Why designating cartels as terrorist organizations or using the military to go after them in Mexico will fail

[Caveira]

6 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Yeah there might be like a dozen or so guys but after that, it's mostly just a bunch of contracted workers or people who do specialized tasks. Like the guy who smuggles it across the border is most likely just some guy who wanted to make $5k. He doesn't know anything, he probably doesn't know who he's actually working for, and if he gets caught he can't give any useful information. There's definitely a hierarchy, but it's not like the guys at the top direct things all the way down to random people who get hired for one task. Most of the work is carried out by people who are thrilled with being able to make money and are morally ambiguous about how. 

Like the Viking.  Y’all always want to punt and not stop bad shyte from occurring.    It’s hard let’s ride up.  Should they just give up and let the drugs flow exponentially more than today?

[Tripnsweep]

2 hours ago, Caveira said:

Like the Viking.  Y’all always want to punt and not stop bad shyte from occurring.    It’s hard let’s ride up.  Should they just give up and let the drugs flow exponentially more than today?

I think we need to be realistic. We're never going to stop it. 95% comes through ports of entry, so even if we stopped all foot traffic hopping the fence (another thing that would never happen) there would still be significant amounts of drugs crossing the border or arriving here. I think that recognizing that drug addiction is a public health issue and treating it as such, instead of as a criminal act, is the best way to go. It would also be cheaper too, for a variety of reasons. I'd be more interested in an approach like that, where you can slowly bankrupt the cartels, than just trying to play whack a mole with them and not really accomplish anything. 

[ionel]

14 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

I think we need to be realistic. We're never going to stop it. 95% comes through ports of entry ... 

If true that should be easier don't you think? 

[wrestlingguy]

14 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

I think that recognizing that drug addiction is a public health issue and treating it as such, instead of as a criminal act, is the best way to go. It would also be cheaper too, for a variety of reasons. I'd be more interested in an approach like that, where you can slowly bankrupt the cartels, than just trying to play whack a mole with them and not really accomplish anything. 

My first thought on this is, if you wait until the drug addiction gets worse, because you aren't stopping the distribution, then the pharmaceutical companies profit even more than they already do on Narcan, etc.

[Tripnsweep]

2 hours ago, ionel said:

If true that should be easier don't you think? 

Welcome to capitalism. Nice of you to join us. 

[Tripnsweep]

2 hours ago, wrestlingguy said:

My first thought on this is, if you wait until the drug addiction gets worse, because you aren't stopping the distribution, then the pharmaceutical companies profit even more than they already do on Narcan, etc.

So if you create a scenario where there is much less incentive to smuggle drugs, by treating addiction as a disease, and educating people about the dangers of it, then you cut into profits. When marijuana became quasi legal and then became legal recreationally, it cost the cartels billions. They couldn't compete with high quality product that was easily available. Actually it's funny because seizures going into Mexico have exploded in the last few years. So if we can use a strategy that combined education, treatment, and prevention or mitigation, then we would hit the cartels where it really hurts. Because playing whack a mole might feel good, but long term it doesn't do anything.