[Pants-of-dog]

Survivance.

Do you mean survival?

Like I said, criminals won't stop being criminals. Even if the governments of their respective countries agree they will no longer actively pursuit those whose only crime was to produce or transport drugs. Many (I guess probably even most) of the people in the business also committed many other crimes. Anywhere from bribery to multiple counts of murder. If you think those people are just going to go quiet I think you are wrong.

As long as we agree that they will no longer ge fighting to control smuggling routes.

As for the rest of the post I think you made a mistake (too much wine for celebration? ) So I will wait until you fix it. Happy new year everyone.

[XogGyux]

Do you mean survival?

What else do you think that means?

As long as we agree that they will no longer ge fighting to control smuggling routes.

That seems reasonable to me. But I do not think it matters what they are fighting for so long they are.

[Drlee]

By this point the cartel is an integral cultural trait, embedded directly into the Mexican ruling system. If drugs were to cease existing tomorrow, they would find a different racket to engage in.

It is too late. This is not the Sicilian mafia in southern Italy. It pervades every aspect of Mexican society. A better question is; 'how does one leverage this organized criminal resource to ones advantage?'

I agree with this. The notion that somehow legalizing all illegal drugs would put these guys on unemployment is shallow thinking. IMO the only way to eliminate them entirely is for a government to take power which is so despotic, ruthless and brutal that their elimination would largely be a distinction without a difference. Or, ironically, they might morph into the freedom-fighters we have to back to protect our Southern border. Imagine that.

[One Degree]

I agree with this. The notion that somehow legalizing all illegal drugs would put these guys on unemployment is shallow thinking. IMO the only way to eliminate them entirely is for a government to take power which is so despotic, ruthless and brutal that their elimination would largely be a distinction without a difference. Or, ironically, they might morph into the freedom-fighters we have to back to protect our Southern border. Imagine that.

I believe this is a truth we don't like to face. If you want to dramatically change a culture in a short period, then elements of that culture must be eliminated. Otherwise, they will simply pass their thinking on to others delaying the change.

[Zionist Nationalist]

crazy liberals want to legalize cocaine
next they will want to legalize pedophilia

[AFAIK]

Great non-sequester ZN.

OD and Dr Lee- since when did the USA prioritise Mexico when making domestic policy?

[One Degree]

OD and Dr Lee- since when did the USA prioritise Mexico when making domestic policy?

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I don't recall making any statements that placed Mexico's welfare above domestic policy.

[AFAIK]

I was making the rhetorical point that the reaction of Mexican drug cartels to potential changes to drug policy have little effect on those policy decisions.

[Pants-of-dog]

What else do you think that means?

That seems reasonable to me. But I do not think it matters what they are fighting for so long they are.

Why would they fight if the reason for fighting no longer exists?

[One Degree]

I was making the rhetorical point that the reaction of Mexican drug cartels to potential changes to drug policy have little effect on those policy decisions.

Do you think they should? I see no reason to take their actions into consideration. I assume it would be violent and need to be dealt with. I actually have no strong feelings about a drug policy. Legalizing is a toss up for me. I simply don't know.

[XogGyux]

By this point the cartel is an integral cultural trait, embedded directly into the Mexican ruling system. If drugs were to cease existing tomorrow, they would find a different racket to engage in.

It is too late. This is not the Sicilian mafia in southern Italy. It pervades every aspect of Mexican society. A better question is; 'how does one leverage this organized criminal resource to ones advantage?'

This does not negate the rest of the domestic benefits that legalization might lead to.
I Disagree with your hypothesis though. Sure, some will try and a few will make it into another criminal business. I think most will succumb to the chaos created by the vacuum of money that is preventing them from being caught or killed. A few might try to retire with whatever savings they have.

Why would they fight if the reason for fighting no longer exists?

The reason for fighting will still exist. Drugs are gone (hypothetically) but they are still criminals, the governments still want to catch them/kill them. They just don't have more money influx so it will be harder for them to fight (again, hypothetically).

The notion that somehow legalizing all illegal drugs would put these guys on unemployment is shallow thinking.

That is why the major reason we have been giving in favor of legalizing is not that these guys will be unemployed (and it is not either that drugs will stop being consumed either). But rather, the main reasons are:
War on drug does not work.
Taxation/money from drug on wars/money from prisoners due to drugs can be used for education, rehabilitation, addiction research, etc
Regulation
AND it has the bonus of making it harder for criminals to get money.

