Mexican Drug War: Examining Sinaloa's Power

  • News
  • Thread starter GRB 080319B
  • Start date
In summary, Professor Buscaglia says that organized crime has become more powerful in Mexico due to their dominance in the drug trade, and that this power has led to increased corruption and violence. He also says that there is an obvious solution to this problem, which is to legalize drugs.
  • #1
GRB 080319B
108
0
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126906809"

The Sinaloa has been clearly the winner of all that competition among organized crime groups. And as a result of that, they have gained more economic power, they have been able to corrupt with more frequency and corrupt with more scope. Now you see that Sinaloa is the most powerful criminal group, not just in Mexico, but all over Latin America.
- Edgardo Buscaglia, professor of Mexican law and organized crime expert at ITAM and Columbia University.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFDVV1YxKuI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFDVV1YxKuI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

If that happens, if you negociate with a strong organized crime group from a weak state standpoint, the state will be taken over by organized crime.
-- Edgardo Buscaglia
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I've heard rumors the drug war has been spilling over the border into the southwestern border states. Can anyone confirm this?
 
  • #3
I've read news reports of Mexican nationals being attacked in the US. It's sometimes difficult to sort out crimes committed by drug cartels and "regular" crime.
 
  • #4
aquitaine said:
I've heard rumors the drug war has been spilling over the border into the southwestern border states. Can anyone confirm this?

It really doesn't take much effort to http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11770847"

or http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/world/americas/24iht-mexico.1.20393351.html"
or http://www.themonitor.com/articles/robbing-38763-cartel-zapata.html"
or http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/03/world/la-fg-mexico-cash-20100603"
or http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509042,00.html"

But http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29516551/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
You know, there is an extremely obvious solution to this problem...
 
  • #6
Geigerclick said:
I'm all ears.
I'll take a guess at the old libertarian "Legalize drugs to destroy the mafia".
 
  • #7
Geigerclick said:
I can accept legalizing pot, but what about black-tar heroin? Hell, it could be the right-wing "close the border with fences and lasers!". I'm still waiting for Galteeth to expound on his obvious solution.

On a basic level I can agree with the legalization of pot compared to alcohol, but on the other hand I'm no great supporter of alcohol either, and pot is like the highway to lung cancer... But if it was legal, at least filtered smokes could be made to make it slightly less dangerous.
 
  • #8
Galteeth said:
You know, there is an extremely obvious solution to this problem...

You want armies of dangerous animals with guns out of work with the stroke of a pen? NIMBY! Did organized crime go away when we repealed prohibition?
 
  • #9
Geigerclick said:
I know what you mean about alcohol, but like alcohol marijuana really is in the culture to a great degree. At least you can eat, or volatilize ("vaporize") marijuana, and you don't have tobacco specific carcinogens. That said, do you know anyone who can't get pot at the drop of a hat? Let's tax it, regulate it, etc.

For drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and others, I can't see how that can be done. Hell, I even understand how alcohol could fall into that group given a different history, but we know that isn't happening. What I'd like to see are more impartial studies of the possible harm from cannabis, it's possible benefits, relative carcinogenicity and toxicity, and so on. I know I'd rather have people smoking something that wasn't sprayed with Raid or the like, and did I mention taxes? It already falls under DWI laws, so we have that...
,

Marijuana is no where near as common in Sweden as in the US (though still not exactly RARE, but I would have no idea where to get it)
 
  • #10
The legalization of drugs has had strong support from the most conservative elements of the US political arena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDWpdLEbc1s

Legalizing drugs would not only eliminate the funding mechanism for much of organized crime, but the financial benefits, through taxation and the reduced costs of law enforcement and incarceration, would be worth billions of dollars annually.

Organized crime turned in part to illegal drugs when prohibition ended. Drugs are now the bread and butter of organized crime.

I believe that drug laws are responsible for much if not most of the violent crime that we have today. They are destroying our cities and culture. Why would any young man in the ghetto choose to work hard for $10 per hour, when they can make $1000 a day or more by selling drugs? We also see the results of drug laws in our border States - utter chaos.

But above all, it is painfully obvious that drug laws don't work. They are the folly of fools and control freaks.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
chemisttree said:
You want armies of dangerous animals with guns out of work with the stroke of a pen? NIMBY! Did organized crime go away when we repealed prohibition?

