Mexican Cartels Build Mad Max Narco Tanks

Hugh Pickens writes "Not content with building their own submarines, using bazookas, rocket-propelled grenades or land mines, drug cartels are now building armored assault vehicles, complete with gun turrets, inch-thick armor plates, firing ports and bulletproof glass. The monsters look like a cross between a handmade assault vehicle used by a Somali warlord and something out of a post-apocalyptic Mad Max movie, and have already appeared in several confrontations with Mexican authorities. A look inside a captured 'monster' truck (YouTube video) reveals that in addition to swiveling turrets to shoot in any direction, they have hatches and peepholes for snipers, their spacious interiors can fit as many as 20 armed men, and they are coated with polyurethane for insulation and to reduce noise. Still Patrick Corcoran writes that the armored vehicles are not a game changer. 'While the "narco-tanks," as the vehicles are often called, make for great blog fodder and provide entertaining videos, seeing their rise as a significant escalation in Mexico's drug war would be wrongheaded,' writes Corcoran. 'In the end, the "tanks" are a sexy narrative, but these mistaken notions about the criminals' "military might" not only inflate the power of Mexico's groups far beyond any reasonable assessment, they also obscure the problem, and its potential solutions.'"

Comments

solutions...

[Azghoul]

"its potential solutions."

What, you mean like ending the hideous and utterly failed drug 'war'?

Re:solutions...

[Hazel Bergeron]

It hasn't failed at all. It's providing a tidy profit for all those who intended to gain from it.

Re:solutions...

[hairyfeet]

What failure? Private prisons funnel tons of dollars straight from the tax payers to the multinational cartels, a single drug bust can ensure you have a large underclass ready for exploitation for everything from booze and smokes to lotto tickets and check cashing places, it helps to keep the population under control while giving a nice excuse to make the police more and more like a military operating on home soil, while also helping to get rid of those pesky little things like the fourth amendment...oh...were you actually thinking it was about stopping drugs? Silly peasant it is about profits for the megacorps, just like everything else.

After all if it was about "The People" then pot would be legal, we wouldn't be fighting three wars while funneling ever more money to Wall Street and the MIC, nobody would touch Medicaid and Medicare, the military would be less than half the size and not building new aircraft carriers and superweapons like we had a war planned with the Ruskies for next Tuesday, but where is the room for massive profits and corruption in that? That is why your "vote" is a choice between "Rich corporate ass kisser in a blue suit" or "Rich corporate ass kisser in a slightly darker blue suit". Any choice that might actually listen to the people would cut into profits! Mustn't have that now, can we?

BTW how's that "Hope and Change" thing working out? Turned out to be nothing but Dubya dipped in chocolate huh? I'm afraid the late Bill Hicks nailed it more than 20 years ago. How sad is it the man has been gone for two decades and if anything his words are even more true now?

Re:solutions...

[denzacar]

udder corruption

That sounds kinky.

Re:solutions...

[JWSmythe]

    I believe what he would reply is "woosh".

    When property is seized from illegal activity, not all of it always gets reports as impounded. The person it's being seized from won't complain, as it reduces the number of charges or the severity of them.

    For example, if you're caught with $1,000,000 cash, and 20 kilos of cocaine, but the arrest report only shows $1,000 cash and 1 kilo of cocaine. Only an absolute idiot would demand that the correct amounts are listed. "No your honor, my client insists that he had more drugs and cash at the time of the arrest. Yes, he does realize that it will result in changing the penalty from 1 year in jail to 30 years in prison."

    Of course, that can be a risky venture on the part of the person falsifying the report. The guy being arrested knows that he took them, so he may find himself with a few extra holes, in a shallow grave.

Re:solutions...

[Raenex]

Americans joke about French demonstrators because they are typically just a bunch of angry youths rioting. In contrast, look at the "Arab Spring" demonstrations. For the most part, they were peaceful and not burning down cars and shops.

Re:solutions...

[Demonoid-Penguin]

BTW how's that "Hope and Change" thing working out? Turned out to be nothing but Dubya dipped in chocolate huh? I'm afraid the late Bill Hicks nailed it more than 20 years ago. How sad is it the man has been gone for two decades and if anything his words are even more true now?

Bill Hicks:-

I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you.

"This is your brain." I've seen a lot of weird shit on drugs. I have never ever ever ever EVER looked at a fucking egg and thought it was a brain.

If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs.

I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking IMPOSSIBLE. "Hey, buddy!" "Hey, what?" "Ummmmmmm...." End of argument.

Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit... unnatural? You know what I mean? It's nature. How do you make nature against the fucking law?

I believe that God left certain drugs growing naturally upon our planet to help speed up and facilitate our evolution. OK, not the most popular idea ever expressed. Either that or you're all real high and agreeing with me in the only way you can right now. (Starts blinking)

They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.

No, I don't do drugs anymore, either. But I'll tell you something about drugs. I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth: I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day.

Christianity has a built-in defense system: anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument is, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It's a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it -- and believe me, I was raised Southern Baptist -- is to take massive amounts of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me."

