Remove Advertisements

Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notice.

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:57 pm

Thalia wrote:IMO I also think legalization of drugs is ridiculous because the cartel will just find another way to make money illegally.
Well I don't think anyone expects it to bring cartels down completely, it's just an added benefit.

While they will certainly find alternatives, it's hard to imagine something that would be as lucrative as the drug trade.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Thalia » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:09 pm

Fridmarr wrote:
Thalia wrote:IMO I also think legalization of drugs is ridiculous because the cartel will just find another way to make money illegally.
Well I don't think anyone expects it to bring cartels down completely, it's just an added benefit.

While they will certainly find alternatives, it's hard to imagine something that would be as lucrative as the drug trade.


What about Oil? You know they are already hijacking pipelines in Mexico. Few months ago I read about how the Zetas had taken control of some of the oil pipes by the gulf.
User avatar
Thalia
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:15 pm

But that's much more easily dealt with than drugs that can be made anywhere, hidden anywhere, and sold to anyone. I mean if they are taking control to sell the oil, that's just easy cash, but wouldn't be nearly as substantial as a drug trade that they have a monopoly on. If they are just doing it for leverage, well there's no money in that long term.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:09 pm

You would think so, like I said, there are heavy rumors that one of the refineries is under control of los zetas in northern tamaulipas. The employees treat it as just basic change of management, and the government has not acted because if they do, they fear the zetas will just destroy the place, costing even more money than what basically boils down to a case of racketeering... so yeah, apparently, part of the production goes to zetas, the other part goes to the government.

It's a much tougher sell with pot than alcohol because the intended use is one of the dangers, getting high.

But isn't the intended consumption of alcohol to get intoxicated?



I don't know if someone has ever mentioned this, but http://www.milcincuenta.com/ -- NSFW (Graphic content) -- but this is probably the best source of news regarding drug cartel activities. The media has basically stopped reporting on what's going on and its up to blogs like this to actually spread the word on what's going on all over the place.

I know because I love in a border town... and yes, it's Laredo in case someone is wondering. http://www.aetv.com/bordertown-laredo/
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11076
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:20 pm

Klaudandus wrote:You would think so, like I said, there are heavy rumors that one of the refineries is under control of los zetas in northern tamaulipas. The employees treat it as just basic change of management, and the government has not acted because if they do, they fear the zetas will just destroy the place, costing even more money than what basically boils down to a case of racketeering... so yeah, apparently, part of the production goes to zetas, the other part goes to the government.
Right but what do we care? We could blow it up easily from miles away if it got to be a big enough problem. Stopping the flow of drugs is orders of magnitude more difficult. They are able to use it for easy money, and keep it because they basically rule the area, but they wouldn't be able to survive off of that they way they can flourish with drugs.

Klaudandus wrote:But isn't the intended consumption of alcohol to get intoxicated?
Of course not, otherwise like 40+ states have a very real problem in all their bars in restaurants because it's illegal to get intoxicated there. The overwhelming majority of folks having a drink in a given day are actually not getting drunk.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby aureon » Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:36 am

@fridmarr: Do you know, on first-person basis, someone who smokes pot on a regular basis?
It really looks like you don't.
I found out my dad regularly smoked pot when i was SEVENTEEN, and for multiple years i've witnessed my father and uncle smoke what i thought was handmade cigarettes. It happens they weren't. And i can garauntee you, in all those years, i've never seen them 'high'.
My brother and most of my friends are regular consumers (i'm not, but it's more an issue with tobacco than with marijuana), and there's NO way you can compare 'high' to 'drunk'. Drunk is infintely worse, and actually easier to reach.

Alcohol and tobacco are worse than marijuana, and should be banned. They aren't due to assuefaction of basically the whole population.
Unless you can make a valid argument about alcohol/tobacco being less harmful than marijuana, it's a kind of a retarded debate, on the ethics standpoint - it's just making a double standard.
Now, i can't talk about meth/heroin, or even cocaine, but lowest tier drugs aren't half as dangerous as 'someone' (which is usually governments and schools) likes to paint them as.
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:02 am

