Mexican Cartels: 114 Candidates Assassinated

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by Tenacious D, Jun 18, 2018.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    114 candidates for elected office have been killed - since September.

    At what point is Mexico utterly incapable of destroying these drug cartels? And, at what point have the cartels taken over - officially - in only allowing puppet candidates to run for, win and assume office?

    I’d say that the assassination of some 114 candidates for office is a pretty damned good indicator that they’ve passed those points.

    And when, if ever, does the U.S. interject itself, considering that this violence and drugs often spills over our shared border?

    Does the U.S. have a burden to do anything, or any duty to the Mexican people, besides protecting itself with wall?


    Link: http://wp.telesurtv.net/english/new...s-Murder-Victim-Number-114-20180615-0013.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
  2. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

    Do we want to be world police or do we take care of our borders and fight it there?
     
  3. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Legalize, grow and tax cocaine and marijuana.

    There is a point at which it is no longer profitable to bring it over.
     
  4. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    Cocaine might not be a good idea to legalize. Like Rick James said "Cocaine is a hell of a drug"
     
  5. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    More people die from pan pills, I am unconvinced legalizing cocaine would make the overall situation worse.
     
    Joseph Brant likes this.
  6. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    I know where you are coming from, and I generally agree. But legalizing weed and not cocaine will not hurt the cartels. They make all of their money from the powder, and they probably have more money than the government. It might just be the lesser evil over all.

    I am not for interfering with the Mexican government or policing them, not one iota. Can you imagine if Canada said in 1925 "Ok, we are coming into Chicago to clean this shit up"?
     
  7. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    Make cocaine legal and that number changes over night.
     
  8. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Are there really many people who would abuse a substance but can't find any to abuse?

    I doubt it, but I have no way to really know.
     
  9. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    Might as well make heroin legal too.
     
  10. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Ya, maybe. Get it all above board where it can be regulated and violent criminals lose their monopoly
     
  11. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    The war on drugs has no win condition. It seems like it just makes addicts into criminals to me.
     
  12. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    What kind of criminal do you mean?
     
  13. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    The kind that are put in prison for buying a bag of weed.
     
  14. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Marijuana isn't really addictive.

    I'm not sure if he means just the kind of criminal that possesses drugs, or the kind of criminal that is driven to commit crimes such as theft in order to fund his addiction. Because the latter is a pretty common thing, which is a major reservation I have with making a lot of these drugs legal. You get hooked on some of these things and you're in no condition to hold down a job, but you can still break into your neighbor's place and snatch a bunch of stuff.
     
  15. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    Do alcoholics break into your house to get money to buy booze? Cigarettes?

    Would legal weed be cheaper and safer than blackmarket weed? Cocaine? I have no answer, I would rather them not be legal, but 50+ years of the war on drugs has been disastrous.
     
  16. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I meant the possession bit.

    Legalizing won't solve the petty crimes stuff, but it didn't cause it either. It's far more likely for there to be intervention if this stuff is dispensed in some organized, regulated fashion. There would still be a grey market, but the big money of a complete ban would be gone which would decrease the violence
     
  17. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    There are drugs out there that comparing them to weed, alcohol, or cigarettes is like comparing an Abrams to a BB gun.

    No one has ever broke into my home. I know quite several people who have their homes broken into (several of them by their own children) in order to steal stuff to fuel their drug habits.
     
  18. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    Sicario 2 is out next week. Alejandro has a plan
     
  19. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I agree that the “war” on drugs has been a calamitous failure - but only in the same way that the “war” in Vietnam could also be argued to have been a strategic failure, in that the outcome of each resulted from a one-arm-tied-behind-your-back and largely half-assed effort, toward ever-changing and objectives so vague as to be vaporous, and where many thousands needlessly suffered with the perils of that short-sighted incompetence.

    The War on Drugs did not fail because we did too much and against an unbeatable foe, but because we didn’t do enough, and with sufficient strength, against all sides, in order to actually win it.

    Had we waged the type of war that didn’t singularly focus on the brown guy who brought the drugs in, or the black guy who sold it on the corner, but which also included the white kid who bought it, too - and landed them with a similar sentence as the others, the War on Drugs would have long ago been over, and successfully won.
     
  20. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I disagree on almost all points. We were winning the war in vietnam, we just didn't follow through because it wasn't worth the fight. We are losing the war on drugs, because drugs are the symptom not a cause.

    Though I do recognize your point regarding the haphazard application of "justice."
     

Share This Page