I work on a daily basis and am friends with a fairly large number of people from Mexico and countries in Central and South America. When I talk to them about the drug wars in their countries, almost to a man they blame them in large part on the people that buy the drugs. A few I know came here to get their families away from the violence.
Discussion, opinions?

Yes, the people who sell the drugs and go murderous rampages are completely free of blame.

/sarcasmoff

Amaya wrote:Yes, the people who sell the drugs and go murderous rampages are completely free of blame.

/sarcasmoff

He didn't say they bear sole responsibility, but without people buying drugs there wouldn't be a market.

Goliath wrote:

Amaya wrote:Yes, the people who sell the drugs and go murderous rampages are completely free of blame.

/sarcasmoff

He didn't say they bear sole responsibility, but without people buying drugs there wouldn't be a market.

The drug users are more often then not victims as well.

As long as we're on the topic of victims. . .

Relapse wrote:I work on a daily basis and am friends with a fairly large number of people from Mexico and countries in Central and South America. When I talk to them about the drug wars in their countries, almost to a man they blame them in large part on the people that buy the drugs. A few I know came here to get their families away from the violence.
Discussion, opinions?

Do these people know anything about the drug users that they're blaming? Do they know about the people hopelessly addicted to something they did once or twice for fun that now have no control over their lives? Do they know about women selling their bodies to pay for their addiction? Do they know about the broken homes, the lost children, the ODs, the suicides, and all the other afflictions suffered by drug users and their F&F?

No, they probably don't. It's really easy to blame someone you know nothing about for crap.

but without people buying drugs there wouldn't be a market.

And without the war on MJ there wouldn't be a -black- market. When there is sufficient demand for something that it cannot be stopped, you have the options of controlling it, or banning it followed by plugging your ears and saying "LALALALALALA" while expecting nothing bad to happen. US.gov has chosen the latter. We had similar experience with something like this before, back about 90 years ago. Difference was we were as a nation intelligent enough to learn from our mistakes back then.

But, I am rambling. Back to topic...that's a bit like blaming the people buying Nike for Nike having sweat shops. Just a thought, it might be Nike`s fault Nike has sweat shops. Kinda like rampant corruption in the Mexican government and a bunch of gangs that pay little thought to wielding the power of life and death being responsible for Mexico`s current state.

rubiksnoob wrote:As long as we're on the topic of victims. . .

Indeed.

But like anything else in life, everyone is to blame a little bit. People don't just automatically mega lose control. You can feel it slipping away in chunks if you bother to pay attention, so anyone who lets themselves get addicted is also at least a little to blame. Otherwise people can't be blamed for compulsively living outside of their means or eating too much sugar, both of which I've found to be 10x more addictive than any drug.

Amaya wrote:

Relapse wrote:I work on a daily basis and am friends with a fairly large number of people from Mexico and countries in Central and South America. When I talk to them about the drug wars in their countries, almost to a man they blame them in large part on the people that buy the drugs. A few I know came here to get their families away from the violence.
Discussion, opinions?

Do these people know anything about the drug users that they're blaming? Do they know about the people hopelessly addicted to something they did once or twice for fun that now have no control over their lives? Do they know about women selling their bodies to pay for their addiction? Do they know about the broken homes, the lost children, the ODs, the suicides, and all the other afflictions suffered by drug users and their F&F?

No, they probably don't. It's really easy to blame someone you know nothing about for crap.

What they see from their end are family members being murdered, kidnapped, or caught up in some other way in the craziness going on in the their country. They are quite expert on the subject of pain and loss, trust me. They see people here buying drugs and shake their heads knowing the money goes to support the cartels.

Yeah, you didn't even bother to read or think about my post.

This will not end well. ¬¬

Amaya wrote:Yeah, you didn't even bother to read or think about my post.

As a matter of fact I did. I see the angle you're coming from and just wanted to point out that, from their side of the story, the choices they have to live with are to risk their family having members hurt in some fashion or leave a land that they grew up in and love.
The way they look at it, they were left with far fewer choices and options with live or die results than the peple who elected to get into drugs in the first place.

SOFDC wrote:But, I am rambling. Back to topic...that's a bit like blaming the people buying Nike for Nike having sweat shops. Just a thought, it might be Nike`s fault Nike has sweat shops. Kinda like rampant corruption in the Mexican government and a bunch of gangs that pay little thought to wielding the power of life and death being responsible for Mexico`s current state.

Well, yeah, it's basically exactly like that. Except the logical conclusion is to say 'while Nike is responsible for how it produces it's shoes it remains undeniable that if consumers were to become informed and not buy shoes that were produced in sweatshops then Nike would quickly change their ways'. This is all the more important a realisation when you consider that when conditions in Nike factories were uncovered and sales were threatened Nike put in multiple regulations and now has among the best reputations for conditions in their factories.

The same is true for drugs and Mexico. While the drug barons and their henchmen deserve plenty of criticism, it remains an undeniable fact that if kids weren't buying the product in the US the issue wouldn't exist in Mexico.

smh

Are people really that clueless about the crack epidemic in the American ghetto?

Amaya wrote:smh

Are people really that clueless about the crack epidemic in the American ghetto?

One usually doesn't contract a disease willingly. I would think that the vast majority of crack users willingly choose to use, and then become addicted. It is slightly misleading to call it an epidemic when the term is usually applied to a disease which one does not willingly contract.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Amaya wrote:smh

Are people really that clueless about the crack epidemic in the American ghetto?

One usually doesn't contract a disease willingly. I would think that the vast majority of crack users willingly choose to use, and then become addicted. It is slightly misleading to call it an epidemic when the term is usually applied to a disease which one does not willingly contract.

So...obesity isn't an epidemic either then?

Amaya wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Amaya wrote:smh

Are people really that clueless about the crack epidemic in the American ghetto?

One usually doesn't contract a disease willingly. I would think that the vast majority of crack users willingly choose to use, and then become addicted. It is slightly misleading to call it an epidemic when the term is usually applied to a disease which one does not willingly contract.

So...obesity isn't an epidemic either then?

