Fighting Drug Cartels in Guatemala

[Ironduke]

Good post! I'm all about it. I just wish more could see the logic in it.

The question is - how to divert drug use from highly dangerous, refined products to more natural, safe to consume ones.

A drug is a drug -- it's going to have side effects no matter what. But what's the difference between tobacco, coffee, and alcohol and the rest?

Hard drugs are hard because they're illegal in all varieties. Coca leaf is as equally illegal as cocaine. The opium poppy is as illegal as heroin.

So where do cocaine and heroin come from? At first pharmacuetical purposes in the 19th century, but as far as illicit products are concerned nowadays, necessity. The be able to economically smuggle the product illicitly into export markets (e.g. US), they must be highly refined and concentrated to reduce their bulk.

There's no way to smuggle in tons of coca leaf and opium poppy to the United States, to have a backyard lab refine them into cocaine and heroin. Because it's illegal to import either into the US unless there's a government permit (e.g. Coca-Cola, pharmaceutical narcotics).

Now opium, I don't know enough about the addictiveness of. It's safer than heroin though. There must be a way to safely bring opium into the mainstream economy and destroy the drug cartels and illicit market.

And chewing a coca leaf is definitely no harmful than drinking a cup of coffee. By providing coca farmers with a legal export market, the cartels would be strongly undercut as coca farmers make the correct choice and grow for the legal export market.

[Double Edge]

it's safe use as coca leaf was something Americans were ignorant of, and when it arrived on the scene, it was in the form of highly addictive and dangerous powder/freebase cocaine, so more of a knee-jerk reaction to a plague that was entering society.

Slight quibble here, cocaine is not physically addictive, its psychologically addictive.

Heroin & nicotine are examples of physically addictive. Kicking these is a great deal harder than with cocaine, the withdrawal symptoms are more prononced.

The question is - how to divert drug use from highly dangerous, refined products to more natural, safe to consume ones.

Why make a distinction. To achieve what you want you will have to change stereotypes ppl associate with drug use. Do that and everything else falls into place.

Is it acceptable to do drugs, period. Hard or soft.

We're in this mess because some time back some one decided to make the distinction between the two thus creating an artifical shortage which skyrocketed the price and created & further enriched the cartels in the first place.

Legalising marijuana i think is counter-productive. Yes, it saves resources that could be more effectively diverted to harder stuff but i feel it will just increase the demand for the harder stuff. Because marijuana is a gateway drug, if its legal then its no longer cool and the controlled stuff becomes more desirable which would not be difficult to procure in a ganja smoking crowd anyway.

If you must legalise marijuana then its better to go for the whole hog.

A drug is a drug -- it's going to have side effects no matter what. But what's the difference between tobacco, coffee, and alcohol and the rest?

I like to make a distinction between physically addictive vs otherwise addictive.

Let's say heroin is legal, and your kid of legal age wants to go get a fix. You know if they like it then it will be very hard to kick later on.

Vice going to a bar for a drink or lighting up a cig, the latter also being difficult to quit later.

There seems to be a world of difference between the two isn't there. Why is that.

The be able to economically smuggle the product illicitly into export markets (e.g. US), they must be highly refined and concentrated to reduce their bulk.

All about value add. Skunk is more valuable than mary jane.

Now opium, I don't know enough about the addictiveness of. It's safer than heroin though. There must be a way to safely bring opium into the mainstream economy and destroy the drug cartels and illicit market.

China's experience in the nineteenth century would indicate otherwise. Funny thing is it was grown in India to sell in China but i'm not aware of the same negative reaction here compared to there.

Another point to add is I hear a great deal less about illegal drugs in the media here than I used to when i was in the west. Cocaine is rare but heroin & ganja are plentiful in this part of the world. There have to be many more users here just going by population numbers but it never gets the same negative reaction as alcohol say.

There are a few dry states here, some have been that way for a long time, others tend to flirt hot or cold depending on the electorate. The ones that have banned it for long say Gujarat since '61 do not cause problems with drinkers getting alcohol, it just costs more there than wet states.

