Topic: There is no drug traffic without drug buyers (Read 130 times)

That's an interesting idea, but there are no perfect scenarios. So, we make all drugs legal... are we talking about distribution too? If we make distribution legal, we'll get dealers at every school, selling drugs to kids. If we only make possession legal, we'll get more mules, more minors dealing. Large drug organizations will get more profits as more people will want to try hard drugs. You'll get all those who were afraid of going to jail walking around with a bunch of coke, openly sniffing lines at work and all that.

I'm not a supporter of a total ban on drugs, but we also can't let people walk and drive high, with only 50% penalty increase.
Junkies don't care about penalties when they're high. They'll cause an accident, kill someone and instead of 20 years in jail they'll get 30. They don't care. They probably got HIV anyway and won't live another 20 years. 20 or 100 is all the same to them.

For sure there is no business without a buyer. Just recently in my country it was reported by the Economic and financial crime commissions (EFCC) the a man was caught in the countries border with cocaine of 700g stock in his body. And he was interrogated then he had to confess that he had buyers from different countries not only in my country so even illegal business moves.

All drugs should be legal.

All penalties for doing crimes when stoned should be increased by 50% as compared to doing them when you are not stoned.


Cops still get work and drug dealers get shit. They will need to do hoe's , extortion , protection , loan sharking, and gambling.

The U.S. proved prohibition made richer thugs and criminals as does making drugs illegal.

I would love to see a free U.S. government Herion office the only catch is one in a thousand doses are fentynal and you odds and die.

It's the junkies choice to use the free clinic or go to the legal store and pay for the safer dope.

In fact we could have a game show. Od or no Od.

I simply  want junkies to have real choices. It is their life.

why would the church handle that? selling drugs and possession of drugs are illegal what does the church nor their family know about that? besides we know that addicts are not in their right state of minds

if they end up harming other people while under the influence, the government and the law should be the one to prosecute them and not just let them roam free to let them OD and eventually die not only is that inhumane but that’s not how a community should function

This is a sensitive question that you raised here as the problem of drugs has lingered for years with government only paying lip service to it I strongly agree with you that there are strong and powerful men behind it because with the whole government trying to clamps down on drugs from all over the world it's still there and available for people to get at the Conner of the road there are people who are behind it and is making money out of it and they will do everything within their powers to make sure that the business continue to sell do there is a relationship between those producing the drugs those distributing it and the buyers

Violence begets violence. Immorality begets immorality. Among the largest drug suppliers in the world are Walgreens and CVS. We don't see the CEO of Walgreens attempting to gun down CVS employees. By ruling that some drugs are illegal, it causes entire illegal organizations to pop up.

In the same way it would be clearly and obviously illegal for you to personally go to Walgreens and tell them you will personally shut them down at gun point if necessary if they stop selling a specific drug, it is equally and every bit as immoral and outrageous for a gang of government workers to do the same thing. It is an act of violence to deny someone access to a drug. There is no moral way of telling someone you will intentionally hurt them if they manufacture, sell, or use drugs of a specific kind. Violence begets violence. Immorality begets immorality.

It is a human right to use God's creations in any way one sees fit in cooperation with others. It is a human right to sell anything one owns. It is a human right to create anything one imagines. It is a human right to consume any thing one owns. And it is a violation of equal rights for some people to make exceptions but not others. I describe an actually moral government type in my signature link.

The root of this problem is much more deep than it looks. If people are resorting to drugs usage it's because they are facing issues on the personal sphere of their lives. They use drugs as a mean to escape from a harsh reality, from unsolved traumas and undesired situations in life which can't be avoided. So drugs give them an ephemeral pleasure for a brief moment. Authorities and governments should be enlightening people on this matter, in an attempt to work to cease the desire people have for drugs.

If people don't have desire for drugs anymore, the cartels must go bankrupt and the whole network of crimes will face a severe impact on their economical affairs. The point is that modern life is too unhealthy from the emotional or mental point of view, and drugs end becoming an anaesthetic. On long run, the consequences are disastrous, though. Not only for health, but also for society, as we have been seeing.