That depends. Are we using the proper definition or hyperbole? I can roll with either.

I would change the thread title, Relapse.

Perhaps, "Mexicans blame U.S. drug users for violence," rather than 'thank'.

Just a suggestion.

Amaya wrote:smh

Are people really that clueless about the crack epidemic in the American ghetto?

As a matter of fact, I used to live in a crack house during a particularly dark time financialy in my life. It was the only place I could afford to live for about 6 months while I was in the process of getting my life back on track.
I wasn't a drug user or drinker so people there left me alone thinking I was some kind of cop. I had a real good chance at that time to get some close observation on the way people end up in a place like that and of course their habits.
About half had started out from low income situations, about a quarter were from middle class families and the rest had an upper income background.
There was not much chance for conversation beyond the happy reminicense of last nights high or drunk, unless they were talking about how high or drunk they were going to get. Then there was the time someone came to me in tears asking they'd pawned their gun to me since they wanted to borrow it to shoot someone who'd cheated them in a ten dollar drug deal.
People were cooking meth in their living rooms,getting drugs from live in pushers or peddling to kids coming in with the weeks allowance from home.
During their more lucid moments I'd be regailed with stories from some of the tenants about what prodigies they were in their high school and college days, before they started in with stories of memorable parties they'd been at.
I came away from there with a firm knowledge that nobody held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to take drugs. It was something they did willingly in the belief that they were exericising freedom and nobody was going to tell them what to do. All that freedom ended up for these people boiling down to spending the money they'd begged from people to either buying some drugs or a bottle.
Meanwhile the money they'd spent on drugs was getting the cartels richer and more powerful.
When I was in high school, I'd see the kids these people used to be smoking pot and using other drugs, all the while thinking they'd actually never be affected by or affect others due to the habits they were willingly cultivating.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goddard wrote:I would change the thread title, Relapse.

Perhaps, "Mexicans blame U.S. drug users for violence," rather than 'thank'.

Just a suggestion.

Good point. I'd originally meant it in a sarcastic manner, but I think you're right.

LordofHats wrote:

Amaya wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Amaya wrote:smh

Are people really that clueless about the crack epidemic in the American ghetto?

One usually doesn't contract a disease willingly. I would think that the vast majority of crack users willingly choose to use, and then become addicted. It is slightly misleading to call it an epidemic when the term is usually applied to a disease which one does not willingly contract.

So...obesity isn't an epidemic either then?

That depends. Are we using the proper definition or hyperbole? I can roll with either.

Obesity is typically the fault of the individual for failing to educate themselves concerning proper diet and exercise and then following through with that.

Dropping some weight should be a lot easier than dropping a drug addiction.

Amaya wrote:Dropping some weight should be a lot easier than dropping a drug addiction.

We all know what obesity is

The problem is that in its proper definition epidemics only happen with viral disease, which obesity isn't. But most people use epidemic quite sparingly in hyperbole and I was attempting to be witty

@Relapse

And yet you think it's okay for victims of Cartel violence to blame victims of their drug use for these atrocities?

Let's put it this way.

Millions of companies sell their product without going out of their way to kill anyone. Why do Cartels feel the need to go on murderous rampages? Because they're fething donkey-caves. They are the refuse of this planet. They are the only ones who deserve to be blamed for this.

Just because there is a market for a product doesn't mean you should make that product. It sure as hell doesn't mean you should go around killing you get your product shipped. People complaining about drug violence and blaming it on Americans need to grow a spine and take back their countries.

Amaya wrote:@Relapse

And yet you think it's okay for victims of Cartel violence to blame victims of their drug use for these atrocities?

Let's put it this way.

Millions of companies sell their product without going out of their way to kill anyone. Why do Cartels feel the need to go on murderous rampages? Because they're fething donkey-caves. They are the refuse of this planet. They are the only ones who deserve to be blamed for this.

Just because there is a market for a product doesn't mean you should make that product. It sure as hell doesn't mean you should go around killing you get your product shipped. People complaining about drug violence and blaming it on Americans need to grow a spine and take back their countries.

I do think it's right for the simple reason that We live in an age of information. It isn't as though the people buying the drugs are ignorant of where the money they spend on the drugs has a good chance of ending up or the fact that they stand a good chance of addiction. As far as taking back their country, I'd love to see what your solution there is considering the average Mexican doesn't have a gun. Are you suggesting they charge the cartel people bare handed and let their families be tortured to death when the attack fails?
Barring a tactical genius of some type or another springing up in their midst it appears the cartels are there to stay as long as people buy their crap.

Yep, blame the Americans.

Don't blame the government for interceding earlier.

Don't blame the people for forcing the issue.

Don't blame the cartels for their acts of violence.

Don't blame the police for falling to corruption.

It is obviously the Americans fault, just like everything else in the world. If America does decide to go down there and take out every cartel they'll be called imperialistic and barbaric. So just complain and suffer.

They definitely blame the cartels, also. But the simple fact is that they have seen a country they love seemingly going into its death throes.
They blame drug users, not just people from the United States for supporting these cartels.

This thing that's going on in this thread, where people are pretending that because one bad person is part of a problem, that no-one else can possibly be responsible for any part of it... this is a stupid thing that people really need to think their way past. It will help you all understand the world a lot more.

Amaya wrote:Millions of companies sell their product without going out of their way to kill anyone.

And the economic and political situations of a criminal gang are exactly the same as for any other company. Don't be silly.

sebster wrote:This thing that's going on in this thread, where people are pretending that because one bad person is part of a problem, that no-one else can possibly be responsible for any part of it... this is a stupid thing that people really need to think their way past. It will help you all understand the world a lot more.

Amaya wrote:Millions of companies sell their product without going out of their way to kill anyone.

And the economic and political situations of a criminal gang are exactly the same as for any other company. Don't be silly.

Please explain in detail how the need to sell their product necessitates cold blooded massacres?


Are drug users a part of the problem? Of course they are. It just so happens that the cartels are the biggest problem. Blaming people that end up being exploited and abused as well is pointless. Focus on the killers not the junkies.

