This thread is about to roll of the front page, so you might want to hurry.

Well, for angry old men like us, that has never been an obstacle, now has it? See the Tancredo Thread for evidence.

Try to keep it to Ulysses length or shorter, if you can.

Um, no can do.

Is “War and Peace” short enough?

Turtler on May 25, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Of course, of course…

This thread is about to roll of the front page, so you might want to hurry. It has been close to 48 hrs. Try to keep it to Ulysses length or shorter, if you can.

Still waiting on you turtler.

What’s the matter? Not up to the challenge?

The “matter” has nothing to do with my lack of will and EVERYTHING with fighting two massive posts in two different threads (again, don’t think I didn’t notice your little love note in the Tancredo Thread, because you should know I cut time off replying to THIS one to fight that one).

I will probably be able to send both replies in today. Let’s just say they are doozies, and I would deeply appreciate if we could- in the future- put all replies in the most recent thread.

I will be finished soon.

What’s the matter? Not up to the challenge?

Turtler on May 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM

First of all, you are a windy SOB, aren’t you. No wonder threads often end with your responses… people fall asleep trying to get through them.

Now, I’m not going to try to completely Fisk that tour de force (snicker). Unlike you apparently, I have a life outside the blogosphere. But some of the choicer “arguments”:

Proof? How did you find this out, and how do you figure?

The $100 billion figure represents 1/4 of what

http://books.google.com/books?id=i3gqXlJjpoEC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=the+economist,+illegal+drug+expenditures&source=bl&ots=oxoa_KZ_iH&sig=bt_Pq7O0jtWo5NuqIsc2V55lZ0U&hl=en&ei=SVwYSp7DCIKEtwfBn9TjDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#PPA19,M1”

The United Nations estimates is worldwide retail expenditure on drug use. I used 1/4, since that is approximately the US’s share of world GDP. Frankly, I think the number is higher, since we have a far greater share than that of disposable GDP, but likewise, not all of that goes to the cartels.

The 5000% was an estimate

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html“>

William F. Buckley used in his arguments for legalization.

This is perhaps the moment to note that the pharmaceutical cost of cocaine and heroin is approximately 2 per cent of the street price of those drugs.

This is backed up by

http://books.google.com/books?id=uC0_YznYjScC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=mallinckrodt+pharmaceuticals,+cocaine,+price&source=bl&ots=rZUR7KhR7c&sig=ZNgEzQTbuHv1k5u9OD4OCzSijyw&hl=en&ei=bzUYSujZL9WEtwfZmL3oDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

Under The Influence, which claims that as of the mid 1980′s, Mallinckrodt Corp was supplying legal cocaine for $1800/kilo, or $1.80/gram. This is backed up by

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9414607

The Economist, which states that cocaine can be purchased for $2/ gram in Colombia, where the risk premium associated with it is practically zero. Compare this with retail prices in the US of $110/gram, as a result of the risk premium provided by prohibition.

Similar numbers can be found for heroin, as http://www.ffdlr.org.au/commentary/docs/Drugs%20in%20perspective.htm

Dr. Wendell Rosevear says in Drugs In Perspective:

Currently the profit margin is 1,000 – 3,000% with opium being worth US$90/kg at the farm and street heroin being worth US$290,000/kg at 40% purity.

Do your homework.

And THIS is irony, because you apparently have never dug DEEP enough to see the underlying justification that came around from studying things like, oh, THE OPIUM TRADE, and who is best prepared to meet the demand for supply?.

No. This is ignorance on your part (and capitalization and punctuation challenges also, BTW).

The opium trade is an ongoing thing, and we have no problem studying it now. Who is best prepared to meet those demands? How about

http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/agsci/alkalo/popindus.htm

Tasmania:

Tasmania is the world’s largest producer of opium alkaloids for the pharmaceutical market. Standards placed on the industry by the Federal, State and US governments are stringent with very high levels of scientific expertise necessary.

Funny, I don’t see Mexican drug lords strongarming American pharmaceutical firms into buying their opium from them for the legal market, as you claim would happen here:

Roche, SmithKline, and ParkeDavis would likely have set up their nascent and legal opium/Mary Jane/ whatever farms (which, by themselves, I have no problem with), and after a few months in business (if that), they would have gotten a nice “casual visit” from a few strange men (in truth representing groups like the Yakuza or the “Poppy Cartel” looking for another supplier but NOT another competetor) who offer a business proposition: you buy from them, and ONLY from them.

These firms (or others like them), are already buying opium for legitimate use, and are not buying from cartels. They are buying from legitimate sources, and there is no reason to believe that would change for heroin produced for recreational purposes.

Once again, you are caught talking out of your arse.

So WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU NEVER COUNTERED IT BEFORE?

First of, fix your Caps Lock.

