221
Post by: Frazzled
About damn time. Easier to go directly to the article, but copying too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300381/Thousands-armed-vigilantes-takeover-Mexican-town-arrest-police-shoot-tourists-commander-killed-dumped-street.html
Thousands of armed vigilantes takeover Mexican town, arrest police and shoot at tourists after 'commander' is killed and dumped in the street'Community police' arrest former director of security in Tierra Colorado
They allege he took part in killing of their leader, 28, for criminal cartel
State prosecutors agree to investigate official's links to organised crime
Vigilantes have been stopping traffic at checkpoints and searching homes
Tourist injured after vigilantes opened fire because he failed to stop his car
Takeover comes amid growing 'self defence' movement against cartels
By Alex Gore
PUBLISHED: 09:16 GMT, 28 March 2013 | UPDATED: 14:42 GMT, 28 March 2013
Comments (27) Share
..Thousands of armed vigilantes have taken over a town in Mexico and arrested police officers after their 'commander' was killed and dumped in the street.
The self described 'community police' and arrested 12 officers and the town's former director of public security, who they accuse of taking part in the killing of Guadalupe Quinones Carbajal, 28, on behalf of a local organised crime group.
The 1,500-strong force has also set up improvised checkpoints on the major road running through Tierra Colorado, which connects the capital Mexico City to Acapulco, a coastal city popular with tourists less than 40 miles away.
Takeover: A group of around 1,500 armed vigilantes have seized control of Tierra Colorado in Mexico this week
Checkpoints: The 'community police' have been stopping traffic on a main road to the capital Mexico City
A tourist heading to the beach with relatives for the Easter weekend was injured on Tuesday after the vigilantes opened fire on his car because he refused to stop at a roadblock.
The takeover comes amid a growing movement of 'self defence' groups in the region, which claim to be fighting against drug cartels.
More...No sitting on the fence! McCain and three other senators get practical introduction to border control when a woman fleeing Mexico climbs 18ft fence in front of them
Woman teacher, 41, is killed in drive by shooting outside girls' school in ultra-conservative part of Pakistan
Unmasked: The 'English gent' behind the UK's biggest ever drugs racket worth £300MILLION who splashed his cash on fast cars, mansions and a race horse
The Syrian boy soldier with a thousand-yard stare: The sad image of child aged SEVEN
The town is home to around 20,000 people and at least 2,000 civilians are thought to have fled.
The Tierra Colorado vigilantes have also been searching people's homes and are reported to have seized drugs from some properties.
Growing movement: The group is one of many 'self-defence' forces which claim to be fighting organised crime
Major route: Tierra Colorada is in the southern state of Guerrero on the way from Mexico City to Acapulco
The arrested former security official and police officers have been handed over to state prosecutors, who agreed to investigate their alleged links to organised crime.
Many of the vigilantes are carrying high-powered assault rifles, which may have been seized from the former security director's car.
The group's 'commander' Carbajal's body had been found dumped in the street in a nearby town on Monday.
The force's spokesman, Bruno Placido Valerio, said: 'We have besieged the municipality, because here criminals operate with impunity in broad daylight, in view of municipal authorities.
Holiday destination: Tierra Colorado is on a major road to Acapulco, a city popular with tourists 35 miles away
'Self-defence': Armed residents take part in the March for Justice in Ayutla de los Libres earlier this month
'We have detained the director of public security because he is involved with criminals and he knows who killed our commander.'
One of those arrested by the group was Juan R. Escudero,police chief of the municipality.
Self-appointed protection: Hundreds of members of a 'community police force' march through Ayutla de los Libres this month
The vigilantes are part of regional umbrella group Union of Peoples and Organizations of Guerrero State.
The Union is made up of residents in Tierra Colorado, as well as neighbouring towns such as Ayutla de los Libres, Teconoapa and San Marcos.
The growing vigilante movement in southern and western Mexico has seen masked groups manning checkpoints and searching vehicles for weapons.
They have also been searching for those named on a hand-written list of people suspected of crimes including theft and extortion.
In February, a pair of tourists from Mexico City were wounded on their way to the beach when they were shot at after refusing to stop at one of the roadblocks.
The vigilantes claim they are fighting violence, kidnap and extortion by drug cartels - but there are fears that the groups are violating human rights of those they detain and cooperating with criminals.
The state itself is home to some of the poorest rural communities in the country and last year had Mexico's highest murder rate -with 90 per cent of crimes reported as going unsolved or not even investigated.
It has been the scene of bloody fighting between rival drugs gangs bidding for control of the lucrative smuggling routes around the Pacific coast.
More than 70,000 are estimated to have died in drug-related violence across Mexico in the past six years.
Tourism remains an important part of the state's economy, with the coastal city's of Acapulco, Taxco and Zihuatanejo dubbed the 'Triangle of Sun'.
In January, hundreds of armed vigilantes made a series of arrests and imposed curfews in Ayutla de los Libres and Teconoap.
They also manned checkpoints and claimed they had arrested at least 30 suspected criminals.
One of the masked vigilantes said: 'They kill, extort, rape. You do know if they are drugs dealers, thugs, who want to grab everything.
'We want to return peace and tranquility to the entire population. Only the people can restore order.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300381/Thousands-armed-vigilantes-takeover-Mexican-town-arrest-police-shoot-tourists-commander-killed-dumped-street.html#ixzz2OwFQseg2
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
It's unfortunate that it came to this, but something had to be done. Now if they could build some water treatment plants, perhaps Mexico would be a really cool place to live, and not just a collection of tourist traps surrounded by squalor.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
I see Military Junta assuming power in the tea leaves...
4402
Post by: CptJake
I can't help but wonder if a rival cartel funds this group.
If not, good for them. Reminds me of how Los Pepes made life for Mr. Escobar interesting further south.
Jake
121
Post by: Relapse
Drug users funding cartels with their money would have better effect if they cared about the people getting killed in Mexico and quite buying the drugs.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Relapse wrote:Drug users funding cartels with their money would have better effect if they cared about the people getting killed in Mexico and quite buying the drugs.
Or the the farcial war on drugs was wound down and most drugs were legalised meaning that the illegal market would vanish nearly over night. That would actually work, certainly far better than telling people not to take drugs.
As for these militias I can't see it ending well.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Palindrome wrote:Relapse wrote:Drug users funding cartels with their money would have better effect if they cared about the people getting killed in Mexico and quite buying the drugs.
Or the the farcial war on drugs was wound down and most drugs were legalised meaning that the illegal market would vanish nearly over night. That would actually work, certainly far better than telling people not to take drugs.
As for these militias I can't see it ending well.
What the hell. It's only brown people getting killed by the tens of thousands so the parties can happen. Users certainly don't care.
As for the militias, I have to agree with you.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Relapse wrote:
What the hell. It's only brown people getting killed by the tens of thousands so the parties can happen. Users certainly don't care.
These people are getting killed because the illegal drugs trade is so lucrative, it is ALL about money. Users care just as much as the legislators do, quite possibly more.
23
Post by: djones520
Palindrome wrote:Relapse wrote:Drug users funding cartels with their money would have better effect if they cared about the people getting killed in Mexico and quite buying the drugs.
Or the the farcial war on drugs was wound down and most drugs were legalised meaning that the illegal market would vanish nearly over night. That would actually work, certainly far better than telling people not to take drugs.
Right... blame the people who are upholding the law. Not the ones who are breaking the law, for pure "recreation", and as a result getting tens of thousands killed.  Automatically Appended Next Post: Palindrome wrote:Relapse wrote:
What the hell. It's only brown people getting killed by the tens of thousands so the parties can happen. Users certainly don't care.
These people are getting killed because the illegal drugs trade is so lucrative, it is ALL about money. Users care just as much as the legislators do, quite possibly more.
Then stop taking the drugs. Doesn't mean you have to stop efforts to get it legalized, but as long as their funneling money to the cartels the blood is still on the hands of the users. No one else. Users are the ones making the decision to give them money. No one else is.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
 djones520 wrote:
Right... blame the people who are upholding the law. Not the ones who are breaking the law, for pure "recreation", and as a result getting tens of thousands killed.
Please engage your brain. The legislative approach has been tried for decades and it is an abject failure; it is also the root casue for all the tens of thousands of deaths that you so helpfully blame on law breakers. Prohibition never works.
