Politicians constantly talk about stopping the illegal immigrants that are coming from Mexico, but putting a wall has never and will never be a solution since the reason why so many displaced keep coming across the border is mostly to escape the crime, corruption, inequality, and violence of they have to live in their home countries. The worst part is that most of these terrible things is that happen in third world countries are rooted in constant subversion by developed countries, primarily the US. I feel like since we caused this (even if in part) we should help stop it now, even if we didn’t publicly admit guilt to save face.

So, how do we do it? Do we straight up invade Mexico and go on a full out war against the cartels like we did against Osama Bin Laden?

If not, why not? And, is there anything that can be done?

I would like to keep things civil. Please, let’s keep this respectful as I know this is a tough issue and there is anger on both sides of this issue.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Just a reminder that, while drugs are the cartels’ biggest income, it’s not the only one. They’ll just move onto produce and other goods like avocados and lemons. This was news years ago but I’m not at the computer to link.

      • For that it would help to properly design and enforce laws against tax evasion, money laundering and criminal financing. But i am afraid the rich around the world would rather have another world war than pay fair taxes and be barred from doing business with murderers.

        • tdgoodman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I like how you use the word ‘rich’ instead of ‘cartel’ as if there were a useful distinction between them. They differ only on the scale of how openly they embrace violence as a solution.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Good. Let them justify their private armies to the accountants when police protection for legal operations is free.

        • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          You say that as if illegal operations is a valid justification (to the law) for having a private army.

        • Lemminary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yeah, that’s why they do end up legitimizing after some time for some of these reasons. lol So maybe it’s a good thing in the grand scheme of things, even if it’s kind of shitty for the people who played fair to get to where the others got for free.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Here’s the thing - most people aren’t actually interested in trying hard drugs. The people who are, will probably obtain them irregardless of legality. Given that, what is the harm in mass legalization? It keeps money out of the cartels and back into the community via taxation; it ensures the drug is pure and safe to consume with no additives; and for the individuals who afterward decide it is not for them, they can get the help that they need without worrying.

        • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Exactly this. When Portugal decriminalized drugs, they saw a decrease in usage-related deaths, drug crimes, and an increase in rehabilitation. Overall, there has been a decline in drug use as a result.

          • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            10 months ago

            But you have to put the money into the treatment. Oregon isn’t quite doing that yet, and the lag between legalizing the drugs and actually increasing services has been pretty bad for everyone involved.

            Hopefully we get it straightened out in the next year or two.

          • BobGnarley@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Dont you love how every country in the world just acts like this didnt happen (and still is very successfully)?

            • weeeeum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              It’s not quite as easy as it sounds, the way part is legalizing, the hard part is intensive treatment required for success. Some US tried harm reduction and it majorly backfired drugs were now cheaper and easier to get.

              What was successful is the method of treatment, but that’s expensive and countries simply don’t want to do that. Plus it would catch a ton of flak from Republicans so it’s screwed.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          No. Regulate and offer known recreational drugs pure.

          Very few people take fentanyl on its own or intentionally. Even tranq (which I hadn’t heard of but just looked up) is primarily harmful because it’s often tainted with fentanyl or other potent yet potentially fatal additives. Fentanyl does not need to be legally sold, because there is no real market for it.

          Hell, even fucking weed is tainted, primarily with silica-based desccants, in countries where it’s still illegal (*cough* UK *cough*).

          However if people could get pure, laboratory tested recreational drugs then these issues could disappear overnight. Heroin is bad when you fall deep into addiction, but most heroin users wouldn’t get into that state if they could take the drug legally without taboo or victimisation of illicit dealers. 100 years ago opium dens were a thing, and there were some people deep in the poppy - but there were also people just as deep in their alcohol suffering worse. Alcohol is less of a problem today, and back in the 90s there was a study funded by DARE (and subsequently unpublished because they didn’t like the results) that determined most heroin users were in fact business men and women earning large salaries with enough income to support their habit with high quality product.

          Just like digital piracy is a service problem, drug addiction is a societal mental health problem, and criminalising it only allows the problem to fester to extremes.


          Decriminalise possession, keep supply of the most fatally harmful drugs illegal, legitimise and tax known recreational drugs.

          • novibe@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            But if you legalise all drugs, as you say, no one will want to use shit like fent at all. Fent was legal for decades, it’s older than most opioids. It wasn’t an issue until the crackdown on pills.

            • TWeaK@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I think possession of any drug should be legal. However, the intent behind its use can still be illegal. If you have fentanyl and can demonstrate you only have it for some genuine use, and aren’t looking to cause harm with it, then that shouldn’t be a problem. Supplying fentanyl is much more likely to be a harmful circumstance, and its supply should be controlled.

              • novibe@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                Imo spending the effort to educate people instead of cracking down on sellers or producers makes much more sense.

                In a world with clean accessible morphine, no drug user will seek our fentanyl, no matter how easy it is to find.

          • j4k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            I’d argue to legalize everything including the extremes and price the extremes to barely undercut and drive out any illicit market. It is always better to have control over a legitimate market than it is to have a black market. There is no way to regulate demand and creating market choke points is totally ineffective. So use state run capitalism to make the market uncompetitive and drive out any competition to gain full control. The State as the dealer makes more sense than the State playing wack-a-mole in the middle.

            • TWeaK@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I dunno, I think it’s more complicated than that. First off, there are some things that should be prohibited - it’s illegal to privately own nuclear weapons, for the most extreme example. Second, many of these truly harmful drugs have tiny markets, and these markets are in fact propped up by other, more conventional drugs being illegal. If heroin were legal, very few if any people would even consider fentanyl, such that fentanyl could be prohibited entirely without having an out of control illegal market.

              In some sense, though, we do already have a controlled legitimate market for these prohibited things. Even cannabis, even during the prohibition, had some legal purchase avenues for the purpose of research. Even nuclear, that’s manufactured by private businesses with permission from the government. That works for the vast majority of drugs, it only fails with popular, relatively low harm recreational drugs where the law just isn’t reasonable against the potential harm.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t support that. I support a FDA regulated opiod pill that has known dosages. It will get you high and if you OD posion control knows exactly what to do. Even forgetting about human dignity for a moment, it will save us all money to do it this way. If someone really wants to spend the next 18 hours of their life on a couch zonked out they should it do safely.

        The pill will be in certain stores, on the outskirts of town. It will be taxed. You will have to sit through a video on exactly how you are to use it safely. You can camp out in a safe usage site and have a locker for your keys. At least in my ideal version of it.

        As expensive as this all is it is nothing compared to what we have now.

    • BobGnarley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      They would rather the addicts all die from Fentanyl laced bullshit than do that. They make way too much money with it being illegal