the Mexican Drug War

Be safe or get out.

I'm sure Boogle would sponsor you to move to America for the chance that a little bit would rub off.

OG_slinger wrote:
Be safe or get out.

I'm sure Boogle would sponsor you to move to America for the chance that a little bit would rub off.

I don't know if Boogle is shooting for Mex rubbing off on him.

FlamingPeasant wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Be safe or get out.

I'm sure Boogle would sponsor you to move to America for the chance that a little bit would rub off.

I don't know if Boogle is shooting for Mex rubbing off on him.

o_0

Maybe if he wears ponytails and calls himself Booglina

But honestly it would be very hard for me to leave my home, and family and everything here, I'm hoping we can ride this out. Everyone's hoping the next president makes some deal with the narcos and things go back to being peaceful, but who knows, we might be past the point of no return.

It's crazy that making a deal with the cartels seems a reasonable option.

It looks to me like they've already won, and that it's more a matter of negotiating the surrender than anything.

FlamingPeasant wrote:
It's crazy that making a deal with the cartels seems a reasonable option.

Crap, yeah, I didn't even realize how bad that sounds.

Everyone supported the war effort at first (at least in theory), but the outcome was never in doubt.

They just have too much money, the government doesn't have nearly enough. A lot of poor young kids who are easily recruited. Add the corruption that they themselves promoted for decades, what can you do? It might really be too late. Just let them work, at least stop the violence.

Personally I thought the President's plan was flawed because his plan was to immediately start fighting the cartels, and his second step was to clear the military institutions from corruption. How can you fight any enemy if you can't trust 60%+ of your forces?

I think in one state they expelled 90% of the police force because of ties to the narcos :/

6 years into the war and 50,000 dead, and they're only now talking of laws to freeze property assets from narcos. Duh. And I think it was only because of that scandal where some US banks laundered money for mexican drug cartels.

edit: Wow wikipedia has a pretty extensive page on this, here's what I'm talking about:

"Following suit, in August 2010 President Felipe Calderón proposed sweeping new measures to crack down on the cash smuggling and money laundering. Calderón proposes a ban on cash purchases of real estate and of certain luxury goods that cost more than 100,000 pesos (about USD $8,104.) His package would also require more businesses to report large transactions, such as real estate, jewelry and purchases of armor plating.[272] In June, 2010, Calderón "announced strict limits on the amount in U.S. dollars that can be deposited or exchanged in banks",[272] but the proposed restrictions to financial institutions are facing tough opposition in the Mexican legislature.[270][272]"

The president's term is almost over (2012) and the laws haven't passed. No support for the war anymore.

And I think it was only because of that scandal where some US banks laundered money for mexican drug cartels.

I don't think this connection is accidental, btw. Aside from winding down the War on Drugs it's hard to not be cynical and see the end game for all of this. In my mind cartels are just illegal corporations that are arguably less ethical. Otherwise they're business operations with strict bottom line interests. It's hard not to pair that with other trends and say that governments are having a hard time functioning with corporations without either giving in or being completely owned and operated by them.

I don't mean to make light of the situation in Mexico. I can't imagine what it must be like. What I mean to say is that it seem like large groups of people organized solely around financial gain are hard to contain. I know governments have made truces with gangs before, but it's hard not to see this as dystopic.

The president's term is almost over (2012) and the laws haven't passed. No support for the war anymore.

Or the narcos own too many politicians.

This is the American government making war on the free market. The free market will always win.

Here is something I did not expect.

Thanks, Edwin. That's really interesting. This is one of those issues where I think the majority of the population is on the same side. This should be doable. It's depressing that there are people still standing in the way. Including the Obama administration. I mean, why aren't Phizer and Merck beating down the doors in Washington DC for the right to sell controlled marijuana they can profit from?

I mean, why aren't Phizer and Merck beating down the doors in Washington DC for the right to sell controlled marijuana they can profit from?

