What Would a War on the Drug Cartels Look Like?

Townhall.com ^ | December 2, 2019 | Kurt Schlichter

[Scrambler Bob]

The cartels are now into Avocados, mining, human trafficking, among other non-drug enterprises.

All criminal, and all corrupt.

Legalizing drugs might not affect them much. I even think they are diversifying, for such an event.

Maybe tariffs on their products?

[livius]

Less than a third of pot sales in CA are legal, since the state taxes it, meaning legal outlets pay and the drug dealers don’t. Do you seriously think that legalizing drugs will make the drug gangs shrug, get legal and give up probably about 50% of their profits?

This is an entrenched criminal network and it’s international and makes serious efforts to get Americans addicted, particularly taking advantage of pre-Trump despair in rural and semi-rural areas. Get these people working and respected and they won’t be doing Chinese made drugs smuggled by the gangs through Mexico.

Sorry, but we need to treat this like the war that it is. The fact that the gang rolled into this town with the gang initials and logo professionally painted on the side of their trucks - at least two of which had Texas plates - means that we have a serious problem here and Mexico is not capable of dealing with it.

[Lysandru]

Oberst Schlichter is on point here. The nation's political class, and perhaps the general public, lack the will for a real war on the cartels.

I pondered this question a couple of decades ago. If we consult the ghost of von Clausewitz, we come to the question of the enemy's Center of Gravity. And that seems to be the Benjamins. And the money comes from the drug users. Many of them are poor and powerless junkies (good for Demoslime propaganda) while others are connected and spoiled hipsters and bourgeoisie-larvae--who can dodge the consequences.

Meanwhile, Howie Carr informs us that buying menthol-flavored tobacco cigarettes will be illegal in Taxachusetts--while buying marijuana will be legal. With that sort of mentality, fuggetabout it.

Ironically, while Schlichter slams Democrats for being backstabbers, he leaves out the "clincher"--they oppose anything done by Donald J. Trump out of reflex.

[Tench_Coxe]

The big thing Schlichter doesn’t mention is that if the terrorist label is placed on the cartels, finance and collaborators can be gone after.

[Kaslin]

Did you see what that loser noobie wrote about Kurt Schlichtet. He called him a loser. Of course he is entitled to his opinion, we however know better. Kurt Sclichter is not a loser

[Falconspeed]

Very good analysis.

Problem: “The cartels are infiltrated into the government.”
Solution: “seriously enforcing the border.”

[anton]

A10 Warthog circling Nogales slowly with guns ablaze.

[HighSierra5]

Smoking Fajitas with a side of refried beans?

[Crucial]

The Cartels are armed very well these days I think, as well as being technologically savvy.

[mrsmith]

But they are conquerable by helis and drones, and Special Forces.

Protecting cooperating politicians and officials and their families from terrorism is the key.

[setter]

I have been saying this for years.

Things will get so bad in this country the people will put in power one day a cross between Hitler, the Taliban and ISIS mixed into one

It will start out hands chopped off in stadiums for stealing etc. and the people will cheer until you get caned for jaywalking

The problem is the innocent people will lose all their rights as well and we will live under a draconian gov’t.

[mrsmith]

“loser noobie”?
Not sure of whom you speak.

Kurt is tough here. It won’t be easy.

[_Jim]

So?

Take over Mexico one failed Mexican state after another ... there are already vigilantes routing the cartels from some areas, FIND SOME WAY TO AID THE VIGILANTES. Lather, rinse, repeat, one Mexican state/province after another.

[familyop]

"Moreover, they are technically sophisticated, with all the tech money can buy. And they have combat power sufficient to defeat government forces."

Yeah, the Mexican government forces and "hugs" from its government.

"We have no stomach for the kind of fight this would be. A few slaughters of ordinary Americans by cartel gunmen in Houston or Tucson and any semblance of unity behind taking out the cartels vanishes."

You stay supine for the enemy, sphincter boy Kurt. There are still men in the U.S.A. but not in offices like yours.

[FreedomNotSafety]

“Do you seriously think that legalizing drugs will make the drug gangs shrug, get legal and give up probably about 50% of their profits?”

Did I say anything about legalizing drugs? But then again you probably mean de-criminalizing drugs. All drugs are legal unless the government makes them illegal.

But now you are changing the subject to tax evasion instead of drug usage. You deal with tax evasion by lowering the taxes to the point were they are nit worth evading or up the penalties for non-compliance. Or do you want to hear about
Prohibition and revenuers? Or maybe cigarettes and taxes ala NYC?

Our government and our society has decided that we will not punish users in a severe enough manner as to eliminate usage. All I said was that so long as there is a demand for the drugs now deemed illegal there will be supply. Do you argue that point? So long as drugs are illegal only criminals will have drugs.

“...Get these people working and respected and they won’t be doing Chinese made drugs smuggled by the gangs through Mexico.” As a resident of a pre-Trump despair area I call BS on your nonsense.

“...means that we have a serious problem here and Mexico is not capable of dealing with it.” Why is an incident in Mexico mean that “we” have a problem? The fact that the gang may have rolled in from Texas indicates that the US has a problem it is inflicting on Mexico.

[Leaning Right]

> Trump can unilaterally close the Mexican border with troops regardless of the courts or congress. <

I agree. Trump has that authority as the commander-in-chief. He can’t use troops to, say, patrol Oklahoma’s border with Kansas. But he sure as heck can use troops to secure a national border. That’s the purpose of an army in the first place!

Trump has been bold with many issues. So I’m a bit puzzled as to why he doesn’t do as you suggested above.

[_Jim]

re: “How about the economic war of legalizing everything. This takes the PROFIT out of it, which is what keeps the cartels going.”

And TAXING (the hell out of) it on the retail / regulated sales end of it puts the PROFIT back in it for underground dealer ‘sales’ network.

[mrsmith]

Or we can handle the problem through accepted international laws, the Constitution and Common Law.

But if we don’t, yeah it’ll lead to tyranny here and elsewhere.

[Drew68]

You stay supine for the enemy, sphincter boy Kurt. There are still men in the U.S.A. but not in offices like yours.

Oh, put a sock in it. Col. Schlichter speaks the truth. Do you really think America will unite together under the banner of war against the Mexican drug cartels?

[hanamizu]

How about the economic war of legalizing everything.

---

Legalizing it, of course means taxing it. As I understand it, cartel weed might well be cheaper than ‘legal’ taxed weed. And what’s to stop the cartels from dominating the legal market—if nothing else by offering ‘protection’ to the legal weed shops.

If the recent history of Mexico offers any lessons, the result of eliminating the major cartels as resulted in the growth of much nastier smaller cartels.