jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
6,307 points (96% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

todayilearned

unsubscribesubscribe9,990,617 learners readers
11,788 users here now
  • You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?
  • Submit interesting and specific facts that you just found out (not broad information you looked up, TodayILearned is not /r/wikipedia).

Posting rules

  1. Submissions must be verifiable. Please link directly to a reliable source that supports every claim in your post title. Images alone do not count as valid references. Videos are fine so long as they come from reputable sources (e.g. BBC, Discovery, etc).
  2. No personal opinions, anecdotes or subjective statements (e.g "TIL xyz is a great movie").
  3. No news or recent sources. News and any sources (blog, article, press release, video, etc.) more recent than two months are not allowed.
  4. No submissions regarding or related to the following
    1. Recent politics/politicians or police misconduct
    2. Inflammatory submissions relating to religion/race/gender
  5. No misleading claims. Posts that omit essential information, or present unrelated facts in a way that suggest a connection will be removed.
  6. Rephrase your post title if the following are not met:
    1. Titles must begin with "TIL ..."
    2. Make them descriptive, concise and specific (e.g. not "TIL something interesting about bacon").
    3. Titles must be able to stand on their own without requiring readers to click on a link. Starting your title with a why/what/who/where/how modifier should be unnecessary.*
    4. "TIL about ..." and other broad posts don't belong on TIL. Try /r/Wikipedia, etc. instead, or be more specific (and avoid the word "about").
    5. "TIL how to ..." posts belong on /r/HowTo.
  7. No submissions related to the usage, existence or features of specific software/websites (e.g. "TIL you can click on widgets in WidgetMaker 1.22").
  8. All NSFW links must be tagged (including comments).

    Please see the wiki for more detailed explanations of the rules.

Additional info

  • If your post does not appear in the new queue and you think it meets the above rules, please contact the moderators (include a link to your reddit.com post, not your story).
  • Please report spam, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate posts by messaging the moderators, as this helps us remove them more promptly!
  • More information available on the TIL FAQ and wiki.

Weekly point ranking

rank user points
1 · /u/Plainchant 141
2 ↑ /u/dmnhntr86 11
3 ↑ /u/_Boba_Fett 7
4 ↑ /u/sagrumpymonk 6
5 ↓ /u/rewardiflost 5
  • Looking for more depth?
  • You can find it here at: /r/DepthHub