Second of all, I have. I’ve only been here a few months, but I’m sure I’ve destroyed your arguments before. Just like I’m doing now.

Greviously ignoring tripe like the “PPoppy Cartel” using LEGAL PROFITS from such plants up North to fund a coup DOWN AT HOME.

Link to “Poppy Cartel”, and their alleged coup, please.

By “Colombia first,” do you mean in 1925, with the failed coup using legal funds?

No, I’m referring to more recent incursions, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Samper

Ernesto Samper being bought by the Cali Cartel.

Of course , I don’t know if that’s worse than

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/mexico/family/genrebollo.html

Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, Mexico’s Drug Czar, working hand in hand with Amado Carrillo-Fuentes. Either incident backs my theories though.

Again, forget our costs, how is the lack of legalization (remember, this is denying the legal market to them) HELPING their profits? If anything, it forces them to work under the cover of night, smuggling things in from down South or the Far East (which is costly), forcing them to a limited number (albiet a large one), and generally screwing them up.

Once again, your ignorance of economics is unbounded.

How it helps their profits is by granting them a price support, in the form of forming a barrier to entry for other organizations into the market.

You’re right… we can forget our costs (for now), and just focus on the fact that it is illegal. These cartels do not have to compete with legitimate industry, as legit industry is barred by their corporate charters from entry into the recreational drug market. Therefore, thee cartels do not have to compete with

http://www.healthpricer.com/morphine-sulfate-30mg-compare-prices/5242067.html

Drugstore.com, that can provide medical morphine at $0.65/ dose, and can instead sell an equivalent amount of recreational heroin for $10-20.

Will be similar to a legalization (where most of the prime growing conditions and pre-existing facilities have ALWAYS BEEN OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY, and futhermroe were ALREADY under criminal control BEFORE the drug laws were passed).

Somebody needs to brush up on their history.

You are either grossly misinformed, or a liar.

As I pointed out to you above, opium and coca supplies for legitimate production, while outside the country, are not under criminal control. They are under the control of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Legal_production“>

the Indian, Australian, and Turkish governments, and purchased by GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Johnson Matthey, among others.

History indeed. Someone needs to brush up on the current situation.

Once again, do your homework.

This would be in spite of the close bases of the cartels, the degree to which they have hardened in previous conflicts, their CAPITAL D Dominance of the market for 120+ years, and their previous expertise in slipping through the law?

You truly have more faith in human nature than I.

No. It’s that I have more faith (and understanding of the economics) than you.

They don’t dominate the market, as I have proven. Where legitimate opium and coca are produced, there is no evidence of mafia involvement. Perhaps you would care to link to where the Tasmanian government is paying mafia protection, but I don’t think you can.

THAT is the muscle illegal groups have over legal ones. They are not afaid to murder, to torture, and to steal to keep their place on the market, and I have no doubt you could find plenty of similar examples from the Prohibition or the end of Prohibition (where the crooks tried to put the genie back in the bottle by intimidating legal businesses).

First, I doubt that there were many examples of the mafia trying to muscle in on legal production of alcohol. But of course, you are the one crying about PROOF, so why don’t you provide some examples of it.

Second, the fact is that the mafia did not successfully take over the alcohol business after prohibition, a fact that you have spent hundreds of words trying to dodge. The mark of someone intellectually dishonest.

But after legalization, the sides are switched: the CROOKS are the ones with market dominance, and the LEGAL GROWER AND DISTRIBUTOR is the one who must scale THEIR territory.

You don’t even know what economies of scale are, do you?

Um, because the resources of the Federales can outpace those of a single cartel, the cartels are already at each others’ throats, an alliance will be fraught with distruct and unease, the Mexican Army DOES have Armor-piercing rounds, and the central government has not grown so corrupt as to simply hand over the reigns of power yet?

You (deliberately?) missed my point. My opinion is that one of the cartels has already taken over the government, and is using their resources to try to wipe out the other cartels.

Can I prove this? No. But I would challenge you to disprove it. Given the height that the cartels have reached in the government (e.g., the Mexican drug czar), such a supposition is not off the map.

And for that reference in particular, I was referring to the Era of Mexico 1878-1920, where first Diaz and than vairous groups fighting for control openly sold “plants” North of the Rio Grande, and during the ban continued to do so to a lesser extent while shifting emphasis to shipping them to Europe.

Link?

And even if that is true NOW, who is to say they couldn’t LATER. Remember, such drugs are not illegal the WORLD over, and even in such lenient places as the Netherlands, the authorities have noticed the encroachment of illegal groups onto legit operations.

Please give an example of a country where heroin, cocaine, or cannabis are legal for recreational use. Hint: All of those three are, in fact, illegal in the Netherlands.

Once again, you are talking out of your arse.

