News Mexican Drug War: Examining Sinaloa's Power

  • Thread starter Thread starter GRB 080319B
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The Sinaloa cartel has emerged as the dominant organized crime group in Mexico and Latin America, gaining significant economic power and influence. Discussions highlight the potential consequences of negotiating with such powerful groups, suggesting it could lead to state control by organized crime. The conversation also touches on the impact of drug laws, arguing that legalization could reduce violence and crime associated with drug trafficking. Participants express differing views on the legalization of various drugs, with some advocating for it as a solution to undermine organized crime's financial base. Overall, the debate underscores the complexity of drug-related violence and the challenges in addressing it effectively.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #36
GRB 080319B said:
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>

the lighting is so different between the armed men and the backpackers that one can assume that the two events are completely unrelated. perhaps not even on the same day. in any case, it is not an "escort", though they may be "well ahead" indeed. and naturally, they have comments turned off so that you can't point this out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
Proton Soup said:
the lighting is so different between the armed men and the backpackers that one can assume that the two events are completely unrelated. perhaps not even on the same day. in any case, it is not an "escort", though they may be "well ahead" indeed.

You're right. After closer inspection, the change in atmospheric conditions seem to lend credence to the argument that this video could possibly have been composed of feeds from different days. Thank you for pointing this out.
 
  • #39
Did he actually strike the officer with a rock? Wouldn't that have a significant impact on the case?
 
  • #40
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?
Compared to what it was during prohibition, yes?
 
  • #41
If you make something illegal, then because it is hard to enforce, you make it legal; then by what reasoning was it illegal in the first place?
 
  • #42
Pattonias said:
If you make something illegal, then because it is hard to enforce, you make it legal; then by what reasoning was it illegal in the first place?

We have a set of activities that we want to be illegal, and we have a set of activities that are illegal (the first set is personal for each person, the second set is what's on the books). You would make marijuana illegal because you want it to be illegal - why isn't really relevant for this argument, the overarching general reason you make it illegal is to make it so that there is less activity that you view as criminal personally.

If by making marijuana illegal you actually increase the amount of activity that you think of as criminal, then banning marijuana has had a counterproductive effect. The primary purpose of laws is to minimize the amount of activity that we think of as criminal (punishing people who commit the crime at least in part is intended to be a deterrent), and when in fact the opposite occurs it means that the law has failed
 
  • #43
Office_Shredder said:
We have a set of activities that we want to be illegal, and we have a set of activities that are illegal (the first set is personal for each person, the second set is what's on the books). You would make marijuana illegal because you want it to be illegal - why isn't really relevant for this argument, the overarching general reason you make it illegal is to make it so that there is less activity that you view as criminal personally.

If by making marijuana illegal you actually increase the amount of activity that you think of as criminal, then banning marijuana has had a counterproductive effect. The primary purpose of laws is to minimize the amount of activity that we think of as criminal (punishing people who commit the crime at least in part is intended to be a deterrent), and when in fact the opposite occurs it means that the law has failed

Or you can look at it from this angle. It was determined in the past that marijuana is harmful to people when used. They made it illegal for this reason. Then later, due to a large number of people insisting on using it, a thriving black market run by criminals sells it to people. So we decide to cave to the demand and make it legal. This isn't about whether or not you think it is harmful, this is about why it was illegal in the first place.
 
  • #44
Pattonias said:
This isn't about whether or not you think it is harmful, this is about why it was illegal in the first place.

Would you have opposed the repeal of prohibition (alcohol) in 1933? It didn't stop organized crime, but it did cut their income and helped put a number of kingpins out of business. Those that survived got into illegal gambling, prostitution and drugs. So why not legalize these (selectively for recreational drugs)? We can regulate them so workers and consumers are protected, and we can tax them. These currently illegal industries haven't gone away, and it costs a lot of money to enforce the laws against them. Should the government be the parent of its adult citizens?
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Pattonias said:
Or you can look at it from this angle. It was determined in the past that marijuana is harmful to people when used. They made it illegal for this reason. Then later, due to a large number of people insisting on using it, a thriving black market run by criminals sells it to people. So we decide to cave to the demand and make it legal. This isn't about whether or not you think it is harmful, this is about why it was illegal in the first place.

Alcohol is just as harmfull, if not more harmfull, than marijuana, but it's legal because it's convenient. The same argument could be used for many drugs - If it helps take down organized crime, the cost of public health (which hopefully wouldn't be adversely affected; most intelligent people wouldn't get into crack just because of legality) may be worth it in the long run.EDIT: Damn, VandeCarr beat me to the punch.
 
  • #46
TubbaBlubba said:
EDIT: Damn, VandeCarr beat me to the punch.

Ya got to be faster young'un!

Actually smoking tobacco products, bad diets and lack of exercise are the biggest preventable health threats in developed countries. Should we outlaw cigarettes, fast food and force people to run two miles every morning?
 
Last edited:
  • #47
SW VandeCarr said:
Ya got to be faster young'un!

