IM 29 - California, Cartels, and Crime
IM 29 - California, Cartels, and Crime
Hit squads in South Dakota?
Normally more freedom and flexibility are the solutions. Sadly, things aren’t always that easy.
Marijuana is a great example. At first glance decriminalization seems like a wise decision, because it would reduce the load on the legal and corrections systems.
The problem is legalization also increases the number of users. In a perfect world the demand would be met by legal operators. However, the reality is the mafia (cartels) enter the area in a highly organized way. They are well capitalized and willing to use violence to take over a market.
They undercut the legal distributors, because they pay no taxes or fees. And since nothing they sell is analyzed, it is easy for them to slip Fentanyl and other highly addictive compounds into the marijuana products. This means they can grow their market for things like Fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, etc.
The only way law enforcement can combat the cartels is to have well trained paramilitary teams. These teams are extremely expensive to operate and it is difficult to find people who are willing to go up against the cartels (cartels often threaten family members).
When the cities, counties, and state don’t have the budget for these armies, there is an explosion in crime. In California, for example, crime is everywhere - in the cities and in smaller communities. The cartels have taken over property they do not own. The police cannot help and the owners do not have the money to employ their own armies. Also, the land owners are concerned for their personal safety.
Sadly, most states that have legalized marijuana regret their decision. So even though IM29 might seem like a good idea, we need to vote NO to preserve our quality of life.
Everyone who has a brain knows that marijuanita is a gateway dug. Worse, today's version is loaded with more toxic metals. The excuse use to be, it was needed medicinally. Cannabis medicine is already factual without the hallucinogens part of marijuanita that has cause damages to the brain (a factual medically proven fact). Also, as a gateway drug. It opens the door for more serious drug trafficking aka cartel into our nation, of whom are already thriving in about 20 states (mostly blue state, a proven fact). A gateway drug that destroys and has destroyed lives for decade can only be stop by strong law, and dedicated patriotic Sheriffs.
This article is nothing more than a fear-mongering article that is trying to scare people. Without any evidence of....what seems to be the argument that legalizing recreational cannabis would *checks notes* Bring the mafia and hit squads to South Dakota. This article presents no evidence to back up the claim and instead presents a number of fallacies. Let's count them shall we?
False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc): The article implies that legalizing marijuana will automatically lead to increased cartel activity, crime, and dangerous drug practices, but it doesn’t provide evidence linking these directly to marijuana legalization. While cartels may have a presence in areas where marijuana is legalized, other factors like enforcement, regulation quality, and socio-economic conditions also play roles in crime rates.
Hasty Generalization: The article generalizes the consequences of marijuana legalization across all states by stating that "most states that have legalized marijuana regret their decision." This is a broad claim that lacks evidence and disregards the diversity of outcomes in states with legalization, some of which report positive results in reduced crime and increased tax revenue.
Appeal to Fear: There’s an appeal to fear by describing cartels as highly organized, violent entities that allegedly infiltrate legalized marijuana markets, slip in fentanyl, and dominate entire neighborhoods. This paints a dramatic picture intended to scare readers into voting against the measure, but the narrative lacks credible data to support these claims.
Slippery Slope: The article suggests that legalizing marijuana inevitably leads to a cascade of consequences (e.g., cartel violence, fentanyl addiction, property takeovers). This fallacy presents an exaggerated chain reaction without showing that each step is a likely or necessary outcome of the initial action (marijuana legalization).
False Dichotomy (Black-and-White Thinking): By stating, “we need to vote NO to preserve our quality of life,” the article implies that rejecting the measure is the only solution to prevent crime and cartel infiltration. This fails to acknowledge that there are other potential solutions, such as better regulation and law enforcement strategies.
Red Herring: The mention of crime in California, unrelated to South Dakota’s IM 29 measure, distracts from the core topic. This red herring fallacy shifts the focus to broader issues in California, without linking them specifically to marijuana legalization or proving that similar effects would necessarily occur in South Dakota.
Appeal to Tradition: Implicitly, the article argues for maintaining the status quo (“vote NO to preserve our quality of life”), which can be seen as an appeal to tradition. It assumes that changes to marijuana laws will disrupt quality of life without considering that legal structures and enforcement methods could adapt to minimize negative impacts.
Finally, according to a Rugers study published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction found that prescription opioid use (like fentanyl) has actually DECREASED among populations in states that have legalized cannabis. Here's the link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-023-01191-y