Mexico...

[Deaf Smith]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292962031814007.html

Drug Gangs Have Mexico on the Ropes

Law enforcement south of the border is badly outgunned.

By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

A murder in the Mexican state of Chihuahua last week horrified even hardened crime stoppers. Police Commander Martin Castro's head was severed and left in an ice cooler in front of the police station in the town of Praxedis with a calling card from the Sinoloa drug cartel.

According to Mexico's attorney general, 6,616 people died in drug-trafficking violence in Mexico last year. A high percentage of those killed were themselves criminals, but many law enforcement agents battling organized crime were also murdered. The carnage continues. For the first 22 days of this year the body count is 354.
.
.
Tally all this up and what you get is Mexico on the edge of chaos, and a mess that could easily bleed across the border. The U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., warned recently that an unstable Mexico "could represent a homeland security problem of immense proportions to the United States." In a report titled "Joint Operating Environment 2008," the Command singles out Mexico and Pakistan as potentially failing states. Both "bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse . . . . The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels."

The National Drug Threat Assessment for 2009 says that Mexican drug-trafficking organizations now "control most of the U.S. drug market," with distribution capabilities in 230 U.S. cities. The cartels also "maintain cross border communication centers" that use "voice over Internet Protocol, satellite technology (broadband satellite instant messaging), encrypted messaging, cell phone technology, two-way radios, scanner devices, and text messaging, to communicate with members" and even "high-frequency radios with encryption and rolling codes to communicate during cross-border operations."
.
.
Here is how he sees the fight: "The outgunned Mexican law enforcement authorities face armed criminal attacks from platoon-sized units employing night vision goggles, electronic intercept collection, encrypted communications, fairly sophisticated information operations, sea-going submersibles, helicopters and modern transport aviation, automatic weapons, RPG's, Anti-Tank 66 mm rockets, mines and booby traps, heavy machine guns, 50 cal sniper rifles, massive use of military hand grenades, and the most modern models of 40mm grenade machine guns."

.
.
Comment:
Notice none of that except maybe the .50 cal. sniper rifles, can be bought at a gun show. Hmmm.

Sleep tight gang, I suspect we may need to learn a bit more than hands-n-feet methods for this. And all cause we Americans love drugs so much.

Deaf

 

[Empty Hands]

Legalize drugs tomorrow, and the cartel problem disappears the next day. After all, you don't see many gun battles these days between federal agents and moonshiners.

 

[searcher]

Arm the law-abiding citizens of the country and the problems go away. People in Mexico are so poor that the only ones with guns are the BGs.

 

[elder999]

Arm the law-abiding citizens of the country and the problems go away. People in Mexico are so poor that the only ones with guns are the BGs.

As an American who owns property in Mexico, as well as docking a boat down there (which is an added complication/loophole governed by international law) I have to say that Mexican gun laws are some of the most restrictive on the planet. What guns are permitted are mostly small calibers, and there are not a lot of legal gun owners in the country. I've heard "less than 3,000 with a one year waiting list."

What guns I have in Mexico are kept in a locker by the harbormaster until the day I sail out of Mexico, but I otherwise could not legally have any guns in Mexico as an Americano...there are no guns in my condo, and, as far as I know, no one in the neighborhood has any legal guns.

Legalize drugs, and a big chunk of the problem goes away. It would, of course, bring its own set of problems, but they would be miniscule in comparison-the tax benefits of legalized marijuana alone would be remarkable for the U.S.-good bye deficit!

 

[Deaf Smith]

Legalize drugs tomorrow, and the cartel problem disappears the next day. After all, you don't see many gun battles these days between federal agents and moonshiners.

Uh, actually there are moonshiners and making and selling you own booze is illegal. And they do have shootouts with feds (rarely but it's done.) In fact in the county I live it's called a 'dry' country. That is no over-the-counter booze is sold. I have to drive to the next county over to buy a six pack to take home! Bootleggers are common! Our county says no more than 5 cases of beer per household. More than that and it's defacto bootlegging.

I hate what drugs do to people (and cartels to.) So how about instead anyone selling drugs gets the death penalty (kind of hard to say you sell drugs but are retarded, so it's bye bye for you if caught.) And anyone buying drugs gets 10 years, no parole, no probation.

But in reality, we may have to one day do to Mexico what we are doing to Afghanistain (but funny, we let the Afghans make opium!)