23
Post by: djones520
My brains is perfectly engaged. It's a simple thought process.
Recreational drugs are just that. Recreational. There is no need for their usage (initially, of course many of them get their claws into you and it becomes near impossible to shake them). So because there is no need for their usage, then there is no need for you to buy them.
So, no matter what the law says, you buying them is a decision YOU alone are making. That decision leads to consequences. So man up to those consequences.
Now, would legalizing drugs take the power out of the hand of the cartels? Probably. But more importantly, not taking the drugs that are in no way necessary, would never put the money into the hands of the cartels in the first place.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
The military doesn't have enough control ability. The cartels are holding them in stand up fights in the streets of Mexico.
121
Post by: Relapse
Palindrome wrote:Relapse wrote:
What the hell. It's only brown people getting killed by the tens of thousands so the parties can happen. Users certainly don't care.
These people are getting killed because the illegal drugs trade is so lucrative, it is ALL about money. Users care just as much as the legislators do, quite possibly more.
Tell that to the Mexicans I work with that have had families put in jeapordy or had to leave a country they love because of drug users giving cartels money enough to gain the power that destabilized Mexico and turned it into a hell hole. They'll answer you with nothing but contempt for your attitude since They say legalization will put the people who terrorized them and killed members of their families even more in control.
They also won't be fooled by drug users saying they want legalization in order to stop the killing since if that was the concern, they would have stopped using drugs the minute they knew what they were contributing their money to for the sake of recreation.
One Mexican put it to me like this, summing up the thoughts of a lot of the Mexicans, Central and South Americans I work with this way, "Those( drug using) fethers don't give a damn about us Mexicans. They just say feth those peons and have them pick the fruit."
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Am I the only person who found this funny? 
djones520 wrote:So, no matter what the law says, you buying them is a decision YOU alone are making. That decision leads to consequences. So man up to those consequences.
Now, would legalizing drugs take the power out of the hand of the cartels? Probably. But more importantly, not taking the drugs that are in no way necessary, would never put the money into the hands of the cartels in the first place.
No no, we are completely powerless to make any decision unless the government tells us we can or cannot After all, the government telling people not to take drugs has been followed by everyone, right??
1206
Post by: Easy E
djones520 wrote: But more importantly, not taking the drugs that are in no way necessary, would never put the money into the hands of the cartels in the first place.
Ask Nancy Reagan about it.
.jpg)
I think that Genie maybe out of the bottle already.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Easy E wrote: djones520 wrote: But more importantly, not taking the drugs that are in no way necessary, would never put the money into the hands of the cartels in the first place.
Ask Nancy Reagan about it.
I think that Genie maybe out of the bottle already.
I'm afraid you're right on that, as well as the Mexicans. Drug users don't care one way or the other the human cost or the fact a region is destabalized as long as they get their recreational drugs.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Relapse wrote:
Tell that to the Mexicans I work with that have had families put in jeapordy or had to leave a country they love because of drug users giving cartels money enough to gain the power that destabilized Mexico and turned it into a hell hole. They'll answer you with nothing but contempt for your attitude since They say legalization will put the people who terrorized them and killed members of their families even more in control.
Thats is complete and utter bollocks. Legalisation will mean regulation of supply, manufacture and content; in effect the cartels will lose contol almost entirely. If a legal market exists (that isn't needlessly restrictive) the illegal market will dry up. Its pure supply and demand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:. Drug users don't care one way or the other the human cost or the fact a region is destabalized as long as they get their recreational drugs.
While the politicans (and vast swathes of the electorate) that are prefectly happy to continue the completely ineffectual 'war on drugs' that perpetuates the vast numbers of drug related deaths are obviously completely blameless.
121
Post by: Relapse
Palindrome wrote:Relapse wrote:
Tell that to the Mexicans I work with that have had families put in jeapordy or had to leave a country they love because of drug users giving cartels money enough to gain the power that destabilized Mexico and turned it into a hell hole. They'll answer you with nothing but contempt for your attitude since They say legalization will put the people who terrorized them and killed members of their families even more in control.
Thats is complete and utter bollocks. Legalisation will mean regulation of supply, manufacture and content; in effect the cartels will lose contol almost entirely. If a legal market exists (that isn't needlessly restrictive) the illegal market will dry up. Its pure supply and demand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:. Drug users don't care one way or the other the human cost or the fact a region is destabalized as long as they get their recreational drugs.
While the politicans (and vast swathes of the electorate) that are prefectly happy to continue the completely ineffectual 'war on drugs' that perpetuates the vast numbers of drug related deaths are obviously completely blameless.
You aren't really thinking this through. The cartels and their methods of controling the trade aren't going to go away if the drugs are legalized. All it means is that they will now be able to operate in the open and not have to smuggle.
Vast swathes of the electorate aren't the ones giving the money to the cartels. It's the drug users that couldn't give two feths about the people being killed and and a country destabilized so they can have their recreation.
It certainly isn't bollocks that most Mexicans have nothing but contempt for people talking about decriminilization, all the while buying cartel drugs
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The military doesn't have enough control ability. The cartels are holding them in stand up fights in the streets of Mexico.
Well yeah.
Because dependent upon which of the cartels we're talking about, they very well might have members(or former members) of the military in their employ.
Los Zetas are a great example of this. A huge swathe of Mexican commandos deserted to work for the Gulf Cartels as a paramilitary wing.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
My problem with the legalization is that I don't think it would stop the illegal smuggling of stuff from Mexico. If weed were to be legalized for example, I GUARANTEE the government would heavily tax it, probably require a license or tax stamp to grow it, and actually distributing it would be difficult, at least in the beginning. You'd have to convince businesses to stock a product that was not only illegal a short while ago, but has a large social stigma attached to it, and could very well turn illegal again, causing them to lose lots of their investment. They might view the risk as very high, and then charge very high to mitigate that.
And when they do, the drug cartels will be waiting with far cheaper product, and the vicious cycle will continue.
They don't have to pay taxes, follow regulations, pay their employees minimum wage, etc. If you want proof, check out the moonshine problem the Appalachia area of the USA has. You can get a license to sell "moonshine" (although if it's legally made it's not real moonshine as far as anyone is concerned). However, to make that legal moonshine, you have to pay tons of money for a license, proper facilities and packaging, and pay heavy taxation on top of it. So what did the local moonshiners do? A few stupid ones went legal, only to get undercut heavily by the remaining illegal moonshiners, and the problem never went away. In fact, it's so prolific I can probably get the illegal moonshine EASIER than I could get the legal stuff, and I know I can get it for far cheaper, by the gallon jug (or the canning jars if you're classy)
OT: If these people really are a concerned militia and are doing it for the good of their community, good on them. However, I feel we're not hearing the whole story here, especially since a lot of them apparently have weapons that, to my knowledge, are illegal for civilians to get in Mexico. I'm really worried these people may be getting sponsored by another cartel, either unknowingly, or that it may be a cartel disguising itself as a militia.
Either way, Mexico is in a rough shape right now. I'm surprised there haven't been more towns mobilizing militas like this.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
There is already a perfect comparison; alcohol (and indeed tobacco). That is heavily taxed yet the alcohol black market is relatively small and doesn't involve firefights in the street. If given the choice people will tend to do things the legal way, especially if the product has fully regulated strength and content. Some smuggling will continue, of course it will, but the market will be much reduced and the profit margins will be lower, the cartels as they are now will simply not survive.
Prohibition of alcohol created the same problems that prohibition of drugs did yet once alcohol was legalised those problems effectively went away. I see no reason why the same won't happen with the legalisation of drugs. It is you is who isn't thinking this through, or rather you already have your little stance all picked out and are unwilling to change it.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Relapse wrote:Tell that to the Mexicans I work with that have had families put in jeapordy or had to leave a country they love because of drug users giving cartels money enough to gain the power that destabilized Mexico and turned it into a hell hole. They'll answer you with nothing but contempt for your attitude since They say legalization will put the people who terrorized them and killed members of their families even more in control.
This is a stupid thing you said and you should feel bad about it.
If any given drug suddenly became legal, the cartels would almost instantly lose their power. The cartels would be forced to compete with Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer et al. Dimebag Donnie on the street corner would then have to compete with Wal-Mart and Costco.
