an extremely isolated example versus the millions of corporations that have existed, with many thousands of those corporations having had immense scale, against centuries of vast war, slaughter, repression and genocide by governments resulting in the direct murder of over a hundred million people. That's the parent's very clear point.
You can't just substitute things and expect them to keep the same market. This is because DEMAND is part of a market force. The demand for pot is substantially higher than the demand for other drugs (like cocaine, heroine, etc), guns, coyotes, etc.
If a commodity can no longer be (near) monopolized into their share of the market, then demand does not magically grow for other commodities. Sure, they can pivot strategies (which costs significant amounts of money) and adapt new commodities and services to match market demands, but this does not mean that they have the same profits.
If they truly are already profit maximizing (to the best of their abilities), then they are already are servicing the markets with the highest demands. Which then if you remove their ability to service their market with the highest demand, you also remove the profit of that market. To generate their current revenue (with loss of the pot market) they would need to generate more demand in their other markets (advertising), find a new market with large enough demand (innovation), or service a lot of niche markets.
tldr:
- Demand exists for commodities.
- Different commodities have different demands.
- Shifting suppliers of a market does not generate new demand in different markets for the original supplier.
> You can't just substitute things and expect them to keep the same market.
Of course not. What we face is an organized, unregulated, lawless group of dangerous criminals who find one of their primary income sources dwindling. I did not intend for my original point to debate foundations of economic theory, only to point out that they are likely to continue diversifying their product -- apparently they are switching to avocados and old-fashioned mob shakedowns, as per another comment on this thread.
If those other activities are profitable, why wouldn't they be doing them already? Your post implies reducing their ability to sell cannabis will increase their other activities, which I see no reason to believe.
Taking violence out of transactions by simultaneously making the consequences of violence very expensive and the alternatives to violent dispute resolution relatively inexpensive is what makes non-violent markets work.
But I agree: a market in violence rather than a People controlled, pre-agreed upon rules-based government monopoly on violence would lead to and an explosion of cartel-like violence in many more arenas. I just think it is because we make it relatively cheap in that scenario rather than any kind of moral coupling.
I don't disagree here. My point was more along the lines of the power brokers coupling coercive force with economic gain, which a strict morality would (in my view) speak against. But yes, the argument against the nature of the cartels does not require moral arguments.
If they're truly profit-maximizing they're already exploiting other drugs, guns, smuggling, "coyotes", or legitimate enterprise as hard as they can already and we should expect them to lose money if one of the markets they work in goes away.
Diseconomies of scale and scope can prevent action in each of these industries, in a static analysis. It may prove to be more profitable to focus on a single industry (e.g. marijuana) than seeking at the present moment to dominate or even enter other industries (e.g. opiods) until market conditions change.
As things evolve, they may naturally enter other industries. Heck, even become legitimate.
Sure, but I'd expect that there's some agent already in those niches and that agent would have experience new agents would lack. Then, uh, non-linear returns to expertise at violence do complicate the issue in ways I can't predict but the empirical observation that violence has gone down would tend to support the the observation that profits have done down and argue against the idea that marijuana cartels are now violently displacing heroin cartels.
One complicating factor is that the cartel can't use the traditional monetary system (as I understand it), thus allowing a quick pivot of assets (as they pull their money out from under their mattresses). Hence, if they _do_ decide to enter an industry, then can enter quickly, pay high wages, get a foothold, then undercut the existing market. Much like Google, Apple, and other tech companies with massively large cash piles they sit on.
Organized crime has typically been highly diversified, and it seems odd that the most successful organized criminal organizations would ignore those opportunities. Typically so-called vice crimes such as illegal prostitution and gambling are the base of the pyramid, with protection rackets, violence for hire, and whichever dugs are in demand. Human smuggling is another source of income, although I don’t know much about those practices in the Americas.
Editing in an excerpt from Chapter 9: Diversifying into New Markets: “The basic option is to sneak over the frontier with a guide on foot, hoping to avoid the US Border Patrol’s sentries. For those with deeper pockets, or without the stamina to wade through rivers or cross deserts and mountains, there is a luxury option: crossing “in the line,” meaning walking up to the immigration desk with fake documents. Coyotes buy a secondhand visa, and make the client up to look like the person in the photo. A guide surreptitiously directs the migrant to whichever line is moving fastest—a sign that the person on duty is giving the documents only a cursory check. No detail is overlooked: the coyotes even put souvenirs in their clients’ bags to make them look like day-trippers.”
