- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
The mayor of a Mexican city plagued by drug violence has been murdered less than a week after taking office.
Alejandro Arcos was found dead on Sunday in Chilpancingo, a city of around 280,000 people in the southwestern state of Guerrero. He had been mayor for six days.
Evelyn Salgado, the state governor, said the city was in mourning over a murder that “fills us with indignation”. His death came three days after the city government’s new secretary, Francisco Tapia, was shot dead.
Authorities have not released details of the investigation, or suspects. However, Guerrero is one of the worst-affected states for drug violence and drug cartels have murdered dozens of politicians across the country.
You must log in or register to comment.
If there wasn’t such a strong black market for illegal drugs in the US, these cartels wouldn’t have this much power/money.
Cartels sell more than drugs these days. They learned in the 90s that diversifying into different products gave them more stability against drug enforcement. Avocados have turned into legal profit. Logging in another business. Neither of these things will be affected by someone quitting drugs. Stop building houses and stop eating avocado now.
They might be only able to do those other things since they are able to pay an army to terrorize, intimidate and bribe local and state government’s into allowing them to exist and set up these protection racquets. It takes a lot of money to be able to be more powerful then a government, I don’t think selling avocados or logging could generate that much
Avocados and logging also don’t need to worry about getting shut down by the law like the cocaine and heroin business does.
Legalize the coke and dope, and the incentive to resort to violence to avoid criminal penalties goes away.
Selling anything necessary can generate a lot of you’re making sure you can’t have competition. That’s the whole trick of the protection racket. It’s what police do here. They’re dressed up more, but do the same.
Neither of these things will be affected by someone quitting drugs. Stop building houses and stop eating avocado now.
“The cartels won’t be affected if their major source of income gets cut off.”
Yes, sure, they’ve diversified. But those legal operations aren’t their largest sources od income, not enough to sustain their current operations if it was just the legal ones. Most of the legal ones are used to clean some of the income from drugs.
And besides, I’m pretty sure the cartels are doing this for the money. Sure, it’s not all it’s about, but I’m sure it’s the largest motivator. If drugs we’re legal and the easiest ways for the cartels to keep in business was to do it legitimately, and they were actually allowed to, they could use the legal systems to actually enforce deals and debts, so the enforcement methods they use now would be obsolete and even counterproductive to profits.
People won’t stop using drugs. Just like they didn’t stop drinking during prohibition. But we can take the trade away from the gangsters and put it in legal markets and regulate the product and business to make it safer for users.
Are you telling me they’re doing the same shit as our actual government now? We may as well consider them a country at this rate.
Muh avocado toast!
I think I heard from somewhere that while that might have worked decades ago the cartels have diversified their ‘business’ to the point where drug legalisation wouldn’t kill them. We should still legalise drugs but I doubt they’ll fix the cartel issue.
It wouldn’t end them ENTIRELY, as there were ruthless organizations before drugs, too. What it would do is make it much less profitable. Meaning less to kill someone over.
as there were ruthless organizations before drugs, too
What were these organisations before drugs were illegal?
So, I don’t disagree, but we legalized weed in the civilized parts of the country and it had little effect, I’m not sure I want to legalize cocaine, it’s much better at killing people.
Little effect in what regard?
I think they’re saying that legalizing weed hasnt done anything to reduce Mexican cartel influence or violence.
Why would it? It’s the bulkiest, smelliest, lowest cost drug there is. Mexican weed sucked ass too. Moving cocaine or especially ultra high strength opiate analogs is significantly more lucrative.
Making things illegal doesn’t work. Not alcohol, not drugs, not abortion. It needs to be addressed by education. The current just say no abstinence approach leaves people ill prepared for when they encounter drugs. Our relationship with drugs is fucked, currently. Altering our state of consciousness with drugs is a fundamental part of being human.
The whole argument for legalizing weed was that it would cripple the cartels.
That doesn’t seem like it’s worked so much.
So again, we have to legalize cocaine before the cartels are weakened?
Then we have to legalize heroin? Fentanyl? Anything else?
I’m in favor of legalizing weed, but this seems a lot like it’s actually not helping.
The whole argument for legalizing weed was that it would cripple the cartels
The whole argument, or the part of the argument that you are able to argue against? In my opinion the “whole argument” is that getting caught with relatively harmless plant matter shouldn’t ruin your entire life.
Happy Cakeday! 🍰🎂
I don’t know anyone who was touting the cartels as a reason to legalize weed… weed is usually being legalized because 1) it’s (relatively) harmless, 2) it has medicinal uses, 3) it was outlawed for racist reasons, and 4) it was causing mass incarceration and devastating black communities due to clearly racist enforcement.
The whole argument for legalizing weed was that it would cripple the cartels.
