NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just wondering what people on NS1 thought of this, will the drug cartels end up overthrowing the Mexican government? Is it possible that the government's war on the drug lords will end up causing it to collapse?

Do I see another civil war brewing in Mexico. Yes.

Do I see America sending the army to chase for a drug dealing version of Pancho Villa ? yes.

Do I see another civil war brewing in Mexico. Yes.

Do I see America sending the army to chase for a drug dealing version of Pancho Villa ? yes.
Seriously? The US would have some problems if the cartels won and took over, the amount of illegal immigrants pouring in, I think would at least be tripled....

I see an eventual collapse. I don't see any other nation doing anything about it.

Then what? I would have thought that the major drug cartels would have been run by people smart enough to know that anarchy is bad for business and running the government yourself kinda sucks.

I was just wondering what people on NS1 thought of this, will the drug cartels end up overthrowing the Mexican government? Is it possible that the government's war on the drug lords will end up causing it to collapse?


Why topple a government when you can buy it?

I see an eventual collapse. I don't see any other nation doing anything about it.

the US will get involved, just like we did last time. Unstable neighbors are bad for business. expect US to support a few strongmen.

Why topple a government when you can buy it?

Ah, the Chicago way!

I thought they were the government

Ah, the Chicago way!
lol. I live in a Illinois suburb of St. Louis, I'm all too familiar with the corrupt, Chicago area establishment that runs the state.

Where's the change, Calderón?

I thought they were the government
From what I understand, in many regions, they practically are the government, but the federal government of Mexico is trying to stop that.

The tourist for one support the new constitutional right to get stoned in Mexico.

The tourist for one support the new constitutional right to get stoned in Mexico.
Just imagine if the cartels won and set up some form of formal government in Mexico, there would probably be a lot of (US)Americans going to Cancun to get high....Especially students on spring break.

the Mexican government situation is also not helped when Obama cut most of their war on drugs money. turns out that was 50% of their federal police/military force funding.

Legalise it all and cut the cartels off at the knees.

Legalise it all and cut the cartels off at the knees.

With the power the cartels currently have, they can probably stop all of the government's legalisation attempts. If the cartels get powerful enough, they'll just buy the government, set up some sort of win-win money deal with Washington and then try and preserve the new status quo.

With the power the cartels currently have, they can probably stop all of the government's legalisation attempts. If the cartels get powerful enough, they'll just buy the government, set up some sort of win-win money deal with Washington and then try and preserve the new status quo.

While yes, the cartels do have a stong interest in the US maintaining prohibition, it's more to do with the professional anti-drug activist types. I seriously doubt the cartels could bring the muscle to defeat a liberalisation bill in congress. But the prohibisionists in the US who have an entrenched vested interest in maintaining said status quo are the ones who are preventing bad law from being repeal...

While yes, the cartels do have a stong interest in the US maintaining prohibition, it's more to do with the professional anti-drug activist types. I seriously doubt the cartels could bring the muscle to defeat a liberalisation bill in congress. But the prohibisionists in the US who have an entrenched vested interest in maintaining said status quo are the ones who are preventing bad law from being repeal...

I meant the drug cartels in Mexico using their power to influence the Mexican government. The US story is a totally different ballgame.

Then what? I would have thought that the major drug cartels would have been run by people smart enough to know that anarchy is bad for business and running the government yourself kinda sucks.

Why topple a government when you can buy it?
What they said. Bribes are cheaper than war.
Where's the change, Calderón?

More like Saurón.

I meant the drug cartels in Mexico using their power to influence the Mexican government. The US story is a totally different ballgame.

Legalisation in the US cuts off their knees in Mexico financially, as per my earlier post. If you want to reduce the cartels influance in Mexico, legalising, at a minimum, cannabis is a huge start.

Legal US cannabis = prices that put the criminal cartels out of business.

Legalisation in the US cuts off their knees in Mexico financially, as per my earlier post. If you want to reduce the cartels influance in Mexico, legalising, at a minimum, cannabis is a huge start.