The ONLY advantage they have? What about years of experience,

As many years of experience as SmithKline has making opiates? I don’t think so.

a largely skilled and experienced work force,

As skilled or experienced as SmithKline’s? Once again, i don’t think so.

control over the producers

Control over the Tasmanian opium producers? I don’t think so.

and openings to the market both here and in Europe?

You mean the cartels have been doing business with RightSource, Walgreens, and Wal-mart? Or are you saying that the Crips and Bloods would have a competitive advantage over these outlets?

Once again, you are talking nonsense.

Perhaps. They- in varying forms and organizations- HAVE been able to do it for over a century.

Once again, you are either lying or grossly misinformed. American supply of

“http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/bayerheroin1901.html”>opiates, cocaine, and cannabis was above board. According to

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu1.html“>

Consumers Union report on Licit and Illicit Drugs

Most of the opium consumed in the United States during the nineteenth century was legally imported. Morphine was legally manufactured here from the imported opium. But opium poppies were also legally grown within the United States.

So, once again, are you misinformed, or are you a liar.

Obviously, somebody hasen’t studied Pablo Escobar and the “Golden Traingle” of Indochina enough.

The misspellings aside, as far as I can tell, if Pablo Escobar tried to compete in the legal cocaine business, Mallinckrodt would have kicked his teeth in, economically. At least they were when they were providing pharmaceutical grade cocaine for $1.80/gram. Likewise, the Burma thugs would have to be able to supply heroin for $0.65/dose, which they have, as of yet, been incapable of doing.

The issue is not merely about the MEXICAN drug trade (though that is a large part of it), but about the Colombian/Venezuelan trade, the Middle Eastern Trade

and…

Odd, because I think most would understand that I was reffering to the posters on the OTHER THREAD. If you have trouble finding them, a few to get you started include “Free Constitution” and “dogsoldier.”

Well, in case you didn’t notice, this thread, and my comments, were about the Mexican cartels. In my experience, cross-thread contamination is a tactic used by the intellectually dishonest to try to appear to win an argument they are losing.

Of course, I expect little else from prohibitionists. My experience has taught me they often are lacking in etiquette and honesty. And you have done nothing to change my mind on that count.

They are corrupt, yes, but are they entirely dominated, or have they actually been fighting back?

I’m curious… at what point does corruption slip into domination? Personally, when I see Presidents and Drug Czars in the pockets of someone, I think that line has been crossed.

But clearly you have a higher tolerance for corruption than I do. As a prohibitionist, that goes without saying.

You have not attacked my main thesis that the Prohibition Model does not apply here.

I think it is quite clear, that by pointing out the misinformation you have foisted upon the readers of this board, that I have.

You have obviously never studied the Chinese Opium trade or the Poppy Cartel.

I have studied the Chinese opium problem enough to know that the British East India Company, as legitimate an organization as there was on Earth, controlled the trade.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/history.html“>

From PBS:

1750

The British East India Company assumes control of Bengal and Bihar, opium-growing districts of India. British shipping dominates the opium trade out of Calcutta to China.

and;

1793

The British East India Company establishes a monopoly on the opium trade. All poppy growers in India were forbidden to sell opium to competitor trading companies.

No mythical “Poppy Cartel”… no, the British East India Company. Along with the British Levant, they controlled the opium trade. True, there were smugglers, but they didn’t carry anywhere near the weight of these legitimate firms. If you disagree, please provide a link.

You have obviously never looked at the infiltration of such drugs into EUROPE, where many of them are legal.

Please name a country in Europe where cocaine, heroin, or cannabis is legal. I mean, where you can buy heroin, cocaine, or cannabis as legally as you can purchase a beer.

There are none. Doctors can prescribe them, but they can do the same with cocaine here. That doesn’t make it legal.

Instead, you mindlessly attack my person and insult me.

Why is that?

Becasue you are intellectually dishonest. I need no other reason.

How do you know the legal businesses will overcome a market TRADITIONALLY DOMINATED by the cartels?

Where the drug business is legal, be it legal opiates, or legal cocaine, legitimate firms control the market, with no apparent participation by organized crime. I have provided you links that clearly demonstrate where, both currently and historically, legal drug firms need not worry about organized crime, at least no more than any other firm does. Now, if you would care to provide evidence that organized crime does in fact control the legal opiate or cocaine trade, feel free to do so. But i don’t think you can, and frankly, I don’t even think you’ll try.

Now, you have asked for links, and I have provided them. Funny that someone would ask for links, in a 5000 word post that provides NO LINKS. Not one. No links. No citations. Just a bunch of misinformation that I have clearly shown to be at best nonsense, and at worst, outright lies.

This is the tactic of the intellectual coward.

