State of Mexico

[Galaxy]

With Mexico growing more into a state of civil unrest with the cartels becoming bigger and even more dangerous, what do you see in the future of Mexico?

Also, with the brutal actions of these cartels slowly coming into the U.S., will we have to make some tough decisions at some point? If the Mexican government falls, what do we do?

[stevew]

If I had to pick an unjust war to fight, I'd much rather our guys were leveling drug cartels in Mexico instead of fighting in Iraq.

[BishopMVP]

It's hard to tell sometimes what increasing violence means. Sometimes it means they're getting more powerful, sometimes it means the corruption is lessening and they aren't being given a free pass, and sometimes it means the assault on them is working and pushing them into in-fighting over smaller pieces of turf (that's the huge increase the last two years since the agreement between the Sinaloa and Gulf Cartels collapsed and they started going after each other). Plus everytime you take down a leader of one gang, rival factions split off and start attacking each other - look at Colombia and Medellin after Pablo Escobar died. It became even more violent as there was less order and hierarchy in the criminal underground.

Using Colombia as an example, I don't think you can ever eliminate these gangs unless you legalize and regulate Marijuana at the least, but you can push it into neighboring countries. Colombia has done a fairly good job pushing coca production into Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela, while there is some evidence that the Mexican's army offensive has pushed some gangs into Guatemala.

I don't think the Mexican government will fall - at worst it will be more corrupt and co-opted than currently, but as long as the demand is here and the thousands of miles of overland entry points is there, there will be violence along the southern half of the border.

So, either start legalizing, regulating and taxing the sale of minor narcotics, or live with the violence inherent in multi-billion dollar black markets.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Regular napalm strikes, with irregular timing, along the border would be a good start.

[stevew]

I dunno, man, the napalm might burn the wrong direction if there are heavy winds. Maybe just carpet bombing?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

It's hard to tell sometimes what increasing violence means. Sometimes it means they're getting more powerful, sometimes it means the corruption is lessening and they aren't being given a free pass, and sometimes it means the assault on them is working and pushing them into in-fighting over smaller pieces of turf (that's the huge increase the last two years since the agreement between the Sinaloa and Gulf Cartels collapsed and they started going after each other). Plus everytime you take down a leader of one gang, rival factions split off and start attacking each other - look at Colombia and Medellin after Pablo Escobar died. It became even more violent as there was less order and hierarchy in the criminal underground.

Using Colombia as an example, I don't think you can ever eliminate these gangs unless you legalize and regulate Marijuana at the least, but you can push it into neighboring countries. Colombia has done a fairly good job pushing coca production into Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela, while there is some evidence that the Mexican's army offensive has pushed some gangs into Guatemala.

I don't think the Mexican government will fall - at worst it will be more corrupt and co-opted than currently, but as long as the demand is here and the thousands of miles of overland entry points is there, there will be violence along the southern half of the border.

So, either start legalizing, regulating and taxing the sale of minor narcotics, or live with the violence inherent in multi-billion dollar black markets.

The way I see it, there are problems either way you go on legalization.

If you continue to make it illegal, you have to be willing to crack down HARD on the source, rather than the end user, to provide a disincentive strong enough that the drug lords don't see the trade as being worth the gamble.

If you make it legal, you probably reduce the street costs of the drug, but you then give the drug lords carte blanche to expand the trade. Current users, given wider availability and lower prices, might actually buy more product to feed their habit, and even if that doesn't result in more money in the drug lords' pocket, it does create a larger social issue with the effects of more open use, possibly more frequent use, and the ramifications that arise from that.

Legalization and regulation would probably result in safer product and more revenue for the various levels of government, but I'm not sure it could ever be inherently a more attractive option than keeping the narcotics illegal and pursuing the source instead of the addicted end user.

[rowech]

I plan on waiting until the entire country moves to the United States and then I plan on moving there.