That's an act, that's a frying pan, that's a stove, you're an alcoholic! Dude, I'm tripping right now, and I still see that that's a fucking egg, alright? I see the UFO's around it, but that's a goddamn egg in the middle. There's a hobbit eating it, but goddammit that hobbit's eating a fucking egg! He's on a unicorn. But, no, th-th-th-that's a fucking egg. How dare you have a wino tell me not to do drugs!

The worst kind of non-smokers are the ones that come up to you and cough. That's pretty fucking cruel isn't it? Do you go up to cripples and dance too?

A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fucking cross? It's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant.

bullshit.

[unity100]

the person who wrote the article apparently doesnt know shit about military technology and history.

an armored personnel carrier is an armored personnel carrier. the fact that these are produced, and used means that the party using them has the means to produce them and use them. this shows an escalation of the situation.

Re:bullshit.

[ThunderBird89]

Except that this is not an APC. It's a truck with shit bolted and welded on, not much more than a glorified technical. It's just like Marvin Heemeyer's armored bulldozer, only constructed not for defense, but offense, and are only proof against small arms, as the officer said, not heavy weapons or anti-materiel/anti-tank rifles.

The fact that the drug lords are deploying these means they're desperate: smuggling operations fail, so the only way for them to make money is to try and bust through the border. It's certainly an escalation, but not a very dangerous one if handled correctly.
These things, judging by the looks of them, are not cheap to make, despite being improvised. If the military makes one big push now, ramps up Predator patrols, deploys Barret M82-s/XM109-s (if they're completed, the 25mm HE round should certainly prove adequate to defeat the weaker portions of the armor while remaining man-portable) and other heavy weapons, possibly even tank patrols along the border and MLRS units stationed at regular intervals, they might bankrupt the drug lords, or at least convince them that trying to assault the US border will keep costing more than it makes for them if they keep losing technicals at the same rate.
However, if they don't man up and replace jeep patrols with something that packs more punch, these things are going d what they were made to do, and will befeat the border guards, returning the revenue to the drug cartels.

Re:bullshit.

[GNious]

Are they really using these against the US border? More plausibly, they are using them against other drug-cartels...

Re:bullshit.

[unity100]

it IS an apc. doesnt matter how you name it, doesnt matter what you compare it with. it is an armored vehicle that stands firearms, carries heavy weaponry. the drug cartels can field it.

and as you say - it stands against small arms - not anti tank rifles or heavier weapons - the point is, it DOES stand against the majority of weapons on the scene.

most of combat in world war ii was fought with similar, even weaker vehicles.

you cant put predator patrols over a city and start shooting suspicious vehicles with anti tank ammunition. that is the real deal here. you are joking when you say MLRS. what are you going to use MLRS against ? neighborhoods ?

this is city warfare. you are not fighting in open desert. predators, mlrs are out of question unless you want to destroy entire neighborhoods.

Re:bullshit.

[Abreu]

Bullshit, the drug cartels in Mexico are being armed and funded by the US. The cartels have zero motivation to alienate the US.

70% of guns seized from the cartels were purchased in the US: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375961350290734.html

Even the US government has admitted to smuggling guns to the cartels: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/0309/Mexico-lawmakers-livid-over-US-Operation-Fast-and-Furious

The US is the cartels #1 customer and main source of income.

So, if you do drugs or if you buy firearms in gun shows where identity checks are minimal, surprise! you are funding the cartels.

Re:bullshit.

[ThunderBird89]

Yes, yes, someone already pointed this out, I misunderstood the video commentary, and thought they were being used to breach the US border to deliver drugs. In which case, my arguments stand.
As it is, intervening in Mexico is not the US military's job, unless Mexico specifically requests help.

As for the MLRS, do you know what soldiers call it when it packs guided missiles? "The 70-km Sniper Rifle". Those missiles are accurate enough to take out one building and leave the rest undamaged on the block, I think taking out a garage housing one of these is not beyond its capabilities.
Or they could use the Paladin System (and I can't resist linking this image), which is accurate enough to be fired through a window from 15 miles or so away. I believe that makes it good enough to hit a truck at, say, 5-10 miles.
The Predator can accurately target a running man from above, why on Earth would it miss a big honkin' truck like this one? No need to take out a neighborhood, these weapons are accurate enough to pick off the truck itself.

Re:bullshit.

[blind biker]

You say desperate, but I'd argue that they have actually demonstrated a high level of creativity. It's not like the traditional routes of drug smuggling are going to stop - the US market is just as well supplied now as it has always been. The submarines, the armoured vehicles etc., are just attempts at finding a better smuggling method.

Re:bullshit.

[hedwards]

Your tinfoil hat must be cutting off circulation to your head. The government wasn't smuggling guns for the cartels, they were engaged in a sting. A poorly conceived of and executed sting, but a sting no less. It's just plain dishonest to suggest that the US is funding and arming them.

Yes, they are making most of their money here and they are using that money to pay people to buy them weapons, but you make it sound like there's some sort of conspiracy going on. Whereas what's really going on is typical of organized crime and requires no additional paranoia to explain.