Back in the days… oh going back to old Usenet debates, I learned early on that in internet debates, it is bad form to question someone else’s facts, figures or arguments without providing your own. Now, as I’ve said, I’ve come to expect little from prohibitionists. They are often graceless, dishonest, sloppy, and without a modicum of etiquette. I’ve tried to provide verifiable links to objective sources where you have asked for them. Now, take a stab at a little honesty, and do the same.

So, please:

Links to the “Poppy Cartel” and it’s alleged coup;

Links to where organized crime has infiltrated legitimate opium or cocaine production;

Links to where pre-prohibition drug production facilities were entirely under the control of criminal enterprises;

Links to where organized crime successfully muscled in on legitimate alcohol producers post-prohibition;

Links proving that the Mexican drug czar’s office is no longer under cartel control;

Links proving that criminal organizations, rather than legitimate business, controlled opium, cocaine, or cannabis trade in the US prior to prohibition;

Links that indicate, in any way shape or form, organized criminal cartels have a competitive advantage over drug firms that currently manufacture cocaine or opiates;

Links indicating which countries have put drugs on the same legal par as alcohol;

Links indicating that criminal organizations had as large a share of the opium market as British East India.

I’ll wait, but I think both of us know you can’t do it.

Exit question: Why are the prisoners all dressed in civilian clothes?

Do you really have to ask this question? Why would the Mexican government spend any tax money on jumpsuits?

First of all, you might want to use a dictionary and look up the word irony. I think this word does not mean what you think it means.

Nope, I actually DID look, and from the meaning that “must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same” to ” “the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning” Captures the foolishness of a legalization suporter who somehow thinks tossing open the doors to MORE markets for these goons will SOMEHOW make tripe like this less common.

Second of all, my arrogance on this matter is well earned from years of study and work on the subject

Actually no. That just means your “years of study and work” have apparently been wasted if you cannot tell the key differences between the end of Prohibition and any potential legalization of… Mary Jane, Cocaine, whatever (here’s a hint: WHO is better prepared to exploit such an event: the legal competetors, or the thugs?).

, and the fact that all my predictions on the subject have come to pass.

Greviously ignoring tripe like the “PPoppy Cartel” using LEGAL PROFITS from such plants up North to fund a coup DOWN AT HOME.

But I suppose you didn’t come across THAT during your “years of study and work,” did you?

The only thing that surprises me is it didn’t happen to Colombia first. Or maybe it did, and it just isn’t as apparent as it is in Mexico.

By “Colombia first,” do you mean in 1925, with the failed coup using legal funds? Or the activities of the Yakuza during the same period of time to (in part) fund Imperial Japanese expansion in the Pacific?

How odd you failed to notice those two outliers, and wonder of wonders, they started BEFORE any drug laws WHATSOEVER (1900′s-1919), and ran their course BEFORE THE MOST SEVERE DRUG LAWS WERE PASSED (1920-1940).

Did your “years of study and research” turn THOSE up?

I am so often shocked by the economic ignorance of those who proclaim to be conservatives when it comes to this matter, that I have lost the capacity to be really shocked anymore.

And THIS is irony, because you apparently have never dug DEEP enough to see the underlying justification that came around from studying things like, oh, THE OPIUM TRADE, and who is best prepared to meet the demand for supply?.

But with this one sentence, you are not only demonstrating an appalling lack of understanding of economics, you are also flaunting a dangeroud naivete of politics.

So WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU NEVER COUNTERED IT BEFORE? I’ve been on these threads before, and I have been LOUDLY pointing out the “Prohibition fallacy” that the War on Drugs is like the Prohibition (in many ways, yes, but not in ALL ways, and even BEFORE the laws were passed, criminals such as the “Poppy Cartel” and the Black Dragon Society ALREADY had dominance over the market). So, why are you waiting until now? Is it because you can’t counter the assertations I have pointed out elsewhere

Although from what I’ve seen of you Turtler, I really shouldn’t be surprised.

This coming from the person who thinks that the end of Prohibition (before which there were ALREADY legalized Breweries, which were put back to work AFTER the end of Prohibition in legitimate hands who used the PRE-EXISTING SYSTEM AND EXPERIENCE to wash away the amateur and substandard criminal products out of the market), Will be similar to a legalization (where most of the prime growing conditions and pre-existing facilities have ALWAYS BEEN OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY, and futhermroe were ALREADY under criminal control BEFORE the drug laws were passed).

Somebody needs to brush up on their history.

Our “clampdown”, as you put it, of cartels, is what puts real money in their pocket. $100 billion a year, Turlter, all from drugs that, thanks to our misguided policies, have a 5000% markup.

Proof? How did you find this out, and how do you figure? Studying the Prohibition? Looking at the history of the Chinese Opium Trade (which flatly contradicts you by pointing out that the always-bustling Opium trade actually WITHERED BADLY during the years of intense persecution, to the point that the British were willing to intervene militarily to end the restrictions)? Magic 8 Ball?

