Reporting from Mexico City— Gunmen dumped the bodies of 35 people with suspected ties to organized crime under an overpass filled with motorists Tuesday on the outskirts of the Mexican port city of Veracruz, officials said.
The bodies were left in a pair of trucks and on the road near a major shopping center in the community of Boca del Rio, a popular site for Mexican tourists to the port city, along the Gulf of Mexico.
Reynaldo Escobar, prosecutor for the state of Veracruz, said the dead bore signs of torture. In an effort to calm residents who have been appalled by rising drug-related violence, Escobar said the seven victims identified by late Tuesday had criminal records for involvement in organized-crime activities, including kidnappings, extortion, drug sales and murder.
"This is something that can calm the population," he said in a telephone interview with Milenio Television. "This is not about civilians. These are people involved in illicit business, in drug sales."
Photographs of the crime scene showed bodies spilling from two parked vehicles below an overpass. At least 11 of the deceased were reported to be women, but Mexican news reports gave conflicting figures. Some motorists reportedly had used social networking to indicate that gunmen had been blocking Manuel Avila Camacho Boulevard.
Veracruz state has become increasingly violent in the last few years as it has fallen increasingly under the sway of the ultra-violent drug-trafficking gang known as the Zetas.
State officials have frequently been accused of corruption and even collusion with the drug gang, which has branched out into migrant smuggling, kidnapping and extortion.
The Zetas, once the armed wing of the so-called Gulf cartel based along the U.S. border, has been at war for more than a year with its former allies. It was possible that the latest killings were linked to that feud.
A day earlier, more than 30 prisoners escaped from separate state prisons, but Escobar said authorities had not established a tie between the two events. Veracruz is the site of a planned gathering of prosecutors from across Mexico this week.
The grisly scene Tuesday was the latest sign of the spiraling violence that has engulfed Mexico since President Felipe Calderon launched a military-led offensive against drug cartels soon after taking office in late 2006.
The death toll nationwide has climbed above 40,000, largely as a result of fighting between trafficking groups that have shed old alliances or split apart as leaders have been arrested or killed during the government crackdown.
The Calderon administration, citing those takedowns, claims it is winning a war against crime groups that it says was long overdue. But critics say the offensive has spurred more killing, and many Mexicans believe the government is losing.
Mexicans were horrified last month when an arson attack attributed to the Zetas killed 52 people — many of them middle-aged and older women — at a casino in the northern city of Monterrey.
Yeah, I know you like your weed, and it's only $20 here, $50 there...
But when you buy these drugs coming out of Mexico, you are directly funding these criminal organizations in Mexico. Because of that money, they can bribe officials, judges, street assassins, buy weapons, and kill tens of thousands of Mexican citizens a year.
You might as well be writing a donation check directly to the IRA or Hamas, at least youll be killing less people per dollar spent. It's a war out there in Mexico and the drug lords are winning because the Mexican govt is funded by measly Mexican taxes, while the drug lords are funded by YOU.
Is it really that important to you to get high? Addiction is one thing, but with pot, we have millions of middle class recreational users, who could quit any time. How much money did you personally donate to the cartels last year buying pot? Your friends?
Is there any kind of legitimate argument to be made for buying marijuana or any drug that you know is coming from Mexico?
People were once willing to divest form South African companies over apartheid. Can't we agree to divest from the Mexican Mafia and cartels over their countless murders?
If you want to avoid a debate about personal responsibility, and wish to argue legalization, please start a separate thread.
This is not the worst scene I've heard of. Heads thrown over resort walls, entire ranches in South America decapitated while the victims were alive and the heads stolen (including the message to the owner written in the victims blood on the walls of the ranch house), people suspected of authoring wistle-blower/watchdog twitter feeds or blogs chopped into pieces and left hanging like meat on overpasses, etc. The level that violent crime has overtaken many areas south of our border makes any Middle Eastern terrorist threat pale in comparison.
The worst part is they they have grown in power and influence enough from the economy we provide to branch out into other crimes: gun trafficking, human trafficking, kidnapping, forced pornography, and others. It's a picture that is only getting worse the longer we allow it to.
Legalization aside, using while these drugs are illegal is doing incredible damage. It's different in other countries, and even different parts of the US (where the drug trade finds Canada or local plants cheaper) but there's also no guaranteeing where your supply is coming from.
Is there anything to argue here? Yes, supporting violent groups is bad, no, the fix you get is probably not worth a few heads rolling.
Fact of the matter is that the action is so disconnected from the result that it is hard to see it as causing it. When you add layers of obfuscation, you can gain plausible deniability. It's the same reason it is so hard to figure out who to blame when a corporation does something terrible.
Do you know how few people buy weed out of Mexico now? Everything north of the Mason-Dixon line generally comes from private grow-ops, medical states, and British Columbia. South of that might be an issue, but I wouldn't know.
The thing with Mexican stuff is that it's usually incredibly low-quality, often referred to as "dirt" or "schwagg", and it's a lot harder to get drugs over the Mexican border than it is the Canadian border.
I don't know anyone who buys drugs from Mexico. If you do, don't let them smoke you out. I've heard the stuff is utterly horrid. Most of the people who buy this are kids who don't know how badly they're getting ripped off.
Is it weed that they're dealing? My understanding was that the Mexican drug cartels primarily deal cocaine.
Only trafficking really, coca mostly grows in South America. Now Meth, on the other hand, is a popular thing to make south of the border. And apparently Mexico is the second-largest Heroin supplier to the US.
This is a classic media ploy. DRUGS ARE BAD, ALL OF HUMANITY WILL CEASE TO EXIST IF YOU TOUCH THEM!