Pot is called weed for a reason. It grows like crazy, almost anywhere. Any idiot can grow it.

The semi-legal pot growers in California are very against true legalization, because they know the prices will crash. There just isn't going to be that much money in legal pot. There will definitely be SOME money in it, but nothing like what you're seeing now.

This would be a total and absolute economic win, of course -- money that's not being spent to either buy pot or to try to stop people FROM buying pot can be put to much better use elsewhere in the economy.

Merck's not hollering about this market because it'll be too low margin to be a good fit for them.

Malor wrote:

Pot is called weed for a reason. It grows like crazy, almost anywhere. Any idiot can grow it.

As DuckiDeva once said, "anyone can grow dumb weed, but it takes skill to grow OMG purple-haired weed from legend".

Sure, so there will still be a market, but it'll more like the market for say, ketchup, than the market for luxury cars.

You can make a lot of money selling ketchup, just not much per bottle.

Not necessarily drug-war related, but this seemed kinda F'd up to me.

Mexicans got a rare glimpse into the rough-and-tumble student organizations at many of Mexico's universities Thursday, after five bodies were found buried at one group's headquarters in the western city of Guadalajara.

Jalisco state Attorney General Tomas Coronado said relatives had identified three of the dead as high school students who were reported missing along with two other people last week after they complained that the student group was demanding protection money to sell snacks outside a campus.

gewy wrote:
Not necessarily drug-war related, but this seemed kinda F'd up to me.

Mexicans got a rare glimpse into the rough-and-tumble student organizations at many of Mexico's universities Thursday, after five bodies were found buried at one group's headquarters in the western city of Guadalajara.

Jalisco state Attorney General Tomas Coronado said relatives had identified three of the dead as high school students who were reported missing along with two other people last week after they complained that the student group was demanding protection money to sell snacks outside a campus.

That's in my town n_n

That particular "Student" organization is more like a local government-sponsored mafia, maybe not a cartel but a big player in scummy politics.

From what the locals say, those bodies are not the only ones they can find...

Tobacco and alcohol isn't all that hard, either. The government will tax it, but the price will have to low enough to make it unreasonable to risk arrest trying to sell it without a tax stamp.

Marijuana is not going to be a product for the drug companies, it's a way to keep American tobacco companies from folding altogether. Convince big tobacco that they will control the marijuana market, and you will see a more receptive legislature.

BTW if you saw "Breaking Bad", the band that plays the song at the beginning of one episode got attacked by a Cartel, their manager/friend was shot 9 times (edit: he's not dead yet apparently) and they barely escaped, they're going to the US.

That's insane, Mex. Do you know if it's literally retribution of some strange kind or just a coincidence?

DSGamer wrote:
That's insane, Mex. Do you know if it's literally retribution of some strange kind or just a coincidence?

Not a coincidence. The only confusion is whether the group has a hit on them too or if it's just their manager who was marked.

Norteño music artists have suffered a lot with this drug war, but what did they expect, writing about narcos. These particular guys have a song about how the Zetas kidnapped some guy and then he got a call from the 3 main opposing drug lords threatening him and they let the guy go (while he makes smug comments to his kidnappers), that's enough to piss off someone somewhere. Cartels are like football teams now.

It's also possible he just pissed off someone personally(dating their girlfriend or something) and he just decided to off him in a way that makes it look drug-war related. That's one of the problems today, you can have someone killed for a few hundred bucks, and with all the violence around, it most likely won't get investigated, or even noticed.

BTW I came to post this, mexican military vs narcos recording

Just a funny note: Mexico City government will lay off 135,000 cops throughout 2012 because they don't expect them to pass the psych profiling and polygraph tests and "trust" bars (or whatever they're called).

That's about 30% of the police force of Mexico

Negotiating with the narcos is actually becoming a campaign bullet point apparently, not directly but some strong candidates are implying how the "security issue" is not one of "violence and force" but of education and blah blah...

