Anonymous Kills Websites, Cartels Kill Bloggers

An anonymous reader writes "While drug cartels in Mexico are disemboweling people they accuse of blogging about drug violence, Anonymous busies itself taking down Mexican government websites. With all the problems facing people in Mexico right now, including drug cartels extorting teachers for 50% of their pay and killing schoolchildren (thus shutting down the school system), Mexico's biggest oil field in terminal decline and drug cartels kidnapping busloads of people and forcing them into gladiator-style contests to the death, Anonymous' actions appear particularly petty."

Comments

The solution is obvious:

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to increase spending on the war on drugs, thus increasing scarcity and profit margins.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Anonymous Coward]

The drug problem is actually a tax problem. The drug money is not taxable. Therefore, any effort by any government only seek a portion of this money.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[durrr]

No, we need to get the global broadcast rights for the gladiator events.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[pnewhook]

Actually the complete opposite needs to happen. The way the government stopped the smuggling of alcohol and the related gang/mob violence during prohibition was to re-legalize alcohol. Make drugs a legal product and have the government tax the profits. It will immediately stop all this wasteful drug related violence and security expenditure.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Bert64]

Or ditch the "war on drugs" entirely... The illegal trade in drugs costs authorities billions, and fuels organised crime such as the drug cartels in mexico and other countries.

So instead, legalise drugs but put in place controls on them:

Quality controls, drugs available from reputable suppliers rather than dodgy dealers, so drugs don't end up contaminated with other even more harmful substances.
Taxes - tax drugs the same way that the currently legal tobacco and alcohol are taxed.
Monitoring - know who's taking drugs.

Government saves on law enforcement costs trying to police drugs...
Government further benefits from tax income from the sale of drugs.
Drug users benefit from cheaper supplies, which are also safer and have a legal avenue for complaint.
Drug companies can develop alternatives that provide the effects the users want, while reducing the negatives (e.g. see electronic cigarettes).
Drug users need not hide their activities, and can more easily seek help to give up.

It's an obvious solution, and the only ones who stand to lose are the criminal gangs who are currently making huge profits from illegal drugs.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[polymeris]

Invade? Didn't you read TFS? Their oil production is declining!

Re:The solution is obvious:

[gnawingonfoot]

Just because there aren't drugs to traffic doesn't mean the problem will be solved. Organized crime will not vanish, but merely shift its business to some other form of social exploitation. There's a lot more than just money involved in this trade, and the cartel members aren't just going to go get normal jobs if the demand for drugs diminishes. It's clear already that they know threats of violence can be used to extort money from teachers--and I hate to think how this might escalate if it became their only source of income. But I do agree with you on the legalization issue. We gotta get tax money from somewhere, and I think drugs would provide a wonderful source of funding for social programs.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cjohnson319]

You write "further decline of society" as if you have no knowledge of history. At no point in human development has our collective ability to achieve been greater.

You're longing for an idealized past that never existed.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[gnawingonfoot]

The threat of death won't stymie the flow of low-level underlings and lackeys who peddle drugs on street corners. There will always be somebody jobless and hungry, and whether you're stealing a loaf of bread at the threat of your hand getting cut off or selling drugs at risk of getting killed, the severity of punishment is a minor factor in the decision making of these people. Yes, maybe you'd kill off a lot of awful people and social pariahs by doing this, but you'd be killing a lot of momentarily down-on-their-luck normal people, too.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[betterunixthanunix]

Government saves on law enforcement costs trying to police drugs...

Not necessarily:

http://www.fear.org/chicago.html

http://www.dpeg.org/legal_issues/assetforfeiture.htm

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Hatta]

It's an obvious solution, and the only ones who stand to lose are the criminal gangs who are currently making huge profits from illegal drugs.

To be specific, by "criminal gangs" you must mean the Police forces of our country, our prison industry, our pharmaceutical industry, alcohol and tobacco industries, AND our politicians.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[hedwards]

Yes and do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time? The problem with prohibition was that nobody was following that law, for the most part not even the law enforcement being expected to enforce the law.

In this case, we're letting a minority group with little to no concern over the results of their actions undermine democracy because they feel they have the right to just ignore the law because it's inconvenient. There's little reason to believe that the other serious problems with drug abuse are going to go away just because the government bows to pressure and legalizes it. I mean, that hasn't happened with alcohol, so I'm not sure why one would expect it to happen with drugs.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[ppanon]

It's an obvious solution, and the only ones who stand to lose are the criminal gangs who are currently making huge profits from illegal drugs.

Well them and, in the USA, the corporations that makes loads of money running prisons to hold people for drug possession and trafficking. They have a lot of money to throw around at politicians and media to fight the obvious solution.

The biggest counterargument is that petty crime will increase as addicts need to pay for their drug habits. I think that could easily be solved by saying that criminal penalties are tripled on anything other than a first offence if traces of a psychoactive drug (be it cocaine, THC, opiates like heroin or vicodin, or whatever) can be found in your bloodstream after a crime. Unlike 60 years ago, our diagnostic technology is now good enough to allow that to happen. Heck even if the accused refuses to give a blood sample, a urine sample will do. They gotta pee sometime.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Old97]

That's why Republicans oppose the decriminalization of drugs. They oppose new taxes.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Anonymous Coward]

Real close on legalizing ALL DRUGS.
However, we have to allow ZERO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS of these. If you are caught dealing none-legal drugs, then 20 years for the first offense. Life for the second. If you are caught using imported drugs, 10 years for the first offense, and 20 for the second, 30 for the third (pretty much a life sentence). One of the arguments against the previous is that Free trade says that you can not have zero imports. Well, that is false. If you have zero exports, then it is legal to have zero imports as well. However, so many of the pro-drug ppl seem to forget that

The above will not only destroy the cartels, but it will also massively cripple the taliban, AQ, and Venezuela (who IS exporting their own drugs here). It will also seriously gut the gangs in America. Right now, the gangs make their money off of drugs, fencing, guns, and prostitution. Well, fencing and prostitution is done as a means of obtaining drugs. And the guns are to protect turf. We legalize drugs and we seriously gut the gangs. In fact, if we use some of that taxes from legal drugs into gang irradiation, then we can all but destroy them within 10 years.

Windbourne - moderating.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Samalie]

If you kill them off, there will only be a rise of new people to take their place.

These people (in general) are dirt fucking poor (in the beginning) and drugs are a fast way to make a shitload of cash.

So long as the profit margins are obscene, there will always be someone to take the place of those that die/are arrested/whatever.

Your idea only serves to increase the violence...if they know they have forfeit their lives if caught, they are more likely to use whatever means necessary to prevent their own death....my killing anyone who stands in their way.

Remove the profit (ie - legalize it) - and the entire point of their operation goes away. No profit, no drug cartel, no more drug cartel violence.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Pieroxy]

Look at the quote at the very bottom of this page (at this moment):

"You can make it illegal, but you can't make it unpopular."

Re:The solution is obvious:

[scubamage]

Do you realize society got along just fine with legal drugs for centuries - it wasn't until the late 1800's/early 1900's that prohibition became a big thing. Guess what came out of prohibition of alcohol - organized crime and bootleggers. What has come from the prohibition of drugs? A booming underground industry. Lets also not forget that one of our founding fathers and first presidents, George Washington, was an avid pot smoker, grower, and distributor - just read his letters to his gardener at mount Vernon in reference to "Indian Hemp" - aka Cannabis Sativa. Should we have shot him too?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[scubamage]

Remove the profit (ie - legalize it) - and the entire point of their operation goes away. No profit, no drug cartel, no more drug cartel violence.

Hey you, you're not allowed to make sense here - this is slashdot!

Re:The solution is obvious:

[stealth_finger]

Or ditch the "war on drugs" entirely... The illegal trade in drugs costs authorities billions, and fuels organised crime such as the drug cartels in mexico and other countries.

So instead, legalise drugs but put in place controls on them:

Quality controls, drugs available from reputable suppliers rather than dodgy dealers, so drugs don't end up contaminated with other even more harmful substances. Taxes - tax drugs the same way that the currently legal tobacco and alcohol are taxed. Monitoring - know who's taking drugs.

Government saves on law enforcement costs trying to police drugs... Government further benefits from tax income from the sale of drugs. Drug users benefit from cheaper supplies, which are also safer and have a legal avenue for complaint. Drug companies can develop alternatives that provide the effects the users want, while reducing the negatives (e.g. see electronic cigarettes). Drug users need not hide their activities, and can more easily seek help to give up.

It's an obvious solution, and the only ones who stand to lose are the criminal gangs who are currently making huge profits from illegal drugs.

This is so insanely obvious it's baffling why at least one government hasn't tried it. Especially in these times of massive government debts, funding cuts for everything all over the place. They have this way to stop spending a lot of money and spend it in better places plus the opportunity to get more tax money. Not only that but the prison system also benefits from not having to lock up a load of non dangerous and other wise law abiding people. But nooooo drugs are bad.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Sarius64]

No, your idea only increases the violence because you continue to promote a world where you expect reasonable people (Mexicans, Americans, whatever) to simply die for you.

We don't have the political will to do shit in America. The fucking Executive branch is supplying automatic weapons to cartel members in hopes of somehow magically tracking their activities. Seriously.

Your solution is being tried right now and failing.

http://www.kjct8.com/news/29122939/detail.html

My solution removes the incentive to hide in Mexico and exploit poor peasants because breathing people want to stay that way.

We've tried your solution in small ways and seen failures. Let's try the complete erasure of the cartels for just once.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Nox3173]

You can legalize marijuana, but what about cocaine and the other dangerous synthetic drugs? Besides, the violence and cartels don't go away just because you legalize something. Blanket legalization would create a landslide of problems on top of the ones we already have. The cartels just start killing the legitimate business owners to stamp out competition right along with the other cartels. The problem with the drug trade is so multi-pronged it's not even funny. There is no blanket solution and people would do well to stop acting like there is.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[DeadCatX2]

This is so insanely obvious it's baffling why at least one government hasn't tried it.

Portugal already did.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

Re:The solution is obvious:

[DrBoumBoum]

Just because there aren't drugs to traffic doesn't mean the problem will be solved

It's not an all-or-nothing situation, cut the money flow and the violence will stop increasing at the steady pace it has those last years and eventually will start winding down. Just like any other activity, stop making it profitable and it'll decrease and disappear eventually.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[DrBoumBoum]

do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time?

You mean things were better during the prohibition?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Anonymous Coward]

The cartels are going to kill phillip-morris?

look, they're well armed and badass, but I don't think they're going to win a fight with the tobacco (who would be happy to be the tobacco and cannabis) industry.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Homr Zodyssey]

This would solve that pesky immigration issue.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[ErikZ]

Ok, say we legalize all drugs.

What's to stop an OPEC-like organization from being created to ensure the price of drugs stay high?

A violent one that kills off drug producers that aren't within the system?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Homr Zodyssey]

Explain to me how the US government makes money by enforcing these laws? I realize that there are fines and confiscation of property, but not nearly enough to pay for all the cops, lawyers, judges, thinktanks, legislators, etc. Not to mention housing the convicts. We're not talking about traffic tickets here.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Hartree]

"I support the annexing of Mexico!"

We already did that with a big part of Mexico in the 1840s.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Nursie]

The problem with prohibition was that nobody was following that law, for the most part not even the law enforcement being expected to enforce the law.

And you know what they call laws that nobody follows?

Unjust, useless and counter productive.

There's little reason to believe that the other serious problems with drug abuse are going to go away just because the government bows to pressure and legalizes it. I mean, that hasn't happened with alcohol, so I'm not sure why one would expect it to happen with drugs.

Drug related health problems and addiction may well rise with legalisation.

However that pales in comparison with the wholescale murder we're witnessing, let alone the rest of the costs to society.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cjohnson319]

"A good assassination team would remove 100% of the cartel operatives in Mexico fairly quickly."

As if the cartels don't have the money and the will to hire effective special ops types to ensure this doesn't happen. These people ship contraband in submarines, for the love of mike. They definitely can (and obviously do) hire professionals to do security.

"It's my experience that most people with which I've discussed this topic deny the effectiveness of this solution because they do not wish it to have viability."

Your Rainbow 6 fantasies notwithstanding, it's not that I don't wish it were simple. But it's not simple. You're dealing with a group of people who have more money that most of the official institutions charged with fighting them. Don't even get me started on will, either. The cartels don't have to worry about court or political considerations.

You're making up a better video game scenario than actual strategy.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[poity]

While the government does need to move away from their unsuccessful strategy, the drug consumers in the USA also need to reexamine their contributions to the problem. While they are pushing for the legalization and taxation, the people who create the demand need to also take some responsibility. Just as ordinary citizens have popularized the issue of blood diamonds, so too should we popularize the issue of blood marijuana and blood heroin. Start a movement. Don't buy drugs that come from South America. Source domestically. If you can't be sure your source is blood-free, then learn to grow without getting caught. If you can't do that, then quit using it.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Hartree]

"Yes and do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time? The problem with prohibition was that nobody was following that law, for the most part not even the law enforcement being expected to enforce the law."

And many of the current drug laws (think marijuana) are different how?

Both my parents grew up during prohibition. Based on what they said, it was a useless farce. What with homebrewing of wine and beer allowed and a blind eye turned to most speakeasies and setup joints (provided they paid their bribes to the cops/politicians) there wasn't all that much reduction in alcoholism.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[DragonWriter]

Yes and do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time?

Fewer, proportionally, than were ruined by alcohol and the alcohol trade and its effects during Prohibition.

The problem with prohibition was that nobody was following that law, for the most part not even the law enforcement being expected to enforce the law.

The problem with prohibition of alcohol was that there was sufficient demand for the product prohibited that its prohibition caused more harm by providing a high-value, easy-to-produce commodity that could not be legally supplied (and thus could only be supplied by criminals), thereby fueling massive organized crime syndicates.

It was not that "nobody was following the law"; plenty of people were following the law. There were plenty of businesses that didn't sell alcohol because it was illegal, and plenty of people that chose not to buy it because it was illegal. There were plenty who didn't, as well, just as with the present prohibition of selected drugs.

In this case, we're letting a minority group with little to no concern over the results of their actions undermine democracy because they feel they have the right to just ignore the law because it's inconvenient.

Uh, no, we're not. Arguing that we should choose, through the democratic process, an approach to controlling the ills associated with certain currently-prohibited drugs that would, based on past experience with another previously-prohibited drugs whose prohibition had undesirable effects very similar to those that are manifest with the currently-prohibited drugs at issue, produce better net results for society isn't letting anyone undermine democracy. (And, if it was, ending prohibition -- which had no such clear past referent -- would have been even moreso.)

There's little reason to believe that the other serious problems with drug abuse are going to go away just because the government bows to pressure and legalizes it.

There is certainly plenty of reason to believe that it will be much easier to address those problemsif, instead of public resources being directed to fight the manufacture, distribution, and sale of the currently-banned drugs, those resources are directed at dealing with the problems of drug abuse, and further additional resources are available because the destructive side-effects of the illegal drug trade which consume public resources are removed and the newly-legal drug trade becomes a legal, taxed part of the economy.

Much of the funding for public alcohol abuse treatment and prevention comes from alcohol users through special taxes collected on alcohol, while some law enforcement expenses caused by the prohibition of drugs is funded by drug users or sellers through civil forfeiture of property, its a very small share, and only addresses a small portion of the costs imposed by prohibition, and none of the costs associated with actually dealing with drug abuse itself.

I mean, that hasn't happened with alcohol, so I'm not sure why one would expect it to happen with drugs.

Sure, the problems of abuse haven't gone away with alcohol since the end of prohibition, but we've gotten much better at dealing with them since the government's efforts have been able to focus on the problems of abuse, rather than resources being sucked into the vast law enforcement problems created by prohibition itself.

The choices aren't between the problems "going away" and no effect whatsoever.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I want to know why those Mexican schoolchildren are waving the flag of India.

Bloggers seem to to a better job than the major "news outlets".

Re:The solution is obvious:

[poity]

oops, forgot to add Mexico, Central America, AND South America. edit one sentence and forget another silly me

Re:The solution is obvious:

[DragonWriter]

Or ditch the "war on drugs" entirely... The illegal trade in drugs costs authorities billions, and fuels organised crime such as the drug cartels in mexico and other countries.

It costs taxpayers billions. It doesn't cost authorities anything -- in fact, often it rewards them, either directly in the case of outright corruption, or by providing a convenient excuse for liberty-destroying policies that aren't actually motivated by a need perceived by the authorities to deal with drugs, but merely justified by them (though, in the U.S., "terrorism" has displaced the war on drugs as the popular justification for such tactics in the last decade, often providing the excuse for authorities to assume powers that it they had failed to win on earlier attempts that used the drug war as the excuse.)

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Hartree]

"A good assassination team would remove 100% of the cartel operatives in Mexico fairly quickly"

Uh huh. Those Central and South American death squads did such an efficient job. Yeah, sure.

And what happens when the death squad gets bought off the way many of them were?

Or are you proposing sending US personnel in to conduct a massive extrajudicial killing of Mexican citizens with all of the fallout and collateral damage that would result.

Sheesh. I'm a hawk compared to most, but you're just being silly.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[nedlohs]

Yes you legalize them all.

Anybody who wants to take drugs now can do so easily. Sure it's illegal but people who are certainly in the "complete drolling moron" category of intelligence manage to figure out how to get their hands on it.

So making them legal doesn't change that.

And no the cartels are not going to start killing the CEOs of multinational corporations that never go to Mexico.

It'd suck in the short term for Mexico. Taking the revenue stream away from heavily armed thugs will almost certainly see them turning more attention to stealing from, extorting, etc the locals.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[DamnStupidElf]

Maybe you underestimate the resources of these cartels. They are almost certainly capable of assassinating the Mexican president and any other members of government, and I would not be surprised if they could assassinate any political leader on Earth. It's not hard. Get your hands on an air-to-surface missile and use one of the drug running planes to take out an armored car, or use a surface-to-air missile on a private jet. What you're talking about by "shooting them all" is starting another "war" where the "enemy" has the dramatic advantage of tons and tons of very liquid cash, worldwide connections, and a presence in every nation on Earth.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[MYakus]

If they don't have the drugs to traffic, they won't have they expensive toys any more - US Gov supplied assault and sniper rifles, gunmen, and big cars. Money fuels what would have been a local problem into a problem that could topple the government.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Sarius64]

"A good assassination team would remove 100% of the cartel operatives in Mexico fairly quickly."

As if the cartels don't have the money and the will to hire effective special ops types to ensure this doesn't happen. These people ship contraband in submarines, for the love of mike. They definitely can (and obviously do) hire professionals to do security.

"It's my experience that most people with which I've discussed this topic deny the effectiveness of this solution because they do not wish it to have viability."

Your Rainbow 6 fantasies notwithstanding, it's not that I don't wish it were simple. But it's not simple. You're dealing with a group of people who have more money that most of the official institutions charged with fighting them. Don't even get me started on will, either. The cartels don't have to worry about court or political considerations.

You're making up a better video game scenario than actual strategy.

Which is where you have no understanding of how today's military successes are developed. Success in motivation in the American military has been found through changes in mindset from killer to protector. In your deranged fantasies people only react for money. You can have all the money in the world, far out-pacing even the USA, and the right motivation will take your activity down.

The problem with you is the same problem with political will. Your morals are based upon personal gain.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Sarius64]

Which Central and South American death squads might you be indicating actually performed this scenario? If you are going to associate a behavior at least indicate something similar. But, of course, there are none because America has not done what I'm suggesting. Apparently, it's much easier to throw millions of children in jail as pot smokers and turn them into hardened criminals.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Squiddie]

From my understanding, these people are not just involved in drugs, but also kidnappings and other illegal activities. They have infiltrated the government and have made a large part of the police force ineffective because of this. These people, the cartels, the zetas, whatever they call themselves are actual terrorists, and traitors to their country. They need to die, even if part of the solution is to legalize drugs.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Squiddie]

It's not that the US makes money, but private prisons and other industries tied to the judicial system make bank by taking money from the US Gov. They are effectively stealing from you, since you paid taxes to imprison people for simple possession. The war on drugs also has a social toll, because of the death and violence that it causes.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[CompMD]

Right, because the heavily armed and brutally violent drug cartels will fall over themselves to pay taxes to the government.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Reservoir Penguin]

Oh great another legalize theorist. Have you ever even seen a real heroin addict? Nine of ten people can not handle an opiate addiction responsibly without becoming a danger to society.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cjohnson319]

They're not my morals, pal. Quit conflating the way the cartel does and would respond to military action and how I feel about that.

As others have said, we've tried militarized action again and again and again. You don't think there were SpecOps folks working with Columbia? You know, since the 80s? And you can still buy cocaine easily in America.

You're arguing for not just more of the same, but a shit-ton more of the same. You are completely ignoring the demand side of the equation. You will never understand much less be able to do anything about the situation on our border until you address and accept the reality of the human desire (and I would argue right) to get fucked up.

You can't shoot enough people to make the people you're shooting stop being humans and having human desires. But shoot enough of them, and you'll find yourself dehumanized much faster than you even thought possible.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[DriedClexler]

Just because there isn't alcohol to traffic doesn't mean the problem will be solved. Chicago and New York gangs will not vanish, but merely shift their business to some other form of social exploitation. There's a lot more than just money involved in this trade, and gang members aren't just going to go get normal jobs if the demand for alcohol diminishes. ...

Therefore, we should not repeal Prohibition.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Squiddie]

gang irradiation

Then you'd have mutant gangs. Can you imagine a shootout between the Hulk and the police? That would make it worse!

Re:The solution is obvious:

[rcuhljr]

Heck even if the accused refuses to give a blood sample, a urine sample will do. They gotta pee sometime.

Bear Grylls mocks your plan.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[yurtinus]

Yes and do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time?

And what about the lives that have been improved by alcohol in the meantime? Yes there really are people who can't control their alcohol intake and suffer greatly for it, but they are by far the minority. Just like people who can't control their video game playing, TV watching, horseback riding, gambling, delicious foods or any number of enjoyable activities. It's a recognized issue and something that there is really no shortage of support for. Anything people enjoy can be abused to their detriment. Taking things away from those of us that can moderate ourselves to protect the minority of people who can't is ridiculous and really needs to be stopped.

In the case of prohibition, we let a minority group with little or no concern over the results of their actions undermine democracy because they feel they have the right to enforce their morality upon everybody else.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[yurtinus]

...I don't think you can guilt most drug users into switching to "free trade drugs" for their fix. That movement will need to wait until after legalization.

Except pot smokers, you can guilt those hippies into doing anything for the good of strangers!

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Jibekn]

Their profit margins wont allow them to even try and sell it. When you don't have the overhead of smuggling, bribes, and payoffs to your own guys for protection, and the other guys do. Guess who goes out of business?

Its not like the existing drug supply infrastructure will be legal, growing your own pot? still illegall. And now you dont just get nailed with possession of a controlled substance, you get nailed with tax evasion too.

What alot of people dont understand with the de-criminalization of drugs, is that street dealers as they exist now, will STILL be illegal, only the government regulated guys will be allowed to sell, and because they're able to do so in the open, they'll be able to sell for so far below the current street prices, the drug cartels wont be able to make money.

It happened with prohibition, during the height of it, and this fact is from my admittedly not wonderful memory, but the price of a single pint of beer during prohibition, was the same as a 40 oz bottle of low end whiskey when it was legal. Bootleggers just couldn't compete, price wise, with legit businesses.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Thorodin]

That wasn't the point. It was to dispel the reason of halting violence by legalizing drugs. And I agree. The mafia did not go away when Prohibition was repealed. OTOH, the drug war has been lost and any future monies which would have gone to the 'war' could best be spent elsewhere.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Mindcontrolled]

Their care for the citizens' tax burden ends abruptly where their care for dictating everyone their morals begins. If they'd actually wanted to save money, they'd stop the "war" on some drugs and end a gigantic waste of taxpayers' money. Wait, but that money gets funneled to their pals in the prison-industrial complex. So I guess it's 'carry on'....

Re:The solution is obvious:

[kcbnac]

The government makes money from asset forfeiture https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Asset_forfeiture - you deal drugs from your house? They take your house. Sell it. You deal drugs from car? They get car... etc

Then the private sector gets involved. Many new prisons today are privately owned and run, and contract their services to governments. They turn profits on the prisoners labor. (They'll be paid a pittance for their time, $0.25/hour) https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Penal_labour#Non-punitive_prison_labour Then, the businesses behind these industries lobby for tougher sentencing, and more laws with which to put folks in prison, thus requiring more facilities.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[lgarner]

Then lock them up where they can't get to it. If they're a "danger to society", then they need to be removed from it whether or not drugs are involved. I'm sure that some drugs should remain illegal- perhaps heroin, probably PCP. For those who can't handle it, treatment should be an option, and they could be locked up if they're really problems.

But since we're talking about a rainbows-and-unicorns world, where violent people are no longer violent simply because there's no market for their product, or they can get drugs from more reputable sources ...

Consider the options available when we can redirect the entire DEA budget, plus a large portion of FBI, ATF and local PD budgets, toward something more useful.
-- prisons where people aren't locked up for use & possession, leaving room for those who commit crimes against persons & property (including drug-related)
-- we'd have practically a new army of former drug-enforcement officers to deploy to border protection, looking for real danger signs rather than chasing around after smuggled drugs.
-- the freed-up budgets could be used to enhance treatment for addictions. We don't need to lock up every user or even every addict, just those who cause problems.