I guarantee you if everyone stopped buying drugs illegally (not going to happen anyways) people involved in criminal groups will just find something else to profit off. Be it prostitution, "protection" or even paid hits. Either way people in gangs and cartels are going to be killed. The problem here isn't the drug itself, its gangs and how they aren't being stopped.
And I would prefer that these violent criminals are selling something that comes from the ground to people rather than forcing women or children to perform sexual acts.
I guarantee you if everyone stopped buying drugs illegally (not going to happen anyways) people involved in criminal groups will just find something else to profit off. Be it prostitution, "protection" or even paid hits. Either way people in gangs and cartels are going to be killed. The problem here isn't the drug itself, its gangs and how they aren't being stopped.
And I would prefer that these violent criminals are selling something that comes from the ground to people rather than forcing women or children to perform sexual acts.
But the question being raised here is one of personal responsibility. Does anything you say excuse/justify/allow you and me personally to do business with these violent criminals? If they were in porn, as you say, would we be justified in giving them money for their porn? If they were in diamonds, would we be justified in giving them money for their diamonds?
If terrible things are going to happen regardless of your choices, is it okay to choose to participate in them?
And let's not overlook the fact that the gangs are in drugs because it's the most profitable illegal business out there. If people stopped buying from them, yes, they'd try to adapt to the changing circumstances, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't hurt. What you're saying is akin to saying, "If you Doom Blade your opponent's Titan, he's just going to play another creature."
Now, you're probably right that this is not going to happen anyways. But this is because there are a lot of people making selfish and shortsighted decisions, rather than getting together and agreeing to put off their own personal gratification to help make the world a slightly better place. It's a form of tragedy of the commons. Normally, we can resolve such tragedies through the use of law and government, but unfortunately these only work when people obey them.
But the question being raised here is one of personal responsibility. Does anything you say excuse/justify/allow you and me personally to do business with these violent criminals? If they were in porn, as you say, would we be justified in giving them money for their porn? If they were in diamonds, would we be justified in giving them money for their diamonds?
If terrible things are going to happen regardless of your choices, is it okay to choose to participate in them?
Well, to begin with, the guy you actually bring the money to in the street isn't exactly a stone cold killer. This guy will probably be some addict himself that is only harming himself and selling some stuff to pay for his own. I wouldn't care to give him my money.
BUT, a cut would go to the rest of the organisation still so in a way I guess you are funding violence. But hey guess what? You know who kills more in a day and causes more violence than those Mexicans do in a year? The US government. The place where all your taxes go. You could argue that they are mostly killing people who "deserve" it to an extent (other soldiers, terrorists, ETC) but the people that the gangs are killing are also "deserve" it to an extent (criminals, possibly killers, ETC). And sometime civilians get killed by the army, same with gangs (Although I would argue I think the army kills more civilians).
So overall, society will always have violence funded by us. Either the lying, killing government is doing it behind our backs or the gangs right in front of us.
I think it is alright to give them money if you have no other choice. Like mad mat said, if you can grow it yourself or get it from someone who isn't a thug, do that.
Oh and my overall argument would be something you wouldn't let us discuss so it may seem a bit strange without it...
I guarantee you if everyone stopped buying drugs illegally (not going to happen anyways) people involved in criminal groups will just find something else to profit off. Be it prostitution, "protection" or even paid hits. Either way people in gangs and cartels are going to be killed. The problem here isn't the drug itself, its gangs and how they aren't being stopped.
And I would prefer that these violent criminals are selling something that comes from the ground to people rather than forcing women or children to perform sexual acts.
Is that the best you can come up with?
Sounds like pure cognitive dissonance and transparent rationalization to me. These gangs (because of their obscene wealth due to YOUR funding) have a stranglehold on the police and the citizenry and are killing thousands of civilians, not just each other.
The size of the gangs' power is directly linked to the amount of money they can make. Cutting off their drug money would not mean more prostitution (it would just mean that more people would be fighting over the same prostitution market). The market is the market. Revenue has to come from somewhere (the customers). And there isn't enough money in Mexico to rob or take through prostitution, to make up for the massive revenue stream from US dollars for drugs.
No single raindrop feels responsible for the flood.
But if you spend $20 a week on marijuana, that's $1000 bucks a year, some of which is going to local distributors, but much of which is going right back to these gangs that are making northern Mexico a living hell. Gangs can pay a kid to go assassinate a civilian in Mexico for far less than that. That $1000 can buy 20 murders, or maybe a couple of police officials.
Using the South Africa divestment as an analogy, do you feel no personal responsibility for this, should you feel any reason to stop if you are a pot purchaser (especially if you're living in the SoCal or Texas areas).
-
The Mexican gangs do grow and traffic in marijuana. Lots of it:
Sure cocaine is most of it, but funding gangs with marijuana money doesn't make you any less culpable. Morally speaking, you might be worse, because the crack addicts are addicted. A marijuana purchaser is funding these gangs with disposable income for their simple casual pleasure, while making up excuses for why its not hurting anybody:
TIJUANA, Mexico (AP) — Mexican soldiers have found the largest marijuana plantation ever detected in Mexico, a huge field covering almost 300 acres (120 hectares), the Defense Department said Thursday.
The plantation is four times larger than the previous record discovery by authorities at a ranch in northern Chihuahua state in 1984.
The pot plants sheltered under black screen-cloth in a huge square on the floor of the Baja California desert, more than 150 miles (250 kilometers) south of Tijuana, across the border from San Diego.
Army Gen. Alfonso Duarte said the screening, which is often used by regular farmers to protect crops from too much sun or heat, made it difficult to detect from the air what was growing underneath.