First I’ve heard of this, and I’d consider myself a pretty big follower of drugs and drug culture. Who thought weed was lucrative for cartels? The plant you can easily grow, and is challenging to transport?
Calling it the “whole argument” is very disingenuous. People have the right to get high.
Then we have to legalize heroin? Fentanyl? Anything else?
Yeah, all of it. You can legally buy chemical analogs of just about any class of drugs because the laws simply can’t keep up. Prohibition isn’t working, and it hasn’t ever. What you’re seeing today is a result of prohibition (and prescription painkillers in the 00s, I’d argue).
The problem won’t be fixed by making things illegal. What, are you going to make opiates more illegal or something? Education and learning how to have a proper relationship with mind altering substances is the way forward, IMO.
Shoutout to erowid.org.
Hey hey hey.
You’re a smart feller. I only wish I knew people like you in real life. I’ve held these opinions for more than ten years, and during that time, a whole fucking bunch of my “friends” have stripped being in contact after I’ve talked to them about my views about prohibition.
Which is ironic, because their actions (or inaction, rather) and aversion to talking about the prohibition is what is actually holding up the prohibition, which is what enables most of drug abuse. So they thought I was defending drug abuse, while it’s their position which literally supports it’s existence.
I came up with a slogan some 15 years ago.
“Legalise, educate, tax and regulate.”
Shoutout to erowid.org.
Respect
The whole argument for legalizing weed was that it would cripple the cartels
Lol no it wasn’t.
So again, we have to legalize cocaine before the cartels are weakened?
Oh definitely. All drugs, actually, I’d say.
Here’s a question for you. Is the reason you don’t shoot up opiate that they’re illegal? If you could legally get them, you’d shoot up? (And please, don’t answer with “well I wouldn’t, but like others…”)
I’m in favor of legalizing weed, but this seems a lot like it’s actually not helping.
Have you read any science about legalising, decriminalising, etc?
Because it all shows it’s worth it.
Here’s a question for you. Is the reason you don’t shoot up opiate that they’re illegal? If you could legally get them, you’d shoot up?
Honestly, I’d absolutely do coke if it were legal, and it would almost surely fuck me up.
I might not do opiates, but honestly, if I had back pain or surgery and they gave me opiates, I probably would take it up after.
Because that’s how a LOT of people take up drugs.
Drugs aren’t good, you just like them, they’re nasty because they break assumptions evolution made, and we’re not quite ready for that yet.
If nukes were legal, do you think everyone could be trusted with them? Because most people have self-control, but not all, and before you say “Drugs don’t hurt other people!”, yes, they absolutely do, you just don’t give a shit about them.
It’s harsh, but El Salvador did what was necessary to fix their problem. They saved countless men, women, and children both inside and outside their country from monsters walking in human skin.
What???
They jailed 1% of the population and devastated an entire generation at the very least, often for nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time
Portugal set the standard years ago. Legalize it and divert all the money that would go to incarceration to inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation for drug addiction.
Minor clarification -Technically it was decriminalized, not legalized. Distribution will send you to jail and, after 2 or more possession offenses, you’re forced into a treatment program.
And sadly, things have started to get worse again in Portugal. Lately they’ve been sending fewer people to treatment, and surprise surprise, usage and deaths have gone up.
I believe Switzerland was the first country to establish centers where drug addicts would receive a controlled dosage for “free.” Of course paid for by taxes. The Suisse found out crime decreased, the parks were cleaner and emergency rooms saw fewer overdose patients. Basically a win across the board.
That happens when much of citizenry can be characterized as “rich blokes who will take coke at some point with no shadow of doubt”. When everyone involved knows that, including the voters, it’s an easy decision.
However, in many other countries the general population mostly forms their opinion on drugs, weapons and even political freedoms based on fear of what will happen.
They don’t look at all this critically, thus don’t understand that the worst things happening because of the current state of things they don’t know anything about, because information is not and will never be as available as their thought process requires.
That involves said current state of things funding things like cartels, criminal groups in governments involved in drug trade (it’s much more profitable when you ban all the competition), creating a vector of control over addicted people. These all have ugly consequences - violence abroad, strong (and rich) mafia groups in governments.
The correct thought process would be comparing abstract mechanisms. In abstract no consumable substance should be illegal, provided the buyer knows its contents and effects.
BTW, in abstract the right policy about weapons ownership would be opt out, not opt in, - mandatory mental examination of every adult citizen, but also mandatory weapons ownership for those who pass it! Perhaps except felons. With other exceptions being a process involving some justification being filed - as in pacifist views, religious reasons, bad atmosphere in family thus inability to keep it secure, something like that. It’s not about “good guy with a gun”, it’s about distributing real power. People who should own weapons are not the same people who want to own weapons generally. Thus mandatory.
