Grisly Drug War Fact of the Day
"The American news media continues to report the body count in Mexico’s “War on Drugs” at more than 50,000 dead. But Molly Molloy, a researcher at New Mexico State University, tallies more than 100,000 Mexicans killed to wage a war financed and mandated by American authorities and led by Mexican president Felipe Calderón."
From the article "Mexicans Pay in Blood for America's War on Drugs."
Note: That would be a casualty count that approaches the U.S. body count during WWI (116,500 deaths) and more than the combined American casualties during the Korean War (36,500 deaths) and the Vietnam War (58,000 deaths).
67 Comments:
Funnny, how come Molly didn't list her sources?
Funnny, how come Molly didn't list her sources?
She does. From the Editor's Note of the article: "Using official government reports as well as press accounts, Molloy created a detailed record of the violence in Ciudad Juárez since 2008 and makes her data available to reporters and other researchers; she also distributes daily "news and analysis" through the Frontera-List that is read by subscribers ranging from international human-rights groups to U.S. congressional staffers."
We decriminalized marijuana and got more of it.
Should we also decriminalize cocaine?"
Cocaine Incorporated
New York Times
June 15, 2012
"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."
Today, I don't agree that we should legalize drugs but will I keep an open mind to facts.
If we did legalize pot and possibly other drugs would it be highly regulated and taxed? If so, would we continue to see cheaper drug sources south of the border thus creating another illegal black market? Would we be trading one set of problems for an equally destructive set of problems?
When you decriminalize something, you get more of it.
When you lower the price of something, you get more of it.
When you declare something is safe, e.g. legalizing it, you get more of it.
Can the U.S. afford another dimension of mass devastation?
Hancke,
Doesn't that depend on what "regulating" means? I mean, alcohol is legal and regulated and we don't have a huge black market in that drug. Nobody is killing each other over alcohol. Why would other drugs be different?
Wouldn't it be more efficient for Police to look for people driving under the influence rather than finding ways to seize property and hounding people who are using responsibly?
When you lower the price of something, you get more of it.
Didn't you say you have advanced degrees in economics? Do you know nothing about elasticity? Demand for drug is pretty inelastic. Have you never heard of externalities? The price of the drug war is by FAR not exclusively paid by the people engaged in the sale and consumption of drugs.
Can the U.S. afford another dimension of mass devastation?
This devastation that you and your busybody, holier than thou ilk have wrought we definitely cannot afford.
Methinks, did you understand anything in the thread over the past two days about supply & demand and externalities?:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=7364785990908218150
BTW, Peak, I love how you focus entirely on the U.S.
I guess those 100,000 slaughtered Mexicans don't count as people to the Peak Traders of the world. There's just no price to high for others to pay so that you can continue to nurse your self-righteous delusions of piety.
"Molloy created a detailed record of the violence in Ciudad Juárez since 2008 and makes her data available"...
No jm Molly has not...
She has seemingly run all mass killing articles through her filter of its, "its all about the drug trade"...
There's plenty of sociopathic behavior in Mexico but not every bit of can be diretly linked to the drug trade...
You mean did I buy into your delusions? No, I didn't.
Methinks, the U.S. has little or no control over policies of foreign countries.
However, illegal drug users in the U.S. control the number of murders in Mexico.
Juandos,
Are you trying to say that Mexicans are just naturally sociopathic?
Sociopathic men account for less than 1% of the male population and sociopathic women account for around 0.8% of the female population. This statistic is pretty standard in all countries. Moreover, sociopaths are rarely killers. They're much more likely to be Madoffs.
And why should we believe that murderous psychopaths are more prevalent in Mexico? Were Mexicans slaughtering each other in great number before the U.S. kicked off its drug war?
Methinks says: "Were Mexicans slaughtering each other in great number before the U.S. kicked off its drug war?"
Are you blaming the brave men and women in U.S. law enforcement for the murders in Mexico?
Methinks, the U.S. has little or no control over policies of foreign countries.