Of course, drug dealers and cartels will find something else to do, but there would be more resources available to fight them. Legalization and decriminalization aren't magic bullets, but something worth considering. And it doesn't have to be all-or-none, as you seem to think. The biggest hurdle is getting the people to believe that there are bigger fights worth fighting, and that these resources could be better deployed somewhere besides hunting down potheads.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[marnues]

Just to be clear, those of us in forward thinking Montana have access to the highest quality marijuana the world with some of the lowest prices. It's effectively illegal again here, yet we're flooded with the finest product in the world. That's what happens when an artisan culture is allowed to bloom. Buy local because it makes people around you better.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[smelch]

You're a complete fucking moron. People's lives are ruined by everything. Trucks ruin lives, ladders ruin lives, marriages ruin lives, affairs ruin lives, mistakes ruin lives, jobs ruin lives. If you get rid of everything that has ruined somebody's life, you will end up with no life to live.

In this case, we're letting a minority group with little to no concern over the results of their actions undermine democracy because they feel they have the right to just ignore the law because it's inconvenient.

That's a stupid way to look at it. In reality we are learning from a minority that legislation doesn't solve cultural problems. We wrote the law to solve a problem. It didn't solve the problem, and created many more problems. Anybody can see that prohibition has made everything worse when all we really needed was some education, some real honesty about the substances, and maybe some help without fear of the law.

Your inability to see that a majority vote in a democracy can not dictate the real world is one of the biggest failings of democracy. Democratic votes only dictate the state's actions. When the actions of the state are inappropriate it is not undermining democracy, it shows that the majority of the people made a bad decision. Not changing a bad decision is being stubborn and bullheaded, and it undermines democracy to insist on doing the wrong thing over and over and being mad at the problem that it isn't being solved by your solution. It undermines it by showing it doesn't work.

In other words, if we all get together and vote the sky red eventually we're going to have to realize that it isn't, and insisting it is supposed to be just makes us look foolish.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[tunapez]

...or they will morph and grow into new areas. Perhaps they infiltrate the corporations and the labor to cover both sides, buy government/laws through legal bribery, pickup key positions of policy making(by hook or crook) and start a revolving door of controlled appointments to become the biggest organized crime ring the world has ever known.

I think I know why Tim Geihtner is sacrificing so much, personally, to stay at the Treasury(and now helping the Euro's, what a saint)...it's because nobody has dragged him out in cuffs yet.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[hrvatska]

A good assassination team would remove 100% of the cartel operatives in Mexico fairly quickly.

Quickly, as in the ten years it took to find and assassinate bin Laden? Considering that the heads of the cartels are trying to assassinate each other, and they employ very good and very ruthless assassins, what makes you think another team of assassins employed by Mexico or the US would clean up things?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cayenne8]

I support the annexing of Mexico! We get all that sweet vacation land and revenue and maybe we can gets some sensible law and order in the place.

Hey, why not annex Mexico?

I mean, we got all the people from there...we might as well get the real estate that goes with them!!!!!

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cayenne8]

Their care for the citizens' tax burden ends abruptly where their care for dictating everyone their morals begins. If they'd actually wanted to save money, they'd stop the "war" on some drugs and end a gigantic waste of taxpayers' money. Wait, but that money gets funneled to their pals in the prison-industrial complex. So I guess it's 'carry on'....

You know..I love a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone..always good for some thought, but mostly a good chuckle.

But tell me...you don't actually believe in that do you?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Duradin]

They'd have to be paid minimum wage then.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[DrBoumBoum]

...or they will morph and grow into new areas.

Yes so cigarettes are making me sick but there's no point in quitting since my drinking habit is bad too right? Totally makes sense.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Synerg1y]

Prohibition has already taught us this...
http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/future1_final.html

However, I think the USA is just leaving it as Mexico's problem. If drugs stopped coming into the states for real, there would be riots and mayhem. Wall street would shut down from a lack of cocaine. Fast food would go out of business cause people don't actually eat there when they're sober. Legalizing drugs in the states... that is the unknown, the government would make money, I think the overall consumption would decrease and prisons can overflow with people who need to be there for harming others, not themselves. But... who wants to commit political and social suicide? The people making the laws are not the people walking the streets in the hood, they probably never even met each other, even accidentally. How can the left hand wash the right then?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[WaffleMonster]

Actually the complete opposite needs to happen. The way the government stopped the smuggling of alcohol and the related gang/mob violence during prohibition was to re-legalize alcohol. Make drugs a legal product and have the government tax the profits. It will immediately stop all this wasteful drug related violence and security expenditure.

I have a better idea. If someone tries to sell you drugs make it legal to shoot them in the head and hang their body from a bridge.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cayenne8]

Yes and do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time?

But, isn't that a personal responsibility issue? I mean, people are constantly ruining their lives for various reason and causes. Hell, look at obesity with overeating of the wrong foods? People are ruining their lives and the health issues contribute to excessive healthcare costs for everyone. Sound familiar? Same type argument against drugs. Please tell me you're not wanting to ban foods or take choices from everyone? I mean...there are many people that enjoy a good burger or trash food, but don't eat it all the time and let it ruin their lives? Well, there are a LARGE number of people out there that do smoke pot on a recreational basis, and it doesn't interfere with their lives or livelyhoods.

The problem with prohibition was that nobody was following that law...

I'd posit that the same thing is pretty much the case today with our batch of currently illegal drugs. There certainly isn't a shortage of them out there and no shortage of users. If the laws weren't being ignored largely...well, there's not be the "problem" with their current widespread usage.

My bottom line is...it really isn't (shouldn't be) the governments responsibility in regulating peoples' lives or behavior. That's not what our founders set up the US to do...especially on a federal level. It should be the individuals choice on how to live their lives. Freedom also means freedom to fuck up....

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cayenne8]

They'd have to be paid minimum wage then.

They'd also have to pay taxes...not just cash under the table.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Bert64]

The pharmaceutical industry would actually benefit massively from legalised drugs... They are already geared up to manufacture and sell drugs, so adding a few new ones to the list wouldn't be difficult for them.

Police and prisons are run by the government, so the government would bring in more revenue from taxes and the police would have greater resources available to deal with other crimes.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[hrvatska]

Your link about medical marijuana growers being robbed doesn't prove your point at all. Even though California has medical marijuana, the street price of cannabis products is obscenely high. If the only way you could obtain tobacco was through prescription you can bet armed robbers would be raiding tobacco farms to satisfy the very lucrative demand on the black market. Based on your perspective, robberies of Amsterdam coffee houses that sell cannabis products should be routine. But they're not, because there would be so little profit in it. Face it, legalization of cannabis, with the ability of anyone to grow it and market it in a sanely regulated manner, would cause the price to plummet and remove the incentive for criminal gangs to try to sell it.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cayenne8]

And what about the lives that have been improved by alcohol in the meantime?

For sure...think of all the UGLY people that wouldn't have otherwise gotten laid!!!

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Bert64]

Addicts already commit petty crime to pay for their drug habits, plus the police wouldn't be busy trying to deal with drug dealers so they would have more resources available to deal with petty crimes.

But i do agree that penalties should be increased for anyone found to be under the influence of drugs when they commit a crime... People should have every right to do whatever they want to themselves, but any action which harms others should be clamped down on harshly.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Anguirel]

Well, it isn't entirely out of the question, but I thought it was the money from the wood pulp paper industry, tobacco & alcohol, and cotton and wool that are keeping marijuana out. The drug aspect is just an easy thing to point at to keep the general growing for industrial use banned. Or at least, that was the big conspiracy theory on it. Maybe they've moved on to newer and more elaborate ones.

Either way, there's definitely more to the Drug War than it appears.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cayenne8]

You can legalize marijuana, but what about cocaine and the other dangerous synthetic drugs? Besides, the violence and cartels don't go away just because you legalize something.

Sure..why not? I mean, if someone wants to take themselves out of the gene pool, perhaps that's not a bad thing?

And no..it won't stop ALL violence, nor gang/cartel violence...however, it likely will stop 99% of the DRUG related violence. No money in it...they'll stop shooting people over the manufacture, sale and transport of drugs. They're not going to do it if there's no $$ in doing it.

Organized crime will always exist...but you didn't see this kind of violence escalation when they fall back on their old revenue avenues. Not a lot of border shootings over prostitution or illegal gambling, eh?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[dbet]

Yes and do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time?

A few I'm sure. And how many have been enhanced? A number you're probably less willing to admit. Hell I would bet half of the people visiting this thread were conceived because of alcohol. Many met their S.O. while both of you were buzzed. And let's not forget that baseball would no longer exist if fans couldn't get drunk enough to tolerate it.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cayenne8]

Ok, say we legalize all drugs.

What's to stop an OPEC-like organization from being created to ensure the price of drugs stay high?

Well, a weed is pretty easy to grow in your own back yard....thing is, several drugs can be easily grown or manufactured by fairly common people. Hard to get an OPEC type monopoly on something a fairly intelligent 'everyman' could make/grow.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Hatta]

The pharmaceutical industry would have a lot to fear from legalized drugs. None of them could be patented, so anyone could make and sell them. Marijuana in particular can be grown by anyone in their own home and replace popular analgesics, sedatives, and anti-emetics, things that are in every medicine cabinet in the country.

Without the war on drugs, there would be a need for fewer police. They'd also have to do real work catching real criminals, instead of just harassing people on the highway and stealing their property. Most police would see this as a bad thing.

Prisons are increasingly being run by private industry. Incarceration is a multi-billion dollar industry. A portion of that money goes into lobbying to make more people criminals.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Dishevel]

The collective ability of a society is not nearly as important to me as the ability of individuals.
The ability to achieve of individuals is down.
To me that is sad.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[digitalPhant0m]

It's an obvious solution, and the only ones who stand to lose are the criminal gangs who are currently making huge profits from illegal drugs.

I do agree that the "War on drugs" is an exercise in futility; I'm not sure if I completely agree that the only people who will lose in this deal a criminal's and gangs.
We will all lose. It will create an even bigger burden on those of us that fuel the economy.

Everyone on here so far is talking dollar signs. Sure, stopping the war on drugs and taxing the manufacture and sale will lead to huge profits. But I really believe there is a much larger downside that everyone overlooks here.

I probably just sound like a bitter old man, but too many people these days just seem complacent, self entitled and just down right lazy. What happens when we do legalize certain drugs, and just by the mere fact that it's legal, increases drug use?
We'll create an even more self entitled, self centered, and self indulgent society.

Proponents will reply to this saying that it will not increase drug use. Yes, it will. You have people that already use drugs and, legal or not, will continue. You have the people on-the-fence who don't use drugs because it's illegal, but by making legal gives them the green light to try (and perhaps risk addiction and other side effects) because the sheer fact that it's legal says it's "O.K". Then, you have children, who are going to grow up even more complacent, and desensitized to the ill effects of it.

I agree there has to be a better way than wasting money and lives fighting something that isn't going to go away, but I'm damn sure I wouldn't put such a responsibility in the hands of the general populous (that is no where near capable of handing it) at the risk of tearing down the very machine that requires enormous effort from that very same populous to run.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Nox3173]

You are either forgetting (or don't care) that many stupid people equate legal with good. That's one problem with legalizing everything.

Another problem is that, you assume that the cartels would just give up and go home or not be able to cross the border to get at the US based companies. How do you think they get the drugs here? You don't think an established cartel (basically a small army) can't lean on a corporation? That's a bit naive don't you think?

Your suggestion of nationalism in that it [would suck for mexico] is a bit selfish too, but I suspect you might be a big fan of NIMBY so that's unfortunate. :(

Re:The solution is obvious:

[sydbarrett74]

You're either an idiotic troll or else someone engaging in satire (I suspect the former). Most violent crime is drug-related. Why would dealers be any more scared of government-sanctioned killing than they are of being killed by fellow mobsters? DUH. Fucking wanker.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Nox3173]

If some people would take ONLY themselves out of the gene pool, then great. But we both know that junkies are problematic (at best) for more than just themselves.

A cartel is simply a corporation that doesn't follow anyone else's rules but their own. Believing that you can just shut off the violence simply by adding legitimate industry is a farce. Prohibition is only the same animal by a stretch of the imagination.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[tragedy]

As others have pointed out, the "prison system" is actually an industry in many cases now. As a for-profit industry, they don't benefit from anything that reduces the conviction rate and/or the length of sentences. Apparently, the prison industry also lobbies the government. I don't know if anything could be more blatantly corrupt than a situation where a for-profit industry, with government as its sole client, is spending money to influence government. Most companies in other industries, like construction, can actually legally have non-government clients. Even companies that have never worked for anyone but government in their entire history can at least pretend that they could get private money too.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Jmc23]

They might not get normal jobs but it os/extremely likely that the whole situation would change. Extorting momey from poor teachers isn't done for financial purposes, it's done to send a message to the government. Drug trafficking is a high risk/high reward job. If you take away the high/reward, take away the US supplied weapons, and what you are left with are a bunch of bullies woth no incwntive to risk their lifes and who would make a better living if they just stayed in the mexican military (the most violent groups are US trained mexican army deserters). Really the only parts of orgamozed crime not related to drug trafficking to foreigners or robbing foreigners is kidnapping of rich peoples children. Crime really doesn't pay much here because the people are to poor to make it worthwhile.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Jmc23]

They have offered to do this already. The escalating violence is in direct relation to the governments escalation of violence with the aid from the US government. Yeah, I'll prpbably be downmodded again. It suprises me how i got 10 comments downmodded in the span of a few minutes for pointing out the US governments role in all this. What do you guys do to Hillary Clinton who said it first?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Hordeking]

Therefore, we should not repeal Prohibition.

Why did it take a constitutional amendment to enact prohibition, but drugs are illegal without a special amendment? I never did understand that.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cjohnson319]

That's not correct, either, though. Life expectancy is longer. The sum total of human knowledge available to any given human being has a lower cost of access than ever before.

I'm not sure what it was you think people could achieve before that they cannot now.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Hartree]

"Which Central and South American death squads might you be indicating actually performed this scenario?"

Columbia, for a start. A number of what ended up as right wing "militias" started out as vigilante groups, but were perverted into actually protecting cartels.

See: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/colombia/players_auc.html

And would you really have us believe that Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Circles (mostly thugs rather than always outright assasins) are corruption free and only do their master's bidding?

And what about Mexico's Zetas themselves? They're largely former military who went over to the dark side as it was massively more profitable.

That's just a few. There've been many instances worldwide where extralegal anticrime groups have become the criminals or protectors of the criminals themselves.

Another example: Much of the Russian and other former Soviet state's mafias are former KGB operatives. The skills they learned for supporting the Soviet government translated directly into the skills needed to help themselves to a share of ill gotten gains.

What, you expected me to trot out a string of anecdotes about CIA funded drug dealing or some politically charged thing from Truthout or Mother Jones?

No need. There are too many documented examples on all sides of the political spectrum where extra-legal government and vigilante justice groups have gone bad throughout history.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[yurtinus]

Well, since I've already posted in this thread, I'll just have to raise my glass to you good sir!

Re:The solution is obvious:

[PwnzerDragoon]

Good thing the "war on drugs" is being so effective at keeping it out of their hands, then.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[nedlohs]

You are either forgetting (or don't care) that many stupid people equate legal with good. That's one problem with legalizing everything.

I just don't think that is true. Smoking is considered bad for you by most people and yet is legal. Eating badly is considered bad for you by most people and yet is legal. Drinking heavily is conidered bad for you by most people and yet is legal.

Another problem is that, you assume that the cartels would just give up and go home or not be able to cross the border to get at the US based companies. How do you think they get the drugs here? You don't think an established cartel (basically a small army) can't lean on a corporation? That's a bit naive don't you think?

No I don't think they can. Sending your small army across the border gets the attention of the US military whereas smuggling drugs does not. And no I don't think drug cartels could lean on say Monsanto or Pfizer or GE in any significant way. And doing so isn't going to be profitable anyway.

Your suggestion of nationalism in that it [would suck for mexico] is a bit selfish too, but I suspect you might be a big fan of NIMBY so that's unfortunate. :(

There was no suggestion of nationalism. Just a statement that if you remove the profit from something that large numbers of well armed thugs have been doing they are not just going to disappear. They are going to move to other crimes. And that would suck for the people around them - in this case that would be the people in Mexico. And "people in X" is often shortened to "X".

And no I don't see it as selfish. If the US creates stricter environmental regulations then some factories/etc that violate them will simply be moved to other countries with less strict regulations. That would be suck for those countries, but calling the US selfish for doing so is a bit of a stretch.

And you suspect wrong.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[DarkOx]

I am not sure things were better during prohibition, but they certainly were better for a long time after that. Per capita alcohol consumption did not return to per-prohibtion levels until the 1960s. This arguably had health benefits for many.

The rate of domestic violence against women declined by almost 50% during prohibition and started rising again in the years after repeal. While that particular social problem has been mitigated in other ways in more recent decades, we might expect to see further improvement if we did take drinking alcohol back out general public's hands.

So while I would not call prohibition a success and politically I don't think government should be deciding what I can or cannot put in my body. Its worth considering there were some positive social effects.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[DriedClexler]

You're missing the bigger picture: the fact that repealing Prohibition didn't eliminate *all* gangs, is no argument against it, and neither is it an argument that the cartels won't be completely eliminated by repealing drugs/regulating them. In both cases, it limits the power of the gangs/cartels, and the fact that it doesn't do so perfectly is irrelevant.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[FunkSoulBrother]

Can you point to some sort of study (or even just advance an argument) that posits that decriminalization of drugs would cost MORE taxpayer money?

Even if you had to create a whole new Department of Rehab, and an increase in crime from addicts, I can't imagine that it would actually cost more than the money saved from disbanding the war on drugs + tax money gained recreational sales + the income taxes paid by those who now aren't in fucking prison + income taxes on the new jobs created selling and producing the stuff.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[cayenne8]

But we both know that junkies are problematic (at best) for more than just themselves.

First...mostly I'm talking about pot. I hardly call people that smoke a little "junkies"....it is hardly addictive. And usually...most junkies, just want to be alone to do their drugs...not that much a bother really. I think you have more danger with drunks behind the wheel...than with a drug junkie.

I also just said, you'd take 99% of the violence related to drugs out of the scene..if you legalized them. No, violence will always exist, but this would be one (a big one at that) less cause of it.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[jahudabudy]

The pharmaceutical industry would have a lot to fear from legalized drugs. None of them could be patented, so anyone could make and sell them. Marijuana in particular can be grown by anyone in their own home and replace popular analgesics, sedatives, and anti-emetics, things that are in every medicine cabinet in the country.

The pharmaceutical industry is already competing with these drugs. Given the current ease of getting an eight ball vs. getting a prescription, I just don't see legalization causing large numbers of drug users to switch their drug of preference. Legalizing would simply allow the industry to add new items to their catalog. And I imagine that Pfizer will be much better at marketing "Pfizer Brand Cocaine - Now that's smooth!" than someone whose business model has been based on black market realities.

As for the specific case of marijuana, sure I could grow it. Just like I could brew my own beer, distill my own liquor. But I'm lazy and picky and would rather spend money on high quality substances than spend time on lower quality substances. I think I am not alone in that sentiment. This wouldn't necessarily benefit Pfizer et al, but I imagine Monsanto might have an interest.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[WNight]

In this case, we're letting a minority group with little to no concern over the results of their actions undermine democracy because they feel they have the right to just ignore the law because it's inconvenient.

Uh, no, we're not. Arguing that we should choose, through the democratic process, an approach to controlling the ills associated with certain currently-prohibited drugs that would, based on past experience with another previously-prohibited drugs whose prohibition had undesirable effects very similar to those that are manifest with the currently-prohibited drugs at issue, produce better net results for society isn't letting anyone undermine democracy. (And, if it was, ending prohibition -- which had no such clear past referent -- would have been even moreso.)

Actually, I think prohibition undermined democracy, and would have even if a clear 90% majority had voted for it in a special referendum.

Membership in our country isn't optional. You have it because you were born here and if you leave you lose your share of the resources without recourse. What may be valid if we all signed up isn't valid when we don't have a practical choice.

Democracy needs to be used in a positive fashion - for instance building a new hospital. If a sufficiently large group of the people need a new hospital we should build/staff one. And it winning means that while other people wanted other things, this is simply the most popular - a hospital at all, and this one particular, was more wanted than anything else.

It should not be used as freely for restrictions. You can find problems in anything, and with enough propaganda, get everyone riled up. And that's all politicians are paid to do. But that doesn't mean you have the moral authority to tell your neighbor not to do things simply because many people don't like it.

It abuses our democracy for people to vote for prohibition (or the war in Iraq, etc) because it says "there are more of us and thus we're right" (which is a fallacy).

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Anthony Mouse]

I was thinking about something similar to this the other day, but not taxation. A way to actually reduce drug usage: Fines. Huge, monster fines. You take the possession offenses that currently have penalties in the 5 year range, for example, and keep them, but give the defendant the alternative, at their option, to pay a $50,000 fine and get immediate probation. And give the same option to all the nonviolent drug offenders who are already in prison.

Now think about the result of that. The fine is very high, but it isn't so high that it isn't worth paying: Who would choose prison if you can buy your way out of it for $10,000/year? Anybody can make that much in any job, and prison sucks more than any possible employment alternative. So you close half the prisons (and save a pile of money), meanwhile you have a bunch of drug dealers paying you $50,000 each. Win-win. Plus, it gets the drug dealers out of the combination school and social networking facility for criminals that we call prison.

At the same time, none of these drug dealers just has $50,000 in cash sitting around. Not in money they can write a check against without getting arrested for tax evasion. So they have to get it from one of two places: Either their bosses, who have a money laundering apparatus set up, or their parents and families.

If they go to their bosses and the bosses bail them out then you get to play follow the money with the $50,000 and see where it came from, try to get the bosses for tax evasion, etc. Plus, you make the business that much less profitable -- the boss isn't going to have much left for bling if he has to spend his millions keeping all his dealers out of prison. It also changes the dynamic: Previously the convict would be sitting in jail and the boss can't get him out, but can promise rewards after release if he keeps his mouth shut. Now the boss can get him out right away by paying the money, so the convict finds out right away whether the boss is willing to reward his silence. So if the boss doesn't pay he has to risk the convict being resentful enough to roll over, but if he does pay then he spends all his profits paying the fines.

On the other hand, the convict has the option of going to their families to see if they can scrape together the money. And they probably can -- once. But it will cost them. So after they do it, if they catch the guy dealing again, they're going to pressure him into getting out of the life because they will be extremely resentful that they spent all their hard-earned money keeping him out of prison if he's still doing the same things that almost got him sent there in the first place. Family guilt is a powerful motivator.

The net result is that you increase costs for the drug dealers. If the money to keep them out of prison comes from the drug profits, you make drugs unprofitable -- all the profits are going to pay fines. If it comes from some other source, whoever is paying it is going to put serious pressure on the person convicted to make sure they haven't wasted their money. And if nobody pays then you create friction between the bosses and the convicts who can give them up for letting them rot in prison when they could have paid the fine.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[matthewd]

Oddly enough, I read on Wikipedia (so it must be true!) that some Democrats wanted President Polk ("The Napolean of the Stump") to annex all of Mexico instead of signing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago. I think that would make a very interesting alt-history scenario!

Re:The solution is obvious:

[pnewhook]

Mexico is (mostly) poor, and it's entirely possible that the only thing that will end their misery is wealth.

Possibly. But then the logical solution is instead of spending billions on border security to stop drugs and illegals, you just give the same amount of money to the Mexican people. Eventually there would be no reason to try and make money in the drug trade nor would anyone want to sneak over the border. Problem solved.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[pjt33]

Because this wouldn't be /. without the severe pedantry, someone should point out that the relevant Clancy novel is actually Clear and Present Danger, not Rainbow 6.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Grishnakh]

Well then, what's your explanation? This explanation certainly fits the facts and is a sound theory. Remember, "follow the money": doing this will explain most things at the higher levels of society.

Don't tell me you actually think politicians have some kind of moral problem with drug use, do you? Politicians are sociopaths; they have no morals at all. All they care about is money. They're all sociopaths because that's how they get into office. People with morals can't compete in that environment.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Grishnakh]

You're missing something: the cartels are located in Mexico, not the USA, at least mostly. If we cut off their funding now, we have a chance at starving them out, while they're still mostly stuck in Mexico. But if we wait too long, and with Obama's open-borders policies assisting them, they'll get much more of a foothold here, then they certainly will cause the problems you talk about.

For now, your statements are mostly irrelevant; Mexican corporations don't have much presence in the USA, and the Mexican government is already thoroughly corrupt (which is nothing new, it's been thoroughly corrupt for most of its existence), so it's not like they can do any more damage there. There is no "policy making" in Mexico; it's a failed state, just like Somalia.

So if we want to avoid becoming a failed state like Mexico, then we need to take aggressive steps to keep their cartels and violence out of our country. This means decriminalizing drugs, closing the borders, and deporting anyone from there who hasn't proven themselves to be a productive citizen not connected with the cartels. We also need to pull out of NAFTA, as that certainly hasn't helped anyone on either side of the border.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Gravatron]

Obama is open borders? Aren't deportations and enforcement actually up today versus when bush was in office?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Grishnakh]

Nope, Obama recently directed ICE to stop nearly all deportations.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[tunapez]

I was making an analogy to what organized crime has evolved to in the US. Hence the Geihtner anecdote.

