Posted on 08/06/2012 2:38:00 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
When the Mexican politicians start throwing out their ‘Gringo’s consumption of drugs is the cause of all our problems’ BS, someone should remind them of Operation Intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Intercept
...The policy was instituted as a surprise move, although President Nixon had given Mexican President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz some advance warning when they met on September 8, 1969 to dedicate the Lake Amistad Dam International Crossing.
The effort involved increased surveillance of the border from both air and sea, but the major part of the policy was the individual inspection, mandated to last three minutes, of every vehicle crossing into the United States from Mexico.[2]
Because of complaints from cross-border travelers, and from Mexican President Diaz Ordaz, the searching of vehicles was reduced after 10 days and completely abandoned after about 20 days.[3]
But that’s just an asterisk note in this paper:
It opens with this: In 1991 a top adviser to President Carlos Salinas de Gortari described at length to me all the changes the Salinas government was making.
When he finished, I remarked: “That’s most impressive. It seems to me that basically you want to change Mexico from a Latin American country into a North American country.”
He looked at me with surprise and exclaimed: “Exactly!
That’s precisely what we are trying to do, but of course
we could never say so publicly.”
It’s got GATT NAFTA Mexican presidential candidate assasination PRI EU Cartels PAN Chamber of Commerce and so much more in the middle. It closes with this:
In order for Mexico to be a part of North America, not
only geographically, but also politically and socially, NAFTA became the first step, the next one is to move forward to the EU model.
It’s dated but it is a viewpoint you might find helpful. An added bonus for the interventionist interested, a trip back to the early 70”s:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB91/
Enjoy.
And there we have it. Sooner or later - the real agenda of all libertarians is exposed. In case your haven't noticed my tagline before now - please do so. It explains the real (non) difference between liberals and libertarians.
When we really look at the hypocrisy of libertarians we see how - on the surface - they claim to be for less taxation, less government. Yet when the truth is exposed - you are worse than a nanny stater as you seek to profit off the misery and suffering of others just to tax the stuff.
“And there we have it. Sooner or later - the real agenda of all libertarians is exposed.”
You do not understand history when you say that. The first real tax on people in the US was a tax on alcohol (you can read about the whiskey rebellion if you want). It is perfectly legitimate for the government to tax things like this as a “sin tax”. I should not be excessive like taxes are today, say 1%. But just like other conservatives you seem to think that you’re right can’t really wrap your mind around the fact that all these War on XXXX are not doing anything but restricting our freedom.
If you can show me that Anheuser-Busch was doing the same kind of criminal behavior that the drug cartels have been doing, then your analogy would work.
The Mexican government sponsored the drug cartels because they were corrupt, and were bought off to allow them to traffic drugs to the U.S. for years. So unless you can somehow manage for a global legalization of drugs, there’s going to be money made in trafficking.
I don’t really think that the kind of low-lifes who involve themselves in the drug trade are going to go straight and become regular old corporate executives, but maybe I’m too cynical.
I don’t really think that the kind of low-lifes who involve themselves in the drug trade are going to go straight and become regular old corporate executives, but maybe I’m too cynical.
When alcohol was banned (Prohibition), rumrunners engaged in criminal behavior including murder. When alcohol was legalized, the rumrunners were quickly squeezed out of the market by those with better business skills.
The Mexican government sponsored the drug cartels because they were corrupt, and were bought off to allow them to traffic drugs to the U.S. for years. So unless you can somehow manage for a global legalization of drugs, there’s going to be money made in trafficking.
The U.S. is still the world's #1 economy, and shares a long border with Mexico, so if the U.S. alone legalizes the cartels will be crippled.
I forgot that after Prohibition ended, that organized crime vanished, my mistake.
I’m not going to convince either of you, nor am I going to be convinced. I think I’ll leave it at that. However, I really do wish that combating crime had as easy solutions as the legalization movement makes it out to be.
As for Mexico, its severe structural problems have been around since independence, and the drug cartels are just symptomatic of the culture of corruption and cronyism that has existed for centuries in their government.
The harder you fight the drug war the more profitable it is for the cartels. Seizures just drive up prices. If you want to beat the cartels legalize, they could never compete in a white market with DuPont, Pfizer and RJ Reynolds.
I don’t really think that the kind of low-lifes who involve themselves in the drug trade are going to go straight and become regular old corporate executives, but maybe I’m too cynical.
When alcohol was banned (Prohibition), rumrunners engaged in criminal behavior including murder. When alcohol was legalized, the rumrunners were quickly squeezed out of the market by those with better business skills.
I forgot that after Prohibition ended, that organized crime vanished, my mistake.
Straw man - nobody said it vanished. And its continued existence does not support your rebutted implications that alcohol was never the focus of cartel-style criminal behavior, and that pro-legalizers expect illegal dealers to go straight.
I really do wish that combating crime had as easy solutions as the legalization movement makes it out to be.
How easy does the legalization movement make it out to be? Is this another of your straw men? Nobody here has claimed any more than that legalization would deflate drug profits and take them out of criminal hands - which is supported by the history of Prohibition and by basic economics.
As for Mexico, its severe structural problems have been around since independence, and the drug cartels are just symptomatic of the culture of corruption and cronyism that has existed for centuries in their government.
The War On Drugs channels to the cartels the money they use to buy corrupt Mexican officials, thus exacerbating the problem.
“The War On Drugs channels to the cartels the money they use to buy corrupt Mexican officials, thus exacerbating the problem.”
There lies the true root of the problem. The fact that Mexico has been a de facto narco-state for decades as the result of the lack of public officials with integrity. Perhaps if the Mexican government had acted earlier, then the drug cartels would have been able to penetrate society at such a deep level.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.