- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 30,791
- Reaction score
- 15,089
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You want to end the drug violene in Mexico.
Lock up the white people for possesion for the same lenght of time that black people in the US get.
It is a matter of supply and demand.
Get rid of the demand and the supply will drop
2. Lock down the border or only allow travel within a certain time span
So you're claiming that the Mexican problem with drug violence can be attributed to the US's crack-powder sentencing disparity?
Given that the DoJ is pushing for an elimination of the disparity, we can expect an end to all Mexican drug violence once that takes effect, right?
I am saying that demand for coke is higher in the white community then the black community (wealth and numbers).
The strong demand by white americans for cocaine pushes the supply by Mexican drug dealers into the US
You decrease the demand, the reward for the risks involved go down, meaning less violence. Overall not many people are being killed over magic mushrooms, or even LSD. But over coke and pot, quite a few.
Times are bad in Mexico, but the latest attacks are acts of war. I am not against bombing runs on the homes of cartel members for starters. The way I see it, if the Mexican government can't do the job it needs to do, then we should do it for them.
Article is here.
In absolute terms, yes. In relative terms, use is relatively equivalent across ethnicities. Of course, absolutely none of this has anything to do with the sentencing disparity which you're referring to.
Again, you're making the entirely unwarranted assumption that harsher penalties will lead to drastically reduced demand, and the additional assumption that said reduced demand will put an end to drug violence in Mexico. There's absolutely nothing to support either of those claims.
How many people speed on the open highway where the chance of getting pulled over for speeding is low? How many people speed in a playground zone where the chance of getting caught is quite high?
How many guys will take a piss in an alley way where they wont get caught, as opposed to taking a piss in the middle of the street?
For a casual user harsher penalties combined with stricter enforcement will lead to less use. It follows the risk to reward patern that alot of behaviour is based on.
The reward offered by doing coke on the weekend with friends while watching the football game might be worth getting a misdemenor charge or perhaps just a warning, it might not be worth going to jail for 30 days min
Secondly as the for the violence will it end it? No reduce it drastically yes.
Again, you're making the entirely unwarranted assumption that harsher penalties will lead to drastically reduced demand, and the additional assumption that said reduced demand will put an end to drug violence in Mexico. There's absolutely nothing to support either of those claims.
You really believe a reduced demand for drugs in the US won't decrease the drug violence in Mexico? Who do you think they are selling that crap to, the Mayans?
How many decades have we been at war with various cartels already? Kill one leader, or take out one cartel, and 5 wanna be's go to war to replace the one that got killed. It is war with a hydra, cut off one head and you get multiple replacements - and survival of the fittest means they just get bigger and badder. So long as there are billions of dollars of black market proceeds to kill or be killed for, then the cartels and the violence will continue, regardless of how ferociously we play whack-a-mole.
See, I don't believe that for one minute. I think that if we bring destructive force down on their networks, they require time to rebuild. We have to be able to find the plantations where they grow the plants to make the cocaine and heroine. Why aren't we napalming the hell out of those sites? I know we are capable finding their production centers. So why aren't we bombing these.
I also like the idea of bombing the cartel leader's houses. The more time they spend on the run or fighting amongst one another for supremacy, the less time they are spending running their drugs and killing civilians and consulate workers.
Sweeping, massive responses. That's what's needed. And leaving smoking craters everywhere we know to be a stronghold of the cartels.
Not that I don't appreciate your love of smoking craters and dead bodiescool , but if we could pursue a policy that minimized collateral damage, saved tax dollars, and perhaps lessened the overall incentive for criminals to participate in the black market, shouldn't we look into that first before we committed ourselves militarily to eliminating the cartels? Not that we shouldn't respond to this, I think we should send a couple SEAL teams to hunt these cowards down, but I think the more fundamental, underlying problems of the drug war should be addressed within the context of this recent occurrence.
Yeah, because that worked so well with Pablo Escobar. :roll:See, I don't believe that for one minute. I think that if we bring destructive force down on their networks, they require time to rebuild. We have to be able to find the plantations where they grow the plants to make the cocaine and heroine. Why aren't we napalming the hell out of those sites? I know we are capable finding their production centers. So why aren't we bombing these.
I also like the idea of bombing the cartel leader's houses. The more time they spend on the run or fighting amongst one another for supremacy, the less time they are spending running their drugs and killing civilians and consulate workers.
Sweeping, massive responses. That's what's needed. And leaving smoking craters everywhere we know to be a stronghold of the cartels.
A few easy solutions:
1. Legalize all drugs
2. For every American life, we take 100 of them start by bombing cartel leaders and their capos including family and friends.
Yeah, because that worked so well with Pablo Escobar. :roll:
I can't agree with the first point.
As for the second, however, I do agree. Make being a cartel leader a mark of misfortune. Anyone and anything tied to them becomes a target. Make association with a cartel leader the kiss of death, that being found in contact with one means that bombs will fall and bullets will start flying. The only question is not a matter of if but a matter of when.