Legal US cannabis = prices that put the criminal cartels out of business.
I've heard that a good deal of their profit is sending marijuana to the US.

The nominal government of Mexico won't be overthrown. It will just lose the ability to effectively govern in areas where the drug bosses don't want them to, and to control activities the bosses don't want controlled. Corruption will grow.

The best way to defeat the drug bosses is to cut off their money supply. That means US demand must be cut. Drug use must be re-criminalized. Users must be penalized. At the very least, drug users must be subject to the same social opproprium now directed at tobacco users.

Of course, a full-scale military assault on every home and facility operated by the drug bosses would probably also work. It may have to come to that.

Legalisation in the US cuts off their knees in Mexico financially, as per my earlier post. If you want to reduce the cartels influance in Mexico, legalising, at a minimum, cannabis is a huge start.

Legal US cannabis = prices that put the criminal cartels out of business.

and we'd get them out of our national forests

Legalisation in the US cuts off their knees in Mexico financially, as per my earlier post. If you want to reduce the cartels influance in Mexico, legalising, at a minimum, cannabis is a huge start.

Legal US cannabis = prices that put the criminal cartels out of business.

Oh, my mistake.

I was under the impression that most of Mexico's drug trade consists of smuggling coke. How much of their business is in marijuana?

Just imagine if the cartels won and set up some form of formal government in Mexico, there would probably be a lot of (US)Americans going to Cancun to get high....Especially students on spring break.

I think that is a bit naive to think that Americans would be showing up in droves if the Federal government of Mexico fell. Mexico is very dangerous as it is now. With a drug cartel running things it would be almost impossible to ensure safety.

As for the American reaction to this happening on the border. One word would suffice: Invasion.

Oh, my mistake.

I was under the impression that most of Mexico's drug trade consists of smuggling coke. How much of their business is in marijuana?

From my understanding Marijuana is the biggest money maker. Coke is however is overshadowed by a large amount by Marijuana. Legalizing it may in fact cut the cartels at the knees as suggested earlier.

I think that is a bit naive to think that Americans would be showing up in droves if the Federal government of Mexico fell. Mexico is very dangerous as it is now. With a drug cartel running things it would be almost impossible to ensure safety.

As for the American reaction to this happening on the border. One word would suffice: Invasion.
Reading my post again, I think you are probably right about American tourists, but I disagree about an American invasion, sealing up the border, perhaps I could see that happening...

From my understanding Marijuana is the biggest money maker. Coke is however is overshadowed by a large amount by Marijuana. Legalizing it may in fact cut the cartels at the knees as suggested earlier.

It's just that marijuana grows like a...well...like a weed. Why smuggle something that is light and bulky, inexpensive, and easy to grow locally, when you can smuggle something that is denser (more grams per volume), more expensive (more dollars per gram) and can only grow outside the US?

I was just wondering what people on NS1 thought of this, will the drug cartels end up overthrowing the Mexican government? Is it possible that the government's war on the drug lords will end up causing it to collapse?

There is no incentive for the cartels to overthrow the government. Why would they? Then THEY have to deal with all the foreign powers, international pressures, etc.

No - there's no reason why the cartels would want the government completely removed - they just need it weak enough that they can push it around for their own purposes, and malleable enough that it will let them. Effectively, the perfect situation for the cartels, is a puppet government that makes token resistance, but allows itself to be paid or pushed.

The best way to defeat the drug bosses is to cut off their money supply. That means US demand must be cut. Drug use must be re-criminalized. Users must be penalized. At the very least, drug users must be subject to the same social opproprium now directed at tobacco users.


You can't cut demand by saying 'no'. You cut demand by giving a better alternative, or by making it more profitable to shop elsewhere. The IDEAL way to undercut the cartels in Mexico, would be to start 'growing our own' on federally maintained farms in the US.


Of course, a full-scale military assault on every home and facility operated by the drug bosses would probably also work. It may have to come to that.

Yeeah - that worked so well on 'terror'.