Re:bullshit.

[h4rr4r]

Why? To waste more money and escalate the level of violence?

Even doing that would not win the drug war, that is not possible.

Re:bullshit.

[Kreigaffe]

That's... that's assuming there's actually something there for them to break through. That's assuming there's something at the border they can't cross.

That's not how things are, you can move anything you want from Mexico to America or the other way around. Hell, heard the shit going on in Arizona? Bunch of border patrol agents down there throwing around claims that they were instructed to just wave flashlights at border-crossers. Just try and scare them away. That's all, no more, wave a light at them and consider them "turned back" and never record the incident.

Re:bullshit.

[bmo]

>Which has precisely what to do with the accusation that the US is arming and funding the narcomafia?

BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE IT BEFORE. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IRAN-CONTRA DID!

Keerrrist!

>This time

This is the time to assume the Government is guilty before proven innocent. We've pulled dirty shit like this before multiple times in the past when it "suited us" for various values of "suiting" and various values of "morality."

This is not tinfoilhattery. This is history.

Wake the fuck up.

--
BMO

Re:bullshit.

[Kyusaku Natsume]

I'm amazed how little are you guys worried for the lives of us mexicans. We want to deal with the bad guys far more than you, but we don't want our cities leveled by the USAF, please keep your armed forces in your side of the border, thank you.

The war on alcohol ended before this

[erroneus]

When alcohol was prohibited, the US saw all kinds of organization and arming of people in the alcohol trade. It got so bad that it was decided that alcohol should no longer be prohibited. Now it is just tightly controlled.

The war on drugs is a different story though isn't it. I guess the main reason why might be that all this stuff isn't quite so visible to the public.

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this

[Pinky's Brain]

How is it cost effective? It's desirable to the powers that be to have continual war and military involvement in law enforcement, but cost effective for the American tax payer? I don't think so.

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this

[splatter]

Thats why I always buy American!! It's the only thing to do as its my patriotic duty to keep jobs and money here in the states.

Rememeber to check that made in america lable, or dont be afraid to ask your local dealer, "am i funding mexico cartels with this purchase?"

Problem?

[DrBoumBoum]

they also obscure the problem, and its potential solutions.

The problem is prohibition and the solution is to stop it. Difficult to grasp?

Re:Problem?

[uncanny]

Legalize coccaine?

Re:Problem?

[dachshund]

At very least, we need to target these cartels based on their level of violence and threat to government control. Pick the nastiest one with the most weapons and devote all of our resources to destroying it. Then move on to the next one on the list, and so on and so forth.

Yes, this means we'll have to take resources away from some of the lesser cartels, but the point is to reduce violence not drug shipments. It needs to be made clear that being the biggest, baddest, most threatening organization is a death sentence for a cartel. Right now these organizations are building jerry-rigged military weapons, but it's only a matter of time before they're doing more, and before they spread over the US border and become entrenched.

The current US & Mexican policy is terrible, bordering on suicidal.

Re:Problem?

[DrBoumBoum]

Not much worse than alcohol IMHO. Also once legal you can provide information and warning about it, medial surveillance, counseling, all paid by the users. Basically acknowledging that drugs are part of human nature and actually deal with it. What's wrong with realism?

Re:Problem?

[betterunixthanunix]

There's a reason why the constitution doesn't include the right to do whatever drug you might want to do.

Funny how over a century passed between the constitutional convention and the beginning of the drug war. I suspect the constitution does not explicitly grant the right to use drugs because the founding fathers could not envision a world in which the US government would try to outlaw the use of hemp/marijuana, coca, or opium, let alone the broad classes of plants and chemicals that are illegal to possess in this country.

Re:Problem?

[Paua Fritter]

Ending prohibition set a really bad precedent in that it gave people the idea that if they refuse to obey the law that they can get it over turned.

When a socially repressive law which is opposed by the mass of the population is overturned because of that popular opposition, that is a good thing.

But I take your point that once the state starts to bow to the will of the people, they are setting a very dangerous precedent. People might start to take the word "democracy" seriously.

Re:Problem?

[DrBoumBoum]

alcohol is still a very serious social problem, killing and hurting more than pretty much anything else

And the problem was totally solved during prohibition right?

Re:Problem?

[betterunixthanunix]

American government have no problem stomping on rights of citizens because of the "war on terror" (read: against us, Muslims), surely, they would have no problem restricting them in order to suppress the culture of drugs in US.

You must not have been paying attention: our rights have already been stomped on by the war on drugs, right from the very beginning. You do realize that cocaine was first made illegal because congress was told that "cocaine niggers" (black men who used cocaine) became unstoppable monsters with superior aim with a handgun, right? Shortly after the New York Times published the story detailing how "the cocaine nigger sure is hard to kill," souther police forces began increasing the caliber of their standard issue handguns. Marijuana was made illegal under similar circumstances; it helped that industries that competed with the hemp industry put pressure on congress.