Well, to be fair this to me is similar to the War on Terror. Even on this message board where people are usually level-headed, you could get shouted down for trying to ask that people consider the root causes of violence. Not excusing terrorists or drug cartels, but asking the obvious strategic question. Why do they exist? Can we do something to undercut them by reducing their influence or relevancy?

This goes for the US as well, obviously. Since we're the big customer, it's our duty to take seriously the idea of legalization. The Mexican government, for its part, could stop "fighting" the cartels and allow them to operate in legitimate businesses once their drug empires dried up. That's obviously a huge if predicated on the US getting sane about the drug war.

Are we talking about the underlying causes of lawlessness in (especially northern) Mexico?

There are tomes.

Mex wrote:
Just a funny note: Mexico City government will lay off 135,000 cops throughout 2012 because they don't expect them to pass the psych profiling and polygraph tests and "trust" bars (or whatever they're called).

That's about 30% of the police force of Mexico

Negotiating with the narcos is actually becoming a campaign bullet point apparently, not directly but some strong candidates are implying how the "security issue" is not one of "violence and force" but of education and blah blah...

As much as that is crazy and scary, it's occasionally heartening to realize that this is what 'real' change looks like. It's hard to be serious about reform without taking that kind of action. I have hope that such drastic steps are not taken in a vacuum and the resulting police force (and military) are more capable because of it, despite the fewer resources.

Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable. Firing cops on that basis would be a terrible idea.

Jolly Bill wrote:
As much as that is crazy and scary, it's occasionally heartening to realize that this is what 'real' change looks like. It's hard to be serious about reform without taking that kind of action. I have hope that such drastic steps are not taken in a vacuum and the resulting police force (and military) are more capable because of it, despite the fewer resources.

Yeah I don't think anyone's complaining about cleaning up the police force, it's just that the president's plan from 2006 was:

1) Start a fight
2) Check who's going to help me win this fight later

He said this is how he planned it but oh well. Maybe the war couldn't wait until his forces were aligned.

Also it's a little worrying thinking about where those 130k people will turn to for employment.

A note about how killing is extremely cheap in Mexico compared to other countries. It's in spanish tho, but I hope Google translates it fine.

http://estepais.com/site/?p=27724

Basically, hired killers work per month, not per murder, and they earn around 1,000 dollars every month. Average life expectancy is 3 years, and one of the first things they buy is a plot of land in a cemetery, but most never reach that because they just "disappear".

Talking with your friends, you always hear about "this guy" or "a guy" that does jobs for 500 bucks, some even do it as a favor... But I always thought they earned a lot more if they got hired by a cartel, apparently not.

Life is cheap.

Doesn't seem worth it. I can understand it being cheap if it were also easier/safer but that's not a lot of money to only be around for another couple years.

gregrampage wrote:
Doesn't seem worth it. I can understand it being cheap if it were also easier/safer but that's not a lot of money to only be around for another couple years.

Remember the context, though. Mexico is not the United States. $1,000 a month is a lot to someone who has little to nothing and no job prospects.

Aetius wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Doesn't seem worth it. I can understand it being cheap if it were also easier/safer but that's not a lot of money to only be around for another couple years.

Remember the context, though. Mexico is not the United States. $1,000 a month is a lot to someone who has little to nothing and no job prospects.

Can be a lot of money for the family left behind too. Not to put a romantic spin on it or paint those guys in a good light, but desperate times make desperate people. Doesn't sound too different from being a suicide bomber.

Aetius wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Doesn't seem worth it. I can understand it being cheap if it were also easier/safer but that's not a lot of money to only be around for another couple years.

Remember the context, though. Mexico is not the United States. $1,000 a month is a lot to someone who has little to nothing and no job prospects.

Sure, but it's not "live it up so hard for 3 years that it's totally worth it" money.

Leaving money for the family left behind does make more sense.