this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
647 points (99.7% liked)

World News

39367 readers
2301 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The mayor of a Mexican city plagued by drug violence has been murdered less than a week after taking office.

Alejandro Arcos was found dead on Sunday in Chilpancingo, a city of around 280,000 people in the southwestern state of Guerrero. He had been mayor for six days.

Evelyn Salgado, the state governor, said the city was in mourning over a murder that "fills us with indignation". His death came three days after the city government's new secretary, Francisco Tapia, was shot dead.

Authorities have not released details of the investigation, or suspects. However, Guerrero is one of the worst-affected states for drug violence and drug cartels have murdered dozens of politicians across the country.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] clover@slrpnk.net 154 points 2 months ago (4 children)

If there wasn't such a strong black market for illegal drugs in the US, these cartels wouldn't have this much power/money.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 75 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Cartels sell more than drugs these days. They learned in the 90s that diversifying into different products gave them more stability against drug enforcement. Avocados have turned into legal profit. Logging in another business. Neither of these things will be affected by someone quitting drugs. Stop building houses and stop eating avocado now.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They might be only able to do those other things since they are able to pay an army to terrorize, intimidate and bribe local and state government's into allowing them to exist and set up these protection racquets. It takes a lot of money to be able to be more powerful then a government, I don't think selling avocados or logging could generate that much

[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Avocados and logging also don't need to worry about getting shut down by the law like the cocaine and heroin business does.

Legalize the coke and dope, and the incentive to resort to violence to avoid criminal penalties goes away.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Neither of these things will be affected by someone quitting drugs. Stop building houses and stop eating avocado now.

"The cartels won't be affected if their major source of income gets cut off."

Yes, sure, they've diversified. But those legal operations aren't their largest sources od income, not enough to sustain their current operations if it was just the legal ones. Most of the legal ones are used to clean some of the income from drugs.

And besides, I'm pretty sure the cartels are doing this for the money. Sure, it's not all it's about, but I'm sure it's the largest motivator. If drugs we're legal and the easiest ways for the cartels to keep in business was to do it legitimately, and they were actually allowed to, they could use the legal systems to actually enforce deals and debts, so the enforcement methods they use now would be obsolete and even counterproductive to profits.

People won't stop using drugs. Just like they didn't stop drinking during prohibition. But we can take the trade away from the gangsters and put it in legal markets and regulate the product and business to make it safer for users.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think I heard from somewhere that while that might have worked decades ago the cartels have diversified their ‘business’ to the point where drug legalisation wouldn’t kill them. We should still legalise drugs but I doubt they’ll fix the cartel issue.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It wouldn't end them ENTIRELY, as there were ruthless organizations before drugs, too. What it would do is make it much less profitable. Meaning less to kill someone over.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (6 children)

So, I don't disagree, but we legalized weed in the civilized parts of the country and it had little effect, I'm not sure I want to legalize cocaine, it's much better at killing people.

[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Little effect in what regard?

[–] Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think they're saying that legalizing weed hasnt done anything to reduce Mexican cartel influence or violence.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 49 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (16 children)

Why would it? It’s the bulkiest, smelliest, lowest cost drug there is. Mexican weed sucked ass too. Moving cocaine or especially ultra high strength opiate analogs is significantly more lucrative.

Making things illegal doesn’t work. Not alcohol, not drugs, not abortion. It needs to be addressed by education. The current just say no abstinence approach leaves people ill prepared for when they encounter drugs. Our relationship with drugs is fucked, currently. Altering our state of consciousness with drugs is a fundamental part of being human.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Portugal set the standard years ago. Legalize it and divert all the money that would go to incarceration to inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation for drug addiction.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

Minor clarification -Technically it was decriminalized, not legalized. Distribution will send you to jail and, after 2 or more possession offenses, you’re forced into a treatment program.

And sadly, things have started to get worse again in Portugal. Lately they’ve been sending fewer people to treatment, and surprise surprise, usage and deaths have gone up.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I believe Switzerland was the first country to establish centers where drug addicts would receive a controlled dosage for "free." Of course paid for by taxes. The Suisse found out crime decreased, the parks were cleaner and emergency rooms saw fewer overdose patients. Basically a win across the board.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

I think legalizing weed didn't make that much of a difference because the whole claim that buying random weed from a random dealer put money in cartel or terrorist pockets was a lie.

Not that there weren't any large weed organizations, they just weren't murdering people at the scale the cartels are or doing it to fund violence.