The black market would be out of business overnight for the exact same reason you've probably never bought Aspirin or Tylenol from the hippie down the street.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Exactly, because there is no market at all for cigarettes or booze without tax stamps...
And because the mob that was violent during prohibition turned completely legit and non-violent once prohibition stopped.
Oh wait.
Somethings many of you seem to ignore or may not be aware of:
1. These cartels use extreme violence and enjoy a lot of power as a result. They are not going to become peaceful folks just because dope is legal in the US.
2. The narcos are more than dope moving businessmen. There is effectively an insurgency (or multiple insurgencies) going on in Mexico. Cartels have effectively carved chunks of territory out of the Gov't, set up their own quasi-governments and even provide some services to the areas under their contol. It is about more than just money at this point, it is about control and power.
3. Narcotics are not their only revenue stream. They have petroleum and other means of financing their endevours. Cutting the narcotic revenue does hurt them, but they still will bring in more than say the Taliban who seem to be able to fund their insurgency pretty well.
It is more than a drug issue. US pilicy is crap and has been for decades, but the problem goes well beyond demand in the US at this point.
Jake
53595
Post by: Palindrome
 CptJake wrote:Exactly, because there is no market at all for cigarettes or booze without tax stamps
Of course there is but it is relatively small and untaxed alcohol and cigartettes tend to be commercial brands from abroad. There is a lot less money in a black market in direct competition with a white market than a black market alone.
No one is suggesting that the cartels are nice people, or that they will vanish overnight, but their main source of income is the drugs trade and if they are cut off from that they will wither away.
4402
Post by: CptJake
That is wishful thinking. They have plenty of non-drug revenue, and just like the organized crime that ran booze during prohibition did not wither away, neither will these guys. In fact, they are less likely to wither away. I again point to the insurgency like activities and other forms of revenue.
As for untaxed cigarettes being comercial brands from abroad, that may be true in your nation, but in the US there are plenty of black market domestic cigarettes.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934561
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Palindrome wrote:No one is suggesting that the cartels are nice people, or that they will vanish overnight, but their main source of income is the drugs trade and if they are cut off from that they will wither away.
No. They'll just move onto other revenue streams, like so many other criminal organisations before.
4402
Post by: CptJake
A few more things to ponder.
Every year a higher percentage of product is being shipped across the Atlantic to Africa where it then moves to European markets.
You can make a strong case for legalizing pot, it will be very hard to get cocaine legalized in the US and you have almost no chance of getting meth and heroin legalized.
The cartels currently import precurrsor chemicals from China and other places for meth production and have been increasing production annually.
Some interesting reading:
http://www.anser.org/docs/asyst-doc/mexican_cartels.pdf
(I have documents covering revenue diversification on another computer)
Assuming low non-drug revenue:
Assuming a higher non-drug revenue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/09/how-marijuana-legalization-will-affect-mexicos-cartels-in-charts/
The non-drug income alone is more than the Talibs bring in to run their insurgency. The cartels are capable of increasing the non-drug revenue streams, and are in fact very adaptable.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
The U.S just needs to annex Mexico.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
CptJake wrote:Exactly, because there is no market at all for cigarettes or booze without tax stamps...
When was the last time you heard about violence associated with unstamped cigarettes? Let's compare that to the violence associated with, say, methamphetamine.
Go on, I'll wait.
121
Post by: Relapse
 azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:Tell that to the Mexicans I work with that have had families put in jeapordy or had to leave a country they love because of drug users giving cartels money enough to gain the power that destabilized Mexico and turned it into a hell hole. They'll answer you with nothing but contempt for your attitude since They say legalization will put the people who terrorized them and killed members of their families even more in control.
This is a stupid thing you said and you should feel bad about it.
If any given drug suddenly became legal, the cartels would almost instantly lose their power. The cartels would be forced to compete with Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer et al. Dimebag Donnie on the street corner would then have to compete with Wal-Mart and Costco.
The black market would be out of business overnight for the exact same reason you've probably never bought Aspirin or Tylenol from the hippie down the street.
So you're telling me the Mexicans I talk to, who hear daily from family members in Mexico about the latest thing the cartels did, are stupid and don't know a thing about the cartels? This is good to know that someone who lives in Canada can have such intimate knowledge of affairs as compared to those living in the middle of all the trouble.
The cartels already have been given all they need, courtesy, of drug user money, to establish a pretty solid base of power in Mexico and other countries south of there. I don't know what histories you have read that make you think they are just going to give up all of that and dissapear, but you and Pallindrome are really incorrect on this.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Assuming there was a way to do so, what would be the advantage?
121
Post by: Relapse
CptJake wrote:
Assuming there was a way to do so, what would be the advantage?
We're already in the process, but we're not annexing land, just the people.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
The US just needs to treat it as a failed state, realise that its right on their doorstep, and secure their border.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Relapse wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:Tell that to the Mexicans I work with that have had families put in jeapordy or had to leave a country they love because of drug users giving cartels money enough to gain the power that destabilized Mexico and turned it into a hell hole. They'll answer you with nothing but contempt for your attitude since They say legalization will put the people who terrorized them and killed members of their families even more in control.
This is a stupid thing you said and you should feel bad about it.
If any given drug suddenly became legal, the cartels would almost instantly lose their power. The cartels would be forced to compete with Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer et al. Dimebag Donnie on the street corner would then have to compete with Wal-Mart and Costco.
The black market would be out of business overnight for the exact same reason you've probably never bought Aspirin or Tylenol from the hippie down the street.
So you're telling me the Mexicans I talk to, who hear daily from family members in Mexico about the latest thing the cartels did, are stupid and don't know a thing about the cartels?
Can't say for certain, but it sure sounds like it.
Relapse wrote:This is good to know that someone who lives in Canada can have such intimate knowledge of affairs as compared to those living in the middle of all the trouble.
I know, right? It's almost like I have a degree in this sort of thing.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
Relapse wrote: Palindrome wrote:Relapse wrote:
What the hell. It's only brown people getting killed by the tens of thousands so the parties can happen. Users certainly don't care.
These people are getting killed because the illegal drugs trade is so lucrative, it is ALL about money. Users care just as much as the legislators do, quite possibly more.
Tell that to the Mexicans I work with that have had families put in jeapordy or had to leave a country they love because of drug users giving cartels money enough to gain the power that destabilized Mexico and turned it into a hell hole. They'll answer you with nothing but contempt for your attitude since They say legalization will put the people who terrorized them and killed members of their families even more in control.
They also won't be fooled by drug users saying they want legalization in order to stop the killing since if that was the concern, they would have stopped using drugs the minute they knew what they were contributing their money to for the sake of recreation.
One Mexican put it to me like this, summing up the thoughts of a lot of the Mexicans, Central and South Americans I work with this way, "Those( drug using) fethers don't give a damn about us Mexicans. They just say feth those peons and have them pick the fruit."
Because no one's as geopolitically savvy as a biased, angry, and -I'm going to go out on a limb and guess here- impoverished immigrant. They should just replace the whole State Department with day laborers... 
This thread's off to a great start:
"It's all the drug users fault, since there's some unknown chance that some portion of what they spend might end up funding the cartels!"
"If domestic production and distribution were legalized, the cartels would be starved for money."
"But the cartels have non-drug funding too! They're practically states! So how would legalization help things?"
121
Post by: Relapse
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Relapse wrote: Palindrome wrote:Relapse wrote:
What the hell. It's only brown people getting killed by the tens of thousands so the parties can happen. Users certainly don't care.
These people are getting killed because the illegal drugs trade is so lucrative, it is ALL about money. Users care just as much as the legislators do, quite possibly more.
Tell that to the Mexicans I work with that have had families put in jeapordy or had to leave a country they love because of drug users giving cartels money enough to gain the power that destabilized Mexico and turned it into a hell hole. They'll answer you with nothing but contempt for your attitude since They say legalization will put the people who terrorized them and killed members of their families even more in control.
They also won't be fooled by drug users saying they want legalization in order to stop the killing since if that was the concern, they would have stopped using drugs the minute they knew what they were contributing their money to for the sake of recreation.
One Mexican put it to me like this, summing up the thoughts of a lot of the Mexicans, Central and South Americans I work with this way, "Those( drug using) fethers don't give a damn about us Mexicans. They just say feth those peons and have them pick the fruit."
