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.
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.
> "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?
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.
^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).
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.
[+] [-] chisto|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
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...
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...
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...
[+] [-] rizzom5000|13 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] rndmize|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dimitar|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mariorz|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Volpe|13 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] guylhem|13 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] kenjackson|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] NathanKP|13 years ago|reply
So that explains why Mexico instead of Canada. But I'm not sure what motivated those particular soldiers to go rogue.
[+] [-] sixQuarks|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] D9u|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmd_|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nowarninglabel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carsongross|13 years ago|reply
We are, after all, America.
[+] [-] DrStalker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chubbard|13 years ago|reply