Oh, I see. So, the U.S. running around waving guns, invading and bullying other countries (including Switzerland) do do its bidding is an example of the U.S. not controlling policies in other countries. Sometimes I can't tell if you're joking or just completely mad.
However, illegal drug users in the U.S. control the number of murders in Mexico.
Oh, I see. So, it's peaceful Americans who simply wish to ingest a substance you don't approve of that are killing all of those Mexicans. It's not your aggressive tactics to prevent them. Uh-huh.
Are you going to blame the U.S. military for the hatred in the Middle East too?
Try to stay on topic, Peak. And the topic is your coercion.
Hang on-
before we get too stupid about this, let's go back to Hancke's question (regulation/tax).
Personally, I am in favor of this method as an initial step. I d o not think the black market problem would be nearly as big as it is now. If a good is legal, people will rather pursue the legal option. The costs are lower (risk of incarceration, can go right to the store and back, etc).
Now, when alcohol was banned, the mob was able to really gain power. They had a monopoly on the trade and, since it was already illegal, they had no issue resorting to less than legal means to keep their monopoly.
I feel, with the legalization and regulation initial step, we can go a long way to making America a better place. Just like there hasn't been an explosion of alcoholism since prohibition ended, I do not expect a similar trend in drugs. If you disagree with me, I'd be interested in knowing why drugs differ from alcohol.
Finally, let's just say we were to keep drugs completely illegal. Why does the punishment have to be jail time? Wouldn't the time and money be better spent on rehab?
"Are you trying to say that Mexicans are just naturally sociopathic?"...
You're making that claim methinks, I'm not...
BTW it isn't only men involved with this behavior and you would know that if you didn't depend a single news posting from Yahoo...
"Sociopathic men account for less than 1% of the male population and sociopathic women account for around 0.8%"...
So you claim or parrot methinks...
"And why should we believe that murderous psychopaths are more prevalent in Mexico?"...
Well that's your reach and if you're comfortable with it then run with it...
Just like there hasn't been an explosion of alcoholism since prohibition ended,
Yep. Even though alcohol use is higher.
I do not expect a similar trend in drugs
I think this is an editing mistake?
Wouldn't the time and money be better spent on rehab?
Rehab doesn't work well. It doesn't work at all if the user doesn't want to be rehabilitated.
So you claim or parrot methinks.
Yes, I'm parroting research in psychology. What are you relying on.
In fact, what's your point, Juandos?
I think this is an editing mistake?
Yes. That is what happens when you type and watch football
Jon says: "I feel, with the legalization and regulation initial step, we can go a long way to making America a better place."
Your feelings contradict the data.
The data suggest we need to spend more on the War on Drugs, particularly rehabilitation, and get rid of decriminalization.
Your feelings contradict the data.
The data on alcohol is clear. Jon asked you to explain why you think other drugs will be different. That's a reasonable question.
What's your answer (besides another irrelevant copy pasta)?
Methinks, why pay a high price for marijuana when it grows like a weed in your backyard?
Or selling it like cigarettes will promote usage.
What about the second hand smoke.
Do you want a free high on your way to work?
"Yes, I'm parroting research in psychology. What are you relying on"...
Real life methinks...
"In fact, what's your point, Juandos?"...
That you're making a leap here in your assumption that this mass murder 'might' be drug related...
What about the second hand smoke.
Do you want a free high on your way to work?
Dude, don't be melodramatic.
So, does this mean you don't have an answer to Jon's question, Peak?
You can't seem to answer direct questions relating to the thread.
And I'd rather get a contact high from a guy smoking weed than be assaulted in my own home because the SWAT team got the wrong house again. I'd rather 100,000 people in one country alone weren't slaughtered so you can feel better about yourself. I'd rather drugs were sold at the corner store and people smoked pot on the street corners than live with the increasingly aggressive police state in this country.
Bring it. I don't have delusions of superiority I need to feed at the expense of others' lives.
Jon, if marijuana was legal and there are more renters, you may get a nice high, or many highs, before leaving your apartment.
Methinks, there are a lot more alcohol users than illicit drug users, because alcohol is legal.