Because no one's as geopolitically savvy as a biased, angry, and -I'm going to go out on a limb and guess here- impoverished immigrant. They should just replace the whole State Department with day laborers...
This thread's off to a great start:
"It's all the drug users fault, since there's some unknown chance that some portion of what they spend might end up funding the cartels!"
"If domestic production and distribution were legalized, the cartels would be starved for money."
"But the cartels have non-drug funding too! They're practically states! So how would legalization help things?"
You display a vivid ignorance right from the start when you call the people I work with ignorant and impoverished of which they are neither. Do you think everyone that comes out of Mexico is something along that line? They are fairly more clued in than you appear to be, especially if your later statements are anything to go by.
Just where do you think the cartels get the billions of dollars per year they use to fund their operations and the murders they carry out and achieve the power base that they have?
You think if drugs are legalized, the cartels are just going to just fade away? You're sadly wrong if you think that'll happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post: azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:Tell that to the Mexicans I work with that have had families put in jeapordy or had to leave a country they love because of drug users giving cartels money enough to gain the power that destabilized Mexico and turned it into a hell hole. They'll answer you with nothing but contempt for your attitude since They say legalization will put the people who terrorized them and killed members of their families even more in control.
This is a stupid thing you said and you should feel bad about it.
If any given drug suddenly became legal, the cartels would almost instantly lose their power. The cartels would be forced to compete with Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer et al. Dimebag Donnie on the street corner would then have to compete with Wal-Mart and Costco.
The black market would be out of business overnight for the exact same reason you've probably never bought Aspirin or Tylenol from the hippie down the street.
So you're telling me the Mexicans I talk to, who hear daily from family members in Mexico about the latest thing the cartels did, are stupid and don't know a thing about the cartels?
Can't say for certain, but it sure sounds like it.
Relapse wrote:This is good to know that someone who lives in Canada can have such intimate knowledge of affairs as compared to those living in the middle of all the trouble.
I know, right? It's almost like I have a degree in this sort of thing.
Actually it doesn't seem like any degree you may have is worth the paper it's printed on based off your statements compared to what I have seen happen in my friends lives.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Relapse wrote:Actually it doesn't seem like any degree you may have is worth the paper it's printed on based off your statements compared to what I have seen happen in my friends lives.
stats and/or expert opinions > anecdotal evidence
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
Relapse wrote:
You display a vivid ignorance right from the start when you call the people I work with ignorant and impoverished of which they are neither. Do you think everyone that comes out of Mexico is something along that line? They are fairly more clued in than you appear to be, especially if your later statements are anything to go by.
Just where do you think the cartels get the billions of dollars per year they use to fund their operations and the murders they carry out and achieve the power base that they have?
You think if drugs are legalized, the cartels are just going to just fade away? You're sadly wrong if you think that'll happen.
I never said ignorant, and I qualified the impoverished bit with "and I'm just guessing here". Regardless of their education levels, they remain heavily biased and are clearly ruled by their emotions on the matter, instead of cold reason. They are, as a result, not qualified to legitimately comment on the situation. The only thing their personal connections brings to the table is the shocking revelation that "the violent petty warlords are violent and also petty warlords!"
An unknown percentage of a small subset of drugs are produced and smuggled by them. Undercutting the black market with licensed domestic production would eradicate their market base in the US, nullifying your primary complaint. Addendum: yes, they're petty warlords who wouldn't just close up shop if they were undercut -blame the Mexican government for being weak and corrupt, blame the US for not being brutal enough in suppressing them, or whatever- but trying to argue against legalized domestic production on the grounds "BUT SMUGGLERS!" is just farcical.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Relapse wrote:azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:This is good to know that someone who lives in Canada can have such intimate knowledge of affairs as compared to those living in the middle of all the trouble.
I know, right? It's almost like I have a degree in this sort of thing.
Actually it doesn't seem like any degree you may have is worth the paper it's printed on based off your statements compared to what I have seen happen in my friends lives.
That's called "anecdotal evidence". Tell me: when night falls where you are, do you also believe it's dark everywhere else?
Here's the thing: you seem to have a very juvenile sense of what constitutes "bad guys" in this situation, almost like you actually believe the cartels are run by Snidely Whiplash-esque villains who desire to perform evil acts for their own sake. I'm not defending them, I just think you really need to look past the black hat and find the root cause of their evils.
The truth is that the cartels are run by businessmen. Ruthless, nearly amoral businessmen, but businessmen all the same. Now, let's use methamphetamine as an example, here: if it were legalized, almost overnight there would be massive refinement plants run by Pfizer and their competitors. The product itself would be shipped in bulk to be sold on the shelves of Wal-Mart. And those prices, coupled with a promise of quality (because no consumer will ever pay more for something that's been stepped on three times over when they can buy the pure form at the local super centre for rock-bottom low prices) will simply push the local dealers out of the picture fast enough to break the sound barrier. That's how the market works; it's exactly why there were no more bootleggers when prohibition ended.
The role of the cartels would simply change from a complete production-distribution-retail model into being exclusively production, if they're lucky (this assumes the cartels are already set up to produce a high-quality product, as opposed to "biker meth" in a Tennessee shack). In that case, the cartels would simply be supplying retail dealers like Wal-Mart and Rite Aid with the product, under subcontract from pharmaceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson et al.
The violent criminal element would disappear almost immediately, for a few reasons: because you can't fight Wal-Mart with bullets, and because there are within-the-law recourses that you can take when it comes to turf wars in the business world. This is why you never see two McDonald's managers getting into a gunfight over who controls Main Street. This is the part that you seem to have trouble understanding: the violence assotiated with narcotics is not something that exists simply by virtue that you're talking about narcotics; the violence exists because there is currently no recourse within the law to be taken when one party is slighted.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Again, look at the charts I posted. Legalizing pot isn't gonna make too much of a difference. If you want to argue for legalized cocaine, meth, and heroine you start to have a point, but even then they receive enough non-drug revenue that they will survive. To think the US can legalize cocaine, meth and heroine any time in the near future is frankly silly, so your point becomes less relevant, degree or no degree.
I've worked counter drug intel. I may not have a degree in this stuff, but I do have a decent understanding of the what is going on here. To think these guys give up violence is a pipe dream. I honestly can't believe someone claiming to have a degree in this stuff would make that claim. Mob violence didn't stop when prohibition ended in the US (neither did bootlegging though it did decrease, there STILL is a market for non-tax stamped booze and cigarettes), and the mindset the cartels have south of our border ensures it will not stop if we legalized any drugs here.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
CptJake wrote:Again, look at the charts I posted. Legalizing pot isn't gonna make too much of a difference. If you want to argue for legalized cocaine, meth, and heroine you start to have a point, but even then they receive enough non-drug revenue that they will survive. To think the US can legalize cocaine, meth and heroine any time in the near future is frankly silly, so your point becomes less relevant, degree or no degree.
I've worked counter drug intel. I may not have a degree in this stuff, but I do have a decent understanding of the what is going on here. To think these guys give up violence is a pipe dream. I honestly can't believe someone claiming to have a degree in this stuff would make that claim. Mob violence didn't stop when prohibition ended in the US (neither did bootlegging though it did decrease, there STILL is a market for non-tax stamped booze and cigarettes), and the mindset the cartels have south of our border ensures it will not stop if we legalized any drugs here.
I'm not making a defeat-the-villain argument; that is a juvenile mindset. I'm basing this as a public health concern. You legalize any given narcotic, and the violence goes away. I don't care if Pablo Escobar 2.0 ends up in a boardroom rather than a dumpster. I only care about ending the violence.
So again I'll ask you: how much mob violence has been associated with unstamped booze and cigarettes since prohibition ended? Now compare that to the violence associated with booze during prohibition.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
azazel the cat wrote:CptJake wrote:Again, look at the charts I posted. Legalizing pot isn't gonna make too much of a difference. If you want to argue for legalized cocaine, meth, and heroine you start to have a point, but even then they receive enough non-drug revenue that they will survive. To think the US can legalize cocaine, meth and heroine any time in the near future is frankly silly, so your point becomes less relevant, degree or no degree.