My point was not that apathy is the same as empathy, it was that just cutting drugs/blackmarket out of the picture doesn't mean they will just go away. Vigilance is required to see their demise to completion.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[tunapez]

cut&paste from above:
I was making an analogy to what organized crime has evolved to in the US. Hence the Geihtner anecdote.

My point was not that apathy is the same as empathy, it was that just cutting drugs/blackmarket out of the picture doesn't mean they will just go away. Vigilance is required to see their demise to completion.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Grishnakh]

Well of course, but just cutting drugs out of the picture makes a huge, huge difference because it's easy money to them. If you make it harder for them to make money, then it cripples them. If you're not going to do anything to take away the easy money (black market with giant profits), then you might as well give up because you'll never win; you have to take this first step before you can do anything else.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Nox3173]

It would appear I did suspect wrong. Thank you for clarifying.

In my personal experience, drugs are devastating to lives, not just their own but to those around them, strangers or otherwise. Smoking, eating badly and drinking heavily are bad for you, yes, but the matter of degree is (at least to me) the difference. I think everybody knows fat people, chain smokers and alcoholics and probably have even seen a few recover. For some drugs, the recovery rate is either low or non-existent. I would not legalize crack or meth just like I would not legalize shooting people. In my experience, both hardcore narcotics usage and shooting someone are both potentially one time kills you fatal. I suppose that is where we might disagree.

I will be honest, I do support the "what you do is your business" ideal. I begin to take issue with certain things because of happenings to people around me, and I wouldn't wish some of the shit I've seen on anyone.

I agree, you can't send a small army across the border, but when have drug kingpins used actual soldiers? They just pay armed thugs to do things. In fact, they wouldn't even need to send anyone across the border, there are enough of them over here already, they just contact them and get it done. However, I didn't consider Pfizer or Lily when I imagined legalizing drugs. I guess I imagined that those companies would not want to take part in the bad press of the suddenly legal narcotics trade. I don't think it would sit right with the public, but then again I've been surprised before.

I retract my statement about nationalism, I misunderstood your intention and was out of line. I apologize. :)

Re:The solution is obvious:

[mangu]

Obviously, we should invade Mexico!
Huh? How do you think the US got Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[mangu]

This hemp business is a myth. If hemp were as good as weed heads want us to believe don't you think the corporations wouldn't use it? Why go to the trouble of planting cotton or cutting trees if you could get more profits from growing hemp?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[mangu]

The government makes money from asset forfeiture

Do you know why the drug dealers keep doing it? Because in the end the cash flow is positive, they make more money than what gets confiscated.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Hatta]

Fair points, but the fact stands that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the major backers of pro-drug war propaganda groups like Partnership for a Drug Free America. That tells us that the pharmaceutical industry itself sees legalized drugs as a threat, thereby making most of this thread moot. Whether legalized drugs would be good or bad for the pharmaceutical industry isn't the point. The point is they see it as a threat and fight it as if it were one.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Quiet_Desperation]

It's hard to find oil and drill it.

You can grow pot in your garden.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Reservoir Penguin]

Whenever local police force works closely with the populace and aggressively goes after reported street corner pushers, then works with them to expose the suppliers - then it does become much harder for addicts to obtain drugs. Unfortunately law enforcement prefers to announce a few high profile busts a year than continuously work to improve the situation. The other part of the solution - close the damn border with Mexico already! Then maybe remove the remaining codein/pseudoephedrine containing over the counter medicine.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[jthill]

Because you can grow them in your backyard, or cook them up in a workshop any chemistry student could have. Maybe cocaine and heroin could be monopolized just because the plants don't grow everywhere, but so what? Let it happen, nobody cares. Diamonds are monopolized, nobody cares. Coke and heroin are numbers 2 and 3 on the NIH's most-addictive list though not even close to tobacco. But pot and its kin, MDMA, LSD, mushrooms, peyote, God knows what else? There's no way they get monopolized. The gangs going to raid all of suburbia? Hunt down grad students in every college in the land?

Really, why do you think they're illegal in the first place? And, please, show some self-respect: don't spout the drug-warriors' party line. Take away the thrill of forbidden fruit, the actually bad ones will drop right off the radar, far down into the noise of all the other ways kids get themselves killed. Actually, they're already down there, but never mind that. Tops of course is driving a car, and people hand their kid the keys how often? What do they say? "Drive safe, drive responsibly, if you get in trouble, call me."

I think they're illegal because the ones that have intrinsic barriers to entry as a business can't compete.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[budgenator]

If you ask Juan Valdez whether he wants to pick 2,000 coffee beans for 2 cents or stomp cocca leaf for an hour for a dollars, his answer will be a no-brainer; the problem has never been a lack of supply. Nor has the problem ever been a lack of demand, the real constraint has been in distribution. It's the distributors that are causing the majority of the violence now.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Reservoir Penguin]

Look, the logic of addiction is really simple. It's a medical fact that by the mid stage an addict must take hits several times a day which means he is not able to hold even a basic minimum wage job and having exhausted other possibilities namely lying/beging/stealing from friends and family he has to resort to crime and/or pushing drugs himself. So I do not see how decriminalizing use and possession is gonna help anything. This is what I mean by danger to society, there is no "if there are problems" in it, maybe one person in 1000 is independently wealthy or their family is willing to cover up their habit indefinitely, but in most case even their own mothers won't let them inside the house unsupervised anymore.


What works is: 1) Aggressively go after the junkies. Most of them are also involved in small time drug trade to support their habit. The cut a deal with them to expose their supplier in return for involuntary commitment to a treatment center rather than doing jail time.

2) Establish real treatment centers, not the kind where you one can check out any time. The most important thing is to prevent smuggling of drugs inside and about a month of isolation for the new arrivals. Then slowly re-integrate the addicts into society through work first on-site and then whenever possible real jobs. I'm not a religious person but real life accounts indicate that some religious instruction increases chances of positive outcome. Based on the work of a Russian NGO run by Eugene Roizman a recovery ration of up to 85% can be achieved if this scheme is followed.

And I hope that pot and a few other psychoactive substances that do not turn you into a drooling zombie within a few months can be decriminalized in due time.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[jthill]

I think it isn't the so much the government itself, though it does collect the taxes for most of the people in those examples, but just look at all those people getting paid. The drugs won't get legalized because the drug war is a jobs program. We can't drop it or the real ones because the unemployment rate would spike. We'd be lots better off with a new WPA. Fix infrastructure and make things of lasting value.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Gutboy]

The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Source Prohibition of Drugs

Re:The solution is obvious:

[lgarner]

Funny, I wonder which of your two options are counter to my suggestion.

Like drugs, there is a problem with alcohol. People become addicted to it, lose their jobs, end up homeless, commit crimes to get by. However, I'm pretty sure that not all drinkers are alcoholics. I don't think that just because something bad becomes easier to obtain that everyone in the world will rush out to do it- the reduction in cigarette smoking in the US in recent years belies that notion.

I think there would be a lot more addicts than there are now. But I don't know if that number, who choose to ruin their lives, will outweigh the reduction in other violent crimes and the economic benefits.

Your emotional appeal is well-phrased, but I've still no reason to believe that the "war on drugs" is a good idea. It's an unknown, and I personally lean toward reducing that effort.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Ambvai]

I may be thinking fiction here, but wasn't there one organized crime group that grew so large but was constrained by keeping stuff undercover that they decided to go legit?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[The Master Control P]

Ask Google about "Kids for Cash" if you doubt the privatized prison industry will pervert the justice system in order to wrongly imprison people.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Demonoid-Penguin]

You can legalize marijuana, but what about cocaine and the other dangerous synthetic drugs? Besides, the violence and cartels don't go away just because you legalize something. Blanket legalization would create a landslide of problems on top of the ones we already have. The cartels just start killing the legitimate business owners to stamp out competition right along with the other cartels. The problem with the drug trade is so multi-pronged it's not even funny. There is no blanket solution and people would do well to stop acting like there is.

Agreed - but we live in a world of colour, dominated by morons who can only see black and white (or Republican and Democrat). Alcohol and tobacco are the most dangerous drugs - but removing them, like decriminalizing other drugs, would destroy the US economy (and others).

"Bbbbbut" cry the morons who refuse to recognise where all that cartel money goes (Wall Street) and what the collapse of the private prison industry would do to the state that provided their sub-standard "educmication". Grow a brain idiots - the War on Drugs is bullshit - you can't have a war on inanimate objects - only people. And people saying "psst - want to score?" aren't the problem (and yes, they surely exist) - it's the legions of people with money asking "psst, where can I get an edge?" that are the fucking problem.

HINT: recreational drug use is not a problem per se. It can be an aspect of a social problem. Just as bullets are not a problem... when someone points a gun at you and shoots you - the bullet becomes an "aspect" of the problem. Get it? No? Then you are the problem. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, evolution didn't stop with opposing thumbs - and people who can't cope with complexity lower the standards for the rest of the evolved world (I'm looking at you Glenn).

If I gave everyone in favour of "assassination squad" "drug war" solutions a dollar - it still wouldn't begin to match the money spend daily by the "cartels", "dealer", "drug counsellors", "defence lawyers" and all the other associated industries on keeping recreational drugs illegal. "Bbbbut we're just trying to pay our mortgage" - you are scum - and the yuppie Nuremburg defence is bullshit.

To those that believe "abstinence" and forcing their opinions on others are the answer - context and extrapolation are clearly beyond you - so do the world a favour and go suck a tailpipe, take a dive off a covered bridge, or drive down some tobbacco road and bite a bullet.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[log0n]

of non-violent / non-criminal offenders.

Way to FoxNews there..

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Grishnakh]

Gravatron didn't specify violent vs. nonviolent offenders, he just asked if deportations weren't actually up. They've now been stopped in the vast majority of cases, as I'm sure it's safe to assume nonviolent offenders are the majority. However, they're all criminal. It's illegal to enter the country without a visa, or to overstay a visa. Obviously, you've got an agenda.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[TapeCutter]

Have you ever even seen a real heroin addict?

I'm in my 50's and have known my fair share of junkies, even had my junkie nephew living with me and my family for a while. Junkies will always exist regardless of what laws and punishments you make. Making it legal for them to dribble all over themselves at an affordable price is far less dangerous than making it ridiculously profitable for others to feed their habits by any means necessary. Prohibition on alcohol proved this beyond doubt, but still there are plenty of people like yourself who cling to the fantasy that, given enough jack boots you can stamp out the undesirable aspects of human nature.

Nine of ten people can not afford an illegal addiction without resorting to theft. - FTFY

Re:The solution is obvious:

[MrNaz]

We (western civilization) have progressed in terms of technology and manufacturing output. In all other terms we are in decline. Unquantifiable, but more important measures such as "personal happiness" or "social satisfaction", were only worse at extremely low points in human history such as during war or famine. Unfortuantely, there are no metrics for concepts like that, so we pretend they don't exist and tell ourselves we're happy because we can microwave a meal in 45 seconds and give ourselves temporary lobotomies by watching TV.

I've lived in villages where average income is $2/day and everyone works 6 hours in the fields doing back breaking labour. Yet, at the end of the work day, there's something happier about them that the rich people I normally rub shoulders with back home never seem to have.

I really think that we need to reassess what we're doing with all our advancements, because for all of the benefits to health, comfort and safety that westernized modernity has brought, we seem to be the most miserable people on the planet.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[MrNaz]

No other comment I've read has ever been more deserving of the following response:

"Dude, are you on drugs or what?"

Re:The solution is obvious:

[MrNaz]

Just for the record, the Taliban paid local farmers not to produce poppies in an attempt to move the economy away from drug production. It was only when the US got into Afghanistan that heroin production went through the roof.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Reservoir Penguin]

Effect of the American Prohibition is a controversial topic, but statistics about a short lived anti-alcohol campaign in the mid 80's in the Soviet Union show a marked decrease in alcohol related deaths so it was at least partially effective.

I wrote another reply to where I mentioned that some families do cover up their relatives habit but in my experience it's more of an exception. I hope you realize that legalization of the substances would only be part of your "solution". Besides cheap quality controlled state provided drugs he would also need free/price-controlled social housing, food stamps and a monthly allowance, 'cause he sure can't hold a regular 9-5 job. All of this at the same time when people with two engineering degrees live in their cars.
I'm also surprised by attitude towards law enforcement, the "jack boots" have not eradicated murder, theft and rape either but does not mean we should also legalize these undesirable aspects of human nature? Way to improve Police statistics. No crime - no problem.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Reservoir Penguin]

Just to summarize - philosophically I'm all for people choosing their way to die. But it's my fundamental belief that pot aside, drug addiction is incompatible with living in modern (post)industrial society. The addict becomes a danger every time, unless you really do want to provide them with a complete state subsidized existence.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Maritz]

Because they're bad, m'kay?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Maritz]

The pharmaceutical industry would have a lot to fear from legalized drugs. None of them could be patented, so anyone could make and sell them. Marijuana in particular can be grown by anyone in their own home and replace popular analgesics, sedatives, and anti-emetics, things that are in every medicine cabinet in the country.

They'd have the resources to get a high-quality product to market very quickly and to market it effectively. People could make their own beer and wine if they wanted to, but very few do. At the end of a day it's a new market, I can't really see why they wouldn't at least appreciate the opportunity to move into it. Plus if you've got a headache at work, smoking a fat one isn't really ideal.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Maritz]

2nd para is me, forgot to close the quote tag, durr.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[ProfDD]

Can't you hear the objections? "This is unfair to poor people, allowing rich drug users to get off easy, while forcing the poor into gang recruitment centers (ie prisons)."

Re:The solution is obvious:

[TapeCutter]

I will grant that prohibition may reduce the death rate of users but my post was about the danger of addicts to society compared to the dangers of prohibition to society. Also I have know t lest one heroin addict who had no difficulty holding down a job that paid well enough to feed his habit, but I realise personal anecdotes are not statistics.

I'm also surprised by attitude towards law enforcement

The US has 300M people and 500K drug prisoners, the EU has 500M people and 600K total prisoners. Since the EU is not falling apart due to drug problems I'd say there is a problem with US laws rather than US law enforcement.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[TapeCutter]

Same thing can be said about alcoholics and I don't see anyone picking up the tab for their existence, in fact most governments put a high tax on alcohol.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Anthony Mouse]

Nonsense. Basically no one for whom $50,000 is not real money is put in prison for a drug offense as it is, and this doesn't put any poor people in prison who wouldn't be there under the existing laws.

And paying the money doesn't get you out of probation and mandatory drug testing -- Bill Gates can pay his way out of a first offense, but then he's got probation and weekly drug tests and a positive result means he's violated his probation and is going to jail.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Hartree]

My apologies, but I'm not sure what you are saying. The AUC has become something quite different than it was originally intended when it started back the 1990s. That was the point I was making. That groups change over time and when large amounts of drug money are involved can easily become corrupt. When the group is already outside the traditional limits of law, such as a group doing assasinations, the lengths that they can go are much greater. If they are corrupted they are just that much more dangerous.

I think you misunderstand my position. I tend to be a law and order type who is willing to use pretty strong means. But at the same time, I recognize that without strong and (either publicly or representatively) reviewed controls it can easily go from being a controlled application of force to being an uncontrolled use of force. Thus you need a legal framework controlling the forces a country uses.

It's a bit like using fire. It's a wonderful servant, but when it escapes control, it is a terrible master.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[ProfDD]

I never said the solution was wrong, only that a fine-based solution will tend to be a non-starter.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Altrag]

Nah, no uses at all.

Its not a question of the cost of hemp vs the cost of other materials. Its a question of the cost of hemp -plus the cost of the red tape- vs the cost of other materials.

The red tape (licenses, compliance with those licenses, lawsuits, fighting lobbiests, fighting anti-drug citizen groups, etc) is likely pretty pricey.

The lobbiests in particular would be annoying as many of them would be well-funded by cigarette companies, (legal) drug companies, alcohol companies, and pretty much anyone else who even dreams of one day losing a few dollars to marijuana users (because you know, no one can get it under the current system..)

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Jason Levine]

Of course politicians have morals. They just have exactly the set of morals that will win them the most votes. This set of morals is subject to change at a moment's notice depending on poll numbers and campaign strategy.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Bert64]

When it becomes harder to obtain drugs, basic laws of supply and demand simply mean that whatever drugs are still available now cost more, and new dealers will enter the market to replace those who got busted, meanwhile the government is now paying to keep those dealers in prison where they are now most likely supplying drugs to fellow inmates.

Ofcourse you also have to consider, what effect do increased prices and limited supply have on the addicts?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[Reservoir Penguin]

This is a rather naive and over simplified view of the market economy. There areas in the US where one can't get broadband or even basic services at any rate. It's all about cost/risks. People do not want drugs in their neighborhood, they do not want to live next to junkies. It has been proven that the drug war can be "won" locally.

Regarding your second question. First of all limited supply and high prices means that far less people are going to *start* doing drugs. This is the main benefit that will eradicate drug use in the long term. Without continuing supply of new users the remaining addict population will disappear over time, naturally (drugs kill, it's a medical fact), or one can hope more will apply for treatment. Real life data does show a disturbing short term trend, as supply chains for traditional drugs like heroin are disrupted some addicts resort to more dangerous home cooked substitutes. Unfortunate, but it falls under the "natural disappearance" scenario since these drugs kill much quicker.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[pnewhook]

Yes and do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time?

So you want to make everything illegal that can potentially harm someone? At least red wine has some health benefits. Should we make cigarettes illegal too? How about fast food, red meat and sugary carbonated beverages. How many lives have been lost due to people overusing these types of foods?

Re:The solution is obvious:

[ppanon]

Addicts already commit petty crime to pay for their drug habits

Of course, but now they get a minor punishment for the petty theft (enough to act as a disincentive for most people), but can get put away for years for minor possession.

plus the police wouldn't be busy trying to deal with drug dealers so they would have more resources available to deal with petty crimes.

Indeed.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[ppanon]

The point is that minor punishment works to dissuade most people from committing petty crimes, however addicts need money to feed the addiction and will be less deterred. They are at greater risk of recidivism even if they want to stop committing crimes just to fuel their habit. I would also balance the triple sentences with more options for treatment and early parole w/ monitoring if they succeed. With the lower cost of drugs when they aren't paying for a multi-layer criminal supply chain, fewer of them would need to break laws to pay for their habits too.

Re:The solution is obvious:

[ppanon]

Or another way, it's like insurance - increase the premiums based on the risk factors. House in a flood plain? Lots of speeding tickets or prior accidents? Repeat offender? Committed a crime and drug user?

To a certain extent we already do this. Driving with undue care and attention vs DUI

Do you realize what this means?

[davidbrit2]

Deaths from blogging accidents are about to go way up.

Re:Do you realize what this means?

[DarkOx]

Don't worry there is probably a medical insurance code for that now.

Re:Do you realize what this means?

[davidbrit2]

That's good. Last time I was killed in a blogging accident by my flaming water skis, the triage nurse took ages to figure out how to code it.

Re:Do you realize what this means?

[davidbrit2]

McBainThatsTheJoke.jpg

Re:Do you realize what this means?

[rwa2]

Hmm, I already thought Borderlands was pretty lame, but the goings-on in our real borderlands make the game seem downright tame.

Re:Do you realize what this means?

[icebraining]

Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

I don't get it. Are you pulling a No Pun Intended? What reasons?

Re:Do you realize what this means?

[schwit1]

They should have an accident categories like 'gravity related' or 'darwin award'.

Re:Do you realize what this means?

[aespinoza]

I really don't see how this news can be funny.

Re:Do you realize what this means?

[tgv]

It's sad, isn't it? But this is the internet: morons abound.

Go USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for giving sadistic drug cartels power, DEA and DHS.

Re:Go USA

[Black Parrot]

Thanks for giving sadistic drug cartels power, DEA and DHS.

And voters who think it's a good idea to have the government force their morals on everyone else.

And politicians who cater to them.

But until US voters develop enough sense to put an end to the war on drugs, they should realize that every penny they spend on drugs is funding vicious criminals, whether in Mexico or in a neighborhood gang right here at home.

Re:Go USA

[Nexus7]

You know that Cook County (where Chicago lies)? The one they make fun of? "Crook" county, the Republicans like to call it (mainly because there's no chance in hell the county is ever going to get a Republican elected). Well, guess what the evil big city county did? They made possession of minor amounts of pot a ticketable offense. maybe someone is fighting back against the slant-heads.

Re:Go USA

[operagost]

They made possession of minor amounts of pot a ticketable offense.

So instead of violating people's liberty and property, they'll just take their property.

Re:Go USA

[Nexus7]

Really? You think paying a ticket and going to jail (with the attendant record, costs, loss of time, dangers, etc.) are comparable things?

Re:Go USA

[Mindcontrolled]

Poor little operaghost is a pure, uncut libtard. He doesn't give a flying fuck about liberty. In his twisted shriveled soul, property is all that matters.

Legalise drug trade

[ttong]

Legal trade causes far less trouble, clearly the best way forward is to legalise the trade and use the extra tax income to police and jail those who still engage in crime.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[networkconsultant]

You do realize this is all due to the new form of prohibition right? You can legalize everything all you want in Mexico but the market being Supplied is to the north. Until it's legal on both sides of the border, violence will be an issue.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope....

Take a look at prescription drugs... they are perfectly legal to carry, yet they kill more people than hardcore drugs, such as heroin, coke, and meth do combined, and I am also including deaths by drug deals, not by drug use alone....

Re:Legalise drug trade

[drinkypoo]

Take a look at prescription drugs... they are perfectly legal to carry, yet they kill more people than hardcore drugs, such as heroin, coke, and meth do combined, and I am also including deaths by drug deals, not by drug use alone....

Most of that is actually manslaughter by doctor, i.e. insufficient diligence on the part of the physician when prescribing. It's not really death by drug because abuse of prescription drugs is the smallest cause of death by them.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Andy Dodd]

I think that's his point...

This country doesn't seem to have learned from its mistakes with Prohibition, which created some of the most violent gangs and cartels in this country's history, at least the most violent until the New Prohibition (aka War on Drugs).

Re:Legalise drug trade

[qortra]

I completely agree, but the real magic is that Mexico wouldn't have to dump more money into their policing if they legalize. Legal drug trade wouldn't generate any more violence than legal bubble gum trade. The people who are currently hanging bloggers up on bridges would simply starve to death alone after legalization. None of their skills adequately prepare them to conduct profitable legal business, and all of their connections and power are derived from their massive income. It's so ridiculous that these drugs are illegal in both the US and Mexico, and I can't figure out why first world countries have consistently failed to change their policy in their regard. In fact, I've always vaguely suspected that the drug cartels themselves are stuffing the ballots in favor of continued anti-drug legislation and politicians who support such legislation.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[jollyreaper]

Legal trade causes far less trouble, clearly the best way forward is to legalise the trade and use the extra tax income to police and jail those who still engage in crime.

What are you, some kind of neo-crypto-liberal-homo-socialist or something?! Naw, us real Americans prefer our drugs the old-fashioned way, illegal and funding criminal enterprise.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Anonymous Coward]

80% of Americans are on some form or prescription... out of that... 60% are on some form of opiate/narco type of prescription, such as pain relievers, etc. This included ibuprofen, yes, but overall, this country is always on some form of stimulant and suppressant.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[eth1]

I've supported legalizing (some) drugs - marijuana at the very least - for a long time because of this. It would do far more to hurt the cartels than anything we're doing now.
Unfortunately, I'm sure the cartels know this, too, and that anyone in the US or Mexico that makes serious headway in that direction will have a very short lifespan.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[gandhi_2]

Leave it to a moral relativist to place the blame of murdering drug dealers on people who don't think you should do drugs.

Would you be so cavalier about a War on Human Trafficking? Or would you suggest surrendering if that war started getting messy too?

If all your decisions in life are decided by which choice is "less trouble", then you truly stand for nothing worth standing for.

The blame here starts with Americas brain-dead drug-using oxygen thieves. The blame continues with the enablers, liberal pop-culture shitsticks who rationalize/condone/glorify Americas drug consumption. The blame ends with the chain of suppliers, who obviously have NO problem shooting you to death while you jetski on a lake in your own country; they have no problem cutting your wife's limbs off in front of you.

Naturally here in liberal "it's okay to be dependent on the government, but they can't tell me what to do" slashdot land, you'd get +5.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Xest]

Agreed, it's not like legalised alcohol causes any problems that put burdens on the health system and increases deaths by drink driving accidents and so forth or anything.

Seriously, it's not as simple as you think. Sure legalisation gets rid of organised crime but it creates other issues in terms of higher levels of sometimes fatal substance abuse.

Note that I'm not saying legalisation isn't the best solution of a bad bunch - it might well be - but so many idiots think it's a silver bullet and it's absolutely not. Legalisation just brings with it a whole raft of different problems instead. All that tax income and then some is just going to go on drug driving incidents, greater numbers requiring rehabilitation and so forth.

It's also not going to eliminate the cartels overnight, there are still going to be an absolute fuckton of very nasty people with more nasty weapons out there with a lust for doing some even more nasty things. You run the risk of having a situation where these nasty fucks are still going round murdering whilst simultaneously also having to deal with a greater burden of addicts, drug driving fuckups and so forth to boot.