Jon, if marijuana was legal and there are more renters, you may get a nice high, or many highs, before leaving your apartment.
No. It doesn't work that way. To get a contact high, I'd have to live in an apartment with them and have no ventilation. Neither of that is true.
Anyway, seeing as we getting off track, let me re-ask my question: There has not been an explosion of alcohol abuse since prohibition ended. Why would pot be different? What makes it different from alcohol?
Methinks, there are a lot more alcohol users than illicit drug users, because alcohol is legal.
Correction: a lot more people admit using alcohol than illicit drugs because alcohol is legal.
I have to clean up from dinner. I'll be back in about 15-20 minutes. I look forward to seeing where this conversation heads.
Jon, you're making an assumption based on an assumption.
" ... financed and mandated by American authorities" -- Dr. Perry
Complete and utter nonsense.
Let's try to get the facts straight. The "war", at least the most violent part of it, is being financed by drug users ! And it is being waged, primarily, between rival cartels. The Mexican authorities are, of course, trying to eliminate all drug trafficking but must overcome the sophisticated weaponry and corruption that the cartels drug wealth buys. Oddly enough, these drug users are often the same people who have no problem making the connection between the purchase of a conflict or "blood" diamond and human suffering it finances, yet insist that their drug buying has nothing to do with the suffering and death in Mexico.
All of this would not be a problem if instead of using illegal drugs individuals, in this country, simply poured themselves a drink. Have a drink, spare a child.
Peak (and Juandos, for that matter), just answer my damn question. For goodness sake, you're worse than a damn politician.
Methinks - Doesn't that depend on what "regulating" means? I mean, alcohol is legal and regulated and we don't have a huge black market in that drug. Nobody is killing each other over alcohol. Why would other drugs be different?
Good point on a comparison to alcohol. I guess that largely depends on what legalized pot would sell for per ounce. The current US avg price of an ounce of pot is around $341. The legalized price per ounce in Portugal is $272 according to priceofweed.com. Will a similar price gap give incentive to Mexican cartels to undercut domestic prices? We know the states and fed will get their cut or the hunt will be on.
Will a similar price gap give incentive to Mexican cartels to undercut domestic prices?
Like anyone who wishes to stay in business, yes. Either that, or go legit. Either way, the incentive for violence drops significantly. Violence is expensive. If your profits are getting squeezed, you're less likely to resort to that method.
If you want to stop a drug gang, than legalize the product. Prohibition only strengthens the outlaws.
JM are these the questions in question? "Finally, let's just say we were to keep drugs completely illegal. Why does the punishment have to be jail time? Wouldn't the time and money be better spent on rehab?"...
Jail? Well it doesn't have to be jail, other countries have other alternatives...
Rehab?
Does rehab even work?
Do a google search for drug rehab jm and the stench of scam will come wafting out of your computer screen...
hancke
"Good point on a comparison to alcohol. I guess that largely depends on what legalized pot would sell for per ounce. The current US avg price of an ounce of pot is around $341. The legalized price per ounce in Portugal is $272 according to priceofweed.com. Will a similar price gap give incentive to Mexican cartels to undercut domestic prices? We know the states and fed will get their cut or the hunt will be on."
A great deal would depend on what types of restrictions remained on sources. In most parts of the US weed can be grown in your backyard, as it grows like a...weed.
Will homegrown be legal like homegrown tomatoes are today? That would just about eliminate most of the commercial market.
If the commercial price and taxes are high enough, you can count on a black market and smuggling to exist just as one exists in cigarettes today where there is a major difference in price across state borders.
Incentives matter.
Well, it would liven up the local farmers market anyway! Free samples?
Rehab?
For the record, I am in favor of legalization. One of the two questions I am asking is why is jail the best option?
The other question (which no one has even made an attempt to answer so far) is why pot differs from alcohol.
"We decriminalized marijuana and got more of it."
Imagine the number of re-shored US jobs!
If nothing else you should be in favor of marijuana independence so we aren't at the mercy of those terrorist states that supply us with it now.
Break our addiction to foreign marijuana!!
