On April 02 2010 18:31 Yurebis wrote: Let me try to clear something up. It's irrelevant trying to prove that drug cartels are government backed. Governments are cartels. You're "bound" to respect its laws whenever you happen to be in their domain. you're bound to pay a fee to them. If you don't, you go to jail or die. Now whether it's a good mafia or not, it's up for each one to decide.
But never think for a moment there is such a thing as "government v. cartels", more like "cartel v. cartel". Some more or less violent collective group v. another violent collective group.
The difference between one or another is only on the level of aggression.
Not true when you get to elect who is running the governament. "government of the people, by the people"
What if you remove the governament? It becomes anarchy, just like Somalia with tonnes of pirates, rebels, killing and raping.
Except that in the period that Somalia was anarchist it had an unprecedented growth in its economy, healthcare, education and pretty much every aspect,
Including forced amputations and bans on things like watching TV.
There is also evidence that Luna was responsible for killing six members of the Mexican Army and was the perpetrator of an attack against the secretariat of public security in the municipality of Escobedo, in Coahuila state, near the Texas border, and the subsequent attack on the then-secretary of public safety, retired general Hermelindo Lara Cruz.
The military also arrested one of Luna's accomplices, David Eduardo Fuentes Martinez, known by the aliases "El Chile" and "El Mantequilla," who was carrying an array of weapons, including a 55 mm Barrett rifle, commonly used for piercing through shields and other materials, said Notimex.
Full scale legalization of Drugs and Prostitution has the following effects:
Legalized drugs = Taxable and therefore less of drain on health care + quality control + Less warring between gangs over markets + less problems with traffiking + no spending on anti drug enforcement.
This leads to cheaper drugs, so crime is also eliminated on a micro level as well as a macro level. Prostitution is also less necessary as drugs are cheaper.
Legalized Prostitution = safer working environment + taxable + less stigma + less STD's going round
Absolutely no logical argument against this other than it's sinful, which is something that most governments are beyond by now anyway...Seriously, think of another reason it's bad? disregarding sex traffiking, which is hardly in great shape now.
Drugs cost pennies to make, and its the crime that makes them expensive and it is this cost that creates every drug crime problem there is.
Trade off for legalization? You have maybe some more addicts, but all of them live in vastly better conditions and are constantly within the system since they need to be to continue acquiring drugs and are therefore more exposed to governmental help.
Arresting farmers in Columbia who grow coca leaves is doing nothing, neither is shutting down drug labs. All lowering the supply does is drive the price up further, leading to all the above problems.
On June 16 2010 02 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 16 2010 02 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:44 Grettin wrote: I haven't read the whole thread, so i apologize if this has been posted already, but if not, worth bumping the thread.
On June 28 2010 09:13 Piy wrote: Full scale legalization of Drugs and Prostitution has the following effects:
Legalized drugs = Taxable and therefore less of drain on health care + quality control + Less warring between gangs over markets + less problems with traffiking + no spending on anti drug enforcement.
This leads to cheaper drugs, so crime is also eliminated on a micro level as well as a macro level. Prostitution is also less necessary as drugs are cheaper.
Legalized Prostitution = safer working environment + taxable + less stigma + less STD's going round
Absolutely no logical argument against this other than it's sinful, which is something that most governments are beyond by now anyway...Seriously, think of another reason it's bad? disregarding sex traffiking, which is hardly in great shape now.
Drugs cost pennies to make, and its the crime that makes them expensive and it is this cost that creates every drug crime problem there is.
Trade off for legalization? You have maybe some more addicts, but all of them live in vastly better conditions and are constantly within the system since they need to be to continue acquiring drugs and are therefore more exposed to governmental help.
Arresting farmers in Columbia who grow coca leaves is doing nothing, neither is shutting down drug labs. All lowering the supply does is drive the price up further, leading to all the above problems.
Problem solved tbh. But they'll never fix it.