It's just that marijuana grows like a...well...like a weed. Why smuggle something that is light and bulky, inexpensive, and easy to grow locally, when you can smuggle something that is denser (more grams per volume), more expensive (more dollars per gram) and can only grow outside the US?

Figure that Mexico Weed makes up about 40-50% of the US Marijuana sales. The volume more than makes up for the lesser costs of Marijuana. Also the general route for drugs into the US period is air and sea travel. That is the easiest way. The mail system is the other route. I am sure some comes by way of land routes however those are nothing in comparison from what I just stated.

Oh, my mistake.

I was under the impression that most of Mexico's drug trade consists of smuggling coke. How much of their business is in marijuana?

according to the bush admin's director of the white house office on national drug control policy last year, marijuana amounted to over 60% of mexican drug cartel profits from the u.s.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl34215.pdf

There is no incentive for the cartels to overthrow the government. Why would they? Then THEY have to deal with all the foreign powers, international pressures, etc.

No - there's no reason why the cartels would want the government completely removed - they just need it weak enough that they can push it around for their own purposes, and malleable enough that it will let them. Effectively, the perfect situation for the cartels, is a puppet government that makes token resistance, but allows itself to be paid or pushed.
True, they would have a lot of headaches of they tried to run Mexico themselves, but would they prefer anarchy over a government that is serious about fighting them?

Reading my post again, I think you are probably right about American tourists, but I disagree about an American invasion, sealing up the border, perhaps I could see that happening...

The US has an obligation in my opinion to make sure the democratically elected governments of both Mexico and Canada stay in place. Canada by NATO treaty and Mexico possibly by treaty too. If needed we should take active actions to ensure this. The US would have a very serious problem if either of our neighbors were run by criminal gangs or dictators. They wouldn't let it stand. Even Obama would do what he had to do in this situation.

The nominal government of Mexico won't be overthrown. It will just lose the ability to effectively govern in areas where the drug bosses don't want them to, and to control activities the bosses don't want controlled. Corruption will grow.

The best way to defeat the drug bosses is to cut off their money supply. That means US demand must be cut. Drug use must be re-criminalized. Users must be penalized. At the very least, drug users must be subject to the same social opproprium now directed at tobacco users.

Of course, a full-scale military assault on every home and facility operated by the drug bosses would probably also work. It may have to come to that.

http://gc.astrology.com/gc/starstories/4721/David-Spade.jpg

Hey Leeroy, I've got a word for you. It's called 'Prohibition'. Try putting away your Tolkien collection long enough to look it up on an encyclopedia.

There is no incentive for the cartels to overthrow the government. Why would they? Then THEY have to deal with all the foreign powers, international pressures, etc.


Pretty much this.

...but would they prefer anarchy over a government that is serious about fighting them?

No - because fighting off cops and DEA, occassionally, is better than having to deal with the occupying armies of another power.

The best way to defeat the drug bosses is to cut off their money supply. That means US demand must be cut. Drug use must be re-criminalized. Users must be penalized. At the very least, drug users must be subject to the same social opproprium now directed at tobacco users.

Wow, this is a brilliant idea. We should try something like that with alcohol.



Shit, why not with guns? If we ban guns right now, they'll all just go away and nobody will want them any more.

The only difference between the drug cartels and the current Mexican government is badges...

ok, I've mentioned it, I feel better now...

I was just wondering what people on NS1 thought of this, will the drug cartels end up overthrowing the Mexican government? Is it possible that the government's war on the drug lords will end up causing it to collapse?

I've been wondering if I should make this thread, but I'm glad someone else took the effort to do so.

First some facts and figures:


It is estimated that the cartels earn about $25 billion a year (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4684&page=0) from drug sales in the US alone.
6000 people were killed in drug-related violence in Mexico in 2008. Less US soldiers has died in Iraq since the war begun.
Calderón has mobilized 45000 soldiers to fight the cartells.
In the Joint Operating Environment study (http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/JOE2008.pdf) from 2008 (by the United States Joint Forces Command) Mexico is mentioned as a possible candidate in the category of failed states. Joel Kurtzman (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206674721488169.html) agrees with such a pessimistic outlook.
Roberto Orduña Cruz (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-mexico-police21-2009feb21,0,4765670.story), the chief of police in Ciudad Juárez, recently resigned due to threats that a policeman would be killed every 48 hours until he did so.
The conviction rate for murders and kidnappings in Mexico is estimated to be 5% (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1880450,00.html).


