• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mexico is just getting worse

Superfly

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
53,823
Reaction score
41,936
Location
~ Road Trippin’ Musician ~
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
What the heck is going on with Mexico? It seems to be getting worse. Is this country going to just implode? When the drug cartels clearly rule the roost, what can be done? Is there anything that can be done to fix this?


[video]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/47426255#47426255[/video]
 
The law needs to square itself away and GET INVOLVED and rule the roost instead.

:shrug: But in the US we turn our back on gangs that deal in the drug trade . . . so I don't think we have any answers, either.
 
Legalize pot and grow it in your backyard, then the cartels will be deprived of buissness and will no longer be better armed/funded than the Mexican army and police force.
 
Legalize pot and grow it in your backyard, then the cartels will be deprived of buissness and will no longer be better armed/funded than the Mexican army and police force.

Wait... get up off the couch, stop eating cheetos and do WORK to grown their own? Doubt that... there'd be a cottage industry of high end pot growers sorta like micro-lot coffee roasters that would do the work. If you wanted the run of the mill sensi, go to BJ's or Costco.
 
mexico has always been corrupt and dangerous...I dont see any way the govt will ever get control of the drug cartels...hell we cant either....
 
Legalize pot and grow it in your backyard, then the cartels will be deprived of buissness and will no longer be better armed/funded than the Mexican army and police force.

So they're our responsibility? Another nanny-nation that we have to support? We already give support each year financially to numerous nations in order for them to deal with their drug-trafficking issues that have grown as a result of our policies. That is not enough? It is not our continuing concern to mother others as if they are incapable of making serious decisions and turning things around for their selves. I guarantee you all our financial support goes to just further the cartels - and not the people whose lives have been negatively affected.

We have a right to have our own rules and regulations and govern our own laws as we see fit without having to fret over other countries and how it might affect them at all times.

If we enabled the open use and growth of drugs in our nation then what's next? Just how undone do you want society to become. . .really?
 
mexico has always been corrupt and dangerous...I dont see any way the govt will ever get control of the drug cartels...hell we cant either....

Actually, there's a very easy way for the government - Mexico's and the U.S.' - to get control over the drug cartels.

Legalize recreational drugs.

Legalize all recreational drugs and allow businesses to sell them to consumers. That way, the drug cartels will have to compete with Big Pharma for control of the recreational drug trade. Except that Big Pharma already has a leg up because 1) they've got lobbyists, 2) they've got marketing firms, and 3) they aren't tainted by massive murder and criminal activity.

Once legalized, the Big Pharma companies will have to compete with each other for control of market share. Except, unlike drug cartels, they can't do it violently. They can't just shoot whole towns of people dead in order to control a drug corridor. Rather, they do it through good ol' competition and through the much more peaceful legal system. Instead of narcocorridas threatening rival gangs at killing them in the street it will be lawyers threatening competing drug companies at suing them in court.

And as the recreational drug economy becomes legalized the governments of Mexico and the U.S. will do something that it's people need so bad at this time - to collect taxes on the drug trade. Plenty of tax revenue will come in and help the governments pay for itself. What's more is that less tax money will go to pay for anti-drug task forces, which means taxes can be cut or be used to pay for the prosecution of much more serious international crimes, such as human trafficking and sex slavery.

So there is, indeed, a way for the government to exert control over the drug cartels, one quite easy to do. That way is to take the drug trade out of their hands and put it in the hands of Pfizer, with distribution rights going to Wal-Mart.
 
I think that the best answer would be what Auntie mentioned - let the police get everything under control. But how would they? They have Presidential elections going on right now. I haven't read up alot on the candidates, but are they corrupt, too? Is it going to be just another warm body in that position, who looks the other way while 38 people are beheaded and stuffed into a car, or 9 people are hung from an overpass?

If this was happening in America, what would we do?
 
So they're our responsibility? Another nanny-nation that we have to support? We already give support each year financially to numerous nations in order for them to deal with their drug-trafficking issues that have grown as a result of our policies. That is not enough? It is not our continuing concern to mother others as if they are incapable of making serious decisions and turning things around for their selves. I guarantee you all our financial support goes to just further the cartels - and not the people whose lives have been negatively affected.

We have a right to have our own rules and regulations and govern our own laws as we see fit without having to fret over other countries and how it might affect them at all times.

If we enabled the open use and growth of drugs in our nation then what's next? Just how undone do you want society to become. . .really?

Our society is already inundated with legal drugs such as Prozac, Viagra, Marlboros, Budweiser, and Maxwell's House. Our society hasn't been undone yet.

Our society is also already inundated with illegal drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, heroine, methamphetamine, and hallucinogenics. Our society hasn't been undone yet.

Use of drugs for recreational purposes has been around since the days when a cavemen found something to eat that also made him feel kind of funny in some kind of way. That hasn't changed, and won't ever change either.

Let's just go ahead and let people use the drugs they want. Those who really want to are anyways. We may as well take the violence out of them engaging in that trade.
 