Amaya wrote:

sebster wrote:This thing that's going on in this thread, where people are pretending that because one bad person is part of a problem, that no-one else can possibly be responsible for any part of it... this is a stupid thing that people really need to think their way past. It will help you all understand the world a lot more.

Amaya wrote:Millions of companies sell their product without going out of their way to kill anyone.

And the economic and political situations of a criminal gang are exactly the same as for any other company. Don't be silly.

Please explain in detail how the need to sell their product necessitates cold blooded massacres?


Are drug users a part of the problem? Of course they are. It just so happens that the cartels are the biggest problem. Blaming people that end up being exploited and abused as well is pointless. Focus on the killers not the junkies.

That's like saying focus on the fire, not the fuel.

You can blame 3 groups of people for the violence

The prohibitionists that created the black market. Prohibitionists will not listen to reasons and will always insist that we can, will, and are winning the war on drugs no matter what the facts say otherwise. The conversation will usually end with the prohibitionists choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

The drug cartels that supply the drugs and violence. Drug cartels are only worried about their own survival and making more money. They are also have the most realistic views on the drug trade, and will freely admit all they are doing is ignoring society's ethics to provide a supply for a huge market demand when they are not too busy dissolving severed heads in vats of acid.

The users that make everything so profitable for the drug cartels. Hard drug only have 1 priority in life, and that is to get a fix. What can you possible tell someone who is injecting dope into their veins knowing it was smuggled into the country via balloons someone else swallowed and pooped out. Pot users on the other hand tend to be reasonable people, but on this 1 issue they are usually total hypocrites. Most of them either don't care where their weed comes from, or chose to be willfully ignorant much like the prohibitionists. The worst part is many pot smokers tend to be very socially conscious and have high ideals that they completely ignore when they go out and buy a product from the same black market that is causing all the violence in Mexico. The conversation will usually end with the pot smokers choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

That's a poor analogy.


It's pretty obvious that all you want is for the US to save you from a problem that the Mexican government should never have allowed to happen.


Short of a police state (or some freaking utopia where everyone is smart enough to not do drugs) there will always be drug users of some kind. No matter how well the country polices. No matter how well they educate on the dangers of drugs. Everyone knows smoking is bad, but people still do it.

Maybe it's the job of the government to make sure powerful gangs/cartels/whatevernameyoulikeformassivecrimesyndicates should have an extremely limited scope of power and that they should be eradicated as soon as you know, they start killing a few thousand people a year...

schadenfreude wrote: Pot users on the other hand tend to be reasonable people, but on this 1 issue they are usually total hypocrites. Most of them either don't care where their weed comes from, or chose to be willfully ignorant much like the prohibitionists. The worst part is many pot smokers tend to be very socially conscious and have high ideals that they completely ignore when they go out and buy a product from the same black market that is causing all the violence in Mexico. The conversation will usually end with the pot smokers choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

That's a fair statement. There a large numbers of pot users and those who indulge in other drugs that are huge gun control advocates, yet don't think twice about putting their money into cartel hands.

Amaya wrote:Please explain in detail how the need to sell their product necessitates cold blooded massacres?

Seriously? Okay.

This is a picture of Carlos Brito;


Apart from looking weirdly like the Doctor from Star Trek Voyager, he's also CEO of Anheuser Busch InBev, who make Budweiser and Bud Lite, the two biggest selling beers in the US. He has never killed a person in his life, hired anyone to kill anyone, assaulted anyone, or hired anyone to assault anyone. Because he's a businessman in a lawful industry, and the way to resolve competition was to engage in price wars and battle out disputes in courts of law.

This is a picture of Al Capone;


Apart from looking nothing like Robert de Niro, he was a notorious Chicago criminal who controlled much of the bootlegging that went . He rose to power through numerous assaults and likely several murders, and his efforts to maintain power culminated in the St Valentine's Day Massacre.

Both men just sold booze. Except Brito does it while it is legal, and subsequently the legal, social and economic circumstances around it demand legal, non-violent solutions. Capone did it while it was illegal, and subsequently the solutions are typically violent, because very obviously you can't take another drug dealer to court for illegally enforcing a monopoly on heroin sales on a certain block.

Blaming people that end up being exploited and abused as well is pointless. Focus on the killers not the junkies.

Which one are you more likely to be or have as a friend? An American drug user or a Mexican gang member?

It's all good and well to blame people living far away for their problems, but it doesn't really do any good. Recognising the part of the issue caused by actions at home might be more constructive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:The users that make everything so profitable for the drug cartels. Hard drug only have 1 priority in life, and that is to get a fix. What can you possible tell someone who is injecting dope into their veins knowing it was smuggled into the country via balloons someone else swallowed and pooped out. Pot users on the other hand tend to be reasonable people, but on this 1 issue they are usually total hypocrites. Most of them either don't care where their weed comes from, or chose to be willfully ignorant much like the prohibitionists. The worst part is many pot smokers tend to be very socially conscious and have high ideals that they completely ignore when they go out and buy a product from the same black market that is causing all the violence in Mexico. The conversation will usually end with the pot smokers choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

Yes, absolutely this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Short of a police state (or some freaking utopia where everyone is smart enough to not do drugs) there will always be drug users of some kind. No matter how well the country polices. No matter how well they educate on the dangers of drugs. Everyone knows smoking is bad, but people still do it.

Sure, and when people do, we should get them to recognise they are contributing to the problem in Mexico.

Every drug user supports the organized crime, the horrific bloody crimes in countries like Columbia or Mexiko are paid with ,,white" peoples money.

Its so cool when you smoke something, its not your problem you support corruption, death and suffering there.

There was a good article in a newspaper here. Example: Policemen that are honest but wont stop criminals because the ,,family" would kill them as revange. What would you do?

Pretty close to the mark, Scipio. The thing to remember here is that it's not just white people putting money towards the cartels.

No, it's obviously always a white person's fault. White people are just the scum of the Earth and they run everything for everyone else. We're just complete jerks.