I've worked counter drug intel. I may not have a degree in this stuff, but I do have a decent understanding of the what is going on here. To think these guys give up violence is a pipe dream. I honestly can't believe someone claiming to have a degree in this stuff would make that claim. Mob violence didn't stop when prohibition ended in the US (neither did bootlegging though it did decrease, there STILL is a market for non-tax stamped booze and cigarettes), and the mindset the cartels have south of our border ensures it will not stop if we legalized any drugs here.
I'm not making a defeat-the-villain argument; that is a juvenile mindset. I'm basing this as a public health concern. You legalize any given narcotic, and the violence goes away. I don't care if Pablo Escobar 2.0 ends up in a boardroom rather than a dumpster. I only care about ending the violence.
So again I'll ask you: how much mob violence has been associated with unstamped booze and cigarettes since prohibition ended? Now compare that to the violence associated with booze during prohibition.
Plus the money being saved from having to keep people in jail due to drug possession could go into drug rehab centers instead.
37036
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous
azazel the cat wrote:That's how the market works; it's exactly why there were no more bootleggers when prohibition ended.
For the record, there still are. I've known a few, and sat around drinking moonshine with one of them. The difference is that since alcohol was relegalized, the illicit operations lost their markets (and moved on to other crime), and now operate with a cutrate product that I have no idea how they manage to sell to anyone. Alcohol gets ridiculously cheap, and even bottom-shelf vodka is a cut above moonshine, with the price difference being trivial (in addition to being far more readily available).
Which is exactly your overall point, basically.
121
Post by: Relapse
azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:This is good to know that someone who lives in Canada can have such intimate knowledge of affairs as compared to those living in the middle of all the trouble.
I know, right? It's almost like I have a degree in this sort of thing.
Actually it doesn't seem like any degree you may have is worth the paper it's printed on based off your statements compared to what I have seen happen in my friends lives.
That's called "anecdotal evidence". Tell me: when night falls where you are, do you also believe it's dark everywhere else?
Here's the thing: you seem to have a very juvenile sense of what constitutes "bad guys" in this situation, almost like you actually believe the cartels are run by Snidely Whiplash-esque villains who desire to perform evil acts for their own sake. I'm not defending them, I just think you really need to look past the black hat and find the root cause of their evils.
The truth is that the cartels are run by businessmen. Ruthless, nearly amoral businessmen, but businessmen all the same. Now, let's use methamphetamine as an example, here: if it were legalized, almost overnight there would be massive refinement plants run by Pfizer and their competitors. The product itself would be shipped in bulk to be sold on the shelves of Wal-Mart. And those prices, coupled with a promise of quality (because no consumer will ever pay more for something that's been stepped on three times over when they can buy the pure form at the local super centre for rock-bottom low prices) will simply push the local dealers out of the picture fast enough to break the sound barrier. That's how the market works; it's exactly why there were no more bootleggers when prohibition ended.
The role of the cartels would simply change from a complete production-distribution-retail model into being exclusively production, if they're lucky (this assumes the cartels are already set up to produce a high-quality product, as opposed to "biker meth" in a Tennessee shack). In that case, the cartels would simply be supplying retail dealers like Wal-Mart and Rite Aid with the product, under subcontract from pharmaceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson et al.
The violent criminal element would disappear almost immediately, for a few reasons: because you can't fight Wal-Mart with bullets, and because there are within-the-law recourses that you can take when it comes to turf wars in the business world. This is why you never see two McDonald's managers getting into a gunfight over who controls Main Street. This is the part that you seem to have trouble understanding: the violence assotiated with narcotics is not something that exists simply by virtue that you're talking about narcotics; the violence exists because there is currently no recourse within the law to be taken when one party is slighted.
Juvenile sense of what constitute bad guys? These are people that have cut people's faces off and sewn them to soccer balls, left sheds full of the bodies of 70+ people at a time who would refuse to haul drugs for them among the 60, 000 otther people they have killed. You seem more and more divorced from reality with each post you make on the subject when you say they are just business men.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Relapse wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Here's the thing: you seem to have a very juvenile sense of what constitutes "bad guys" in this situation, almost like you actually believe the cartels are run by Snidely Whiplash-esque villains who desire to perform evil acts for their own sake. I'm not defending them, I just think you really need to look past the black hat and find the root cause of their evils.
Juvenile sense of what constitute bad guys? These are people that have cut people's faces off and sewn them to soccer balls, left sheds full of the bodies of 70+ people at a time who would refuse to haul drugs for them among the 60, 000 otther people they have killed. You seem more and more divorced from reality with each post you make on the subject when you say they are just business men.
Congratulations! You managed to read the first 16 words!
Now go back and read the rest of them.
38250
Post by: poda_t
on pack of jackals for another, how long until these vigliantes falll under the control of some insane religious nutjob who has a mandate to get into heaven?
121
Post by: Relapse
azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Here's the thing: you seem to have a very juvenile sense of what constitutes "bad guys" in this situation, almost like you actually believe the cartels are run by Snidely Whiplash-esque villains who desire to perform evil acts for their own sake. I'm not defending them, I just think you really need to look past the black hat and find the root cause of their evils.
Juvenile sense of what constitute bad guys? These are people that have cut people's faces off and sewn them to soccer balls, left sheds full of the bodies of 70+ people at a time who would refuse to haul drugs for them among the 60, 000 otther people they have killed. You seem more and more divorced from reality with each post you make on the subject when you say they are just business men.
Congratulations! You managed to read the first 16 words!
Now go back and read the rest of them.
I really think at this point we don't have a whole lot to say to each other on this subject. You have this idea that people who think nothing of hanging headless bodies by the row from bridges in the middle of town are not villains, but just businessmen waiting for drugs to be legalized so they can do an immediate 180 from their standard of operation to become members of the Chamber of Commerce.
I think they're always going to be among the lowest form of life on the planet and drug users saying that drugs need to be legalized in order to stop all the killing are outright hypocrites, since they're the ones giving the money to the cartels in the first place.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Relapse wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Here's the thing: you seem to have a very juvenile sense of what constitutes "bad guys" in this situation, almost like you actually believe the cartels are run by Snidely Whiplash-esque villains who desire to perform evil acts for their own sake. I'm not defending them, I just think you really need to look past the black hat and find the root cause of their evils.
Juvenile sense of what constitute bad guys? These are people that have cut people's faces off and sewn them to soccer balls, left sheds full of the bodies of 70+ people at a time who would refuse to haul drugs for them among the 60, 000 otther people they have killed. You seem more and more divorced from reality with each post you make on the subject when you say they are just business men.
Congratulations! You managed to read the first 16 words!
Now go back and read the rest of them.
I really think at this point we don't have a whole lot to say to each other on this subject. You have this idea that people who think nothing of hanging headless bodies by the row from bridges in the middle of town are not villains, but just businessmen waiting for drugs to be legalized so they can do an immediate 180 from their standard of operation to become members of the Chamber of Commerce.
I think they're always going to be among the lowest form of life on the planet and drug users saying that drugs need to be legalized in order to stop all the killing are outright hypocrites, since they're the ones giving the money to the cartels in the first place.
Stop it with the strawmen. Nobody said the cartel leaders aren't bad people. But you've gotta recognize that these heinous acts are not done without motivation behind them, and that motivation is not "evil for evil's sake".
And what do you say to me, who is (reasonably) well-educated on the matter and never partakes in recreational drugs?
52450
Post by: gunslingerpro
What happens when your revenue stream is cut?
You adapt. You do not spend all your money changing business trategy, just product.
Today's narcotic smuggling Cartel is tomorrow's human trafficking Cartel.
I am opposed to mandatory minimums and for the legalization of marijuana. I am opposed to 'legalize man, it'll totally stop all the violence', because as a criminal deterrence policy, it has failed.
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote:So again I'll ask you: how much mob violence has been associated with unstamped booze and cigarettes since prohibition ended? Now compare that to the violence associated with booze during prohibition.
Not that much, but that's because those markets are locked down by organized crime already. You'll get away with buying up cigarettes in North Carolina and running them to New York for the easiest 20 grand of your life a couple times, but eventually you'll get spanked for it.
It's also difficult to tell just how much criminal violence we can assign solely to any one revenue stream. Gangs and actual criminal organizations have portfolios; they're rarely single-stream monoliths.
5534
Post by: dogma
It sounds like the citizens have gazed into the abyss.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
gunslingerpro wrote:Today's narcotic smuggling Cartel is tomorrow's human trafficking Cartel.