You cannot just cite figures without telling WHERE you got them.

If it weren’t for policies we’ve had in place for the last 75 years, Roche, SmithKline, and ParkeDavis would have been supplying our cocaine and heroin demand, and Altria and RJR would have been supplying our cannabis demand, all at 1/50th of the price for what we pay for them now.

Actually, that is unlikely.

Roche, SmithKline, and ParkeDavis would likely have set up their nascent and legal opium/Mary Jane/ whatever farms (which, by themselves, I have no problem with), and after a few months in business (if that), they would have gotten a nice “casual visit” from a few strange men (in truth representing groups like the Yakuza or the “Poppy Cartel” looking for another supplier but NOT another competetor) who offer a business proposition: you buy from them, and ONLY from them.

If you refuse, strange things such as mysterious fires, sabotage, and even murder begin the happen on your farm and related businesses. What usually happens is that they and the investors would simply drop everything and flee the area while the abandoned equipment and property is purchased by a previously unknown company whose history- after the records are open- can be traced to within one week of such an opertunity opening up (and yes, that was a real example).

Or, if you are a brave or hardy soul, you can forify your business, hire guards, institute strict security measures, and order anybody violating them to be shot on sight.

But that was a road few chose, because it was costly in money and lives, cut into the profits, and was a hassle. Most simply left.

THAT is the muscle illegal groups have over legal ones. They are not afaid to murder, to torture, and to steal to keep their place on the market, and I have no doubt you could find plenty of similar examples from the Prohibition or the end of Prohibition (where the crooks tried to put the genie back in the bottle by intimidating legal businesses).

At the end of Prohibition, it didn’t work because the push was so strong and overwhelmingly against them.

But after legalization, the sides are switched: the CROOKS are the ones with market dominance, and the LEGAL GROWER AND DISTRIBUTOR is the one who must scale THEIR territory.

It does not take several years of work and study to recognize the difference.

But no. Because of policies proposed by political cowards in Congress, and cheered by economic illiterates like yourself, our drug demands are filled from organizations across the border, at wildly inflated prices nothing short of a black market supported by $100 billion in enforcement could guarantee. Bravo!

Cute Ad-Hominem, still no proof.

Again, forget our costs, how is the lack of legalization (remember, this is denying the legal market to them) HELPING their profits? If anything, it forces them to work under the cover of night, smuggling things in from down South or the Far East (which is costly), forcing them to a limited number (albiet a large one), and generally screwing them up.

The reason the Prohibition prospered was because the fall of legal alcohol opened the market up for cheap, often-poor quality “hooch” made illegally, or for “Bootleg” alcohol of legal quality coming up from Mexico and down from Canada.

The criminals it fostered failed when legalization opened the legal breweries up, and wiped out the poor-quality “Moonshine” and the expensive “bootleg” (because it had to be smuggled in from a foreign country rather than brewed legally and distributed).

The difference here is that legalization comes, and the problem is that the Veteren growers for the legalized plants, the people who have dominated this market FAR before criminalization, are the criminals. It is far easier for their sellers to move a few blocks down, get a fresh shave, slap some paint on the front, and open up “Big Antonio’s Entirely Legal Marajucaine Place” than it is for a legal upstart to get his/her own business, build the necessary infrastructure, hire competent staff, and open up to the wider market at home, particularly given the fact that the best growers for these products are overseas and illegal, and the fact that they can compensate for the greater costs of shipping them by forcing legal businesses who cannot stand the pressure out of business and damaging those who don’t drop out.

You were saying?

As far as cartels “marching” on Mexico City, why march, when you can drive air conditioned, armor plated limousines there to take over?

Um, because the resources of the Federales can outpace those of a single cartel, the cartels are already at each others’ throats, an alliance will be fraught with distruct and unease, the Mexican Army DOES have Armor-piercing rounds, and the central government has not grown so corrupt as to simply hand over the reigns of power yet?

In short, because they HAVE to before they can drive in in their “air conditioned, armor-plated limosines?”

These people didn’t need lead to seize power… they simply used silver.

True, but the fact remains that such power demands a degree of armed strength, particularly to deal with the military and the police (who have not entirely fallen into line yet).

They have bought so many officials, that they essentially wield power.

Some areas? Yes. Throughout the country? No.

It is so bad that I suspect it is not the government fighting drug cartels, it is a drug cartel controlled government trying to wipe out another cartel with less control over the government.

Perhaps, but this begs the question: how does legalization WEAKEN such powerful cartels RIGHT ON OUR BORDERS (with a dismal border, the lowest “shipping” cost of either the Latin American gangs of the Asiantic/Middle Eastern ones)?

Are you stupid?

No, I leave such things up to you.

But If you say so, how do you KNOW I am stupid? Proof?

