[Doofy]

BBC News - Mexico casino arson attack kills dozens in Monterrey

An arson attack in the northern Mexican city of Monterrey has left at least 53 people dead.

Gunmen burst into the building in broad daylight, dousing it with fuel and setting it alight.

Fire crews had to free dozens of people trapped by smoke and flames.

Officials suspect organised crime was behind the attack, one of the deadliest since President Felipe Calderon launched his crackdown on the cartels in December 2006.

In a tweet, Mr Calderon said the attack was "an abhorrent act of terror and barbarism" that requires "all of us to persevere in the fight against these unscrupulous criminal bands."

State police officials quoted survivors as saying gunmen had burst into the premises and tried to rob it, before emptying fuel from tanks they had brought with them, AP news agency reported.

Officials said those inside had hidden in toilets and offices when they heard explosions instead of trying to get out and had suffocated as smoke engulfed the building.

Some reports suggest the emergency doors of the premises had been locked.

TV images showed relatives outside the casino demanding information about their loved ones.

"My wife came here for a celebration... she was having dinner with her friends," one man told Milenio TV as wept, Reuters reported.

State Attorney General Leon Adrian de la Garza said a drug cartel was believed to be responsible for the attack and warned that more bodies may be found.

Home to some of Mexico's largest companies, Monterrey and the state of Nuevo Leon have seen rising violence as the Zetas and Gulf cartels vie for for control of trafficking routes to the US.

I have a friend who lives in Monterrey. She can't go out at night and have a fun life because of the violence in her city due to traffickers fighting for territory. Think on next time you're tempted by that Columbian marching powder or imported hash.

[Big Mac]

If only everyone were as straight laced as I. The only mind-altering substance I very occasionally partake in is alcohol.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If only everyone were as straight laced as I.

What do you mean? Do you think it's `normal' for people to take cocaine? Not amongst the people I know.

[The Final Dakar]

 

[img]http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/103/256/original/i-****ing-love-cocaine.jpg[/img]

Edit: Well that's an amusing error.

[subego]

Seems to me this is more the prohibition's fault than the drug's fault.

You don't have to worry about me though. Cocaine makes my tummy hurt.

[mduell]

The Hidden Cost Of That iPhone Someone You Know Bought: <story about Foxconn suicides>

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Seems to me this is more the prohibition's fault than the drug's fault.

There's a variety of factors, ain't there?

1) The demand for it.
2) The illegality of it.
3) The US government breaking up the previously stable cartels.

[sek929]

The demand for drugs will never go away, the only sensible thing to do is decriminalize them and spend money on rehabilitation instead of incarceration.

[turtle777]

At this point in the game, it's utterly irrelevant what happens to drug consumption and demand.

If it wanes (e.g. by legalization in the US), the drug cartels will shift to other methods of "making" money.
You can already see that kidnapping has become a very lucrative "business segment". Extortion and "protective services" will become a focus if drugs don't yield enough income anymore.

Mexico is f***ed. To be honest, I don't see any way out other than Mexico finding Jesus. And I mean this quite literally.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The Hidden Cost Of That iPhone Someone You Know Bought: <story about Foxconn suicides>

Yes, because 50+ innocent people burned to death and a thousand-odd kids killed in crossfire in the last few years are somehow similar to a factory in China with a below average (when measured across the population) suicide rate.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

If it wanes (e.g. by legalization in the US), the drug cartels will shift to other methods of "making" money.
You can already see that kidnapping has become a very lucrative "business segment".

Absolutely correct.

[subego]

There's still the question of demand. There's an order of magnitude more demand for coke over kidnapping.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's still the question of demand. There's an order of magnitude more demand for coke over kidnapping.

It doesn't matter.

Do you seriously think the drug dealers will just go home and become honest, hard-working citizens if there was suddenly no more demand for coke ?

-t

[subego]

No, but a lot of them will kill each other as the ecosystem which supported them collapses.

[subego]

What happened to the mob when their ecosystem collapsed?

There were ultimately less mobsters, and they operated less openly.

[turtle777]

I think this is faulty logic: they CREATE a new ecosystem when the old ones collapse. That's why mobs still exist today, even after hundreds of years.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I think this is faulty logic: they CREATE a new ecosystem when the old ones collapse. That's why mobs still exist today, even after hundreds of years.