@Scipio, Frank Serpico.

sebster wrote:The same is true for drugs and Mexico. While the drug barons and their henchmen deserve plenty of criticism

Sure, here's my criticism.



As an aside, most pot users I know would try to grow it themselves if it wasn't illegal...

Er...your criticism consists of a toy flintlock?
Uh...ok...er...what?


On the positive. Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.

lol, no, it's a shotgun, just grabbed a random image off google.

Shotgun to the face seems like a very good criticism of drug barons right now.

Melissia wrote:lol, no, it's a shotgun, just grabbed a random image off google.

Shotgun to the face seems like a very good criticism of drug barons right now.

Mmm gotcha, although JDAMs might be more appropriate. This is gone beyond ScarFace.

Eh, too expensive. The shotgun is more personal anyway, taht way I can yell "YO CHINGA SU MADRE!" (I ****ed your mother) as I pull the trigger.

The guy you're shooting would probably be confused for the moment he lives.

Nah, I doubt it. I gak on/I gak in/I fethed/a dog fethed/etc your mother is pretty common down there.

Melissia wrote:Eh, too expensive. The shotgun is more personal anyway, taht way I can yell "YO CHINGA SU MADRE!" (I ****ed your mother) as I pull the trigger.

"Run for it amigos, eet ees the lesbian avenger!"

mattyrm wrote: "Run for it amigos, eet ees the lesbian avenger!"

Matty got what I aimed for.

As much as it pains me to say this while a shotgun to the face would be both fun and amusing violence won't solve this problem. It only reinforces the Darwinian nature of narcotics trafficking. Only the most fit survive, and in narcotics trafficking fit=Cunning + ruthless. Gun 1 cartel leader down and there are dozens of underlings willing and able to replace him plus hundreds of Mexicans living in soul crushing poverty willing to become an underling.

schadenfreude wrote:As much as it pains me to say this while a shotgun to the face would be both fun and amusing violence won't solve this problem. It only reinforces the Darwinian nature of narcotics trafficking. Only the most fit survive, and in narcotics trafficking fit=Cunning + ruthless. Gun 1 cartel leader down and there are dozens of underlings willing and able to replace him plus hundreds of Mexicans living in soul crushing poverty willing to become an underling.

Yeah, it'd have to coincide with other actions. But shotgun to the face shouldn't be neglected as a punishment option for these not-humans.

Melissia wrote:Yeah, it'd have to coincide with other actions. But shotgun to the face shouldn't be neglected as a punishment option for these not-humans.

Purge the xenos!

Alternatively, if you want someone to behave like a respectable human being, treating them like one helps. Not that I think that'll actually work for a mid-age drug trafficer. That's the kind of thing that you need to teach in childhood

Melissia wrote:Eh, too expensive. The shotgun is more personal anyway, taht way I can yell "YO CHINGA SU MADRE!" (I ****ed your mother) as I pull the trigger.

You would be dead before you were within miles of a higher up. This is a civil war occurring down there.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Eh, too expensive. The shotgun is more personal anyway, taht way I can yell "YO CHINGA SU MADRE!" (I ****ed your mother) as I pull the trigger.

You would be dead before you were within miles of a higher up. This is a civil war occurring down there.

I know it is. But in my dreams, there are brainless (in a literal, brains blown out of skulls) drug barons. Allow me my dreams.

MrDwhitey wrote:The guy you're shooting would probably be confused for the moment he lives.

The quickest way to piss of a Latino is to say you did anything to his female relatives.

Relapse wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:The guy you're shooting would probably be confused for the moment he lives.

The quickest way to piss of a Latino is to say you did anything to his female relatives.

Yes, we know, but that's usually when a man says it, right? Having a woman come up to you and scream "I fethed your mother!" would probably cause some confusion at least. And then maybe requests.

Assuming you lived through the shotgun-to-the-face, anyway.

Amaya wrote:No, it's obviously always a white person's fault. White people are just the scum of the Earth and they run everything for everyone else. We're just complete jerks.

@Scipio, Frank Serpico.

When I said white I just meant ,,citizen of a first world country that uses drugs and is leiving a good life compared to the rest of the world". White was just shorter and I thought everybody would get it.

Did you just compared a fight of a NY Cop against corruption with the fight of a Mexican Cop in a fight against the cartels?

People are not going to stop doing drugs. It has become many people's way of coping with...well...everything. The effort to educate people against drugs doesn't work, because most people willing to do drugs don't give a feth about the negative effects of said drugs. By the time they learn of the atrocities committed by drug cartels and gang members, they're already knee-deep in their addictions.

Gangs are not going to stop committing atrocities to stay on top of the drug game (in fact, it's going to keep getting worse). This particular market can only be controlled by the most ruthless, sociopathic group of people. If you show any sign of weakness whatsoever, you lose your power and your life in an instant. That's just the way the drug trade works, and it gets exponentially worse as new groups try to seize power.

The only solution is the legalization and control of these illicit substances. Nothing else will stem this flow of violence. Asking all drug addicts to give up their vice is almost hilariously desperate.

Or just seal the border. I guarantee one dirty bomb or heaven forbid a real nuke makes it across and makes NY radioactive we'll suddenly be able to completely control the border.

Frazzled wrote:Or just seal the border.

You mean seal all borders?

Yeah, that's a great solution. Make us more inbred, ignorant and xenophobic than we already are.

I dunno, Japan has pretty tight borders (being an island with rather strict immigration and resident alien laws) and they're not particularly inbred or ignorant. Now, Xenophobic... that's a different matter.

Granted, they're still not sealed borders.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Yeah, that's a great solution. Make us more inbred, ignorant and xenophobic than we already are.

I agree. Next we must develop Titans and Adeptus Astartes to fight for us and with that we shall begin to:



Yes. Yes!

Realistically speaking though the US Border is not likely to be 'sealed.' Its too large and there are too many ways to get into the United States without the government knowing. Illegal immigration is something we have to live with until practical solutions become available. I don't follow the debate closely myself, but I haven't seen one.

