
Fear, senseless violence, and shitty drugs - DmitDav
http://nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/narco-war-update
======
chisto
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.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
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.

------
mcantelon
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):

[http://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-the-us-works-with-
ca...](http://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-the-us-works-with-
cartels-2012-9)

And why the head of the Zetas was recently killed by the military:

[http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/09/world/americas/mexico-zetas-
ca...](http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/09/world/americas/mexico-zetas-cartel-
boss/index.html)

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):

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-
dru...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-
makes-its-billions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

------
rizzom5000
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).

~~~
dimitar
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.

~~~
yummyfajitas
While income inequality is a popular trope to blame things on, I don't think
it really applies here.

In the US, the poor live quite comfortably. Even people with _income_ of zero
have _consumption_ of about $20k/year.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt

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.

~~~
king_jester
> In the US, the poor live quite comfortably.

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.

~~~
yummyfajitas
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.

Here is some data to get you started:
<http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf>

------
mariorz
> "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.

------
ahi
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.

~~~
Volpe
> 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?

~~~
ahi
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.

------
guylhem
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.

So the question is - why did it happen in Mexico?

~~~
NathanKP
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.

~~~
bbaker
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.

~~~
nowarninglabel
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.

------
sixQuarks
The way to combat the Zetas is to join hands across Mexico in a non-violent
protest and chant "Just Say No to Drugs". It worked in the 80s in the US.

~~~
logn
^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).

~~~
jbkring
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...](http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/time-to-end-the-war-on-
drugs)), 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.

~~~
icebraining
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.

~~~
jbkring
Oops. Important distinction.

------
D9u
Pure, unadulterated, bullshit. "El Pozolero" worked for Tijuana & Chapo, not
the Zetas.

~~~
logn
Trolling much? "El Pozolero" is not even mentioned in this article.

~~~
ryanmolden
Or perhaps he is referring to this:

"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.

~~~
venus
I made the mistake of looking up what "El Pozolero" meant -_-

------
nowarninglabel
More (and sometimes better researched) news on the drug war is available at
<http://narconews.com>

------
carsongross
But no worries: the CIA, etc. would never devolve into something like this.

We are, after all, America.

~~~
DrStalker
They'll just outsource to the ATF.

------
chubbard
Mexico is pwned, send in the drones.

