Poll of the Day > Newly-elected Mexican congresswoman kidnapped in central Hildago state.

(+) Yeah! (+)

This article is a year old but I think it is pretty informative:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/the-brutal-rise-of-el-mencho-196980/
---

Legalize tax and regulate the drugs and they'll have a problem with accessive tax revenue.

Obviously the drug cartels know this, because they killed someone who wanted to legalize their product.
---

Or, they will sell more of it, cheaper, and of "better quality". And will exploit legalization for means of more victims being addicted, and operating "legitimate" businesses as fronts to make billions of dollars to further aid their terrorism.

I say declare all drug cartels as terrorist organizations, and kill off every last member, with no exceptions.

Yellow posted...

Legalize tax and regulate the drugs and they'll have a problem with accessive tax revenue.

Obviously the drug cartels know this, because they killed someone who wanted to legalize their product.

There's a fundamental moral issue in regards to a government profiting from directly harming its citizenry. Frankly, one reason why we probably haven't seen greater zeal towards addressing issues concerning alcohol and tobacco is due to governments being beholden to the industries for tax revenue. Plus if we're legalizing harm for government profit, why stop there? You could legalize cannibalism -- provided that the person died either naturally or voluntarily -- so the rich could eat the poor, filling government coffers with rather literal blood money.
---

Jonathan Swift once proposed that modest idea...

Cannibalism? No, Cannabis.
---

Yellow posted...

Cannibalism? No, Cannabis.

idk, dude, could be the same thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2J7SKcsWnw" data-time="&start=306
---

Spain not looking so bad now, I think.
---

Gotta throw some blame at the victims after all
---

Yellow posted...

Legalize tax and regulate the drugs and they'll have a problem with accessive tax revenue.

No such thing.

Zeus posted...

Frankly, one reason why we probably haven't seen greater zeal towards addressing issues concerning alcohol and tobacco is due to governments being beholden to the industries for tax revenue.

No it's because prohibition didn't work.
---

Zeus posted...

tbh, I kinda suspect that the *only* way that Mexico will see the cartels put down is if they put aside their existing justice system and just treat it as an all-out war. At this point, you can't expect the system to work because the system is too deeply compromised by criminal activity and any reformers have a giant target on their back.

Dikitain posted...

Whole country is a goat fuck. Only way this is really going to get fixed is through a bloody revolution where the people fight against the cartels. Unfortunately they are too scared and would rather flee the country.

Not really a revolution, but at this point the *only* real fix might be -- and it's a place people really don't want to go (much like Mexico itself, outside the tourist resorts) -- something like Duterte has been accused of doing in the Philippines, where the government has organized vigilantes to hunt down drug dealers and kingpins. However, the cartels are presumably a lot stronger in Mexico which makes those kinds of highly amoral pragmatic solutions less viable.

Otherwise, the best system so far has been for cities and towns to secede from the government and run their own police forces although that's going to eventually become insufficient because sooner or later the cartels are going to force their way in there.

Wait, did you just propose two alternative solutions then describe why they wouldn't work? Umm...thanks for arguing my point for me?

It is up to the citizens because at this point the cartels ARE the government and expecting the real government to help just isn't going to work. And to all the people saying that the US should get involved, all that is going to do is put another "cartel" into power and we will be back in the same situation 10 - 20 years from now.
---

It's the governments fault for lying to the public about drugs.
---

Mexico needs the Punisher Mayor.
---

Did anyone see Sicario?

Fuck that was a fantastic movie
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

Did anyone see Sicario?

Fuck that was a fantastic movie

I did. I still remember the brutal wet willy part.
---

Mead posted...

Sad. Shes probably already dead and the cartels will likely upload her death. Why are we at war with ISIS and not the Cartels again?

American military could destroy rhe cartels but we aren't allowed to go do it unless Mexico asks us to

Zikten posted...

Mead posted...

Sad. Shes probably already dead and the cartels will likely upload her death. Why are we at war with ISIS and not the Cartels again?

American military could destroy rhe cartels but we aren't allowed to go do it unless Mexico asks us to

I mean we flat out invade some nations on the other side of the globe for worse reasons
---

Mead posted...

Zikten posted...

Mead posted...