You think your rights have not been stomped on? Take a look around. The United States has police forces that can only be described as paramilitary squads. When the local cops are as heavily armed as a small army unit, we are in serious trouble. If you need something more concrete than the abstract, "militant police forces are a problem," consider this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/wald.html

Yes, the obvious reading is the correct one: a police force that pays its own wages by seizing assets from drug dealers. This is not limited to Florida:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91490480

The only reason you do not perceive your rights being stomped on by the war on drugs is that it has been happening for so long now that you and most other people have generally forgotten that they ever had the rights they lost. Remember the days when the police had to obtain a warrant to search your home? Not anymore:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/05/16/Warrantless-searches-expanded-in-drug-case/UPI-27821305557337/

It has gotten so bad that the DEA can now unilaterally declare a drug to be illegal for an entire year, without congressional approval:

http://www.dosenation.com/listing.php?smlid=8021

You used to be able to make large cash transactions in private; now that is automatically reported to the government, as part of an effort to crack down on drug dealers. Even so much as a misdemeanor drug offense now causes a person's right to buy a gun to be denied. Any company that does contracting work for the government is required, by law, to maintain a "drug free workplace." A drug offense can mean the loss of scholarships for students, regardless of their academic merit.

Your rights were trampled long ago, sir.

Re:Problem?

[corbettw]

Yes, absolutely. It's not like it wasn't legal once upon a time, and we didn't have drug cartels murdering 10 9/11's worth of innocent people every single fucking year when it was.

Prohibition does not work, let people do what they're going to do anyway. We could tax it and spend the money gained from those taxes on free rehab for those who need it. We'd save untold billions of dollars and, far more important, all those wasted lives.

Re:Problem?

[corbettw]

At very least, we need to target these cartels based on their level of violence and threat to government control.

Note going to work, there's always going to be another psychopath willing to take up where the last one left off.

Legalize all drugs, today, and tax them and use those taxes to pay for rehab for those who need it. It is literally the only solution. Otherwise, more innocent people are going to die every single day.

Re:Problem?

[dachshund]

Note going to work, there's always going to be another psychopath willing to take up where the last one left off.

On the contrary. Drug running is a business, and right now it's a competitive one. The cartels mostly build their military capabilities because it increases their ability to get product to market. If having big fangs and teeth was a disadvantage --- i.e., it increased their costs or threatened their existence --- then they'd be outcompeted by less violent cartels.

As an example, over the past decade the NYC police have revised their cocaine enforcement to target street dealing, but mostly leave non-violent apartment dealing alone. The result has been a huge drop in violence, since the dealers can make more money by keeping a low profile. This stuff really works.

I'm not sure if prohibition is a good solution. Maybe some good, some bad. But since it's clearly not on the political table right this second we at least need to target the real problem before it gets beyond our control.

Re:Problem?

[DrBoumBoum]

Really because I'm tired and lazy. Sometimes I think I should really make an effort and discuss with people on the Internet, and sometimes I feel it's mostly useless and a waste of time; there are so many people, and so many basic misconceptions on so many subjects... Has anything that I have ever posted made anyone change his mind or even simply reconsider? Sincerely I doubt it.

However you should really not take what I wrote as insulting; really what I meant is that people who haven't really thought about the question will flock to that simple misconception, exactly because of that: it's simple. The "public" is craving for drugs and the legal obstacles put against access to them are the only things that preserve society from collapse. However this is not reality. First one has to recognize that prohibition doesn't hamper anyone in the slightest to obtain drugs if they want them; drugs are readily available everyday with extreme ease, especially among youngsters. So legalizing drugs would not make them more readily available, because they are already totally available.

The other argument as though legalizing would send the wrong signal to the youth is also unrealistic. On the contrary once drugs are legalized then more responsible people are able to come with reasonable explanations and warnings about drugs, not "OMG it's evil" but reasonable, truthful arguments that youngsters will be able and willing to heed: drugs are enjoyable but dangerous, you need to know the health effects, you need to know the psychological effects, you don't need to be afraid or mesmerized but you need to know there is a danger of dependency and be able to recognize it, and seek help and advice. However as long as the only message that society is able or willing to provide is "don't do it or we'll fuck your like mercilessly" (i.e., throw you in jail) then the young will try it anyway but also they will distrust you (older, more experienced and responsible people) and then be left on their own with it, and with the problems and dangers coming with it.

But above all legalizing drugs would solve the huge problem of violence and crime that are associated with drugs and that are solely the consequence of prohibition, exactly as it was in the 30's with alcohol. Since prohibition has been lifted people have not been drinking more, they might even have been drinking slightly less, or at least less abusively, because without the appeal of taboo it loses quite a bit of appeal with youngsters, it becomes something mundane that doesn't make you feel as much as a "rebel". Sure there will be people abusing drugs, just like there are currently people abusing drugs and alcohol. Prohibition doesn't prevent that. But people will just go on with their lives and maybe the amount of violence and misery that is currently plaguing the USA will start to ease up a bit.

Re:Problem?

[pitchpipe]

I'm not sure if prohibition is a good solution. Maybe some good, some bad. But since it's clearly not on the political table right this second we at least need to target the real problem before it gets beyond our control.