There need to be a lot more studies - impartial ones - before any such step like this is taken. Thus far the debate is largely dominated by a contest between stoner hippies who want to have their thrill legalised, and prudish bores who think anything more than paracetamol is going to make the whole world instantly collapse.

One should note that even the famous Amsterdam, often used by those in support of legalisation as an example of how well things can work has recently clamped down on it to a degree because of the amount of people coming in, getting high, and creating costly and annoying problems. It's certainly not this magical panacea some thing it is.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Jmc23]

Being legal in Mexico wouldn't stop the violence if it was still illegal in the US. People would still fight for the right to supply. As to the cost of policing, you do realize mexico is now making money off the war on drugs right? The US is funding it.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[khallow]

Leave it to a moral relativist to place the blame of murdering drug dealers on people who don't think you should do drugs.

The people who don't think you should do drugs, and are willing to use the power of the State to impose their value judgments on others are immoral.

The blame here starts with Americas brain-dead drug-using oxygen thieves. The blame continues with the enablers, liberal pop-culture shitsticks who rationalize/condone/glorify Americas drug consumption. The blame ends with the chain of suppliers, who obviously have NO problem shooting you to death while you jetski on a lake in your own country; they have no problem cutting your wife's limbs off in front of you.

Those brain-dead oxygen thieves also smoke tobacco and drink alcohol. You don't see major wars fought out in Kentucky over the supply of whiskey or people tortured in North Carolina over tobacco. When a good, even one as controversial as hardcore recreational drugs, is legalized, then law abiding producers take over the market.

As an aside, I can think of little more irrelevant and fruitless than attempting to place moral responsibility on drug addicts. Someone who spends their life figuring out where their next hit comes from is incapable of this sort of moral judgment.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[misexistentialist]

Governments benefit directly from drug prohibition. Many top officials in Mexico have become wealthy from cartel money and probably the majority of lower employees partially live off it. In the US prohibition secures millions of law enforcement jobs and asset seizure has become a business that generates billions of dollars per year. On a deeper level capitalists require that government maintain a maximally productive workforce, so this conflict between governments' and citizens' interests can't be resolved.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Bill_the_Engineer]

What proof do you have that legalizing drugs won't cause more problems than it supposedly solves? I'm skeptical that legalizing drugs would solve anything and so far haven't seen any proof.

Just because you repeatedly post that solution on the internet does not necessarily make it true.

You know the drug cartels could easily be war lords that uses violence to exert their power over the populace and use drugs to finance their operations. Legalizing drugs would simply make them look elsewhere for financing or worse legitimize their financing operations. Sure you'd be able to get your weed cheaper but you still haven't solved the violence that you supposedly care about.

Just look at the prohibition era of the 1920's that people always use as an example. Did it really solve anything? Not really. Sure a ridiculous prohibition on alcohol was repealed but the mafia and bootleggers still found other sources of income. The US government still spends a shit load of money and time trying to prosecute these people and while the alcohol protests subsided the underlying violence did not.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[hodet]

Who cares? At least nobody gets disemboweled for talking against it. The issue isn't saving people from themselves, its about cutting out the illegal activity on the supply side.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Windwraith]

The problem is that many medics will over-prescribe such drugs. I was diagnosed a pretty strong drug for sleeping, and it wasn't only useless, it severely crippled me during the day, and it was addictive as fuck. The abstinence syndrome was brutal.
They tried to give me the same substance with another name after I complained, and they attempted to give it again with yet another name a few months ago for "stress issues".
No thanks.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[DeadCatX2]

Nope...take a look at Portugal. They decriminalized pretty much every single drug, 10 years ago.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006

Re:Legalise drug trade

[drinkypoo]

This country doesn't seem to have learned from its mistakes with Prohibition, which created some of the most violent gangs and cartels in this country's history, at least the most violent until the New Prohibition (aka War on Drugs).

False. They learned their lesson very well. It enabled them to construct an entire arm of government to deal with the problem that they created by making their use illegal in the first place. Continuing their apparent crusade provides still more opportunities for profit. The Powers That Be knew precisely what they were doing when they made these drugs illegal, and they still do. There are simply too many interests profiting from the status quo for it to change without the will of the people unified, and nearly half of the country is still believing the lies told by the government.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[drinkypoo]

Don't fool yourself, we can do nothing to appease hardened criminals into becoming decent low-abiding businessman and civil citizens.

How low, can you go?

Seriously though, folks, these people are deriving their power from money, and they are deriving that money from selling a good whose value is artificially inflated, and that good's value is artificially inflated by it being illegal, and it's illegal for the purpose of profit.

If you had a point to make, you would log in, because it would add to your credibility. But your comment won't, so you didn't.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Hello,

    The "studies" you speak of have far less value than the actual experience of Switzerland. In Switzerland, addicts are under the care of doctors, hold down jobs, don't spread disease via dirty needles and pay taxes. In the USA, few are cared for by doctors, dirty needles & disease and short lifespan are the norm, they steal to support their habit, and we pay to house them in prison.

    On humane arguments alone, we should de-criminalize.

    Also, friends tell me that it's easier for kids to get cocaine, meth, and marijuana than tobacco. I'm not sure we'd get a "raftload" more of addicts.

    And you're right, the evil bastards who're in the drug trade will still be a problem, but at least they won't be fuelled with drug money.

--PM

Re:Legalise drug trade

[drinkypoo]

The problem with your silly little rant is that drug consumption is not the problem, paying lots of money for drugs is the problem, and this only happens because they are illegal, because they are otherwise fairly easy and inexpensive to produce. Certainly they are significantly less expensive to produce than synthetic pharmaceuticals, if only because no R&D must be expended to produce them — they are already here. Some of the illegal drugs have proven health benefits, and some of them which our government claims to be harmful have been somewhat conclusively proven to not be so. Some of them have even been provided to American troops by our own government to improve their performance in war.

The simple truth is that prohibition has been proven to create whole new classes of criminal by providing whole new opportunities for profit from illegal activities — in fact, they are unusually lucrative opportunities that literally would not otherwise exist.

The vast majority of America's drug consumption is legal, and it kills more users per capita than the illegal stuff. And since we've driven drug law worldwide, in general we restrict access to more substances than almost any other nation (except those few which ban alcohol.) And it doesn't look like those nations are great places to live, either.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Duradin]

"There's no proof for it, only common sense."

Ahh good ol' Common Sense, I miss that high school. Did you follow that up with a bachelor's degree from "It Stands To Reason" College and a doctorate from "Some Bloke at the Bar Said" University?

All apologies to Pratchett.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[superwiz]

Well, the summary does mention that they cartels are also into extortion business. How do you suppose legalization will change the fact that they extort (essentially tax) teachers on their salaries?

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The situation isn't very complicated really. Drug prohibition prevents no one to access the substances but makes it extremely profitable for dealers to trade them. Now remove the profitable aspect of the equation and try to imagine what might ensue.

Did you not fully comprehend my comment? Their objective is power and use money to finance it. Power gives them economic and political incentive within their region. Just look at the example of organized crime continuing to exist after prohibition within the US.

You assume traditional market forces will cause profitability to go down? How? If anything you just increased their market size which would mean that despite lowering their profit margin on each item sold, they would still enjoy increased profits overall.

If drugs were legalized, the drug cartels would still exist and the US would have a bigger problem with substance abuse. Now what problem are you trying to solve?

Re:Legalise drug trade

[geekoid]

Nope.

If you legalize it it mexico, then the larger mobsters become legal drug producers. As business men, the benefit to being a legal above board organization out weigh being an organized crime boss. Hell, make the Drug lords a deal:
Forcibly stop extortion and killing of bystanders, and in exchange will give a company that will be tax free for 5 years.

Violence would continue to happen in the US and along the border.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Lifyre]

You don't see major wars fought out in Kentucky over the supply of whiskey or people tortured in North Carolina over tobacco.

I like your point. Especially since when alcohol WAS illegal that was exactly what we saw taking place.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[RulerOf]

Lies, that's all coincidental.

You've missed the REAL cause of those reductions, which is that the USA's international war on drugs is working. Duh.~

Re:Legalise drug trade

[microbox]

Human instinct is the reason why drugs are "banned". Same goes for trying to control the sexuality of others (homosexuality, promiscuity, sexuality of women). We are programmed (by nature) to try and control the behaviour in others when it hits our internal "prude" instinct. It is an externalised form of self-aggression called moralism.

Beware the moralist -- they will control you for your own good, because they have the "insight" into your predicament, and are doing it for your own good. All the carnage they wreak is for "the greater good", and if they didn't defend society it would descend into hell.

There are moralists on the political left and right, and they each of their axes to grind, and they are both completly deluding themselves. Much of the worlds suffering would be reduced if moralists learnt how to deal with their own turff, instead of trying to mandate behaviour for others. The violence in mexico is just one consequence of moralism, and proof that evil can come from the good intentions of the ignorant.

Note, most moralists think of themselves as having "raised" consciousness. This is just one way that they make themselves impervious to the messages of the world.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Squiddie]

You don't reward criminals for their crimes. The ones doing the killing right now need to be put down like dogs. I understand that legalization is necessary, but I don't feel comfortable with rewarding their murder with millions.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[gandhi_2]

kills more users per capita than the illegal stuff.

You probably don't like it when people mix and twist sets of statistics, cherry-pick and paraphrase the conclusions so they agree with their viewpoint, eh? Seems like most /.ers dislike that.

What you've just done here is a prime example of statistics abuse.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a12.htm
What percent of people properly using prescription drugs were killed by them? Seems to me you are glossing over the fact that the legal vs illegal death rate change was due to overdoses of legal meds. The CDCs definition counts improperly-acquired oxycodone, causing overdose fatalities as a "legal drug" death.

http://www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/gcattc/documents/PrescriptionTrends_Web.pdf

Kids downing hydrocodone and diazepam at raves.... they don't get that from their doctors. But is sure is tempting to include their statistics in with the "legal drugs are more dangerous than crack and meth!!!1!" numbers.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[DrBoumBoum]

Their objective is power.

This is quite an astonishing opinion. Where do you get that idea from? It looks much more plausible to me that they're simply after the money like everyone else. You know, Occam's razzor and all that.

If anything you just increased their market size

You seem to imply that legalizing drugs will increase consumption, or conversely that prohibition does stifle it. That's quite a bold statement, and figures from countries where drugs have been legalize show mostly the opposite.

It looks to me you're reasoning from arbitrary premises, chosen to comfort your preconceived opinions but not necessarily based on facts or reality. This is called fantasy dreaming in my book.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[phantomfive]

I used to think that too, but then I realized Canada has all the same 'problems' with being a gateway for drugs coming into the US (BC bud FTW!), but they don't have gladiator style kidnappings and fights to the death. This is a Mexican problem, and will remain one even after drugs are legalized. Organized crime existed before prohibition.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Soporific]

Organized crime is a shell of its former glory in the US. It was propped up by Vegas skim for a while but really most of the big guys were done in the 90's. It's not fully gone but nowhere what it once was. The only reason Mexican cartels have the power they do is because of the markup. In fact the pursuit of drugs in Columbia and the Caribbean just succeeded in moving the profitable part to Mexico where the routes had to go through.

The cartels after legalization would be big pharmaceuticals. After all, how would a cartel compete with them if cocaine is 10 cents a gram to produce and sell and can be done through legitimate channels? The drug plazas on the border are not kept alive by less than 1000%+ markups.

This is a short response due to being done on a tablet...

~S

Re:Legalise drug trade

[itsenrique]

Ok, theres a problem with your argument: prescription drugs are only perfectly legal to carry (in the case of controlled substances) if you *have a prescription*. This means its pretty much illegal in most cases people would call purely recreational use. Your argument would make more sense if you substitute alcohol and tobacco, except nobody gets hurt on those deals, because the only barrier is age, and even that is a joke. So explain how moving harder drugs (lets start with just marijuana actually) to a legal but taxed category would cause any deaths. It would almost certainly reduce deaths in the case of a drug with no known overdose amount. There would be no more dealing deaths, no more "dealing". Even though public opinion is shifting on drug issues, especially in light of massive debt and the costs associated with maintaining a constant war on drugs that has never proven to be successful in a long term, meaningful way, we still have all these jobs and sectors that are often subsidized by the government (big time) that do: drug testing, monitoring, counselling, and lets not forget our number one resource: jail. Its big and entrenched, it won't just disappear. Sorry for the run on rant, but man, you have no idea what your talking about.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[jdgeorge]

Dear Anonymous, I think DeadCatX2's is implying a recommendation for the United States (the consumer), not Mexico (the producer). Don't you think so?

Re:Legalise drug trade

[marnues]

You have a poor grasp of drug related economics. Check the success stories in Europe. Compare the number of users in illegal vs decriminalized countries. Then compare the number of drug-related crimes. Also the quality of product. There are so many factors in drug usage that moralists don't consider. Drugs will continue to be used whether it's legal or not. Usage is not a controllable factor. Distribution, cost, education, rehabilitation, and to some extent even the culture of drugs can be controlled. Legalize drugs and use the tools we have rather than making the problem worse.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[yurtinus]

Just look at the example of organized crime continuing to exist after prohibition within the US.

Right, how many massacres have you seen in the last 50 years from warring alcohol runners?

I see the argument you're trying to make, I've seen it all over this thread. I'm reading the argument as "Well, even though legalizing will remove the illicit profits from the drug trade, we can't prove it will get rid of all the bad guys so we'd better stick with the status quo." The drug cartels got their power and maintain it through money from the illegal drug trade - Remove that source and you put a huge dent in their income. What will the bad guys do? Sure, some will find other ways to keep their power, but they'll be fighting over a much smaller pool of resources, their sizes will inevitably shrink and will become more manageable by the authorities. It isn't an overnight solution - nothing ever is. Eventually though you will have legal domestic producers popping up to cash in without needing to fund all of the illicit trafficking operations.

Will increasing availability lead to additional substance abuse? It's possible. However, it's also possible to *use* without abusing it. How many people do you know enjoy an occasional beer or cigarette with no real long term detriment to their health? How many of your social events were *improved* by the availability of alcohol?

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Jmc23]

Highly unlikely. The profit margin of legal marijuana is about the same as tomatoes. Profits are only high becuse it's illegal. The only people who could have incentive to go legit are refineries for coke and opiates which are non-trivial tasks. Hopefully that would stop the ecological destruction caused by pre-processing of materials in poor countries to give the US businessman something to snort.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Jmc23]

Maybe you should think it through some more. Canada isn't a poor developing country. You can actually live on minimum wage and have good working conditions, and pretty much anybody who wants a job can have one, hell we even have government programs to bring in foreign workers because we don't have enough of a workforce in certain areas. As well, we haven't been pressured to go to an all out war with drug gangs. However gang violence IS a big problem in BC and there are numerous gang related deaths.

Here in Mexico it's a different stoey, it's literally a struggle to survive, working conditions are horrible, minimum wage is maybe $50 for over 60 hours f work a week and job offerings are few and far betweeen. Most of the jobs available are in even worse woeking conditions for les than minimum wage. The violence is mainly from the mexican military deserters who have been trained to kill, a large part trained by the US. Eliminate the US variable in the equation and things would go back to more normal levels of violence because there simply won't be the economic incentive.

Not that it'll be a utopia mind you. After all, my grandfather was assasinated for trying to improve living conditions of the poor. The government here loves to have a section of the populace they can rape for resources and labour.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Jmc23]

It's not done for economic reasons, it's a power struggle based on he gov't escalating it's now US style war on drugs.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Check the success stories in Europe.

(Ok I looked at Wikipedia, Google, and the agencies cited by wikipedia. Wikipedia did a fair job summarizing the data so I looked at its pages and summarized it below)

Ok. Let's look at the legal status of Cannabis for each country in the European Union (obviously not necessarily within geographical Europe).

The countries that make it illegal to possess cannabis are: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, and United Kingdom.

The countries that decriminalized the possession of cannabis are: Belgium (illegal/Decriminalized Adults possessing 3g or less in own home tolerated), Estonia (illegal/Decriminalized 10g for personal use punishable by fine), Finland (illegal/Decriminalized for medical use), Netherlands (Decriminalized), Portugal (illegal/Decriminalized its an administrative offense), and Spain (illegal/Decriminalized growing the plant on private property for personal use).

The country within the european union that decriminalized the sale of cannabis: Netherlands is sold in "coffee shops"

So the "liberal" european lifestyle consists of 19 countries that completely outlaw the sale and possession of cannabis, 6 countries that make it illegal to sale cannabis but possession is decriminalized with exceptions, and only 1 country that decriminalized the sale and possession of cannabis. BTW Europe is much bigger than the Netherlands. :P

So how does the Netherlands' drug use compare with other countries within the European Union?

(From wikipedia)

"In the Netherlands 9.5% of young adults (aged 15–34) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level of Finland (8%), Latvia (9,7%) and Norway (9.6%) and less than in the UK (13.8%), Germany (11,9%), Czech Republic (19,3%), Denmark (13,3%), Spain (18.8%), France (16,7%), Slovakia (14,7%) and Italy (20,9%) but higher than in Bulgaria (4,4%), Sweden (4,8%), Poland (5,3%) or Greece (3,2%).[24][25] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.30%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[25]

The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is together with Poland, France, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic the lowest of the EU.[26] The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help-seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising.[27]

Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.[27]"

It appears that Netherlands' drug use in young adults is comparable to other european countries. While lower than UK and Germany the cases of drug use is on the rise with more adults seeking out-patient treatment. The Netherlands currently spend around EU$130 million annually on treatment which is roughly 0.02% of their GDP.

Interestingly Sweden has a zero-tolerance policy on drugs and have a very low drug use in young adults (5% lower than Netherlands). This is despite Sweden being ranked #2 in amount of disposable income. If Netherlands' is an example of why we should legalize drugs, then Sweden should also be an example of why we should keep drugs illegal and look at the methods used for enforcement.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Bill_the_Engineer]

This is quite an astonishing opinion. Where do you get that idea from?

From stories like El Chapo, Mexico Drug Lord, Gains Power As Cartels Fall.

Power and money aren't mutually exclusive. As long as the drug cartels have influence in local politics the more free reign they have and the more money they can acquire.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[DrBoumBoum]

The countries that make it illegal to possess cannabis are

You may have to take into account that some if not most of European countries where cannabis is prohibited have a very low enforcement of these laws if at all, at least as far as consumption is concerned. In France for instance you'd have a hard time getting into trouble for smoking a spliff, smoking is officially "tolerated" and you even had that comic guy Coluche who rolled and smoked one at the table of the President in '81 or something.

Sweden should also be an example of why we should keep drugs illegal

This assumes that drugs are bad, which is not at all obvious from my perspective. Drugs may be considered bad for your health when used in excess, but taking into account that cannabis is probably less damaging than tobacco or alcohol, this isn't necessarily sufficient ground for banning it. On the contrary, since ban does definitely not lead to decline in availability as shown by experience, the right answer might well be to simply agree to the facts and educate youngsters about the dangers associated with it, since they'll do it anyway, instead of fighting against them.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Right, how many massacres have you seen in the last 50 years from warring alcohol runners?

Easy! Exactly the same as during prohibition which is NONE. The St. Valentines Massacre in Illinois only resulted in 7 deaths and was technically between two crime families not alcohol runners.

Well not so easy... Since you said alcohol runners, how about an illegal casino that served alcohol? The Wah Mee massacre happened on Feb 18, 1983 in Seattle, Washington and 13 people were killed and 1 person was injured.

Prohibition ended on Dec 5, 1933 so how many "massacres" happened since? The answer will surprise you... Twenty-Nine (29)! There were twenty-nine massacres within the US after the repeal of prohibition.

A sensationalist answer for a sensationalist question. :P.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[PraiseBob]

Personally I think we should legalize any non-violent consensual behavior, but it is interesting to consider the converse situation and letting people do anything as long as they consent.

What if we let people buy any amount of drugs, prostitutes, etc? What if we let people gamble with any possessions they have? Seems reasonable.
What if we let people gamble their lives away? Legalized versions of Russian Roulette for instance.
What if we allowed gladitorial style death matches if both combatants agreed on it? The winner would be fabulously wealthy because plenty of people would pay to watch.
What if your boss had the legal right to kill you if they weren't happy with your spreadsheets, because you signed a document of consent to get the job?

Obviously I'm stretching things a bit, but it's worth considering that human civilization has been similar to this in the past (Minus the spreadsheets). Violence is entertaining. People pay billions of dollars a year to watch synthetic violence in movies. Without moralists, where would we be?

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You may have to take into account that some if not most of European countries where cannabis is prohibited have a very low enforcement of these laws if at all, at least as far as consumption is concerned.

Possible but I haven't found credible statistics concerning law enforcement to add to the conversation.

This assumes that drugs are bad, which is not at all obvious from my perspective.

The health effects of drugs is not part of the discussion. The topic is the sale of drugs to support the activities of a cartel in Mexico.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Antisyzygy]

Nice assumptions. I bet you don't think twice when you recreationally drink a glass of whiskey, or a beer. So all drug users are drug addicts in your book? Liberals are all dependent on government? Sure thing. Except it has been statistically proven that the more educated a person is (thus employable) the more likely they are to be liberal. It must have taken years to wind your brain into such inconsistent, irrational spaghetti.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[lgarner]

What proof do you have that legalizing drugs won't cause more problems than it supposedly solves? I'm skeptical that legalizing drugs would solve anything and so far haven't seen any proof.

The same proof that you have that it won't help.

As I pointed out elsewhere, the violent criminals won't change. What could change is having more resources to throw at that fight rather than prosecuting and imprisoning drug users. I don't know if it will help or hurt and neither do you, but only a fool would fail to consider different options.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[phantomfive]

Heh, the old typical Mexican, "Blame everything else but us." Nevermind that Mexico has plenty of resources, a lovely spacious country, and a long history. Canada is cold, miserable, and doesn't have the people to become anything more than what it is. Mexico could be a great nation, nearly as powerful as the US, if it weren't for the Mexicans cutting themselves down.

Mexico has no one to blame for her problems but herself. And she will never become a great nation until her citizens stop blaming others, and get down and fix the problems. Because no one else can do it. Seriously, have you heard of BRIC? It should be MRIC.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Jmc23]

Perhaps you've never been to canada? You're so wrong.

agree with mexico though, ot's probably the richest in resources, arguably canada has more minerals we're just not as interested in raping the land.

It'll probably never happen for mexico though, all the hard workers have pretty much already left for canada or the states. The only people left are just the uneducated, rhe ones who feel it's okay to take advantage of your fellowman, and a small minority who are struggling to actually emact change.

However, if you think the US has no responsability then you are naive. Adults shouldn't take advantage of children and then blame the child for doing things they shouldn't for little bits of candy.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[phantomfive]

You're right, I've never been to Canada lol.

Adults shouldn't take advantage of children and then blame the child for doing things they shouldn't for little bits of candy.

Mexico is the one that has to suffer. If they want to change things, let them change things. The US never will. I don't care if you blame me. If it makes you better, go ahead. It's still your problem.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[kyriacos]

I agree that legalizing drugs will bring down the associated crime rate and will probably also result in less substance abuse, but I think what most people fail to realize is that the main opponent of legalization is the drug cartels. They are the ones who are not letting this happen, and they will either bribe or wipe out any government that attempts to move towards that direction.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[Xest]

Er the drug trade isn't legalised in Switzerland - it's at best sometimes prescribed to addicts as part of programmes to get them off the drugs (which is true in other European countries), all that proves is that the US has really shit care for addicts, whether the trade is legalised or not.

That says nothing about how decriminalisation would increase amount of problems with addiction and the resulting detrimental effects on society of that, and your comment about evil bastards not being fuelled with drug money does nothing to change the fact they'd find other avenues of crime to fund themselves such as increased levels of people trafficking Europe.

Switzerland is also a tiny country, what works in a small country will work differently in countries that are 10 - 50 times the size.

This is why those studies are important, and this is why they have value.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[drinkypoo]

He says that the Cartels will always be thugs and will just go into gambling or some shit, and you seem to think that they will all just go pick fruit for .25$/hour.

I think that if the illegal activity from which they derive their profit dries up and blows away, then they have basically two choices. They may become the government, or they may cease to exist. And if someone else could explain what they're going to do that is even an order of magnitude less lucrative if they don't have the income from the illegal drug trade, then I'd sure be interested in the explanation. The only legal plant crop you can grow that even gets within that price range (again, an order of magnitude less lucrative) is ginger; it takes about five years to mature and requires a biome they don't have in Mexico. And with the drug lords' total lack of efficiency, they cannot afford to sacrifice an order of magnitude of income anyway.

The people of Mexico don't have enough to sustain such a large portion of the population engaging in robbing and brigandry, so I ask again, what do you suppose will sustain the forces of the drug lords without drug money?

Re:Legalise drug trade

[drinkypoo]

The CDCs definition counts improperly-acquired oxycodone, causing overdose fatalities as a "legal drug" death.

But physician-related fatalities are overwhelmingly undercounted and underreported, so we're back to reporting bias again. The vast majority of drug interaction deaths will be reported as "cardiac arrest" without any mention that it's the physician's fault because he didn't do his fucking research. I am a bit touchy about this as one of my best friends was almost killed in the hospital recently by a doctor specifying the wrong IV. If she didn't catch the error — she has a computer, and used google to check up on the physician — then I could be down a friend.

Re:Legalise drug trade

[rocket rancher]

I think that's his point...

This country doesn't seem to have learned from its mistakes with Prohibition, which created some of the most violent gangs and cartels in this country's history, at least the most violent until the New Prohibition (aka War on Drugs).

No, the government has learned well. They now understand that the black market effect benefits the government as well. For the government, keeping certain drugs illegal creates a demand for government services, allowing the governent to profit in the form of an expanded sphere of influence via increased enforcement and incarceration manpower. It's a win-win for the traffickers and the government.

Petty? O_o

[ilsaloving]

You're talking about a world-wide network of script kiddies vs an organized cadre of bloodthirsty monsters. What in the world do you expect them to do?

Ha. is it.

[unity100]

has the moron who has submitted this, asked himself, how the hell drug cartels become able to do those things that you dont even see in civil wars ? do you think it could be possible without assistance from within government ? note that government in mexico is extremely corrupt.

and what relevance does anonymous's actions have to this ? this seems like moronic bashing just because you want to bash.

quality of accepted submissions have been declining lately.

Re:Ha. is it.

[Jmc23]

Actually, the cartels are upping their actions precisely because the government isn't playing ball with them. All of this increased violence is in direct reaction to the new US style War On Drugs.

Re:Ha. is it.

[hedwards]

The thing is that it's not the US government's fault, it's the fault of the various drug users that aren't interested in abiding by the law. And are also not interested in getting the law changed through traditional methods either.

Blaming the government for what is essentially the fault of the customers doesn't really make any sense. Take a look at alcohol if you don't believe me. Alcohol related fatalities are significant and it's really hard to deal with because it's legal. Now, if this were a case where the consequences were solely on the party drinking that would be one thing, but it's not, a lot of the people who die do so in alcohol related crashes where the idiot in the other car was drinking.

Re:Ha. is it.

[geekoid]

"And are also not interested in getting the law changed through traditional methods either."
Of course they are, it not just a majority of voters.

Who doesn't want to get something they enjoy cheaper, safer, and reliably?

Re:Ha. is it.

[fahlesr1]

That doesn't change the fact that the Mexican government is extremely corrupt. They have upped the fight against the cartels, but they are terribly ineffective because the cartels have sources inside the government. Heck, a lot of the men in the cartels came from the army, and brought their guns with them!

What I'd like to know is why the hell are we overseas fighting undeclared wars when there is a perfectly good opportunity for an undeclared war just to our south? We don't seem to care about any other country's sovereignty but our own, so just go into Mexico bomb the cartels AND the government, then rebuild the country like we are so fond of doing. The people of Mexico would probably thank us too.

Re:Ha. is it.

[Jmc23]

The real question is whether the corruption in the mexicna government is worse than the corruption in the US government. Perhaps you don't understand that the US government is already profiting from the US funded war on drugs in Mexico. Your government is also not totally stupid like many of you believe. Getting rid of the current suppliers will accomplish nothing because new suppliers will pop up. It won't do anything for their public image when the drug trade continues. It's a different story in your countries when they bag the head honchos for publicity and then can continue to blame the drug problem on external influences.

It completely blows my mind that people don't realize it's all to supply the drug problems of US'ians and that those drug addictions are caused by US society.

Re:Ha. is it.

[J'raxis]

Yes, take a look at alcohol: How the U.S. Government outlawed it and created their own problem of criminal gangs back in the 1920s, and how after the law was repealed, in large part because of the crime problem, the violence surrounding alcohol trade subsided.

On the topic of who's to blame, there are only two legitimate ways of assigning responsibility for something: An action is either (a) the responsibility of the individual who is closest to the act in question and who made the actual choice to initiate the act, or (b) the responsibility of people further away from the act but who knew or should have known that their choices would directly cause someone else to choose to commit the act in question, and a different choice on their part would cause that someone else to choose not to commit the act. You can't just blame anyone or everyone tangentially connected to a problem, because everyone is connected somehow (e.g., the "six degrees of separation" concept).

So, either the violence committed by the drug gangs is (a) solely their responsibility, because they are the ones choosing to use violence, whereas they could choose to use other methods, or (b) the violence is the responsibility of the government, because it is the government who passed laws that it knows or should have known will result in these gangs making the choice to use violence, and if they hadn't passed these laws, the gangs wouldn't be committing violence.

Drug consumers cannot be blamed under either of these models. Obviously they can't be blamed under "(a)", as the drug consumer is not committing the violence himself. And two, no one drug consumer choosing to buy, or choosing not to buy, will affect whether or not the gangs choose to continue using violence, so they can't be blamed under "(b)" either. One can assign responsibility to the government under "(b)" here because a single act of the government will either lead, or not lead, to the gangs choosing to using violence. No drug consumer has that sort of influence. There are millions, all of whom are individuals who have no control over the millions of other individual drug consumers.

Personally, I favor "(a)" because I believe an individual is always responsible for their own choices (unless they were outright forced into a situation by another, but that's beyond the scope of this post). To say otherwise is to essentially eschew free will. The moral responsibility for the gang violence lies with the gangs themselves. However, I understand that in a practical sense, "(b)" is often a useful way of looking at things; if person A does something that makes person B behave badly, blaming A and trying to convince them to change their ways, which will in turn make B stop behaving badly, is, practically speaking, sometimes the correct solution. But your suggestion, of blaming individuals only tangentially related, and whose choices will have no effect whatsoever on these gangs' choice to use violence, is no solution at all.

Re:Ha. is it.

[Fned]

The thing is that it's not the US government's fault, it's the fault of the various drug users that aren't interested in abiding by the law.

For the people, of the people, by the people. If the people don't respect a law, it's the government's job to fucking change it.

And are also not interested in getting the law changed through traditional methods either.

Where did you get this bullshit lie from? People have been demanding legalization for decades. Unfortunately, they just can't break through the mile-high wall of stupid that surrounds the brains of people who think that the social costs of prohibiting a popular drug are less egregious than the social costs of leaving it legal.

Legal drug: Problems associated with people taking the drug. Lives sometimes being ruined by the drug.

Illegal drug: Problems associated with people taking the drug, plus enourmous price inflation, violence, corruption, unprecedented prison overcrowding, loss of tax revenue, economic depression, and lives not only still being ruined by the drug -- worse, now, because there's no way to enforce quality or safety standards -- but also by the makers and sellers of the drug, AND by the enforcers trying to stop the drug (*BLAM BLAM BLAM* "oops, sorry, wrong address").

Do the fucking math. You think alcoholics didn't drive drunk during alcohol prohibition? Do you really consider the shit that's going on in Mexico to be NOT AS BAD as a possible-but-not-actually-shown theoretical increase in "ruined lives" from legalization? Or do you not give a shit because they're brown and across a border?

Just because someone you care about was killed by a drunk driver doesn't make your problems worse than someone who was tortured to death for blogging.

Blaming the government for what is essentially the fault of the customers doesn't really make any sense.

What the fuck? The customers were just minding their own business when the government came along and said "stop that or we'll kill you." Sure, it did that at the behest of the majority, but only after lying to the majority that it was in their best interests. Which it isn't.

PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK. Under the most extreme restrictions, only the most addicted people will still do what it takes to get their favorite poison. But needless to say, those are the same people who would be causing the worst problems if their drug was legal. So prohibiting a substance DOES NOTHING to stem problems associated with people taking the drug, unless you make the enforcement and punishment completely disproportionate to the actual crime.

Singapore has the death penalty for drug smuggling. They execute people every year for this crime. That means: people in Singapore are still taking those illegal drugs. Despite the DEATH PENALTY.

Econ 101: you cannot make the demand go away by restricting the supply.

Hey Speeedy, you want to go chase the pussy cat ?

[axonis]

Common wheres Taco bell going to get its ingredients from ? .... talking of mexican try hard cartels with no substance .... I though food was a drug these days ? .... anonymous to what ?

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

mmm do you mean like Colombia the "narcostate"?

paramilitaries make big troubles only

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Never heard of Desaparecidos, I take it? Your precious right-wing paramilitaries are a LARGE part of why Central America is having such problems with violence today.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

... bridges hanging from the cartel members?

Re:I agree

[Eglembor]

I see this happening as soon as the republicans are in the White House, its not like it hasn't happened before.

Recall...

[Shoten]

I remember when the online community castigated Yahoo for cooperating with the Chinese, a couple of years ago. People talked about it like it was a choice between giving the Chinese the information they wanted, or not giving it to them; nobody considered that the Chinese could get the information by threatening the Chinese employees of Yahoo who had access to the information, or by alternate (and even less friendly) methods. What nobody seemed to realize is that when you're dealing with certain kinds of things (like criminal organizations and repressive governments), things don't stay in online. There are kinetic repurcussions to actions, and if the 'bad people' are more comfortable in the real world than the online one, they're going to show up on your doorstep, not in your inbox.

Re:Recall...

[Loosifur]

My guess? Getting shot. That's a fairly direct kinetic repercussion.

Re:Recall...

[RobertLTux]

in a similar vein if somebody says that somebody died of "lead poisoning" the response will most likely include a question of what caliber said lead was.

but kinetic repercussions most likely involve various blunt instruments (bats, crowbars , 2 by 4s ect) or various motor vehicles.

Re:Recall...

[Solandri]

Obligatory XKCD comic.

Re:Petty? O_o

[Dolphinzilla]

I think the point is that taking down the government web sites serve no purpose and might even be beneficial to the drug cartels, it just doesn't make any real sense to me.

RIAA In Massive Cocaine Trafficking ring

[s0litaire]

RIAA Label Used In Massive Cocaine Trafficking Ring

http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-label-used-in-massive-cocaine-trafficking-ring-110916/

Earlier this year record label boss Jimmy Rosemond was arrested on the suspicion of leading a massive cocaine trafficking ring.

The founder of Czar Entertainment used shipments of music equipment to transfer cocaine across the United States.

These shipments went to several music studios, and according to a recent court filing uncovered by The Smoking Gun, Interscope Records is one of them.

This suggests that people at the RIAA label were in on the game.

Previously entertainment industry representatives have suggested that piracy can be linked to organized crime, and the above suggests that the same can be said for the music industry.

How many people in the music industry were part of the drug ring remains unknown at this point, but we would advise the RIAA to carefully investigate its members to avoid the practices from escalating.

Re:RIAA In Massive Cocaine Trafficking ring

[phoenix321]

So the label MAFIAA is not just for jokes anymore?

Has someone already looked into the "spontaneous fatal accident" rate for filesharers vs. the non-filesharing public?

Eh. It's a little outside of my monkeysphere.

[L4t3r4lu5]

"More stories about the latest X Factor series and how BigMacs make you fat, thanks. This is a little too depressing for me." says the rest of the world.

Re:Hey Speeedy, you want to go chase the pussy cat

[Scutter]

Common wheres Taco bell going to get its ingredients from ? .... talking of mexican try hard cartels with no substance .... I though food was a drug these days ? .... anonymous to what ?

LOL WUT

Re:I agree

[mapkinase]

Your republicans are no different from democrats, just slightly different demographics they are pandering to.

"Petty" has multiple meanings

[tepples]

Or "petty" could have been used in the sense of "trivial", as in "petty larceny", as opposed to the sense of "narrow-minded and stingy".

Re:"Petty" has multiple meanings

[maxume]

Ya, well, it wasn't. Go figure.

Re:"Petty" has multiple meanings

[tangelogee]

Or "petty" could have been used in the sense of "trivial", as in "petty larceny", as opposed to the sense of "narrow-minded and stingy".

Except in the case of larceny, the correct term would be "petit," not "petty"

Re:"Petty" has multiple meanings

[SharpFang]

Still, petty crime - like pickpocketing or shoplifting, vs serious crime like exortion or murder...?

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

"ruthless right-wing pro-government paramilitaries": from where do you think the mafia cartels came??

Anonymous = in it for the lulz

[the_raptor]

Of course those actions appear petty. Petty is 99% of what Anonymous gets its kicks from. From abusing 12 year old girls (even if they kind of asked for it) to posting insulting comments about physically disabled people. The stuff like Project Chanology (the attacks on Scientology) was an aberration and really involved more non-Chan New Friends then it did Chan Old Friends, even though it started on the Chans. Anonymous originally got media attention for Habo Hotel/Second Life raids and harassing people on MySpace/Facebook.

Anonymous isn't your friend. Anonymous aren't moral crusaders. Anonymous are in it for the lulz.

Re:Anonymous = in it for the lulz

[Dan541]

Wasn't their slogan once. "None of us are as cruel as all of us."?

Re:Anonymous = in it for the lulz

[XiaoMing]

Uhm, how about a reality check? The fact that they're doing anything even remotely directed towards this drug cartel is showing some balls, (and risks showing some intestines and other body parts while hanging off of a bridge if any the Anon are located in Mexico.)

What would you (and the summary author) like Anonymous to do? Step away from their core competency of hacking, pick up a pitchfork and fly to Mexico? Maybe some nice meaningful physical actions right? The kind that Mexican and American Police have failed at for years now?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/03/mexico-police-garay-drugs-crime
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0726/How-Mexican-killers-got-US-guns-from-Fast-and-Furious-operation

Re:Anonymous = in it for the lulz

[aespinoza]

I used to support Annonymous when they started right now, it is just pathetic. This kind of actions actually define what Annonymous is really about: Nothing.

Re:Anonymous = in it for the lulz

[the_raptor]

The fact that they're doing anything even remotely directed towards this drug cartel is showing some balls

No, it doesn't. "They" are behind 7 proxies and probably in Europe or Canada. Cartels might go after some poor bastard in Mexico or near the border who is annoying them online, but that is about it. Pissing off Mexican cartels online is about as scary as pissing off the North Koreans or the Chinese Communist Party, it is absolutely repercussion free for a first world citizen like myself.

Re:Anonymous = in it for the lulz

[the_raptor]

You used to support Anonymous when they started? Would that be back when the thing Anonymous was most famous for was posting kiddy porn and gore on innocent forums, or when they invaded kids online games to chant racist slogans? Anonymous has never been about anything but amusing themselves. Occasionally they do something "good", but otherwise they are your typical anonymous Western teenagers and 20 somethings.

Re:Anonymous = in it for the lulz

[jafac]

Petty is 99% of what Anonymous gets its kicks from. From abusing 12 year old girls (even if they kind of asked for it) to posting insulting comments about physically disabled people.

Really? Is this true!? I am so terribly sorry! As head of Anonymous' HR department, I assure you that I will personally look into this straight away. I will institute a new policy of screening applicants to ensure that all members of Anonymous are pure of heart and true to the cause, and that every individual within our organization will always do as the whole organization wills, to fight only for Truth, Justice, Goodness and Light.

There. Does that make it better?

Re:Anonymous = in it for the lulz

[aespinoza]

True... I guess I think of them when they were supporting WikiLeaks...one good deed doesn't negate the rest of their actions.

what i think the USA should do is

[FudRucker]

pull all the troops out of afghanistan and iraq and send them in to mexico to hunt down and kill these drug smuggler cartels before this sort thing becomes common in the USA

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[EmagGeek]

How about actually capturing and prosecuting drug dealers in the US instead of simply using them to perpetuate the billions of dollars spent on the War on Drugs?

See, this is the new USA model of warfare - perpetuate violence to keep the money flowing. There are too many people making too much money in the War on Drugs for the US Government to ever really want to win it - just like Iraq, and just like Afghanistan. The objective of the wars is not to win. It is to prop up various large political donors' industries.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[drinkypoo]

This is a troll, right? Nobody is this dumb, are they? Just in case, those Mexican cartels only even exist because of the War On [some] Drugs here in the USA.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[Lumpy]

How about screw arrest... snipers just make their heads explode at 2000 yards.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[Jmc23]

Do you people not understand that as long as the US has a billion dollar market for drugs that there will ALWAYS be a supplier? You're talking about a poor country with high unemploment where minimum wage is about $4/day.

The problem here is not poor starving people willing to do anything to survive, it's rich americans needing to get their drug fix.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[Jmc23]

And unfortunately they got the mexican government to go for the same money maker. I guess they figured a billion dollars was worth more than peace and what they received from the cartels.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I know that drugs are the root password to the constitution; but FFS...

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[uncanny]

And when these drug cartel leaders apply for and are granted American citizenships, they can be protected by this too!

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[geekoid]

No, there are two dancers in this economic tango.

You may want to buy an illegal item, bit I don't have to sell it to you. It takes some else willing to break the law, so don't excuse away the action of violent people in mexico because America want something.

If mexico was smart, they would legalize it themselves.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[geekoid]

"It is to prop up various large political donors' industries."

If that was true, it would have been legalized decades ago. Unless you think the tobacco and alcohol industries don't have much money~

The War on Drugs is based in ignorance and fear, nothing more.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[Bucc5062]

And here I thought the object was not to play in the first place. Where' WOPR to guide us today.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

This is a troll, right? Nobody is this dumb, are they?

Most people are that dumb. That why we have policies in place that virtually guarantee that shit like this happens.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[Jmc23]

In a poor country it's an easy choice to do whatever possible, even something illegal, to put food on the table. Why do you think people work in sweatshops? It's ignorant of US'ians to say the people have a choice. A choice between survival or some arbitrary morality isn't really a choice.

Mexico legalizing wouldn't accomplish anything. It's not the production that is a cause of violence, it's control of the supply chain to the US which is where the inter-cartel violencecomes from. The recent increase in victims is is direct rwaction to the US funding an outright war on the cartels. Avoid responsability for your country all yoj want in your head, what happens in reality is something else.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[gknoy]

You'll note that it says no person, not no citizen.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In addition to that, which is rather an important point, Emag geek said:
"How about actually capturing and prosecuting drug dealers in the US."
Lumpy replied: "How about screw arrest... snipers just make their heads explode at 2000 yards."

This suggests that we are talking in the context of US based dealers, quite a few of which are citizens, were that relevant, and most of which would be potentially arrested on US soil. Even if it were remotely constitutional, the suggestion of domestic law enforcement being conducted on the basis of snipers(and 2,000 yards is full sniper territory, not cop-with-AR-15-rather-than-pistol or designated marksman stuff) executing shoot-to-kill orders in crowded urban areas is just insanity.

Even if we had perfected our evilometers to such a degree that summary execution without trial wasn't an issue, who would want their police force going all rainbow 6 on them at any moment?

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[RobertLTux]

the problem is we would have to just about do a full takeover of most of central america to even get close to solving this.
BTW the cartels started out with COFFEE and have just gone on from there.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[lgarner]

Speaking of dumb... You might be able to argue that Drug Cartels exist because narcotics are illegal, but don't think for a minute that the Cartels themselves won't go away if drugs become legal. There are plenty of other illegal things that they do.

What might (wishful thinking) happen is that there would be huge resources freed up from the "war on drugs" to fight the real threats as if we mean it.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[Gideon Wells]

Keep in mind the group who allegedly killed these bloggers were initially a group of US trained Mexicans meant to fight the drug cartels, but realized it was more profitable to train them.

After a decade of being severely underpaid in regards to contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq you have to wonder what ideas will make their ways into the soldiers we sent to Mexico.

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[Jmc23]

don't you realise this would accomplish nothing? They all exist to fulfill the drug demand coming from YOU!

Re:what i think the USA should do is

[drinkypoo]

Speaking of dumb... You might be able to argue that Drug Cartels exist because narcotics are illegal, but don't think for a minute that the Cartels themselves won't go away if drugs become legal. There are plenty of other illegal things that they do.

Name one that is even one tenth as lucrative as selling illegal drugs that they might feasibly get into and be successful at. I'll wait forever because there isn't anything.

What might (wishful thinking) happen is that there would be huge resources freed up from the "war on drugs" to fight the real threats as if we mean it.

What real threats? We are the real threat. We are the terrorists. We engage in assassination, genocide, political manipulation of other nations... We are the evil empire. The sooner you get that through your head, the sooner you will be able to make intelligent observations about the actions of the United States. Two hundred years ago we opened the military chapter of this nation by bombing latin american towns to force them to sell to united fruit company, now bonita, formerly chiquita. Down in Costa Rica, where they basically provide half the non-touristry-related jobs in the country, they are still looked up to... because they have all the banana trade, having illegally gained it with the aid of the US government.

We are the real threat. If you disagree, please explain how the drug lords would have come to power without our influence, and what they would do if we cut off their source of income tomorrow.

Re:Petty? O_o

[discord5]

What in the world do you expect them to do?

Wear a Guy Fawkes mask and take down the cartels ninja-style.

I can smell the plot for the next hollywood blockbuster already. All it needs is some kickass explosions, and women.

The Drug Cartels ARE Anonymous

[TheSpoom]

Anonymous is anyone; after all, they're anonymous. The drug cartels don't like the Mexican government. Since anyone can claim to be part of Anonymous, what better way to shift the blame AND send a message at the same time?

Anonymous takes the easy out, every single time.

[Shivetya]

They aren't interested in a fight, they want head lines.

If they had balls they would shut down every cartel in the world, but you know, that would require a gut check they can never meet.

It is one thing to go after groups who have the power to jail you but another to go after groups that WILL kill you.

Wrong target Anonymous (cowards)

[JavaBear]

IF "Anonymous" want to regain even the tiniest sliver of support, they'll try to stop the hack and release of petty information such as celebrity cell phones, and start taking down the EVIL guys, such as the drug cartels.

Re:Wrong target Anonymous (cowards)

[rednip]

...start taking down the EVIL guys, such as the drug cartels.

How exactly? I really doubt if a DOS would do it, or do you expect these 'super hackers' to go rambo?

Re:Wrong target Anonymous (cowards)

[HopefulIntern]

They dont want support. They want lulz. This is achieved by finding easy targets, not from selecting targets based on an ulterior motive (except those cases of orchestrated DDOS against certain websites).

Re:Wrong target Anonymous (cowards)

[geekoid]

You are completely and factually wrong about what happened in Mexico and what started it; which isn't a surprise, in very complex.

The Mexican government has their problem, and some sever. They aren't killing children and extorting innocent people, they aren't burning down whole villages.

No, Anonymous are helping the bad guys. The killers and thugs, the slave owners, and the rapist.

They are the petty Villians in this play,

Re:Wrong target Anonymous (cowards)

[geekoid]

What people could do is get into the drug cartels phones, computers, email system, printer and gather intelligence.

Re:Wrong target Anonymous (cowards)

[TheCarp]

Then perhaps you would like to point out where I am factually wrong, and what the correct facts are?

So are you stating that the Cartels would exist, and be as powerful in the absence of the war on drug users and their families which created the black market?

Are you, furthermore, stating that the current rounds of violence did NOT start with the Mexican "government" thugs attempting to crack down on the cartels (which you seem to believe that they did not create via inexcusable policy)?

Because, for someone claiming that I have it wrong, you managed to not even attempt to address a single one of those points. Yes, the cartels are bad... but they don't exist in a vacuum. They were created by the "hard work" of these two governments cooperating on their treasonous wars against their own people's. That is my thesis, and I see no evidence which even attempts to convince me to abandon it.

Anonymous is fighting the good fight here.

-Steve

Re:Wrong target Anonymous (cowards)

[rednip]

Even if one were able to isolate the drug dealers devices (big if there), what would you do with the information? Hand it over to the Mexican authorities would make the most sense, but I doubt very much if any of it would be actionable as 'random file sent by unknown sources likely wouldn't stand up (even) in Mexican court, assuming that they could arrest them.

Re:Wrong target Anonymous (cowards)

[Shauni]

With what, magic pixie hacking dust?

If it was as easy as pretending to be a hot girl online, screw Anonymous--the CIA would have already done it and solved this little "problem." Unless you're one of the nuts that thinks they're "in on it."

Re:Wrong target Anonymous (cowards)

[Shauni]

"Helping the guys."

Yup, that's right. Saw a whole gaggle of those Guy Fawkes-masked thugs selling underaged girls to slavers.

Oh. Wait. No, that was just the fucking mob.

Tone down the melodrama, please. Even if you think what they're doing now is "nothing" they aren't exactly aiding and abetting.

Why are we....

[Lumpy]

Fighting a war in a country that is no where near us... while Mexico has so many problems that rolling in the tanks and bombing the hell out of cartel compounds would be a far better thing to do?

Honestly, why don't we clean up our own back yard before trying to make everyone else clean theirs up first? Is the United states armed forces that afraid of the drug cartels?

Re:Why are we....

[Jmc23]

You would have to clean up your own house first. Without the voracious appetite for drugs that the US has this problem wouldn't exist. But it's too big of a money maker for the US to do away with. Sure they could legalise, but do realize how much money the US government would lose in une/ployment, taxes, weapons manufacturing, the penal system, etc...?

It's sad so many US'ians saying that something needs to be done militarily in Mexico when they don't realize that the US IS the problem.

Re:Why are we....

[Lumpy]

Actually canada is our front yard and it's quite nice. All pretty, perfectly mowed and all the gnomes are polite.
Inside the house we have problems with it all caving in, and the backyard is a cesspool because we like it that way.

Yes, I do blame a LOT of Mexico's problems on my own country... the USA.

Re:Why are we....

[farble1670]

the US has no interest in it's neighbors, or anyone else, being stable. that just makes it harder to exploit them. that's why they are active all of the world destabilizing governments.

mexico isn't any different. even if they aren't actively destabilizing mexico, they are doing so by the policies they set around trade and drug control.

Re:I agree

[Maow]

Liberals, when will you learn?

Liberals had already learned ... round the time the War On Drugs began... i.e. a long fucking time ago, that War On Drugs wasn't good.

