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.

 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.

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

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.

More lovliness, courtesy of drug user funding of cartels:


http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/04/11543457-23-bodies-found-hanging-dumped-in-mexico-drug-cartel-war?lite=obnetwork

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.

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?

 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.

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.

Relapse wrote:More lovliness, courtesy of drug user funding of cartels:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/04/11543457-23-bodies-found-hanging-dumped-in-mexico-drug-cartel-war?lite=obnetwork

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.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:More lovliness, courtesy of drug user funding of cartels:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/04/11543457-23-bodies-found-hanging-dumped-in-mexico-drug-cartel-war?lite=obnetwork

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?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:More lovliness, courtesy of drug user funding of cartels:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/04/11543457-23-bodies-found-hanging-dumped-in-mexico-drug-cartel-war?lite=obnetwork

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.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:More lovliness, courtesy of drug user funding of cartels:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/04/11543457-23-bodies-found-hanging-dumped-in-mexico-drug-cartel-war?lite=obnetwork

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.

 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.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:More lovliness, courtesy of drug user funding of cartels:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/04/11543457-23-bodies-found-hanging-dumped-in-mexico-drug-cartel-war?lite=obnetwork

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.

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.

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

 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.

 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.

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.

 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?

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.....

 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.

 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.

 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?