I think legalizing weed didn’t make that much of a difference because the whole claim that buying random weed from a random dealer put money in cartel or terrorist pockets was a lie.
Not that there weren’t any large weed organizations, they just weren’t murdering people at the scale the cartels are or doing it to fund violence.
They’d also rely a lot on temporary workers since trimming was really the only labour intensive step, and then it would be sent out into a distribution network that wasn’t so much an organization as it was a collection of independent or small scale distributors. Which in some locations might have been gangs, but I’d guess was mostly normal people looking to make some extra money.
We don’t need to legalize. If we decriminalized, then took the money for jailing and funded mandatory treatment, we could do what Portugal did in the early 00’s.
I’m actually fine with decriminalizing consumption so long as distribution (real distribution, not piddly shit) stays illegal, at least without proper licensing, etc.
I’m not thrilled about it but I’m open so long as cocaine and heroin aren’t fully legalized.
I am sure. Legalize all of it. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, use half of the new income for prevention and education, one quarter for medical support for addicts and the rest fills the coffers. You take away the power from the criminal gangs, while at the same time increasing your tax revenue, adding new legal avenues of business and minimizing the health impact considerably.
Still waiting for legal grass.
Assuming you’re in the US:
It’s called THCa and is the same weed you’ve been smoking your whole life. You can get ounces to your door in the mail 100% legally thanks to a poorly written Farm Bill.
The farm bill only states a certain % of THC is illegal. Well, THC isn’t on the plants in large quantities - that only exists once you heat the cannabis to isomerize it from THCa to THC. It’s not delta 8 or some weird synthetic cannabinoid, weed has always been THCa before it’s heated.
There are dispensaries all over Texas these days selling great weed with this loophole. Texas, of all places.
Good to know. I moved out over a year ago. Going back EOM for a family visit. Hate landing anywhere dry, so I’ll probably check these out.
California announced they’ll be opening cannabis cafes
Come do some smoking tourism in BC!
As I said, the civilized parts of the country.
Exactly.
All of the most common drugs have to be legalised. It’s the only way to get rid of the black markets, which can not be regulated.
Just like with alcohol, prohibition simply does not work.
“Come vacation in Mexico! If you don’t leave your hotel, you’ll be perfectly safe!”
I hate accidentally ending up as mayor on vacation
Dammit it happened again. Honey, prepare my resignation speech again
*funeral speech
I know this is satire, though it was my understanding that tourists were protected. Like, don’t walk down any dark alleys and listen when someone strongly tells you to go somewhere else, otherwise you’re reasonably safe. This was a couple years ago though, and I may be remembering things wholly wrong.
I question those years, man.
Mexico is a large country. There are perfectly safe parts and dangerous parts.
I go to CDMX all the time. You stay in the whitey neighborhoods it is one of the best cities on earth. I’ve never felt in danger even like I have in Tulum or Cancun on occasion (and usually by police)
deleted by creator
and for that reason alone tourists have gone missing.
the cartel cares about its bottom line, funneling wealth away from American pockets to grow the cartel in order to…you guessed it, funnel more money out of American pockets.
why? three reasons. money for power, power for control.
the cartels wouldn’t even be a thing if it weren’t for Regan. I hope that fucking bigot rots eternal horrors for the truly depraved bullshit he unleashed on the world.
All tourists don’t stay in the resort towns and often go out looking for an authentic experience
I’ve never personally had an issue in Baja or cancun , but I stay pretty much near the resorts
However, Guerrero is one of the worst-affected states for drug violence
This is the same mistake people make in the US when talking about “unsafe cities” ignoring that crime is concentrated in certain parts. The same rule applies everywhere in the world: there’s safe and unsafe spots. So no, you’re not gonna get kidnapped from a Cancun resort anytime soon.
A duck duck go search of “Cancun” and “kidnapping” would argue against this.
I made a joke about optics, and people get offended.
Search for “airplane” and “explosion”, I’m sure that doesn’t look good either. Seek and you shall find. Cancun had 10 million visitors last year, I’m sure everything happened to everyone at some point. But kidnappings are winning the bad luck Powerball.
Which is why I don’t fly in a Boeing.
Guess he said no to the Cartel / Military
So you’re saying there’s a job opening…
I’m wondering if the vice mayor wants to take the job after that.
Is this a Firefly reference?
Possibly a Pacific Rim reference
All the way back to Dumb and Dumber. (Yes I’m old).
one thing i’ve been curious about is how receptive the mexican government/people would be to US aid military, or military financial aid for stopping the whole cartel problem.
It would likely be beneficial to the both of us, and canada as well though less so.
Yeaaahh, since US government policies are the entire reason that that drug war exists, Id say thanks, but no thanks.