What they do with alcohol is add heavy taxes so only the more able can afford it, this way the state gets lots of revenue and it makes it harder to prohibit. The poorer tend to stick to the cheaper arrack and local moonshine.

So is there a germ of a solution here. Legalise hard drugs and charge slightly less than current street prices to undercut the black market. Its pricey enough to make most reconsider whether they really want to do it and the profits are high enough for govt not to ban it. They do this already with cigs. Cost of a pack of cigs has gone up a great deal in the last 20 years and its not because of inflation.

The cartels will intially welcome this move as it allows them to go legit but they will lose out later on as competition builds up. You will have divided them and made them smaller in the process. Your drug wars dissapear, budgets go down in many law enforcement depts the same way they did with the armed forces just after the cold war.

[USSWisconsin]

It's a business, the war on drugs and testing for drugs, a lot of influential groups are making their living here. It will be hard to legalize even marijuana because of the opposition from pharmaceutical companies and law enforcement.

[Ironduke]

Why make a distinction. To achieve what you want you will have to change stereotypes ppl associate with drug use. Do that and everything else falls into place.

Is it acceptable to do drugs, period. Hard or soft.

As we can see, it is necessary to make a distinction.

Crack cocaine is more powerfully addictive and dangerous than powder. Thus, federal laws punish 5 grams of crack as they would 500 grams of powder. The unfortunate side effect is hundreds of thousands of young black men with addiction problem being thrown into prison on felony convictions as drug dealers (when all they have is an addiction problem).

Let's talk about the caffeine/malt liquor combination. Highly dangerous, scientifically concocted alcohol and caffeine extracts in an extremely powerful, potentially lethal combination. By taking the caffeine out of a cup of coffee, and the alcohol of a beer, and concentrating and mixing them with a nice, fruity flavor at a very low price, an extremely dangerous drug was created.

Thus drugs like Four Loko became a hard drug.

Legalising marijuana i think is counter-productive. Yes, it saves resources that could be more effectively diverted to harder stuff but i feel it will just increase the demand for the harder stuff. Because marijuana is a gateway drug, if its legal then its no longer cool and the controlled stuff becomes more desirable which would not be difficult to procure in a ganja smoking crowd anyway.

"Gateway" drug is just a label - the only reason it is a gateway drug is because it is in the illegal market, along with other drugs. A drug dealer will sell anything. If the marijuana is next to the Marlboros at 7-11, the only thing it is a gateway to is a Slurpee and those taco/cheesy meat rolls.

If you must legalise marijuana then its better to go for the whole hog.

Strong disagreement - all products that alter the mind must be established to be "general recognized as safe". Heroin, crack, meth, Four Loko, are not safe.

I like to make a distinction between physically addictive vs otherwise addictive.

Let's say heroin is legal, and your kid of legal age wants to go get a fix. You know if they like it then it will be very hard to kick later on.

Vice going to a bar for a drink or lighting up a cig, the latter also being difficult to quit later.

There seems to be a world of difference between the two isn't there. Why is that.

Almost everybody in the world already abuses physically and psychologically addictive drugs. The hard drugs that are concentrated forms of soft drugs (coca leaf, khat, opium?) are not safe. In their natural form, they are much safer than the scientifically concocted, concentrated extracts known as hard drugs.

All about value add. Skunk is more valuable than mary jane.

The primary reason for the refinement of opium into heroin, coca into crack, and rising THC levels in plants is because they exist in the black market - this stuff has to be transported, and reducing the amount you need for the same effect by a factor of 5 to 100 makes good sense, because it's good economic practice.

China's experience in the nineteenth century would indicate otherwise. Funny thing is it was grown in India to sell in China but i'm not aware of the same negative reaction here compared to there.

China tried to regulate opium consumption in the 19th century. The British fought two wars to allow the opium drug trade to continue, with the Chinese helpless to do anything.

Another point to add is I hear a great deal less about illegal drugs in the media here than I used to when i was in the west. Cocaine is rare but heroin & ganja are plentiful in this part of the world. There have to be many more users here just going by population numbers but it never gets the same negative reaction as alcohol say.