Now, I don't think the Mexican government will be overthrown - the federal government is alive, while there are some failing states in Mexico already. Like Chihuahua. Anyway, the cartels want to control the government indirectly, not take over completely nor make it collapse.

The economic crisis isn't making things better in Mexico, mind.

I'm not sure what's the best course of action ahead. Reducing the availability of weaponry (on the US side of the border) could have been a solution some years ago, but with the existing stockpiles that's not the big issue anymore. And with the involvement of the military, it's no wonder that they now get their hands on military-grade weaponry too.

As with many things, to a large degree this will all depend on what the new Obama administrations choses to do.

You can't cut demand by saying 'no'.

So, if people who consume a product decide to say "no" to further consumption, that won't cut demand? Dang, why didn't I think of that? :rolleyes:

You cut demand by giving a better alternative, or by making it more profitable to shop elsewhere.

How's that working with tobacco?

The IDEAL way to undercut the cartels in Mexico, would be to start 'growing our own' on federally maintained farms in the US.

Right. Make dope readily available from domestic suppliers in the US, who would of course be invulnerable to control from pre-existing or newly-arising drug cartels. Brilliant.

Yeeah - that worked so well on 'terror'.

Yes, it did. And it is.

Oops, I forgot. For every drug boss you kill, ten more will take his place. Just like with Moslem terrorists. :rolleyes:

http://gc.astrology.com/gc/starstories/4721/David-Spade.jpg

Hey Leeroy, I've got a word for you. It's called 'Prohibition'. Try putting away your Tolkien collection long enough to look it up on an encyclopedia.

Hey Zippy, I've got two words for you: NO SMOKING. Try putting your bong down long enough to look up anti-smoking ordinances on-line.

Hey Zippy, I've got two words for you: NO SMOKING. Try putting your bong down long enough to look up anti-smoking ordinances on-line.

And yet, tobacco sales have gone down. Oh wait.


By they way, reported.

The best way to defeat the drug bosses is to cut off their money supply. That means US demand must be cut. Drug use must be re-criminalized. Users must be penalized. At the very least, drug users must be subject to the same social opproprium now directed at tobacco users.

or we could do something that doesn't involve locking up an even more obscenely large portion of the people than we do right now. like completely undermine the drug cartels' money supply by getting rid of the risk-premium prices they get currently.

Hey Zippy, I've got two words for you: NO SMOKING. Try putting your bong down long enough to look up anti-smoking ordinances on-line.

Smoking marijuana is illegal. Apparently people still do it. A lot. Consequently, we can safely say that criminalising consumption is not an effective way to get rid of demand.

Hey Zippy, I've got two words for you: NO SMOKING.
We can differentiate between outright prohibition of a substance, and limited bans on using said substance in certain public places.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_the_EZLN.svg/450px-Flag_of_the_EZLN.svg.png

So, if people who consume a product decide to say "no" to further consumption, that won't cut demand? Dang, why didn't I think of that? :rolleyes:


Individuals can opt out, but that's not what you were talking about, now, was it?

Would you like me to go back and find your actual post, so I can quote what you actually said?


How's that working with tobacco?


A product with which it's not actually been tried? Let me think...



If it's legal, and federally regulated it won't be invulnerable... but it'd be a lot LESS vulnerable.

And the taxes would fund the US, rather than foreign cartels... where' the DISadvantage?

[QUOTE=New Mitanni;14600662]
Yes, it did. And it is.


Which is why the 'war on terror' is over now, yes?


Oops, I forgot. For every drug boss you kill, ten more will take his place. Just like with Moslem terrorists. :rolleyes:

You didn't forget that - you just didn't allow for it. You're right, though - there is a potentially limitless supply of people who are willing to sell their adherence to the law, their adherence to the moral rules, to the values of society... for a price.