The best is Colbert's plan to build a 3000 mile porch and man it with the elderly

Frazzled wrote:Or just seal the border. I guarantee one dirty bomb or heaven forbid a real nuke makes it across and makes NY radioactive we'll suddenly be able to completely control the border.

No, even at the height of terrorist panic, no-one was pretending you could completely seal the US. If nothing else, just go look at images of shipping container graveyards for some idea of the scale of stuff that gets brought into the US every year - you can't check every crate completely. Nor can you completely and utterly seal the border to Mexico.

Instead you're going to have to get smart about your answers to keeping youselves safe, and accept that whatever you do try won't be perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:@Scipio, Frank Serpico.

I don't think you really understand the scale of the problem.


Meanwhile, you didn't comment on my reply to you about why drug violence is the product of the nature of the market, illustrated with the difference between beer sellers in legal and illegal markets.

No, even at the height of terrorist panic, no-one was pretending you could completely seal the US.

Who were you talking to late September 2001? I met a whole lot of people with their head so far up their-- I mean in the sand that this was the most reasonable of their assertions at that point in time.

Meanwhile, you didn't comment on my reply to you about why drug violence is the product of the nature of the market, illustrated with the difference between beer sellers in legal and illegal markets.

I fully agree with your point here, though. I'd say legalizing some of the currently illicit drugs (Namely, MJ.) would cause some new issues...but I think it would solve bigger ones in the process.

Chrysaor686 wrote:People are not going to stop doing drugs. It has become many people's way of coping with...well...everything. The effort to educate people against drugs doesn't work, because most people willing to do drugs don't give a feth about the negative effects of said drugs. By the time they learn of the atrocities committed by drug cartels and gang members, they're already knee-deep in their addictions.

Gangs are not going to stop committing atrocities to stay on top of the drug game (in fact, it's going to keep getting worse). This particular market can only be controlled by the most ruthless, sociopathic group of people. If you show any sign of weakness whatsoever, you lose your power and your life in an instant. That's just the way the drug trade works, and it gets exponentially worse as new groups try to seize power.

The only solution is the legalization and control of these illicit substances. Nothing else will stem this flow of violence. Asking all drug addicts to give up their vice is almost hilariously desperate.

You've got a lot right, but I have to disagree on a couple of points. I think education would work if done correctly, perhaps a field trip to a crack house of the type I used to live in. People could get up close and personal with the inhabitants and revel in the heady aroma of dried urine and puke as they step over comatose bodies in the halls. It's always a good time when a withered crack whore of any age tries turning tricks for the cost of a vial. After the introductions are over, a suptuous banquet of stale chips and flat beer await, along with the floor show of someone going flying rodent gak because they couldn't raise the cash to get any drugs, followed by the nightly beat down of somebodies old man or lady.
Anybody who does drugs after a few visits like that is already too stupid to live.
As far as making drugs legal, I've seen enough to convince me that is not a good option. As a father, the thought of some of the drugs I've seen in use and their effect on people scare the Hell out of me.

SOFDC wrote:Who were you talking to late September 2001? I met a whole lot of people with their head so far up their-- I mean in the sand that this was the most reasonable of their assertions at that point in time.

I thought about putting 'sensibly' or 'people in authority' or something in there to weed out the crazies that wanted to put a wall up around the US, but nothing seemed to really work. I figure people would know what I meant.

I fully agree with your point here, though. I'd say legalizing some of the currently illicit drugs (Namely, MJ.) would cause some new issues...but I think it would solve bigger ones in the process.

Exactly what should and shouldn't get legalised is a pretty tough issue. Legalisation of the more hardcore drugs has absolutely not worked in Amsterdam.

Something else that could be done is show movies of what tthe cartels do to people in Latin American countries. Too many shows glorify drug lords and make the life style seem glamorous and almost chivalrous.
Show kids what these animals are really like. Show them footage of mass graves of people who refused to work for the cartels as they are being dug up. Show them the remains of families who had members that crossed the drug lords in some minor way.
Let the kids know that these are the people growing powerful from the money they buy drugs with. Let them know that the cartels are working inside the U.S. And there are areas of wildernous both near and far from towns and cities they could be killed for going into because it's somebodies marijauna field.
Don't sugarcoat any of it but be as brutaly graphic as possible.

Relapse wrote:Something else that could be done is show movies of what tthe cartels do to people in Latin American countries. Too many shows glorify drug lords and make the life style seem glamorous and almost chivalrous.
Show kids what these animals are really like. Show them footage of mass graves of people who refused to work for the cartels as they are being dug up. Show them the remains of families who had members that crossed the drug lords in some minor way.
Let the kids know that these are the people growing powerful from the money they buy drugs with. Let them know that the cartels are working inside the U.S. And there are areas of wildernous both near and far from towns and cities they could be killed for going into because it's somebodies marijauna field.
Don't sugarcoat any of it but be as brutaly graphic as possible.

They tried that with lung cancer and STD's. I'm pretty sure the kids are still smoking and ing.

If it turns away even a few from drugs and keeps a couple less people from being murdered , it's worth the effort.

Relapse wrote:If it turns away even a few from drugs and keeps a couple less people from being murdered , it's worth the effort.

"No matter how inefficient, if it yields results, pursue it!"

Can't really agree with that line of reasoning. I think they can just give facts without the brainwashing/propaganda and more people would eventually respond. It's too easy to dismiss someone that seems to be trying too hard.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Or just seal the border.

You mean seal all borders?

Yeah, that's a great solution. Make us more inbred, ignorant and xenophobic than we already are.

Beats getting gutted and hung from a bridge.

Legal immigration and travel wouldn't be restricted. We'd just put in place the same protections every other functioning country has.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:Yeah, that's a great solution. Make us more inbred, ignorant and xenophobic than we already are.

I agree. Next we must develop Titans and Adeptus Astartes to fight for us and with that we shall begin to:



Yes. Yes!

Realistically speaking though the US Border is not likely to be 'sealed.' Its too large and there are too many ways to get into the United States without the government knowing. Illegal immigration is something we have to live with until practical solutions become available. I don't follow the debate closely myself, but I haven't seen one.