Excerpt From: Tom Wainwright. “Narconomics.” iBooks.
Someone who smuggles would-be migrants across the border. This sometimes has horrific consequences like people suffocating in sweltering trucks or left to die in the desert.
People who smuggle other people across the Mexican border. Generally associated with cartel groups, and range from merely expensive to downright exploitative.
What a strange claim about 'capitalism'. This is the opposite of regular or even anarcho capitalism; this is a capitalism where you select out for anyone able to do other trades or generally comply with social norms. Cartels and this kind of behavior don't happen because it's an ultra-free market or something. It happens because regular capitalists aren't participating in that market. What an absurd claim to paint capitalism as bad because the drug war is producing bad players. The exact opposite is true; the players in the current drug war is a perfect example of why this needs to be a freer market.
I'm not sure how you can say hierarchical organizations that use violence/coercion are in any way anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism requires voluntary engagement in a system of contracts and so forth. (Whether that could actually work in the real world is debatable but beside the point.)
I'm not saying the organization exists in anarchy -- we completely agree there.
I'm suggesting that a corrupt state, which cannot prevent the rise of a counter-state power like the cartels, and the evolution of anarcho-capitalism are similar.
The flaw I see with AC is that once the private police force and the private court system in an anarcho-capitalist state combine, there is nothing to prevent them from coercing the organization's will on all around. This is a de facto state. Given that this state may not have primacy, other groups may oppose -- civil war in a supposedly stateless society.
My thought here is that the cartel is the counter-state to Mexico, a state-in-waiting/hierarchical body capable of providing similar "services" that the state typically provides -- defense, mission-definition, communication access, as so on. Whether or not the people under their thumb agreed to this transfer of power is not really necessary to consider, as it is the circumstances at play.
You're using different meanings of the word 'anarchy':
2. (uncountable) Anarchism; the political theory that a community is best organized by the voluntary cooperation of individuals, rather than by a government, which is regarded as being coercive by nature.
3. (countable) A chaotic and confusing absence of any form of political authority or government.
In general, sure, but the context of this thread is drug cartels.
Their unregulated businesses use capital to aggressively expand into other markets, destroy competition, and oppose democratic regulations - behaving similarly to legal capitalist corporations. Though, granted, they conquer with guns and gangsters instead of legal loopholes and lawyers.
A key difference: Most Western corporate entities aren't physically dismembering their competition. Even in the early days of modern capitalism (late 1800s), that wasn't a thing.
They also don't have a choice of whether or not they can operate legally so they might as well go all in on crime.
While cartels do lots of horrible things, if you had to operate with the constant threat of having all your assets seized and receiving a life in prison, would you operate as peacefully as possible or would you act to instill fear in those that wronged you and/or threaten your way of life.
If the products that the cartels distribute were legal, most cartels likely would either be those western corporate entities or wouldn't exist.
"...they don't exist to traffic drugs, they exist for the top leader(s) to obtain and maintain power, like a state-in-waiting..."
I've been thinking about this for a day, and it's bugging me. I think the problem here is that this a true statement, yet it is also an incomplete statement. The ways that it is incomplete are important.
This is like saying that startups exist solely to make their founders into successful businesspeople. Well, yes, but there are a ton of folks who want to be successful that don't end up that way.
So sure, if you ask the top guys at the cartel why they're in it -- they're in it for power. But there's a huge sorting and filtering function the market does that's not included in this observation. Routes and methods that work great for cocaine don't work so well for people. Government officials that might be bought off with money siphoned off from huge flows can't be paid off if the flows aren't that great. In short, it makes it appear as if cartels only exist based on the will of the cartel leader. That's whack.
I don't have any other comments about your analysis, but that was bugging me. I wish things were simple enough that it was just a matter of focusing on a few powerful men with large egos. It is not.
Smoking pot is a victimles crime. So if you want to debate morals then making it illegal to sell and thus allow for the tens of thousands of innocent victims who get killed by the powerful cartels in the name of the War on dugs is the most immoral action a government can do.
The legality, politics, and forcefulness of this aren't binary objects. The War on Drugs more or less enables the cartels.
The War on Drugs resulting in an avenue for the founding and persistence of the cartels does not absolve the cartels of their brutality, however. That was my initial point, so apologies if it didn't communicate well.
This is not anarcho-capitalism. Libertarians are extremely protective about the right to bear arms for good reason. Mexico has very strict gun control and this is the result.