Right. Make dope readily available from domestic suppliers in the US, who would of course be invulnerable to control from pre-existing or newly-arising drug cartels. Brilliant.

Are you suggesting that existing drug cartels in America can influence the US government? Because they'd have to to gain any control over federally maintained farms.

Then what? I would have thought that the major drug cartels would have been run by people smart enough to know that anarchy is bad for business and running the government yourself kinda sucks.
Havn't been paying attention to South America for the past 20 years then?

lets see. Mexico has oil. if the drug cartelstake over it is justification to invade right?

lets see. Mexico has oil. if the drug cartelstake over it is justification to invade right?

lets just make sure we only take the oil rich parts, and not the whole thing...we dont want another iraq on our hands, lol...

I was just wondering what people on NS1 thought of this, will the drug cartels end up overthrowing the Mexican government? Is it possible that the government's war on the drug lords will end up causing it to collapse?

surely a corrupt or puppet legally recognised government is far better for the cartels than making their own. i'm not saying that's how the Mexican government is now (i really don't have a clue), but surely civil war would be costly and less effective for the cartels than a few well placed people and a bunch of bribes.

lets just make sure we only take the oil rich parts, and not the whole thing...we dont want another iraq on our hands, lol...

good news. most of Mexico oil is off shore. those oil rigs need democracy.

good news. most of Mexico oil is off shore. those oil rigs need democracy.

Sweet, we should encourage the downfall of the Mexican government and just take the rigs, lol...

Sweet, we should encourage the downfall of the Mexican government and just take the rigs, lol...

If OBama doesnt do it he is soft on terrorism and drugs.

If OBama doesnt do it he is soft on terrorism and drugs.

Sauron is a closet Mozlem, why would he be hard on terrorism?

It's just that marijuana grows like a...well...like a weed. Why smuggle something that is light and bulky, inexpensive, and easy to grow locally, when you can smuggle something that is denser (more grams per volume), more expensive (more dollars per gram) and can only grow outside the US?
Because honestly, who's pathetic enough to kill over pot?

In other words, while cocaine would make more money, there's a much higher chance you'd get killed before you could reap the rewards.

If OBama doesnt do it he is soft on terrorism and drugs.
He's talking about sending the NATIONAL GUARD to the border because it's spilling over into border towns.

He's talking about sending the NATIONAL GUARD to the border because it's spilling over into border towns.

Is that all he's going to do? Mexican Cartel-related violence has already spilled into the US and Canada, CANADA, and he's merely trying to block their access? If Bush was that weak instead of merely being Cheney's puppet, we'd have troops on planes while letting Osama work on making Afghanistan his oppressive Islamic "paradise".

If you want to protect a country, sometimes you have to destroy its enemies. You've got to shoot down more Cartel planes, blow up their bridges, burn down their crops, poison their water supply, and deliver a plague upon their houses. Spongebob's Bubble Buddy did it. You can trust sentient objects that have no business being sentient, can't you?

He's talking about sending the NATIONAL GUARD to the border because it's spilling over into border towns.

and i am talking about occupying off shore oil rigs.
the boarder towns can take care of themselves thanks to the 2nd amendment.

and i am talking about occupying off shore oil rigs.
the boarder towns can take care of themselves thanks to the 2nd amendment.

But guns are bad. The Democrats said so. They kill innocent muggers and hard-working nutjobs who only want to kill people. Plus, if the Democrats want to impose a new Socialist/Communist order on a populous that likes Capitalism, how can they do it if government "peacekeepers" can't go door to door to collect "super happy funtime funds"?

The Republicans, meanwhile, devised a different strategy for oppression. Basically, you give everyone guns and make everyone hate eachother. Then, when the time is right, you send troops to oppress the hell out of the survivors.

To help solve the Cartel problem, you secretly give the weaker Cartels funds and weaponry. Then, you force the Cartels to fight eachother bitterly until the survivors are weak from fighting. That's when you send in the tanks. And mimes. Nothing says cover like invisible bullet/bomb proof walls.

and i am talking about occupying off shore oil rigs.
the boarder towns can take care of themselves thanks to the 2nd amendment.
Yes, because the combat training of a bunch of backwater gun nuts is equal to that of the national guard.