It was only when soldiers on the ground reached the isolated area Tuesday that they found thousands of pot plants as high as 2.5 yards (meters) tall. The average height of the plants was about 1.5 yards (meters). Duarte said they were not yet ready for harvest.
"We estimate that in this area, approximately 60 people were working. When they saw the military personnel, they fled," Duarte told reporters. A few were later reportedly detained at a nearby roadblock, but Duarte said no arrests were made at the scene.
He said traffickers could have harvested about 120 tons of marijuana from the plantation, worth about 1.8 billion pesos (about $160 million).
Video of the plantation showed a sophisticated system of piped-in irrigation to support the plants, which Duarte said was fed by two wells. The plantation also included some wooden outbuildings, presumably for use by people caring for the plants.
Troops will destroy the fields by burning them, Duarte said.
The site is the near the coastal town of San Quintin. Journalists were en route there Thursday under army escort.
While it's unknown how much of Mexican drug cartels' income comes from marijuana, recent discoveries suggest it remains a large-scale trade.
Last October, Mexican authorities made their largest-ever seizure of marijuana packaged for sale, a record 148 tons (134 metric tons) found in a number of tractor trailers and houses in Tijuana. They appeared to make up a major distribution center traced directly to Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted fugitive, who has expanded the reach of his Sinaloa cartel along the U.S.-Mexico border since escaping from prison in 2001.
In November, U.S. and Mexican investigators found two long, sophisticated tunnels under the border between Baja California and California, along with more than 40 tons of marijuana in and around the tunnels.
The tunnels ran about 2,000 feet from Mexico to San Diego and were equipped with lighting, ventilation and a rail system for drugs to be carried on a small cart.
U.S. officials say they believe the tunnels also were the work of the Sinaloa cartel.
While the Arellano Felix or Tijuana cartel long dominated the drug trade in Baja California, the cartel has been greatly weakened by government hits on its leadership, and authorities say there are signs that the Sinaloa cartel now also operates in the area.
Duarte said he did not know which group operated the plantation found Tuesday.
No matter how you try to rationalize it:
(1) Mexican gangs are powerful because they are rich on American money. There is no local crime they can commit to make the billions they make, because the regular Mexican citizenry doesn't have have millions or billions. The gangs could take ALL the assets of every Mexican civilian in Juarez, shake them upside down by the ankle like in those cartoons, and they could not be able to match the revenue they make off of American Drug buyers for one week.
(2) The American money can't go from your pocket into their pocket unless you buy drugs with it. Then magically, American money leaves your pocket, and enters a drug lord's pocket, who uses it to hire soldiers, pay judges, and pay politicians, and makes Juarez a living hell.
(3) If Mexican gang loses you as a drug customer, they no longer get your American money. Turning to prostitution or porn or human trafficking will not get them even a fraction of that kind of American money, because MEXICANS DON'T HAVE that kind of money.
So stop being a stooge of the Mexican gangs. And stop making excuses.
BUT, a cut would go to the rest of the organisation still so in a way I guess you are funding violence. But hey guess what? You know who kills more in a day and causes more violence than those Mexicans do in a year? The US government. The place where all your taxes go. You could argue that they are mostly killing people who "deserve" it to an extent (other soldiers, terrorists, ETC) but the people that the gangs are killing are also "deserve" it to an extent (criminals, possibly killers, ETC). And sometime civilians get killed by the army, same with gangs (Although I would argue I think the army kills more civilians).
No, I don't think I'm going to argue that way. Let's pretend for a moment that the US government is a pack of evil bastards just as bad as a Mexican drug cartel, and that by giving my money to it (yours presumably goes to a different pack of evil bastards, judging by your flag) I'm funding violence. Does that excuse/justify/allow my voluntarily giving more money to another pack of evil bastards to fund more violence? Or ought I to at least keep the blood on my hands to a minimum?
I think it is alright to give them money if you have no other choice. Like mad mat said, if you can grow it yourself or get it from someone who isn't a thug, do that.
And "get drugs from a gang" and "grow drugs yourself" are the only options you see? There's no other?
Dcartist is right: this is really weak rationalization you're bringing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What you're saying is akin to saying, "If you Doom Blade your opponent's Titan, he's just going to play another creature."
But if you defeat him, he can't play any more creatures. If the Mexican government is having such a hard time dealing with the cartels, why don't they ask other governments and/or organizations for help. Having people not buy weed from them is a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
Problem is the supply chain, these gangs are illegal black market corporations with a lot of expertise. Which is why in some cases you seen ex gang members and other people from the street be very successful in business. Frankly I see two points either deal with the supply side or the demand side, and more or less it's going to come down to the demand side since the supply side has failed to address the problem in totality and just destabilizes states.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
And "get drugs from a gang" and "grow drugs yourself" are the only options you see? There's no other?
No, I wrote 3 options.... (unless you are implying not to do drugs at all)
No, I don't think I'm going to argue that way. Let's pretend for a moment that the US government is a pack of evil bastards just as bad as a Mexican drug cartel, and that by giving my money to it (yours presumably goes to a different pack of evil bastards, judging by your flag) I'm funding violence. Does that excuse/justify/allow my voluntarily giving more money to another pack of evil bastards to fund more violence? Or ought I to at least keep the blood on my hands to a minimum?
I'm not going to pretend stuff doesn't happen, because it does.
What I'm saying is that while funding violence is a bad thing, it happens regardless of what we do. Either from our governments or gangs finding a new source or revenue.
I grew up in Cronulla, Sydney, a European district with many gangs. I had friends mixed up in that and you know what they would do for money when the cops busted them selling E's outside a club? Smash windows in and rob people, or mug tourists in the streets.
