Hey, you’re preaching to the choir. I was objecting primarily to your math, which was off by a couple orders of magnitude.
It’s not a question of whether or not they might choose to pursue some other of life of crime. The leaders themselves probably would branch or expand into other markets, maybe catering to other vices that are prohibited (gambling, prostitution, etc.) but taking away the cash cow of their operations would eliminate such a vast portion of their profits they would be reduced to regular old run of the mill organized criminals. I don’t think we would see the same level of violence if they were left to fight over shipping routes to Europe or local casinos and whorehouses. It is US drug money, specifically, that empowers them.
No, they do what American bootleggers did when Prohibition ended – get out of that business and look for some other racket. Which, as in the case of Prohibition’s end, would be a net improvement. They might even be legitimate businesscritters in one or two generations – or less, like Joe Kennedy.
Especially Bolivia, where cocaleros are an actual significant voting constituency as well as a traditional economic sector, and much favored by President Morales.
US gun makers have lent a helping hand to the cartels. They supply the warring parties and the Mexican police as well.
Nice business for them.
True, but they do make [noncrystal] methamphetamines, they go into ADD drugs, drugs for people with sleep disorders and other things that need a stimulant.
Crystal meth is the moonshine distilled in a lead bearing car radiator of the drug world. Pharm companies make the lab grade versions for their production lines. [just like you can get official USDA certified lab grade cocaine from a pharm company with the right permits and documentation.]
It just seems incredibly unfair that an army’s worth of guns are floating around Mexico with impunity, but if I try to sneak my little sidearm with me into Mexico I’m almost certain to get busted. How do they do it?
I’ve read about tunnels and boats. Likely, there’s some corruption and garden variety overland smuggling too.
Have they? You have a cite on that, of course.
I suppose it’s never a good thing when the US government not only knows but refuses to allow the gun dealers to reject the purchase, only to lose track of said guns which are in turn used to kill Americans as well as Mexicans. But that never happened, this is not the story you’re looking for, Fast and Furious only refers to the movies.
If guns from American manufacturers are in fact being used to supply the cartels you can rest assured that they are not the parties responsible for it. One cannot sell more guns when one is shut down for weapons trafficking. Unless you’re the Attorney General, in which case it’s cool.
No, I’m not going to let that go. Holder should have been fired in disgrace or, at the minimum, been forced to resign.
Maybe, but organized crime and unlimited funding does give them a bit of an advantage over you in a smuggling contest.
They could have helpers scouting every highway in an entire state for hundreds of miles with radios and night vision goggles, alerting the network about where roadblocks are setting up and sustain this for as long as they need to. They could bribe officials with staggering amounts of money to simply look the other way. They can afford to keep trying new shipments until one truckload finally gets through. Even if 90% of them get captured it is of no consequence to them. They own military vehicles, helicopters, etc. and have advanced communication and surveillance equipment. As noted earlier, with US drug money bankrolling operations they can remain very competitive against any military or law enforcement efforts to stop them.
And you remember that little fiasco called ‘operation fast and furious’ right? If federal agents could allow guns to walk to Mexico in an apparently earnest but blundering attempt to fight smugglers, individuals among them could also allow the same thing if corrupted by their own share of all that money.
It was siccing the army onto the cartels that *triggered *the current upheavals.
Of course. I just thought it was totally obvious.
http://current.com/shows/vanguard/blog/93520005_crossing-the-u-s-mexico-border-this-time-following-guns.htm
Sometimes I wonder that if the drug wars south of the border ever quieted down whether the US dealers and makers would try to stir it up again.
https://files.nyu.edu/od9/public/papers/Cross_border_spillover.pdf
That was for real?!
I read someone speculating that the extraordinary brutality of the Mexican cartel violence was in part inherited from the Aztec past, and the Aztec human sacrifices and sacred mutilations and torture. But whatever, we need to legalize drug use now.
Yeah, let’s discuss what your favourite poster on StormFront said rather than an actuarial analysis of legalising drugs.
Right, like everybody else’s ancient ancestors were as sweet as cherry pie.:dubious:
Actually a Danish liberal newspaper, but have it your way. I don’t really care that much.
Gun laws are kept in check? Hardly. There are thousands of them. Tens of thousands of them.
Also, the Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with the availability of firearms. It was a “cosmetic” ban, it banned firearms that had two or more features, none of which altered the essential function of the firearm, merely its appearance. Correlation does not equal causation in any case.
Ah, drugs. The “victimless” crime.
Maybe it should be “victimless or crime”.
THIS!!!
I don’t see people risking their lives to smuggle cigarettes or beer.