aureon wrote:@fridmarr: Do you know, on first-person basis, someone who smokes pot on a regular basis?
It really looks like you don't.
I found out my dad regularly smoked pot when i was SEVENTEEN, and for multiple years i've witnessed my father and uncle smoke what i thought was handmade cigarettes. It happens they weren't. And i can garauntee you, in all those years, i've never seen them 'high'.
My brother and most of my friends are regular consumers (i'm not, but it's more an issue with tobacco than with marijuana), and there's NO way you can compare 'high' to 'drunk'. Drunk is infintely worse, and actually easier to reach.
Yeah I have a ton of experience with it, and I can tell you you are wrong, they were high. A pot high isn't particularly obvious especially for someone with experience, but they weren't smoking it because they enjoyed the taste. Most potheads I know are pretty much always high when they are awake, and they do everything (work, drive, exercise etc) that anyone else does, all while high. Being drunk is actually harder to reach, and because of its affects on your motor skills it's way more obvious. However, you can drink alcohol without getting drunk, most people do so regularly. There is no point to pot, except to get high.

aureon wrote:Alcohol and tobacco are worse than marijuana, and should be banned. They aren't due to assuefaction of basically the whole population.
Unless you can make a valid argument about alcohol/tobacco being less harmful than marijuana, it's a kind of a retarded debate, on the ethics standpoint - it's just making a double standard.
Now, i can't talk about meth/heroin, or even cocaine, but lowest tier drugs aren't half as dangerous as 'someone' (which is usually governments and schools) likes to paint them as.
I'm guessing you haven't read this thread, because my whole point isn't that pot should be illegal or is more dangerous than alcohol, but the argument you just made, comparing pot to alcohol is meaningless and will never work. How dangerous something is, isn't what gets it banned. There are all sorts of things like guns, and poisons, prescription drugs etc that are way more dangerous than pot, alcohol, or cigarettes (by the way smoking pot even with a bong is pretty much as harmful as smoking a cigarette from the 'smoking' perspective) that are all perfectly legal. They are legal because they have a viable use or their danger isn't obvious or a risk to others. Their overall value was deemed significant enough to put up with the negative effects.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Belloc » Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:20 am

Fridmarr wrote:Yeah I have a ton of experience with it, and I can tell you you are wrong, they were high. A pot high isn't particularly obvious especially for someone with experience, but they weren't smoking it because they enjoyed the taste. Most potheads I know are pretty much always high when they are awake, and they do everything (work, drive, exercise etc) that anyone else does, all while high. Being drunk is actually harder to reach, and because of its affects on your motor skills it's way more obvious. However, you can drink alcohol without getting drunk, most people do so regularly. There is no point to pot, except to get high.

So, they do everything that anyone else does, all while high? And they get away with it? Then, obviously, getting high isn't having any obvious negative effects on their ability to work, drive, and exercise. I have two friends that go to work high every day. They would be fired if their employers knew and, yet, they haven't been fired.

You're putting too much emphasis on the word "high." Heroin users get "high," as do cocaine users. Those effects, however, are nothing like the "high" that one gets from marijuana.

There is no point but to get high? I'm sure my friend would disagree -- his body has been pretty well fucked as a result of his childhood (football, recklessness, etc). He's in varying amounts of pain. When he smokes, his pain is relieved. The proper medications would likely inhibit his ability to perform basic tasks.

It also helps with people that have appetite issues and issues with falling asleep. Edit: It also improves nightvision, which is why mexican mine workers used it.

So, yes, there are several very legitimate uses for the drug.

I'm guessing you haven't read this thread, because my whole point isn't that pot should be illegal or is more dangerous than alcohol, but the argument you just made, comparing pot to alcohol is meaningless and will never work. How dangerous something is, isn't what gets it banned. There are all sorts of things like guns, and poisons, prescription drugs etc that are way more dangerous than pot, alcohol, or cigarettes (by the way smoking pot even with a bong is pretty much as harmful as smoking a cigarette from the 'smoking' perspective) that are all perfectly legal. They are legal because they have a viable use or their danger isn't obvious or a risk to others. Their overall value was deemed significant enough to put up with the negative effects.

What viable use does alcohol have? And, yes, the intent with alcohol is to become impaired. You might not agree, but that is quite obviously the case. Note that I didn't say "drunk," I said impaired. When you drink alcohol and you are able to be more social, you are impaired. You don't have to get drunk to be impaired.