The cartels can afford to train their people and arm them really well. Even if everyone in the towns had a gun, itd probably be a slaughter.
To help solve the Cartel problem, you secretly give the weaker Cartels funds and weaponry. Then, you force the Cartels to fight eachother bitterly until the survivors are weak from fighting. That's when you send in the tanks. And mimes. Nothing says cover like invisible bullet/bomb proof walls.
Oh yes, because arming groups and playing them against each other worked real well in the past.

Yes, because the combat training of a bunch of backwater gun nuts is equal to that of the national guard.
.

You obviously havent met enough backwater gun nuts :p

You obviously havent met enough backwater gun nuts :p

No, I have. They can hit a target well.

But there is more to combat than that.

and i am talking about occupying off shore oil rigs.
the boarder towns can take care of themselves thanks to the 2nd amendment.

Phoenix has a problem with kidnappings that hsn't been taken care of, even with the existence of the 2nd amendment.

It was Phoenix, after all: More ransom kidnappings happen here than in any other town in America, according to local and federal law enforcement authorities. Most every victim and suspect is connected to the drug-smuggling world, usually tracing back to the western Mexican state of Sinaloa, Phoenix police report.

Arizona has become the new drug gateway into the United States. Roughly half of all marijuana seized along the U.S.-Mexico border was taken on the state's 370-mile border with Mexico.

One result is an epidemic of kidnapping that many residents are barely aware of. Indeed, most every other crime here is down. But police received 366 kidnapping-for-ransom reports last year, and 359 in 2007. Police estimate twice that number go unreported.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drug-kidnappings12-2009feb12,0,1264800.story

Drug cartels don't want to be bothered by overtaking the gov, they just want to strong arm and get their way behind the scenes. Unless this drug lord is like Pablo Escobar.. which I doubt.

Then what? I would have thought that the major drug cartels would have been run by people smart enough to know that anarchy is bad for business and running the government yourself kinda sucks.

surely a corrupt or puppet legally recognised government is far better for the cartels than making their own. i'm not saying that's how the Mexican government is now (i really don't have a clue), but surely civil war would be costly and less effective for the cartels than a few well placed people and a bunch of bribes.

What i was trying to say lol

Phoenix has a problem with kidnappings that hsn't been taken care of, even with the existence of the 2nd amendment.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drug-kidnappings12-2009feb12,0,1264800.story

that's just because those Arizonians are too pansy to have a mandatory concealed carry law.

Though I wouldn't call Phoenix a boarder town. over 150 miles from the boarder. and a large city Tuscon between it and the boarder. A boarder town would be like Nogales.

National guard really couldn't help Tuscon, and really couldn't help in general since shooting a drug dealer gets you tossed in prison.

Oh yes, because arming groups and playing them against each other worked real well in the past.

The point of arming the weaker Cartels is to weaken their stronger rivals through attrition. Plus you have to strike when everyone is weak and low on ammo. The plan only works if you do it all the way. If you just send everyone guns without the "cleanup" afterwards, then all you've done is weeded out the weak. This is why antibiotic overuse is actually worse than antibiotic underuse. You've weeded out nothing but the weak while the strong and most harmful remained free to, well, harm.

that's just because those Arizonians are too pansy to have a mandatory concealed carry law.

Though I wouldn't call Phoenix a boarder town. over 150 miles from the boarder. and a large city Tuscon between it and the boarder. A boarder town would be like Nogales.

Shows just how far inland the problems are reaching.

Shows just how far inland the problems are reaching.

deploying national guard along the boarder is nothing new anyways. it was done in the 1990's , and somewhat during Bush's administration.
It might help for a little bit but the smuggling operations change locations and operating procedures. Then once the military guys shoot someone it causes issues with Mexico. And the press has a field day, then some jacks ass gets on Tv going on and on about Posse Comitatus act.