What I'm saying is that stopping drug trade isn't the solution here. And I find that cannabis is the lesser of two evils compared to ANYTHING else these gangs could do for cash.
But if you defeat him, he can't play any more creatures. If the Mexican government is having such a hard time dealing with the cartels, why don't they ask other governments and/or organizations for help.
Partially, it's a sovereignty issue. But in fact they do work extensively with other countries' agencies. It's just a really, really tough job to stamp out organized crime. Especially when the crime is so obscenely profitable.
Having people not buy weed from them is a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
Well, I don't think it is temporary; I think eliminating the market for organized crime is the single strongest strategy against it. But even if it is temporary, it will still save some lives. Every little bit matters; and it matters the world to the would-be victims. A temporary solution is still infinitely better than no solution at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Problem is the supply chain, these gangs are illegal black market corporations with a lot of expertise. Which is why in some cases you seen ex gang members and other people from the street be very successful in business.
There is no way to deal with the supply side when there is such a lucrative demand side. Nature abhors a vacuum, and a market that is as rich as this one will DRAW expertise to it, no matter what country its in.
But as people who are NOT addicts, but casual users, often middle class, don't we have a personal responsibility to not send dollars overseas directly into the pockets of the Sinaloa cartel?
Frankly I see two points either deal with the supply side or the demand side, and more or less it's going to come down to the demand side since the supply side has failed to address the problem in totality and just destabilizes states.
American dollars arm the cartels, gives them more influence than the Mexican federal government.
I look at it not so much as intercepting the flow of drugs.. but intercepting the flow of dollars. Drugs are ****. Its DOLLARS we have to worry about.
( You could almost weirdly look at it from a dollars standpoint, and say that the Mexicans have not taken care of the DEMAND for dollars (which will always exist), and the US has not stopped the SUPPLY of dollars (which does NOT have to exist) ).
Quote from pinkfloyd »
I grew up in Cronulla, Sydney, a European district with many gangs. I had friends mixed up in that and you know what they would do for money when the cops busted them selling E's outside a club? Smash windows in and rob people, or mug tourists in the streets.
Except in this case, the drug dealers are selling the drugs to rich Americans REMOTELY to the tune of billions. If we cut off the flow of dollars, gangs can go ahead and try to rob and mug tourists or locals for chump change... but they can't finance a private militia or pay off cops, and they will LOSE to police and the local citizenry.
NARCOCASH is what makes the gangs invincible in Mexico. Nothing else.
Quote from pinkfloyd »
No, I wrote 3 options.... (unless you are implying not to do drugs at all)
Actually I think that's exactly what was implied there. What's so hard about that? You act like you're being asked to cut off a testicle.
You're only being asked to give up marijuana and stop writing a weekly donation check to the Juarez cartel.
No, I wrote 3 options.... (unless you are implying not to do drugs at all)
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm implying. So what's your response to it? Are you really saying that people might "have no other choice"? That given the option between funding violent criminals and going without, the latter isn't even on the table? I sure hope not, but that's what it sounds like.
I had friends mixed up in that and you know what they would do for money when the cops busted them selling E's outside a club? Smash windows in and rob people, or mug tourists in the streets.
So why not do those things in the first place? Because it's easier to get caught and far less profitable. Just because stopping the illegal drug trade wouldn't be a total knockout blow to criminal gangs doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm implying. So what's your response to it? Are you really saying that people might "have no other choice"? That given the option between funding violent criminals and going without, the latter isn't even on the table? I sure hope not, but that's what it sounds like.
The solutions I see are:
1. Actually trying to stop gangs in the US through more police work
2. Getting people off it, medical centers and such
3. NOT ALOUD TO TALK ABOUT.
And you have obviously never been addicted to anything. Its hard to quit stuff man, and the medical system over there need attention more than this.
And my question remains: does that excuse/justify/allow our participation in it?
Yes, because it is unstoppable.
So why not do those things in the first place? Because it's easier to get caught and far less profitable. Just because stopping the drug trade wouldn't be a total knockout blow to criminal gangs doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing.
Criminals will do anything for money, regardless of how "risky" it is. in fact, its more likely you will end up shot over something non drug related or stabbed, like me.
Criminals will do anything for money, regardless of how "risky" it is. in fact, its more likely you will end up shot over something non drug related or stabbed, like me.
Okay, there's a fundamental concept here you don't seem to be getting. Life isn't binary. Crime isn't binary. Violence isn't binary. It is possible to improve a situation without eliminating the problem entirely. And conversely, it is possible to make a problem worse even though it already exists.
Ask yourself this: if I offered you $100, would you say, "No, I don't need it; I already have money"? And if I stole $100 from you, would you say, "It doesn't matter; I still have money"? Or would these non-binary changes in your money supply affect your welfare, even though you're not going from a state of no-money to money or vice versa?
This is basically the logic you're using here. Decreases in crime don't matter because there's still crime, you say. You have to start paying attention not just to the presence or absence of crime, but to the amount.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Okay, there's a fundamental concept here you don't seem to be getting. Life isn't binary. Crime isn't binary. Violence isn't binary. It is possible to improve a situation without eliminating the problem entirely. And conversely, it is possible to make a problem worse even though it already exists.
Ask yourself this: if I offered you $100, would you say, "No, I don't need it; I already have money"? And if I stole $100 from you, would you say, "It doesn't matter; I still have money"? Or would these non-binary changes in your money supply affect your welfare, even though you're not going from a state of no-money to money or vice versa?