-t

Mobs aren't successful because they create markets. They're successful because they enter existing high demand markets which aren't being served through legitimate channels.

To be clear, I'm not saying mobs don't create markets, I'm saying that's not the reason for their continued success.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Mobs aren't successful because they create markets. They're successful because they enter high demand markets which aren't being served through legitimate channels.

O'Rly ?

What's the "high demand markets which aren't being served through legitimate channels" when mobs start collecting protection money or kidnap people ?

-t

[subego]

See my second paragraph. It was a quick edit.

Sorry about that.

[turtle777]

I still fail to see your point. What *IS* the reason for their continued success in your opinion ?
Finding that "underserved market niche" ? Hardly.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I still fail to see your point. What *IS* the reason for their continued success in your opinion ?
Finding that "underserved market niche" ? Hardly.

-t

Let me pull a few underserved markets off the top of my head...

Market for drugs.
Market for prostitutes.
Market for gambling.
Market for loans.

See where I'm going with this?

[turtle777]

Yes, I see your point.

It's mostly things that will always have some demand. You could never legalize it all.

But nonetheless, I doubt they just pack up shop.
Example: prohibition - after it ended, the mob didn't just disappear.

-t

[subego]

So?

Surviving is not equivalent to maintaining the same level of operations, which is what you're insisting will happen.

It doesn't work in quite the same way as with legit businesses, but mobsters have layoffs too, just like any business.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Italian Mafia families for generations were famous for not going anywhere near dealing in drugs because it was something that authorities would never turn a blind eye too no matter how many bribes and kickbacks are paid, and just dabbling in it made for prison sentences serious enough to create snitches who would rat out the top bosses and bring the whole shebang crashing down.

(For a quick refresher on what I'm talking about, watch Goodfellas again. Yes, I realize this is a Hollywood telling of Henry Hill's real life story, but realize that the points about 'Mafia+drugs=big no no' in that movie are spot on.)

Organized criminals steal things and shake down legitimate businesses, first and foremost. There's tremendous money to be had in just those two things, and neither is going away so long as there are other people's things to steal.

The Mexican drug cartels can easily make the switch to (primarily) stealing things, kidnapping, shaking people down, and running scams of all magnitude. Not to mention, just switching over to some new illicit drugs that are so much more addictive and dangerous than the old ones that everyone would soon find themselves pining away for "the good ol' days" when it was just cocaine, herion, etc. But the idea that these types are ever going to just dry up and go away because a single source of revenue is taken from them, is just laughably naive.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

Seems to me this is more the prohibition's fault than the drug's fault.

Exactly.

[Waragainstsleep]

One would imagine that some cartels could become legitimate businesses if cocaine were legalised. Those growing their own would have a head start at least. Possibly that would apply more to colombia than mexico.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The Mexican drug cartels can easily make the switch to (primarily) stealing things, kidnapping, shaking people down, and running scams of all magnitude. Not to mention, just switching over to some new illicit drugs that are so much more addictive and dangerous than the old ones that everyone would soon find themselves pining away for "the good ol' days" when it was just cocaine, herion, etc. But the idea that these types are ever going to just dry up and go away because a single source of revenue is taken from them, is just laughably naive.

Either that or they'll just become another type of "pharmaceutical" company; the next Philip Mooris etc. In which case they'll IPO and centuple their billion dollar industry. Very depressing having to hear a herd of hippies say legalization will put them out of business.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Very depressing having to hear a herd of hippies say legalization will put them out of business.

Where was this said exactly?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by subego 

Where was this said exactly?

In the hundreds of comments under the article. The sheeple all say the same thing.
I see BBC doesn't have comments active; but most the other sites did when this first happened... People in this thread imply it as well.

If I was president I'd solve the drug problem easily and swiftly.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

In the hundreds of comments under the article. The sheeple all say the same thing.
I see BBC doesn't have comments active; but most the other sites did when this first happened... People in this thread imply it as well.

I implied no such thing, nor AFAICT, did anyone else.

As for the hundreds of comments under mystery articles depressing you, thanks for sharing.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by subego 

I implied no such thing, nor AFAICT, did anyone else.

As for the hundreds of comments under mystery articles depressing you, thanks for sharing.

