Posted on 03/25/2009 1:29:37 PM PDT by yoe
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived here Wednesday with the clearest acknowledgment yet from a senior Obama administration official of the role the United States plays in the violent drug trade racking Mexico.
“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” she said, using unusually blunt language. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They are already doing other things. Do you think the cartels are not trying to make as much as they can from human trafficking, cocaine and heroin, kidnappings, etc? What upside is left in any activity to replace the $8.6B or 2/3 of their current revenue?
There is no upside. That is why it is silly that some argue that the violence, et al associated with drug cartels would in any way be decreased if marijuana were legalized.
Agreed. So can we lay aside the canard that the cartels will just replace their revenues with other activities?
That is why it is silly that some argue that the violence, et al associated with drug cartels would in any way be decreased if marijuana were legalized.
That does not follow. If they lose 2/3 of their revenue, their ability to do mischief will be diminished. They simply won't have as much money for weapons, bribes, etc.
Cutting out 2/3 of any organization's revenues is a severe blow. It is silly to argue otherwise.
It's not a canard. They aren't just going to let their revenue drop. They'll find ways to replace it with other illegal activites. They'll increase their efforts with things they are already engaged in, or find something new.
That does not follow. If they lose 2/3 of their revenue, their ability to do mischief will be diminished.
Yes, sure. And they'll all just get real jobs and become model citizens.
You agreed that there was no upside left in these activities, so how are they going to find the upside to replace 2/3 of their revenue??? Your argument makes no sense.
No upside to society. I apologize if I did not make myself clear.
so how are they going to find the upside to replace 2/3 of their revenue???
There is not only an upside for the criminals, but a 'fiscal imperative' so to speak. Certainly, there is no upside for society.
Your argument makes no sense.
If you still feel that way now that I've clarified, perhaps you could explain why it makes no sense. I don't see any conflict in my position whatsoever.
But exactly what enterprise is left for the cartels to exploit that they are not already exploiting¹?
If you still feel that way now that I've clarified, perhaps you could explain why it makes no sense. I don't see any conflict in my position whatsoever.
Since the cartels have expanded into kidnapping, other drugs, etc., explain how they can possibly replace 2/3 of the revenue they currently get from marijuana.
¹The men and women who form part of this network likely number in the thousands. They operate a range of illicit businesses from the regular extortion of street vendors to charging other groups for passage through their territory, to gun and drug smuggling, human smuggling, kidnapping for ransom, money laundering and the operation of a vast network of illegal businesses.
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?id=97554&lng=en
Not having a criminal mind, I could only guess, but the heart of man is evil. I'm sure they could think of something.
Since the cartels have expanded into kidnapping, other drugs, etc., explain how they can possibly replace 2/3 of the revenue they currently get from marijuana.
Expand their markets on things they already deal in (thus causing turf wars, more violence, etc). Come up with new ways to satisfy the dark heart of mankind other than drugs. (Plenty of young girls out there that could be forced into the sex trade.)
Suffice it to say, the criminal element isn't just going to give up 2/3 of its revenue. They will find ways to fill that gap, and it won't be in peaceful, lawful ways.
The cartels are killing each other by the 1000's, and you want us to believe they are passing up opportunities to increase their revenues by $billions? My original assessment stands - your argument makes no sense.
LOL Did you even bother to read my post? This isn't at all what I have been contending.
Your contention is that the cartels would find a way to replace the billions lost from marijuana smuggling. That has to mean there are untapped billions that the cartels are not exploiting.
Do you really think there is a limit to man's desire for pleasures, no matter how illegal or damaging? I don't.
Yes. The wealth and power of the cartels is testament to the fact that there is certainly a large demand for those sorts of things. But it is not limitless, and the cartels are subject to the laws of supply and demand like everyone else.
What IS limitless is the desire for wealth by the cartels. It is not credible to argue that there are billions of dollars worth of untapped criminal activity that they could be exploiting now, but for some reason are not.
I guess we disagree on that. There are limits to what they can do because there are only a certain number of people who work for the cartels. Decrease their 'workload' in one area, they can just increase it in another (or new) area. They can also just get more violent than they already are, trying to steal 'marketshare' from each other. They aren't simply going to sit back and lose revenue. It is naive to think they would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.