The real problem IS prohibition. Until that's on the table all else is a fucking waste of time, money, effort, and lives, but really, what politician gives a shit as long as they get re-elected, their friends get paid, and their kids don't get killed.

Invincible my butt.

[bejiitas_wrath]

http://www.anzioironworks.com/20MM-TAKE-DOWN-RIFLE.htm

This rifle would easily take down a vehicle like this, they are not as invincible as they claim to be. I am sure that they are proof against a Kalashnikov or a .223 caliber rifle, but a good sniper rifle like the Anzio would take it out with one shot. Is this the start of the Mexican border war as depicted in the Robocop movie?

Re:Invincible my butt.

[drinkypoo]

You don't need a 20mm, you can use a .50 cal with HE rounds. One of them well-placed will put some crap like this out of commission. A .50 with HE can take out a REAL APC, let alone this toy crap. One IED rolled under the vehicle would do it, too.

Re:Invincible my butt.

[Rennt]

Even an M1 Abrams isn't un-immobilizable (is that a word?). The point behind these things is to make the drugs + the men inside it a hard target. They look like they would work admirably.

Re:Invincible my butt.

[zippthorne]

Unless the tires are filled with tire foam instead of air...

The Good News

[arthurpaliden]

So they seat 20. Well that means that your Hellfire equipped drone can now take out 20 narco-terrorists at a time.

Thank you Wachovia

[Wonko the Sane]

This was all made possible because Wachovia laundered a sum of money equal to 1/3 of Mexico's GDP for the drug cartels.

Of course as soon as this was discovered the Justice Department sprang into action and initiated a RICO takedown of the entire institution and all its executives (in an alternate universe). What they actually did was politely request that the company pay a fine equal to 2% of their profits which was then refunded to them by the Treasury Department via a $54 billion bailout.

It makes sense because laws don't apply to the aristocracy like they apply to us peasants - they're doing God's work after all.

Re:Thank you Wachovia

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to understand the reality of the situation. As they say, follow the money. Wachovia is not alone or even an outlier.

If you follow the flow of product and look at the profit margins, where the costs are is in the border trade. Outside the U.S., and within the U.S. itself they operate on much smaller profit margins. Once you hit the U.S. border trade the margin goes up to something like 400% (then drops back down once inside). This is to account for lost (seized) inventory, costly operations overhead, payoffs, etc. so that ultimately, you have to raise the price x fold in order to maintain a decent margin overall because of a small portion of your distribution network.

As for the finance aspect of the trade, Wachovia is only the tip of the iceberg. It has been well known for around a decade that if you were to pull all of the drug money out of the stock market, the market would most likely crash and we would be plunged into an even deeper depression. Yep, the liquidity injected into the market by drug-money helped to keep the economy from total collapse while the financial cartels were making huge gains and we (the taxpayers, homeowners and small investors were being taken for all we had).

At the height of the 2008 banking crisis, Antonio Maria Costa, then head of the United Nations office on drugs and crime, said he had evidence to suggest the proceeds from drugs and crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to banks on the brink of collapse. "Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade," he said. "There were signs that some banks were rescued that way."

Add on top of that the private prison industry. Add to that lawyers and the legal system. Add to that large pools of taxpayer money for "enforcement" to dig their hands into.

This is why a failed war on drugs continues. Money. The cartels make more money with drugs being illegal, and I don't mean drug cartels (although they do as well). Simply put, what is in the "legitimate" society's actual best interest doesn't matter (or doesn't matter as much as money) to the cartels who run "legitimate" society.

As long as this reality exists there will be a war on drugs.
As long as certain entities make more money with drugs illegal rather than legal, there will be a war on drugs.

Who does a war on drugs help? Wall Street cartels, law enforcement cartels, private prison cartel, legal system cartels, etc..
Who does a war on drugs hurt? Taxpayers, (otherwise law abiding) citizens. Just the little people.

MAD MAXicans

[sourcerror]

Didn't you knew, MAD MAX stood for MAD MAXicans?

The government is the biggest drug cartel

[countertrolling]

What do you think it's doing in Afghanistan?? You think they're going to let a bunch of sheepherders strangle the family business?

Please remember

[Abreu]

Please bear in mind that most of the funding and the weapons for the Drug Cartels come from the US.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375961350290734.html

Re:Please remember

[alexborges]

They do, obviously, because its close to Mexico and has an open drugs market. But I think that is a moot point.

Now before I explain why, bear in mind I'm a Mexican living in Monterrey. Just yesterday I was caught in traffic because a couple of severed heads were displayed on a bridge I go through every single day. People are curious that way and drive slowly so they can see...

If you could magically stop US->Mexico weapon trafficking, they'd bring them in from all over central america where lots of (US led, incited or provoked) wars have been fought, leaving behind healthy weapons markets. Colombia had a worse problem than us in Mexico and their narcs didn't bring in the guns from the US (or obviously they did, but not as easyly as they can do it in Mexico), and they took half the country for themselves (Colombia is still, to this day, split in two).