How did we come into a country populated with other people and take it over? How did we clean our nation up in such a short amount of time to where we are now considered the world's mother?

we might have been backhanded and smarmy - but we did it anyway.

They could deal with their issues IF THEY WANTED TO really get it done - but they've let it go for SO long that it's just exploded.
 
So they're our responsibility? Another nanny-nation that we have to support? We already give support each year financially to numerous nations in order for them to deal with their drug-trafficking issues that have grown as a result of our policies. That is not enough? It is not our continuing concern to mother others as if they are incapable of making serious decisions and turning things around for their selves. I guarantee you all our financial support goes to just further the cartels - and not the people whose lives have been negatively affected.

We have a right to have our own rules and regulations and govern our own laws as we see fit without having to fret over other countries and how it might affect them at all times.

If we enabled the open use and growth of drugs in our nation then what's next? Just how undone do you want society to become. . .really?

Who's talking about supporting? its not so much supporting as in not continuing policies that harm both Mexico and the U.S and fuel organized crime in both. Considering that the border is basically a warzone anyway it would be mutually beneficial.

And it wont "undo" society in the slightest, for starters illegalization does nothing to prevent use, I can get pot a lot more easily then i get can alcohol considering that bars wont deliver to my door (Not to mention the fact that alcohol is far more damaging to society).Furthermore the illegalization of cannabis actually makes it more dangerous. If you go to a 'coffee shop' in Amsterdam you are given a menu outlining the different strains available according to strength, how likely they are to make you anxious, whether inexperienced users should try them etc. If you buy from a dealer then you don't know what you are getting.

Its also the case that certain chemicals in cannabis are actually anti psychotic ,though these occur to a different extent according to different breeds, with appropriate regulation cannabis could actually be beneficial for mental health.

Edit: the chemical I'm talking about is called CBD http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/01/drugsandalcohol.drugs
 
Last edited:
Who's talking about supporting? its not so much supporting as in not continuing policies that harm both Mexico and the U.S and fuel organized crime in both. Considering that the border is basically a warzone anyway it would be mutually beneficial.

And it wont "undo" society in the slightest, for starters illegalization does nothing to prevent use, I can get pot a lot more easily then i get can alcohol considering that bars wont deliver to my door (Not to mention the fact that alcohol is far more damaging to society).Furthermore the illegalization of cannabis actually makes it more dangerous. If you go to a 'coffee shop' in Amsterdam you are given a menu outlining the different strains available according to strength, how likely they are to make you anxious, whether inexperienced users should try them etc. If you buy from a dealer then you don't know what you are getting.

Its also the case that certain chemicals in cannabis are actually anti psychotic though these occur to a different extent according to different breeds, with appropriate regulation cannabis could actually be beneficial for mental health.

Do you REALLY believe that they are our supplier of POT - because that's twice you've brought it up in this thread. No no - it's not POT that's in question (which I actually do support the legalization of) - no no. . . so cut that out because that is not the issue, here.

Your belief that it's about marijuana shows how little you actually know about any of the drug trade and what they're really fighting over.

Some weed - seriously :roll: Yeah - 49 people were just slaughtered and mutilated over some mary jane because it's so addictive and fetches a handsome price on the market. :doh
 
Last edited:
IMO, this is a complex matter. There are no easy answers.

First, a popular argument would involve drug legalization (hard narcotics). That outcome would lead to an increased supply relative to demand, bringing the price of narcotics down. In turn, the lower price would lead to smaller profits for the drug cartels. That does not necessarily mean that all would end well, namely that stability would return. Instead, if lessons from stagnant or declining industries are relevant, competition could actually become more fierce. If they felt locked into a declining narcotics business on account of their specialization, investments, contacts and infrastructure (formidable exit barriers), the cartels could seek to target the public institutions and competitors that they blame for the outcome in a bid to try to reduce supply. If so, the cartels could evolve into full-fledged terrorist entities and violence could become more widespread, not less. The trade-off of a potential adverse impact on productivity and health costs would also need to be considered.

Second, Mexico's government has primary responsibility for the problem, but Mexico's stability is in the U.S. national interest. An unstable Mexico has implications for the U.S. For example, violence could further spill over the border into the U.S. In a constructive effort, the U.S. could offer bilateral support i.e.., intelligence sharing, cooperation in dealing with cartels' cross-border operations, efforts to curb the flow of arms across the border, efforts to reduce U.S. demand, etc. Any bilateral agreement could extend beyond the issue of drug cartels to other common interests. Furthermore, the U.S. could also agree to offer understanding, not criticism, were a future Mexican government to impose a kind of emergency rule in parts of the country to try to smash the cartels.
 
I like the point that it is their damn country, let them figure it out. As a neighbor, if they come to us for help, I think we can swing something. However, we have no obligation or right to do anything until they ask us. And even then, it has to be in the best interest of our country. Until then, maintain the border. Strengthen it and work on our internal issues.
 
Looking beyond the aspect of drug legalization for the moment: the principle behind the idea that we should dictate our policies based on how it might negatively effect other nations would lead us to bowing to other's problems rather than trying to continue to uphold stability in our own nation and control our own issues.