Oh yes, and if you have actually STUDIED the Drug/Spice/whatever Trade throughout history, you will note similar patterns, from the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean (whose actions against their Venetian competetors fits well with the time and at the same time is eerily reminiscent of what FARC and the Mexican warlords are doing now) to the Mexican warlords today.

And for that reference in particular, I was referring to the Era of Mexico 1878-1920, where first Diaz and than vairous groups fighting for control openly sold “plants” North of the Rio Grande, and during the ban continued to do so to a lesser extent while shifting emphasis to shipping them to Europe.

But you were saying?

No… forget that. By your first point, you already demonstrated that you are stupid. Now it’s just a matter of how far the depths of your stupidity go.

PotKettleBlack.

The drug bans started in 1914 with the Harrsion Act, and continued in 1937 with the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act. Prior to that, there were no organizations, loyal or otherwise, in Mexico that brought in revenues rivaling that of the national government. In fact, until the 1980’s, when the Mexican cartels started integrating production into their business model, they were a tiny threat, compared to their counterparts in Colombia. Since then, in a very short period of time, they have sprung to the point where they in fact control law enforcement in the country. Any doubt of that… ask yourself if those police cars, police uniforms, and police guns just materialized, or if it is more likely that they came from actual LEO’s.

A. Proof?

B. As I mentioned, the Colombian gangs (remember the Poppy Cartel) had been doing this LONG before 1914, and the British had been doing it in China for half a century (mostly while it was legal), and the Germans did in their brief tenure in Africa. Which seem to shoot your assertations directly in the foot. The issue is not merely about the MEXICAN drug trade (though that is a large part of it), but about the Colombian/Venezuelan trade, the Middle Eastern Trade (oh yes, used to finance groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who have made inroads into Europe in spite of legalization, though this may be one of the few trades that would be killed by legalization, if for no other reason than it has armed competitors in closer proximity and a teneous hold on the market here).

Both of which you never seem to want to examine. Why Not?

Once again, your ignorance of even the most basic of economics is showing.

Pot kettle black. And namecalling without evidence is of no value in debate.

Why don’t you tell us, Turtler, just exactly what advantages the Gulf cartel would have over ParkeDavis.

I have ALREADY mentioned one of the most powerful ones, and have been going over the full list in other threads for a long time, but hey, I’ll do it again.

Would they be able to exploit economies of scale better than PD?

Perhaps. They- in varying forms and organizations- HAVE been able to do it for over a century.

Would they have better market researchers than PD?

Perhaps, but that is beside the point. Such an issue would be a problem for the DISTRIBUTOR, not the producer. The producer, in such an organization without the two melded together under one leadership, is to ship the product over in enough quantity and quality as to remain in the market but not so much as to inflate its value.

In other words, pretty much like what FARC is doing now and the Poppy Cartel did back in the ’20′s. You were saying?

Would they be able to better negotiate a contract with distributors than PD?

Given their willingness to use violence and- if need be- to simply take distributors over, I am betting it would go something like that.

Better research chemists?

Define “better.” Better overall? Probably not. But better in what they specialize in? Perhaps.

More sophisticated accounting?

That is perhaps the funniest thing I have heard today. And the answer is probably YES, though to what degree hiding one’s profits in slush funds and the like would matter in after legalization escapes me. The main concern they would have is in hiding their CONACTS and a few sums of money rather than the entire sum itself (remember, this would be after legalization).

The answer to all of the above questions is, of course, no, they couldn’t.

Proof? And even if that is true NOW, who is to say they couldn’t LATER. Remember, such drugs are not illegal the WORLD over, and even in such lenient places as the Netherlands, the authorities have noticed the encroachment of illegal groups onto legit operations.

You were saying?

The only advantage drug cartels have over legitimate American drug and agricultural corporations right now is that American firms are prohibited by their charters from breaking the law, and the cartels are willing to do so, and use violence to further their business interests.

The ONLY advantage they have? What about years of experience, pre-existing contacts, a largely skilled and experienced work force, control over the producers, and openings to the market both here and in Europe?

Obviously, somebody hasen’t studied Pablo Escobar and the “Golden Traingle” of Indochina enough.

Force the cartels into a world where disputes are handled under color of law, and where competitors can call the police when threats are made, and where advancing one’s business rests on ingenuity and hard work rather than use of violence, and the cartels will be out of business… out of the drug business, at least

This would be in spite of the close bases of the cartels, the degree to which they have hardened in previous conflicts, their CAPITAL D Dominance of the market for 120+ years, and their previous expertise in slipping through the law?

You truly have more faith in human nature than I.

Odd. I think if you check my original post, you will find nowhere the use of the word “FREEDOM”. Maybe you simply have a little trouble reading.

Odd, because I think most would understand that I was reffering to the posters on the OTHER THREAD. If you have trouble finding them, a few to get you started include “Free Constitution” and “dogsoldier.”