The comparison between the two drugs (which is what they both are) is a very legitimate one. I personally think that neither should be legal. Furthermore, the consumption of alcohol, which lowers inhibitions, leads to further consumption of alcohol. That's how "just one drink," turns into a car accident.


Alcohol is the single most destructive drug in the world.
User avatar
Belloc
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:56 pm
Location: Silent Earth

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Arnock » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:32 am

Forgive me if I come across as rude here, but isn't the legalization of marijuana more or less... irrelevant to the situation with the Mexican drug cartels? From what I understand, most pot production comes form more local/homegrown sources than smuggled in from other countries, and the Mexican cartels focus on 'harder' drugs like meth, cocaine and heroine.

On a larger scale, would the legalization of hard drugs in America hurt the cartels? Undoubtedly, yes. However, the Mexican government isn't exactly strong and/or stable enough to actually take advantage of the blow that the cartel's would take, and they would soon after find new markets for their drugs, and move onto other methods of making money.


As for legalizing hard drugs in America, in the short term, I don't believe that there would be a huge swarm of people eager to start doing crack or heroine, but in the long term, usage WILL go up.
Image
Courage not of this earth in your eyes
Faith from far beyond lies deep inside
User avatar
Arnock
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:36 pm
Location: Everywhere and nowhere

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby aureon » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:45 am

If being high has no noticeable effect, then it's not a problem, i'd say.
Comparing alcohol to pot is natural. They're basically the same (short term: negligible effect in small does, noticeable effect in heavy does - long term: problematic)
I'm abstemious, and from my point of view, there's no use to alcohol but getting drunk, while there's some interest in smoking pot without the aim of getting high. You have to support your point, or it's void.

Anyway, no cartels are built on marijuana - most of it isn't homegrown, atleast there, but still, it isn't as profitable.
Main profit was from cocaine, i believe - which is radically different to argue for legalizing. Gets worse on meth/heroin and other superheavy stuff, which gives physical addiction, and not only mental addiction. Getting out of heroin use is far harsher than getting out of alcohol / pot use.
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Gab » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:54 am

Arnock wrote:Forgive me if I come across as rude here, but isn't the legalization of marijuana more or less... irrelevant to the situation with the Mexican drug cartels? From what I understand, most pot production comes form more local/homegrown sources than smuggled in from other countries, and the Mexican cartels focus on 'harder' drugs like meth, cocaine and heroine.

On a larger scale, would the legalization of hard drugs in America hurt the cartels? Undoubtedly, yes. However, the Mexican government isn't exactly strong and/or stable enough to actually take advantage of the blow that the cartel's would take, and they would soon after find new markets for their drugs, and move onto other methods of making money.


As for legalizing hard drugs in America, in the short term, I don't believe that there would be a huge swarm of people eager to start doing crack or heroine, but in the long term, usage WILL go up.


It is hardly irrelevant. A recent RAND study stated that cartel exports of marijuana alone generate between 1.5 and 2 billion dollars a year. That number does not include the hundreds if not thousands of grow operations that the cartels control on US soil. Millions of plants are destroyed each year by the US government here, and that's only the stuff we find. Marijuana exports according to the same study suggest that Marijuana is upto 26% of cartel's total export revenue, which includes arms, human trafficking and drug exports among other things. So 1/4 of their export revenue is significant.

What other markets could the cartels find for their drugs that is nearly as effective as the US market? The US consumes more illegal drugs than any other country in the world and we are neighbors to these cartels. The cartels would have to cross the ocean in order to take advantage of other markets.

Usage may rise in the long term, however if you look at reports from Portugal cases of aids in needle using drug users are down drastically as well as deaths and crime associated with drug use.

Keep in mind that not only would the cartels take a significant hit to their revenue, but also the US could be padding it's own revenue with new taxes on the drugs. We spend billions of dollars a year on "the war on drugs", billions on enforcing drug laws and billions on prosecution and incarceration of non-violent criminals.

Would it be an easy process? No of course it wouldn't. But there are some obvious benefits of legalization, even if that starts with just marijuana. Sure there are negative aspects of legalization, but I think as a whole legalization would benefit us far greater than wasting our time and money and the lives of innocent people on this ridiculous war on drugs.

