I live in Monterrey , México, The city go on, but the people is full of fear, that fear that no one could take, neither the police or the military, we just live our lives avoiding conflictive zones and trying to handle it.
Specially in this city the people have some guilty of part of it, we have a sense of "work if you want something" that idea come from our founders, but the lack of education, lack of tv content (here is very important), there is a extreme sense of religion in the zone that's other factor many of them don't try to understand why are in that way, just live their empty life's having beer and roast meat, watching soccer...
Is hard to tell how, but I think the problem is beyond the drugs is social, cultural and political, all of that combine did the big problem we have.
I can imagine that the socio-economic issues around the cartels in Mexico are much like the issues with inner-city gangs in the US: They provide a feeling of "belonging" for groups of people who haven't felt that; and they provide a possibility of being lifted out of the poor masses. Of course, your life is on the line, but if one's quality of life is poor enough, that may not be much of a consideration.
I agree that, even if the drug factor completely disappeared, it is unlikely the problems would disappear. On the other hand, having huge amounts of drug money flowing through can only massively exacerbate the problem.
One thing he doesn't mention with his "Zetas are the future" assertion is that this level of violence can be disruptive to overall national productivity and harm other business interests.
This is could be why the US gov has allegedly worked out deals with the Sinaloa (as Zeta presence in the US could be disruptive and needlessly violent people can be a nuisance to work with):
And why a fairly complimentary piece about the Sinaloa's business practices appeared this summer in the New York Times (revealing they use age-old methods of achieving internal stability such as intermarriage between families of senior cartel members):
The current situation in Mexico is a quintessential example of a direct side effect of prohibition. The US's War On Drugs has been a failure, completely and all the way across the board (well, except for those who profit from the industrio-prison complex).
It's interesting how little coverage the US media gives the situation in Mexico. Then again, the US media currently gives very little coverage to its own war(s).
"Unsurprising" is the word I would use. Darfur got minimal coverage at the time when mass killings were going on, and Mexico is an even worse story - not only do you have a country approaching a degree of civil war, but the US public is effectively funding the criminal side. This is not something that's likely to play well on CNN.
What I think simply sucks is that the US brings democracy to countries if those countries want or not for whatever reasons but do not do anything about the civil war next door.
The next step in human evolution is to wake up and for people to at least try to see things as they are.
>>the US brings democracy to countries if those countries want or not
Per definition -- when a country is not a democracy, it is controlled by a junta that steals lots of resources and control the information to the citizens.
So, just for my information, how do you decide that a country does not want to be a democracy...?
Ask the (misinformed) population, which know they will be in trouble if they have the wrong opinions...?!
How do you decide that a country wants to be a democracy?
There is no easy answer to this as well.
Iraq:
A guy you know has a chronic illness and he will suffer more if he doesn't move more instead of just sitting at home. He doesn't think being more active is necessary. Is it proper that you force him to work out every day? (You also make some money if you force him to work out every day)
Mexico:
You put dangerous trash in front of your house and the neighbor's kids use it to hurt each other and also throw it at your kids and sometimes hurt them. Is it proper to do something about that?
There is no right or wrong but I believe some things are obviously less wrong or more right than others.
Unfortunately this is an example of the broken window fallacy. Sure, lots of people are put to work, but they are destroying real value instead of creating it.
You could tell people about statistics for rule of law, protection of human rights and economic development in different types of societies -- that is, informed decisions in a secret voting process?
That ignore's a whole lot of culture. Democracy is part of western culture. It is a biproduct of individualism, and individual rights... These are not universally agreed concepts and a lot of people don't agree with them.
Essentially the "Democracy is a universal good" is just US propaganda that furthers its own interests.
Democracy is, more or less, the only way to get human rights for citizens (a little simplified, but not by much).
So you're saying that rule of law, women's right, etc (see e.g. the UN declarations) are just Western propaganda -- other people don't want it?
Afaik, everyone and their dogs try to emigrate to where they can get these rights and the good economy that comes in an open, democratic society... (and/or bleed in the streets for them.)
Thanks for a good laugh. I'll still assume you're a troll or from the 50 cent army.
Democracy does not come before Culture; though Democracy can certainly influence Culture.
Only when the Culture is compatible with Democracy can you have it.
Not only is this logical, but it's also demonstrated over and over in the world.
What worked for America 300 years ago, does not translate to what will work for Iraq or Lybia today.
Even things like georaphy, rivers, and the type of soil you have can influence the type a government or system the country subscribes to. Not even mentioning the big one, Religion.
And when you have a miss-match... Instability replaces a stable structure (even if that structure was based on strong rule, it at least keept things working "better").