Partially you are right. Legalized prostitution brings many benefits and reduces problems. About legalized drugs: true: Taxable and therefore less of drain on health care + quality control partially true: Less warring between gangs over markets + less problems with traffiking + no spending on anti drug enforcement; crime is also eliminated on a micro level as well as a macro level Drug addicts will still need money to get their stuff, so small crimes will still occur. Illegal drug smuggling will still occur; just think about cigarettes and alcohol (low quality products are smuggled to avoid taxation) -> gang wars might still occur most likely false: cheaper drugs Weed in the Netherlands isn't really cheaper than in Germany (though the quality varies). Most likely high taxations in order to reduce the consumption of the customers (like alc and cigs) Legalized drugs will probably reduce many problems we have nowadays but will not eliminate them.
Further problems: possibility: legalized substances will have less of a stigma and people will be less afraid to buy and consume them, leading to an increase in the amount of drug consumers. quesion: Should all drugs be legalized? I for my part believe that nobody should be allowed to consume shit like heroin and meth, because they fuck up your life instantly. Other people may view this differently, so which drugs should be legal and which not?
Also I thought that Mexican cartels were slowly moving away from Marijuana due to American "home growers" making a more quality and cheaper product and then selling it thus making it a waste of money to grow, ship etc for the cartels?
This is a video of a reporter that was reporting on a gun fight outside a mall in Reynosa,Tamaulipas. You can hear the machine guns and other heavier armor in the background. It was a gun battle between Fedaral police and mafia. Later soldiers arrived to help Federal Police. A few mafiosos died and so did policemen. It sounds like the middle of a war zone.
On June 16 2010 02 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 16 2010 02 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:44 Grettin wrote: I haven't read the whole thread, so i apologize if this has been posted already, but if not, worth bumping the thread.
Some insane stuff going on in there. God's sake they have shitloads of guns and money.
Judging from these pictures, it's just too logical that politicians don't want to harm such guys until it's too late, he must be a walking economic stimulus package. You cannot imprison him, he spends too much money (<3 capitalism )
I absolutely support further legalization of drugs, at least relatively harmless drugs such as cannabis should be legalized. The effort to supress it is just ridiculous compared to the additional damage it would cause when legalized. Actually, cannabis is not very dangerous to adults compared to legal drugs although there are many others which are even less harmful.
From these data I'ld like to see Khat, Ecstasy, LSD and Cannabis legalized. It's not like people would drop productivity (I hate this term) only because they could get their hands on cannabis. People get fired when they come to work drunk as well. It might be a bit risky, but overall useful (given the south american situation) if harder drugs would be legalized as well.
Also the Sheriff being interviewed is nowhere near the border so in affect he is lying.
Nice work, though I do remember hearing on some video when i intially heard about it (a similar news station report, this thread reminded me, those are the first 2 youtube turned up) that the cartels were going as far as 100 miles across the border. But certainly can't rely on the news for the truth, you've got that right
MEXICO CITY – The front-running candidate for governor in the violence-wracked border state of Tamaulipas was assassinated Monday, the first killing of a Mexican gubernatorial candidate in recent memory.
Interior Secretary Fernando Gomez Mont suggested the killing of candidate Rodolfo Torre of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, was the work of warring drug cartels whose battles have caused hundreds of deaths in recent months in the Gulf coast state.
"These events reinforce the need to combat organized crime on all fronts," Gomez Mont told a news conference. He refused to take questions.
Gunmen ambushed Torre's vehicle as he headed to a campaign event near the state capital, Ciudad Victoria. At least four other people traveling with him were killed.
MEXICO CITY — The drug-cartel enforcer told an unsettling story: A woman who worked in the Mexican border's biggest U.S. consulate had helped a rival gang obtain American visas. And for that, the enforcer said, he ordered her killed.
Nonsense, says a U.S. official, who said Friday the motive for the slaying remains unknown.
The employee, Lesley Enriquez, and two other people connected to the U.S. consulate in the city of Ciudad Juarez were killed March 13 in attacks that raised concerns that Americans were being caught up in drug-related border violence.
Jesus Ernesto Chavez, whose arrest was announced Friday, confessed to ordering the killings, said Ramon Pequeno, the head of anti-narcotics for the Federal Police. Pequeno said Chavez leads a band of hit men for a street gang tied to the Juarez cartel.