"mystery articles" lol
Awww you wiberals are so cute sometimes. Pwetending you haven't been screaming about legalizing drugs for years on these forums and everywhere else. Oh where oh where did I ever hear such a crazy idea... In any case you're welcome

[Uncle Skeleton]

suggesting -> screaming
"make a dent" -> "put out of business"
There might be something a little skewed in your perceptions

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What do you mean? Do you think it's `normal' for people to take cocaine? Not amongst the people I know.

Your reply doesn't follow logically from my original statement.

[The Final Dakar]

It does in relation to the thread topic. Everyone need not be as straight-laced as you to lack a desire to indulge in cocaine.

[Big Mac]

I didn't say they needed to be. I was just stating, in jest, that it would be great if everyone were as boring as I am when it comes to drugs. How OC got from that that I think it's normal for people to desire cocaine is beyond me, but perhaps I'm missing a salient fact.

[The Final Dakar]

In that case, I think Oreo (and I's) error is an easy one to make.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

Seems to me this is more the prohibition's fault than the drug's fault.

Mexico legalized personal amounts of drugs including cocaine. I don't think prohibition is involved, but out of control corruption and violence.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

suggesting -> screaming
"make a dent" -> "put out of business"
There might be something a little skewed in your perceptions

And he huffed, and he puffed, and he blew the straw man down.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

In that case, I think Oreo (and I's) error is an easy one to make.

I'm missing it. I suppose my words conveyed a sentiment that was completely unknown to me. Strange.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Mexico legalized personal amounts of drugs including cocaine. I don't think prohibition is involved, but out of control corruption and violence.

There's still a giant prohibited market right next door.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

BBC News - Mexico casino arson attack kills dozens in Monterrey



I have a friend who lives in Monterrey. She can't go out at night and have a fun life because of the violence in her city due to traffickers fighting for territory. Think on next time you're tempted by that Columbian marching powder or imported hash.

She needs to leave the place to the traffickers. Can she swim? Guess not.

[Athens]

A local documentary touched on the illegal drug trade and looked at all aspects of the pot industry here in BC. Most people look at only the money being made by the growers and sellers and ignore the rest of the industry. It was a very telling tale that showed how much of a economy can profit from it. From hardware stores to plumbers. From electricians to general contractors. Transportation, supplies, relestate and so on. The most telling part of the documentary was the interviews with the drug dealers and the cops. Both do not want it legalized because for the drug dealers it puts them out of business. For the cops they lost a large part of the funding they get on the war on drugs. The documentary is called the Union. Not sure if its on Netflix, I downloaded it as a torrent. Very well done though.

Personally I rather all drugs be controlled and not illegal. Rather people doing weed, heroin, Cocaine could buy it at a "Drug" store which with the taxes from the creation and selling going to deal with the harm aspects of the drugs. Those that develop addiction problems would just be given a prescription for it until treatment options open up. Crime rates would plummet, insurance costs would go down. No need to rob some one or steal for the users. Police resources are not wasted on it any more too.

[Waragainstsleep]

Legalising heroin is a bad idea, that sh*t is nasty. Hopefully legalising everything else would be enough for people to entertain themselves.

[el chupacabra]

subego Seems to me this is more the prohibition's fault than the drug's fault.

sigh... fine... ok so first off here's where you blame the casino incident on the illegality of drugs; and you cleverly make sure to only use the word prohibition in place of illegality to relate it to alcohol prohibition.... Even though we generally don't use that word when talking about hard drugs; but it does imply the clear agenda.

That statement can only imply 2 things:
A) Since the violence is the "prohibitions" fault: Then if it was legalized the gangs/cartels/criminals committing these acts would either disappear, or they would all of a sudden magically turn into nice people...
or
B)Simply pointing out that you blame the criminal acts of cartels on the fact they are illegal... Which is too redundant to mention. Which means you implied case A.

This is where sek said we should decriminalize them...
"The demand for drugs will never go away, the only sensible thing to do is decriminalize them and spend money on rehabilitation instead of incarceration."

Then there's athens post which ironically came later: "for the drug dealers it puts them out of business"
hmm guess it wasn't all in my head. And honestly I hadn't even read the whole thread before my first post... but then again someone like me doesn't NEED to, to predict all the same stuff that's going to be said.