[lungs]

So long as bribing a cop is simple down there, it's hard to fight anything from our end even if we go all JIMGA on them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I dunno, man, the napalm might burn the wrong direction if there are heavy winds. Maybe just carpet bombing?

Not if you do a little ground prep first.

Say a 15 mile wide strip clear cut with bombing runs & whathaveyou, running the length of the US side of the border, open up the field of fire a little (otherwise the claymores & the snipers could run into some issues). After the first few napalm runs, most of the stuff should have started to burn itself down pretty well & unless we give 'em time to tunnel for cover, the rubble doesn't seem like enough to provide cover on its own.

[Coffee Warlord]

Solve illegal immigration in one step - annex Mexico.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The way I see it, there are problems either way you go on legalization.

If you continue to make it illegal, you have to be willing to crack down HARD on the source, rather than the end user, to provide a disincentive strong enough that the drug lords don't see the trade as being worth the gamble.

If you make it legal, you probably reduce the street costs of the drug, but you then give the drug lords carte blanche to expand the trade. Current users, given wider availability and lower prices, might actually buy more product to feed their habit, and even if that doesn't result in more money in the drug lords' pocket, it does create a larger social issue with the effects of more open use, possibly more frequent use, and the ramifications that arise from that.

Legalization and regulation would probably result in safer product and more revenue for the various levels of government, but I'm not sure it could ever be inherently a more attractive option than keeping the narcotics illegal and pursuing the source instead of the addicted end user.

If you legalize the drugs, wouldn't the government control the drug production and distribution? I would think it would put pressure on the drug cartels and end the hold they have on the drug trade. I guess it depends on how low you price the drugs and how you monitor it.


If you legalize drugs, would it help reduce other crime? Robberies, Carjacking, gang activity, murders? Would it help reduce STDs from dirty needles if you follow the example of Vancouver, which distributes clean needles to users in a safe setting?

[JediKooter]

I like their women. How much for the women?

[RendeR]

Even if you tax the living shit out of the drugs to raise funds to manage it all, you could force the selling price so much lower than it is now that the cartels would be out of business.

They'd still try to smuggle in their own stuff to avoid the tariffs and what not, but in the end they'll run out of money because a cheaper product will be readily available.

[cougarfreak]

Start killing the guys that are in charge of the drug cartels. Make some examples. Take their women too.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

If you legalize the drugs, wouldn't the government control the drug production and distribution? I would think it would put pressure on the drug cartels and end the hold they have on the drug trade. I guess it depends on how low you price the drugs and how you monitor it.


If you legalize drugs, would it help reduce other crime? Robberies, Carjacking, gang activity, murders? Would it help reduce STDs from dirty needles if you follow the example of Vancouver, which distributes clean needles to users in a safe setting?

That's the question, isn't it? Does the government regulate production for quality control and safety purposes, or does it enter the production game itself - and make no mistake, social conservatives would make that an issue in elections at least as much, if not more so, than legalization in the first place - and control all of that directly?

You might have a point about STDs, but that particular change could occur with or without legalization, if it were a big enough deal to people. Robberies, carjacking, etc., I'm not convinced that would go away. If we assume that a significant percentage of such crimes are committed by people who are trying to get money for their next fix, and we've now gone and made it easier to acquire such fix, is it reasonable to assume that usage wouldn't increase? Would the rate of any increase be low enough to relieve some pressure on violent crime statistics, or can we assume that people addicted to a narcotic don't necessarily have the greatest impulse control, and might take more rope where more is given?

Originally Posted by RendeR

Even if you tax the living shit out of the drugs to raise funds to manage it all, you could force the selling price so much lower than it is now that the cartels would be out of business.

They'd still try to smuggle in their own stuff to avoid the tariffs and what not, but in the end they'll run out of money because a cheaper product will be readily available.

That assumes they acquiesce quietly to the new way of doing business, instead of attacking the means of production for the newfound competition to maintain their monopoly. I mean, Microsoft they ain't.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

Start killing the guys that are in charge of the drug cartels. Make some examples.