It's just that marijuana grows like a...well...like a weed. Why smuggle something that is light and bulky, inexpensive, and easy to grow locally, when you can smuggle something that is denser (more grams per volume), more expensive (more dollars per gram) and can only grow outside the US?

Roughly 1 in 4 people use Pot, and because of its legal status its very difficult to keep enough for your own use if you are a habitual user (I know people who smoke pot like some people smoke ciggarettes) The number of people who habitually use something they know is dangerous like cocaine is much smaller. Cannibus is where the money is GoG.

I don't use it but I'm all for legalizing it, the amount of money saved by the government of the US, and the amount of money that large cartels would lose are totally worth it.

Roughly 1 in 4 people use Pot, and because of its legal status its very difficult to keep enough for your own use if you are a habitual user (I know people who smoke pot like some people smoke ciggarettes) The number of people who habitually use something they know is dangerous like cocaine is much smaller. Cannibus is where the money is GoG.

I don't use it but I'm all for legalizing it, the amount of money saved by the government of the US, and the amount of money that large cartels would lose are totally worth it.

are you kidding. I am making plans to occupy the oil rigs once the government of Mexico collapses. I intend to call my place the Islands of Sealand. Get recognition from the US by selling oil directly to them. Get the oil companies to go along with it by taxing them less then Mexico did and removing all regulations form them. And using 90% of the tax money to outfit a military to protect the oil industry.

No.

Worst case scenario sees the US sending ground troops into Mexico to stabilize the country.

No.

Worst case scenario sees the US sending ground troops into Mexico to stabilize the country.

Mexican suicide bombers? Mexican IEDs? Mexican homemade rockets hitting Texas? Poisoning the water ? Oh wait n/m on that one,


When do we start?

Mexican suicide bombers? Mexican IEDs? Poison the water? Oh wait...

Yeah, you're right, the water's already been taken care of.

Mexico isn't the only nation being destroyed by the U.S.'s insane War on Drugs. Colombia and Brazil, are too. Many Brazilian cities - and especially the favelas - have become virtual warzones.

When do we start?

During their siestas... :D

Roughly 1 in 4 people use Pot, and because of its legal status its very difficult to keep enough for your own use if you are a habitual user (I know people who smoke pot like some people smoke ciggarettes) The number of people who habitually use something they know is dangerous like cocaine is much smaller. Cannibus is where the money is GoG.

I don't use it but I'm all for legalizing it, the amount of money saved by the government of the US, and the amount of money that large cartels would lose are totally worth it.

Legalisation of marijuana in the US, even if we pretend that would happen soon, would not directly affect the current violence in Mexico. I'll explain why.

We have several drugs that the cartels deal in. Cocaine, marijuana and some others. Some of these drugs can be made locally, like marijuana or crystal meth. Others need to be made form plants that only grow in certain areas, like cocaine or heroin. So these drugs need to be smuggled in. Now, most of the cocaine consumed in the US comes from Latin America. And it is smuggled in over the Mexico/US border.

This is very important because this is what all the figthing in Mexico is about: control of the smuggling routes in the north of Mexico. And these smuggling routes aren't used to smuggle marijuana. Marijuana is grown locally by organised crime.

Now, there is an indirect effect. Many of the cartels involved in the current violence in Mexico are also the same cartels that are growing and selling marijuana in the US. So, if the US legalises marijuana, then the cartels would lose a portion of their income. This would, of course, mean that they can't buy as much guns, etc.

But cocaine would still be illegal. They would still have that market. That demand for their product and that supply of cash. So, legalisation would only be an effective solution if the cartels made most of their money from marijuana.

The point of arming the weaker Cartels is to weaken their stronger rivals through attrition. Plus you have to strike when everyone is weak and low on ammo. The plan only works if you do it all the way. If you just send everyone guns without the "cleanup" afterwards, then all you've done is weeded out the weak. This is why antibiotic overuse is actually worse than antibiotic underuse. You've weeded out nothing but the weak while the strong and most harmful remained free to, well, harm.