Edit: to expand a little on this: US drug policy caused the entire drug trade, the high prices, and the extreme violence. The US then doesn’t send their best, they send their weapons, and they send them knowingly straight to the cartels (thanks, US gun manufacturers!). US government actually supported this for a while to see if it was true and… Did nothing with that.
Then US army would train Mexican soldier which then took that training straight into the Zetas which murdered even harder.
At this point, I can only say “FIX YOUR GODDAMN DRUG POLICIES, YOU @SSH@LES” and keep away, please.
I didn’t think the US has much interest in stopping the cartels, the war on drugs is much too profitable and the cartels provide most of the drugs.
Turns out they are diversified and are in a whole lot of industries now. Like the Italian mob and olive oil.
republicans might not, they want these problems, but the rest of the government absolutely does lol.
The US and Mexico have cooperated militarily on the issue before. The problem is that the roots are much deeper than a military problem, so no amount of US assistance can shoot the cartels into no longer being a problem for any more than a few metaphorical moments. As long as the fundamental causes of the Cartels’ power remain unaddressed by the Mexican government, US assistance isn’t going to be much help.
The root problem is that there is a huge self capturing black market demand for drugs, which itself is a problem rooted in capitalist countries throughout the americas prioritizing GDP expansion over human wellbeing.
It’s the result of failing healthcare systems, the evaporation of 3rd places, the requirement of a car to survive, the failing housing system, the lack of job security and mobility, etc
No amount of military intervention can change that. Even if you somehow successfully destroyed every cartel with a button press, they’d all be replaced overnight because of the huge demand for drugs.
What can actually effect the demand is:
-
food, water, housing, education and healthcare being well funded human rights
-
mixed used development/relaxation of zoning laws
-
transportation infrastructure that allows people to actually have a choice in how they get places
-
unions, workplace democracy, worker protections
You get the picture. Life actually has to be worth living.
The US legalising drugs would be the biggest step forward possible. Not saying the issues you listed aren’t linked. But they aren’t as directly correlated.
Legalizing heroin isnt going to stop it coming in the borders it will just make it easier to sell. There are still gray markets in areas with legalized drugs now.
What can actually effect the demand is:
if we’re going to argue market forces here, just legalize drugs and tax them.
It’s that simple.
But regardless, getting rid of the mexican cartel specifically would be beneficial for many, many other reasons. Notably political instability.
-
Pinches gringos vayanse alv
based
Mexico is probably a failed state and the UN will need to rescue it.
Mexico’s murder rate leveled off years ago. It’s still unacceptably high, but it’s been a while since they’ve been a less-failed state than today.
Their politician murder rate is the problem. The felons are basically running the show.
The only way to eliminate drugs is to switch to the digital peso…
Let’s ignore the fact that Mexico is poor. They got technology. Guns are illegal in Mexico and they got guns, I rest my case.
Imagine a card that you could get at any bank which holds a physical record of your money. A backup would be kept as a record at all banks. There’s no Bitcoin shit happening, it’s just a credit card subsidized and maintained by the government. If you make money, it goes into it, if you spend money it goes out. Pretty simple. Eliminate the peso coins and physical money, it that will eliminate the cartels. The government would know who hasn’t paid taxes, and they would take taxes automatically. The cards can never go negative so you won’t have a US-like credit issue, you’ll just run out of money.
Out in the wild, there’s internet via musk web satellites.
If the government has all the accounts, they can just rank them by size and location and investigate anyone quickly who might be getting paid illegally. Then the only way to get drug money would be thru money laundering. So that’s where investigators would quickly figure out who’s got money to buy a house and who just bought 10 houses without any money.
It could be interesting.
You do know the cartels mostly deal in USD?
In order to deal in pesos they would import their USD from the US, then convert it into pesos?
That makes no sense.
I don’t know the cartels personally like that lol.
Sounds like a tech bro solution for a problem that’s not technological.
Sure but I lived through “El Nuevo peso” era. It happened just like that. Today you got 500pesos, tomorrow your 500 peso coin is still valid but everything is divided by 10. So the government sent out ads on the radio and TV for months about the change. And you could also go to the bank to exchange old money for new money etc. the campaign was simple and it worked… well it worked to the end goal of changing needlessly to a new set of coins. But I mean it didn’t really do much more. With this idea I’m proposing, which is probably not at all new, they can identify where money is going and where it’s coming from.
They would simply set up their own currency.
Or just use Bitcoin.
Unlikely
Why not? Bitcoin is used a lot as an international storage of wealth.
Volatility, traceability and high TX fees come to mind. Also, who accepts Bitcoin?
What year is this comment from?
The miss that sells me tacos in the corner does not accept it yo, only cash :(