I think most observers would also understand being intentionaly stupid and not pointing out WHERE I accused you of saying it (particularly in the post you mentioned) would further undercut your case.

Our freedoms are at stake.

There is a difference between freedom and liscence.

They are threatened by having a government on our border owned lock, stock and barrel by mafias.

Proof?

They are corrupt, yes, but are they entirely dominated, or have they actually been fighting back?

And if you think it will stop at Mexico, than you are a bigger fool than you have already demonstrated yourself to be.

Foolishly ignoring the fact that it was I who mentioned the Poppy Cartel, I who mentioned the Mexican-Revolution-era Drug Trade, and I who pointed out the fallacy of applying the Prohibition model to such organizations on these forums.

With the amount of money they have flowing into their coffers, they will (have already?) start buying American officials. It will be more difficult, because of the resilience of our political system, but certainly not impossible.

AND YOU THINK OPENING UP A NEW MARKET WILL SOMEHOW STOP THEM?

Now, you can continue your ignorance, and continue to fund the cartels through price supports brought about by prohibition. I’m sure the cartels will thank you for your assistance. Or you can rethink a policy that has not only been an abject failure on this side of the border, but the downfall of semi-legitimate government on the other side of the border.

And here you degenerate into mindless Ad-Hominem, strawman-growing, nad generally ignoring my points.

I REPEAT AGAIN:

You have not attacked my main thesis that the Prohibition Model does not apply here.

You have obviously never studied the Chinese Opium trade or the Poppy Cartel.

You have obviously never looked at the infiltration of such drugs into EUROPE, where many of them are legal.

Instead, you mindlessly attack my person and insult me.

Why is that?

Is it because here, like elsewhere, you cannot defeat my main points?

How do you know the legal businesses will overcome a market TRADITIONALLY DOMINATED by the cartels?

How do you think LEGALIZATION will SLOW the growth of narco-thugs on our borders when they have already shown themselves ABUNDENTLY capable of operating here LEGALLY in the PAST, and have also done so ELSEWHERE?

And what are your sources anr your logic for your numbers?

Proof?

I await your response.

We are funding the evil Congressional cartel right now. They just stole a trillion and won’t say where it went.

Between Mexican cartel escapees and the Gitmo terrorists, I would rather have Mexican cartel escapees. The Mexican cartel has been working both sides of the border for years and never blew up the WTC. In fact, we have less violence on this side of the border than the Mexicans have on their side of the border, because we still enforce most of our laws here. That is what stops crime, not enabling drug users

To the extent we have stopped enforcing our laws, as in not deporting illegals or not punishing business for hiring illegals, we have paid a price in higher crime and have enabled the Mexican drug cartels

Conservatism is the answer

Instead of enabling drug users, we should deport them to Mexico

Turtler on May 23, 2009 at 4:04 AM

The irony and outright arrogance you show even SAYING that here is sickening.

First of all, you might want to use a dictionary and look up the word irony. I think this word does not mean what you think it means.

Second of all, my arrogance on this matter is well earned from years of study and work on the subject, and the fact that all my predictions on the subject have come to pass. The only thing that surprises me is it didn’t happen to Colombia first. Or maybe it did, and it just isn’t as apparent as it is in Mexico.

1. If anything, our clampdown on drugs is the only thing keeping the cartels POOR enough to not march on Ciudad Mexico right now and overthrow the government.

I am so often shocked by the economic ignorance of those who proclaim to be conservatives when it comes to this matter, that I have lost the capacity to be really shocked anymore. But with this one sentence, you are not only demonstrating an appalling lack of understanding of economics, you are also flaunting a dangeroud naivete of politics. Although from what I’ve seen of you Turtler, I really shouldn’t be surprised.

Our “clampdown”, as you put it, of cartels, is what puts real money in their pocket. $100 billion a year, Turlter, all from drugs that, thanks to our misguided policies, have a 5000% markup. If it weren’t for policies we’ve had in place for the last 75 years, Roche, SmithKline, and ParkeDavis would have been supplying our cocaine and heroin demand, and Altria and RJR would have been supplying our cannabis demand, all at 1/50th of the price for what we pay for them now.

But no. Because of policies proposed by political cowards in Congress, and cheered by economic illiterates like yourself, our drug demands are filled from organizations across the border, at wildly inflated prices nothing short of a black market supported by $100 billion in enforcement could guarantee. Bravo!

As far as cartels “marching” on Mexico City, why march, when you can drive air conditioned, armor plated limousines there to take over? These people didn’t need lead to seize power… they simply used silver. They have bought so many officials, that they essentially wield power. It is so bad that I suspect it is not the government fighting drug cartels, it is a drug cartel controlled government trying to wipe out another cartel with less control over the government.

