The Genius Of Drug Cartels.

[Adama]

 

I think he is correct. We have fostered an environment were violence is necessary to protect the profit of "companies" in economic climates where there is little or no possibility for upward mobility in industries not involving the drug trade.

 

War on Drugs is a failure. Thoughts?

[RedArmy BushMan]

I think we (the US) have one of two options:
A) Make the marijuana legal (it's pretty much on the same level as alcohol). Instead of locking up the users/addicts get them the help they need. And maybe decriminalize the drugs for the user.

 

or

Declare an actual War on Drugs and storm into Mexico, shoot anything that looks like it deals in the illegal, drop 50 megatons of freedom, and then salt the Earth where they grow the coca so they can't grow anymore.

 

Personally I think option B it the more American way but not my call.

Edited June 5, 2014 by RedArmy BushMan

[Lambdadelta]

I think we (the US) have one of two options:

A) Make the marijuana legal (it's pretty much on the same level as alcohol). Instead of locking up the users/addicts get them the help they need. And maybe decriminalize the drugs for the user.

More or less agree with this. Drug addiction should be a medical, not criminal issue.

Drug-dealers (for the 'harder' drugs like LSD, heroin and cocaine) on the other hand, should be imprisoned.

 

Of course, while prisons are largely run for profit and a minimum occupancy is guaranteed by the government, this won't happen.

[RedArmy BushMan]

More or less agree with this. Drug addiction should be a medical, not criminal issue.

Drug-dealers (for the 'harder' drugs like LSD, heroin and cocaine) on the other hand, should be imprisoned.

 

Of course, while prisons are largely run for profit and a minimum occupancy is guaranteed by the government, this won't happen.

Exactly. We treat alcohol addiction like a medical issue, and drug use really isn't much different. The only difference is alcohol is legal, and drug addiction is harder to handle (which anyone lobbying for pot to be illegal and not alcohol is a hypocrit)

Agree completely.

[WISD0MTREE]

I think we (the US) have one of two options:

A) Make the marijuana legal (it's pretty much on the same level as alcohol). Instead of locking up the users/addicts get them the help they need. And maybe decriminalize the drugs for the user.

 

or

Declare an actual War on Drugs and storm into Mexico, shoot anything that looks like it deals in the illegal, drop 50 megatons of freedom, and then salt the Earth where they grow the coca so they can't grow anymore.

 

Personally I think option B it the more American way but not my call.

Really, we could secure the damn border and it will be better than it is now. There are some areas without a fence. 

 

But then I agree that B would work. I'd like that and enlist the first day... And probably end uo being the guy cleaning the guns. 

Edited June 8, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Lambdadelta]

Really, we could secure the damn border and it will be better than it is now. There are some areas without a fence.

Drug smugglers will always find away. The only way to stop the illicit trade in drugs is to remove the market for it.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Lambdadelta

[Adama]

Really, we could secure the damn border and it will be better than it is now. There are some areas without a fence. 

 

But then I agree that B would work. I'd like that and enlist the first day... And probably end uo being the guy cleaning the guns. 

 

Fences are built out of fear and xenophobia, not a real human solution to a problem worth solving.

[WISD0MTREE]

Drug smugglers will always find a way.

Yes, but there will be less smaller cartels because they mostly don't have the resources to tunnel, airdrop drugs over the ocean, etc. efficiently.

 

Fences are built out of fear and xenophobia, not a real human solution to a problem worth solving.

Double layered fences with motion sensors, IR cameras, barbed wire, and regular patrols work. 

 

Fear? I'll pay for your hotel room in El Paso if you show me a picture of you there. Seriously. 

 

You probably have a fence around your yard, too. 

Edited June 8, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Belisarius]

Yes, but there will be less smaller cartels because they mostly don't have the resources to tunnel, airdrop drugs over the ocean, etc. efficiently.

 

Double layered fences with motion sensors, IR cameras, barbed wire, and regular patrols work. 

 

Fear? I'll pay for your hotel room in El Paso if you show me a picture of you there. Seriously. 

 

You probably have a fence around your yard, too. 

 

Given that El Paso is actually safe, I think CMDR_Adama should take you up on your offer. 