The best is Colbert's plan to build a 3000 mile porch and man it with the elderly

Horse gak. Bring the army back from defending other countries and have them defend our country, which is their sole purpose. Again, when the first A Bomb that is smuggled over the border goes off, we'll suddenly have the capacity to do just that.

Think its crazy? The cartels aren't just smuggling in Mexican immigrants any more, but peeople from all across Africa. There are reports a few have made alliances with terrorist groups, including Hezzbullah.

Unless you are addicted because you used it to escape the pain of sexual / physical abuse or due to mental problems then it's self inflicted as far as I'm concerned. Nobody nowadays is ignorant of what happens when you take drugs, so you have nobody to blame but yourself when your life becomes ruined by it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Relapse wrote:If it turns away even a few from drugs and keeps a couple less people from being murdered , it's worth the effort.

"No matter how inefficient, if it yields results, pursue it!"

Can't really agree with that line of reasoning. I think they can just give facts without the brainwashing/propaganda and more people would eventually respond. It's too easy to dismiss someone that seems to be trying too hard.

How is it propaganda to let kids know that people are being murdered by the thousands so they can buy drugs? That's just straight up fact.

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:@Scipio, Frank Serpico.

I don't think you really understand the scale of the problem.

What a good argument, so I just reply: I don't think you really understand the scale of the problem.

Frazzled wrote:Horse gak. Bring the army back from defending other countries and have them defend our country, which is their sole purpose. Again, when the first A Bomb that is smuggled over the border goes off, we'll suddenly have the capacity to do just that.

Think its crazy? The cartels aren't just smuggling in Mexican immigrants any more, but peeople from all across Africa. There are reports a few have made alliances with terrorist groups, including Hezzbullah.

The military is not trained or equipped for the task of border patrol. To do so would cripple the military's actual military capability by turning them into a police force. It's not crazy it's reality. The US Military has better things to do than waste its time on border patrol. That's a job for other agencies, but nothing we can do will make them able to ensure absolute border security.

People get smuggled across the boarder in numerous ways. Underground tunnels, makeshift boats and submarines, shipping containers. Heck, some travel here legally and just never leave. They ride in on trucks through border check points. Just because people crossing the US-Mexico border over long treks of desert gets all the media attention, doesn't mean that's the only means. That alone is a 2000 mile stretch of land. It would cost more to secure it than keeping illegals out would save (assuming its not worth more money to let them stay which it arguably is). The United States is a huge country with open borders on all sides and miles upon miles of ocean. The money and manpower resources do not exist to secure it. Even if we locked down the US-Mexico border, illegals will find another way in and then we'd have to lock down that. It's not going happen.

The military is not trained or equipped for the task of border patrol.
***Then train them.

To do so would cripple the military's actual military capability by turning them into a police force.
***Horse gak. Their primary job is protecting the citizenry and US territory. THAT’S reality.
The US Military has better things to do than waste its time on border patrol.
***When the nuke goes off that suddenly won’t be the case.

That's a job for other agencies, but nothing we can do will make them able to ensure absolute border security.
***No its the job of the military to protect us at this point. This isn’t a police action. This is a civil war that’s spilling into the US. If you want to prevent the US from turning into a police state as this spread you put the military on the border now.

People get smuggled across the boarder in numerous ways. Underground tunnels,
***Blow them up.
makeshift boats and submarines
***Sink them. I’ve heard we have an ocean going military force that’s pretty good at that. shipping containers.
***Inspect them
Heck, some travel here legally and just never leave.
***Find them. Put them in jail until they die.

They ride in on trucks through border check points.
***Seal the border. Inspect every truck.

The money and manpower resources do not exist to secure it.
***Again, bs.
Even if we locked down the US-Mexico border, illegals will find another way in and then we'd have to lock down that. It's not going happen.
***Where there’s a will there will be. Again this is a moot point when the first smuggled nuke goes off here.

Frazzled wrote:To do so would cripple the military's actual military capability by turning them into a police force.
***Horse gak. Their primary job is protecting the citizenry and US territory. THAT’S reality.

Someone has no knowledge of the military. The skills, equipment and techniques for killing the enemy and destroying their ability to fight you do not transfer well to policing. You can find examples in Iraq at how poorly the US Military is at policing. Falluja is an example if you know the events that have transpired there.

Reality is that defending the nation is a silly word game. What it takes to engage opponents in warfare is not the same thing that it takes to ensure the boarders are closed to Jose and his family of twelve.

The US Military has better things to do than waste its time on border patrol.
***When the nuke goes off that suddenly won’t be the case.

A nuke getting through the US mexico border is also a silly fear. How exactly will they move it and get the weapon into the US to a major population center? That's something more likely to occur at a major port not along the US-Mexico border line.

And the military won't do anything about it. You don't use a hammer to thread a needle. Stopping terrorist plots is the job of the CIA, NSA, and other specialized bodies, not the USMC or the USAF.

That's a job for other agencies, but nothing we can do will make them able to ensure absolute border security.
***No its the job of the military to protect us at this point. This isn’t a police action. This is a civil war that’s spilling into the US. If you want to prevent the US from turning into a police state as this spread you put the military on the border now.

Wait, expanding the US military into a policing force that will go up and down the borders asking if everyone is where they're supposed to be isn't closer to a police state? This is a police action. Drug cartels are not a political body at war for control of the Mexican state. They're drug dealers who kills Mexican state officials when said officials get in their way. That's not a civil war. It is a police action.

Characterizing what is happening in Mexico as a civil war is ridiculous. Was the US engaged in a civil war with Al Capone?

People get smuggled across the boarder in numerous ways. Underground tunnels,
***Blow them up.

They'll dig new ones.

makeshift boats and submarines
***Sink them. I’ve heard we have an ocean going military force that’s pretty good at that.

The Coast Guard has actually failed quite miserably at achieving these goals.

shipping containers.
***Inspect them

Let me know how that works out:



That's the bow of one boat. Thousands come into the US in a month. The money to do what you're asking doesn't exist. The manpower doesn't exist. The impact to the economy would be disastrous.