If the commercial price and taxes are high enough, you can count on a black market and smuggling to exist just as one exists in cigarettes today where there is a major difference in price across state borders.
I didn't know that. However, I probably don't know that because I don't smoke and cigarette smugglers don't kill each other because people aren't generally willing to die to save a couple of bucks.
There's also smuggling of raw milk and those underage drinkers get their booze on a black market of sorts. But, nobody is killing each other over that either. Although....the raw milk ban is another source of irritation for me, but I digress.
"What about the second hand smoke.
Do you want a free high on your way to work?"
Sure, Who wouldn't?
Actually your comment is nonsense. Do you see people getting drunk when you're on your way to work these days?
"For the record, I am in favor of legalization. One of the two questions I am asking is why is jail the best option?"...
What jm are you refering to? The whole panoply of now illegal drugs or do you have a few in mind?
"The other question (which no one has even made an attempt to answer so far) is why pot differs from alcohol"...
Both are quite problematic jm but for differences consider perusing this Wenk's blog posting...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Both are quite problematic jm but for differences consider perusing this Wenk's blog posting...
Wenk's blog seems to suggest pot has benefits to use as you get older; its harmful effects are only on the adolescent brain. Surely that cannot be a reason or its ban.
However, that is not my question. Peak asserted that we cannot legalize and regulate pot the way we do with alcohol. My question is why.
What jm are you refering to? The whole panoply of now illegal drugs or do you have a few in mind?
For the sake of argument, let's do all of them.
Methinks
"I didn't know that."
Yeah, It's a pretty big deal.
"According to John D'Angelo of the U.S. government's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), there is a "direct relationship between the increase in a state's tax and an increase in illegal trafficking."
IL and NY have especially high taxes.
Actually, it's exact what we should expect to happen. Good old entrepreneural spirit prevails.
It also seems like an excellent example why a natural monopoly can't exist.
The Treasury Dept. is key in the current war on drugs with many agents deployed. I was surprised to learn there is currently a tax on "imported" drugs. All one needs to do to stay legal is to buy the tax stamp. To date the Treasury has not anyone come forward to buy a single stamp.
"For the sake of argument, let's do all of them"...
Well jm are you sure you want to come across someone having a bad day on meth or angel dust?
I was loath to put this out here for you jm because I personally found this guy;s work maybe a bit questionable at times (politically driven?) for want of a better description...
That's just me though...
Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana
Dr. Robert L. DuPont
Partner, Bensinger DuPont and Associates
Ex-President, Institute for Behavior and Health
Ex-Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse
Well jm are you sure you want to come across someone having a bad day on meth or angel dust?
So, why throw them in jail and not try to rehabilitate them? Or something else?
Jon, I responded to your question above and to every question by the pro-drug legalization crowd in the following link with actual data:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=7364785990908218150
Nonetheless, the pro-legalization crowd ignores the data and relies on propaganda, assumptions, questionable data, or just tries to inflate problems to strengthen their positions.
The also make up situations like comparing marijuana to Prohibition. Marijuana was never both legal and popular, like alcohol, and sold widely. Opium is a better comparison, because of opium dens.
I've had these conversations many times before with the pro-legalization crowd.
They make statements. They're proved wrong. And two days later they make the same statements.
What is the price elasticity of demand for illegal drugs? It has to be inelastic, doesn't it? And a tax would be largely passed on completely to the user. Elasticities differ for addictive drugs than for relatively non-addictive drugs. Does the falling price of illegal drugs reflect something about price elasticities of demand for those drugs?
Tobacco use has declined with better information. Information on drugs if made legal would likely have a similar effect.
Illegal drugs are of unknown quality to the end user and the user suffers from information asymmetry. Legalization would remove these information asymmetries. All other social norms would apply to drug use as now applies to tobacco use and alcohol use.
The increasing violence in Mexico could be due to the relatively stable addict population in America (cocaine and heroin) and the increasing production of domestic marijuana.
They attempt to diversify by offering new products like meth for the white poor rural population but domestic production undercuts their price. And more attempts at violent consolidation or forced mergers escalate.