Sad. Shes probably already dead and the cartels will likely upload her death. Why are we at war with ISIS and not the Cartels again?

American military could destroy rhe cartels but we aren't allowed to go do it unless Mexico asks us to

I mean we flat out invade some nations on the other side of the globe for worse reasons

The thing is that there's no good reason to infringe on Mexico's sovereignty. It does have a functioning society to the point that most Mexicans probably think of fighting the drug cartels as unpopular. This was especially true when El Chapo was free and he was a Robin Hood-like figure in Sinaloa. Flat-out invasion would cause instability so close to the U.S. which would be bad if Trump's fence is penetrable.
---

jramirez23 posted...

Mead posted...

Zikten posted...

Mead posted...

Sad. Shes probably already dead and the cartels will likely upload her death. Why are we at war with ISIS and not the Cartels again?

American military could destroy rhe cartels but we aren't allowed to go do it unless Mexico asks us to

I mean we flat out invade some nations on the other side of the globe for worse reasons

The thing is that there's no good reason to infringe on Mexico's sovereignty. It does have a functioning society to the point that most Mexicans probably think of fighting the drug cartels as unpopular. This was especially true when El Chapo was free and he was a Robin Hood-like figure in Sinaloa. Flat-out invasion would cause instability so close to the U.S. which would be bad if Trump's fence is penetrable.

Dude most Mexicans are fucking terrified of the cartels and their violence

Some of the stuff the cartels have done are far more cruel than some of the uses of chemical weapons that weve gone to war over
---

Mead posted...

Dude most Mexicans are fucking terrified of the cartels and their violence

Some of the stuff the cartels have done are far more cruel than some of the uses of chemical weapons that weve gone to war over

True. I was just pointing out why the U.S. probably would not get involved. I might be wrong, but Mexico is not fighting an all-out war with cartels too. That's part of the reason why in at least one state, the citizens have created their own independent armed groups for defense.
---

#BuildTheWall

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Frankly, one reason why we probably haven't seen greater zeal towards addressing issues concerning alcohol and tobacco is due to governments being beholden to the industries for tax revenue.

No it's because prohibition didn't work.

It was repealed for being unpopular, not for being ineffective. It's kind of like how we still have laws against murder yet people get murdered all the fucking time. The fact that people break a law isn't a reason in itself to get rid of a law.

Dikitain posted...

Zeus posted...

Dikitain posted...

Whole country is a goat fuck. Only way this is really going to get fixed is through a bloody revolution where the people fight against the cartels. Unfortunately they are too scared and would rather flee the country.

Not really a revolution, but at this point the *only* real fix might be -- and it's a place people really don't want to go (much like Mexico itself, outside the tourist resorts) -- something like Duterte has been accused of doing in the Philippines, where the government has organized vigilantes to hunt down drug dealers and kingpins. However, the cartels are presumably a lot stronger in Mexico which makes those kinds of highly amoral pragmatic solutions less viable.

Otherwise, the best system so far has been for cities and towns to secede from the government and run their own police forces although that's going to eventually become insufficient because sooner or later the cartels are going to force their way in there.

Wait, did you just propose two alternative solutions then describe why they wouldn't work? Umm...thanks for arguing my point for me?

It is up to the citizens because at this point the cartels ARE the government and expecting the real government to help just isn't going to work. And to all the people saying that the US should get involved, all that is going to do is put another "cartel" into power and we will be back in the same situation 10 - 20 years from now.

The cartels are NOT the government. I wouldn't even argue that the cartels are even running the government, although the government has been deeply compromised by the cartels. And a revolution against the government would do practically nothing because the new regime would just wind up in the cartel's pockets, and that's assuming you can even rebel without the use of the army.

As for the alternatives, I'm referring to one that's currently happening in Mexico and, to some extent, has proven viable as a short-term solution. However, for it to fully work, they would need to become militarized city-states (if they hope to block the cartels entirely), at which point the government will probably start to more seriously intervene. As such, the other option I mentioned -- which has its issues well (because *no* solution is going to be easy at this point and all of them have pretty severe drawbacks) -- is probably the more effective long-term option.
---

It was repealed for being unpopular, not for being ineffective.