Its not about firepower, police, law or drugs. Its about money. This mafias are the same as the italian, russian, american or japaneese mafias, and same as those, they get their money from certain trades more than others. In this case, beingthis close to the US means: 1) Drugs and 2) Slaves and Organs (you call this "illegal inmigration" and "black market" organ "donors"). Their bussiness is the border. They are smugglers.

Of the two, the first gives much more money, att least 20 billion dollars a year (at the very, very least, 10 billion, at the highest count, 60-70 billion). Mexico's oil industry, the third largest state-owned in the world, gives 40 billion at its best. And most of the state money comes from that, not taxes.

So in the end, its about how governments spend their resouces to face this threat: ours focus on drug trafficking to the north. Yes, most of our effort here is tries to make sure that your coke is more expensive. Imagine that. Actually, the President of Mexico in the 2007, as proof that this shit is working, cited that the price of coke in new york went up due to this genius war of his.

Now this was not invented by mexicans. We are catholics but not puritans. We certaintly have never, ever had a prohibition party like you guys did in the XIX century and we do not make international drug policy: that one is imposed by the U S of A. We did not prohibit marihuana until you guys came a knocking demanding we did.

You guys need to change that shit because we are killing people here to make the mafia stronger because this is the result of a policy you impose on other countries. If other countries do not comply with your war-on-drugs discourse, your senate puts them in a list where they face strong trade barriers. are not ellegible for aid, and are strong armed by US government lobbies that do their best, which is a lot, to complicate those countries access to international money lending programmes such as those by the IMF and the WB.

Change that shit man. We down here do not deserve to die, live with fucking murderers, give them a fuckload of money (through prohibition), because you guys cant officially state that your people like to get high, You hold this policy of purity that aspires to a "clean" america, while on the other hand you are the country with the highest per capita consumption of illegal drugs in the world.

Its stupid. Your country is killing mine over a really stupid view of the world. I want drugs to be legal in ALL OF OCCIDENT.

Jesus did not have the last dinner with a mountain dew and did not turn water into coca cola. He very well damned had a glass of wine and in that particular wedding he brought more booze for everyone to party the fuck on. I sure do hope you guys get that through your thick heads before the cartels find out that they have to force american authorities on their soil to fuck off so they can continue doing bussiness.

Re:Please remember

[EdIII]

Jesus did not have the last dinner with a mountain dew and did not turn water into coca cola. He very well damned had a glass of wine and in that particular wedding he brought more booze for everyone to party the fuck on. I sure do hope you guys get that through your thick heads before the cartels find out that they have to force american authorities on their soil to fuck off so they can continue doing bussiness.

That just about says it all. I have quite a few Mexican friends up here who confide in me quite a bit about their fears for their country, families and friends about this bullshit all the time. I met a businessman recently over a poker game and he was really scared. He had been threatened quite a bit and had already moved his family to some out of the way backwater place in the US. His plan is to sell everything he has in Mexico and open up some new businesses in the US. That part is easy. As I am told, as long you are a rich, whiter looking Mexican you can get special treatment and those pesky things like visas and green cards are for the really brown and poor people.

It is all about money. We have more than enough resources to make free healthcare for everyone on US soil, regardless if you are an American citizen. We are so goddamn rich in resources that we could literally put a person into a hospital and give them all the care in the world... if they could just make it to America. There are doctors here that care so much... they go on missions to other countries to perform surgeries to make people's lives better.

The reason why America is so damn poor right now and literally falling apart is the inefficiencies and greed. Anybody really think we are that different from Saudi Arabia? Pleaseeee....

You take all the money you make each month (US citizens), which is tied to your production (resources), and you would be surprised about the percentage of it that ends up in the hands of just a few thousand people. The rest ends up in share holder's hands... and those people are just basically compulsive gamblers at best.

We are all just slaves in a Feudal society. It is wrapped up in a different skin, we have the illusions of Freedom, but the truth is far different than the carefully constructed reality to keep us satiated. Basically, the standard of living is on average so much higher than the Feudalistic societies hundreds of years ago that we don't complain as much.

Seriously. As long as we get to eat Fast Food, smoke a blunt (at greatly inflated prices) and fuck each other high on something, we tend to not complain as much, or seriously get ambitious about changing our world. We are happy little slaves. It ain't a blunt, it is government approved pharma happy pills. They love you then.

Those that really are serious about change ? :)

They are marginalized and labeled as crackpots..... or you sport a team jersey. Just one big fight about ideals, that don't really matter, to distract all of those political people into yelling at each other and blaming the other sides for our problems. If just those damn Republicans would all die at the same time we would be better of right?

It's sick. Really sick.

Your country Mexico should be fucking grateful. Be glad you are not Afghanistan (Oil, Gas, and rich rare mineral resources), or Pakistan and Iraq. Or for that matter.... any country in Africa. The US of A exploits the crap out of the world to be the fat Romans that we are.

Funny thing is..... hardly anybody in America is even aware of any of this at any level. They have no idea the amount of suffering involved in their purchases from Walmart or the drug dealer on the street. It's kind of hard to be really angry at them. I mean if your life was relatively stable and you had very little to worry about, meaning, serious stuff like being kidnapped, killed, and having your head placed on a pike, you would probably slip into blissful ignorance as well.