Legalizing a drug is only there to make money for the government or the companies it favors for the moment.

Why not simply repeal the laws regarding it. Let people be free to kill themselves if they want. But punish them for negligence if they harm someone in their drugged stupor... just like they should be punished for harming someone intentionally.

The excuse that many migrants are not from Mexico is not strong enough, even the country with the highest migrants to the USA can use that excuse without being wrong.
The issue is, people are ready to make money at the expense of the well being of others. They do this wicked things for financial rewards. The desire for the reward is stronger than their care for the well-being of others. This is why it's said that the love of money is the root of all evil.

 Now, concerning the legality of drugs, I believe what should be focused on more are artificial drugs. They should remain illegal while the natural ones don't need to be banned for everyone, maybe  controlled, especially for people who could abuse them. The abusers could be guided or be stopped from using them.
There is no point in general ban of things that were created to be consumed.

The artificial ones have lots of bad side effects, for example, they are hard to quit. If you try to quit you get really sick. This is one of the main reasons people are hooked to the evil drugs. But the natural ones are good, I doubt they make people who try to quit sick. The user can stop at any time without that issue, Unless they get depressed after quitting, which is not caused by the natural one but other things they consume. The natural ones likely suppress the depression until they are not consumed again

There is no one single entity at fault.

Take Fentanyl for example, it was manufactured legally as a viable pain killer
and the sales pitch was that it wasn't addictive - the rest is history.

The market is there because it is dirt cheap to produce and affordable for those
who are addicted and have one or a few personal problems.

The drug cartels operate because there is a market

The producers of organic drugs like cannabis, cocaine, heroine are are more often
impoverished people trying to make a living.

The problem is so big governments are at a loss to stop it.

Where did the problem start.....


Yea there is an argument for legalising drugs - certain drugs like Cannabis but
I really dont think its viable to legalise Fantanyl for example. That act would
unleash an even bigger problem of addiction treatment and extra pressure on
the health systems which in turn we will pay for through higher taxes. There is  no
appetite for that.

The people of government are still people. And they best know what their limits are because they are working right in government with those limits. So, to make money off the drug trade, they will support the cartels behind the scenes.

The best way to support the cartels is to set things up so that the cartels are simply allowed to do their dastardly deeds.

Drug trafficking is not the responsibility of the State. The two things that are, are the protection of the citizens while offering them total freedom. Regarding drugs, this amounts to enough advertising so that the citizens know that if they use their freedom to suck down drugs, they could be damaged. So don't do drugs.

Then let the citizens be free to do drugs or not. But the government has relieved itself of any possible liability through its advertising to not use drugs.

That's it. If a person wants to commit suicide, it isn't government's fault. And the rest of the people shouldn't be forced into rehabilitating any drug users through taxation to do the rehabilitation. It's bad enough that when a drug user dies on the street, that government has to clean up the mess.

This post throws light on a neglected aspect of the war against drugs. It is very easy to blame someone else for your failure instead of seeking for solution out of it. The American society is broken that even if they close the borders of the US with Mexico, another drug route will emerge because there is a large market for it in the US.

My country began to crack down on drugs that were coming into the country. When these cartels saw that the government in making the borders more tighter. They began to establish hidden drug laboratories in rural areas. What I am trying to explain is that as long as there is a market, drug cartels will look for means to access it. The best option is to work on the people who are buying these drugs.

Legalizing marijuana might be good based on my view, but allowing the free flow of drugs like fentanyl will be disastrous.

You almost makes it sound as if the government of the United States was advertisement drug use or whether the government of the United States had some secret deal with the Mexican and Central-Americsn cartel for both parties to economically benefit from drug trade, which is kind of disturbing, to say the least.
It is easy to stigmatize and judge those who have fallen victim of drug addiction, sure but I rather continue to see drug addicts as human beings and not to treat them like garbage and somehow help them if there is the chance to, through rehabilitation and social programs, so they can be productive members of society once again, not simply allowing them to die to their addiction.

