Cartels could be easily taken care of

[WayNeacTia]

Earlier saw that the cop that arrested el chapos son was gunned down in broad daylight. And I thinking why are these people even allowed to keep running around. Here is my solution allow the intelligence agencies, police, militias and the military to use force against them with no repucssion. One extra step further then what Brazil is currently exploring. This would be a temporary solution tasked by a coalition of people with different political views avoid claims of oppression until the cartels have been sufficiently wiped out.

Steps

1) intelligence agencies identify and post information about the cartels in local, regional and country wide bulletins

2) local/federal government create bounties, for every dead/alive cartel member bought in is given a credit

3) civilians get involved by getting rewarded or ratting out other civilians in authority who has been turned or a member of cartel in hiding

4) civilian militias or private contractors also should be involved

Rinse and repeat until their strangle hold is gone from the black and regular markets

Problem solved, what do you think?

I am sure you have passed along your suggestions to all of the three letter agencies, and the Mexican consulate in your particular region, so they can study this new way of thinking?

[Sunemia]

Legalize drugs and offer welfare programs
to the addicted,like in Switerzland. It worked.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Time for drug legalization. Breaking the monopoly of the cartels will weaken them.

No it won't. We don't need a bunch of people whose minds have been permanently ruined or addicted because they got to cocaine, heroin, meth,
(whatever other hard drug there is out there) just once. Besides which, a lot of illegal businesses branch out into legitimate businesses to get a cut of that, or for the purposes of luandering dirty money.

Nobody is afraid of the Mafia's "code of silence" anymore for example, because the alternative is being imprisoned for 40+ years which few people want to risk. And because within organized crime- nobody cares about you anyways, once you're no longer useful. Other criminals are more likely to try to kill you if you're a potential liability for any reason, even for stuff a person couldn't control. People don't owe loyalty to people whom when they really think about it- aren't loyal to them at all.

We need more of that. To systematically make the incentives people have to lean towards turning criminals in or betraying them because the alternative consequences for them are worse objectively speaking, and ideally, they can't be retaliated against because the witness protection programs are too strong or literally almost everyone else is doing so because they don't want to lose their genuinely held property/life savings because it is being held hostage by the state.

The cartels are too strong for much of what you propose and the government is too corrupt.

[Saiwania]

The cartels are too strong for much of what you propose and the government is too corrupt.

Like I posted earlier, one of the first main steps to cause a massive weakening of the cartels is to simply have a powerful enough government take their property away and use the proceeds to get more superior equipment/leverage if those targeted are poor or de-fanged overnight and thus- have a lot of their ability to retaliate taken away over time. It might even be done in such a way, as to get their own family/relatives to betray them because if the state has a problem with them, it's going to be enough of a problem for their parents/siblings; for them to want to turn any criminal relatives in to get their property back.

Civil forfeitures with less due process, can probably work very well in Mexico. Then once it is resolved, some due process can be added in.

[The Snazzylands]

How about
1. Decriminalize drug use
2. Give actual treatment to addicts instead of branding them felons and throwing them in a cage

This objectively worked in significantly lowering drug use in other countries like Portugal and Switzerland. Less demand for drugs means a huge hit to the cartels’ income and power.

Too bad private prisons have copious amounts of money to lobby against ending the War on Drugs or anything that would slow the tide of convicts they get every day, as does the DEA with the billions of dollars of seized drug money they’re lining their pockets with.

I guess Americans will just have to spend the next few decades at each other’s throats about the growing influx of Central and South American refugees and illegal immigrants without ever thinking about how our demonstrably ineffective drug policies just might be part of the driving force behind the unstable political systems, violence, and rampant corruption in those countries.

[Chernoslavia]

Lol...when going after well known murderers, rapists, and just plain utter scum is considered fascism.

No, cops with total unaccountable authority is fascism. What's to stop them from just labeling basic dissidents and folks they plain don't like as cartel members and executing said "cartel members"?

Simple. You hold them accountable if they do murder innocents, like literally anywhere else.