This is basically the logic you're using here. Decreases in crime don't matter because there's still crime, you say. You have to start paying attention not just to the presence or absence of crime, but to the amount.
I'd take the money if you offered in a friendly way and if you stole it I would be annoyed.
I'm saying crime WON'T decrease by stopping drugs.
I'll add that there's been a persistent problem with certain areas of perpetual poverty in given areas that are generational and to fix that requires a combination of social engineering and people actually wanting to change their community and their own individual lives. Which quite frankly we in this country have not done and are now just beginning a greater focus on poverty instead of a winners take all society.
I feel that the center of all institutions are the individual and the family, and out from there flows the strength of a nation. To engage in social engineering isn't cheap either, but I question whether in the long term that some forms of social engineering like education and infrastructure and diplomacy could not work better to improve people's lives and move them off of drugs.
However, there's also the issue of prosperity where it's the yuppy kid sitting in suburbia buying the **** with his or her parent's money. If these kids are bored, then stick their asses in school or let them do something useful like start a business.
I mean a fear point is a lot of these people start young, maybe we should talk about people in youth starting their own business and liberalizing the child labor laws some what for people over 15. Such as:
-revoking the ability of police to enforce curfew laws on specific youths that are engaging in business activities and other related social moves
-remodulating schools to be more flexible in their standards, such as a child engaged in running their own business doesn't have to take gym class and replacing that with financing, economics, ect.
Easier to have someone addicted to accomplishment than drugs or power.
As for the whole supply chain:
1. Poor farmer selling drugs
2. Guy getting into gangs buying up the drugs to sell into the gang corporation
3. Idiot yuppy slacking off on some random drug
1 and 2 are economic and even in part cultural, where as #3 is similar but dealing more with boredom from prosperity. Even then I've heard stories of teenagers in rural areas selling moonshine for prom.... so it doesn't always work that way.
The marijuana makes up such a small amount of their income that basing your arguments off it is probably detrimental to your cause. If you really want to get down to it you should be trying to admonish the people buying heroine and cocaine - much more expensive drugs that are far cheaper and easier for them to smuggle across the boarder and net a MUCH larger return profit-wise.
And to blanket statement that your $20 a week is funding cartels is just silly. I for one know where anything I may purchase is grown, and its down around the corner. A lot of people have situations like that. The majority of mexican grown marijuana is sold in urban areas and major cities that act as hubs for trafficking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Beefhouse3D »
I like to protect frightened things perhaps. I assembled them in the fortress of beefitude for safety.
Yeah, I know you like your weed, and it's only $20 here, $50 there...
But when you buy these drugs coming out of Mexico, you are directly funding these criminal organizations in Mexico. Because of that money, they can bribe officials, judges, street assassins, buy weapons, and kill tens of thousands of Mexican citizens a year.
We'll I see it differently. Though I personally do not smoke, my friends buy marijuana from a "dealer" that they know. That dealer buys from a connection either within the united states or in mexico. There can be long chains such as
So the first dealer or "connection" buys from Mexico and so i can see how you would state that he is funding their drug cartel, however everyone else after that is "funding" their dealer. So unless you get it directly from Mexico all your doing is funding some dealer, and we can't assume he will use your money to get more marijuana or spend it elsewhere.
Anyone claiming the US doesn't buy much Mexican weed is off their rocker. The stuff comes across the border in insane quantities by a variety of methods. If you are in any southern our southwestern state (including California) your weed is probably coming from Mexico if you have not seen it grown and processed in front of you. Dealers will also claim the stuff comes from "their own supply" or "leftover from medical use" because it sounds like better quality stuff that way. They will also claim they only sell to cover their own use, but that's also a sales tactic. If you don't think dealers use marketing incentives, then you are wrong.
And I would prefer that these violent criminals are selling something that comes from the ground to people rather than forcing women or children to perform sexual acts.
Mexico supplies the drugs, and gained a lot of money and influence in the border region. With that money they invested in more profitable crimes that require a large organization and a lot of power to pull off (like human trafficking). By bankrolling the drug trade you are giving them the means to perform the other by the nature of the crime itself. On top of that the drug trade cannot be stopped in very large chunks, but the loss of a single truck of people or a botched kidnapping means a ton of loss to the organization.
Also, violent gangs would not suddenly start raping women and children if they were not involved with the drug cartels. That's just silliness.
But if you defeat him, he can't play any more creatures. If the Mexican government is having such a hard time dealing with the cartels, why don't they ask other governments and/or organizations for help. Having people not buy weed from them is a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
Actually, it's an infeasible permanent solution to a temporary problem. Cartels have come an gone through the decades and gain and lose ground all the time to the government. Recent resurgences in violence are in response to having more money (the US has been purchasing more drugs during the recession) and the government having a stricter response to their antics. They are simply lashing out because they are losing ground, but they can maintain the violence because their bankroll is extremely high at the moment. When gang funding drops, the cartels will be defeated and the government can completely change the country to a much more peaceful one (like Colombia).
Problem is the supply chain, these gangs are illegal black market corporations with a lot of expertise. Which is why in some cases you seen ex gang members and other people from the street be very successful in business. Frankly I see two points either deal with the supply side or the demand side, and more or less it's going to come down to the demand side since the supply side has failed to address the problem in totality and just destabilizes states.
On top of this, the US government (and others) spent a lot of time and money training Latin soldiers during the cold war - and then pulling the plug and leaving them highly skilled in killing but with no legitimate work. The soldiers of these cartels are just about as well trained as US soldiers, and their pockets run as deep as many of the countries they operate in.