Gambling and human trafficking is already a large part of their revenue stream; I believe those two make up the majority of the "other" segment of CptJake's pie charts.
The difference is that human trafficking is much easier to fight a war against than narcotics.
52450
Post by: gunslingerpro
azazel the cat wrote:gunslingerpro wrote:Today's narcotic smuggling Cartel is tomorrow's human trafficking Cartel.
Gambling and human trafficking is already a large part of their revenue stream; I believe those two make up the majority of the "other" segment of CptJake's pie charts.
The difference is that human trafficking is much easier to fight a war against than narcotics.
Easier how? they use the same trucks, same tunnels, same safe houses.
Yes, a person is easier to find than a kilo of narcotics. But we're not dealing with general volume here.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
gunslingerpro wrote: azazel the cat wrote:gunslingerpro wrote:Today's narcotic smuggling Cartel is tomorrow's human trafficking Cartel.
Gambling and human trafficking is already a large part of their revenue stream; I believe those two make up the majority of the "other" segment of CptJake's pie charts.
The difference is that human trafficking is much easier to fight a war against than narcotics.
Easier how? they use the same trucks, same tunnels, same safe houses.
Are you kidding me?
1. it's much harder to store people than it is to store kilos of narcotics.
2. human trafficking requires bawdy houses with centralized locations; it can't be spread across every street.
3. it's easier to win "hearts & minds" when fighting against human trafficking than it is against narcotics.
4. the demand for the product is nowhere near as fervent.
5. you really can't use the same trucks and safe houses, and no prostitute has ever been shot out of a cannon across the Mexico-Arizona border.
6. base production (finding/kidnapping and then beating into submission) is a much more time-consuming and difficult process than is narcotics production.
I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.
5534
Post by: dogma
CptJake wrote: Legalizing pot isn't gonna make too much of a difference.
I'm glad you agree.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:5. you really can't use the same trucks and safe houses, and no prostitute has ever been shot out of a cannon across the Mexico-Arizona border.
So there's no market for circus act performing sex workers?
91
Post by: Hordini
 dogma wrote:It sounds like the citizens have gazed into the abyss.
Maybe sometimes you have to.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:5. you really can't use the same trucks and safe houses, and no prostitute has ever been shot out of a cannon across the Mexico-Arizona border.
So there's no market for circus act performing sex workers?
Just so my post isn't as weird as I realize it may have sounded without context: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/us/border-smugglers-cannon
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
As long as they have fought the actual criminals and harmed no innocents then good on them, give them a medal but if they have harmed one innocent, then they are no better than the cartel, sorry. No matter how small a crime is, a crime is a crime and innocents should never be harmed in pursuit of justice.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
The shot a tourist for not stopping at their undoubtably shady looking checkpoint, it could be argued that they were in the right there given their objective but it certainly wasn't lawful. The problem with vigilanties is that they aren't controlled and it is very easy for them to become just as lawless as the people they were formed to stand against, more than one messy civil war has started this way.
52450
Post by: gunslingerpro
azazel the cat wrote:gunslingerpro wrote: azazel the cat wrote:gunslingerpro wrote:Today's narcotic smuggling Cartel is tomorrow's human trafficking Cartel.
Gambling and human trafficking is already a large part of their revenue stream; I believe those two make up the majority of the "other" segment of CptJake's pie charts.
The difference is that human trafficking is much easier to fight a war against than narcotics.
Easier how? they use the same trucks, same tunnels, same safe houses.
Are you kidding me?
1. it's much harder to store people than it is to store kilos of narcotics.
2. human trafficking requires bawdy houses with centralized locations; it can't be spread across every street.
3. it's easier to win "hearts & minds" when fighting against human trafficking than it is against narcotics.
4. the demand for the product is nowhere near as fervent.
5. you really can't use the same trucks and safe houses, and no prostitute has ever been shot out of a cannon across the Mexico-Arizona border.
6. base production (finding/kidnapping and then beating into submission) is a much more time-consuming and difficult process than is narcotics production.
I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.
As to your first two points, I addressed that. In my post. In the part you conveniently cut out.
You've made some nice anecdotal points and some suppositions about the industry but have ignored the bigger issue: with a full scale narcotics legalization, which of those points becomes enough to counter a criminal entity requiring an income stream? Especially an income stream that they already widely engage in.
61774
Post by: Somedude593
I feel this incident is a good start but it is not enough to warrant serious change. the problem i see with mexico is that we get very strong military leaders every once and a while but not enough strong political leaders to keep the ball rolling once the war is over... why? Well for one anyone who is sufficiently talented enough to become educated has a much easier time emigrating to the US then finding a job and living a life here, secondly mexico is very divided internally with very good amounts of racism and even regionalism. For every latin america revolution there is a counter-revolution waiting in the wings whether agitated or not
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
gunslingerpro wrote: azazel the cat wrote:gunslingerpro wrote: azazel the cat wrote:gunslingerpro wrote:Today's narcotic smuggling Cartel is tomorrow's human trafficking Cartel.
Gambling and human trafficking is already a large part of their revenue stream; I believe those two make up the majority of the "other" segment of CptJake's pie charts.
The difference is that human trafficking is much easier to fight a war against than narcotics.
Easier how? they use the same trucks, same tunnels, same safe houses.
Are you kidding me?
1. it's much harder to store people than it is to store kilos of narcotics.
2. human trafficking requires bawdy houses with centralized locations; it can't be spread across every street.
3. it's easier to win "hearts & minds" when fighting against human trafficking than it is against narcotics.
4. the demand for the product is nowhere near as fervent.
5. you really can't use the same trucks and safe houses, and no prostitute has ever been shot out of a cannon across the Mexico-Arizona border.
6. base production (finding/kidnapping and then beating into submission) is a much more time-consuming and difficult process than is narcotics production.
I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.
As to your first two points, I addressed that. In my post. In the part you conveniently cut out.
You've made some nice anecdotal points and some suppositions about the industry but have ignored the bigger issue: with a full scale narcotics legalization, which of those points becomes enough to counter a criminal entity requiring an income stream? Especially an income stream that they already widely engage in.
First off: "widely engage in" is a statement completely lacking in scale if your aim is to compare human trafficking to narcotics.
Second: I didn't "conveniently" cut out the part about "same trucks, same safe houses". I politely ignored that point rather than directly draw attention to it as being representative of your near-complete misunderstanding of how the operations work. Let's use cocaine as one example. Cocaine is oftentimes shipped via boat inside industrial-sized concrete pillars. You cannot transport people that way. Further, many packages of pure narcotics are smuggled on (or in) mules who enter the US through countries that are not flagged as narcotics hotbeds, such as Poland or Greenland. You cannot smuggle in people on (or in) mules. Likewise, narcotics safehouses are misnomers; the houses will rarely be an urban fortress with a region's entire supply; the supply will be spread around multiple locations and hidden in walls, floorboards and dozens of other more clever hiding places. You cannot run a bawdy house with the prostitutes stuffed into the walls or inside the television set.
So no, human traffickers do not use the same safehouses nor do they use the same trucks. The process is very different.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
So no, human traffickers do not use the same safehouses nor do they use the same trucks. The process is very different.
You'd think this would be blindingly obvious, considering the volume of a 150 pound human compared to a 2 kilo bag of crack. But I guess I was wrong.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Relapse wrote:More lovliness, courtesy of drug user funding of cartels:
Why do you think that this issue is one dimensional? Surely you can't be as blind as that?
121
Post by: Relapse
Palindrome wrote:Relapse wrote:More lovliness, courtesy of drug user funding of cartels:
Why do you think that this issue is one dimensional? Surely you can't be as blind as that?
I guess because the cartels get their money mainly from drug sales and users don't care who gets killed as long as they get their drugs pretty much makes me focus on that.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Relapse wrote:
I guess because the cartels get their money mainly from drug sales and users don't care who gets killed as long as they get their drugs pretty much makes me focus on that.
So you really are that blind. I have already laid out why this is far more complex than you are pretending yet you have steadfastly ignored me, I think its time I did the same to you.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
First off, this article is almost a year old; so congratulations on that.
Second, I would like to hear about your consumer habits, Relapse. I am honestly curious about how socially conscious you are when it comes to making your purchasing decisions.
