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

[Fridmarr]

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.

I agree and that's really my point. I'm not at all interested in the comparisons because they don't really matter. If you want these drugs to be legal then show me where the sum of their parts is a net good or if you want them to remain illegal then show me the net bad. Better or worse than some other drug doesn't really matter.

[Gab]

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.

I agree and that's really my point. I'm not at all interested in the comparisons because they don't really matter. If you want these drugs to be legal then show me where the sum of their parts is a net good or if you want them to remain illegal then show me the net bad. Better or worse than some other drug doesn't really matter.

Again getting the thread on the topic of alcohol vs marijuana was my fault. I was simply trying to contrast the social benefits of ending prohibition to possible social benefits of legalization and got carried away defending the point. It's just easy to do since it's really the only similar precedence that has been set involving a large criminal element.

It started out as mafia vs cartel, prohibition vs legalization and turned out to be alcohol vs drugs. It was not my initial intent regardless of how I view alcohol or how you view alcohol which is mostly irrelevant.

[Kelaan]

I was simply trying to contrast the social benefits of ending prohibition to possible social benefits of legalization and got carried away defending the point. It's just easy to do since it's really the only similar precedence that has been set involving a large criminal element.

It started out as mafia vs cartel, prohibition vs legalization and turned out to be alcohol vs drugs. It was not my initial intent regardless of how I view alcohol or how you view alcohol which is mostly irrelevant.

Same here. Thanks for getting this back on topic.

What would reduce the cartels' power? Someone pointed out that it's not quite the same as the organized crime in the states during Prohibition, simply because they were not prepared to butcher people the way the cartels do.

[Klaudandus]

You know what would? Scaring the living shit out of them. Use the same tactics as them. Terrorize them, kill them, and their families.

A federal prosecutor used to do that way back in his days, Salvador del Toro Rosales, think of him as Elliot Ness. But they would also go after their families since the cartels would go after people and their families as well. It takes someone to level the playing field for cartels to actually be scared.

[Fridmarr]

I realize you probably weren't suggesting that the US do that, but I just couldn't live with specifically targeting families, at least from an "outsider's" perspective. I mean if I was there in some form of militia and believed that was the only way to stop impending doom I could see it, but from across the boundary we just can't do that.

The mob couldn't really butcher people in that way because they needed the locals to buy their product. The cartels are primarily in the export business, so they don't need the locals to do anything except be out of way.

[Brekkie]

I'm pretty sure the Marines could handle the cartels. You really want to declare war on drugs, send in the Marines.

Were pretty good at that whole "war" thing.

[Klaudandus]

mexico actually sent their navy for land based operations as they were the least likely to be infiltrated by the cartels. they did have tons of initial sucess going in, killing or capturing several maij guys of different cartels

[Gab]

Military action is an option but I don't know if it's the best option.

I think that tightening gun control laws (sorry if any of you are NRA activists) is an absolute necessity. I'm not saying we should outlaw gun ownership but there are several loopholes that allow private sellers to sell guns, the likes of which includes AR-15s and AK-47s etc..., without the background checks required by licensed gun dealers. It is estimated that 90% of all illegal fire arms in Mexico are obtained from the US.

Also Mexico and the US need to tighten the border INTO Mexico, when travelling into Mexico searches are less likely and less thorough making it much easier getting to Mexico with illegal items than it is to get into the US with illegal items.

If we can slow or stop the flow of arms from the US that would be a big deal. In addition to an attempt at legalization, these are the two biggest blows we could deal to the cartels. Sometimes solving violence with more violence is not always the answer.

[Arnock]

Also Mexico and the US need to tighten the border INTO Mexico, when travelling into Mexico searches are less likely and less thorough making it much easier getting to Mexico with illegal items than it is to get into the US with illegal items.

That would only really stop people from trying to smuggle arms through customs, when it's not exactly hard to bypass border security completely by simply 'hopping the fence'

[Gab]

That would only really stop people from trying to smuggle arms through customs, when it's not exactly hard to bypass border security completely by simply 'hopping the fence'

True but it's a bit more difficult than just walking/driving across the border.

Also I put it as an afterthought to making tighter gun laws. Tighter gun laws are the key here.

[Tev]

That would only really stop people from trying to smuggle arms through customs, when it's not exactly hard to bypass border security completely by simply 'hopping the fence'

True but it's a bit more difficult than just walking/driving across the border.

Also I put it as an afterthought to making tighter gun laws. Tighter gun laws are the key here.

Tighter gun laws wont help, Zetas are already dealing with illegal goods, you think telling them their guns are also illegal will change anything? In the end it doesn't matter who has the guns, but who is willing to pull the trigger. Take away their guns, they'll use explosives, take away the explosives, they'll run you over with a truck, take that away they'll stab you with a knife, and take that away they'll bludgeon you with a rock.

Human ingenuity has always shown that you don't need guns to kill or intimidate someone, and gun control is at best a tiny bandaid on a huge wound.

[Gab]

Tighter gun laws wont help, Zetas are already dealing with illegal goods, you think telling them their guns are also illegal will change anything? In the end it doesn't matter who has the guns, but who is willing to pull the trigger. Take away their guns, they'll use explosives, take away the explosives, they'll run you over with a truck, take that away they'll stab you with a knife, and take that away they'll bludgeon you with a rock.

Human ingenuity has always shown that you don't need guns to kill or intimidate someone, and gun control is at best a tiny bandaid on a huge wound.

The guns are already illegal in Mexico... The point is the ease of obtaining and transporting the guns from the US into Mexico. The cartels are fierce, but not fierce enough to wage a war with Mexican police and military with knifes and rocks...

[Arnock]

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of guns owned by the cartels were acquired by illegal means, making legal purchases more difficult won't do much to keep the cartels from obtaining guns, nor would it do anything about the weapons that they already have.

[Klaudandus]

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of guns owned by the cartels were acquired by illegal means, making legal purchases more difficult won't do much to keep the cartels from obtaining guns, nor would it do anything about the weapons that they already have.

LOLWUT

Then again, I don't expect people to read newspapers these days, but it's been on the news, several times, of seizure of arms heading to Mexico, or recovered in Mexico, traced to gun sellers in the US, particularly from Texas.

And I'm talking about a sizable quantity

This is just one article out of many:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/he ... -years.ece

[Fridmarr]

Tighter gun laws wont help, Zetas are already dealing with illegal goods, you think telling them their guns are also illegal will change anything? In the end it doesn't matter who has the guns, but who is willing to pull the trigger. Take away their guns, they'll use explosives, take away the explosives, they'll run you over with a truck, take that away they'll stab you with a knife, and take that away they'll bludgeon you with a rock.

Human ingenuity has always shown that you don't need guns to kill or intimidate someone, and gun control is at best a tiny bandaid on a huge wound.

The guns are already illegal in Mexico... The point is the ease of obtaining and transporting the guns from the US into Mexico. The cartels are fierce, but not fierce enough to wage a war with Mexican police and military with knifes and rocks...

The point stands though, they want guns and have the ability to get guns. They don't care about laws, and they are pretty good at trafficking illegal goods.