Quote from Garruk2.0 »
So the first dealer or "connection" buys from Mexico and so i can see how you would state that he is funding their drug cartel, however everyone else after that is "funding" their dealer. So unless you get it directly from Mexico all your doing is funding some dealer, and we can't assume he will use your money to get more marijuana or spend it elsewhere.
You're actually proving his point. By the way, if you buy an Apple product you are supporting Foxconn in China abuse their work force for a trinket. They might be getting less money than Apple, but they are still making a killing to the point that they are opening the world's largest industrial complex.
I'll take it even further. By using the internet, you are putting money in Foxconn's pocket. After all, they are a huge supplier for the servers used for amazon.com, yahoo.com, ebay.com, microsoft, or any other large corporation. HP and Dell servers are both made by Foxconn.
It's easy to claim that you are doing no harm, but we are constantly doing harm all over the globe as a direct response to our purchasing. It's time to open your eyes and realize how ****ed up that fact is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, I know you like your weed, and it's only $20 here, $50 there...
But when you buy these drugs coming out of Mexico, you are directly funding these criminal organizations in Mexico. Because of that money, they can bribe officials, judges, street assassins, buy weapons, and kill tens of thousands of Mexican citizens a year.
You might as well be writing a donation check directly to the IRA or Hamas, at least youll be killing less people per dollar spent. It's a war out there in Mexico and the drug lords are winning because the Mexican govt is funded by measly Mexican taxes, while the drug lords are funded by YOU.
Is it really that important to you to get high? Addiction is one thing, but with pot, we have millions of middle class recreational users, who could quit any time. How much money did you personally donate to the cartels last year buying pot? Your friends?
Is there any kind of legitimate argument to be made for buying marijuana or any drug that you know is coming from Mexico?
People were once willing to divest form South African companies over apartheid. Can't we agree to divest from the Mexican Mafia and cartels over their countless murders?
If you want to avoid a debate about personal responsibility, and wish to argue legalization, please start a separate thread.Policy on marijuana legalization debates remains "no", so please don't start a second thread, or discuss the topic on this one.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The worst part is they they have grown in power and influence enough from the economy we provide to branch out into other crimes: gun trafficking, human trafficking, kidnapping, forced pornography, and others. It's a picture that is only getting worse the longer we allow it to.
Legalization aside, using while these drugs are illegal is doing incredible damage. It's different in other countries, and even different parts of the US (where the drug trade finds Canada or local plants cheaper) but there's also no guaranteeing where your supply is coming from.
Fact of the matter is that the action is so disconnected from the result that it is hard to see it as causing it. When you add layers of obfuscation, you can gain plausible deniability. It's the same reason it is so hard to figure out who to blame when a corporation does something terrible.
The thing with Mexican stuff is that it's usually incredibly low-quality, often referred to as "dirt" or "schwagg", and it's a lot harder to get drugs over the Mexican border than it is the Canadian border.
I don't know anyone who buys drugs from Mexico. If you do, don't let them smoke you out. I've heard the stuff is utterly horrid. Most of the people who buy this are kids who don't know how badly they're getting ripped off.
Only trafficking really, coca mostly grows in South America. Now Meth, on the other hand, is a popular thing to make south of the border. And apparently Mexico is the second-largest Heroin supplier to the US.
I am petitioning to get players to stop complaining about mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
Yeah, I thought most pot consumed in the US was homegrown.
Setting aside marijuana, though, the point remains for other drugs.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I guarantee you if everyone stopped buying drugs illegally (not going to happen anyways) people involved in criminal groups will just find something else to profit off. Be it prostitution, "protection" or even paid hits. Either way people in gangs and cartels are going to be killed. The problem here isn't the drug itself, its gangs and how they aren't being stopped.
And I would prefer that these violent criminals are selling something that comes from the ground to people rather than forcing women or children to perform sexual acts.
Peace
LOL
But the question being raised here is one of personal responsibility. Does anything you say excuse/justify/allow you and me personally to do business with these violent criminals? If they were in porn, as you say, would we be justified in giving them money for their porn? If they were in diamonds, would we be justified in giving them money for their diamonds?
If terrible things are going to happen regardless of your choices, is it okay to choose to participate in them?
And let's not overlook the fact that the gangs are in drugs because it's the most profitable illegal business out there. If people stopped buying from them, yes, they'd try to adapt to the changing circumstances, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't hurt. What you're saying is akin to saying, "If you Doom Blade your opponent's Titan, he's just going to play another creature."
Now, you're probably right that this is not going to happen anyways. But this is because there are a lot of people making selfish and shortsighted decisions, rather than getting together and agreeing to put off their own personal gratification to help make the world a slightly better place. It's a form of tragedy of the commons. Normally, we can resolve such tragedies through the use of law and government, but unfortunately these only work when people obey them.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, to begin with, the guy you actually bring the money to in the street isn't exactly a stone cold killer. This guy will probably be some addict himself that is only harming himself and selling some stuff to pay for his own. I wouldn't care to give him my money.
BUT, a cut would go to the rest of the organisation still so in a way I guess you are funding violence. But hey guess what? You know who kills more in a day and causes more violence than those Mexicans do in a year? The US government. The place where all your taxes go. You could argue that they are mostly killing people who "deserve" it to an extent (other soldiers, terrorists, ETC) but the people that the gangs are killing are also "deserve" it to an extent (criminals, possibly killers, ETC). And sometime civilians get killed by the army, same with gangs (Although I would argue I think the army kills more civilians).
So overall, society will always have violence funded by us. Either the lying, killing government is doing it behind our backs or the gangs right in front of us.
I think it is alright to give them money if you have no other choice. Like mad mat said, if you can grow it yourself or get it from someone who isn't a thug, do that.