That's worked well in the past. Usually it just fractures the organization and produces infighting amongst multiple heirs to the throne. As long as there is the potential to make $50 million in a day somebody is going to step up.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If you continue to make it illegal, you have to be willing to crack down HARD on the source, rather than the end user, to provide a disincentive strong enough that the drug lords don't see the trade as being worth the gamble.

If you make it legal, you probably reduce the street costs of the drug, but you then give the drug lords carte blanche to expand the trade. Current users, given wider availability and lower prices, might actually buy more product to feed their habit, and even if that doesn't result in more money in the drug lords' pocket, it does create a larger social issue with the effects of more open use, possibly more frequent use, and the ramifications that arise from that.

Legalization and regulation would probably result in safer product and more revenue for the various levels of government, but I'm not sure it could ever be inherently a more attractive option than keeping the narcotics illegal and pursuing the source instead of the addicted end user.

Unfortunately when the source is outside the country it makes it nearly impossible to attack as well as you would like. And even in the countries with a large US presence it still doesn't work - drug suppliers still flourish in this country, and in Afghanistan we're basically fighting against poppy warlords instead of the Taliban at this point. Legalization and regulation would not enrichen the current drug lords because corporations would step in and start producing it.

I'm not in favor of people smoking marijuana anymore than getting drunk, and don't think we should legalize drugs harder than that, but I really do think any rational cost-benefit analysis is hugely tilted in favor of legalization once you factor in the lost taxes, the amount spent trying to intercept it and the amount spent (and productivity lost) from prosecuting and locking people up for it.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That assumes they acquiesce quietly to the new way of doing business, instead of attacking the means of production for the newfound competition to maintain their monopoly. I mean, Microsoft they ain't.

I'd match any drug baron up against United Fruit and pick the US corporation.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's the question, isn't it? Does the government regulate production for quality control and safety purposes, or does it enter the production game itself - and make no mistake, social conservatives would make that an issue in elections at least as much, if not more so, than legalization in the first place - and control all of that directly?

You might have a point about STDs, but that particular change could occur with or without legalization, if it were a big enough deal to people. Robberies, carjacking, etc., I'm not convinced that would go away. If we assume that a significant percentage of such crimes are committed by people who are trying to get money for their next fix, and we've now gone and made it easier to acquire such fix, is it reasonable to assume that usage wouldn't increase? Would the rate of any increase be low enough to relieve some pressure on violent crime statistics, or can we assume that people addicted to a narcotic don't necessarily have the greatest impulse control, and might take more rope where more is given?



That assumes they acquiesce quietly to the new way of doing business, instead of attacking the means of production for the newfound competition to maintain their monopoly. I mean, Microsoft they ain't.

Here is a very good article about the new laws in portugal that decrminalize all drugs, while imposing very heavy penalties for those that distribute.
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies | Glenn Greenwald | Cato Institute: White Paper

I really think that this is a much better policy because you are attempting to help the addicts and hurt the sellers.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'd match any drug baron up against United Fruit and pick the US corporation.

Maybe, but United Fruit isn't in the business of planting car bombs, are they?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's the question, isn't it? Does the government regulate production for quality control and safety purposes, or does it enter the production game itself - and make no mistake, social conservatives would make that an issue in elections at least as much, if not more so, than legalization in the first place - and control all of that directly?

You might have a point about STDs, but that particular change could occur with or without legalization, if it were a big enough deal to people. Robberies, carjacking, etc., I'm not convinced that would go away. If we assume that a significant percentage of such crimes are committed by people who are trying to get money for their next fix, and we've now gone and made it easier to acquire such fix, is it reasonable to assume that usage wouldn't increase? Would the rate of any increase be low enough to relieve some pressure on violent crime statistics, or can we assume that people addicted to a narcotic don't necessarily have the greatest impulse control, and might take more rope where more is given?



That assumes they acquiesce quietly to the new way of doing business, instead of attacking the means of production for the newfound competition to maintain their monopoly. I mean, Microsoft they ain't.