Youve got to be fucking kidding. Not only did prohibition not work at all, but it led to the empowerment of organized crime that were still dealing with in this country even today.
---

The cartels are NOT the government. I wouldn't even argue that the cartels are even running the government

although the government has been deeply compromised by the cartels.

This fuckin guy
---

Mead posted...

It was repealed for being unpopular, not for being ineffective.

Youve got to be fucking kidding. Not only did prohibition not work at all, but it led to the empowerment of organized crime that were still dealing with in this country even today.

You've got to be fucking kidding. That organized crime *already* existed when it came off the boat from the old country. Which, by the way, is why they predate prohibition and didn't vanish afterward.

Mead posted...

The cartels are NOT the government. I wouldn't even argue that the cartels are even running the government

although the government has been deeply compromised by the cartels.

This fuckin guy

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Because you're not acute right now. In fact, I'd say you're acting isosceles.

The cartels are not the government. The fact that you believe they are demonstrates a pretty stunning ignorance. The cartels are not running the government either, although they certainly have some sway with politicians and officials. However, the government is rife with corruption which compromises its effectiveness, meaning that working within the law is difficult since officials and law enforcement will tip the cartels off in regards to raids -- activity which usually happens close to the *bottom* of the government, not the top.
---

Zeus posted...

It was repealed for being unpopular, not for being ineffective. It's kind of like how we still have laws against murder yet people get murdered all the fucking time. The fact that people break a law isn't a reason in itself to get rid of a law.

It was a bad law in general and never worked from the start.

Mead posted...

Youve got to be fucking kidding. Not only did prohibition not work at all, but it led to the empowerment of organized crime that were still dealing with in this country even today.

This is complete bullshit. Organized crime existed before prohibition ever did.

Zeus posted...

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Because you're not acute right now. In fact, I'd say you're acting isosceles.

The cartels are not the government. The fact that you believe they are demonstrates a pretty stunning ignorance. The cartels are not running the government either, although they certainly have some sway with politicians and officials. However, the government is rife with corruption which compromises its effectiveness, meaning that working within the law is difficult since officials and law enforcement will tip the cartels off in regards to raids -- activity which usually happens close to the *bottom* of the government, not the top.

Well the cartels are smart about this. They know to never do anything against the actual Mexican president so they stick to smaller fries. If they went after the president then the government would push back hard and ask for international help in suppressing them.
---

This is complete bullshit. Organized crime existed before prohibition ever did.

I didnt claim otherwise, but if you dont think prohibition had a major effect in establishing American organized crime in the larger sense then you could use some serious history lessons.
---

Revelation34 posted...

It was a bad law in general and never worked from the start.

Meaning what? Break that shit down. Is it that you fundamentally disagree that alcohol is a dangerous substance worse than a lot of drugs we currently ban? And by "not working" do you mean compared to most other laws which also get broken and have criminal enterprises built around them?

Revelation34 posted...

Well the cartels are smart about this. They know to never do anything against the actual Mexican president so they stick to smaller fries. If they went after the president then the government would push back hard and ask for international help in suppressing them.

That and you don't necessarily need to go after people making the policies when the people enforcing those policies are already in your pocket. The real threats are people with direct power to change things on a smaller scale, like mayors who could replace police departments full of dirty cops.

At this point, if a Mexican president was killed by a cartel, I wouldn't be terribly surprised and I rather sadly wouldn't really expect all that much to change.
---

The cartels are not the government. The fact that you believe they are

I cant argue with your point so Ill pretend you said something dumb and argue against that

Hes on a roll today, blood sugar must be low
---

Mead posted...

The cartels are not the government. The fact that you believe they are

I cant argue with your point so Ill pretend you said something dumb and argue against that

Hes on a roll today, blood sugar must be low

Oh, so I misinterpreted where you were going with your trolling? Because you need to troll more clearly then, especially if you're posting something that suggests that the two ideas conflict in some way. Or, you know, you could just stop trolling.

And I'm not even touching on the fact that a guy who made a topic about buying a large order of junk food would accuse anybody else of being diabetic =p
---

Zeus posted...

Mead posted...

The cartels are not the government. The fact that you believe they are

I cant argue with your point so Ill pretend you said something dumb and argue against that

Hes on a roll today, blood sugar must be low

Oh, so I misinterpreted where you were going with your trolling? Because you need to troll more clearly then, especially if you're posting something that suggests that the two ideas conflict in some way. Or, you know, you could just stop trolling.