Oh and my overall argument would be something you wouldn't let us discuss so it may seem a bit strange without it...
LOL
Sounds like pure cognitive dissonance and transparent rationalization to me. These gangs (because of their obscene wealth due to YOUR funding) have a stranglehold on the police and the citizenry and are killing thousands of civilians, not just each other.
The size of the gangs' power is directly linked to the amount of money they can make. Cutting off their drug money would not mean more prostitution (it would just mean that more people would be fighting over the same prostitution market). The market is the market. Revenue has to come from somewhere (the customers). And there isn't enough money in Mexico to rob or take through prostitution, to make up for the massive revenue stream from US dollars for drugs.
No single raindrop feels responsible for the flood.
But if you spend $20 a week on marijuana, that's $1000 bucks a year, some of which is going to local distributors, but much of which is going right back to these gangs that are making northern Mexico a living hell. Gangs can pay a kid to go assassinate a civilian in Mexico for far less than that. That $1000 can buy 20 murders, or maybe a couple of police officials.
Using the South Africa divestment as an analogy, do you feel no personal responsibility for this, should you feel any reason to stop if you are a pot purchaser (especially if you're living in the SoCal or Texas areas).
-
The Mexican gangs do grow and traffic in marijuana. Lots of it:
http://news.yahoo.com/army-finds-mexicos-biggest-marijuana-plantation-192837972.html
Sure cocaine is most of it, but funding gangs with marijuana money doesn't make you any less culpable. Morally speaking, you might be worse, because the crack addicts are addicted. A marijuana purchaser is funding these gangs with disposable income for their simple casual pleasure, while making up excuses for why its not hurting anybody:
No matter how you try to rationalize it:
(1) Mexican gangs are powerful because they are rich on American money. There is no local crime they can commit to make the billions they make, because the regular Mexican citizenry doesn't have have millions or billions. The gangs could take ALL the assets of every Mexican civilian in Juarez, shake them upside down by the ankle like in those cartoons, and they could not be able to match the revenue they make off of American Drug buyers for one week.
(2) The American money can't go from your pocket into their pocket unless you buy drugs with it. Then magically, American money leaves your pocket, and enters a drug lord's pocket, who uses it to hire soldiers, pay judges, and pay politicians, and makes Juarez a living hell.
(3) If Mexican gang loses you as a drug customer, they no longer get your American money. Turning to prostitution or porn or human trafficking will not get them even a fraction of that kind of American money, because MEXICANS DON'T HAVE that kind of money.
So stop being a stooge of the Mexican gangs. And stop making excuses.
No, I don't think I'm going to argue that way. Let's pretend for a moment that the US government is a pack of evil bastards just as bad as a Mexican drug cartel, and that by giving my money to it (yours presumably goes to a different pack of evil bastards, judging by your flag) I'm funding violence. Does that excuse/justify/allow my voluntarily giving more money to another pack of evil bastards to fund more violence? Or ought I to at least keep the blood on my hands to a minimum?
And "get drugs from a gang" and "grow drugs yourself" are the only options you see? There's no other?
Dcartist is right: this is really weak rationalization you're bringing.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But if you defeat him, he can't play any more creatures. If the Mexican government is having such a hard time dealing with the cartels, why don't they ask other governments and/or organizations for help. Having people not buy weed from them is a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
No, I wrote 3 options.... (unless you are implying not to do drugs at all)
I'm not going to pretend stuff doesn't happen, because it does.
What I'm saying is that while funding violence is a bad thing, it happens regardless of what we do. Either from our governments or gangs finding a new source or revenue.
I grew up in Cronulla, Sydney, a European district with many gangs. I had friends mixed up in that and you know what they would do for money when the cops busted them selling E's outside a club? Smash windows in and rob people, or mug tourists in the streets.
What I'm saying is that stopping drug trade isn't the solution here. And I find that cannabis is the lesser of two evils compared to ANYTHING else these gangs could do for cash.
LOL
Partially, it's a sovereignty issue. But in fact they do work extensively with other countries' agencies. It's just a really, really tough job to stamp out organized crime. Especially when the crime is so obscenely profitable.
Well, I don't think it is temporary; I think eliminating the market for organized crime is the single strongest strategy against it. But even if it is temporary, it will still save some lives. Every little bit matters; and it matters the world to the would-be victims. A temporary solution is still infinitely better than no solution at all.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But as people who are NOT addicts, but casual users, often middle class, don't we have a personal responsibility to not send dollars overseas directly into the pockets of the Sinaloa cartel?
American dollars arm the cartels, gives them more influence than the Mexican federal government.
I look at it not so much as intercepting the flow of drugs.. but intercepting the flow of dollars. Drugs are ****. Its DOLLARS we have to worry about.
( You could almost weirdly look at it from a dollars standpoint, and say that the Mexicans have not taken care of the DEMAND for dollars (which will always exist), and the US has not stopped the SUPPLY of dollars (which does NOT have to exist) ).
Except in this case, the drug dealers are selling the drugs to rich Americans REMOTELY to the tune of billions. If we cut off the flow of dollars, gangs can go ahead and try to rob and mug tourists or locals for chump change... but they can't finance a private militia or pay off cops, and they will LOSE to police and the local citizenry.
NARCOCASH is what makes the gangs invincible in Mexico. Nothing else.
Actually I think that's exactly what was implied there. What's so hard about that? You act like you're being asked to cut off a testicle.
You're only being asked to give up marijuana and stop writing a weekly donation check to the Juarez cartel.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm implying. So what's your response to it? Are you really saying that people might "have no other choice"? That given the option between funding violent criminals and going without, the latter isn't even on the table? I sure hope not, but that's what it sounds like.