The population organized an armed militia and kicked the cartels and government out. They are funded by local orchard owners. Who now have the most power and keep things in order. So it's not really libertarian, but it sure is a lot more stable than what was before.
There's other examples in Mexico. Mormons that have established colonies there. And sneak in weapons to defend themselves and successfully fended off the cartels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpIyaIHsJbc
I've heard of people who worked for the Italian mafia during the 80s and 90s who now own coal mines and other natural resources in Africa which they ship to China. They are completely legal in the eyes of the United States government. They stored their money hidden overseas and eventually invested it overseas.
Please note that your "unfettered capitalism", divorced from morality exists here only in the context of a moralistic, outright ban on trade. So lets fight that daemon capitalism by freeing trade!
If these marijuana results show that reducing prohibition removes a revenue stream from the crime lords, then we can expect ending prohibition will hit them even harder. Perhaps enough to relly reduce lawlessness in Mexico as well as the US.
It's tautologically true that organised criminals will always do criminal work is profitable; but they gangs can be small or large, powerful or weak. It seems they are powerful in Mexico because prohibition cedes most of the US drug market to them.
Reminds me and makes me think, the human smuggling business must be taking big hit since illegal immigration is way down since 2007. Course maybe people fleeing central/South America makes up for some of that.
These cartels sound like super agile organizations that can execute any possible business plan, in any industry, legal or illegal.
In reality, of course, no such super-organizations exist. If and when the industry they have a comparative advantage in disappear, so will the organizations.
I wouldn't call it "unfettered capitalism". The fact remains that the these organizations are exploiting a law against a certain substance. A law that was initially put in place due to "moral" concerns.
Cartels exist to make money. The criminal element is not created by unfettered capitalism, it is created by prohibition. Prohibition is what raises the risk level to the point where people who are willing to break the law are able to demand a high enough price to make it worthwhile. If you compare the impact of the drug war with alcohol prohibition, the similarities are hard to miss.
Oh fuck off. What are you even on about? You think drug cartels are diversified investment portfolios? Ones that can just sub one illegal commodity for another?
You're out of your fucking mind. And if you can't tell how out you are from the first line, you can tell when you assign a moral aspect to the things you don't like.
Posting like this will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is. You may not owe that person better, but you owe this community better if you're commenting here.
I'm going to put this down as an isolated lapse, but please take the spirit of this site to heart and don't do this again.
Your post feels way out of character both for HN and for how you’ve interacted with others here on HN in the past - it seems like there must be more going on behind that post than your readers are able to intuit from your anger. Can you elaborate a bit more?
I must admit I only read the headline, but I'm sure the organizations are making due with the thin, tight-margins off black market cocaine, heroine, and methamphetamine sales.
I wouldn't be so sure. "To make due" seems correct to me, as a foreign speaker, because the grammar suggests a noun phrase as object, because it works en lieu "to settle debt". It's easy to see how french-illiterate anglophones would mishear due as do. So I guess you make do now. And I have to ask how are you making do today?
According to the second link, here's where it comes from:
'Make do is short for make [something] do well enough, where do carries the rare sense to serve a specified purpose. So this do is similar to the one used in sentences such as, “I could use a cup of coffee, but tea will do.”'
You double checked second hand sources which don't link to primary sources, so at best you are speculating (that) I were wrong, thank you very much.
Edit: And either way, I didn't contest make do as it is used now, I merely hinted at a different origin. So, by that line of reasoning, if make due is in use, it is correct simply by merit of custom, as well.
PS: And this is why these comments are frowned upon, they invariably lead to discussion without a slight chance of consensus.
PPS: But since I tried it already, googles index of old books shows a CLEAR preference for make due. In my opinion though, I'd settle on neither is correct, just like shortenings like "I'd" aren't correct to use in writing.
You're right you're right. My sources weren't primary. I liked grammatist because they had some sort of ethimological insight as to why it's do rather than due. Anyway, here's a primary source:
P.S. use 'make due' if you want. Parent was just trying to be nice.
P.S.S Sourcing grammatist again (soooorrryy):
'While it’s tempting to call make due a misspelling and leave it at that, make due appears often enough (about once for every ten instances of make do in a current Google News search) to have gained some acceptance, and some people (including commenters on this post) find it at least as logical as make do. Perhaps due, which is mainly an adjective, could here bear the sense appropriate (as in, we have done due diligence), or perhaps it could mean sufficient (as in, we have due cause to be thankful). And because the phrase is an idiom, its logic can be loose.'