Here's an example of a yard of containers:

Heck, some travel here legally and just never leave.
***Find them. Put them in jail until they die.

We've already seen how well that works out. It's pretty easy hiding in a country of over 300,000,000 people.

They ride in on trucks through border check points.
***Seal the border. Inspect every truck.

More doable than other options but there are other ways in.

The money and manpower resources do not exist to secure it.
***Again, bs.

No it's not. You're free to pretend it is I suppose. It's nice to play pretend.

Even if we locked down the US-Mexico border, illegals will find another way in and then we'd have to lock down that. It's not going happen.
***Where there’s a will there will be. Again this is a moot point when the first smuggled nuke goes off here.

The fact of the matter is Frazz that, if we assume that the money and manpower exist to secure the US borders, we would in fact be creating a police state with huge regulatory delays that would wreck the economy, all so we can keep out people that are mostly a harmless source of cheap labor. Right now a terrorist attack of nuclear proportions through the US-Mexico border is a silly paranoia. They'd have to transport the weapon into the US and then walk thousands of miles to a good target. It would be much much easier to load it on a shipping container and send it to New York, Seattle, Miami, or LA. That's something that could potentially be solved with technology. I don't know how much we currently inspect shipping containers. If we scan over them for radiation or what. Something like a nuke is a solvable problem that likely wouldn't take too much manpower, but that won't keep illegals out.

They're drug dealers who kills Mexican state officials when said officials get in their way.

As an aside, this should be corrected to this:

They're drug dealers who kill anyone that gets in their way.

Melissia wrote:They're drug dealers who kill anyone that gets in their way.

But of course. Why do you think I step aside and curtsey when they walk by

Melissia wrote:

They're drug dealers who kills Mexican state officials when said officials get in their way.

As an aside, this should be corrected to this:

There are drug dealers who kill anyone that gets in their way.

FIFY.

...at least that's what he appeared to have meant. Could have been "they are", but that still doesn't correct the noun-verb issue in the original quote.

I was only correcting that, as the original post noted, they're NOT just killing officials.

They're even killing people who TWEET about it trying to warn others to avoid areas where gang wars are going on.

Melissia wrote:I was only correcting that, as the original post noted, they're NOT just killing officials.

They're even killing people who TWEET about it trying to warn others to avoid areas where gang wars are going on.

Yes...well they're donkey caves then aren't they.

It just bugged me to see the mistake repeated.

I like your shotgun approach to solving the problem.

biccat wrote:I like your shotgun approach to solving the problem.

I find shot guns solve a number of problems. Maybe if we lined the borders with shot guns attached to trip wires!

And then fire them off all at once.

Relapse wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Relapse wrote:If it turns away even a few from drugs and keeps a couple less people from being murdered , it's worth the effort.

"No matter how inefficient, if it yields results, pursue it!"

Can't really agree with that line of reasoning. I think they can just give facts without the brainwashing/propaganda and more people would eventually respond. It's too easy to dismiss someone that seems to be trying too hard.

How is it propaganda to let kids know that people are being murdered by the thousands so they can buy drugs? That's just straight up fact.

Letting them know isn't bad, but showing really gory scenes and picking the worst possible things becomes propaganda. It's the difference between PETA using some bonkers way to tell people that animals are dying and just putting the information out there. The latter is extremely preferable IMO.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: PETA using some bonkers way to tell people that animals are dying

You mean like the new porn site they're planning?

Frazzled wrote:Horse gak. Bring the army back from defending other countries and have them defend our country, which is their sole purpose. Again, when the first A Bomb that is smuggled over the border goes off, we'll suddenly have the capacity to do just that.

At it's core, your argument here really is basically just lazy, "I like the sound of my solution, and if people tell me the scale of goods and the size of the border is so vast that we can't catch everyone that enters the country, then I'll just continue to pretend we could if we really wanted to."

You can keep believing that they could, I expect you will continue believing that the US can just choose to solve the issue "if we really wanted to". But it does nothing to help in actually solving the problem, and the sooner you realise the impossibility of your suggestion and realise the solution has to come from something else, the sooner you start being useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dark Scipio wrote:What a good argument, so I just reply: I don't think you really understand the scale of the problem.

I thought you could make the final couple of connections to understand my point. I won't make that mistake again.

The scale of corruption in the New York police is not particularly comparable to Mexico today. Serpico was a very brave man, but there are, in fact, a whole lot of brave men in Mexico, and they're routinely murdered, often after being tortured, for trying to bring criminals to justice.

Serpico testified before a commission, and this was an important part of breaking down corruption in New York policing, because behind Serpico there was an entire state apparatus which was not corrupted, which had vastly more resources than the corrupt police and the gangs they worked with. This is not the case in Mexico.

A few brave men will not fix Mexico. There is a fundamental issue of economics underlying the whole problem, and you can't wish that away by thinking certain Mexicans just need to be brave and noble people like that guy in that movie you saw.

Frazzled wrote:
When the nuke goes off that suddenly won’t be the case.

How many American soldiers are deployed in New York to protect New York? More importantly, what was the reaction to the most destructive attack on a civilian target in modern American history? The deployment of troops abroad, or the deployment of troops at home?

Frazzled wrote:
No its the job of the military to protect us at this point. This isn’t a police action. This is a civil war that’s spilling into the US.

No, no it isn't.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, bs.

You're so eloquent, I might just die.

Frazzled wrote:
Where there’s a will there will be.

And yet the rockets are still landing in Israel.

Frazzled wrote:
Again this is a moot point when the first smuggled nuke goes off here.

No, probably not. As has been demonstrated by the 9/11 attacks, vindictiveness is an important thing to consider.

dogma wrote:And yet the rockets are still landing in Israel.

Not only that, but goods continue to get moved across the much smaller borders of Palestine despite the quarantine. They smuggle livestock through tunnels.

This idea that a state could simply decide to control everything that comes into a country is complete nonsense.