Etiquette

We ask that you please do the following:
  1. avoid mobile versions of websites (e.g. m.wikipedia.org)
  2. link to the appropriate heading when referencing an article (particularly on Wikipedia)
  3. link to the appropriate start time when referencing videos (e.g. on YouTube)
  4. add [PDF] or [NSFW] tags to your posts, as necessary.
  5. Please avoid reposting TILs that have already made the front page in the past
Please also read the site-wide Reddiquette.
  • You are loved.
a community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
discuss this ad on reddit
Announcement: For the love of all that is holy, PLEASE read the rules in the wiki or sidebar before posting, and PLEASE message the mods about inappropriate/inaccurate posts.
top 200 commentsshow 500
[–]fillgates1 2235 points2236 points2237 points  (193 children)
Buried next to her husband, who was killed during one of the assassination attempts.
[–]johnknoefler[S] 832 points833 points834 points  (152 children)
Yes. That too.
[–]LOLstolemyboyfriend 513 points514 points515 points  (141 children)
Why didn't she get a Nobel peace prize or something. Hands down the worlds most badass woman to fight the drug war in Mexico like that. That stuff is no joke. There's a lot of bribing between Mexico and USA and you never hear about stories like this in America media. Thank you for sharing, reeally. Presidentials just focus on terrorist in the middle east when the real terror is next door. I mean there is no way the cartels can bring all their shit to our country, we would become an even worse version of USA than we already let ourselves be... But seriously if we just helped Mexico out with the drug war instead of funding it, there would eventually be less fear of living there, and less reasons for immigrants who are more like refugees if you ask me to come illegally to USA...
[–]FreakNoMoSo 38 points39 points40 points  (1 child)
Good reason to legalize drugs, right?
[–]LOLstolemyboyfriend 22 points23 points24 points  (0 children)
Probably one of the best reasons to
[–]Qubed 32 points33 points34 points  (3 children)
The only way to help Mexico with the drug war is for Americans to stop buying Mexican drugs. The only way to stop Americans from buying Mexican drugs is to produce them ourselves. We won't do that because there is too much money in fighting the war on drugs. It gets politicians elected. It fills for profit prisons. It entertains the American people (news, movies, music).
[–]donald347 171 points172 points173 points  (32 children)
Her first husband, even though she re-married
[–]Pinkie056 120 points121 points122 points  (30 children)
That always made me wonder; if people want to be buried next to their spouses, what do they do when they've been married more than once?
You could theoretically be buried adjacent to eight people, but would your spouses be okay with being buried with the rest of your dead husbands/wives?
[–]popsiclestickiest 44 points45 points46 points  (2 children)
I think the husband would be more pissed if he spent practically his entire life with her, raised kids, died of old age, and then had to wait for eternity in heaven alone because she went to hang out on a sinking boat with some jackass kid she fucked once as a teenager.
[–]Pinkie056 14 points15 points16 points  (0 children)
Heheheheh, I had the same problem with Titanic.
[–]Kraven_howl0 293 points294 points295 points  (2 children)
Probably wouldn't care, being dead and what not.
[–]enduser666 55 points56 points57 points  (0 children)
I think it depends on a lot of factors. My grandma was widowed but remarried in old age. She never would have dreamed of being buried anywhere but next to her first husband, father of her only children. Gravesites are or the living after all, the dead couldn't care less.
[–]h0m3g33 23 points24 points25 points  (10 children)
They don't really have a say in it. They are dead.
[–]counters14 22 points23 points24 points  (6 children)
How would you feel at 65 when going over your will and you find out your current wife requests to be buried next to her first husband who passed away before you came into the picture?
[–]Donald_Keyman 2476 points2477 points2478 points  (1125 children)
There are 117 names on that list. It is seriously out of control. Since 2006, the Mexican Drug War has claimed at least 60,000 lives, and it may be over 100,000.
[–]allycakes 857 points858 points859 points  (98 children)
Another name will have to be added to this list today. Gisela Mota, mayor of Temixco, was killed yesterday shortly after taking office.
[–]DanParker001 360 points361 points362 points  (73 children)
On her second day?! That's gotta be a record.
[–]megabatsyblue 385 points386 points387 points  (12 children)
I remember one chief of police that got killed 4 hours after being promoted
[–]Samoth95 298 points299 points300 points  (10 children)
That's some Shadow of Mordor level shit right there.
[–]Ergok 40 points41 points42 points  (0 children)
I laugh, I cry, I upvote
[–]RestrictedAccount 132 points133 points134 points  (2 children)
I think there was a Chief of Police in Monterrey that was killed 30 minutes after being sworn in.
[–]mijamala1 41 points42 points43 points  (1 child)
Wow. Was his new badge a bomb or something?
[–]goldishblue 187 points188 points189 points  (53 children)
That is terror. When you grow up in a place like that, it's either you join us or we kill you. In that sense, the cartels are no different from ISIS.
[–]ronimow 207 points208 points209 points  (44 children)
I think, the mexican cartel is worse than ISIS.
[–]Blittzzo 127 points128 points129 points  (34 children)
They're smarter too. They know not to fuck with America.
[–]Cockblaster5000 231 points232 points233 points  (30 children)
Makes no sense to piss off your best customer.
[–]prepper_of_doom 100 points101 points102 points  (27 children)
Makes no sense to piss off the Government that sponsors you with firearms.
[–]coolprince 56 points57 points58 points  (17 children)
Gisela Mota,
Fun fact: Mota means death in arabic.
[–]APsychedelicMermaid 123 points124 points125 points  (9 children)
It's also slang for marijuana in Spanish.
[–]taciturnextrovert 56 points57 points58 points  (4 children)
It also means fat in Hindi.
[–]HMJ87 127 points128 points129 points  (3 children)
It also means car in cockney
[–]anderssi 254 points255 points256 points  (4 children)
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
ಠ_ಠ
[–]johnknoefler[S] 178 points179 points180 points  (26 children)
So true. I just looked up that list an hour ago. I really got too depressed to continue researching.
[–]docfunbags 57 points58 points59 points  (25 children)
You think that list is depressing. Don't even think of "researching" the cartels on LiveLeak.com.
[–]kevle6 18 points19 points20 points  (0 children)
That is some fucked up shit...
[–]krayziebone09 656 points657 points658 points  (944 children)
And why is america focusing so much on Isis when we have a bigger problem right below us
[–]TheSecretMe 1476 points1477 points1478 points  (162 children)
Because effectively it's not a problem. Drug cartels are a business. They'll violently protect their interests but won't do anything beyond that.