They'd also rely a lot on temporary workers since trimming was really the only labour intensive step, and then it would be sent out into a distribution network that wasn't so much an organization as it was a collection of independent or small scale distributors. Which in some locations might have been gangs, but I'd guess was mostly normal people looking to make some extra money.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We don’t need to legalize. If we decriminalized, then took the money for jailing and funded mandatory treatment, we could do what Portugal did in the early 00’s.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pringles@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago

I am sure. Legalize all of it. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, use half of the new income for prevention and education, one quarter for medical support for addicts and the rest fills the coffers. You take away the power from the criminal gangs, while at the same time increasing your tax revenue, adding new legal avenues of business and minimizing the health impact considerably.

[–] _wizard@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Still waiting for legal grass.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Assuming you’re in the US:

It’s called THCa and is the same weed you’ve been smoking your whole life. You can get ounces to your door in the mail 100% legally thanks to a poorly written Farm Bill.

The farm bill only states a certain % of THC is illegal. Well, THC isn’t on the plants in large quantities - that only exists once you heat the cannabis to isomerize it from THCa to THC. It’s not delta 8 or some weird synthetic cannabinoid, weed has always been THCa before it’s heated.

There are dispensaries all over Texas these days selling great weed with this loophole. Texas, of all places.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Exactly.

All of the most common drugs have to be legalised. It's the only way to get rid of the black markets, which can not be regulated.

Just like with alcohol, prohibition simply does not work.

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 55 points 2 months ago (4 children)

“Come vacation in Mexico! If you don’t leave your hotel, you’ll be perfectly safe!”

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I hate accidentally ending up as mayor on vacation

[–] Furball@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Dammit it happened again. Honey, prepare my resignation speech again

[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

*funeral speech

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I know this is satire, though it was my understanding that tourists were protected. Like, don't walk down any dark alleys and listen when someone strongly tells you to go somewhere else, otherwise you're reasonably safe. This was a couple years ago though, and I may be remembering things wholly wrong.

I question those years, man.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 months ago

Mexico is a large country. There are perfectly safe parts and dangerous parts.

[–] lanolinoil@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

I go to CDMX all the time. You stay in the whitey neighborhoods it is one of the best cities on earth. I've never felt in danger even like I have in Tulum or Cancun on occasion (and usually by police)

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

However, Guerrero is one of the worst-affected states for drug violence

This is the same mistake people make in the US when talking about "unsafe cities" ignoring that crime is concentrated in certain parts. The same rule applies everywhere in the world: there's safe and unsafe spots. So no, you're not gonna get kidnapped from a Cancun resort anytime soon.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 2 months ago

Guess he said no to the Cartel / Military

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 months ago (4 children)

So you're saying there's a job opening...

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I'm wondering if the vice mayor wants to take the job after that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 months ago (6 children)

one thing i've been curious about is how receptive the mexican government/people would be to US aid military, or military financial aid for stopping the whole cartel problem.

It would likely be beneficial to the both of us, and canada as well though less so.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeaaahh, since US government policies are the entire reason that that drug war exists, Id say thanks, but no thanks.

Edit: to expand a little on this: US drug policy caused the entire drug trade, the high prices, and the extreme violence. The US then doesn't send their best, they send their weapons, and they send them knowingly straight to the cartels (thanks, US gun manufacturers!). US government actually supported this for a while to see if it was true and... Did nothing with that.

Then US army would train Mexican soldier which then took that training straight into the Zetas which murdered even harder.

At this point, I can only say "FIX YOUR GODDAMN DRUG POLICIES, YOU @SSH@LES" and keep away, please.

[–] LemmyFeed@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I didn't think the US has much interest in stopping the cartels, the war on drugs is much too profitable and the cartels provide most of the drugs.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Turns out they are diversified and are in a whole lot of industries now. Like the Italian mob and olive oil.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

The US and Mexico have cooperated militarily on the issue before. The problem is that the roots are much deeper than a military problem, so no amount of US assistance can shoot the cartels into no longer being a problem for any more than a few metaphorical moments. As long as the fundamental causes of the Cartels' power remain unaddressed by the Mexican government, US assistance isn't going to be much help.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

The root problem is that there is a huge self capturing black market demand for drugs, which itself is a problem rooted in capitalist countries throughout the americas prioritizing GDP expansion over human wellbeing.

It's the result of failing healthcare systems, the evaporation of 3rd places, the requirement of a car to survive, the failing housing system, the lack of job security and mobility, etc

No amount of military intervention can change that. Even if you somehow successfully destroyed every cartel with a button press, they'd all be replaced overnight because of the huge demand for drugs.

What can actually effect the demand is:

  • food, water, housing, education and healthcare being well funded human rights

  • mixed used development/relaxation of zoning laws

  • transportation infrastructure that allows people to actually have a choice in how they get places

  • unions, workplace democracy, worker protections

You get the picture. Life actually has to be worth living.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›