At what point would we stop doing that? If we started ending policies because of how it might affect other nations then at what point do we stop being a nation to ourselves and our own values and instead start fussing more over how we affect others?

Where do we then draw the line? How much should we let other nations weigh in on our beliefs, values, laws and regulations?

The 'legs' that such a policy-change could grow is the crux of the reason why I oppose starting those types of policy reversals. don't get me wrong - I've read quite a bit into how it negatively affects other nations (not just Mexico) - and it's not just resulting in violence but in other areas it's resulted in the drug-trade being the only employment for young men - and entire families have been lost purely for the fact taht the young man leaves home to find a job = works for a drug cartel = becomes and addict = his money home to family stops = the suffer.

I'm well aware . . . and while very tempting to want to support a reversal just to enable these nations to pick up the pieces - I just can't do it at the perile of our OWN nation.
 
Last edited:
Do you REALLY believe that they are our supplier of POT - because that's twice you've brought it up in this thread. No no - it's not POT that's in question (which I actually do support the legalization of) - no no. . . so cut that out because that is not the issue, here.

Your belief that it's about marijuana shows how little you actually know about any of the drug trade and what they're really fighting over.

Some weed - seriously :roll: Yeah - 49 people were just slaughtered and mutilated over some mary jane because it's so addictive and fetches a handsome price on the market. :doh

Its includes pot as a major component, Mexican Drug War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And considering how ridiculously easy it is to grow, pot is extremely profitable by virtue of its illegalisation. Furthermore, though i admit to choosing pot as the arguments are stronger, you could apply the same arguments to cocaine, you would have far less deaths if the dosage was appropriately regulated.
 
Looking beyond the aspect of drug legalization for the moment: the principle behind the idea that we should dictate our policies based on how it might negatively effect other nations would lead us to bowing to other's problems rather than trying to continue to uphold stability in our own nation and control our own issues.

At what point would we stop doing that? If we started ending policies because of how it might affect other nations then at what point do we stop being a nation to ourselves and our own values and instead start fussing more over how we affect others?

Where do we then draw the line? How much should we let other nations weigh in on our beliefs, values, laws and regulations?

The 'legs' that such a policy-change could grow is the crux of the reason why I oppose starting those types of policy reversals.

On the contrary i would argue that its typical of certain quarters to argue against persuading policies that would be of benefit domestically out of the sheer terror that another country may benefit.
 
Its includes pot as a major component, Mexican Drug War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And considering how ridiculously easy it is to grow, pot is extremely profitable by virtue of its illegalisation. Furthermore, though i admit to choosing pot as the arguments are stronger, you could apply the same arguments to cocaine, you would have far less deaths if the dosage was appropriately regulated.

:shrug: I support legalization of marijuana and I dont' believe it would stop any of this in the slightest . . . so move onto other things like cocaine. And when that falls out of demand - then the next thing - and the next - and the next. You'd have to legalize *everything* - and then what? Do you think, if they're willing to wage a war on their own countrymen that they're going to just dissolve after being on top?

You could even focus on the drug production that is IN the US: like meth. If we already have an extensive amount of production in the US then what's your argument?
 
Last edited:
Legalize pot and grow it in your backyard, then the cartels will be deprived of buissness and will no longer be better armed/funded than the Mexican army and police force.

Then, the cartels will be dodging taxes and there will still be an underground drug trade, that is just as big and just as bloody.
 
:shrug: I support legalization of marijuana and I dont' believe it would stop any of this in the slightest . . . so move onto other things like cocaine. And when that falls out of demand - then the next thing - and the next - and the next. You'd have to legalize *everything* - and then what? Do you think, if they're willing to wage a war on their own countrymen that they're going to just dissolve after being on top?

They would have a hard time remaining on top without the funding that the illegalisation of drugs brings. Look at what happened to organized crime in the U.S after the end of prohibition. What cant be emphasized enough is that these products would be worth very little where it not for their being illegal. If you go to somewhere like Peru or Bolivia you will find that cocaine is very much a poor man's drug and is often used as an alternative to food, its only when it is smuggled to the first world that it becomes valuable. Legalization of drugs certainly wouldnt make the cartels vanish but it would deprive them of a lot of funding thus giving the (comparatively under funded) Mexican security forces a chance.

And for this reason the more drugs are produced in the u.s the better for all concerned. Its in the United States interest not to have Somalia II to its southern border.
 
Last edited:
Then, the cartels will be dodging taxes and there will still be an underground drug trade, that is just as big and just as bloody.

dodging taxes on what? there will be nothing as profitable to sell with all the competition that legalization would create.
 
dodging taxes on what? there will be nothing as profitable to sell with all the competition that legalization would create.

hmm - if we legalized all drugs and regulated it I doubt it would maintain it's current black market value. Liquor didn't. And of course - when everyone's legaly addicted to drugs then what? :shrug: No - not if young children would be the only victims left in the end to suffer any.

If we did so - society would quickly fall into all of it (again) and we'd be revisiting the 'good days when it was illegal and hard to get'
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom