Why aren't the Border Cartels treated as terrorists?

I wouldn't mind seeing a little military action against these violent cartels, but I don't want it interfering with my ability to get cheap, high quality cocaine.

 

Well said...

 

No, I am comparing Thailand's death squads with the use of the American military to target another country's population, which is even more egregious, IMO. By saying you want us to treat the drug war like the war on terror, you are saying that we should engage in extrajudicial killings, just like Thailand's death squads.

The danger of the cartels would reduce to near zero overnight simply by ending prohibition. Look at the Mafia, they were forced to get into enterprises other than alcohol after prohibition ended and as soon as that happened, they started losing money and power. There will always be a lawless element in our society, but prohibition of anything (drugs, gambling, prostitution) just gives those criminals revenue streams on which to thrive.

I would posit that you aren't looking at the entirety of the issue. When cocaine was legal before 1914, it was used mostly as a drink additive (Coca-Cola, anyone?). Regulating cocaine to be an adult drink additive would allow people who want to use that substance an outlet while reducing the addictive properties of smoked or snorted cocaine.

Switzerland has been doing prescription heroin trials for addicts who resist other treatment methods for nearly two decades now. The users don't have to steal for their habit, exhibit substantially lowered criminality, substantially higher recovery rates, and are now productive taxpayers. I wouldn't personally allow heroin to be sold for recreational use, but these trials make it clear that there are circumstances where there is a legitimate reason to have a legitimate source of supply.

I would leave that more up to the supplier countries. Let them decide who can become a legitimate supplier, given certain limits like lack of criminal records. If a former cartel person wants to go legit, more power to them.

If only legitimate business people and the government were involved in the trade, the cartels would begin to lose power immediately. If they didn't have the revenue streams amounting to $400 billion per year (UN estimate from 5 years ago), they wouldn't be able to hire soldiers, wouldn't be able to buy guns, and wouldn't be able to influence public officials.

 

I've skimmed through this thread and I agree with Sam. It just seems obvious to me why fighting the war on drugs the way we fight the war on terrorism is a bad idea.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the war on terrorism, at least how we have been fighting it, hasn't been all that effective. We celebrate killing Bin Ladin but consider how long it took to do that. In the meantime we still have terrorists plotting to get us.

The other thing to consider is what is the cost to us as a society? Even before the war on terror there were restrictions in regard to civil liberties to combat drug use but now consider all of the restrictions we have to fight the war on terror. Consider those now not just being applied to terror but also to drugs. Imagine that we aren't just X-raying you at the airport to see if you might have a bomb but also to see if you are a drug mule who has swallowed cocaine..

 

Weed is actually easier to get for under-aged kids than beer/cigarettes. It's not because of the dispensaries. When I was in high school, you had some careless adult's fridge. (ah... those days, when it was a big deal). For weed, you go to the "guy" in your school.

 

We have actually had a few terrorist attacks on American soil, such as the Nidal Hassan shootings. We haven't had something as big as 9/11 but keep in mind that 8 years passed between the first WTC attack and 9/11. Al Qaeda doesn't work on a rapid timetable.

I am curious how they can determine if you've swallowed drug packets. Keep in mind the current X-rays are supposed to not penetrate the skin, thus the flap about seeing people in their underwear. Also if the drug packets are sealed well enough when they are swallowed there is no drug residue externally, or internally for that matter.

Also while you might enjoy reading out catching a drug mule would you enjoy being subject to a search that by nature has to be invasive every time you flew to see if you were a drug mule?

 

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SdBn5G7Y2RA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

It is appointing the military judge, jury and executioner of people that become accused of drug crimes, but it is doing it to someone else's country instead of our own. It's more like a hop than an actual leap, a short swim over the Rio Grande perhaps.

 

One other thought that just occurred to me about this is that while there have been few terrorist attacks on US soil, not none, you really can't compare terrorism with drugs. There isn't really an appetite for terrorism in America so other than a very very small group of people it isn't like there are many Americans actively supporting terrorism. On the other hand there is a large appetite for drugs and many Americans actively supporting the drug trade. While there has been grumbling about the use of unwarranted wiretaps, extra judicial detentions and etc.. applied to Americans citizens imagine how much of a backlash there will be if that is expanded to bust drugs. I don't think the US populace at large is ready for that or that the government has the resources to do that either.

 

If either the Canadian or American government authorized the use of extrajudicial detention, extraordinary rendition, or warrentless wiretaps/searches for the use of combating the drug trade domestically (i.e targeting not only wholesalers, but retailers, and end users), I would consider either of them unfit for further governance. I am sure many others would as well.