Actually smoking tobacco products, bad diets and lack of exercise are the biggest preventable health threats in developed countries. Should we outlaw cigarettes, fast food and force people to run two miles every morning?

Couldn't you use this argument for anything? Why have laws at all?

It would be much cheaper not to inforce any laws.
 
  • #48
Pattonias said:
Couldn't you use this argument for anything? Why have laws at all?

It would be much cheaper not to inforce any laws.

So, if we go so far as to legalize and regulate some recreational drugs such as marijuana products, we may as well dispense with or not enforce any laws at all?
 
  • #49
Thats just it, you justify your stance that legalizing just this one thing would have all these benefits, but the argument can just as easily be applied to just about any other law.
Why not prove that marijuana provides some benefit that can be take it off a list if illegal drugs. It can be used to make people feel better about themselves when sick, but so can a long list of other drugs. Why the insistance on this one?
 
  • #50
Pattonias said:
Thats just it, you justify your stance that legalizing just this one thing would have all these benefits, but the argument can just as easily be applied to just about any other law.
Why not prove that marijuana provides some benefit that can be take it off a list if illegal drugs. It can be used to make people feel better about themselves when sick, but so can a long list of other drugs. Why the insistance on this one?

Well, it's an effective pain killer, too. The psychadelic effects aren't too bad, and it's in very widespread use already.

I'd be more concerned about the effects on your lungs by smoking it than the psychoactive effects, personally.
 
  • #51
When you take a step back to assess the original goals of prohibition; to reduce addiction, to reduce crime, and to keep drugs out of the hands of children; you'll see that we have failed miserably in every category. That is not to say everyone's intentions weren't in the right place, but it was the means by which we wanted to tackle these goals that was (and still is) the problem. Make no mistake about it, prohibition is not the only option we have for combating the use and distribution of drugs.

When we chose to ban the use and distribution of certain drugs/chemicals we did not predict the massive amount of unregulated sales would result from this action. By making drugs illegal we have inflated the value of these illicit substances, making the sale all-the-more lucrative for the entrepreneur, and the stakes even higher for protecting their investments.

When a drug dealer gets robbed, they can't go to the police to the police to report a crime. Instead they are faced with the dilemma as to whether they should arm themselves in order to gain a sense of protection. As a result, a sort of vigilantism arises from the unregulated distribution of drugs. Not to mention an inflated incentive for individuals to target drug dealers due to the lack of legal consequences they face. In this way, the Mexican drug wars are a prime example of how an unregulated market can result in uncontrolled vigilantism. This sort of violence does not happen surrounding the sale of drugs in a pharmacy or drugstore.
 
  • #52
Pattonias said:
Or you can look at it from this angle. It was determined in the past that marijuana is harmful to people when used. They made it illegal for this reason. Then later, due to a large number of people insisting on using it, a thriving black market run by criminals sells it to people. So we decide to cave to the demand and make it legal. This isn't about whether or not you think it is harmful, this is about why it was illegal in the first place.

the reason it was illegal in the first place is because "we" decided that we didn't like those people who used it, and we didn't want our children to be influenced by them. it's a lot more about "sin" and not being able to identify with another group than anything substantive like harm. because many of those same people were imbibing in their own intoxicants that they thought were just swell.

i think if marijuana is eventually legalized (and it seems to be heading in that direction), then it will be for the same reason that prohibition was repealed: because a large segment of the population identified with alcohol and people who drank and decided that they liked it. for the same reason, i don't think you will see some of the harder drugs legalized: not mainstream, and an inability to identify with people that look like walking death.
 
  • #53
Proton Soup said:
i think if marijuana is eventually legalized (and it seems to be heading in that direction), then it will be for the same reason that prohibition was repealed: because a large segment of the population identified with alcohol and people who drank and decided that they liked it. for the same reason, i don't think you will see some of the harder drugs legalized: not mainstream, and an inability to identify with people that look like walking death.

Finally, an argument that I can agree with. I personally don't think marijuana is the worst thing in the world, but I do worry about setting up a precedent by which other drugs can be made legal simply by argueing that it is easier to not have it legal than for it to be illegal.
Marijuana is not so bad itself, many of the arguements that are made to make it legal could just as easily be used to legitimize other drugs. I just want this to progress in such a way that avoids something like that.
 
  • #55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/byivvOzteqw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/byivvOzteqw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
It seems to me that the main problem isn't so much in the legalization of an addictive substance, but rather the type of organization that sells it to consumers. We don't want criminal groups to continue running the recreational drug industry for all of the obvious reasons. But then legalizing the drugs would only create a free market corporate system whose main purpose would be to maximize profits by getting large numbers of people hooked on their product. They'd use sophisticated marketing campaigns to essentially make drug addiction into a socially acceptable occurrence.

Perhaps there could be an effective middle ground by turning to the non-profit sector. The drugs in question would be legalized but the distribution would only be allowed through a strictly monitored/regulated division of nonprofit organizations that would simultaneously run rehab clinics and counseling programs. They would be required to channel most of their profits back into public health, education and community service programs.