As for the cartels?

Re:Please remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Very well put, only someone outside U.S. can judge the situation the way you did and pretty much what the average citizen of producer countries think.

Anyway, I'm from Colombia and may say that were not actually "split in two" as you said. We went trough a very interesting phase where originally the drug was controlled by cartels (Medellin Cartel and Cali cartel, Pablo Escobar era) Guerrilla at that time didn't have participation in the drug trade. Eventually Cartel bosses got killed and every mid rank from those cartel tried to establish themselves as the new lords, some of them succeeded, quietly staging a plan to get political leverage, so they created the paramilitary (by the hand of incompetent leaders and military that let Guerrilla arm themselves coupled with the beginning of drug trade for them) Paramilitary said "oh look government is incapable of dealing with Guerrilla, lets arm common folk and call some Israeli mercenaries to train them so we can stop guerrilla" eventually Paramilitary started to use the seized drug labs from the Guerrilla and almost monopolized the drug production, now, with shitloads of money and political and military support they eventually were able to control 1/3rd of the congress and founded and supported the election of President Uribe, (contemporary to W. Bush) Uribe himself being the son of one of the very first drug lords (before Escobar era) took strong arm politics against the Guerrilla (also a battle for drug production share, which USA readily founded) and neighbors countries like Ecuador and Venezuela. Meanwhile and while people acclaimed military success the congress (owned by Paras) passed on law after another making almost impossible to deal with mafia bosses in the future. At some point they decided to outsource the drug related violence to Mexico and just concentrate in the production and delivery to Mexico and central america.

What happened here, as I see it, is that they secured a top-down control of loyal minions that would allow the flow of drugs from certain bosses and put face and mess with anyone that dares to compete with them, since there is no competition theres very little drug related violence in Colombia, the guerrilla is almost dead, sheltering across the border in Venezuela and Ecuador and occasionally ambushing police convoys and random civilians. USA keeps pouring money in the plan Colombia that is used to fight "non-kosher" drug producers and traders, old drug cartel minions and low levels just are dedicating to common crime, which is very high. Now go and ask someone in Washington if they think Uribe is one of the bad guys. The guy is a genius, a criminal, but pure genius, making American taxpayer money help him fight the competing drug producers

We are, by no means, divided. Some people applied economic thesis to the drug business and succeeded, they took it to the next level and what we see in Mexico is what we saw here in the 80s, the business got shielded top-down and the lechers couldn't be more happy.

This is the war on (some producers not affiliated with the owners of the circus) drugs for you. I'm sorry for Mexico, it does not help that it's a macho society so the levels of violence are higher that we were used to see here.

Re:Please remember

[Ihmhi]

Yes, we know. Generally when you can categorize some sort of political idea as "completely retarded" (i.e. drug prohibition), I would wager that the vast majority of Slashdotters are against it. You're preaching to the choir.

The problem isn't us. (Yes, I know that's a thing a lot of Americans say oh so unironically.) I'm talking about us here. As stupid as some of us here can be, I think we're more likely to write our congress critter, protest, come up with some new and groundbreaking idea, etc. We're all about the math - we're horrified at the cost in both blood and money to basically shift profits into the pockets of a few people (not to mention the police who often get to keep a lot of the stuff they seize). We're all about the science - we think it's downright laughable (when it's not depressing) that marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug in America (which means that the FDA states that it has no tangible benefit medicinally whatsoever and that it's very dangerous). We're all about the goddamned common sense - a system of law where it is practically encouraged for police to steal seized evidence and work in collusion with a suspect is atrocious.

What we'd really need to do is get the message out to your average Joe, the guy who thinks that nothing bad is really happening to the people of Mexico. I'd say most people in America don't even know about the widespread violence in Mexico right now - any time you see anything about it on the telly, it's a grand total of a few seconds as most.

I truely, sincerely apologize for us basically raping your country due to our greed, and I really wish more of us would get off of our asses and do something about it.

Re:So?

[AHuxley]

"Authorities in Awe of Drug Runners' Jungle-Built, Kevlar-Coated Supersubs"
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/ff_drugsub/all/1
5.5 tons of cocaine on a American-registered DC-9
http://www.madcowprod.com/07152010.htm
As for the US border, expect to see a huge roll out of face, cell phone data and optical character recognition systems deep into the USA on all public roads.
Your car might make it over, but your face will be recorded. You can change cars, papers, times, but over time a database will try and build some face based watch list for people who make repeated trips .....
Is the driver new to the US, looking stressed, been seen before on back roads .... next "random" Border Patrol interior checkpoint, expect a "random" Border Patrol check - somewhere within 100-miles of the US land and coastal borders is legal.

Maybe I'm missing something

[MikeRT]

But if I were Pres. Calderon, I'd just authorize the use of ordnance on sight when the Mexican Army encounters one of those...

It practically screams "I'm a safe target to destroy on a shoot first, ask questions later" basis.

Re:But ...

