• 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!

'Hit teams' attack US consular staff, families in Mexico: US

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
 
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

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?
 
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.


Of course if I was to make the decision I would make drugs legal, but controlled by the government and taxed heavily
 
I am saying that demand for coke is higher in the white community then the black community (wealth and numbers).

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

Instead of invading Mexico, we should just end the Federal war on drug users.
 
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. And it also comes down to risk and reward. Risking ones life to transport 100 kg of coke acrross the boarder for something worth $6 million when broke down for sale to the individual is worth it. Doing the same when you might get $400 000 (of course profit is quite a bit less for each person involved)

It is because the US drug market is so valuable that encourages the violence in the drug trade in mexico. Alot of money is being made, and lots of money means lots of reward for the risk
 
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.

Except it doesn't really work like that in practice.

If you traffic cocaine (powder or crack) in relatively small amounts, there is a mandatory sentence of 5, 10, or 20 years in federal prison depending on amount. That's pretty ****ing harsh. Despite that, prosecutions for both powder and crack trafficking have risen steadily over the past 15 years.

We already have insanely high penalties for these things. They don't work.

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

I think you're mistaken about how cocaine sentencing actually works. The disparity that you initially referred to only deals with drug traffickers, not casual users. In fact, the reforms that you're theoretically backing would actually have the effect of reducing punishment on low level users like you're referring to.

Secondly as the for the violence will it end it? No reduce it drastically yes.

Saying it doesn't make it so. I just don't get why you think this. We already have insanely harsh drug laws in this country. Why would making them harsher do anything positive?
 
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?
 
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?

Where exactly did I say that? Reread my post and the one I'm responding to.

I never said that a reduced demand for drugs will have no impact on Mexican drug violence, as I think it's quite possible that it will have some impact.

What I did say was:

1) It would not eliminate Mexican drug violence like LT claimed
2) Increased penalties for drug use will not significantly reduce demand like LT claimed
3) Any decrease in demand on our end will be minuscule
4) Any concurrent reduction in violence will be equally minuscule
 
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.
 
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 bodies :)cool:), 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.
 
Not that I don't appreciate your love of smoking craters and dead bodies :)cool:), 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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Yeah, because that worked so well with Pablo Escobar. :roll:
 
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.

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 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.

Anti drug legislation is unconstitutional. I agree with fighting illegal drug distribution of both Narcotic and Medicenal substances, but the use of drugs is a personal choice the goverment should have no say what you do to your own body.
 
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 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 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 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.
 
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.

Simple possession and personal consumption, I can see dropping to a small fine of no more consequence than a speeding ticket. I can budge to that point on it. I think leaving drug use wide open legally is a bad idea so some barrier of penalty should be there to curb it. I agree we shouldn't be wasting resources and tax dollars prosecuting users as real criminals.

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.

My opinion on the matter is that it's a criminal organization. It is not discplined like a military, there is no ideal or noble cause to keep it cohesive, there is nothing more than profit holding it together. If you can damage the network often enough and badly enough to diminish the profitability of it along with making it high risk enough in terms of property and life that it is a useless pursuit, then it breaks down.

If the goal of the cartel leader is to have massive amounts of money and a big mansion, cars, etc...and you keep destroying his mansion, cars, etc along with raiding his bank accounts through international courts and hackers, what reason is there for him to continue?
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Yes, but his fell apart shortly after. And if I recall correctly, he was killed in a manhunt using LEO. My suggestion is that we call out the war planes and troops to go to war with the cartels, not just hunt them down.
 
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.

That's a very "we can't" attitude. You have your approach, which is to mollify them by legalizing their trade and I have mine which is to destroy every nest of them we find and make their trade unprofitable.

I am not saying to bomb and stop. I am saying that we should respond with equal savagery and make joining a cartel synonymous with having a permanent bullseye on your back and the backs of everyone who has contact with you. Continual and relentless attacks on every known center of their activity.

And no, we would not be attacking "countries". However, we could be working with them to attack specific targets. Mexico, though, is obviously incapable or unwilling to deal with their problem and as they are directly on our border, I don't think we should brook any disagreement from them when we go after northern border operations. Period.
 
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

Very good post.
Many of the John Waynes here want to get us into another guerrilla warfare. After all we have always done so well against guerrilla warfare.:roll:

Going into Mexico would costs lives and another endless pit hole of money lost. Our enemy would be difficult to find as there is so much corruption among the supposed good guys that one could never trust anyone.

A better approach would be to take the profit out of their product so it would akin to selling illegal Girl Scout cookies. Remove the profit out by making it legal. Or simply shut down their delivery route by bringing home our troops and planting them along the border and having a real border.
 
Back
Top Bottom