What kinda retarded shit is it to blame Libruls for Mexico's problems?

While, even as a liberal, I find your solution somewhat appealing, being a liberal I can think it through more than one step, and therefore realize that a ruthless right-wing (why RIGHT wing, fascist sympathiser, are you?) death squad might JUST lead to other problems.

I wouldn't even reply to this except it has a +3 already.

As for REAL solutions to Mexico's problems, it's beyond me. You too, apparently.

Maybe LEFT-wing death squads killing anyone looking ... wrong. Or rich. Yeah, that'll fix everything. /sarcasm

Re:I agree

[Jmc23]

You obviously know nothing about mexico, so why do you even bother spouting your stupidities?

What would really help is if the US cleaned up it's drug addictions then there would be zero market. Or if the US didn't force their war on drugs onto other countries then the cartels wouldn't be fighting violence with violence so much.

BTW, IAM

Re:"Anonymous' actions appear particularly petty."

[Dan541]

Why the fuck do a bunch of script kiddies have to mentioned on every topic involving the internet?

or just hire the US DoD...

[Kildjean]

I think Mobama should send them a couple of pissed off Marines there for a little R&R (tequila, women and fire), or just hire a merc wing from the US DOD and do a cleanup... Mexico shouldnt be that difficult to overtake... a couple of M1A1 HA Abrams Main Battle Tank should do the trick... Mexico Urban layout is like afghanistan ultra light...

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Jmc23]

Learn to think. The problem isn't poor countries willing to fight for the right to supply, it's the rich USA's high demand for drugs. Demand creates supply, don't they teach you economics?

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[geekoid]

I demand anti-gravity cars... where is my supply?

oh, maybe economics is more complicated then that.

Supply can also generate demand.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[geekoid]

Except Mexico drug cartel is better armed, better organized, and far more willing to kill their own people then anything in Afghanistan.

oh, and please fix your sig.

it's:
d'enculé

Not:
d encule

d'encule is also acceptable.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

Because the US military has such a stellar track record in guerrilla style conflicts, right?

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Jmc23]

That's an extremely naive example. If anti-gravity was technicaly feasible you would have your car. Even flying cars are under research. You can't compare that with drugs from plants that children can grow and process, and which they are forced to do in many countries!

I really think you have no idea of the differences between the ecomic incentive that the US gives to these poor countries. If the US didn't pay billions these countries would just go back to chewing coca, smoking roadside pot, and wild opium. Please, go do some traveling and rid yourself of your naive viewpoint. The world would be better off.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[c6gunner]

Except Mexico drug cartel is better armed, better organized, and far more willing to kill their own people then anything in Afghanistan.

I doubt it. Oh, you might have a point on the "better organized" bit, and they're probably better trained since a lot of them are ex-military. But their armaments are generally no better than what the Taliban has, and if you think that they're more wiling to kill "their people" you haven't been paying attention to Afghanistan.

No, the main difference is that Afghanistan is an occupied nation, while Mexico is still notionally a free civil society. If the Mexican government declared martial law, deployed the military to occupy all major cities, set up FOB's and sent out regular fighting patrols into the country-side, you'd see the cartels start to look a lot more like the Afghan "insurgents". If they got some help from NATO, it would go a lot faster.

Not saying that's what they should do, BTW. Just disagreeing with your conclusions.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Jmc23]

and they got that training and weapons from the US, greatest country in the world eh? Wait, didn't they provide arms and training to afghaniatan as well? USA, making the world better one country at a time.

granted us mexicans seem to have a zeal for warfare, the national anthem is just scary.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Grishnakh]

The problem isn't poor countries willing to fight for the right to supply, it's the rich USA's high demand for drugs.

So what? They have every right to demand and use drugs.

Suppose someone said they didn't want you having sex with the lights on, because their personal morality forbids it. Does that mean you don't have the right to do that with your wife? Of course not. You have every right, no matter what some stupid law says.

The problem is the law, not the people.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Grishnakh]

What if anti-gravity WERE technically feasible, but it was illegal because the oil companies didn't like it cutting into their profits? And what if the technology were simple enough to be made by children and small enough to be smuggled easily. Does that make it "wrong" for you to use this technology to reduce your fuel consumption? Of course not. You have every right to break the law, in fact you have a responsibility to break the law, as it's an evil law that should not exist.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Jmc23]

Let's try and stick to reality shall we? Though regardless of your situations the truth is that US'ians don't take responsability for the actions of their government, and the government doesn't take responsability for their own actions and the actions of their citizens. Government for the people by the people is just a laughable farce and it's so ironic that the country that claims it's the land of free and tries to impose democracy on others lacks both freedom and democracy.

I hope one day US'ians leave their tv's and internet connections behind and actually take responsability to make their country into what they tell everybody it is, and not just something to be ashamed of.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Jmc23]

Glad to see democracy is working out for you in the land of the free.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Grishnakh]

There's a few problems; the way I see it, the country is just too large and diverse, so there's no way for any leaders to please everyone, so the only leaders that get elected are lying sociopaths who tell people what they want to hear. Obama is a great example of this, with all his promises of "change" which were all lies. Plus, with the large size and giant economy, there's a lot of power, and power corrupts. The answer is to downsize it: the country needs to be broken up into smaller parts, perhaps 10 of them; then the governments will do a better job of reflecting the actual will of the people. Various issues that politicians use to polarize the voters, like gay marriage, abortion, etc., will be settled quickly in each new country (i.e., Alabama's country would ban both, Massachusett's country would legalize both), and they'd move on to other issues, plus there'd be a lot less power in each new nation, leading to less corruption.

Imagine if the whole of Europe (including UK) suddenly formed a single country with a Federal government that passed all kinds of laws that overrode the laws of the different states (countries). Could the people of Spain and Italy ever agree with the people of Scandinavia and Germany about issues like abortion? Could the people of Greece ever agree with the people of France and Germany about public spending (which is seriously threatening the EU now)? The only reason the EU works as well as it does now is because it confines itself mostly to issues of trade and finance, and stays out of all the other issues, leaving them to the member countries. We don't do that in the USA; just about every issue is a national issue, and the state governments only exist to handle administration and enforcement. It wasn't always this way of course, but it's slowly evolved into that over the last 160 years.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Grishnakh]

I never said it was. Just watch the US news; no one here likes the government, but no one can agree on even basic things like whether the government should provide services to citizens or not, so change isn't possible.

What country do you live in, by the way, which doesn't have democracy and things are apparently working out so well? The only non-democratic country I can think of where things are good by any measure is China, though a lot of people say that won't last.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Jmc23]

Oh I didn't say live anywhere better. I'm both mexican and canadian. In canada the voters are apathetic but we don't try to force our views on anybody else and by and arge take responsability for our impact, though it's usually positive. We still don't do anything about getting fucked over by the states. In mexico nobody takes responsability for anything but again we don't force anything on others besides shoddy workmanship and cardiac disease inducing food. Oh, and everybody here willingly bends over for the US, they actually enjoy receiving any garbage the states throuws their way. Btw, i don't think smaller gov't will work for the US. It won't really do anything about the me first, I'm the only one who matters, and i don't care about any other viewpoonts or concerns of others. By and large we do better in canada because we're more accepting of difference and we actually think other people matter.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Grishnakh]

In mexico nobody takes responsability for anything but again we don't force anything on others besides shoddy workmanship and cardiac disease inducing food.

I don't think the food is any worse for cardiac disease than American food.

Btw, i don't think smaller gov't will work for the US. It won't really do anything about the me first, I'm the only one who matters, and i don't care about any other viewpoonts or concerns of others.

I disagree. What you're saying there is basically a generalization of all Americans, even though it's a very large and diverse country. I'm not advocating downsizing the existing government, but splitting up the country into smaller countries. If this were done, I believe you'd find the different regions would start to move apart more, and look much more different from each other, so while your generalization above might then apply to one or some of the new countries, I think others it wouldn't apply as much to. So some parts might go the way of Bachmann, for instance, and become repressive theocracies, while other parts would go the opposite direction. And of course people in the different parts would start to move between the new countries, moving to ones that suited them better if they found themselves in one which they really didn't agree with, causing the new countries to become even less homogeneous and more different from each other (this is a good thing; instead of constantly trying to compromise with people with a very different viewpoint, and winding up with policy that neither side likes, each side could go its own way, and eventually we'd see which way works out better).

Who knows, maybe the separation trend would catch on in Canada too and they might also break up. The Québécois have been wanting independence for ages.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Grishnakh]

Glad to see democracy is working out for you in the land of the free.
Oh I didn't say live anywhere better.

I forgot to even mention why I said what I did before... what I was going to say about this is that I believe what's going on in the USA (i.e. democracy not working out so great) is an unavoidable consequence of having a country with a popularly-elected government, which is too large and too diverse (I mean in opinions and cultures, not necessarily races; e.g. the people of Quebec are the same race as most of the people in Texas, but their cultures couldn't be more different, and they don't even speak the same language). With too much diversity, there's too many things to disagree about and there's constant in-fighting, and with a large size and amount of economic power, there's too much potential for corruption (as we see with the US government being beholden to corporations). I think the only way democracies can work well is in smaller countries; in big or powerful countries, they just turn into fascism or corporatism. Can anyone name a big country with a democratic government that actually works fairly well? I can't. I can think of some geographically-large countries that are OK (Canada, Australia), but their population is small. The ones with 100million+ populations are generally pretty screwed up and have giant corruption problems: Mexico, USA, India, Indonesia, Russia. Japan (127m) is OK, but they're probably the least diverse large country around. Conversely, the countries that usually dominate the quality-of-life indices are quite small: Sweden (9.4m), Switzerland (7.9m), Norway (5.0m), etc.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Jmc23]

I've traveled all over the states and have met some really nice caring people, but by and large that generlaization holds. The problem with the american dream is it practically requires you to step on others to get ahead.

Seperation is pretty much a non-issue in Quebec nowadays. The younger generation realise how much of a farce holding on to a unique identity is when a good percentage of words in the 'french ' language have been appropriated from english. The biggest threats of seperation are from Alberta because they want to keep all their oil money to themselves and from BC which gets fucked over the most from the states and whose forests are dying from US brought pine beetle, so they like to complain about how poor theu are.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Grishnakh]

The problem with the american dream is it practically requires you to step on others to get ahead.

I disagree. Yes, I think a lot of people have practiced it that way, unfortunately, but I don't think you have to step on others to start a small business and make it succeed through hard work. The problem is people like to take short-cuts, either because they're greedy, or because they're incompetent, so instead of competing honestly, they "step on others" as you put it to get an unfair advantage. I've met lots of people with successful (small) businesses that didn't have to screw over others to get that way. Of course, at the higher levels, the corporations definitely work that way, but that's modern corporatism, not "the American Dream".

The biggest threats of seperation are from Alberta because they want to keep all their oil money to themselves and from BC which gets fucked over the most from the states and whose forests are dying from US brought pine beetle, so they like to complain about how poor theu are.

I'm not from the area, but I wonder if BCers would be happier if they were part of a new country including Oregon, Washington, and northern California (but not the rest of the USA of course). Maybe they could join with Alberta too (since BC has a nice shipping port). Between the oil in AB and all the tech in NorCal, Portland, and Seattle, such a country would be a world leader economically.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Sardaukar86]

Oh, that's rich. Spelling/grammar advice from you.

Stellar levels of hypocrisy like this is surely deserving of some kind of award.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Dryanta]

Individual states were supposed to be this way before the interstate commerce clause caused the awful tip in the balance of federalism. The framers are all rolling over in their graves.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Maritz]

Drugs are in demand pretty much everywhere. As a mind altering substance they're a commodity. Your solution is for human beings not to want to take drugs any more. Good luck with that one.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Jmc23]

It's a rather simple solution once you understand why people take drugs. Unfortunately it's directly opposed to how economies currently work. The very least governments can do is not make them illegal as the governments are the ones imposing the lifestyles that make taking drugs attractive.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Grishnakh]

No, it goes back to the writing of the Constitution itself. The Civil War was the real turning point, where federal supremacy was placed above states' rights, and individual states weren't even allowed to leave the union if they chose, which is simply wrong from a moral standpoint if you believe in freedom. For example, look at China, where any attempts by Tibetans (whose country was forcibly annexed) to push for independence or autonomy are brutally put down, and this is called an "internal matter". This is really no different from the states of the USA trying to secede. Or parts of the USSR breaking away in the early 90s; this was only allowed because their system collapsed, and I think that's what's going to happen here: the Federal government simply won't have the power to hold the union together any more.

But it was all set into motion by the Constitution itself, which gave too much power to the Federal government. The Articles of Confederation were better, as they didn't provide this much power. Back in those early days, the Founders themselves were divided into two camps, the Federalists (like Adams) and anti-Federalists (like Jefferson). They were not of one mind on the topic. However, the union was threatening to fall apart under the Articles, which is why they wrote the Constitution. But the fact that the union was threatening to fall apart under the Articles, and then had a bloody and devastating war over the issue 60 years later, shows to me that maybe the Union was never a really good idea in the first place, and that the colonies should have instead formed 2 or 3 separate countries instead of trying to shoehorn them all into one big one. The issue of defense against England (which tried to retake them in 1812) probably could have been handled with a simple mutual defense treaty or alliance, instead of trying to make everyone get along in one big country.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Maritz]

How would that explain, for example, the extensive use of mind altering substances by native american tribes? What government imposed that? It doesn't strike me as a sound argument I'm afraid. I think it much more likely that humans take drugs because they find being high fun, as opposed to being brainwashed by pop culture or the government.

Re:or just hire the US DoD...

[Jmc23]

Use of natural substances is different from refined substances. Half the drugs trafficked are refined physically addictive substances, the other half is cannabis.. Regardless, both are a type of escape from reality, but the use byby natives and shamanistic tribes is use, not abuse. We are talking about addiction here. Even the uses of cannabis, a strictly psychological addiction, is abused by western society.

Daily Mail alert!

[Rik Sweeney]

and drug cartels kidnapping busloads of people and forcing them into gladiator-style contests to the death

Links to The Daily Mail, which is nearly as bad as a Goatse link.

Re:Daily Mail alert!

[L4t3r4lu5]

For those who don't know, The Daily Mail is The Onion with a strong right-wing slant. Only less amusing.

It's somewhere between "ranting homeless person with a bottle of mouthwash in his guts" and "politician expenses claims" in believability.

Re:I agree

[Jmc23]

What would your republicans have anything to do with the situation in mexico? Are they going to legalize dRugs?

If the US wasn't so addicted to drugs it wouldn't be profitable for poor countries to be in the drug trade.

Re:I agree

[Jmc23]

Zorro would only save california.

Re:I agree

[Anubis IV]

It'd certainly stop them dead in their tracks, I suppose...

Or...

[betterunixthanunix]

Or we could stop militarizing law enforcement, and try a new, less violent approach to drug policy (like, say, legalization).

Re:Or...

[Bucc5062]

I kind of like both. Legalize to gain revenue to help our current budget crisis, and selectively target cartel compounds and destroy them. We don't need to send troops in, just "nuke em from orbit". Dropping some rocks from very high up will leave quite a dent in the place without all that messy radioactive stuff to deal with. The government can use plausible deny-ability since it was only a rock, and not a bomb with all sorts of traceable components.

I'm not normally a war monger, but even I'm getting tired of all this useless violence perpetrated by amoral sociopaths without a scrap of humanity. Yes, the rule of law is important, but when this dark of evil can use it as another tool to hide, then we have to look at other methods to deal with these thugs.

We don't have a War on Drugs, that's a vapid phrase with no value or meaning. Were it a war then a just society, and a just leader would take firm action, even if it meant innocent deaths, to eradicate evil. I cannot imagine the moment when Truman had to decide to drop the bomb or the decision to invade Normandy, or other examples when leaders knew good people will die, but the enemy would be defeated. They made those decisions, because they could see that countless lives would suffer if those evils where left in place. Today we get upset over 6000 deaths in ten years of fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan when that many died * 2 in the Normandy invasion, with allied countries supporting the effort.

These cartels are like fire ant mounds. You can kill soldier ants all day and the mound will remain. The only way to get ride of them is to kill the queen(leader) and destroy the mound completely.

 

Re:Or...

[Reservoir Penguin]

Just as long as all of the newly legalized heroin/methadon junkies move to your neighborhood. Otherwise narco dealers belong in jail and junkies in special treatment clinics.

Re:Or...

[superwiz]

How would that stop extortion of teachers?

Re:Or...

[c6gunner]

Or we could stop militarizing law enforcement, and try a new, less violent approach to drug policy (like, say, legalization).

I agree that legalizing is the way to go; however, what, exactly, do you imagine these cartels will do once their product goes mainstream? Turn into nice polite businessmen, running legitimate businesses with 10% profit margins?

Let's not be silly. As soon as you legalize drugs, most of these organizations will turn to other illegal ventures. You'll see more kidnapping, more human-trafficking, more violent crimes of all sorts. In the long term it would probably result in a decrease in crime, but limiting their ability to get "easy money" from the drug trade will only work if we're willing to go in and physically destroy the cartels at the same time.

Of course, the guy who suggested that it be done by the US military is out to lunch; I'm pretty sure the Mexican government might have something to say about that. The US military can work as advisers and trainers. They might even assist in some specific operations where the Mexican government requests it. But the bulk of the work will have to be done by the Mexicans themselves.

Re:Or...

[phoenix321]

Yes, they could try a non-violent approach, but only if the law is changed. That will happen after the voting majority changes their minds on that and I doubt this will happen anytime soon. Until then, it is against the law - and law enforcement should do whatever it needs to uphold that law.

I see the opportunities for well-regulated legalization of dangerous items, especially if it is about dangerous substances that people themselves take and do willingly in the privacy of their own living and bedrooms. But as long as the law is on the books, it will generate income for the cartels and violence around them. This is harming the American public much much more than either legalization or foreign terrorism and should therefore be placed on much higher importance.

Legalize it or stomp it out with full force. There's no middle ground, since that fuels the cartels. Why are the drones still circling Afghan skies then?

Re:I agree

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

FYI: "Los Zetas", among the more competent and sociopathic of the current players, are drawn heavily from the ranks of the Mexican(and to a lesser extent other Latin American) special forces groups. Even some School of the Americas(sorry, "Institute for Intra-Hemispheric Cooperation") alumni.

Other than some pretty tepid Shining Path activity in Peru, left-wing militancy in Latin America just isn't that lively anymore. It's a mixture of apolitical profiteers and former rightwing state jackboots who realized that the money in the private sector is substantially better...

Re:Petty? O_o

[cavreader]

This successes this group claim have relied on sloppy system admin and equally sloppy security patching. Their SQL injection attacks, which are old news, are mostly caused by lazy developers. These guys use tools built by others and exploit weaknesses that have been public for a while. The initial Sony hack exploited an Apache flaw that had been patched for more than a year. These guys are not script kiddies but they are not far from it. O-day exploits, self modifying bot-nets, and attacks like Stuxnext are on a whole different level.

Re:Petty? O_o

[Dan541]

They have leaders too.

There is some anarchy amongst the mindless minions due to the whole "Anonymous has no leaders" bullshit but most of their ddos attacks are coordinated by a core group. I don't think their command structure is as well organised as conventional organised crime but there are certainly people pulling the strings.

Re:I agree

[drinkypoo]

It would be "easy" to fix Mexico's problems, but it would be unprofitable for entrenched interests.

First, terminate NAFTA, which was designed to do harm.

Second, terminate the War On Drugs, which has done nothing but make a lot of crooks a lot of money. And by that I mean first Big Pharma; and second Politicians and proto-politicians, paramilitarists, and other hangers-on; and finally, the Drug Lords, who would be relegated to the status of any other farm manager.

Third, crack down on businesses hiring illegal immigrants, decreasing the value of leaving the country and applying more pressure inside of Mexico by the people who need jobs.

It is not actually necessary to go forth and kill anyone, though any solution to this problem will lead to at least some deaths. But basically, withdrawing our scaly, clawed hand from Mexico's ball sack would permit these problems to be solved.

Clearly, the problem is not liberals, but populists. Unfortunately, that's both Republiscams and Democraps.

Re:I agree

[Black Parrot]

Your republicans are no different from democrats, just slightly different demographics they are pandering to.

I despise Democrats, but to say that they're no different from Republicans is the height of cluelessness.

The Republican party is dedicated to the philosophy that the proper role of government is to make sure the rich get richer faster than they would without a government. And since they have to win elections, they've got the problem of getting half the population to vote against their own best interests. Unfortunately they've chosen to appeal to people's worst instincts to make their knees jerk, so we get things like the Southern Strategy (appeal to White bigots unhappy with progress in civil rights), the alliance with the religious right (appeal to sex-obsessed control freaks), and now the new Southwestern Strategy (appeal to White bigots unhappy to be losing their majority status in the southwest). And of course, we have the ignorance of the Tea Party passing as a mainstream political movement.

The reason our country has become so divided is that the Republican party has spent the past 30 years fanning the flames of the culture wars for political gain.

The reason we have nutters cheering death during political debates is that the Republican party has been encouraging their knee jerks for political gain.

Democrats are letting our country die; Republicans are killing it.

Re:I agree

[eth1]

Or at the very least allow the law-abiding citizens to arm themselves (not that the ones that really need it could afford to at this point).
Plus, I'm sure any Mexican politician that tried to enable this would end up dead to protect the cartel's monopoly on violence.

Re:Petty? O_o

[ThatMegathronDude]

Already been done: Machete

Anonymous

[Raenex]

Anonymous would get my respect if they used their hacking skills to infiltrate the murderous thugs instead of defacing government websites.

Re:Anonymous

[burnit999]

But the fact that they did this sparked the entire conversation about what the cartels are doing. They have achieved their goal of brining awareness to the issue. Besides, it is unlikely that anonymous could do much to the cartels considering how they tend to operate.

Re:Anonymous

[Raenex]

But the fact that they did this sparked the entire conversation about what the cartels are doing.

Because some idiot made a comparison between some Anonymous losers and cartels? Do you really think the problems of the cartels were unknown in Mexico? The problem is catching the perpetrators, not actually pointing out the problem.

Besides, it is unlikely that anonymous could do much to the cartels considering how they tend to operate.

Actually, considering how much people depend on modern technology, I'm willing to bet an elite and dedicated group could gather some serious information targeting attacks. I bet all these guys have smart phones and computers.

Re:Anonymous' actions appear particularly petty?

[lxs]

Petty as in small minded and childish, which pretty much sums up Anonymous in my eyes.

This Slashdot post is a clucker

[Anonymous Coward]

This Slashdot post is Tabloid quality journalism. What is this post except an invitation for readers to cluck in dismay like chickens.

This post consists of headlines from separate uncoordinated news sources describing physically and chronologically separate events. The entire post is a twisted criticism of yet further unrelated Internet punks with an opinion.

Part of the problem with the post is the underlying events in Mexico are serious but the subject matter and invitation of the post are a distraction from the substance of the post.

Re:This Slashdot post is a clucker

[advid.net]

What is this post except an invitation for readers to cluck in dismay like chickens.

An invitation for Anonymous to bash the OP and some others ?

Re:What do you think about Arizona laws now?

[lahvak]

We were not saying there were too harsh and unjust. We were saying that they were completely stupid and unjust. We are still here, and we are still saying it.

Re:"New"

[NiteShaed]

Really? Girls in need of rescue were outlawed before alcohol was? ...back to school with you. This time, don't leave until you know the difference between "heroin" and "heroine".

Okay, betterunixthanunix made a typo, but while you seem to know that heroin and heroine are different, you don't seem to know what a heroine actually is. Hint: needing to be rescued does not make a girl a heroine. You lose at internets sir.

Re:Could someone report this to Google in a forum?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember that Google want you to use your "real name" on Internet

No. Google wants you to use your real name on Google+. Google has supported anonymous/pseudonymous blogging for years via Blogger, and still does. Social networks are not a good tool for anonymous speech. If you are not clever enough to see why, you are not clever enough to generate speech worth reading :)

When don't Anonymous' actions appear petty?

[divisionbyzero]

I don't think they've taken a principled stand on anything. And they don't claim to either. They are in it for the lulz. That's it. The tendency to see them as somehow "sticking it to the man" through acts of civil disobedience is totally misplaced.

Re:I agree

[royallthefourth]

ruthless right-wing pro-government paramilitaries like in some other Latin American countries in the past.

Correction: Latin American countries in the present (most obviously Colombia and the Northern Triangle). By the way, the paramilitaries aren't just pro-government, they are both controllers of the government and reinforced by it. Not on their own, of course, but typically as agents of capital using the paramilitaries to clear Indians off land they want to use as a banana farm or somesuch.

Those guns and bullets don't pay for themselves, and your typical campesino doesn't have the cash to buy even a single box of bullets or an olive jumpsuit.

Re:I agree

[rickb928]

If only I had mod points, I would not be AMENing you.

As a Republican, I concur - there's not a nickel's difference between our two parties. they each want power to ingratiate themselves with voters, engorge themselves from the public trough and from the lobbyists/corporations, and to punish their enemies real and imagined.

And they both fear a third party uprising, for the very same reasons.

Not good for America. Not even good for Mexico.

You need a combination

[Quila]

You could wipe out the cartels today and they'd just spring back up because of all the drug money waiting to be made. It takes an obscene amount of effort, money and human rights abuses overall to overcome the laws of economics.