Your point is drug addicts are not responsibility of the state, but drug trafficking is... if there are addicted people within the territory of a country then part of the responsibility is of the country in question and not only of the person...

Who is to be blamed here is what I am thinking about. Are we to blame the drug producers or the drug cartels or the druggie. People demand for drug because some people just gain pleasure being in a subconscious mood, and that's why these drug cartels are motivating the producers to produce more hard substances. We are in a world where drug cannot be eradicated because it has it's own advantages, but very small compared to the disadvantages. The bad news is that more people are going into taking drugs.

Right. The cartels recognize that the US government is supporting their drug operations by caring for the druggies. If the US government stopped doing this, the druggies would be supported by friends and family or the churches. These people would stop the druggies from being druggies. Or the druggies would just die.

Either way, the cartels would lose their customers and dry up.

This is why the government should take all the money that they use to support druggie health and rehab, and use it to advertise the dangers. Then it's the druggies own fault by free choice. Let them die if they don't find help elsewhere.

You are ignoring a very important fact thougt, cartels and producers of drugs in third world countries are not stupid,.they know their business depends completely on the increasing demand for their addictive products, so if they realized there are actual mechanisms being implemented in the first world countries to reduce demand, they will counter it by making more healthy people to become addicted to their hard drugs, in a way or others.
It is not as simply as allowing the churches and non-profit organizations to take care of the problems or allowing drug users to die a horrible death, it is societal problems which goes beyond supply and demand, the demand will be continue to be created by criminals.
There had been even cases of criminals giving candy infused with drugs to teens in the streets...

People buy drugs where they get it cheaper, and it's just cheaper to produce at least some of the material outside us (for now). And when that isn't the case, there's a whole new market opening for criminals living in USA. But i guess that's the whole point what DJT is doing. Criminals are taking jobs from local criminals. So "Make drugs in America again" and "Support your local drug lord".

Because as you said, there's no cartels without buyers. And users are not going anywhere. In fact, if i had to guess, the results of draconian politics raise the need for drugs in US in next few years.

It's not only the "Hollywood elite" that people look up to, it's also business people. And drugs are a common thing with rich people from every field.

Take RFK Jr for example, next US secretary of health and human services, who is ex addict, but somehow haven't learned how biochemistry or medicine works. He hates adderall, but gives credit for heroin for treating his ADHD, and helped him reach top of his class when he was young. That just signals that one rather should do drugs then medicine, because you can your when you get trough school. Not a good message from a position like that imho.

Freedom in America should allow drugs. Government should apply welfare money that is normally spent on druggies, to advertising how bad drugs are. If people still make the mistake of ODing, let their families or the church take care of them, not the government... except if they die with nobody else to bury them.

If the above were done, the drug usage would stop because the drug users would be gone, one way or another.

It has been a captcha and common place of the Hollywood movies, well financed by the financial elites, to make the villain out of the Latin Americans evil gansters and druglords. And they probably are - who would call them nice people?

But everyone knows that there is no market without a buyer. So may people in the US have the tendency to self-inyect, inhale, gulp or otherwise get filled with whatever substance is out there promising something out of the ordinary. This is a sick society.

The presidents of Mexico tend to be cautios in their relations with the US, but even despite that, the current president Claudia Sheinbaum (who is happy to use the populism when dealing with Spain) has answered to Trump in a very contained manner:

- Many migrants to the US are not Mexican.
- Fentanil can be made anywhere and the precursos do not come from Mexico.

But it is due to add that there cannot be drug cartels without drug buyers in the US. It is time for the US to recognise the damage they are doing to Latin America. In countries with limited government and law, having a bunch of druglords is enough to create failed states and insecurity for the people and a system that is always at the border of failure

The war on drugs has failed, it is like a hydra - cut one head, get two more, has saturated the US prison system with possibly the largest percentage of people in prison and has, in the process, thrown Latin America in the hands of the gangs. May be time to legalise because whatever is there is not working.