34390
Post by: whembly
azazel the cat wrote:
First off, this article is almost a year old; so congratulations on that.
Second, I would like to hear about your consumer habits, Relapse. I am honestly curious about how socially conscious you are when it comes to making your purchasing decisions.
Just nothing to do with Monsanto... amirite? 
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote:
First off, this article is almost a year old; so congratulations on that.
Second, I would like to hear about your consumer habits, Relapse. I am honestly curious about how socially conscious you are when it comes to making your purchasing decisions.
I make all my clothes out of wheat I grow in my backyard and drive a Prius. I vote Green. I founded NORML and I think Michael Moore's both a healthy individual and the most profoundly forward-thinking filmmaker of our time.
I doubt he can beat me.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote:
First off, this article is almost a year old; so congratulations on that.
Second, I would like to hear about your consumer habits, Relapse. I am honestly curious about how socially conscious you are when it comes to making your purchasing decisions.
I make all my clothes out of wheat I grow in my backyard and drive a Prius. I vote Green. I founded NORML and I think Michael Moore's both a healthy individual and the most profoundly forward-thinking filmmaker of our time.
I doubt he can beat me.
I don't think you can make clothes out of wheat...?
In any case, I hope you haven't missed my point with your trollpost: Relapse seems to think that drug users are directly responsible for the violence caused by the cartels, so I think it's only fair that his own purchasing decisions are investigated before he throws more stones.
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote:I don't think you can make clothes out of wheat...?
In any case, I hope you haven't missed my point with your trollpost: Relapse seems to think that drug users are directly responsible for the violence caused by the cartels, so I think it's only fair that his own purchasing decisions are investigated before he throws more stones.
Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware you were serious with that socially conscious consumer stuff. And yes, you can make clothes out of wheat.
Drug users have to be responsible to some degree for violence caused by cartels, else the, "If we just legalize drugs, the violence goes away!" argument fails. More than it does already, anyway.
121
Post by: Relapse
azazel the cat wrote:
First off, this article is almost a year old; so congratulations on that.
Second, I would like to hear about your consumer habits, Relapse. I am honestly curious about how socially conscious you are when it comes to making your purchasing decisions.
Just brought the article in to illustrate the kind of murders happening down there. My consumer habits don't involve knowingly buying recreational items that are the reason for that type of murder. That's usually the straw man that people defending drug user purchases like to throw in at some point, though.
91
Post by: Hordini
Are people in this thread really claiming that purchasing cartel drugs doesn't enable cartel power and violence?
There aren't very many purchasing decisions that are less socially conscious than giving money to cartels who cut people's heads off.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Here's a seven part documentary made during last year's election run. I'm posting it here because it's sort of relevant to the original topic of vigilantes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef5YU6uaAH8
53595
Post by: Palindrome
 Hordini wrote:Are people in this thread really claiming that purchasing cartel drugs doesn't enable cartel power and violence?
Not that I am aware of. That would be an overly simplist analysis though.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Hordini wrote:Are people in this thread really claiming that purchasing cartel drugs doesn't enable cartel power and violence?
There aren't very many purchasing decisions that are less socially conscious than giving money to cartels who cut people's heads off.
You have to keep in mind there are very probably some drug users in this thread who do not like the implication that their recreational indulgence - which I personally have no problem with - could be linked to the horrific violence going on down ol' Mexico way, and will thus fight tooth and nail to retain the, "It's the Man, man, not us!" moral high ground.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Relapse wrote:
Just brought the article in to illustrate the kind of murders happening down there. My consumer habits don't involve knowingly buying recreational items that are the reason for that type of murder. That's usually the straw man that people defending drug user purchases like to throw in at some point, though.
That's called demagoguery. Sort of.
And when was the last time you bought Chiquita bananas? or Coca Cola? Because both of those recreational items have been the reason for murdres not unlike the cartels (in some cases, the exact same ones).
In other words: get off your high horse.
And I'm saying that to you as someone that never uses narcotics.
23
Post by: djones520
azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:
Just brought the article in to illustrate the kind of murders happening down there. My consumer habits don't involve knowingly buying recreational items that are the reason for that type of murder. That's usually the straw man that people defending drug user purchases like to throw in at some point, though.
That's called demagoguery. Sort of.
And when was the last time you bought Chiquita bananas? or Coca Cola? Because both of those recreational items have been the reason for murdres not unlike the cartels (in some cases, the exact same ones).
In other words: get off your high horse.
And I'm saying that to you as someone that never uses narcotics.
I'd love to see the links for this, but you realize all your doing is arguing that these legal and regulated items still results in this, right?
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote:That's called demagoguery. Sort of.
And when was the last time you bought Chiquita bananas? or Coca Cola? Because both of those recreational items have been the reason for murdres not unlike the cartels (in some cases, the exact same ones).
Congratulations. You just became my grandmother, who will not own anything made by Mitsubishi because they manufactured the Zero during World War II. Automatically Appended Next Post: djones520 wrote:I'd love to see the links for this, but you realize all your doing is arguing that these legal and regulated items still results in this, right?
The Chiquita claim, at least, is mildly legit - they got caught using local "militia" protection for some of their harvesting operations in Colombia fairly recently, if memory serves. Guys on a bunch of terrorist watch lists.
23
Post by: djones520
Yeah, I just read up on the Chiquita thing, they paid off a bunch of paramilitary groups down there to keep others off their plantations, and since those groups are listed as terrorist organizations, bad ju-ju.
But the situation is hardly the same as with the drug cartels.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
djones520 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Relapse wrote:
Just brought the article in to illustrate the kind of murders happening down there. My consumer habits don't involve knowingly buying recreational items that are the reason for that type of murder. That's usually the straw man that people defending drug user purchases like to throw in at some point, though.
That's called demagoguery. Sort of. And when was the last time you bought Chiquita bananas? or Coca Cola? Because both of those recreational items have been the reason for murdres not unlike the cartels (in some cases, the exact same ones). In other words: get off your high horse. And I'm saying that to you as someone that never uses narcotics.
I'd love to see the links for this, but you realize all your doing is arguing that these legal and regulated items still results in this, right?
That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that if Relapse wants to throw stones, he should make sure that he himself is without sin first. And doesn't live in a glass house. And isn't a black kettle. Etc.
91
Post by: Hordini
Palindrome wrote: Hordini wrote:Are people in this thread really claiming that purchasing cartel drugs doesn't enable cartel power and violence?
Not that I am aware of. That would be an overly simplist analysis though.
You're right. Claiming that the purchase of cartel drugs doesn't support cartel violence and further the power and influence of the cartels would be grossly simple-minded.
121
Post by: Relapse
Hordini wrote:Are people in this thread really claiming that purchasing cartel drugs doesn't enable cartel power and violence?
There aren't very many purchasing decisions that are less socially conscious than giving money to cartels who cut people's heads off.
Yup, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. I have friends who have had cartels just walk in and take over their family business or grab their property because they have that kind of power down there now thanks to money they get from drug sales.
People that use drugs really need to wake up to what they are empowering down there.
Some of the posters here can put up straw men by pretending giving money to the cartels is no worse than buying a soft drink or some such nonsense, but the fact remains that most drug users don't care anyway.
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote:That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that if Relapse wants to throw stones, he should make sure that he himself is without sin first. And doesn't live in a glass house. And isn't a black kettle. Etc.
I'm still interested in getting you to address the cognitive dissonance that it requires to claim in this thread, as you did earlier, that legalization of drugs would cause cartel violence to drop almost immediately, while refusing to admit that people who purchase illegal drugs are actively funding said cartel violence.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Hordini wrote:
You're right. Claiming that the purchase of cartel drugs doesn't support cartel violence and further the power and influence of the cartels would be grossly simple-minded.
clap....clap....clap
Meanwhile, in the real world.....
91
Post by: Hordini
Palindrome wrote: Hordini wrote:
You're right. Claiming that the purchase of cartel drugs doesn't support cartel violence and further the power and influence of the cartels would be grossly simple-minded.
clap....clap....clap
Meanwhile, in the real world.....
Are you claiming otherwise? That the flow of revenue from American drug purchasers to the cartels isn't the cartels' primary source of funding?
If there is some other source they are getting their massive amounts of money from, please enlighten us.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Hordini wrote:
Are you claiming otherwise? That the flow of revenue from American drug purchasers to the cartels isn't the cartels' primary source of funding?