I wonder what percentage of gang activity and other crimes are related to drugs in some way.

The drug cartels would attack U.S. government-backed and secured distribution system (if they get into such a business)? You take away their business, the funds they would have to carry out such attacks would diminished.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Maybe, but United Fruit isn't in the business of planting car bombs, are they?

Directly, maybe not. They just fund(ed) and hire(d) the right-wing death squads like the ones that defeated FARC and killed Pablo Escobar (albeit with help from rival cartels). Or brought in the CIA to overthrow the government when it wasn't enough in Guatemala's case. And not just 50 years ago - Chiquita was sued by the government for supporting a terrorist organization 5 years ago (current AG Eric Holder negotiated the plea bargain on Chiquita's behalf.)

One of the ex-paramilitaries -- Jose Gregorio Mangones Lugo (aka "Carlos Tijeras") -- was the former commander of the William Rivas Front of the United Defense Forces ("AUC") -- the group that operated in northern Columbia, in the zone where the companies and their suppliers grew bananas. In a sworn statement Tijeras described the AUC's relationship with the multinational banana companies as "an open public relationship" involving everything from "security services" to the kidnapping and extrajudicial assassination of labor leaders fingered by the companies as "security problems."
...
Tijeras is not a lone whistleblower by any means. Salvatore Mancuso, the overall commander of the AUC, also testified in early 2008 that Dole and Del Monte, like Chiquita, had been providing major support to the AUC since its inception.
...
Tijeras: "After we restored order and became the local agents of law enforcement, managers for Chiquita and Dole plantations relied upon us to respond to their complaints...We would also get calls from the Chiquita and Dole plantations identifying specific people as "security problems" or just "problems." Everyone knew that this meant we were to execute the identified person. In most cases those executed were union leaders or members or individuals seeking to hold or reclaim land that Dole or Chiquita wanted for banana cultivation, and the Dole or Chiquita administrators would report to the AUC that these individuals were suspected guerillas or criminals."
According to Tijeras, for years the companies provided up to 90% of the AUC's income.

(Of course, the new company that United morphed into - Chiquita - was also accused of funding and funneling weapons to FARC at times as well.) Exxon-Mobil and Coca-Cola are just some of the other companies mentioned with stories like this, and the oil companies especially are hugely into things like this in countries like Nigeria.

Some of the stories about Microsoft and Apple, to name two, are less bloody but possibly even more ruthless. I wouldn't be worried about US corporations being scared away if they were allowed to enter the marketplace.

[Cringer]

Funny, as someone who lives 7 miles from the border, in an area that has over a million people within 7 miles from the border.....the only cartel violence we ever see is on the news and in Mexico. It's all good here, so no napalm on our side please.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Funny, as someone who lives 7 miles from the border, in an area that has over a million people within 7 miles from the border.....the only cartel violence we ever see is on the news and in Mexico. It's all good here, so no napalm on our side please.

No beheadings or anything?

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No beheadings or anything?

Not on our side of the border no. That crap only happens in the unpopulated Arizona desert I guess. Though I have come close to beheading people a couple of times lately.

Reynosa is the main city across from where I live. They had gun fire at a Mexican Baseball League game the other day, that kind of thing has increased....but over there. It is not recommended to travel over there anymore, there have been a couple missing people over the last year from here that where going to Monterey or some place like that. I haven't been to Reynosa for a couple years now, kind of weird since it is so close. I have been to another Mexican town a little bit down from Reynosa since then, but only once and even that has been at least a year now. I'm white, I stand out.

edit: As far as other people though, there is a ton of cross border traffic. There is a high number of people who travel back and forth every day working on one side of the border and living on the other side.

[DanGarion]

Mexico isn't a state, learn something about geography before you start spouting off about shit.


(didn't read your post).



This was a joke.

[Galaxy]

Any changes in how Mexico is right now? Getting worse?

[Cringer]

It's still down south, and I still don't go there.