2. This has been going on LONG before the drug bans.

Are you stupid?

No… forget that. By your first point, you already demonstrated that you are stupid. Now it’s just a matter of how far the depths of your stupidity go.

The drug bans started in 1914 with the Harrsion Act, and continued in 1937 with the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act. Prior to that, there were no organizations, loyal or otherwise, in Mexico that brought in revenues rivaling that of the national government. In fact, until the 1980′s, when the Mexican cartels started integrating production into their business model, they were a tiny threat, compared to their counterparts in Colombia. Since then, in a very short period of time, they have sprung to the point where they in fact control law enforcement in the country. Any doubt of that… ask yourself if those police cars, police uniforms, and police guns just materialized, or if it is more likely that they came from actual LEO’s.

3. In case you haven’t noticed, lagalization would probably FAVOR the illegal cartels over any legal start-up business.

Once again, your ignorance of even the most basic of economics is showing.

Why don’t you tell us, Turtler, just exactly what advantages the Gulf cartel would have over ParkeDavis. Would they be able to exploit economies of scale better than PD? Would they have better market researchers than PD? Would they be able to better negotiate a contract with distributors than PD? Better research chemists? More sophisticated accounting?

The answer to all of the above questions is, of course, no, they couldn’t. The only advantage drug cartels have over legitimate American drug and agricultural corporations right now is that American firms are prohibited by their charters from breaking the law, and the cartels are willing to do so, and use violence to further their business interests. Force the cartels into a world where disputes are handled under color of law, and where competitors can call the police when threats are made, and where advancing one’s business rests on ingenuity and hard work rather than use of violence, and the cartels will be out of business… out of the drug business, at least.

The irony of having fools shouting for legalization NOW because of “OUR FREEDOMS” never seem to understand how greviously such a thing could not only affect our freedom AND lives, but also those around us.

Odd. I think if you check my original post, you will find nowhere the use of the word “FREEDOM”. Maybe you simply have a little trouble reading.

Our freedoms are at stake. They are threatened by having a government on our border owned lock, stock and barrel by mafias. And if you think it will stop at Mexico, than you are a bigger fool than you have already demonstrated yourself to be. With the amount of money they have flowing into their coffers, they will (have already?) start buying American officials. It will be more difficult, because of the resilience of our political system, but certainly not impossible.

Now, you can continue your ignorance, and continue to fund the cartels through price supports brought about by prohibition. I’m sure the cartels will thank you for your assistance. Or you can rethink a policy that has not only been an abject failure on this side of the border, but the downfall of semi-legitimate government on the other side of the border.

Esperanza y cambio.

Or haven’t any terrorists been captured since Obama came into office?

albill on May 23, 2009 at 7:52 AM

-
He did promise to catch Bin Laden ASAP… Hear anything about that lately?
-

they were at war with us long before we realized we were at war with them.

Duh…

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES NEAR THE SOUTHERN BORDER BY DRUG CARTEL AND HUMAN TRAFFICKERS FROM MEXICO
Public Hearing
Wednesday, July 9, 2003 2015-ish
253 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC

But there was more than an intelligence failure. There was operational failure. There was a failure to act. You knew that your country will be attacked, but you did not do what was necessary to prevent your country being harmed and humiliated. You knew that the intention of al Qaeda Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers was to kill American people (especially blacks) wherever they could be found felt necessary. But still you did not act, and therefore you paid a very heavy price for it.
-
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing3/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-07-09.htm

Because they are needed in the war effort.

HAWAIIAN GARDENS, Calif. (AP) – A Latino street gang waged a racist campaign to eliminate the city’s black residents through attempted murders and other crimes, according to federal racketeering indictments unsealed Thursday.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98AUEK01&show_article=1“

-

Los gringos lamentarán el día ellos dejaron las fronteras abiertas amplio

Ugly on May 23, 2009 at 4:19 AM

Obama es medio gringo.

Si.

It is clear that, thanks in large part to the massive price supports given them by the American War on Drugs, drug cartels have completely subsumed the Mexican government.

The irony and outright arrogance you show even SAYING that here is sickening.

1. If anything, our clampdown on drugs is the only thing keeping the cartels POOR enough to not march on Ciudad Mexico right now and overthrow the government.

2. This has been going on LONG before the drug bans.

3. In case you haven’t noticed, lagalization would probably FAVOR the illegal cartels over any legal start-up business.

The irony of having fools shouting for legalization NOW because of “OUR FREEDOMS” never seem to understand how greviously such a thing could not only affect our freedom AND lives, but also those around us.

And yet the knave shows up and tries to spin it in his favor.

Typical.

Such irresponsibility will turn Latin America red.

The definite article before perro threw me off.

Harpazo on May 23, 2009 at 2:04 AM

jajaja. Puta