Violent, organized crime is alive and well in all parts of the world in all industries whether industry is illegal or not. Just off the top of my head; you have scuba shops murdering English speaking Americans who come to set up competing shops in Thailand. You have trucking companies in Iraq blowing up each others trucks to make sure only themselves get reconstruction projects; and their successful attempts to bribe the security companies to look the other way.

The drug companies would love for their industry to be legalized. Like waragainstsleep said, they would have a head start.

They would continue to rule the industry with an iron fist setting fire to anyone who tries to compete with them. That is how things work south of the border... and in California. The only solution is strong state sanctioned force against them... Of which there is very little at the moment.


heres some of the articles I was talking about
http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-arrests...144008968.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...EgJ_story.html

Originally Posted by subego 

And he huffed, and he puffed, and he blew the straw man down.

Sorry but my straw man still stands strong and firm as he ever did.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Sorry but my straw man still stands strong and firm as he ever did.

The OP made the connection of drug demand fueling the cartels. But if they don't depend on illegal trafficking, how can that be so? I'll give you a hint...

That statement can only imply 2 things:
A) Since the violence is the "prohibitions" fault: Then if it was legalized the gangs/cartels/criminals committing these acts would either disappear, or they would all of a sudden magically turn into nice people...

Or legalization would reduce the gangs/cartels/criminals, by some finite non-zero, non-whole amount.

Similar to the amount that adding more drug trafficking increases it (the basis for the OP and thread title (did you read the title, btw?))


...And honestly I haven't even read your whole post yet... but then again someone like me doesn't NEED to, to predict all the same stuff that's going to be said.

[Waragainstsleep]

You legalise it, licence it, tax it and go after those who don't get licenses or pay the taxes and go after them hard. They will take the path of least resistance. This is why criminals commit crimes, because they perceive it to be easier than legitimate money making methods and they consider the risk to be worth the pay off.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

sigh... fine... ok so first off here's where you blame the casino incident on the illegality of drugs; and you cleverly make sure to only use the word prohibition in place of illegality to relate it to alcohol prohibition.... Even though we generally don't use that word when talking about hard drugs; but it does imply the clear agenda.

Seriously? You don't know shit about me, or my "agenda", and apparently aren't even making the effort to properly parse a sentence.

If you have your own argument, make it. If you're just going to stuff words in my mouth (which you've done twice now), I'm not going to waste my time.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The OP made the connection of drug demand fueling the cartels. But if they don't depend on illegal trafficking, how can that be so? I'll give you a hint...

Unfortunately I can't directly say I disagree with anything the OP says since the OP was doofy; as that would be blasphemy. Having said that, drug demand does fuel cartels; illegal trafficking does not. Trafficking is a distribution loss and the more difficult it is for them to traffic it the higher the loss; the more they must charge to make up for that loss. Illegality drives the price up for the end user. This doesn't mean that once the price drops from legit trafficking, once legal, that cartel companies will lose any money. Just means the end price set by distribution costs will go down.

They would love for it to be legal. That is the end goal they hope to achieve by chopping off the heads of law enforcement and displaying them over highways; and with terrorist acts like the casino incident. The whole mantra is "stop enforcing this or we'll kill innocent people". I don't want them to have their way even if it's just a matter of principle. They should have to pay for what they've done, not be allowed to become legal companies. It's not like we're going to start up a competing cocaine industry in the US if it's legalized. We're just going to buy if from the same people we've been buying it from since it's a tropical plant.

The cartels would sell regular pharmaceuticals if they knew how to make them. The drugs they sell are able to be made easily, and crudely in unsanitary conditions. Their strength lies in the fact that the source is in their neighborhood; the jungle etc.. And people will always come through them to get those resources. Now if it was cannabis that might be a different story. We still have a little forest left in the US that we could finish bulldozing in order to make sure there's enough artificially bred high THC weed for people to get stoned; and start our own competing industry. That's a day I look forward to.