Aureon wrote:If being high has no noticeable effect, then it's not a problem, i'd say.
Comparing alcohol to pot is natural. They're basically the same (short term: negligible effect in small does, noticeable effect in heavy does - long term: problematic)
I'm abstemious, and from my point of view, there's no use to alcohol but getting drunk, while there's some interest in smoking pot without the aim of getting high. You have to support your point, or it's void.

Anyway, no cartels are built on marijuana - most of it isn't homegrown, atleast there, but still, it isn't as profitable.
Main profit was from cocaine, i believe - which is radically different to argue for legalizing. Gets worse on meth/heroin and other superheavy stuff, which gives physical addiction, and not only mental addiction. Getting out of heroin use is far harsher than getting out of alcohol / pot use.


As stated above marijuana is a huge source of income for the cartels. Also alcohol AND marijuana are both highly physically and mentally addictive. Alcohol withdrawls definitely rival those of heroin. The thing about THC (active ingredient in marijuana) is that because it is not water soluable it takes a long time to fully remove it from your system. So the "withdrawl" is not as pronounced, however don't believe for one second that marijuana isn't physically addictive.
Last edited by Gab on Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:03 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Gab
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:54 am
Location: Wish you were here

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:00 am

Belloc wrote:snipped...

And another enters the fray of the meaningless argument, and now we get to parse terms like high and impairment, and this will ultimately solve nothing...

 
First, acoholics are often capable of doing everything while intoxicated as well, but that doesn't mean they aren't engaged in risky behavior.  I would never let my friends who are high drive, and I certainly wouldn't ride with them or let my kids ride with them.  I don't think that they should be on the road at all.  Speaking of work, I know a few just like your friends that would be fired if they got caught, and yet they routinely get high during their lunchbreak, it's nuts.


Medical uses of pot might be valid, I tend to defer to the bulk of the medical community that disagrees.  It's not a particularly contentious point though, because if the medical community were to agree on a usage for pot, it wouldn't legalize it for recreational use, which is what we are talking about here.  It would be treated like current narcotics which require prescriptions and all that jazz. 


I disagree that people mostly drink alcohol for its affects or that that's the intent.  I like beer and gin, that's why I drink them on occaision.  A single drink has no affect on me that I can notice, and I rarely drink more than that. It's still irrelevant though.


You can call that effect an impairment, but that's really a subjective term in that context.  If the person is being helped by the alcohol, they may use a different term.  So lets just agree that pretty much everything you consume has some sort of affect.  Whether it's a stiumulant like coffee or a depressent like pot and alcohol.  That said, as a society we've kind of established affects that we do and do not care about.  That's why coffee is readily available but other stimulants are not, the entire context matters.  It's not merely the mechanics of what it does, but also the degree.

With alcohol the tipping point is quite specific and can be measured. That's another minor difficulty with pot I don't think an equivalent measuring system exists, but generally that line is going to be less than the typical use case. Whereas with alcohol the typical use case is under the line.

If pot and alcohol were both discovered today I think pot would be far more likely to be legalized than alcohol. But pot and alcohol are different, they are created differently, many things about their affects are different, their social history is very different, they are as different as Fridmarr and Belloc and need to weighed on their own merits.

The comparison is useful for providing context because people are more familiar with alcohol, but if you're comparing them in hopes of finding flawed logic and double standards to justify pot being legal, it truly is apples and oranges.

I realize I skipped a few points from your post, but I'm typing this on my phone while riding a train and my patience with this form factor has run out.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Belloc » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:12 am

I enjoy reading your posts, Fridmarr, but when you say...
Fridmarr wrote:And another enters the fray of the meaningless argument,
it basically indicates that you're not really interested in thinking about this from any other perspective. As such, there's no point in my discussing the issue further.
User avatar
Belloc
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:56 pm
Location: Silent Earth

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:54 am

Read the thread so you can understand the context. If you want to argue that the comparison to alcohol is the path to legalization then go for it. But if you're just going to point out more ways that alcohol is worse than pot we aren't going to get anywhere if you haven't showed why that matters.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:00 am

And I'm more interested in getting rid of Zetas, and other drug cartels, than back-n-forth arguments on what's worse, be it tobacco, alcohol, marijuana or any other drug....

I recognize the positive side of marijuana use for pain management, but I find the argument on tax and income to actually be more valid. And that's all I'll say about that topic.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11076
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
?php } else { ?