You should also refrain from name-calling other people on HN just because you don't agree with their opinions. It doesn't really help you ... unless you're looking to impress the anti-Microsoft or KimDotCom crowd here (just a helpful tip someone once told me).
> Democracy is, more or less, the only way to get human rights for citizens (a little simplified, but not by much).
I'll just correct your line a little, it is one of the most efficient ways to get individual rights.
> So you're saying that rule of law, women's right, etc (see e.g. the UN declarations) are just Western propaganda -- other people don't want it?
No, I wasn't saying that, those were your words. The UN declaration of human rights, is not incompatible with the notion of collective rights. That is, you don't need to have individual rights, to still provide human rights.
> Afaik, everyone and their dogs try to emigrate to where they can get these rights and the good economy that comes in an open, democratic society... (and/or bleed in the streets for them.)
This is simply untrue, who is 'everyone'? The majority of the world's population don't live in the west, and aren't trying to migrate to it.
Those that do migrate, are motivated by security and economy. Though these things can be related to democracy, the motivation is not related.
> Thanks for a good laugh. I'll still assume you're a troll or from the 50 cent army.
Unnecessary to degrade the discussion like that. I am merely providing an alternate point of view. I know that can be confronting, but it's the point of view that is confronting, not the person providing it.
First you wrote: "[Democracy] is a biproduct of individualism, and individual rights... These are not universally agreed concepts and a lot of people don't agree with them."
For individual rights I brought up human rights from UN etc.
You answered: "No, I wasn't saying that, those were your words."
That is wrong.
You did say "individual rights" yourself -- I just answered with the general rights which are (more or less) supported in democracies. But you knew that.
I wonder a bit what you mean with "collective rights"? (Clans? The communist party? Your church/mosque?) Not enough to really care. Your position seem too much like an abstract (sophistic?) defense for oppressing people by claiming rights for groups. Not new in history.
You'll see the the above is not incompatible with Human Rights[1]
As per my original comment, democracy and the spread of it at the hand of the US is entrenched in its history[2] and serves its religious and economical agenda.
You may want to look up the following for your own benefit (in future discussions):
>>You'll see the the above is not incompatible with Human Rights[1]
From your original comment:
>> [Democracy] is a biproduct of individualism, and individual rights... These are not universally agreed concepts and a lot of people don't agree with them.
You claimed there that many people disagreed with individual rights, which I questioned -- using the Human rights from UN as an example.
Again -- you seem to be arguing something else now. Or your point of claiming a contrast is too trivial.
Thanks for the links to "collective rights", they were clearer than Wikipedia.
>>As per my original comment, democracy and the spread of it at the hand of the US is entrenched in its history
American exceptionalism is afaik something you find on the quite extreme US right? Also, the definitions of democracy in western Europe etc is quite accepted in the US so it isn't that extreme even there...
(Re child labour -- we had that in the West, until we could afford not to. It is a stage in economic evolution, which is best left as quickly as possible. Re alternative economic models -- please show me some that work and are tested, there should be better ways of doing economy.)
> Per definition -- when a country is not a democracy, it is controlled by a junta that steals lots of resources and control the information to the citizens.
Strange definition. That would make Singapore a democracy.
Your observation might be valid empirically without too many exceptions. (Thought there are corrupts democracies, too.) But it's rubbish as a definition.
Well, there is always what happened in Bhutan, which went from an absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy by the King's own initiative (who abdicated after the transition) without any demand for it from the (Bhutanese) people.
Small country though, maybe isn't a good example (they also have lots of ethnic problems with Nepalese that cause disharmony).
Another economic explanation is that the US a country with an expensive currency with many poor people and other potential customers for your drugs. Even if your poor and your life sucks your few dollars can buy the passage of drugs from abroad. Maybe sometimes its too hard to resist.
European countries with where recreational drugs are still illegal are generally abuse less drugs because they have less income inequality. Even when you have only a few euros, you can afford to go to university and lead a pretty comfortable life.
This may all change with mass unemployment and poverty austerity will cause, although. I really hope this will not be a race to the bottom.
Crystal meth and crack are one thing, but the consumption of cocaine and prescription medications is very wide spread among the upper working class -- lawyers, finance, sales, etc. These are the same people who pretty much run the US.
My friends that are middle and lower class don't do drugs, although they do drink a considerable amount of alcohol.
I went to high school in the city. It was common for kids to smoke weed after class and came to school drunk. As for the kids who went to school in the upper middle class town I grew up in, their problems included ODing on heroin. The kids that smoked weed might not have the most balanced careers, but that is a whole lot better than being dead because you ODed on heroin.
Of course that is all anecdotal. However, I think it is a major stretch to believe drug abuse has something to do with not making enough money.
The drug problem needs to be fixed first with ending prohibition. After that happens the vast resources being spent antagonizing a war can be redirected to figuring out how to fix the core problem -- people being more concerned about getting high than what the rest of their life is going to look like.