People use the drugs that are made closer to home - cocaine is rare because it's produced in South America. Heroin is in the US, but not as prevalent due to the fact that it is grown in Afghanistan and SE Asia, primarily. Hashish is extremely rare in the US, compared to Europe.

It's about geographic proximity to drug production centers.

So is there a germ of a solution here. Legalise hard drugs and charge slightly less than current street prices to undercut the black market. Its pricey enough to make most reconsider whether they really want to do it and the profits are high enough for govt not to ban it. They do this already with cigs. Cost of a pack of cigs has gone up a great deal in the last 20 years and its not because of inflation.

No, don't legalize hard drugs. They are not safe. If people choose to use them - treat them as addicts in the community instead of criminals. If the plants that are derived from are brought into the legal market as drugs like any other - coffee, tobacco, alcohol - in safe forms (e.g. coca leaf) you mostly destroy the drug cartels and give your population a product that is no worse than anything everybody's abusing now.

The cartels will intially welcome this move as it allows them to go legit but they will lose out later on as competition builds up. You will have divided them and made them smaller in the process. Your drug wars dissapear, budgets go down in many law enforcement depts the same way they did with the armed forces just after the cold war.

I don't think the cartels would welcome the move at all - actors within the cartels would go legit, but not the cartels themselves. This move would make the cartels a house of cards.

But yes, it seems you get the main point of what I was saying with regards to undercutting the cartels by bringing the products they peddle into the mainstream economy - there's just a fundamental disagreement whether the hard or soft forms of coca, opium, etc. should be allowed or not (I believe only soft).

[xinhui]

Fighting drug was the topic of conversation during Mr Rodas's visit.

Remarks With Guatemalan Foreign Minister Haroldo Rodas Before Their Meeting

Remarks
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
February 3, 2011

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m delighted to welcome Minister Rodas here once again. I had the opportunity to meet with him on several occasions concerning Guatemala and its many challenges. We have a good bilateral relationship and we look forward to assisting the government and people of Guatemala to deal with their security and economic and social inclusion issues that have to be addressed.

FOREIGN MINISTER RODAS: Thank you very much for this opportunity to be here. For us it is very important, this relationship between the United States and Guatemala.

(Via interpreter) I thank you so much. This is a very important visit for us, and I agree with what Secretary Clinton has said. We enjoy an excellent relationship between the United States and Guatemala as partners in areas having to do with political issues, economic issues, the environment, security, and many more. And therefore, it is very important for us to be able to continue this dialogue as we are doing today.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Minister.

FOREIGN MINISTER RODAS: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much.

[xinhui]

China tried to regulate opium consumption in the 19th century. The British fought two wars to allow the opium drug trade to continue, with the Chinese helpless to do anything.

Apple and Orange here -- those drug gangs are not an imperial power that can pair with GB

[Double Edge]

As we can see, it is necessary to make a distinction.

Crack cocaine is more powerfully addictive and dangerous than powder. Thus, federal laws punish 5 grams of crack as they would 500 grams of powder. The unfortunate side effect is hundreds of thousands of young black men with addiction problem being thrown into prison on felony convictions as drug dealers (when all they have is an addiction problem).

Let's talk about the caffeine/malt liquor combination. Highly dangerous, scientifically concocted alcohol and caffeine extracts in an extremely powerful, potentially lethal combination. By taking the caffeine out of a cup of coffee, and the alcohol of a beer, and concentrating and mixing them with a nice, fruity flavor at a very low price, an extremely dangerous drug was created.

Thus drugs like Four Loko became a hard drug.

The reason i suggested getting rid of distinctions is because otherwise you're just going to be fighting a war endlessly. You start to decriminalise certain drugs only to find newer creations taking their place. In which case I question whether there is any difference between your position and the status quo :)

"Gateway" drug is just a label - the only reason it is a gateway drug is because it is in the illegal market, along with other drugs. A drug dealer will sell anything. If the marijuana is next to the Marlboros at 7-11, the only thing it is a gateway to is a Slurpee and those taco/cheesy meat rolls.

ok

Strong disagreement - all products that alter the mind must be established to be "general recognized as safe". Heroin, crack, meth, Four Loko, are not safe.