[Gormwood]

No, cops with total unaccountable authority is fascism. What's to stop them from just labeling basic dissidents and folks they plain don't like as cartel members and executing said "cartel members"?

Simple. You hold them accountable if they do murder innocents, like literally anywhere else.

But if they're unaccountable in the first place and everybody they kill just happen to be "cartel members" out of convenience...

[Totenborg]

The cartels can probably be resolved with the right incentives. We need to make it so that their own family members will betray them. How to do this? Simple, I say allow the government to seize all of the property and assets that're involved in crime and use the proceeds to get the best equipment and resources. This is often done in the US to great success.

If a son or daughter's activities cause the entire family to lose all property/real estate/assets or having it held hostage by the state, they're going to turn the son/daughter over to get all that property/life savings back. If they're involved, many will turn themselves in to get the hardship off of their relatives and etc.

No. Punitive action towards non-criminals is definitely not the way to go. It will simply create more hostility toward law enforcement. Additionally, civil asset forfeiture often aids criminal enterprise rather that hinders it. For, proof, look up Jennings, LA civil asset forfeiture scandals.

[Chernoslavia]

Simple. You hold them accountable if they do murder innocents, like literally anywhere else.

But if they're unaccountable in the first place and everybody they kill just happen to be "cartel members" out of convenience...

Which wouldn't be hard to investigate. The problem is the Mexican government is in bed with the cartels, but to say they can't go after them aggressively or it's ''fascist'' to do so is ludicrous.

[Deacarsia]

God, this is incredibly naive, OP. Do you honestly think that the police and intelligence agencies are so stupid and bad at their jobs that it never occurred to them to put up "Wanted" notices or offer rewards for cartel members' capture?

The cartels are not powerful because police can't do basic police work. They're powerful because they hold a monopoly on billion dollar black market industries, make enough money to bribe anyone, operate in countries with few alternate opportunities for employment, and are complete merciless psychopaths.

The reason citizens haven't started hunting them down isn't because no one has thought of it before, it's because people who do try to fight back have a tendency to get buried alive, locked in a burning house, or publicly decapitated before they can even try. The reason government officials don't reward or help citizens is because most of them are in the pockets of the cartels and anyone who falls out of line or tries to usurp them gets similar treatment. I promise you, these people are for more organized, well trained, and ruthless than any "civilian militia" could hope to be. Try looking up real life people who tried to stand up to the cartels, go on a magical Google journey and see how well this heroic fantasy lives up.

We already know how to stop the cartels: Cut off their revenue. Their power comes from money, and that money comes from a demand for illicit goods and services. If those goods and services would stop being illicit and start being operated as legitimate business, people would stop going to them for that business and stop giving them money. We just don't like this solution because it involves us having to admit that our social etiquette is skewed and that not everything can be solved by acting like a superhero.

This.

[Cappuccina]

But if they're unaccountable in the first place and everybody they kill just happen to be "cartel members" out of convenience...

Which wouldn't be hard to investigate. The problem is the Mexican government is in bed with the cartels, but to say they can't go after them aggressively or it's ''fascist'' to do so is ludicrous.

This^

[Bear Stearns]

Legalize drugs, close the borders, deport all immigrants.

Cartels gone.

[Rojava Free State]

Lol...when going after well known murderers, rapists, and just plain utter scum is considered fascism.

No, cops with total unaccountable authority is fascism. What's to stop them from just labeling basic dissidents and folks they plain don't like as cartel members and executing said "cartel members"?

Rodrigo dutuerte in a nutshell

[Major-Tom]

Duterte probably thought it would be easy with more extra judicial killing too. He was wrong.

Duterte is a crackup, dude literally admitted to being a fentanyl addict and yet he still went around, high off his fucking ass, killing drug users extrajudicially. He's a disgrace.

[Saiwania]

No, cops with total unaccountable authority is fascism.

Even so, it still may well be what Mexico needs, at least on a temporary basis. The most difficult problems tend to require the most unpleasant solutions. My own suggestion is more asset forfeiture on a mass scale. If the pressure is turned on cartel member's family and extended family (if applicable) the relatives are going to betray and disown them if continuing to help or provide them safe haven is bringing themselves nothing but hardship or misery from the state.