For comparison, Hungary has a GDP per capita of $21k, the Czech Republic of $26k, France and the UK of $35k.
Further, inequality in the US is higher mainly because the rich earn more. That doesn't cause the life of the poor to suck, unless they get jealous or something.
Uh what? That individuals consume some amount of resources to live doesn't mean that they live comfortably. There is going to be some kind of minimum amount you have to pay to live, as you can't get everything for free even if you are homeless. That even those with the lowest incomes use up resources equivalent to $20k per year doesn't mean that those people are living comfortably, but we can see for Americans that there is some kind of minimum cost to living even if you can't make enough to pay for it all outright.
Drugs and poverty are intersectional. Laws for drug offenses involving substances most prevalent in poor communities have and continue to have harsher penalties than for drugs that are prevalent in more affluent communities. Drugs are highly available in poor communities, both for addicts and for those that want to sell them since economic advancement through traditional channels are denied to them. Police agencies in many cities enforce crime in the poorer parts of town that are inhabited primarily by people of color much more often than in more affluent areas.
The effects of drug prohibition amplify exiting social and economic issues in US society, so we know that US drug policy has been a total failure and must be changed.
I'm not disputing that we should end the war on drug users.I'm only disputing the idea that income inequality somehow makes the lives of poor Americans suck, and they turn to drugs as a result.
If you want to argue that the lives of poor Americans suck, look at absolute consumption levels, or better yet, look at the actual basket of goods available to poor Americans.
There is actually a lot of research suggesting that inequality in a society is itself the cause of many problems. This is not surprising to me, since, after all, it is ridiculous to speak of wealth in absolute terms. $20k doesn't mean anything.
You may call it envy if that's how you see it -- if you indeed are interesting in learning about the many problems of economic inequality, I recommend the book The Spirit Level (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level).
$20k has a very well defined (albeit complex) meaning: it means that the sum of the prices of goods consumed by the individual adds up to $20k. (Note that the figures I gave for other nations were adjusted for PPP, so price levels are adjusted.)
I can think of no mechanism besides envy which would cause income inequality to harm anyone. It's not as if the US poor lack some good or service which is available in other, more equal societies.
Note that the Spirit Level only provides a correlation between inequality and other problems. It does not show the direction of causality.
How much is "a few euros" exactly? Because you won't go anywhere without food and shelter, and last time I checked, the cheapest bread was E1.70 and a bus ticket E1.50, and it adds up pretty fast...
Living in the Netherlands, uni-fees are roughly 1500e/yr (ex books), you receive a grant of 250e/mth grant possibly increased by a 500e/mth student loan and free public transportation during either the week or the weekend -- all during the nominal length of your study.
Cheapest bread is .5-.8e, a cheap room is 200e/mth, take out meal is 5-10e and a beer costs 2-3e. Your student job easily pays you 10e/h.
> "mostly I wanted to score some bragging rights with you Scarface-obsessed gringos"
I think that is one sincere line to keep in mind when reading this post. The part about municipal cops in Monterrey taking anyone caught with "non-zeta drugs" to "las zetas" (sic) for killing would stand out as pretty a ridiculous fabrication for most people there.
This obviously isn't an accurate article. The writer occasionally writes for ExiledOnline, a formerly expatriate paper in Moscow. Exiled is in the Hunter S Thompson tradition of gonzo journalism. They are more interested in conveying the truth than being factual.
> They are more interested in conveying the truth than being factual.
That is an interesting statement, I don't think I understand what you mean? Isn't conveying the truth being factual? Or is this an expression I am not familiar with?
Facts can obscure the truth, or if the right facts are chosen a completely false story can be told. The author is trying to convey the state of Mexican political economy, not compile a list of facts about Mexican political economy. That some details may be stretched or erroneous is inconsequential so long as the thesis remains strong. Nitpicking over who killed who and why is entirely beside the point.
This is a great read, but it begs the question - why did 40 or so special forces agents defeated to the dark side?
Was it for money, because they felt unappreciated, because they saw too many bad things and just stopped caring (or were ordered to do said bad things and it broke them), because they didn't care in the first place and enrolled just to get the training?
The situation is certainly quite bad, but understanding why it got there in the first place could be interesting, if only to protect other countries from the same experience - ie a drug startup could consider setting shop in, say Canada, with a much larger and far less controlled border, lots of empty space and forest to run labs (etc) using the very same methods.
Reservations, crime and drug friendly cities like Winnipeg could offer them a great advantage - or if we talk about geography, sea access from Labrador to the European market could also be an advantage.