Accuses me of trolling when he is the one that cant tolerate other views without replying with his incessant whataboutism
---

And I'm not even touching on the fact that a guy who made a topic about buying a large order of junk food would accuse anybody else of being diabetic =p

Ah yes diabetics, the only people who can have low blood sugar
---

Mead posted...

I didnt claim otherwise, but if you dont think prohibition had a major effect in establishing American organized crime in the larger sense then you could use some serious history lessons.

Irony.

Zeus posted...

Meaning what? Break that shit down. Is it that you fundamentally disagree that alcohol is a dangerous substance worse than a lot of drugs we currently ban? And by "not working" do you mean compared to most other laws which also get broken and have criminal enterprises built around them?

Alcohol is fine compared to a lot of those drugs. Marijuana is safer and should be 100% legal too.

Zeus posted...

That and you don't necessarily need to go after people making the policies when the people enforcing those policies are already in your pocket. The real threats are people with direct power to change things on a smaller scale, like mayors who could replace police departments full of dirty cops.

At this point, if a Mexican president was killed by a cartel, I wouldn't be terribly surprised and I rather sadly wouldn't really expect all that much to change.

They would definitely do something if it was a Mexican president that was killed.
---

Mead posted...

Accuses me of trolling when he is the one that cant tolerate other views without replying with his incessant whataboutism

So many problems with that silly conflation that one hardly knows where to begin. However, the most important one is that the two things aren't even remotely related so I'm not even sure why you're pretending that they are. Otherwise, writing off the acknowledge of historical precedent as "whataboutism" -- a term spread by propagandists so they can pretend that events with countless precedents are in fact unprecedented -- is an ideologically-driven intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.

Mead posted...

And I'm not even touching on the fact that a guy who made a topic about buying a large order of junk food would accuse anybody else of being diabetic =p

Ah yes diabetics, the only people who can have low blood sugar

Alright, I'll bite: What *else* do people prominently associate it with? Because that's the most prominent association by far and, if you didn't mean that and aren't just trying to spin it because you got called on what it was, I'm wondering what you actually meant.

Revelation34 posted...

Alcohol is fine compared to a lot of those drugs. Marijuana is safer and should be 100% legal too.

Out of all the drugs banned, it's fine compared to some. However, I was referring to the less-offensive things which, of course, would include marijuana.

Revelation34 posted...

They would definitely do something if it was a Mexican president that was killed.

Who would do that something and what would they do? The murder of politicians is routine there. If something was to galvanize the community, it seems like it would have already happened. I would expect tough talk, sure, and probably a fall guy, but it doesn't seem like the status quo is likely to change all that much. However, I'm wondering what steps you think they'd take, particularly since they aren't taking those steps now.
---

The relationship between government and drug cartel in Mexico is kind of mysterious. Here is an article that is almost a decade old but still surprising:
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/world/americas/15mexico.html
---

Zeus posted...

Who would do that something and what would they do? The murder of politicians is routine there. If something was to galvanize the community, it seems like it would have already happened. I would expect tough talk, sure, and probably a fall guy, but it doesn't seem like the status quo is likely to change all that much. However, I'm wondering what steps you think they'd take, particularly since they aren't taking those steps now.

The cartels have never gone after a Mexican president.
---

Viking_Mudcrap posted...

Hop103 posted...

Dikitain posted...

Whole country is a goat fuck. Only way this is really going to get fixed is through a bloody revolution where the people fight against the cartels. Unfortunately they are too scared and would rather flee the country.

The whole thing is so bad that it needs US military intervention to get anywhere. Any uprising that isn't an airstrike from a US fighter jet or bomber is going to fail. There's no money to be made there, so don't expect any military intervention.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why does the US Military need to intervene? It's not our issue. Mexico is not a state nor a territory.

The US doesn't need to go and solve every issue other country has.

A much better national security case could be made for aiding Mexico against the cartels than say...Iraq, but that's just crazy talk despite the common border and all.

Not a huge fan of intervention in other countries' affairs, but legalized marijuana stateside would deal a major blow to the cartels without a single shot fired.
---