And my question remains: does that excuse/justify/allow our participation in it?
So why not do those things in the first place? Because it's easier to get caught and far less profitable. Just because stopping the illegal drug trade wouldn't be a total knockout blow to criminal gangs doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The solutions I see are:
1. Actually trying to stop gangs in the US through more police work
2. Getting people off it, medical centers and such
3. NOT ALOUD TO TALK ABOUT.
And you have obviously never been addicted to anything. Its hard to quit stuff man, and the medical system over there need attention more than this.
Yes, because it is unstoppable.
Criminals will do anything for money, regardless of how "risky" it is. in fact, its more likely you will end up shot over something non drug related or stabbed, like me.
LOL
Okay, there's a fundamental concept here you don't seem to be getting. Life isn't binary. Crime isn't binary. Violence isn't binary. It is possible to improve a situation without eliminating the problem entirely. And conversely, it is possible to make a problem worse even though it already exists.
Ask yourself this: if I offered you $100, would you say, "No, I don't need it; I already have money"? And if I stole $100 from you, would you say, "It doesn't matter; I still have money"? Or would these non-binary changes in your money supply affect your welfare, even though you're not going from a state of no-money to money or vice versa?
This is basically the logic you're using here. Decreases in crime don't matter because there's still crime, you say. You have to start paying attention not just to the presence or absence of crime, but to the amount.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'd take the money if you offered in a friendly way and if you stole it I would be annoyed.
I'm saying crime WON'T decrease by stopping drugs.
LOL
I feel that the center of all institutions are the individual and the family, and out from there flows the strength of a nation. To engage in social engineering isn't cheap either, but I question whether in the long term that some forms of social engineering like education and infrastructure and diplomacy could not work better to improve people's lives and move them off of drugs.
However, there's also the issue of prosperity where it's the yuppy kid sitting in suburbia buying the **** with his or her parent's money. If these kids are bored, then stick their asses in school or let them do something useful like start a business.
I mean a fear point is a lot of these people start young, maybe we should talk about people in youth starting their own business and liberalizing the child labor laws some what for people over 15. Such as:
-revoking the ability of police to enforce curfew laws on specific youths that are engaging in business activities and other related social moves
-remodulating schools to be more flexible in their standards, such as a child engaged in running their own business doesn't have to take gym class and replacing that with financing, economics, ect.
Easier to have someone addicted to accomplishment than drugs or power.
As for the whole supply chain:
1. Poor farmer selling drugs
2. Guy getting into gangs buying up the drugs to sell into the gang corporation
3. Idiot yuppy slacking off on some random drug
1 and 2 are economic and even in part cultural, where as #3 is similar but dealing more with boredom from prosperity. Even then I've heard stories of teenagers in rural areas selling moonshine for prom.... so it doesn't always work that way.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
And to blanket statement that your $20 a week is funding cartels is just silly. I for one know where anything I may purchase is grown, and its down around the corner. A lot of people have situations like that. The majority of mexican grown marijuana is sold in urban areas and major cities that act as hubs for trafficking.
We'll I see it differently. Though I personally do not smoke, my friends buy marijuana from a "dealer" that they know. That dealer buys from a connection either within the united states or in mexico. There can be long chains such as
You-->Dealer--->USA Connection--->USA Connection-->Mexican Connection
So the first dealer or "connection" buys from Mexico and so i can see how you would state that he is funding their drug cartel, however everyone else after that is "funding" their dealer. So unless you get it directly from Mexico all your doing is funding some dealer, and we can't assume he will use your money to get more marijuana or spend it elsewhere.
EDH:
GRWMayael, the AnimaWRG
GUBDamia, Sage of StoneBUG
"A man is defined by his sacrifices rather than his gifts"
Mexico supplies the drugs, and gained a lot of money and influence in the border region. With that money they invested in more profitable crimes that require a large organization and a lot of power to pull off (like human trafficking). By bankrolling the drug trade you are giving them the means to perform the other by the nature of the crime itself. On top of that the drug trade cannot be stopped in very large chunks, but the loss of a single truck of people or a botched kidnapping means a ton of loss to the organization.
Also, violent gangs would not suddenly start raping women and children if they were not involved with the drug cartels. That's just silliness.
Actually, it's an infeasible permanent solution to a temporary problem. Cartels have come an gone through the decades and gain and lose ground all the time to the government. Recent resurgences in violence are in response to having more money (the US has been purchasing more drugs during the recession) and the government having a stricter response to their antics. They are simply lashing out because they are losing ground, but they can maintain the violence because their bankroll is extremely high at the moment. When gang funding drops, the cartels will be defeated and the government can completely change the country to a much more peaceful one (like Colombia).
On top of this, the US government (and others) spent a lot of time and money training Latin soldiers during the cold war - and then pulling the plug and leaving them highly skilled in killing but with no legitimate work. The soldiers of these cartels are just about as well trained as US soldiers, and their pockets run as deep as many of the countries they operate in.
You're actually proving his point. By the way, if you buy an Apple product you are supporting Foxconn in China abuse their work force for a trinket. They might be getting less money than Apple, but they are still making a killing to the point that they are opening the world's largest industrial complex.
I'll take it even further. By using the internet, you are putting money in Foxconn's pocket. After all, they are a huge supplier for the servers used for amazon.com, yahoo.com, ebay.com, microsoft, or any other large corporation. HP and Dell servers are both made by Foxconn.
It's easy to claim that you are doing no harm, but we are constantly doing harm all over the globe as a direct response to our purchasing. It's time to open your eyes and realize how ****ed up that fact is.