Mexico is a needed stop into the US. From that article, "Due to U.S. interdiction successes in the Caribbean during the 1990s, Mexico has now become the single most important way-station for cocaine and heroin produced in the Andes, and is itself a major producer of marijuana and methamphetamines. The permeability of the U.S.-Mexican border allows for easy transit into the United States, and Mexico’s share of the drug trade has grown steadily over the past 15 years."
IMO, whenever you have as much poverty as Mexico, but a very wealthy neighbor, this can be a possibility.
Because hemp and coca can not be grown effectively in Canada without expensive greenhouses because of the climate. Also there are already many drug plantations in Central America.
So that explains why Mexico instead of Canada. But I'm not sure what motivated those particular soldiers to go rogue.
True for harder drugs, yes, but not marijuana. Canada (and BC specifically) produces billions of dollars of marijuana per year. It's a fairly well known fact.
That one is easy, the profit per kilo, as a percentage of per capita income, is on average staggeringly higher in Mexico. Higher profits mean more contenders which means more fighting.
The margin is excellent but do you realize how many plants and leaves goes into making a single key? It would be impossible to keep such greenhouses off the map. And the startup costs would be extremely high, even if the payout was great later on.
^Sarcasm noted. Seriously though, we know what needs to be done. Legalize marijuana and probably make cocaine available in a medical setting for people who are truly addicted, like methadone/heroine injections in Europe. But unfortunately the damage is probably already permanent just like the alcohol prohibition gave the mafia a start: there's no putting this cat back in the bag (thanks, reefer madness people).
My fear is that as the Mexican drug war begins to spread through the United States that we will end up with the opposite. Instead of Homeland Security at every airport, we will have it in every neighborhood.
The success of localized pushes to legalize marijuana is a good sign. The failure on the federal level is not. Sadly the legalization push has largely been rationalized as "marijuana isn't that bad for you, it even has medical value" ; that same argument doesn't work very well in the other categories.
Rather, the legalization story needs to be switched to one where criminalization causes increased usage and death to abusers along with irreconcilable and inexcusable damage to bystanders.
Everyone with a rational mind knows what alcohol prohibition did. We need to break down the barriers erected by decades of government financed propaganda to move forward.
<conspiracy_nuthead>
But wouldn't it be in the best interest of the prison/weapons/security-industry to keep this fear of Zetas-inspired civil war growing until they can sell contracts for TSA-style security in every US neighbourhood?
</conspiracy_nuthead>
While you can often get the medical methadone/heroine programs they are not the norm in Europe. And they always come with the risk of a user falling back to the black market should the need arise. The availability and quantity of drugs is usually heavily restricted and don't allow for any lapses in daily routine or emotional affection. As a result methadone is readily available on the streets. I don't think such programs are a cure-all, merely a first step.
In Europe it does not only depend on the country but also on the city, which programs are available to addicts. The same goes for possession of minor quantities. Rules are highly confusing and it is usually safest to go by: "If you don't know the unspoken rules, try not to break the written ones."
Agreed. If the US legalized the production and distribution of all drugs (a la Portugal http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/time-to-end-the-w...), a good bit of the american money funding these folks could be taxed and redirected to schools and healthcare in the US. Unfortunately, there's a large swath of americans who would see that as another Obama step towards a communist apocalypse. So it would never get through the Republican House.
Production and distribution of drugs is as illegal (and a crime) as it always was here in Portugal, and we have busts regularly. We only decriminalized (not legalized) the possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use.
The Federal government would be insane to legalize drugs at the federal level even if they wanted to do that. Better to try a test out and see how it goes before doing it across the US. But, with this last election we are going to see if this experiment works by proxy of legalization in several of the states.
The problem with drugs has changed though in recent years. The new generation of addicts are doing mostly research chemicals or regular pills like painkillers and such.
So in a sense some of the biggest drug dealers in the future will be pharma companies. When you hear how severe something like oxycodone withdrawal is compared to heroin withdrawal you understand that our societies drug problems have not peaked yet.
I agree with legalizing drugs, however, there's a big unknown: if you get rid of the main profit center of these huge drug gangs, what will they do to keep the money flowing? They're not just going to pack up their bags and leave. There may be major blow-back that we can't really predict. Possibly even more violence, if that could even be imagined. Certainly kidnappings would rise.
Obviously, the drug problem is a serious matter, but there does seem to be something off about this article. Its style, what you mentioned, and the fact that he referred to the Zetas as "Las Zetas" twice.
"the Zetas would delight in kidnapping and torturing him for fun, videotaping the snuff, and finally dissolving the poor bastard’s carcass in an oil drum full of acid."
I believe it was "El Pozolero" who was the one notorious for the 'drum full of acid' routine.
Is hard to tell how, but I think the problem is beyond the drugs is social, cultural and political, all of that combine did the big problem we have.