You need to legalize drugs, cutting off their main source of income. That will weaken them a bit, then you can go after them with hit squads and drone attacks, wipe them out in a major series of military actions. After that, there won't be an incentive for them to spring up again, except for the lucrative kidnapping business.

Anonymous's action are ALWAYS petty.

[geekoid]

Seriously. If they truly want to help people, they wuld be helping the government fight the drug cartel nightmare that is happening right now.

Douchbags.

Hell, whose to say a anonymous isn't being manipulated by a drug cartel?

Re:Anonymous's action are ALWAYS petty.

[blair1q]

For all anyone knows, Anonymous members overlap membership in drug cartels. Sociopaths and psychopaths don't really know boundaries.

Re:"Anonymous' actions appear particularly petty."

[hesiod]

Agreed. The summary takes two disparate things and tries to compare them in scale. I have no idea what the point is supposed to be here, other than to take any possible opportunity to sling some mud at part of Anonymous.

Re:Dear Mexico

[geekoid]

Hey, school teachers could buy those guns to.

besides, it isn't about marijuana. Please put that behind. Most of what we have in America is grown here, in America. It's varies incarnation of cocaine, heroin, opiates, and expensive prescription meds.

.

Re:These people need a good role model...

[rickb928]

You mean getting the big bucks, caught fighting dogs and abusing them, hanging with the entourage and playing with guns, acting out, that Michael Vick?

Or ruining your life with outrageous behaviour and your idiot homies, doing prison time, finding Jesus, committing to a straight life, getting back in shape, working as hard as you ever did, taking the advice of decent men, and then earning your pay? Oh, and speaking to various groups about your shortcomings, as well as making financial contributions to groups that deal with the results of the animal abuse you used to perpetrate. And humbling yourself in public when called out for your past.

Same Michael Vick. I assume you meant that one.

50%? Still not as much as the government takes...

[J'raxis]

1. Whoever earns more than $8,000.00 (8 thousand pesos) biweekly. (underline in black whoever earns between 20 and 50 thousand pesos monthly) ...

Advise them that after October 1 they must pay a "tax" of 50 percent of their salary and annual bonus.

Not only a tax, but a graduated income tax. Ever notice that the bigger a criminal gang becomes, the more indistinguishable from "government" it becomes?

Re:You're so smart!

[Hatta]

People drinking booze isn't that big a deal. People on the harder drugs leads to all sorts of problems - crime included.

There is no harder drug than alcohol. It is so addictive that withdrawal can kill you. You can't say the same about meth, PCP, crack cocaine, or heroin. Further, no drug is more strongly associated with violent behavior. If society has found a way to co-exist with the most dangerous drug in existance, why can't we do the same for every other drug?

Shame on you, Slashdot

[benjfowler]

There's an awful lot of teenage libertarian basement-dweller logic here. It's an American disease, but particularly bad on Slashdot.

If you libertarian dumbasses could see yourselves in the mirror, you'd soon STFU.

As the saying goes though, a dog cannot smell his own bad breath.

Re:Shame on you, Slashdot

[AmbushBug]

I think its more the case that there are a few really noisy "libertarian" types on here that manage to derail a lot of discussion. But yeah, they annoy the hell out of me too.

Re:I agree

[Beelzebud]

This makes me laugh considering a few weeks ago, some jackass on this site tried to claim that fascism was left wing.

Another spurious comparison

[J'raxis]

The article about the Anonymous hacking says nothing about their motives. It doesn't say or even imply this is in support of the gangs, or even in opposition to the government for some gang-related actions in which the government is engaged. There may be a connection, but there's no information out there (yet) stating this. So why, just like in this story yesterday, is some sort of spurious link being drawn between two unrelated events?

Neville Chamberlain?

[villain222]

For fear of retribution on both fronts... No comment.

Price and punishment

[nten]

The violence won't decrease unless the stakes of the game (price of drugs, and punishment for being caught) decrease. If the regulations and quality controls keep the current suppliers (the cartels) out of the new market, or if the price of meeting those controls added to the cost of the taxes, still creates a large incentive to smuggle, there will still be smuggling and violence. Great care would need to be taken to make sure that the effects of legalization include a dramatic price drop of the drugs in question so that no one will be willing to risk a murder charge for the profit involved in smuggling it.

As to those who stand to lose by legalization, we should look at what opium did to China's society and make sure we have a plan by which our whole society doesn't lose. Some drugs became illegal for a good reason.

Re:Price and punishment

[Artraze]

That's completely ignoring the most important market force: value (not simple cost). A reputable brand's product in a store is _worth_ more than the supposedly some stuff back alley deal. Hell, people even buy brand name aspirin when the store brand costs quite a bit less, has to meet the same standards, and is sitting right in front of them. Sure there will always be people poor and disinterested enough to find some thug to sell them smuggled stuff cut with poison, but really smugglers can't compete on value once legitimate channels are present.

Re:What do you think about Arizona laws now?

[rickb928]

Yeah, well, Mexico's government complains that the drug violence would be nil if the U.S. would control the drug demand up north. Point taken.

Then they claim actually closing the border would just be unacceptable. So preventing most of the drugs from crossing the border in Arizona is not a solution, apparently. I know, the cartels will just make more submarines, but raising their expenses might, just might, distract them from killing each other and innocent citizens in Mexico. Maybe.

Of course, our government isn't helping much with programs like Fast 'n Furious.

Diversified stocks and bonds..

[modi123]

While everyone is still lamenting the "legalize mary jane and the problems go away", let's not forget the other choice activities that generate about half the cartel's income:

• - includes the sale of methamphetamine, cocaine, and brown-powder and black-tar heroin.
• - kidnapping has become their second-most-lucrative venture, with the targets ranging from businessmen to migrants.
• - Another new source of cartel revenue is oil theft
• - Cartels are also moving into the market in pirated goods in Latin America.
• - cartels are also moving into extortion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html

Sure the cartels will take hit initially, but those intervening months between legalizing and having RJ Reynolds start churning out cig packs of pot (or even for local growers to have enough to deal with the increased demand) the cartels would be shifting. Already the cartels operate near slave farm operations in the US national forests - what makes you think they would stop? The price might be a bit less but what's the cost to people who do not care for human life? Labor is cheap at the end of a gun barrel.

Per the OP's article these guys are no joke. They are not just some street thug but freaking trained troops. They have gone far, far up the Nung River, and I doubt they will go away any time soon.

They were formed by former special forces soldiers who deserted from the Mexican Army and joined the Gulf Cartel.

When is the invasion???

[zildgulf]

So how long will we Americans be able to insulate ourselves from the violence across the border? I bet is that we will eventually have to invade Mexico and fight a "dirty war" against the cartels (we will call them terrorists and treat them as such). It will be a bloody and expensive war of at least a decade or longer. At this point I'm not sure making MJ legal would stop this situation, which seems to be as bad or worse in Mexico than the Colombia in the 1980's.

Re:You're so smart!

[Hartree]

"People drinking booze isn't that big a deal."

You been knocking back some of grandpa's cough syrup?

It's the biggest substance abuse problem there is. Just the fatalities from drunk driving dwarf the fatalities from the rest of it, even with the Zetas and the rest shooting everything in sight.

How much petty crime occurs to feed drug habits? A lot. And the biggest of those drugs is alcohol. The only thing that limits that is it being cheaper than most illegal drugs.

I've lived with alkies who've been previously out on the street they were so bad. It's a real wake up to see, and no better than a full blown junkie.

Re:I agree

[Bardwick]

"the right scream "YEAH!" when asked if they would just let the poor die without health insurance". You've used this twice so far that I've read, both times you are WAY off (actually completely opposite) what the question asked. The question was to the affect that a young middle income person CHOSE not to purchase health care even though he had to means), do you believe tax payers should be on the hook for his care in a catostrophic event?" So, when you mentioned "poor", that was completely wrong as they addressed in the question that he has sufficient income, but CHOSE not to purchase healthcare. The question can be summed up thus: "Do you believe in personal responsibility?"

Not even all drugs, marijuana would be huge

[Kamiza Ikioi]

The major drug problem between the US and Mexico is Marijuana. Our culture is very "meh" on having it outlawed, so there is a higher market for it, unlike drugs like heroin and meth with scares the crap out of most people, including the pot smokers among us. So it's not as though all those weed sales will transfer to cocaine or heroin if marijuana is legalized. They'll simply go out of business, or become legitimate, like beer producers did. Beer producers didn't say, "Shit, we can't dodge taxes and shoot at the federal lawmen anymore... so screw beer, we're going to start selling heroin!"

No, they went legit, and the guns went away. The gangs and mafias changed to do other illegal things, but they lost a huge portion of income. The same would happen with marijuana.

By the way, all those liquor taxes are paying for local community services, like schools. This is taxable, just like liquor, cigarettes, or any other luxury item.

Re:Not even all drugs, marijuana would be huge

[TubeSteak]

The major drug problem between the US and Mexico is Marijuana.

The cartels are literally building submarines, stuffing them with tons of cocaine, and sending them to the USA.
I agree that legalizing marijuana is a first step, but cocaine is enormously profitable,
to the point that cartels can sink a submarine if they feel they're going to get caught.

The last two I recall reading about were off the coast of Honduras and in a Colombian swamp.
Both were carrying around 7.5~8 tons of cocaine.

Re:Not even all drugs, marijuana would be huge

[wagnerrp]

So it's not as though all those weed sales will transfer to cocaine or heroin if marijuana is legalized. They'll simply go out of business, or become legitimate, like beer producers did. Beer producers didn't say, "Shit, we can't dodge taxes and shoot at the federal lawmen anymore... so screw beer, we're going to start selling heroin!"

No, they went legit, and the guns went away. The gangs and mafias changed to do other illegal things, but they lost a huge portion of income. The same would happen with marijuana.

Does that mean all the former drug runners would start start up a boat racing circuit?

Re:Petty? O_o

[geekoid]

A) Not help them
B) Attack the system the murders and rapists use to gather information.

Of course that takes hard work and dedication.

Re:You're so smart!

[hplus]

While I agree with your sentiment, heroin withdrawal can also kill you.

Honeypot bloggers

[PPH]

Just have someone blog under the name Pedro Nadie or whatever. Identify him as living just outside a small town in Northern Mexico and have him really piss off the cartels. When they come to get him, the little cabin is surrounded by the army. Game over.

Re:Honeypot bloggers

[Antisyzygy]

Only a few enforcers would show up to kill this fictional man. Its better to schedule a fuel-air bomb drop on their compounds.

Re:Honeypot bloggers

[blair1q]

Game over for two punks. Not for the cartel.

Re:Honeypot bloggers

[PPH]

Only a few enforcers would show up to kill this fictional man.

Two at a time is better than nothing. And it makes the job easier on your troops. Overwhelming odds keep your casualty rate down.

Its better to schedule a fuel-air bomb drop on their compounds.

Ever wonder why the cartels fund schools and hospitals in their home towns? Want to explain that type of collateral damage come election time?

Re:Honeypot bloggers

[Antisyzygy]

Two at a time, when hundreds are waiting to replace them. It means nothing. You cannot let evil people use your compassion against you. I am an atheist to the full extent of the word, and I can say that I truthfully regret that civilians are hurt or even killed in conflicts like these. I am so compassionate and empathetic, that I myself fucking cry sometimes thinking about how innocent people are hurt. However, I really am starting to get pissed off why it happens at all, and it makes me re-evaluate my own ethics because I don't see "good" prevailing at all. War, murder, and torture shouldn't happen at all, but it seems like fuck-bags continue to resort to the only thing they can for advantage over other people, and that is fear through violence and death. Once you let people that harm others gain an advantage over you, which is easy to do if you aren't a sociopath, you give them opportunities to continue their bad behavior. Why do you think ruthless behavior works to get people to obey a set of rules? Because no sane person is willing to one-up ruthless people and most people are born with some degree of sanity until they are brain-washed or desensitized (this is of course assuming they aren't simply born with a defective frontal lobe). You have to do things that are distasteful to your own humanity to get people like this to stop. So, I say to you; What is better? 10 children dead after a bomb drop in the heart of some cartel's compound, or millions of people living in fear, so much so they let 10,000 more die at the hands of these people? Its gone on too long, and too many people just let it happen and then bitch about it being caused by something that is a secondary agenda, like legalizing drugs. Yes, I believe drugs should be legal too, but you cannot let assholes continue to dismember people because drugs are illegal. Fucking kill them since that is the only thing they understand, and its quite a poetic justice since that is the same thing they threaten upon others to gain power.

Re:I agree

[geekoid]

First, terminate NAFTA, which was designed to do harm.

false.

"And by that I mean first Big Pharma;"
Now you're being an idiot. HINT Who would produce the drug legally? who would make the most money off legalizing drugs? who has all the equipment to turn over to produce those drugs very quickly?

Drug lord would actual move into import export. Farm managers don't make a lot of money.

Oh, and it's the people that don't want it legalized. look at every vote it's been on.

"Third, crack down on businesses hiring illegal immigrants,"
No. Putting the onerous on business to become some sort of investigation agency is too harsh and expensive. If they have legal paper work(I9 and SSN) Then that ends the companies responsibility. If it turns out that information was fraudulent, then arrest the person who committed the fraud.

"and applying more pressure inside of Mexico by the people who need jobs."
um, yeah that doesn't work. As it turns out there is a ton aof pressure to create jobs in Mexico. It's just not happening.

In fact, when the US had an open door policy regarding migrant workers, Everyone did better. Mexico was more stable, the US got migrant farms. Just so you know, getting rid of illegal aliens doesn't really create more jobs. You can make 15 an hour and benefits working in some farm in the US, but those fields of food sit and rot because there isn't anyone to pick them.

Re:You're so smart!

[Hatta]

True, but it does so very rarely. If someone dies during withdrawal, it's almost always due to complicating factors like frailty due to AIDS or concurrent alcohol withdrawal.

I've been waiting for the new corporate flavor of

[spads]

/. to descend, since the exit of CmdrTaco, and I think this is about the closest I've seen to that. (Up to now, it hasn't been too bad.) This seems pretty pulpy, what with all the commenters chanting "descend on Mexican drug cartels NOW".

Re:I agree

[geekoid]

um, you know we had these problem in the US, and it didn't taker some brutal dictator to solve them.

Legalize drugs and let people have a choice.

I'm not sure how you find it to be liberals fault. Liberals aren't the ones keeping the anti-drug laws on the books.

And having a dictator always goes bad. What will happen is the Drug Cartel leaders will end up in power, and the only people hanging from bridges is ordinary citizens and perceived rivals. This same thing has happened in many countries.

Your solution is short sighted, childish, ignorant, and a prime example of some living in an echo chamber.

Stop it.

Re:Could someone report this to Google in a forum?

[Asic Eng]

Social networks are not a good tool for anonymous speech. If you are not clever enough to see why, you are not clever enough to generate speech worth reading :)

Well, while facebook has officially a real name policy, too - they are not particularly bothered by people violating it. In other words: we have proof that enforcing a real name policy is not required in order to have a functioning social network. On the other hand: Google still has to prove that they can build one while enforcing that policy.

About drugs? Not anymore

[happyfeet2000]

This is not only about drug traffic anymore. These cartels are expanding into 23 different delictive activities (search for Eduardo Buscaglia's conferences and interviews in Youtube), and are now trying to control and enslave the whole population. At the Mexican/American border on the affected areas. city authorities live and work on the American side. In the big cities of the Northeast there is a stampede of rich people moving to the USA in what is called the "golden migration". This is the class of northern entrepreneurs that helped defeat the leftist candidate in 2006 presidential elections claiming his "little strange ideas were a danger to Mexico" with help from Spanish and American PR advisors. Under the new conservative government the economy imploded, hordes of young people have become part of organized crime, and the people that started the problem are running away from it leaving the underclasses to deal with it any way they can, as long as it doesn't mean electing a leftist government.

Re:I agree

[That Guy From Mrktng]

Whats the problem with outsourcing our violence to Mexico? is not that different as to fight proxy wars.

I explained somewhat in an Anon post before I created this account:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2230314&cid=36414026

Supply & Demand

[Dragon Bait]

What's to stop an OPEC-like organization from being created to ensure the price of drugs stay high?

OPEC is [relatively] successful due to the small number of suppliers in the marker and the scarcity of the product.

The inherit cost of producing most drugs is relatively low and the majority of the cost is a reflection of the risk factor in bringing it to market combined with the artificial scarcity. If you legalize drugs -- perhaps going so far as creating stores along the lines of "state liquor stores" -- the almost immediate bump in supply will drive the prices down.

There are problems that will have to be worked out. Such as:

1. Taxing something that people can easily grow themselves.
2. What if you don't want to smoke marijuana and the joker at the next table decides to light up? Personally I think the only solution would be to ban all smoking in public regardless of what is being smoked.
3. Increase in DUI / decrease in highway safety.

There will be problems in legalizing drugs -- but they should be less insurmountable than the amount of drug cartel violence going on now.

Re:Supply & Demand

[Quiet_Desperation]

You could increase penalties for DUI.

People can grow their own fruits and veggies and spices now, but most don't. I think most would want to just buy packs of joints.

We're pretty far along the path of banning all public smoking anyway. Legal pot would push it the rest of the way especially considering it smells like shit. Honestly, I have friends who used to partake. I never got the attraction to that stuff. Phew!

I wonder...

[Syberz]

Smoking is legal and can kill you.

Drinking is legal and can kill you.

Myriad other things are legal and can kill you.

So why not legalize all drugs, tax the sh*t out of 'em like cigarettes. The self-destructive will be able to do so, the curious ones will be able to try and the recreational users will be able to do so too. I'd be curious to see what would happen.

Re:I wonder...

[migla]

Aye. I second your motion.

I'd like to add that people should also get all the help they need to try to kick the habit if hey want that. Otherwise the legalization of everything might be too harsh a divider of people into the ones that can be well-coping recreational users and the miserable ones.

Re:I wonder...

[PeanutButterBreath]

So why not legalize all drugs, tax the sh*t out of 'em like cigarettes.

Because a black market will develop to avoid the taxes and other government controls, and we will be back to square one.

The self-destructive will be able to do so, the curious ones will be able to try and the recreational users will be able to do so too. I'd be curious to see what would happen.

Controlled substances are most often controlled for good reasons, even if the enforcement is misguided. The self-destructive will drag others down with them (i.e. their own kids). Allowing easy access to satisfy curiosity is a very bad idea with highly addictive and ultimately destructive substances.

What would likely result from legalization is more addicts and more drug-related crime. Crimes like possesion and distribution might go down, but fighting the black market would offset this gain. More addicts would yield more crimes committed by people with no other means to feed their addiction.

Prohibition is no magic bullet. But neither is legalization.

Re:I wonder...

[Syberz]

There's already a black market for cigarettes and alcohol, so not much of a change there.

I'm sure that there's no magical solution, but I'd still be curious to see what would happen. Another commenter proposed that help should be easily available to those wanting to kick the habit or for those "dragging others down with them" as you put it.

If half of the money currently invested in the war on drugs was invested in providing guidance and help to addicts, perhaps after the initial boom of addicts that removing the laws would bring, the amount of destructive addicts would gradually lower?

It's be nice to have some kind of simulator to test these theories out.

Re:I wonder...

[Antisyzygy]

That already happens with alcohol, except we leave the alcoholics to die miserably in the streets, or if they are a "functional alcoholic" they eventually die from heart disease, cirrhosis or a myriad of other problems. Their only "other' option is to go to some AA based recovery, either the free one or the clinics that use AA as a cookbook approach and charge you for it. AA basically forces you to accept God, or you "will never be cured". This coming from clinics that are supposed to be offering medical and psychiatric treatment is an absolute atrocity. Its as if you go to the doctor to fix your chronic depression, and they just tell you "Hmm, that sucks. Ill pray for you". You go to a doctor or psychiatrist to help you with concrete scientific treatments for things, not make-believe. Having been through treatment of this kind I can say its a big fucking joke. The best idea is to try to beat addiction through medical means since it actually offers concrete results that are verifiable. AA stopped keeping track of their own retention rate because its so fucking bad. They only manage to keep about 15 percent of the people who are members, but this statistic is many years old. The ones that stick around are usually zealots. I have had several actually get upset at me and tell me I will come crawling back some day and they wont take me, just because I am an atheist and this pretty much is totally opposite of the 2nd and 3rd step.

I am aware of certain drugs like Naltrexone that allow one to beat addiction to opiates/alcohol in a high percentage of cases (much higher than the AA 15 percent) by binding to endorphin and opiate receptors in your brain, thus making no "reward' for using. There are also new drugs under development in Finland along similar lines. Then there is something I read in a Discover magazine lately that tricks your immune system into fighting off active ingredients in cocaine as well as nicotine. This cures you by simply making it impossible for you to use and feel anything since your immune system has little cells that bind to the chemicals, and make it so they can't bind to receptors in your brain. This is the sort of help we should be giving addicts, not fairy tales.

Re:I wonder...

[Antisyzygy]

I see no significant alcohol black market nor cigarette black market trying to avoid government controls / taxes. Most people opt for convenience and go to the liquor store rather than driving out to the woods to find a moonshiner. Self-destructive behavior affecting others can be prevented by actually punishing people that do so. They already take kids away from people all the time for being addicts. Drug related crime would possibly increase in the form of theft, but keep in mind that legalizing drugs would drop their price so drug habits would be more affordable. That would offset some of the need for theft to support a habit. Also keep in mind 50 percent of people in prison are there for possession of drugs or selling drugs. You would eliminate a significant number of criminal cases, and 50 percent of people in prisons by legalizing drugs. I sincerely doubt any increase in drug-related crime would make up for that significant decrease.

Re:I wonder...

[blair1q]

Smoking can kill you and anyone around you. It should not be legal, but the tobacco-murderer cartel spends hundreds of $millions keeping it legal. If your congressman isn't posting "trying to make smoking illegal" on his website, he's in on it.

Drinking can kill you only if you're addicted to it. It's far less addictive than tobacco. It can kill others around you only if you act while drunk to kill them yourself. We made it illegal once, and it made the Mob a government unto itself, and the Mob owned major portions of the country for 60 years, even after we legalized it again.

Some illegal drugs probably should be legal. But not all. Weed, likely. Coke/crack/meth/smack, fuck no. Any drug that turns you into nothing but a vehicle for getting more of the drug, no. Get it to critical mass in the population, and it ends populations. It was illegal in the 60s and 70s, but tolerated among the population enough that policing it was irrelevant, and it turned parts of NYC into devastated war zones. It turns simple poverty into $0 for miles, and makes junkie-on-junkie crime the primary employer, and junkie-on-the-man crime the primary non-drug entertainment.

We need to stop treating Mexico like a foreign devil-nation full of filthy wogs, and start treating it like the deteriorating crack-house next door. Stop spending a $trillion a year fighting Poppy Bush's revenge wars on the other side of the globe, and start fighting the shitheads who've turned war into an industry on our back porch.

Re:I wonder...

[phoenix321]

Smoking, drinking, drugging should be all placed under the same legal-but-taxed regime. They are a tax on idiots, dimwits and self-loathers, economically and Darwinistically. This should not make any law abiding, taxpaying non-smoker, rarely-drinker, non-drugger nervous.

Re:I wonder...

[tomthepom]

Because a black market will develop to avoid the taxes and other government controls, and we will be back to square one.

Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are of the order of 1000% in some areas, which hasn't led to a violent or even significant black market. What makes you think other drugs will be different?

Controlled substances are most often controlled for good reasons, even if the enforcement is misguided. The self-destructive will drag others down with them (i.e. their own kids). Allowing easy access to satisfy curiosity is a very bad idea with highly addictive and ultimately destructive substances.

This sounds like Reefer Madness hysterics (won't somebody think of the children!!!), and is pretty much the opposite of real life experience where legalization has been tried.

What would likely result from legalization is more addicts and more drug-related crime. Crimes like possesion and distribution might go down, but fighting the black market would offset this gain. More addicts would yield more crimes committed by people with no other means to feed their addiction.

The market for many illegal drugs is already saturated. What evidence do you have, apart from your gut instinct, that legalization will increase the number of consumers? Again this is contrary to evidence.

Re:I wonder...

[urusan]

Because a black market will develop to avoid the taxes and other government controls, and we will be back to square one.

Well, this depends on the exact incentives at play. For instance, the cigarette black market works by moving cigarettes from low tax states to high tax states. The main incentive for criminals is that it is nearly as profitable but far less dangerous than illegal drugs. Only the most high tax states have problems and there'd probably be far less cigarette trafficking if it carried the same penalties as illegal drug trafficking.

Overall though, the black markets for legal drugs seem to be not nearly as destructive and the less restrictive the laws are, the less problematic they will be.

Controlled substances are most often controlled for good reasons, even if the enforcement is misguided. The self-destructive will drag others down with them (i.e. their own kids). Allowing easy access to satisfy curiosity is a very bad idea with highly addictive and ultimately destructive substances.

If this is the rationale, then why is alcohol legal? Why is financial irresponsibility by parents legal?

Perhaps instead of trying to our hardest to stop self-destructive people (who will try to bypass our restrictions anyway) for the sake of the children, we should rely on child protection agencies to help them. We can use the tax revenue generated for this.

What would likely result from legalization is more addicts and more drug-related crime. Crimes like possesion and distribution might go down, but fighting the black market would offset this gain. More addicts would yield more crimes committed by people with no other means to feed their addiction.