I will agree we should do other things in conjunction with my approach, for sure. Take a holistic approach to the matter, so to speak. However, what needs to be understood is that we're not dealing with a country and its diplomats here. We are dealing with ruthless, cutthroat criminals and murderers. We can't be expected to use administrative policy changes alone to curb their activity. We have to speak their language.
I also like other approaches...attractive monetary bounties on their heads. Rely on their base human natures to cause division in their ranks. 10,000,000USD and asylum in our country in exchange for the head off a list of cartel bosses we want. Deliver it to any US embassy and once the kill is confirmed, you get the money and passage to the US.
But I do think our first response to violence like this should be a smoking crater at one of their homes. Actually, all their homes just to make sure we got the right one.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that without the Federal war on drug users (that's what I like to call it...:2razz, there wouldn't be such a large profit incentive for these cartels. Admittedly, my position is considered "extreme" and I'm sure many people roll their eyes when I mention drug legalization (incremental and pragmatic, of course) as a long-term solution to this problem, but I find it hard not to mention it given my position on the matter. I think, perhaps decades from now, Americans will recognize how truly damaging and ultimately counter-productive this Federal war on drug users is.
I have no problem with a swift military response in this specific instance, but as a long-term solution, it seems extremely costly and (in my opinion) fails to address the fundamental cause of black market violence.
See, I don't believe that for one minute. I think that if we bring destructive force down on their networks, they require time to rebuild. We have to be able to find the plantations where they grow the plants to make the cocaine and heroine. Why aren't we napalming the hell out of those sites? I know we are capable finding their production centers. So why aren't we bombing these.
I also like the idea of bombing the cartel leader's houses. The more time they spend on the run or fighting amongst one another for supremacy, the less time they are spending running their drugs and killing civilians and consulate workers.
Sweeping, massive responses. That's what's needed. And leaving smoking craters everywhere we know to be a stronghold of the cartels.
It's obvious that taking him out accomplished very little in the overall scheme of things and that all we ended up with was several other cartels in his place.Care to elaborate or are we just rolling our eyes today for the snarkiness of it?
It's obvious that taking him out accomplished very little in the overall scheme of things and that all we ended up with was several other cartels in his place.
So how many countries are we to invade and napalm with a scorched earth policy? Lets see.. Bolivia, Peru, Columbia, Ecuador, Mexico, all those are certainly on the list (we have been undergoing extensive crop eradication programs in many ofthese countries for decades, and have a very strong presence, as well as substantial financial outlay invested), we also will need to Napalm a few of our national forests as well :shrug: And this is just looking at the Americas and a few problem countries here.
Of course we have the issue of many known smuggling routes getting closed down just to see new ones pop up. Once upon a time it was the Golden Triangle.. we cracked down on that, closed off many of the orient routes.. then it moved elsewhere.. enter Columbia for the 80's we got tough there.. lopped off the heads of many a cartel there, they wised up, consolidated, outsourced and then we saw various banana republics such as Panama, Haiti ect, get into the act. We closed much of that down and cracked down on the Miami/Florida pipeline.. then things started coming through Mexico, with the Columbians still there despite all the cartel heads we claimed, killed extradited, imprisoned, ect., only now going through new middle men in Mexico. WE take out various heads, we foment a war between Mexico and the Cartels, the Cartels in fight, heads of Cartels get replaced regularly, and soon a couple of cartels are now multiple cartels, all fighting one another, trying to kill each other off - with little success.
And bombing a couple of houses and leaving craters is going to make a difference? There are people lined up waiting for the cartel heads to die, we are doing the traffickers favors when we take out the leaders, because that opens up a position for a new leader, or a few new cartels to get into the picture, take their slice of the pie, and start leaving their trail of bodies behind them. There is an endless chain of ruthless criminals that are well bloodied, and willing to risk death and to deal it out wantonly to get a slice of this multi billion dollar pie, we cannot kill enough to make a dent (and hell they are even doing the killing of their own for us). even if we do in one area, they just move somewhere else and continue business as usual.
The only way to make a difference is to starve them, and to do that there must be a massive change of strategy, and a massive rethinking of whether the last 40 years have made any sort of difference at all, or if rather they have made things worse by facilitating an environment where these cartels are encouraged -yes encouraged- to thrive.
All the blow up the bad guys stuff sounds good from the arm chair view but it needs to be remembered that these cartels have their own armies with personal on both sides of the borders. remember all the drug related court house bombings and assassinations in Columbia? Would not surprise me to see terrorists attacks by the cartels on American soil if the military goes in after them. These guys are underground fighters and dirty tactics are favorite tactics. Young old male female all legitimate targets to them. Like Mason said. They are not afraid of anybody and they are not just willing to kill they are eager to kill.
Moe
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?