If there is some other source they are getting their massive amounts of money from, please enlighten us.
Well, purely for the sake of the hypothetical, even if American drug purchases aren't the primary source of funding, it seems more than a tad ludicrous to suggest that the monies from the Future Felons of America account never cross over to the Setting People On Fire While They're Still Alive fund.
91
Post by: Hordini
 Seaward wrote: Hordini wrote:
Are you claiming otherwise? That the flow of revenue from American drug purchasers to the cartels isn't the cartels' primary source of funding?
If there is some other source they are getting their massive amounts of money from, please enlighten us.
Well, purely for the sake of the hypothetical, even if American drug purchases aren't the primary source of funding, it seems more than a tad ludicrous to suggest that the monies from the Future Felons of America account never cross over to the Setting People On Fire While They're Still Alive fund.
It certainly seems ludicrous to me.
We can even dial it back a bit if we want: Is anyone claiming that revenue from American drug purchasers isn't a significant portion of the cartels' funding?
5470
Post by: sebster
There are people who pride themselves on being socially responsible drug users. I've seen a girl tell a guy off because he didn't know where he his weed came from, while hers came from a local grower that wasn't attached to any criminal group, and was a sustainable operation. I have no fething clue how a weed plantation gets environmentally vetted for sustainability, but she was pretty adamant.
91
Post by: Hordini
 sebster wrote:There are people who pride themselves on being socially responsible drug users. I've seen a girl tell a guy off because he didn't know where he his weed came from, while hers came from a local grower that wasn't attached to any criminal group, and was a sustainable operation. I have no fething clue how a weed plantation gets environmentally vetted for sustainability, but she was pretty adamant.
Obviously there are people who grow their own, or people who buy from people who grow their own who are not funding the cartels with their purchases. However, there are still enough people who buy from cartel sources (knowingly or not) for the cartels to make large amounts of money.
5470
Post by: sebster
Hordini wrote:Obviously there are people who grow their own, or people who buy from people who grow their own who are not funding the cartels with their purchases. However, there are still enough people who buy from cartel sources (knowingly or not) for the cartels to make large amounts of money.
Sure thing. I'm not saying otherwise. In fact, that the existance of socially conscious drug users can be debated at all kind of proves that they're a minority.
I just gave my anecdote because I found it really funny at the time. Both because it's kind of life flipped on its head, the lecture isn't from a Prius driver but a pothead, and because of the insistance that the plantation was environmentally responsible (how would you know, are their best practice guidelines to meet? is the industry self regulating with an appointed committee, or does government come by to make sure your illegal grow operation meets sustainability requirements?)
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote:That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that if Relapse wants to throw stones, he should make sure that he himself is without sin first. And doesn't live in a glass house. And isn't a black kettle. Etc.
I'm still interested in getting you to address the cognitive dissonance that it requires to claim in this thread, as you did earlier, that legalization of drugs would cause cartel violence to drop almost immediately, while refusing to admit that people who purchase illegal drugs are actively funding said cartel violence.
There is no cognitive dissonance required, as the underlined claim has never once been made by me. Go on. Try to find a quote. I dare you. (however I will at this juncture point out that drug users are only tacitly responsible for funding cartel violence; if there were actively responsible then they'd be writing cheques of "cost of one RPG, sincerely, white kid with dreadlocks". So be careful about how you move those goalposts.) Anyway, it seems as though you have unfortunately fallen victim to a strawman. My actual argument is quite simple, as follows: 1. I dislike hypocrites. 2. Relapse made a moral judgement on drug users based on their funding of cartels, and the violence the cartels cause. 3. I pointed out to Relapse that unless he is socially conscious enough to ensure his own consumer purchases have not funded terror and murder, he should not attempt to pass judgement. -End of argument- Of course narcotics purchases go towards cartels and indirectly cause much of the violence associated with their business. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves, crazy or grossly misinformed. But you've got to be a world-class donkey-cave to stand in judgement of a drug user for that reason while sipping a coke (for one example).
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:
Some of the posters here can put up straw men by pretending giving money to the cartels is no worse than buying a soft drink or some such nonsense, but the fact remains that most drug users don't care anyway.
Funny you should mention that.
221
Post by: Frazzled
sebster wrote:There are people who pride themselves on being socially responsible drug users. I've seen a girl tell a guy off because he didn't know where he his weed came from, while hers came from a local grower that wasn't attached to any criminal group, and was a sustainable operation. I have no fething clue how a weed plantation gets environmentally vetted for sustainability, but she was pretty adamant.
So she's a socially conscious idiot. Got it. Meanwhile, in the US, many domestic growers have been replaced by dumping. Other fields have been set up here that are run by the cartels. You don't compete because they kill you. Other Cartel cash flows: *Human trafficing. *Racqueteering and prostitution. *Control of legimitate businesses. The difference between them and Mario Puzo's mob activities of course is that the cartels have thousands of troops.
1206
Post by: Easy E
So, what are we arguing about here?
All I know is that telling people to not use drugs for the past 30+ years, and trying to shame the people who do use drugs; doesn't seem to have stopped people from buying drugs.
Therefore, if your solution to Drugs and its related problems is to tell people to stop buying/using drugs, you must be willfully living in a fantasy world. We have plenty of proof that this idea does not work.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
E is right. I suggest a new tactic.
Mass executions and park tanks on the southern border with heat sensors. Kill any one who crosses, find the tunnels and bomb them into next tuesday. Tell the Mexican government they have six months to clean up their mess or the air strikes start.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote:So, what are we arguing about here?
All I know is that telling people to not use drugs for the past 30+ years, and trying to shame the people who do use drugs; doesn't seem to have stopped people from buying drugs.
Therefore, if your solution to Drugs and its related problems is to tell people to stop buying/using drugs, you must be willfully living in a fantasy world. We have plenty of proof that this idea does not work.
Agreed. Go big (executions for anyone even remotely incolved in the sale, transport, finance, or imbibing of illegal narcotics) or go home (legal, regulated and taxes baby!).
As a Libertarian Herald of the Great Wienie, I vote 'go home." Automatically Appended Next Post: KalashnikovMarine wrote:E is right. I suggest a new tactic.
Mass executions and park tanks on the southern border with heat sensors. Kill any one who crosses, find the tunnels and bomb them into next tuesday. Tell the Mexican government they have six months to clean up their mess or the air strikes start.
Don't forget we need to station sharks with frigging laser beams in the coastal waters to prevent drug boats/sub.
1206
Post by: Easy E
KalashnikovMarine wrote:E is right. I suggest a new tactic.
Mass executions and park tanks on the southern border with heat sensors. Kill any one who crosses, find the tunnels and bomb them into next tuesday. Tell the Mexican government they have six months to clean up their mess or the air strikes start.
Well, at least your idea is innovative.
Of course, we will have to keep doing it for 25 years to see if it works.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
 Frazzled wrote: sebster wrote:There are people who pride themselves on being socially responsible drug users. I've seen a girl tell a guy off because he didn't know where he his weed came from, while hers came from a local grower that wasn't attached to any criminal group, and was a sustainable operation. I have no fething clue how a weed plantation gets environmentally vetted for sustainability, but she was pretty adamant.
So she's a socially conscious idiot. Got it. Meanwhile, in the US, many domestic growers have been replaced by dumping. Other fields have been set up here that are run by the cartels. You don't compete because they kill you.
Other Cartel cash flows:
*Human trafficing.
*Racqueteering and prostitution.
*Control of legimitate businesses.
The difference between them and Mario Puzo's mob activities of course is that the cartels have thousands of troops.
Human trafficking is a huge issue in Mexico. To cut off that fund would be the hardest, because it is so wide spread. The cartel unforunately are smart enough to run legal establishments,
At least people are taking it into their own hands. The only problem i see with this is more senseless bloodshed as the cartels probably will try to aim for the people, or possibly more civilian deaths.
Mexico's a mess, glad to know dakka dakka is informed on the issue unlike many of my peers.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:The difference between them and Mario Puzo's mob activities of course is that the cartels have thousands of troops.
And none of it ends up with Sophia Coppola getting shot. Which is why Mexican mobs will never be as fun as Italian mobs.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Sebster makes a good point. 
|
|