IMO the only way to eliminate them entirely is for a government to take power which is so despotic, ruthless and brutal that their elimination would largely be a distinction without a difference.

So you really don't have a viable alternative?

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I highly doubt that US lawmakers would legalise cocaine even if it meant that Mexicans would be significantly safer. They would prefer to keep pretending that drug laws work instead of saving lives.

-----------

@XogGyux,

The reason for fighting will still exist. Drugs are gone (hypothetically) but they are still criminals, the governments still want to catch them/kill them. They just don't have more money influx so it will be harder for them to fight (again, hypothetically).

No, the reason for fighting (control over smuggling routes) would no longer exist. People do not go around killing others just because they are criminals.

[One Degree]

So you really don't have a viable alternative?

The Philipines is running a real life test on the viability of this right now.

[XogGyux]

No, the reason for fighting (control over smuggling routes) would no longer exist. People do not go around killing others just because they are criminals.

So you think thats the only reason for killing currently? You don't think there are killings/violence right now against the population/police force? that will continue to exist, they are criminals and they will continue to be criminals (and the police will continue to try to catch them) long after drugs (hypothetically) become legal.

The Philipines is running a real life test on the viability of this right now.

They can try it all they want. The fact that it would have to be a super repressive government (upwards of USSR repression, probably close to north korea levels) already makes it unviable for countries like ours.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you think thats the only reason for killing currently?

Yes.

You don't think there are killings/violence right now against the population/police force?

I know there are. And I think they happen because these gangs want to control the smuggling routes into the USA.

that will continue to exist, they are criminals and they will continue to be criminals (and the police will continue to try to catch them) long after drugs (hypothetically) become legal.

Sure, they can still be criminals. And they can go do some other thing. And this thing won't be responsible for the current violence.

[XogGyux]

[Pants-of-dog]

@XogGyux

So, you have no intelligent rebuttal. Okay. This claim of mine would be easy to disprove. All you would have to do is show evidence that a significant number of deaths are for some other reason.

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux

So, you have no intelligent rebuttal. Okay. This claim of mine would be easy to disprove. All you would have to do is show evidence that a significant number of deaths are for some other reason.

Actually no. It is not surprising that your lack of understanding of how burden of proof works transcend individual posts. You are the one claiming that most death are direct result of conflict for trade routes and no other major significant reason for deaths. So have at it, show your proof that is the case.

[One Degree]

Accurate figures from Mexico are very difficult to obtain, but estimates from reliable sources place gang related deaths between 60,000 and 120,000. The size of these numbers indicates not any where near a majority could have been killed around the immigration routes.

Last week, the Mexican government released new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 — a period that accounts for some of the bloodiest years of the nation’s war against the drug cartels — more than 164,000 people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in 2011.

Over the same seven-year period, slightly more than 103,000 died in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to data from the United Nations and the website Iraq Body Count.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually no. It is not surprising that your lack of understanding of how burden of proof works transcend individual posts. You are the one claiming that most death are direct result of conflict for trade routes and no other major significant reason for deaths. So have at it, show your proof that is the case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

The Mexican Drug War (also known as the Mexican War on Drugs; Spanish: guerra contra el narcotráfico en México)[81] is the Mexican theater of the United States' War on Drugs,[82] involving an ongoing low-intensity[83][84] asymmetric war[85][86] between the Mexican Government and various drug trafficking syndicates. Since 2006, when the Mexican military began to intervene, the government's principal goal has been to reduce the drug-related violence.[87] Additionally, the Mexican government has claimed that their primary focus is on dismantling the powerful drug cartels, rather than on preventing drug trafficking, which is left to U.S. functionaries.[88][89][90]

Although Mexican drug cartels, or drug trafficking organizations, have existed for several decades, their influence has increased[91][92] since the demise of the Colombian Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s. Mexican drug cartels now dominate the wholesale illicit drug market and in 2007 controlled 90% of the cocaine entering the United States.[93][94] Arrests of key cartel leaders, particularly in the Tijuana and Gulf cartels, has led to increasing drug violence as cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the United States.[95][96][97]

Analysts estimate that wholesale earnings from illicit drug sales range from $13.6 to $49.4 billion annually.[93][98][99]

By the end of Felipe Calderón's administration (2006–12), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000.[100] Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.[101][102]

Now, please present your evidence that disporves my claim. Thank you.