In fact, I think all of the industries upon which criminal organizations have thrived (drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, etc.) should be legalized and put into the hands of closely regulated NPOs. This would deprive the gangs of their revenue while limiting the potential legalization side-effects of corporate greed.
 
  • #57
ginru said:
It seems to me that the main problem isn't so much in the legalization of an addictive substance, but rather the type of organization that sells it to consumers. We don't want criminal groups to continue running the recreational drug industry for all of the obvious reasons. But then legalizing the drugs would only create a free market corporate system whose main purpose would be to maximize profits by getting large numbers of people hooked on their product. They'd use sophisticated marketing campaigns to essentially make drug addiction into a socially acceptable occurrence.

Perhaps there could be an effective middle ground by turning to the non-profit sector. The drugs in question would be legalized but the distribution would only be allowed through a strictly monitored/regulated division of nonprofit organizations that would simultaneously run rehab clinics and counseling programs. They would be required to channel most of their profits back into public health, education and community service programs.

In fact, I think all of the industries upon which criminal organizations have thrived (drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, etc.) should be legalized and put into the hands of closely regulated NPOs. This would deprive the gangs of their revenue while limiting the potential legalization side-effects of corporate greed.

Wouldn't we still have illegal abuse in this program as people could get the product without the hassle of dealing with the government? This would not solve the problem of it costing too much to stop the illegal sale of the drugs. I think a program like this would prove useful to those trying to quit, but doesn't something like that already exist? Why would it be "greedy" for a corporation to try and make a profit? At least the goals of taxation and regulation could be inforced on a corporation. Why couldn't they make a profit as well?
Isn't that why anyone does anything?
 
  • #58
Pattonias said:
Wouldn't we still have illegal abuse in this program as people could get the product without the hassle of dealing with the government? This would not solve the problem of it costing too much to stop the illegal sale of the drugs. I think a program like this would prove useful to those trying to quit, but doesn't something like that already exist? Why would it be "greedy" for a corporation to try and make a profit? At least the goals of taxation and regulation could be inforced on a corporation. Why couldn't they make a profit as well?
Isn't that why anyone does anything?

we have a methadone program. nice little cash cow for the docs.
 
  • #59
Pattonias said:
Wouldn't we still have illegal abuse in this program as people could get the product without the hassle of dealing with the government? This would not solve the problem of it costing too much to stop the illegal sale of the drugs. I think a program like this would prove useful to those trying to quit, but doesn't something like that already exist? Why would it be "greedy" for a corporation to try and make a profit? At least the goals of taxation and regulation could be inforced on a corporation. Why couldn't they make a profit as well?
Isn't that why anyone does anything?

It's the abusive lifestyle or reckless usage of a substance that needs to be dealt with rather than worrying about people getting access to the drugs. That's why I'd require profits of legalized drug sales to be put into researching methods to help users live a balanced lifestyle while controlling their addiction (essentially what responsible drinkers and gamblers do already).

Within our society, there are many addictive activities around us (smoking, drinking, online gaming, etc.) but rather than banning any of them I’ve always felt a better strategy would emphasize a responsible managing of addiction. I simply don’t believe in prohibiting/policing the public's recreational vices since all that does is allow the criminals to prosper from the supply/demand void. Besides, when one gang is shut down then inevitably another takes its place anyway.

As for the corporate greed factor, I see nothing wrong with healthy ambition but it becomes dangerous (greed) when public well-being is disregarded in favor of greater profit margins. An example would be the colorful beer ads that glamorize drinking as a “must-have” recreational activity despite the drunken driving accidents, family abuse, and overall violence to which alcohol abuse has contributed. This is why I don’t favor legalizing drugs just to give the reigns to another set of coldly opportunistic distributors.

Instead of having commercial organizations invest millions into popularizing a drug or addiction, the non-profit strategy I mentioned would prioritize the funding of innovative approaches to promote a safer, cleaner, and more responsible recreational usage of the previously banned substances/activities. Profits would also serve cost-cutting strategies so as to permanently put the criminal groups out of business through the comprehensive creation of a better product.
 

Similar threads

News North Korean Torpedo Sinks SK Naval Vessel
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
The Fatal Flaw in Every Techno Show on TV
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Discover ORBO: The Revolutionary No-Drag Motor by Steorn
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
News Is Amendment XXVIII a Radical Restriction on Freedom of Speech?
  • · Replies 180 ·
7
Replies
180
Views
21K
What is the McDonald's Diet Experiment?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
The Steepwater Band - Playing The Cubby Bear in Chicago 12/26
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Funny Video for Geeks: I Couldn't Resist
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
News Is the National Debt Really Driven at 174 Miles Per Hour by Obama?
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
141K
Wolfram Alpha: Your Ultimate Online Computational Knowledge Engine
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
What Insights Does a Black Hole Simulation Provide?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K