More addicts, yes. More drug-related crime? Not so likely. Most drug-related crimes today have to do with the illegality (and as a side-effect scarcity) of the drugs. Drug prices will drop dramatically after legalization, because:
1. Industrial scale production of drugs will be possible
2. Transportation will be much easier
3. Retail will be easier and much less risky
As such, it will be possible to have a drug habit on an ordinary wage and not have to resort to theft and other crimes. Most smokers and alcoholics aren't out committing crimes to "feed their addiction", so why would other drug users do so if their drugs were legal?

Re:I wonder...

[MrMatto]

More addicts would yield more crimes committed by people with no other means to feed their addiction.

If drugs were as cheap as coffee, people wouldn't need to resort to crime to get their fix. How many people do you know that are addicted to cigarettes or coffee? How many of those people rob and steal to get their fix?

Re:I wonder...

[randyleepublic]

Because, Mary Fucking Poppins, that is not how the world works. Many pigs have their blood spattered hands in the drug war money bucket, and they will kill you before allowing anything even close to your fantasy to come true. Oh look! A unicorn!

Not to argue GP point, but ...

[Dragon Bait]

Explain to me how the US government makes money by enforcing these laws?

Overall, you're correct. The war on drugs is costing the American Taxpayer a fortune. But frankly, no one really cares about the American Taxpayer.

On the personal level, there are jobs to be had based on the war on drugs. Between prison guards, cops, judges, law clerks, lawyers, ... there are plenty of people with a personal financial stake in maintaining the status quo. Throw in Mrs. Grundy's fear of drug crazed maniacs and politicians would just as soon cut social security as appear soft on drugs.

Remember, the goal of politicians is not to solve problem but to buy votes by spending money. And what would we do with all of those unemployed lawyers?

Re:Not to argue GP point, but ...

[Quiet_Desperation]

There's a group, LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, who support legalization. These are guys who have it first hand how the money in the drug trade corrupts *everything*. They've seen cops who wouldn't cheat at a penny ante card game take bribes because the money is just too much.

There was one article on their site a while back about their meeting with a member of Congress. The congressman actually said that he agreed with LEAP, but that he could *never* vote for even decriminalization of pot.

http://www.leap.cc/

An informative site, but depressing if you read too many of the the stores. Endless lives and families just destroyed because of this asinine "war."

Wut?

[Angrywhiteshoes]

opfullerton.tumblr.com

Re:"New"

[Fned]

... and then, in the 80's, because cocaine was still illegal, Columbian drug gangs who cornered trade in said drug became huge, rich, and powerful when said drug started gaining popularity.

If cocaine had been made legal in the 30's, there'd be treatment programs available everywhere, education about the drug would be ubiquitous and hyperbole-free, and Coloumbian Cartels would be small, making a decent living, and selling coffee.

Re:I agree

[Squiddie]

Well, in his defense, I haven't heard a single leftist cheer loudly for the death of a man in a comma. So I guess it's just some asshole, but he's on the right, not the left(which doesn't even exist in the US anyway).

Re:Anonymous takes the easy out, every single time

[tunapez]

I didn't read the latest round of mainstream 'headlines', but I hope everyone knows there is an Anon that matters. The Mexi Guv despises him/he,r as do the cartels, for publicizing what is not in the mainstream b/c of cover-ups and outright fear of retribution. Post is to Google page, pick your translator if no habla español...

Most is NSFW & NSFL but, nevertheless, a stunning and violent reality for Mexico...
Talk to Blog Del Narco

actually given the size of mexico...

[RobertLTux]

it would have to be 51st through 5Nth state (N is somewhere around 7 i think) and mostly the problem would just get pushed south.

Re:I agree

[Jibekn]

"And having a dictator always goes bad."

Absolutes can be a sign of a weak mind, im pretty sure there's alot of Cubans who would disagree that a dictator is always a bad thing, and looking over the social gains that Cuba has gone through since he seized power, I'de argue the point as well.

Totalitarian governments are usually a bad thing, but not always, and when you see an example of a person who can take the power and not go batshit crazy with power, it makes me wish the people like that were somehow labeled so we could get them all in leadership positions.

Interesting

[luis_a_espinal]

I find it extremely telling that the majority of posts in this thread relate to whether the war on drugs is on tracks or not (I believe it is not mind you), but almost no posts exists highlighting the pettiness of Anonymous in this matter in the midst of the atrocities committed by the drug cartels (as if defacing the sites of an incompetent government outgunned by the drug cartels would amount to some gesture of actual moral value.)

Re:Interesting

[hyades1]

Some would suggest that by taking down Mexican government websites, Anonymous is doing its part to fight the drug cartels, because if you take even a cursory look into the financial situation of a Mexican policeman, you're probably going to find somebody on a cartel payroll.

Why do you think the US government resolutely refuses to supply intelligence to the Mexican government? They know perfectly well they might just as well hand the information directly to a drug lord.

This war will only be won when the US legalizes drugs and the black market collapses.

Re:Interesting

[log0n]

Or when the cartels start getting a bit too aggressive/violent here in the US (much more so that what they've done so far) and it becomes a military operation.

Re:Interesting

[luis_a_espinal]

Some would suggest that by taking down Mexican government websites, Anonymous is doing its part to fight the drug cartels, because if you take even a cursory look into the financial situation of a Mexican policeman, you're probably going to find somebody on a cartel payroll.

Why do you think the US government resolutely refuses to supply intelligence to the Mexican government? They know perfectly well they might just as well hand the information directly to a drug lord.

This war will only be won when the US legalizes drugs and the black market collapses.

That's what is called wishful thinking. That the Mexican government is mired with corruption is one thing. To argue from that than an attack on the government is an attack on the drug cartels, that is quite another (a non-sequitur of bestial size.) If Anonymous were doing the right fight against drug-related corruption in the government, they could have use this opportunity to say so, to condemn the corruption.

What did they do instead? They just took the sites down followed by a tweet saying "ZOMG, we are legion"? Talking about being a fucking attention whore if you ask me.

Re:Interesting

[hyades1]

History lesson: What happened to organized crime after Prohibition ended?

Answer: It moved into other areas of "morality crime" as the United States proceeded to commit the same stupid mistakes all over again.

Legalize drugs. End the black market. End the number one problem Mexico presents to the US. And by the way, US government officials have said EXACTLY what I said about the Mexican government. They're in it balls-deep.

Re:Interesting

[hyades1]

That's an excellent point.

Being a Mexican, and being anti-officialist...

[gwolf]

I can just tell you are very wrong. Yes, the government is quite corrupt (although I doubt it is as corrupt as you think), but here we are not talking (at least, we are no _longer_ talking) about govt. people being bribed not to mess with them. The cartels have become militarily stronger than the State in many regions, and although the government does not want to admit it, the talks about a "failed state" and about an effective civil war are correct... In some areas of the country.

Please note the "some areas" part. Of course, our country is going through a critical point, and the current short-sighted government is mostly to blame for it, for devising the worst possible strategy when it needed to legitimize after what many of us still think that was an electoral fraud. Most of the country is still quite safe. I have never seen (and hope never to see) any cartel-related violence, and I travel quite frequently throughout the country. Even including the North, although I am avoiding it now.

Our problem is not so much drug use

[gwolf]

Of course, we have the micro-scale drug dealers, and they are not Sisters of Mercy either. But our main problem is drug traffic, where the amounts are high. High enough to fund your own army.

Oh, clearly...

[gwolf]

Because nobody in my country would like to see US troops in. If you want something that unites drug cartels and government fighting for a common target, you have the answer there.

Want to stop this bloodshed in Mexico? Do something about drug rings in the US. Because here we have, yes, the chaos about territorial disputes, routes control... But it's all about getting the drugs to the other side. How come no note-worthy news ever reach us about the US capturing a drug lord in your country? Don't tell me it's because they don't exist.

Re:Oh, clearly...

[Grishnakh]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the part I don't understand is why the Mexican military can't handle the cartels themselves. After all, the cartels have compounds, right? These rich cartel bosses surely aren't living in fleatrap motels, moving from motel to motel to avoid being caught. With all that money, surely they have some nice place where they're living.

In a country where most people are dirt-poor, how hard can it be to find a multimillionaire's mansion and determine that some cartel boss lives there?

Then, when you know where they live, doesn't the Mexican military have these things called "airplanes"? Which are able to drop "bombs"? Drop some bombs on the compounds, cartel's bosses killed, problem at least partially solved. Surely the cartels don't have AAA capable of downing bombers. No, a 50-cal sniper rifle will not take down a bomber.

Re:Oh, clearly...

[Duradin]

The cartels probably pay better than the military if not in direct cash then with benefits like not having your family gutted and hung off a bridge.

Re:Oh, clearly...

[Grishnakh]

The Mexican Air Force can't find ONE guy to fly the bomber and drop the bomb? They don't seem to have much trouble finding other soldiers brave enough to walk around on the ground and shoot it out with the cartels; these soldiers simply wear black masks so no one can tell who they are (you can see this in any photo showing Mexican soldiers; they all cover their faces now to avoid personal identification). Obviously, the Mexican military isn't so utterly broken that they can't even conduct ground battles with the cartel, so why can't they fly a plane or two and drop some bombs? Far less personnel are involved in this kind of operation.

Thankfully, no.

[gwolf]

Gun posession is not a God-given right anywhere in the world. I am a Mexican, I don't have a gun, I don't have a gun license, nobody I know has one, and I'd never be interested in one.

And even if I got one, it would "only" be useful for smaller weapons, never for what I have seen in seemingly minor shops across the border.

isn't the..

[Truekaiser]

Daily mail the uk version of the inquirer tabloid here in the states? the one that has articles about hillbilly chicks giving birth to half alien(e.t. not non-american human) hybrids after being raped by them? why should i take their word for it? as for the oil fields they are in decline more due to being past their production peak then any lack of money or government stability.
Still Mexico is a failed state like Somalia, but it's mainly due to our policies(the united state's policies) then anything else. Nafta + our prohibition on drug use not only created the profit incentive for these cartel's, but also rigged the game there that the only way to make money is to farm drugs. no family farmer there can make a living farming corn or the like at the prices allowed by nafta that the multi national company Monsanto dumps on the market there.

legalization

[sonamchauhan]

Didn't the British try this in the 1800s ... with China?

Re:I agree

[frank_adrian314159]

Liberals aren't the ones keeping the anti-drug laws on the books.

Actually (and I speak as a Socialist, not merely as a Liberal), if you asked an average "Liberal" member of the current Congress to legalize, he or she would look at you as if you had suggested that he or she should knife a baby (OK, that's not fair - they'd rather knife the baby). It's not about beliefs. It's about getting re-elected. The only ones who can dodge getting hammered by an opponent in the next election by supporting legalization are the Congresspersons (a) who are already so iconoclastic as to be immune (read Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, etc.), (b) who are retiring, or (c) who are lucky to be running against those who also support legalization. Since the number of Congresspersons for whom these factors might be true is vanishingly small, I doubt there will not be drug legalization in my lifetime. Although, honestly, it would be nice to have more people from category (a) above, if only for the entertainment value they provide.

worked SO WELL in afghanistan

[decora]

oh wait.. Karzai's government is practically run by corrupt drug lords who assassinate each other all the time.

but hey. whats the difference? nobody you know will be sent to fight.

Not to worry

[DesScorp]

"I support the annexing of Mexico!"

We already did that with a big part of Mexico in the 1840s.

They're annexing it right back, and then some. Spanish will be the language of the lower half of California within our lifetimes. The US is rapidly heading to a Canadian-style situation where a very large chunk of the country is essentially a different nation, with a different language and culture.

And that dogs name is BINGO!

[RobertLTux]

the only thing that would happen if we did take over most of central america is
1 we would waste several trillion dollars
2 piss off just about the rest of the planet
3 possibly start World War 3

but yes we would also need to address the SUPPLY side of the equation

just taking over Mexico would not even put a dent in the drug cartels area

Re:And that dogs name is BINGO!

[Jmc23]

I think you might have responded to the wrong post, probably wanted the op.

Most likely though the majority of mexicans would love you. I'm actually appaled by how american it is already here and how many people are infatuated with the media portrayed US lifestyle.

Probably wouldn't end up back at square one

[sean.peters]

Because a black market will develop to avoid the taxes and other government controls, and we will be back to square one.

The choice here isn't between the status quo and legalized drugs taxed to the point they cost the same is illegal drugs. The choice is between the status quo and legalized drugs that are taxed heavily, but still a lot cheaper than smuggled drugs. You could raise a TON of revenue on, say, weed, and still have it be a lot cheaper than it is now (as has been shown in states where weed is quasi-legal - prices have dropped enormously). That would pull an enormous amount of money out of the hands of cartels, and put it in government coffers, where it could be used for both better drug treatment AND more border enforcement. Sure, you'd likely have some black market - cigarettes and alcohol both are both traded this way to some extent. But when was the last time a black market cigarette dealer disemboweled someone over a bad trade?

If the narcotics black market evolved into something like the cigarette black market, that would actually be a giant step forward.

The mafia has weakened.

[bigtrike]

Repealing prohibition has weakened the mafia a lot by cutting off a huge source of profit. When's the last time you heard of something on the scale of the Saint Valentines Day Massacre?

Re:You're so smart!

[droptone]

I don't know what measure you're using to claim that alcohol is the 'hardest' drug. This source certainly doesn't agree with you. And while there are a very small number of drugs that can directly kill an addiction during the withdrawal phase, alcohol isn't alone. Benzodiazepines and methadone are also in that group.

What does "dirt poor" mean?

[gwolf]

There are many points about your message that need correcting.

First, Mexico is not a poor country - It is a country full of social inequities. That might help you understand the problem a bit better. We have very wealthy people. The world's richest person, Carlos Slim (who made most of his fortune as the leading telecommunications provider in Latin America), is Mexican and has always lived here. I grew up among a very wealthy group, and I often felt I was quite poor - Yes, until I found out that even that way I (son of an University teacher and an artist) was still in the most fortunate economic group. In my office there are people who get 1/10th of my salary, and 10 times as much - And I work in the public sector (just imagine how deeper the differences might be in a private business).

Second, we cannot just go out and bomb a house because there's a druglord living there. That's clearly illegal. Yes, it might be what you expect in occupied countries, but that's completely unacceptable in a place where there is (or there is supposed to be) a law. Criminals must be aprehended, tried, and only after that, punished.

Third, and I think this is the main point: The problem is structural. The problem is not the five or six (or twenty or whatever) top people of the largest cartels. The thing is that, if the country does not give a viable way to survive with dignity to a large amount of its population... This will happen again and again. Kill a druglord, two will fight each other to death. With their armies, of course, and recruiting more people along the way. Yes, that's part of the (clearly failed) strategy of our (illegitimate!) president Calderón: Go fight them, go kill them. The results? In the previous presidency (2000-2006), we had around 2000 people dead because of drug-related violence. In the five years since then... 50,000. How long can they keep thinking it's the way out?

Re:What does "dirt poor" mean?

[Grishnakh]

Second, we cannot just go out and bomb a house because there's a druglord living there. That's clearly illegal. Yes, it might be what you expect in occupied countries, but that's completely unacceptable in a place where there is (or there is supposed to be) a law. Criminals must be aprehended, tried, and only after that, punished.

Wrong.

You have the military operating in your country, shooting at criminals. When you have the military operating inside your own country, there is NO rule of (civil) law, only martial law. It's a war. In a war, there are no such rules; you can absolutely drop bombs on any military target. Collateral damage is just that: an unfortunate byproduct. If you're not willing to accept collateral damage, then don't call in the military. Use the police instead.

If you want to preserve rule of law, and have trials and all that, then you need to withdraw the military completely, and let the police handle the law enforcement problems. If things have gotten so bad that the police can't do the job, that's when you declare martial law, suspend all civil liberties, and call in the troops to start shooting people and blowing things up until the other side is neutralized (euphemism for dead or surrendered). Civil unrest is nothing new, nor unique to Mexico; it's happened in lots of places throughout history. You can handle it in two ways: 1) doing what Mexico is doing, which leads to either overthrow of the government or societal collapse, or 2) suspending the rule of law, shooting civilians who are causing problems, and continuing to shoot them until they stop and all the unruly ones are dead. (There's also 3) the government stepping down, as in Egypt, or 4) the other side forming a resistance and overthrowing the corrupt government by force, as in Libya, which tried #2 but failed.)

Soldiers are NOT policemen. You cannot simultaneously have civil law, and military operations. It's one or the other. The military only has one job: to kill people and blow things up. If you're asking soldiers to enforce laws, you're doing something wrong. That's not their job. Their job is to deliver lethal force at targets specified by their commanders, and that's it.

I suspect what's going to happen to Mexico is #1. Unlike the citizens of countries like Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya (all of whom could certainly be called "poor"), the citizens of Mexico seem to have no real morals as a society, or any sense of justice, fairness, or any desire at all to make the sacrifices necessary to build a good society. Instead, they just follow whoever has the most power (usually firepower), or whoever gives them the most money. There's lots of societies with big inequities, but you don't see the blatant corruption there that you do in Mexico. There seems to be something completely wrong with Latin American, and especially Mexican, culture that enables this. I don't know if it's the Catholic religion, or the excessive importance given to "family" (even if that family is a gang) and personal relationships, instead of any sense of doing what's right, but there's something wrong down there.

Kill a druglord, two will fight each other to death. With their armies, of course, and recruiting more people along the way.

Power structures don't work without a base of operations of some sort. Drug lords live in some kind of compound that they operate out of, and direct everything from. Drop a bomb on them and kill them all, and you decapitate the enemy. Yes, their underlings will survive, but they don't have the experience, the organization, etc., and then they fight each other (which is good; it's better when they kill each other then when they kill civilians). No power structure works without its leadership. Ever heard the expression "divide and conquer"? Every military's objective is to eliminate the enemy's leadership before its foot soldiers, because that's the fastest way to victory.

Plus, if every time a drug lord gets big and powerful enough to have a nice compound, it gets a few 1000-pound bombs dropped on it, not many people are going to aspire to such a powerful position in the criminal underworld.

Re:What does "dirt poor" mean?

[gwolf]

You have the military operating in your country, shooting at criminals. When you have the military operating inside your own country, there is NO rule of (civil) law, only martial law.

Wrong. There has been no declaration of martial law or of guarantees exception. The military are ilegally operating on the streets. And it is not something we just see and sigh - there are many initiatives pointing out this cannot happen in a country meant to be ruled by the law and not by the whim of the governing crew. Of course, if the president has the guts to call this a war, with all it entails, there will be a justification of having the military openly operating in the streets. But the president has reiterated we are not in a state of war.

Whether this is real or not... is a long subject. Of course I believe some areas of the country are in an open, hostile, multi-sided war. But the military has to follow a command - and that command has not yet been formally given.

As for the "decapitate the enemy" point... Both in your country (at least, in its wars) and in mine, it has been shown again and again that it does not work the way you describe. The only way to defuse a hostile force of would-be-civilians who enter a probably-deadly fight (be it for religion, for ideals, for money or for power) is to attack what leads to those armies' formation. Leaders are expendable. Yes, they are very important, and they are the masterminds of all attacks and all that... But you there's always a next leader for a formed group.

Re:What does "dirt poor" mean?

[Grishnakh]

Wrong. There has been no declaration of martial law or of guarantees exception. The military are ilegally operating on the streets.

OK, I didn't realize this was the case. IMO, a military can only operate in its own country if martial law has been declared, or some other exceptional circumstance, so if that's not the case then there's definitely something very wrong. You can't claim that the normal rules of law are in effect and have soldiers running around.

Leaders are expendable. Yes, they are very important, and they are the masterminds of all attacks and all that... But you there's always a next leader for a formed group.

I'm not saying that killing the leaders will eliminate the problem altogether. Obviously, some other power-hungry thugs are going to rise up to take their place, but that process isn't immediate; there's usually lots of chaos and infighting between the thugs when this happens. But killing the leaders is very useful for keeping the enemy disorganized and ineffective so that other measures have more time to work and achieve longer-term results.

Re:I agree

[mapkinase]

30% Interesting
    40% Insightful
    30% Informative

What is exactly interesting, insightful or informative in your post?

Baseless statement about knowledge of Mexico.

Insult

Then: one sentence of some substance:

Are you familiar w/ "going to the root of the problem?" Since cocaine is not necessary for human existence, then it is in the category of products for which the "first offer, then demand" principle is applicable. In this scenario you cut the offer ("going to the root")

Then really amazing notion of blaming crime fighters for the crimes.

Oh, well. It's not my first day on Slashdot. I am familiar with politically motivated moderation.

Re:I agree

[mapkinase]

"Democrats are letting our country die; Republicans are killing it."

Oh, that's the difference. Snap!

Re:I agree

[mapkinase]

I specified right-wing here is only based on specifics of South America. WIth the exception of Castro, Morales and Chavez - all excellent rulers, the rest of lefties, starting w/ Aliende have a scathing record of destroying their countries with their imported Western liberal nonsense.

It does not matter which hand wing. What it matters is to balance properly rights of individual and society as a whole.

Re:I agree

[shutdown -p now]

Well, they do in Soviet Russia.

Re:I agree

[shutdown -p now]

Mexico needs some ruthless right-wing pro-government paramilitaries like in some other Latin American countries in the past.

Funny thing is, Los Zetas was started by thirty members of Mexican army special forces.

Re:Anonymous takes the easy out, every single time

[sjames]

That and the cartels don't have public websites.

Re:I agree

[Jmc23]

Do you know which century you live in and when cocaine was first manufactured? Do you know that cocaine was being manufactured in the US for the past century. Did you know it wasn't even a controlled substance until the 70's? Did you know that trafficking only began shortly after? The deman was in place long before any other country tried to supply the states and they only did it because it's illegal status made it a good peofit.

And yes, the 'crime' fighters are to blamed for increased violence when they previously allowed it and then chose to enact the war to gain financial support from the US and to gain it's favour.

Being a mexican and living in mexico yes I can see that you have little knowledge of the situation here and little knowledge of cocaine. Perhaps you are confused about moderation system because your view of reality is a bit confused. Granted I do see a lot of moderation based onpolitics, but here it seems to be largely your ignorance at play.

Re:I agree

[Jmc23]

oh btw, the fact that the current increase in violence is directly related to trying do EXACTLY what you're suggesting shows your ignorance of the matter.

Opened my eyes...

[j33px0r]

to what was going on in Mexico. Sure, I knew about the rampant drug killings but without this current Anonymous attack, I would have never hear about the school system extortion in Acapulco. I go to the BBC and major new sites daily and this was new to me, 2 weeks after the fact. Perhaps their efforts were based upon publicity to the issue in general, not personal gain. Just saying...

Re:I agree

[drinkypoo]

Now you're being an idiot. HINT Who would produce the drug legally? who would make the most money off legalizing drugs? who has all the equipment to turn over to produce those drugs very quickly?

Drug lord would actual move into import export. Farm managers don't make a lot of money.

It looks as if you're suggesting that drug lords would become legitimate producers of pharmaceuticals. But there are numerous reasons why that is an incredibly stupid suggestion. I could go into them in detail but it will never. ever. happen.

Oh, and it's the people that don't want it legalized. look at every vote it's been on.

Polls disagree. Vote fraud is rampant and decided the outcome of at least two of the last three presidential elections. Your naivete would be charming if it weren't pathetic.

Putting the onerous on business to become some sort of investigation agency is too harsh and expensive.

Okay, now look. Don't use words you don't understand.

As it turns out there is a ton aof pressure to create jobs in Mexico. It's just not happening.

It's not happening because they can walk across the border through the remnants of the fence they helped build between our nations and just stroll over to where they can get a job. Remember, these are Mexicans, not some pussy-ass soft white people, they are hardened by their environment and can literally walk across our state as only our fittest citizens can do.

Just so you know, getting rid of illegal aliens doesn't really create more jobs. You can make 15 an hour and benefits working in some farm in the US, but those fields of food sit and rot because there isn't anyone to pick them.

That's because in the next state (or even just in the next town) there is illegal migrant labor driving down costs. If there were no illegals to drive down the price of labor, then the price of food would go up instead — and it needs to do so; we cannot continue paying ninety-nine cents for a head of lettuce. This is simply not sustainable in any way.

Seriously, your comment is just one big string of sophomoric mistakes. Please, try again. I know you are capable of doing better.

Re:Hey Speeedy, you want to go chase the pussy cat

[Dryanta]

SAME

Re:I agree

[mapkinase]

I know. Everyone knows. Liberals and army do not go very well together.

Re:Petty? O_o

[ilsaloving]

http://xkcd.com/123/

Engaging in one of my addictions ...

[reiisi]

... and posting a response.

Except I'm not sure how to respond.

God is real. No mortal is going to get his or her mind around God, but God is real. That's one of the problems with commercial programs that attempt to use AA principles, is that they are trying to "harness faith" to make themselves money. (There may be exceptions, but it would be a difficult tightwire to walk.)

The best way for an atheist or agnostic to understand God is to consider that acceptance of God is equivalent to the acceptance that there is something that matters outside of oneself.

Unfortunately, those who use faith to make themselves money (power, influence, agenda, etc.) are working directly against the thing outside themselves that matters. Which causes no small confusion.

What this has to do with drug cartels and bloggers, well, ...

We all make mistakes. Trying to punish the other guy for his minor mistakes is a bad idea, but trying to encourage him to make more is not a good idea either. And the definition of "minor" is always going to be a problem.