Crime will never go away, but it can certainly be reduced. The gangs wouldn't disappear overnight, but by limiting revenue sources, they will shrink.

As I believe they did after prohibition was repealed.
 
  • #12
Geigerclick said:
I can accept legalizing pot, but what about black-tar heroin? Hell, it could be the right-wing "close the border with fences and lasers!". I'm still waiting for Galteeth to expound on his obvious solution.

People still use heroin. You can't stop demand by trying to reduce supply. It just doesn't work that way. All you do is create income sources for bad people.
 
  • #14
GRB 080319B said:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/10/texas.border.patrol.shooting/index.html?hpt=T2"

One always has to be careful of propaganda put out by both sides after incidents like this. What is human trafficking anyway, showing some illegals the right hole in the fence to crawl through? If true, why was he never charged and how would that reduce the Border Patrol agent's guilt?

The other side claims he was a straight A student but I never saw any report cards offered as evidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
skeptic2 said:
The other side claims he was a straight A student but I never saw any report cards offered as evidence.

That claim does not seem particularly relevant to anything.
 
  • #16
Nor does the claim that he had a history of involvement with human smuggling and was on a list of repeat juvenile offenders.
 
  • #18
edward said:
They aren't throwing pebbles.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8C71P6O0&show_article=1

In 2008 over 200 BP officers were injured by rock throwers. They have been cleared to fire in self defence.

In so doing, they have given Mexicans, whether they be coyotes or federales, an excuse (in their minds) to shoot at Border Patrol agents.
 
  • #19
skeptic2 said:
Nor does the claim that he had a history of involvement with human smuggling and was on a list of repeat juvenile offenders.

I think the issue is whether shooting and killing him was justified. His status in life has nothing to do with it.
 
  • #20
skeptic2 said:
In so doing, they have given Mexicans, whether they be coyotes or federales, an excuse (in their minds) to shoot at Border Patrol agents.

Nobody has an excuse to shoot at Border Patrol agents. It's just been clarified that they will shoot if attacked.
 
  • #21
drankin said:
Nobody has an excuse to shoot at Border Patrol agents. It's just been clarified that they will shoot if attacked.

People can come up with whatever excuses they want. Excuse here isn't being used as a legal term
 
  • #22
Office_Shredder said:
People can come up with whatever excuses they want. Excuse here isn't being used as a legal term

My point is that your comment doesn't mean anything. A cop shot the brother of a gang member the other day. Now the brother has an excuse to shoot cops. That's your logic.
 
  • #23
skeptic2 said:
In so doing, they have given Mexicans, whether they be coyotes or federales, an excuse (in their minds) to shoot at Border Patrol agents.

Get real they are already shooting at Border Patrol Agents. Three weeks ago a Sheriff's deputy was shot when he came upon drug smugglers in a rural area.

In the past two years this has turned into hard core drug and people smuggling operation The only time Mexican national police or army are involved is when they are being paid to be involved.

In May a local rancher was shot on his own land 20 miles north of the border. Trackers traced the assailants back to the Mexican border.

The stone throwing is always an attempt to break up an arrest on this side of the border.
 
  • #24
edward said:
Get real they are already shooting at Border Patrol Agents.

And this shooting will ________.

A. make the situation better

B. make the situation worse
 
  • #26
skeptic2 said:
And this shooting will ________.

A. make the situation better

B. make the situation worse

What is the "situation"? And how is it that a border patrol agent should NOT defend himself to make it better? What's more important, a border patrol agents life or the "situation"?
 
  • #27
I lived in Nogales AZ for 5 yrs. while working in Nogales, Sonora and I know a little about the border situation.

The "situation" is the constant skirmishes along the border between the two sides. When I was living on the border there were frequent reports from the Nogales, AZ police that the Nogales, Sonoran police had shot at them from the other side of the border. Neither side is blameless.

Shooting and killing kids across the border to protect oneself from rock throwers is not the same as if the rock throwers were on this side of the border nor is it clear that the border patrol agents were authorized to shoot across the border. What would be the US reaction if the situation were reversed and a Mexican officer shot and killed a US kid on the US side of the border? If the only options the border patrol agent had were shooting or retreating, he should have retreated.
 