You got to make it very hard for parents/siblings and whoever, to still keep loving the criminal sons/cousins or whoever. Drive a big enough wedge, and any of those who work with cartels will be left with no allies. The Soviet Union's practice of encouraging all of their citizens to report on their parents/relatives for suspected treason, might also be applicable with some modifications.

[Rojava Free State]

Duterte probably thought it would be easy with more extra judicial killing too. He was wrong.

Duterte is a crackup, dude literally admitted to being a fentanyl addict and yet he still went around, high off his fucking ass, killing drug users extrajudicially. He's a disgrace.

You know dutuerte was a school shooter and a serial killer basically as the mayor. When he was in school a boy taunted him for being cebuano, so he shot him. As mayor, Rodrigo drove around on his motorcycle killing people for various reasons.

I really believe dutuerte just likes to murder people and needed a justification to save face in his country. I mean imagine him saying "I've decided to order the army to kill random people on a nightly basis for my enjoyment"

[Rojava Free State]

No, cops with total unaccountable authority is fascism.

Even so, it still may well be what Mexico needs, at least on a temporary basis. The most difficult problems tend to require the most unpleasant solutions.

Why cause untold suffering and countless deaths when you can just legalize the drugs and cause the death of the cartel in a few weeks. You notice the Chicago mob wars ended after prohibition ceased. Guess why

[Saiwania]

Why cause untold suffering and countless deaths when you can just legalize the drugs and cause the death of the cartel in a few weeks. You notice the Chicago mob wars ended after prohibition ceased. Guess why

We're not talking about just alcohol or some victimless crime. These are hard drugs that need to stay illegal, because those drugs are more correlated with severe addiction, death, or mental deterioration. There are no legitimate uses for cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. like there might be for marijuana (not the synthetic kind).

[Rojava Free State]

Why cause untold suffering and countless deaths when you can just legalize the drugs and cause the death of the cartel in a few weeks. You notice the Chicago mob wars ended after prohibition ceased. Guess why

We're not talking about just alcohol or some victimless crime. These are hard drugs that need to stay illegal, because those drugs are more correlated with severe addiction, death, or mental deterioration. There are no legitimate uses for cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. like there might be for marijuana (not the synthetic kind).

Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs on earth and caused thousands of deaths a year. It is highly addictive and destroys lives but we allow it because people can decide for themselves if they wanna do it or not

You legalize a drug and then educate people about it so most people will avoid it at all costs

[Saiwania]

Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs on earth and caused thousands of deaths a year. It is highly addictive and destroys lives but we allow it because people can decide for themselves if they wanna do it or not. You legalize a drug and then educate people about it so most people will avoid it at all costs

No alcohol is not just as dangerous- alcoholics notwithstanding, in that at least it wears off relatively quickly; and people can stop before going past their limit with some self control. Not all drugs are created equal. Some are clearly too hardcore as to be inherently destructive.

Any society is probably going to have at least some interest in controlling certain substances if not limiting access to it because it causes more problems than its worth keeping available. From a government's perspective, sometimes Its better that fewer people get something illegal via the black market, than to allow that illegal good to be disseminated to the masses or legitimized in any way.

[Gormwood]

Duterte probably thought it would be easy with more extra judicial killing too. He was wrong.

Duterte is a crackup, dude literally admitted to being a fentanyl addict and yet he still went around, high off his fucking ass, killing drug users extrajudicially. He's a disgrace.

But fentanyl isn't a street drug so that makes it okay. *nod*

[Gormwood]

Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs on earth and caused thousands of deaths a year. It is highly addictive and destroys lives but we allow it because people can decide for themselves if they wanna do it or not. You legalize a drug and then educate people about it so most people will avoid it at all costs

No alcohol is not just as dangerous- alcoholics notwithstanding, in that at least it wears off relatively quickly; and people can stop before going past their limit with some self control. Not all drugs are created equal. Some are clearly too hardcore as to be inherently destructive.