So what would your desired response to 'not safe' be then ?

If I understood you correctly, you are for mandatory detox of anybody caught rather than treating them like criminals. Basically if one were caught with any drugs on their person, a list would be consulted and depending on how 'not safe' it was they would be required to appear in court and show they attended a detox program.

There is a further question here, how they get treated really boils down to how much they were caught with in the first place. At some point 'addiction' turns into 'intent to distribute'. So what should the desired response in this case be ?

Same mandatory detox or a harsher penalty.

Almost everybody in the world already abuses physically and psychologically addictive drugs. The hard drugs that are concentrated forms of soft drugs (coca leaf, khat, opium?) are not safe. In their natural form, they are much safer than the scientifically concocted, concentrated extracts known as hard drugs.

So questions arise as to what govt is doing to tackle the supply side of the equation. You suggest allowing the natural form of the drug to be legally available. The purpose of which isn't clear to me, is it to wean those on the more concentrated form away or other ?

How would you treat those that buy the natural form available in the market but then refine it further in a home lab either for personal consumption or profit ?

I've no idea how easy it is to turn coca leaf into charlie. Could allowing coca leaf to be available be considered a form of abettment. It's like saying we'll sell you flour and its ok if you turn it into a loaf of bread but if you make a croissant then it would be illegal.

People use the drugs that are made closer to home - cocaine is rare because it's produced in South America. Heroin is in the US, but not as prevalent due to the fact that it is grown in Afghanistan and SE Asia, primarily. Hashish is extremely rare in the US, compared to Europe.

It's about geographic proximity to drug production centers.

Sure but the stigma attached to drug use IMO tends to be much higher. You are always hearing about not doing drugs, you hear that from celebrities right up to country leaders. Nancy said to 'just say no', Clinton was involved in DARE.

I don't recall the same amount of advocacy here by anyone in the public eye on this topic.

No, don't legalize hard drugs. They are not safe. If people choose to use them - treat them as addicts in the community instead of criminals. If the plants that are derived from are brought into the legal market as drugs like any other - coffee, tobacco, alcohol - in safe forms (e.g. coca leaf) you mostly destroy the drug cartels and give your population a product that is no worse than anything everybody's abusing now.

Ok, so your idea is to provide a safer alternative.

I don't think the cartels would welcome the move at all - actors within the cartels would go legit, but not the cartels themselves. This move would make the cartels a house of cards.

But yes, it seems you get the main point of what I was saying with regards to undercutting the cartels by bringing the products they peddle into the mainstream economy - there's just a fundamental disagreement whether the hard or soft forms of coca, opium, etc. should be allowed or not (I believe only soft).

If you smoke 'regular', would you shift to 'lights' ?

What i understand here is you can't change the behaviour of those on 'regular' but you might be able to influence those who have not started yet. Question is would it keep them from moving on to harder stuff or not. If they wanted to it would not make any difference. The numbers might be lower, by how much isn't clear, and whether the cartels would be affected isn't clear here either.

[sappersgt]

Ok, putting my day dream cap on.

First, issue bonds to fund the long delayed rail linking Puerto Quetza to the capital Guatemala city, Allowing foreign investors 100% ownership of this new rail is totally acceptable. Next, create export zones with zero properties tax inside of the CA triangle (three freeways CA1, CA2 and C19 located between Puerto San Jose and Guatemala city) Start a new police force there that directly report to the presidency. Cut red tapes, cut environmental reviews (I know) and make noise to the IMF to get media coverage.

Minimal investment and utilize the existing infrastructure to kick things off.

I like the idea of an economic corridor, getting away from the "one city" syndrome a lot of small countries have. Belize was trying something like that when they made Belmopan the capital. Belize City was already big enough, placing all the government infrastructure with it's money and jobs allowed Belmopan to grow. It's had varying degrees of success, I hear the Belize-Belmopan corridor is (finally) filling in. I understand the pilot program of recruiting wealthy immigrants with the offer of citizenship, originally targeted at HK and other empire residents, was not as successful as planned.