 

Also, what one earth do you mean by "less smaller carters?" Are you referencing the Gulf Cartel (still wealthy)? Los Caballeros Templares, who's raison d'être is as much extortion of the people of Michoacan as it is with funneling drugs? Honestly, the big two cartels - Los Zetas and Sinaloa - already control a vast portion of drug trade into the US, with bribed Border Control agents and routes in tow. Do you think some high-tech wall would do anything? It will only raise the price of drugs, thus enriching the cartels even further. It will also further the entire cottage industry devoted to perpetuate the drug war.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Belisarius

[Das Bell]

US: Supplies guns to cartels.

Cartels: Supplies drugs to America.

 

Americans (and Canadians) love drugs. We are just as much a part of the problem as the cartels themselves. As long as there is a demand for narcotics just north of their border, they will always find ways to get it here. They use everything from submarines to house pets. There is no way to stop it. If you stop one method a new one is quickly created.

Securing the border is impossible. Have you ever seen the border? It is pretty !@#$ing secure as is. There is not much left you can do other than build a mote full of crocodiles behind a field of land mines.

 

I think we (the US) have one of two options:

A) Make the marijuana legal (it's pretty much on the same level as alcohol). Instead of locking up the users/addicts get them the help they need. And maybe decriminalize the drugs for the user.

 

or

Declare an actual War on Drugs and storm into Mexico, shoot anything that looks like it deals in the illegal, drop 50 megatons of freedom, and then salt the Earth where they grow the coca so they can't grow anymore.

 

Personally I think option B it the more American way but not my call.

I think we have long passed the threshold where option B is inevitabley the only solution.

But then where would we get all of our beloved drugs?

[Das Bell]

Yes, but there will be less smaller cartels because they mostly don't have the resources to tunnel, airdrop drugs over the ocean, etc. efficiently.

 

 

Double layered fences with motion sensors, IR cameras, barbed wire, and regular patrols work.

 

Fear? I'll pay for your hotel room in El Paso if you show me a picture of you there. Seriously.

 

You probably have a fence around your yard, too.

 

That is more expensive than it is even worth. We already have cameras, helicopters and constant patrols. The Cartels have actually found a way to outsmart all of this with very simple distractions and diversions. So no, it actually does not work. Edited June 11, 2014 by Das Bell

[WISD0MTREE]

That is more expensive than it is even worth. We already have cameras, helicopters and constant patrols. The Cartels have actually found a way to outsmart all of this with very simple distractions and diversions. So no, it actually does not work.

We have fenceless areas. We have cameras in peak areas. We have boat patrols in the Rio go by every 5 minutes. It takes 30 seconds to go across in a tube. 

 

Yes, the cartels have found distraction tactics. We need more funding. 

 

 

Also, funny how under Obama there is a severe drop. 

 

Given that El Paso is actually safe, I think CMDR_Adama should take you up on your offer. 

 

Also, what one earth do you mean by "less smaller carters?" Are you referencing the Gulf Cartel (still wealthy)? Los Caballeros Templares, who's raison d'être is as much extortion of the people of Michoacan as it is with funneling drugs? Honestly, the big two cartels - Los Zetas and Sinaloa - already control a vast portion of drug trade into the US, with bribed Border Control agents and routes in tow. Do you think some high-tech wall would do anything? It will only raise the price of drugs, thus enriching the cartels even further. It will also further the entire cottage industry devoted to perpetuate the drug war.

There are smaller independent cartels that are somehow not killed by the larger ones. More like family cartels. The high tech wall would make the cartels go underground. The family cartels wouldn't have the resources to do that and die down. 

 

>price increase

You just practically said that there would be less drugs by saying that. There would be less supply and the same demand, so the price would increase. 

 

And that article is by the El Paso times. 

[Grillick]

Also, funny how under Obama there is a severe drop. 

 

 

This does not show a severe drop under Obama. This shows significantly fewer in 2010 than there were in 2000 or earlier. There is nothing in the chart to indicate that the 2010 figures are a significant change over the period between 2000 and 2010.

 

How do you know the Bush administration is not responsible for the drop since Clinton left office?

[Das Bell]

We have fenceless areas. We have cameras in peak areas. We have boat patrols in the Rio go by every 5 minutes. It takes 30 seconds to go across in a tube. 

Yet most people who cross trek miles across a dessert and jump a fence....

Cameras do absolutely nothing because by the time border patrol can respond, the illegals are long gone.