Any society is probably going to have at least some interest in controlling certain substances if not limiting access to it because it causes more problems than its worth keeping available. From a government's perspective, sometimes Its better that fewer people get something illegal via the black market, than to allow that illegal good to be disseminated to the masses or legitimized in any way.

We forgot Prohibition was a smashing success.

[Rojava Free State]

Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs on earth and caused thousands of deaths a year. It is highly addictive and destroys lives but we allow it because people can decide for themselves if they wanna do it or not. You legalize a drug and then educate people about it so most people will avoid it at all costs

No alcohol is not just as dangerous- alcoholics notwithstanding, in that at least it wears off relatively quickly; and people can stop before going past their limit with some self control. Not all drugs are created equal. Some are clearly too hardcore as to be inherently destructive.

Any society is probably going to have at least some interest in controlling certain substances if not limiting access to it because it causes more problems than its worth keeping available. From a government's perspective, sometimes Its better that fewer people get something illegal via the black market, than to allow that illegal good to be disseminated to the masses or legitimized in any way.

https://sobernation.com/3-reasons-why-a ... rous-drug/

Alcohol is a pretty dangerous drug. We let it be legal, so I don't see why we should continue fighting a losing war on drugs against the others

[Saiwania]

https://sobernation.com/3-reasons-why-alcohol-is-actually-the-most-dangerous-drug/
Alcohol is a pretty dangerous drug. We let it be legal, so I don't see why we should continue fighting a losing war on drugs against the others

Alcohol the most dangerous drug? No it isn't, give me a break. It is legal in the first place, because alcohol isn't the most dangerous thing in the world and it is socially accepted in that it has a long history and place within different societies that the other hard drugs just don't have more often than not. Marijuana is only becoming decriminalized in a lot of places, because its relatively less harmful and the prisons are becoming too crowded.

It's irresponsibly naive from my standpoint, to want all drugs (which aren't created equal) to be legalized. So you don't believe allowing meth for example, to be sold over the counter to the masses- won't cause negative externalities or backfire to enough of an extent as to cause worse social problems than is now the case in keeping it illegal and access to it more restricted?

If the manufacturers of poison to the mind are so insistent on their products being legalized, they should pay all of the medical and negative social costs that will result from the sale of their products, but this is never going to be forthcoming- is it?

I'd still prefer for fewer people to have access to hard drugs and it being kept illegal than for people to have cheap, easy, and legal access to hard drugs that cause people tangible harm or to become more unproductive or disabled than would otherwise be the case.

[Rojava Free State]

https://sobernation.com/3-reasons-why-alcohol-is-actually-the-most-dangerous-drug/
Alcohol is a pretty dangerous drug. We let it be legal, so I don't see why we should continue fighting a losing war on drugs against the others

Alcohol the most dangerous drug? No it isn't, give me a break. It is legal in the first place, because alcohol isn't the most dangerous thing in the world and it is socially accepted in that it has a long history and place within different societies that the other hard drugs just don't have more often than not. Marijuana is only becoming decriminalized in a lot of places, because its relatively less harmful and the prisons are becoming too crowded.

It's irresponsibly naive from my standpoint, to want all drugs (which aren't created equal) to be legalized. So you don't believe allowing meth for example, to be sold over the counter to the masses- won't cause negative externalities or backfire to enough of an extent as to cause worse social problems than is now the case in keeping it illegal and access to it more restricted?

If the manufacturers of poison to the mind are so insistent on their products being legalized, they should pay all of the medical and negative social costs that will result from the sale of their products, but this is never going to be forthcoming- is it?

I'd still prefer for fewer people to have access to hard drugs and it being kept illegal than for people to have cheap, easy, and legal access to hard drugs that cause people tangible harm or to become more unproductive or disabled than would otherwise be the case.

I see you didn't read the article on the safety of drugs at all. Alcohol is definitely one of the most dangerous drugs, and if you think it's not, it's only because you haven't seen it destroy people's lives. I have. It's far more dangerous than most illegal drugs in America