Mexico has had meltdowns before (1909 or so, the Mexican revolution. Pancho Villa, and earlier, 1830s, Santa Anna.) Mexico has been a problem child for a long time.

On the other hand, Canada is fine and dandy. No meltdown (but then, it's pretty cold up there now.)

Deaf

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Looks like Mexico is dealing with the results of a long term weak government.

 

[jks9199]

Legalize drugs tomorrow, and the cartel problem disappears the next day. After all, you don't see many gun battles these days between federal agents and moonshiners.

Way oversimplified.

And moonshining is alive, well, and still violent.

 

[Empty Hands]

Uh, actually there are moonshiners and making and selling you own booze is illegal. And they do have shootouts with feds (rarely but it's done.) In fact in the county I live it's called a 'dry' country. That is no over-the-counter booze is sold. I have to drive to the next county over to buy a six pack to take home! Bootleggers are common! Our county says no more than 5 cases of beer per household. More than that and it's defacto bootlegging.

Your example supports the point. Effective countywide prohibition promotes black market activity to support the demand.

I hate what drugs do to people (and cartels to.) So how about instead anyone selling drugs gets the death penalty (kind of hard to say you sell drugs but are retarded, so it's bye bye for you if caught.) And anyone buying drugs gets 10 years, no parole, no probation.

Drugs can do horrible things to some people, no doubt about that. Of course, over 6 thousand violent murders a year is far more horrible than that. At what price do we protect some people from their desire to chemically alter their bodies? What happened to individual liberty and free choice when it comes to the body? Drug prohibition is a new thing, after all. Only since the 1930's. You used to be able to buy morphine syrup out of the back of a magazine.

Maybe increased penalties decrease some of the problem. It won't do away with it however. The demand will still be there due to the high and the addiction, and some will want to meet that demand. Then, because legitimate methods are not available to settle disputes in the black market, guns and violence are used instead. It is utterly predictable, and we could end it at any time.

This isn't just a problem for the Mexicans, either. The excesses of the Drug War, on the criminal and the governmental side, have been ruining lives here for decades now. Why do we continue to piss lives and futures down this endless rat hole? It hasn't worked, and it never likely will work. We even have the historical example of Prohibition to guide us. Yet, we keep thinking this ridiculous "War" can be won.

 

[Empty Hands]

Way oversimplified.

The cartels exist because of the demand for illegal drugs. I'm not sure why they would continue to exist when that demand is taken away.

And moonshining is alive, well, and still violent.

No source I found put it beyond a low level problem, run by a relative handful. Most moonshine is apparently made for personal use. There is no question that legal alcohol has made the black market for alcohol all but nonexistent, relatively speaking.

 

[elder999]

No source I found put it beyond a low level problem, run by a relative handful. Most moonshine is apparently made for personal use. There is no question that legal alcohol has made the black market for alcohol all but nonexistent, relatively speaking.

Still kind of a big deal on Indian reservations-nobody dies, though, except for people who drink too much......

 

[elder999]

Way oversimplified..

The only places in the world that don't have a "drug crime" problem pursued one of two solutions: they either legalized or decriminalized drugs, and made them readily available to users, or they gathered up all the producers, distributors, and users, and killed them.

 

[Empty Hands]

...or they gathered up all the producers, distributors, and users, and killed them.

Could you provide examples? I would be very interested in researching this.

 

[terryl965]

Weel if it get to be legal, alll that will do is make more trouble than it is worth. Everybody knows who they are just send in the elite and get rid of them.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Your example supports the point. Effective countywide prohibition promotes black market activity to support the demand.

Keep that logic up and there is nothing that is illegal cause you are afraid it will become a black market activity. Some things destroy so many that you have to take the risk of black market activity. Go to a 'shooting gallary' (and not the gun kind) and you will see what drugs do. Go to the homes where the husband and wife are addicts and see what the children are left in. Go to the mourgue and see what most of them end up as (and long before their time.)

Way to many kids, yes kids, get sucked into the drug culture, and once hooked, they go down, way down, and never have a chance.

And that is why, at least for drugs, we must restrict them severely. I'd say we don't go far enough in some respects, yet to far in others.

If there is any place I'd like to see heroin givin out, it's those that are terminaly ill with very painful cancers (like bone cancer.) But that's a very limited case.

Deaf

 

[searcher]

I guess we couldlegalize it and put in some rat poison. If we kill off the users then the problem gets solved right. No market, no problem.




Doubt that is gonna work, but eh, why not give it a shot.