Oxford dictionary is not a primary source, and if I'm not mistaken, they subscribe to the descriptive persuasion, i.e. collecting lexemes as they are in use, especially the online version, and others use it as prescriptive source.
All I see is "I always thought it was make do, because that fits better into my primary vocabulary and I don't speak French so I don't know how to pronounce dew, I mean do, err I mean ... that's just like your opinion, man".
I liked the comment noting the uptick (up take?) of make-do after WW2 much better -- which coincided with the invasion of often underedumacated Americans into Europe.
Here's a nice quote
> ... which shows how careful the Poet was to make due provision for his amendment.
If you had met due dilligence and followed through from the ngram search I linked before, you'd find plenty more sources from before 1660 like that, one with make do from 1660, and plenty american usage after 1945.
Stress being on where - and not only but also on when. Due is from times when French was hip and foxy at the court royal. I'm sure you can tell many first hand tales about that. Wherever in the many different English speaking parts of the world you are.
edit: more to the point, "dues" is pronounced "doos" in one dialect or another, I assure you. This is because it has nothing to do with "mountain dew".
I would guess though that meth (a la Breaking Bad) is too easy to make inside the US for import competition, while heroin has been hit by the dual availability of Pharma delivered Oxy and China delivered Fentanyl/Carfentanil... the combination makes for a bad time in the cartel industry. Of course that makes them more desperate to import other things for pay.
Meth is actually really interesting. It's a very democratic drug in that it's really easy for the user to make it themselves. Pot is another one that theoretically lets you grow it yourself, but it's significantly harder and requires a larger investment. From what I gather, as long as you manage to not blow yourself up, the shake and bake method requires very little supplies and tools to make meth.
Edit: to be clear, I am not advocating that anyone use meth. It's a horrible drug that will fuck your life. I do however find its particular properties interesting in the abstract.
I'm not sure what would be more fitting, but "democratic" seems like thewrong word here. I understand what you mean, though. The easiest drug to make yourself is probably alcohol e.g. people making their own in prison.
Alcohol actually seems kind of hard to make. I did some beer brewing and it’s a process. Fermentation takes a long time, contamination could make it super foul, etc.
As far as the word choice, you are probably right. It’s probsbly better to say “most easily accessible to the DIY community” :)
I think it takes practice for sure, but in terms of necessary equipment and ingredients, it's the simplest. Any sugary water (fruit juice) is enough. And can be done in very small spaces, like in prison like I'd mentioned
Welch's juice (any kind) and baker's yeast in room temperature storage will yield 7-8% alcohol wine in a couple of days. Doesn't taste particularly good but it is very easy.
Not speaking from experience but I thought it requires heating lamps, knowledge of make vs female plants, different types, etc.
I suppose in the states where it’s been decriminalized, you can grow it outdoors and not worry about some of that stuff, but that certainly seems like more work than tossing some Sudafed and whatever else in an empty can and shaking it a bunch.
Again, not advocating anyone try meth. Do not try meth.
It's relatively easy to make from ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, but the over-the-counter decongestant pills containing those precursors have had their availability drastically curtailed in the US over the past 20 years. I think that Breaking Bad showed how much hard work it was to have a bunch of straw-purchasers buy pills up to each person's legal limit, so you could gather enough of them to make wholesale quantities of the drug.
Cartels can run large labs supplied with drums of industrial chemicals instead of taking the "easy" but difficult-to-scale route that starts with OTC pills. And if they used to be able to turn a profit on smuggling product with a mass-to-value ratio as low as cannabis, they should surely be able to manage the same with methamphetamine.
I agree that cartels can't just "pivot to meth" and make the same total profits. There's not enough American demand for meth. I was trying to explain why, for supplying the demand that does exist, meth smuggling is profitable despite the relatively low barriers to entry for small-scale production of meth inside America.
Citation: Gavrilova, E., Kamada, T. and Zoutman, F. (2017), Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations? The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on US Crime. Econ J.
Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12521
DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12521
Abstract: We show that the introduction of medical marijuana laws (MMLs) leads to a decrease in violent crime in states that border Mexico. The reduction in crime is strongest for counties close to the border (less than 350 kilometres) and for crimes that relate to drug trafficking. In addition, we find that MMLs in inland states lead to a reduction in crime in the nearest border state. Our results are consistent with the theory that decriminalisation of the production and distribution of marijuana leads to a reduction in violent crime in markets that are traditionally controlled by Mexican drug trafficking organisations.