  • #28
skeptic2 said:
If the only options the border patrol agent had were shooting or retreating, he should have retreated.

This is incorrect and is not consistent with law enforcement procedure. What is the point of having border patrol agents if all you had to do is throw rocks to make them go away?
 
  • #29
drankin said:
This is incorrect and is not consistent with law enforcement procedure. What is the point of having border patrol agents if all you had to do is throw rocks to make them go away?

This is getting silly. How far do you need to retreat in order to get out of the way of hand thrown rocks from across the border (in this case from across the Rio Grand)?

We simply don't know the facts. Did the Border Patrol agent feel his life was in imminent danger? Was there a reasonable alternative to lethal force in order to protect himself from non-lethal or lethal injury?

Unfortunately.there have been many rock throwing incidents on this border. I'm not aware of any previous such incident where a Mexican national was shot and killed in Mexico by US BP agents, if that is in fact what happened. (The boy's body was photographed just over the border in Mexico, but I don't know if he was actually shot on the Mexican side.)
 
Last edited:
  • #30
SW VandeCarr said:
This is getting silly. How far do you need to retreat in order to get out of the way of hand thrown rocks (in this case from across the Rio Grand)?

We simply don't know the facts. Did the Border Patrol agent feel his life was in danger? Was there a reasonable alternative to lethal force in order to protect himself from non-lethal or lethal injury?

Unfortunately.there have been many rock throwing incidents on this border. I'm not aware of any previous such incident where a Mexican national was shot and killed in Mexico by US BP agents, if that is in fact what happened. (The boy's body was photographed just over the border in Mexico, but I don't know if he was actually shot on the Mexican side.)

The question is why would expect law enforcement to retreat when threatened? If I went down the street and started throwing rocks at a cop I wonder how many I could throw before he shot me. For that matter, if before this incident happened, how many rocks could I throw at a Mexican cop or soldier before I was shot?

We shouldn't make concessions because of where a person is that is throwing the rock. A rock could certainly cause serious injury or even death.

It's common sense, don't throw rocks at people with guns.
 
  • #31
drankin said:
It's common sense, don't throw rocks at people with guns.

It is indeed! But, as I said, we don't know the facts. If the boy did in fact cross the border and hurl rocks at close range, I would say the case for the agent is much stronger provided the boy was facing the agent at the moment of the shooting. Just because police often get away with a lot of things doesn't justify the inappropriate use of lethal force.
 
  • #32
Anyways, it is unfortunate that this teenager was shot. Had I been a border agent in that situation I probably would not have shot him. But, I do not fault the agent for defending himself. At face value, there does not seem to have been anything illegal about the shooting. Just a lot of emotional and political BS.
 
  • #33
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/06/11/mexico.patient.killings/index.html?hpt=T3"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/05/11/mexico.wedding.violence/index.html"

Armed men escort drug loads 75 miles north of U.S./Mexico border in southern Arizona.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0vweyjuhsLg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0vweyjuhsLg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/14/gunmen-kill-15-mexican-officers-in-2-attacks/"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/06/14/international/i183402D95.DTL&type=politics"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
I can see legalization of all kind of drugs as only possible solution.
 

Similar threads

News North Korean Torpedo Sinks SK Naval Vessel
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
The Fatal Flaw in Every Techno Show on TV
    • General Discussion
Replies
34
Views
4K
Discover ORBO: The Revolutionary No-Drag Motor by Steorn
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
News Is Amendment XXVIII a Radical Restriction on Freedom of Speech?
    • General Discussion
6
Replies
180
Views
19K
What is the McDonald's Diet Experiment?
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
3K
Funny Video for Geeks: I Couldn't Resist
    • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
2K
The Steepwater Band - Playing The Cubby Bear in Chicago 12/26
    • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
News Is the National Debt Really Driven at 174 Miles Per Hour by Obama?
    • General Discussion
3
Replies
71
Views
140K
Wolfram Alpha: Your Ultimate Online Computational Knowledge Engine
    • Computing and Technology
Replies
1
Views
4K
What Can We Learn from This Simulation of a Journey into a Black Hole?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top