You could view the cartels as rival firms constantly lowering price and fighting over distrubition routes. Using violence to gain a competitive advantage in the face of falling profits.
To date the Treasury has not anyone come forward to buy a single stamp.
Right. That's because if you come forward to buy a tax stamp, they'll nab you for possession.
Jon, I responded to your question above and to every question by the pro-drug legalization crowd in the following link with actual data:
The problem for you is that nobody is dumb enough to accept irrelevant data. You're pretty much the only one.
Peak-
There are some 130 comments on that link. will you please direct me to the ones to which you are referring?
JM,
Jut look at Peak's comments. He trots out stuff like the reduction in productivity (assuming that's true, we must believe drugs are unique in lowering productivity and the fact that this is already happening while drugs are illegal sails right over Peak's head). This is followed by a wild assertion that costs of leap if drugs are legalized - although they have not leaped in any country that has legalized drugs. And in calculating costs, he doesn't include the lives that will be saved, the reduction in the police state. Apparently lives lost in the drug war are worthless.
Peak has also produced self-reported pot use stats. Very reliable. And then there's the crime rates associated with drugs - in an environment where drugs are illegal.
I'd correct the typos, but I'm too lazy. Sorry.
"So, why throw them in jail and not try to rehabilitate them? Or something else?"...
Well jm from your comment I can only assume you've never seen anyone having a bad day on dust or meth...
I'm also guessing if you had the very last job you'd want to be one of those employees in the rehab center they would bring these clowns to...
Well jm from your comment I can only assume you've never seen anyone having a bad day on dust or meth...
I'm also guessing if you had the very last job you'd want to be one of those employees in the rehab center they would bring these clowns to...
Both of those statements are correct. To be honest, the only contact I have had with hard drugs is via movies/TV shows. I've never done pot, but I know many of those who have (about 95% of them are incredible douchebags now).
Jon
"Both of those statements are correct. To be honest, the only contact I have had with hard drugs is via movies/TV shows. I've never done pot, but I know many of those who have (about 95% of them are incredible douchebags now). "
That's an interesting observation.
It's my opinion - based on nothing but anecdotal evidence and personal observation - that there are two things at work here.
One is that those who are now incredible douchebags were on their way to becoming douchebags in any case, and the use of pot, or any other psychoactive substance including alcohol, was and is a way of coping with problems in their lives. In other words, self medicating to feel better.
The use of pot may have been a symptom not a cause of douchebaggery.
The second thing is my belief, again not based on anything in particular, that long term use of drugs of any kind, changes wiring in a person's brain in ways that are irreversible, and almost always negative in effect, leaving them unable to maintain stable personal relationships or jobs even long after they stop using.
On the other hand, many people appear able to use drugs and alcohol in a manner that they control, and appear to suffer no ill effects from that use even over a long period of time.
Just my 2 cents.
If you were a police officer or a woman would you rather deal with a drunk 6' 200 lb twenty-year old or one who was stoned?
Study after study shows that the short-term and long-term effects of alcohol use greatly exceed those of marijuana.
Have you ever heard of anyone dying of a marijuana overdose like teenagers who die of alcohol poisoning?
Tamerlane
"Study after study shows that the short-term and long-term effects of alcohol use greatly exceed those of marijuana."
Just a helpful hint: at this point in a long and contentious thread it is no longer enough to use "study after study" as support. You must actually cite something substantial. :)
"You must actually cite something substantial"...
Maybe something like this WebMD posting: Pot Use in Teen Years May Lower IQ, Study Shows
Early, Long-Term Marijuana Use Linked to Drop in IQ...:-)
"Maybe something like this WebMD posting: Pot Use in Teen Years May Lower IQ, Study Shows
Early, Long-Term Marijuana Use Linked to Drop in IQ...:-)"
Yes, that would have been a good reference to cite in support of a claim that pot use by teens is dangerous, but it doesn't compare the effects of pot use to alcohol use, so isn't very helpful in supporting a claim that: "Study after study shows that the short-term and long-term effects of alcohol use greatly exceed those of marijuana."
Post a Comment
<< Home