It doesn't matter if it's strongly regulated or licensed. You're still rewarding cartels/companies who've killed 10s of thousands of people if not more. There would be even less of a way to keep track of the distribution if it was legalized. And then when people's kids start dropping like flies from O.D.ing everyone will say "why!!! why do THEY let this happen, why is it legal... The kids think it's safe..". And then, the usual crowd will predictably come out and say "lets make it illegal for teens, not adults." In which case you have the whole 'illegal' market/demand again. Then again maybe some people think this could be a method to kill the demand for drugs; most the people susceptible to drugs would quickly win Darwin awards...

Or legalization would reduce the gangs/cartels/criminals, by some finite non-zero, non-whole amount.

In one of your last post you said "make a dent" -> "put out of business"
If all we're talking about is a solution that will make a dent in the drug cartels or their crime then it's not a solution worth pursuing. A dent is something out of sight out of mind. The legalization of drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin etc. is drastic measure to take just to make a dent or speculate on "some finite non-zero" amount.

Similar to the amount that adding more drug trafficking increases it (the basis for the OP and thread title (did you read the title, btw?))

I didn't perceive that in the thread title at all, nor in the OP's original post.

[ghporter]

One quibble: the cartels don't want drugs "legal." They want weak enforcement of strong laws, which allows them to continue to claim that "getting the stuff to you is hazardous and really expensive" so they can charge more and more, but without the actual costs associated with that claim. Illegality is how they make their money, not the drugs themselves.

By definition the cartels are "organized crime," but I agree with President Calderón that these groups are no longer merely criminals, but have been blatantly using terrorism for years to control parts of Mexico to their profit. As this action subverts the civil structure of the nation, it qualifies as "politically motivated," even if the original purpose was to commit criminal activity, because they need political control of their areas to commit their crimes. Also, they have been taking advantage of what can only be called a "legendary" level of corruption in Mexican public officials, high and low, and pushing it to deeper and deeper levels, further subverting civil control.

Unfortunately, legalizing/controlling/managing the current crop of illegal drugs would not work the way things stand now. First, the bureaucracy* needed to get a handle on all the illegal drug traffic in the US would be enormous and expensive. Second, the discussion of what should be controlled at what level would paralyze the process of setting up such a bureaucracy and all the rules that go with it. And there is always the potential for some new and as yet unknown drug to pop up for exploitation, and either the bureaucracy would have to have overly broad control of what "might be," or it would be a year behind the trends and not satisfy the whole purpose of its existence.

*I use "bureaucracy" here to include the laws, rules, taxes, forms, etc., as well as the actual office workers, enforcement people, etc. In other words, the whole structure needed for this purpose, much the way that "IRS" includes tax forms, tax courts, tax enforcement officers, etc.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Having said that, drug demand does fuel cartels; illegal trafficking does not. Trafficking is a distribution loss and the more difficult it is for them to traffic it the higher the loss; the more they must charge to make up for that loss.

You're talking about their profits, everyone else is talking about their collateral damage. Part of the "distribution loss" is the innocent people that have to be killed along the way. If we can reduce their "distribution loss," that might be exactly what we want to do.

I don't want them to have their way even if it's just a matter of principle.

Bingo. You're biased. You'd rather sacrifice the public health angle to serve the retribution angle.

There would be even less of a way to keep track of the distribution if it was legalized.

lolwut?

And then when people's kids start dropping like flies from O.D.ing everyone will say "why!!! why do THEY let this happen, why is it legal... The kids think it's safe..". And then, the usual crowd will predictably come out and say "lets make it illegal for teens, not adults." In which case you have the whole 'illegal' market/demand again. Then again maybe some people think this could be a method to kill the demand for drugs; most the people susceptible to drugs would quickly win Darwin awards...

As if kids aren't dropping like flies from it already? The status quo isn't working.

In one of your last post you said "make a dent" -> "put out of business"
If all we're talking about is a solution that will make a dent in the drug cartels or their crime then it's not a solution worth pursuing.

Drug laws are not intended to affect organized crime in the first place, it's a byproduct. Besides which weren't you one of the people saying that organized crime thrives with or without drugs, and look at all the legit businesses that are mobbed up (even if you weren't, it's true)? No drug policy is going to "put organized crime out of business," so to use that as a measuring stick is meaningless.

I didn't perceive that in the thread title at all, nor in the OP's original post.

(sigh... fine... ) Then please explain what "the hidden cost" refers to, and what could be the connection between it and "that cocaine someone bought."