Is Mexico getting serious about Drug enforcement

[Redleg]

I wonder if the President of Mexico will be successful in his attempt to remove some of the corruption and crime from the drug cratels in his country?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/82E1D326-7F2C-4CC8-95D1-D11F4A243208.htm

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/04/military/13_26_571_3_07.txt


Opposition politicians and residents alike have expressed doubt about how much of an impact the president's highly publicized actions will have. President Vicente Fox sent thousands of soldiers and federal police to drug-embattled towns and arrested several major drug kingpins during his six-year term, but the actions appeared to spark more violence, as the criminals still at large battled to take over the smuggling routes of those killed or detained.

"This is not an easy task nor will it be fast," Calderon said Wednesday. "It will take a long time, imply using enormous resources and even unfortunately the loss of human lives."

But, the president added, "if we continue working as we have been until now, our cities and our land will not remain in the hands of criminals, but in that of honest people who work to help their families get ahead."

[PanzerJaeger]

You read al Jazeera, Redleg? :inquisitive:

You have more diverse tastes than I thought. :yes:

[Hepcat]

Heres hoping it will work, in my opinion it won't be instantaneous as he says and will probably get worse before it starts getting better but it will make it better for future generations and will pave the way for repairing other issues.

[Kanamori]

Well, there's going to be a market, and as long as its illegal, the demand will be met through profitable illegal production, which will almost certainly be controlled by some sort of gang when they're made in less stable countries. They'll (maybe) try to keep arresting and just hope that less brutal people take control of the markets... prolly not going to happen.

If drugs were produced by state licensed chemists, drug trade wouldn't be much of a problem.:balloon2:

[rory_20_uk]

You want to end the crime? Take away the profits. Legalise the stuff. The Hong Kong Triads were small time smugglers until Opiates were made illegal, then suddenly they were the only major importers of a desired substance, and effectively printed their own money. Or Prohibition...

Everything else is window dressing whilst politicians hide from dealing with the unpalatable realities of the world and human nature.

In this issue: the cartels have the money. Probably more motivation and can probably buy hardware that will down helicopters and if required destroy tanks. The can not afford to suffer losses and requires results. The cartels if defeated will merely move elsewhere and start the process again.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

You want to end the crime? Take away the profits. Legalise the stuff. The Hong Kong Triads were small time smugglers until Opiates were made illegal, then suddenly they were the only major importers of a desired substance, and effectively printed their own money. Or Prohibition...

Everything else is window dressing whilst politicians hide from dealing with the unpalatable realities of the world and human nature.

In this issue: the cartels have the money. Probably more motivation and can probably buy hardware that will down helicopters and if required destroy tanks. The can not afford to suffer losses and requires results. The cartels if defeated will merely move elsewhere and start the process again.

~:smoking:
I've suggested before, a campaign to solve the Afghanistan, drugs and burglaries problem in one go. Talk with the Afghan farmers and offer to buy their opium crops at a decent price (better than they're presently paid). Then use the poppies to make opiate drugs to sell under state licence. The Afghans will follow wherever the money comes from. Drugs dealers will have their business usurped by a much larger operation able to economise through scale. Cheaper drugs means users will have less cause to turn to crime to fund their habits. Cleaner drugs means less medical problems from contamination. State control of the drug supply means the government knows the extent of the drug problem, and can better direct measures to alleviate it. Finally, it's a useful way of raising revenue, meaning better returns than the government spent in buying and processing the opium in the first place.

[rory_20_uk]

It's not rocket science, is it?

When you factor in the money you could make from selling the drugs, and money you could save from reduced crime, smuggling and use of healthcare it seems a win-win-win policy.


In the UK we finally have 24 hour drinking licences. The doomsayers almost said society as we know it would end. In fact things got slightly better.

~:smoking:

[Redleg]

The problem that is hinted in the article but not caught by many is the rampent corruption of the Mexico political system and primarily the government itself. Part of the raids were into the police systems in the two states mentioned in the articles.


How many realize that the corruption of the Mexican government is as rampent as it was 100 years ago?

[rory_20_uk]

The cartels have the money, and politicians are invariably for rent if not for purchase. Same with the police / army: if you get told either take a tax free doubling of salary or have your family raped and skinned alive in front of you very few opt for the latter. Or informing the "enemy" ensures that no one will be where the raid occurs - much better than to have to fight well armed opposition.

So the cartels probably have a good idea what is going to happen before it does, and until there is a police force of robots, this isn't going to alter.

100 years ago drugs weren't illegal, so there wasn't this amount of money around.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

It's not rocket science, is it?

When you factor in the money you could make from selling the drugs, and money you could save from reduced crime, smuggling and use of healthcare it seems a win-win-win policy.


In the UK we finally have 24 hour drinking licences. The doomsayers almost said society as we know it would end. In fact things got slightly better.

~:smoking:
We built an empire from selling highly addictive drugs backed up by gunboats. Why not try to do it again? The chief of this drugs racket could direct operations from his traditional abode of 10 Downing Street.

[Redleg]

100 years ago drugs weren't illegal, so there wasn't this amount of money around.

~:smoking:


100 years ago the corruption was there, parts of Mexico were just as deadly as it is now. 100 years ago it was the rich land owners oppression of the people with the assistance/backing of the government.

Its really easy to blame it on drugs and the influence of the drug cratels. You ever wonder why a vast percentage of the Mexican people come to the United States to work versus working in their own country?

Edit:

A recent article that demonstrates how much corruption is ingrained into Mexican police and politics.

http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=4640

El Presidente has a long hard fight ahead.

[rory_20_uk]

Ah yes, England selling drugs to Chinese... they used opium before we got there, and the whole situation started as the Chinese would only trade in silver.

Yes, corruption may well be in Mexico regardless of the cartels, but currently they are responsible. Sorting it out is going to be hard / impossible when there are massive gains to being corrupt and massive risks to being honest.

~:smoking:

[Redleg]

Yes, corruption may well be in Mexico regardless of the cartels, but currently they are responsible. Sorting it out is going to be hard / impossible when there are massive gains to being corrupt and massive risks to being honest.

~:smoking:

Cartels are the most visible - the other forms of corruption and graft are still currently present also. Once again do you ever wonder why a high percentage of Mexicans make the dangerous crossing to work in the United States as illegals?