And for boats to go by every five minutes would be outstanding.

What are you expecting exactly? Should we just place cops shoulder to shoulder the length of the border? I doubt more funding will make any significant changes.

Mexico is in a war with itself. People coming here illegally really have nothing to lose, so no fence, camera, police officer or motion sensor will deter them. The people smuggling drugs are promised amounts that even any sane person might risk their life for.

 

If this is going to stop, we need to be doing something completely different.

Im all for option B and Im sure most honest Mexicans wouldn't mind someone coming in and terminating cartels since their own government refuses to.

[WISD0MTREE]

This does not show a severe drop under Obama. This shows significantly fewer in 2010 than there were in 2000 or earlier. There is nothing in the chart to indicate that the 2010 figures are a significant change over the period between 2000 and 2010.

 

How do you know the Bush administration is not responsible for the drop since Clinton left office?

Nah, it is just more than ten times less in some parts... 

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-26-bush-immigration_x.htm?csp=15

Who canceled it? 

 

Yet most people who cross trek miles across a dessert and jump a fence....

Cameras do absolutely nothing because by the time border patrol can respond, the illegals are long gone.

And for boats to go by every five minutes would be outstanding.

What are you expecting exactly? Should we just place cops shoulder to shoulder the length of the border? I doubt more funding will make any significant changes.

Mexico is in a war with itself. People coming here illegally really have nothing to lose, so no fence, camera, police officer or motion sensor will deter them. The people smuggling drugs are promised amounts that even any sane person might risk their life for.

 

If this is going to stop, we need to be doing something completely different.

Im all for option B and Im sure most honest Mexicans wouldn't mind someone coming in and terminating cartels since their own government refuses to.

 

From what I understood, this is what the planned fence would be. Based off of Israel's fence. 

 

 

If you can video yourself getting across that (fix the filter) fence in Israel, I swear I will give you: 

My phone

My TV

My bank account

All of my PaW money

 

EDIT: I also clear as !@#$ stated that I supported B above. 

EDIT II: The filter isn't working. 

Edited June 11, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Das Bell]

Those depictions are lacking claymores, land mines and alligators but otherwise okay.

OR! We could just annex Mexico entirely. That way, we won't need to worry about a border and all the people who want to live here can just stay where they are.

[Grillick]

Or we could remove the illicit market for their products, let anyone who wishes to enter legally enter, and save billions on ridiculous border controls.

[Das Bell]

And how do you suppose we remove the market?

Waste money imprisoning more harmless stoners? Legalize marijuana so they ship over more coke and heroine instead?

[Grillick]

Legalize all recreational drugs.

[Das Bell]

Legalize all recreational drugs.

That sounds like a nation I don't want to live in.

Its highly debated, but they did that in Portugal. Some say it worked, some say it failed, I do not think it made any difference other than making it socially acceptable.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/2270789/

Edited June 11, 2014 by Das Bell

[Grillick]

Wow, I've seen poorly-written articles on the internet, but that one takes the cake. Not only does that article not do a good job of articulating whether the author believes "legalization" has failed or succeeded, but it also doesn't even do a good job of articulating that "legalization" has even occurred.

 

"[D]rugs have been decriminalised, with possession of small amounts not subject to criminal penalties, even though they remain illegal[.]"

 

Please tell me I'm not the only person who has no idea what type of policy this sentence is trying to describe. The only thing I'm reasonably certain of, though, is that it isn't the policy I was suggesting.

[Das Bell]

Yeah....

Try this one:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html

 

It is not legalized, but decriminalized. Meaning they will not imprison you for using drugs. The above article explains it better.

From what I hear from people who have been there, police almost never enforce any drug laws to the point where people openly smoke heroine in broad daylight.

[Grillick]

Yeah, the Portuguese policy is definitely not what I had in mind.

[Das Bell]

So then what? Total legalization?

[RedArmy BushMan]

I don't think total legalization is the way to go. Drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin, crack cocaine, Ecstasy, and many others are actually very harmful both physically and mentally, and the addiction for them is a hard thing to break, and stay away from once you're clean, especially if they were legal.

 

Marijuana should be legal since it is no more harmful than alcohol and cigarettes (hell some claim smoking pot is less harmful than cigarettes but until it's legal we can't test it and say for fact.)