You should tell our military commanders this. Im sure theyve never tried it before.

The drug violence in Mexico has not changed as of late. There is no danger that the government of Mexico will be overthrown.

Even if there was, what interest do the cartels have in governing?

The drug violence in Mexico has not changed as of late.

Actually, it has. Its gotten worse with the last month or so.

Even if there was, what interest do the cartels have in governing?

power... wealth... control...

"governing" does not mean belevolent to the people. ;)

Actually, it has. Its gotten worse with the last month or so.

Mexican crime statistics indicate a 300% increase in drug-related murders from 2007 to 2008. Last year alone, more than 6000 people were murdered in drug-related crimes. These “drug-related” crimes have affected innocent bystanders, families of police and cartel members, and American citizens. The prospect of an optimistic 2009 has failed to come to fruition despite Mexican government efforts and massive U.S. aid. Approximately 800 drug-related murders have occurred already this year, far exceeding last year’s pace. However, the Mexican government still attempts to maintain an optimistic perspective of their efforts.

In 2008, 6,000 people died in drug violence in Mexico, according to President Felipe Calderon. This was almost double the 3,042 who died in drug-related violence in 2007.

If the violence is judged by the number of homicides linked to organised crime, the situation appears extremely serious. There were approximately 6,000 such murders in Mexico in 2008. That figure is similar to the number of US soldiers and civilians killed in Iraq in the same year. The rate appears to be increasing in 2009, with Mexican media reporting that by mid-February, there had been 1,000 killings. Government officials say that the statistics need to be seen in context, and suggest that nine out of 10 of all the deaths involve people connected with the drug trade, or law enforcement officials.

There are two main points of view on this. The Mexican government's position is that the violence, however regrettable, can be seen as a reflection of the success of its policy of taking a hard line against drug running. It suggests that the "monster" has been wounded, and what we are witnessing is a brutal fight between leaderless cartels for fewer spoils. But others argue that the cartels have become so powerful that they effectively control some parts of the country, and the violence, which is getting worse, is evidence of their gang law.

President Felipe Calderón claims that his nation’s efforts have yielded the highest drug seizure and arrest rates in recent years. While such claims are supported by statistics, the level of corruption and drug-related crime rates still paint a grim picture for Mexico Furthermore, Calderón’s battle for control over the cartels has yielded unintended consequences.

I have three sources, all of which essentially say different things, and there are no raw statistics for me to work with.

http://stanfordreview.org/article/brewing-storm-mexican-drug-cartels-and-growing-vio/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7906284.stm
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5201N720090301
power... wealth... control...

All of which they already have. Probably more so, at least in certain areas, than the government itself, you could argue. And governments are, however they try to minimize it, responsible to someone. Drug cartels? Tough to say.

All of which they already have.
No they don't. if they did then they wouldn't be fighting the Government, they would be running the Government.

No they don't. if they did then they wouldn't be fighting the Government, they would be running the Government.

The government is merely an organ through which certain people's wills are instituted. I imagine the cartels do "run" parts of the government, such as local law enforcement in their main towns, bureaucracy in those places as well, etc. In a mental fight between money and death, I can't see death winning out too much of the time.

The government is merely an organ through which certain people's wills are instituted. I imagine the cartels do "run" parts of the government, such as local law enforcement in their main towns, bureaucracy in those places as well, etc. In a mental fight between money and death, I can't see death winning out too much of the time.

if they ran the local law enforcement, then they wouldn't be fighting the local law enforcement.

the problem is they want total control. to them, the Government is just another cartel that needs to be taken over.

if they ran the local law enforcement, then they wouldn't be fighting the local law enforcement.

the problem is they want total control. to them, the Government is just another cartel that needs to be taken over.

I am under the impression that fights taking place are with national law enforcement agencies.

I am under the impression that fights taking place are with national law enforcement agencies.

http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/national/article/police_among_latest_victims_of_mexico_violence/30081/

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2008/05/19/join-us-or-die-drug-cartels-threaten-mexican-police-mexico-violence-out-of-control/

Local police forces are also being attacked.