 

[Guardian]

Could you provide examples? I would be very interested in researching this.

Thailand for one.

 

[Hagakure]

The cartels exist because of the demand for illegal drugs. I'm not sure why they would continue to exist when that demand is taken away.

Good point.

Here's a thought. And, it's admittedly, an odd one, so I may be way off the mark.

Supposing, just supposing, the big corporate pharmaceuticals started producing large amounts of ecstasy, heroin, cocaine, whatever, legally.... One would think that the profit they made from that, might enable them to lower the prices of their more "medicinal" drugs...

So. The logic being, if you want to pollute your body with now legalised/previously illegal drugs, go ahead, but, if you've got cancer, and "need" medical treatment to fight it, oh "here, have these now newly affordable effective anti-whatever drugs". Simplified? Yes, of course, but not outside the realms of possibility.

Yes you can counter that with "What about the likely increased medical care costs associated with drug taking", I honestly believe that it would be self sustaining. I'm not convinced that legalising drugs would see a huge upward spike in drug taking. Perhaps at first, but not in the longer term. I think my argument is great in fact. Can one self nominate for the Nobel Prize for good ideas??? :0/

 

[Hagakure]

Keep that logic up and there is nothing that is illegal cause you are afraid it will become a black market activity. Some things destroy so many that you have to take the risk of black market activity. Go to a 'shooting gallary' (and not the gun kind) and you will see what drugs do. Go to the homes where the husband and wife are addicts and see what the children are left in. Go to the mourgue and see what most of them end up as (and long before their time.)

Way to many kids, yes kids, get sucked into the drug culture, and once hooked, they go down, way down, and never have a chance.

And that is why, at least for drugs, we must restrict them severely. I'd say we don't go far enough in some respects, yet to far in others.

If there is any place I'd like to see heroin givin out, it's those that are terminaly ill with very painful cancers (like bone cancer.) But that's a very limited case.

Deaf

Hmmm, understandable sentiment, but almost, by the same logic, we should criminalise alcohol and ciggarettes, as they can either destroy families through drunken abuse, or, through the loss of loved one due to cancer.

Restricting drugs, has not, and is not working. As mentioned, the WAR against drugs is like trying to put a blazing house out with a thimble full of water. Utterly ineffective. Working previously in the National Probation Service in the UK, I came into contact with a lot of drug users, and you're completely right in the belief that it destroys lives. However, there is a vicious cycle of poverty and escape through drugs that is observable. Believe me, the NASTIEST b-turds that I encountered were not the drug takers, but the pushers. Imagine, for a moment, being able to obtain drugs legally, to not be criminalised and becoming part of a system that punishers more easily the taker of drugs, because, let's face it, they're easier to catch and sort out than the dealers, and, if you so choose, as a taker, you can be given all the support you need to get off them. Imagine also, that it's the pharmoceuticals making and selling these. Your average taker goes to his/her local hospital, and simply gets their fix in a safe environment, causes no trouble, and perhaps the most important part, "knows" that they'll get another fix, without resorting to crime to pay for it.

It requires a whole shake up of cultural and personal beliefs to trial this concept, and it's not one that I think English speaking/predominantly Anglo Saxon descended countries (i.e UK/US) are likely to take. As a former member of the RN, I had a few mates take part in drugs busts, and they're attitude was "why, this is crazy?" Always reading in the headlines, "HMS .... Makes £100,000,000 cocaine drugs bust!" Little realising that this is effectively pocket money for the big cartels. As mentioned, we can carry on peeing in the wind, or, we can change tactics.

Respectfully, my tuppence.

 

[Empty Hands]

Keep that logic up and there is nothing that is illegal cause you are afraid it will become a black market activity. Some things destroy so many that you have to take the risk of black market activity.

What's the cutoff? We know that Prohibition isn't working now. We know it didn't work in the past. We know that lives are now being destroyed because of the drugs themselves and due to the attempts to fight drugs. Seems to me, when something doesn't work for going on 80 years, you should stop doing it.

And that is why, at least for drugs, we must restrict them severely. I'd say we don't go far enough in some respects, yet to far in others.

Many things destroy lives utterly. Alcohol, for one. All perfectly legal. Where's the consistency?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

True Zero Tolerance.

If caught with illegal drugs, you are shot on site, and hung in a cage on the nearest light pole until to decay to bones.

Then send in some stealth bombers to napalm and tri-ox the fields where they grow the ****.