Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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