[drinkypoo]

No, but they look like they would run over a penguin with no problem.

Legalize DRUGS

[WindBourne]

Seriously, we can not win the drug war. All this is doing around the world id funding these kinds of ppl. Taliban and AQ make loads of money from drugs. So do American gangs.
The only real solution is for America to legalize ALL drugs, and then allow NO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS of drugs. In addition, the production and sale of such is also heavily regulated. A whiff of a connection with ANY gang and you can not do anything. Get caught using illegal drugs? Not a problem. The state provides housing for 5 years. Get caught bringing in, or selling drugs? Again, not a problem 20 years.

Re:Legalize DRUGS

[DrBoumBoum]

Legalizing all drugs is not the answer either. Some drugs are very, very harmful

Legalizing does not mean inciting. On the very contrary once a drug is legal you can inform people about its effects, discourage its use and provide counseling and medical monitoring to the users, all this using money coming from the very persons who use the drug. In fact legalizing drugs and making them appear as the medical condition they really are mostly make them appear boring and may indeed turn people away from them, or at least from heavy, excessive use.

Also allowing people access to some drugs allow to totally and effectively ban the use of the most most dangerous ones. Nobody would be willing to take risks to get their hands on meth or PCP if pot and coke were available around the corner or by the physician.

Re:Legalize DRUGS

[xhrit]

>Look, can you show me a single case of where meth is useful to humanity?

You mean like the Dextroamphetamine, aka "Go Pills" that the US Airforce feeds the brave and noble officers that serve this great nation by flying 22 tons of metal at Mach 2 while laden with enough tactical nuclear weapons to level a city?

That meth? or you mean the other meth?

Like Methylphenidate, aka Ritalin. The drug fed unwillingly to millions of US school children to suppress behavior that the establishment deems undesirable. Or did you mean the Amphetamine dirivite Adderall, fed daily to millions of Americans for a plethora of medical reasons?

You have a 4 and a 7 y.o? That is funny. I was 7 when my step mother put me on Ritalin for "adhd". My legal guardians forced me to take meth every day for most of my childhood.

So I just want to say fuck your ignorant self righteous bullshit. The gangsters and mafia are in control of your government. Your government is feeding meth to your children. And you don't have a fucking clue.

Tell the sheeple it doesn't matter who wins...

[bit trollent]

Barack Obama has made it American policy to not go after medical marijuana dispenserise though George W Bush (and to be fair Clinton) did attach these legal (at a state level) and illegal (at a fed level) dispenseries.

I wonder what Mitt Romney would do about medical marijuana. I wonder if he would tolerate it as much as gay marriage.

I remember that universal healthcare that W passed. And the financial industry regulation.

Also, I remember how George W Bush, didn't go out of his way to punch the environment in the balls, exempting natural gas fracking from the clean are and clean water acts.

Bad politicians thrive on a population that's too ignorant to tell the difference.

By the way.. guess which party supports unlimited anonymous "campaign contributions"..

I'll give you a hint.. Republicans support it, and installed supreme court judges to legalize unlimeted anonymous bribery, while Democrat appointed judges voted against it (in a 5-4 decision) in the Supreme court.

But.. yeah... it doesn't matter who you vote for. That's the best thing to keep the Sheeple from voting for progress.

A Republican house majority has once again kicked America in the balls, but luckily there are dumbasses like you who can't tell the difference.

Re:Tell the sheeple it doesn't matter who wins...

[oursland]

Barack Obama has made it American policy to not go after medical marijuana dispenserise though George W Bush (and to be fair Clinton) did attach these legal (at a state level) and illegal (at a fed level) dispenseries.

That's bullshit. The Feds are still raiding dispensaries.

Here are three articles on recent raids that come up when I type in "dispensary raid" into Google News:

"Dog Killed in Pot Dispensary Raid " (June 10, 2011)
http://temecula.patch.com/articles/dog-killed-in-pot-dispensary-raid

"Agents raid 5 Fresno Co. marijuana dispensaries " (June 1, 2011)
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/06/01/2410478/warrants-served-at-2-fresno-co.html

"Feds raid more Spokane marijuana dispensaries" (May 18, 2011)
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/may/18/feds-raid-spokane-marijuana-dispensaries/

Re:Legalizing drugs wont stop the violence

[trout007]

You are missing the economic picture. Money from drugs make them powerful. Without drug funds they may try kidnapping or human trafficking but they will have a lot less money to work with. In the US after prohibition ended the power of the gangs dropped dramatically. They moved on to prostitution and gambling and eventually drugs but they lost alot of power.

I would get rid of all vice crimes. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, ect. The fact is markets exist in hese things between connecting adults. By making them legal the cops can focus on real crime.

Oh, for a mod point!

[zooblethorpe]

Thank you Alex for contributing your perspective. Too many on the northern side of the border here forget that US policy decisions affect far more than just the US -- and that a lot of the international impact is negative. Folks up here would not put up with your situation, and if they were more acutely aware of your situation, they might just get off their duffs and demand that something change for the better.

Here's hoping, anyway.

Cheers,