I now predict Fraz will make a snide comment on the subject, drop out of the thread, then repeat the same thing in another thread three months from now.

sebster wrote:
This idea that a state could simply decide to control everything that comes into a country is complete nonsense.

Well, not complete, so long as we accept that "everything" just means "the vast majority of things". I mean, North Korea has been pretty successful in that regard.

Of course, the problem is that North Korea has been successful because it has little to no market, is a state of no interest to most terrorist groups, and is basically the definition of a police state.

States can control nearly whatever they like (assuming the military is on board), but the consequences are quite severe.

Relapse wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Relapse wrote:I work on a daily basis and am friends with a fairly large number of people from Mexico and countries in Central and South America. When I talk to them about the drug wars in their countries, almost to a man they blame them in large part on the people that buy the drugs. A few I know came here to get their families away from the violence.
Discussion, opinions?

Do these people know anything about the drug users that they're blaming? Do they know about the people hopelessly addicted to something they did once or twice for fun that now have no control over their lives? Do they know about women selling their bodies to pay for their addiction? Do they know about the broken homes, the lost children, the ODs, the suicides, and all the other afflictions suffered by drug users and their F&F?

No, they probably don't. It's really easy to blame someone you know nothing about for crap.

What they see from their end are family members being murdered, kidnapped, or caught up in some other way in the craziness going on in the their country. They are quite expert on the subject of pain and loss, trust me. They see people here buying drugs and shake their heads knowing the money goes to support the cartels.

Understand this... if it wasn't "Drug Cartels" these people would find something else to do... some other way to kill and extort and run amok, It would be "Prescription Drug Cartels" or "Tortilla Cartels" or "Tequila Cartels."

These are bad guys. They don't need a "reason" to be bad... they do it for the money, and they would find something else if the black market for Drug disappeared tomorrow.

dogma wrote:Well, not complete, so long as we accept that "everything" just means "the vast majority of things". I mean, North Korea has been pretty successful in that regard.

Of course, the problem is that North Korea has been successful because it has little to no market, is a state of no interest to most terrorist groups, and is basically the definition of a police state.

States can control nearly whatever they like (assuming the military is on board), but the consequences are quite severe.

There remains a very healthy black market in North Korea. The biggest restriction on it isn't getting items in, it's the people there having very little to pay for them.

We can make it a lot more inconvenient to It's certainly within our power to completely screw up international trade by closing down borders, but that's about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Connor McKane wrote:Understand this... if it wasn't "Drug Cartels" these people would find something else to do... some other way to kill and extort and run amok, It would be "Prescription Drug Cartels" or "Tortilla Cartels" or "Tequila Cartels."

These are bad guys. They don't need a "reason" to be bad... they do it for the money, and they would find something else if the black market for Drug disappeared tomorrow.

Problematically, that's nonsense.

There have always been bad people. There will always be bad people. How much power those people can attract is a product of the economic systems of the day. Right now there's loads of money to be made in Mexico committing violence on behalf of drug cartels. Stop that economic situation, and the violence will dry up.

It is incredible that I had to type that. It really is. We should be talking about how you actually dry up demand, because that's a big and really complicated question. Instead we have to debate this nonsense.

Connor McKane wrote:...Tortilla Cartels" or "Tequila Cartels."

These are bad guys. They don't need a "reason" to be bad... they do it for the money, and they would find something else if the black market for Drug disappeared tomorrow.

Say we were to legalize marijuana and cocaine (in its various forms) what would the cartels replace it with?

Unlicensed tortillas?



That's a joke, of course, but the actual point is that narrowing any revenue stream for an economy based on narcotics makes enforcement easier.

There's also the issue that your argument suggests that there is no way to contend with anything illicit, which is an adorably basic form of nihilism.

sebster wrote:
There remains a very healthy black market in North Korea. The biggest restriction on it isn't getting items in, it's the people there having very little to pay for them.

We can make it a lot more inconvenient to It's certainly within our power to completely screw up international trade by closing down borders, but that's about it.

You're right, and I should have attached my nominal caveats.

It is funny though, human industry apparently overcomes all, until the American military gets involved; then Americans win always and forever.

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dark Scipio wrote:What a good argument, so I just reply: I don't think you really understand the scale of the problem.

I thought you could make the final couple of connections to understand my point. I won't make that mistake again.

The scale of corruption in the New York police is not particularly comparable to Mexico today. Serpico was a very brave man, but there are, in fact, a whole lot of brave men in Mexico, and they're routinely murdered, often after being tortured, for trying to bring criminals to justice.

Serpico testified before a commission, and this was an important part of breaking down corruption in New York policing, because behind Serpico there was an entire state apparatus which was not corrupted, which had vastly more resources than the corrupt police and the gangs they worked with. This is not the case in Mexico.

A few brave men will not fix Mexico. There is a fundamental issue of economics underlying the whole problem, and you can't wish that away by thinking certain Mexicans just need to be brave and noble people like that guy in that movie you saw.

Which was never what I said. I said, that brave man can do anything to Mexiko because they just. Die. You replied (eloquent as ever) just with that name.


Great point, you are to lazy to type and expect others to encrypt how you could have misunderstand them

Dark Scipio wrote:
Great point, you are to lazy to type and expect others to encrypt how you could have misunderstand them

Que?

dogma wrote:You're right, and I should have attached my nominal caveats.

It is funny though, human industry apparently overcomes all, until the American military gets involved; then Americans win always and forever.

The US army cerainly does win. And as soon as you all figure out who is tax bracket is going to pay for it, we'll know who loses forever


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dark Scipio wrote:Which was never what I said. I said, that brave man can do anything to Mexiko because they just. Die. You replied (eloquent as ever) just with that name.

What possible meaning could 'Serpico' have, other than to suggest that honest men could make a difference?

Were you suggesting the answer is replace the drugs industry with the production of gritty cop stories starring Al Pacino?

sebster wrote:
The US army cerainly does win. And as soon as you all figure out who is tax bracket is going to pay for it, we'll know who loses forever

The same people who demanded it go to war.

Life is, occasionally, just.