They represent zero threat to the running of the United States and they're very careful to keep it that way. Conflict with America is bad for business after all.
Isis on the other hand disrupts global trade, creates massive migration problems and fucks around with sovereign nations forcing corresponding military mobilization from various global players.
That's a much bigger problem than cartels killing people.
[–]Peeetz 286 points287 points288 points  (96 children)
But is it not still defined as terror? Isn't that the mantra we've been force fed for almost 15 years now? Year after year, election after election we were given a few enemies names but it always boiled down to "we won't tolerate terrorism".
I get the points you made. They're good points. But it's evident as fuck that the government cherry picks what is and isn't terrorism. Quite frankly, the shit the cartels do makes ISIS look humane sometimes.
[–]dupreem 511 points512 points513 points  (69 children)
Terrorism is a question of motive not brutality. A terrorist group is a group that engages in violence to achieve a political end. ISIS is a political organization engaging in violence to achieve political ends. There is a specific underlying political motive in their actions. For this reason, ISIS is a terrorist group, not just a criminal group. The cartels are criminal enterprises engaging in violence to facilitate continued profit. There is no underlying political motive in their actions. For this reason, the cartels are not terrorist groups, but just criminal groups.
EDIT: Wow, this really blew up! Please don't take a lack of reply as a sign of disrespect. There's just...a lot of comments here.
[–]Kelmi 256 points257 points258 points  (40 children)
Cartels terrorise politicians that won't handle things in the way they want. It is political.
What you said is like claiming thst corporate lobby groups aren't political, they're just looking to do business.
Cartels are terrorists, but they don't terrorise Americans nor do they hinder global trade, so US doesn't care much.
[–]dupreem 174 points175 points176 points  (26 children)
Every criminal that has every violently resisted arrest qualifies as a terrorist under that definition. After all, by preventing a police officer from completing his work, an individual is preventing the government from effecting certain policies, an inherently political act.
The cartels engage in some violence to achieve immediate political aims -- but their ultimate goal is not political, but pure profit. And that fundamentally differentiates them from terrorists.
[–]daimposter 28 points29 points30 points  (1 child)
Every criminal does NOT kill politicians. Most criminals just go after other non political people for nothing but money. A drug dealer is just dealing with another individual that wants his goods. The moment a drug dealer starts killing cops and politicians, then their actions become terrorism.
I don't think you realize how much terrorism these cartels engage in. Yes, cartels number 1 goal is money but they use terrorism to accomplish that.
[–]indigo1211 8 points9 points10 points  (2 children)
I mean even if you want to decide it is terror, the US doesn't really have any business intervening there. ISIS openly wants to destroy the west. Drug cartels just want to stay in their area.
And yes I know that there have been plenty of times where the Us shouldn't have intervened and did. But let's not encourage adding another one to that list.
[–]fleetfarx 29 points30 points31 points  (2 children)
I'm not going to pretend to "know" the truth of the matter, but if you want an absolutely brutal read about the Mexican drug wars, read "Murder City: Ciudad Juarez and the Global Economy's New Killing Fields" by Charles Bowden. It implies a great deal that the violence isn't just innocent people caught between cartels, but also between the Mexican military, the police, and in some cases, the US Government.
[–]bennihana09 14 points15 points16 points  (0 children)
It's really odd to me that people don't automatically assume the last sentence. We've created our last forty years worth of enemies.
[–]LonelyTableSaw 70 points71 points72 points  (12 children)
ISIS wants to bomb us, cartels just want our money.
Big difference.
[–]Abohir 19 points20 points21 points  (8 children)
It could be worse. There is AlQaeda in Afghanistan working hand-in-hand with the local drug Warlords.
[–]Teammeal 524 points525 points526 points  (33 children)
Reading the wiki I'm going "wow this woman is amazing" then clicked on a source article and full on teared up when I scrolled down to the photo of her injuries. Living with a fucking colon bag thing because you tried to make a difference. Fucking unreal.
[–]Dubanx 84 points85 points86 points  (6 children)
As someone who had to have a colostomy bag for 1 month fuck everything about these. They partially fall off where the top part breaks (spilling its contents everywhere) while the bottom half is firmly attached to your pubes and need to be slowly worked off to replace the bag.
They give horrible heat rash when the weather is hot, and they're such a messy pain in the ass to empty. They're such a colossal pain in the ass, and I only had mine for a month. I can't imagine living that way for years.
[–]me909388 19 points20 points21 points  (5 children)
Might have been crappy bags you were using.
I have a colostomy bag for 6 and half years now. They don't fall off on me, or create much of a mess. Except for the handful of times where it pops like a balloon at night. Those night are fun.
[–]raise_the_sails 195 points196 points197 points  (10 children)
Goddamn. This woman is/was worlds harder than anyone who ever took a swing at her. I wonder if that irony ever occurred to the cartel members who harmed her. Insofar as badassness goes, they were so far below her level.
[–]Rookwood 57 points58 points59 points  (5 children)
They don't really care. She's dead and they proved their point.
[–]-Branson 3724 points3725 points3726 points  (906 children)
Wow, that's intense. You use refuse to back down, and when you finally make it through, you go down anyway. That's one tough lady.
[–]no_toro 102 points103 points104 points  (1 child)
Fuck. That just happened.
[–]sjeffiesjeff 133 points134 points135 points  (8 children)
What the fuck?
[–]v8rumble 153 points154 points155 points  (6 children)
The next god damn day.
[–]darkfire963 53 points54 points55 points  (0 children)
That was yesterday, which gave me goosebumps
[–]senatorskeletor 33 points34 points35 points  (1 child)
OK, fair enough, but I assume things have gotten more peaceful in the ... looks it up ... one day since this happened.
[–]dirtypoet-penpal 9 points10 points11 points  (1 child)
There needs to be a TIL about this if there isn't already. WTF
[–]DrobUWP 21 points22 points23 points  (0 children)
fresh enough it could be r/worldnews instead
[–]Breakfastator 145 points146 points147 points  (59 children)
Death by traumatic brain injury, what a horrible way to go.
[–]Fimbulwinter 211 points212 points213 points  (57 children)
As far as cartel executions go I think she got off easy :(
[–]johnknoefler[S] 1799 points1800 points1801 points  (791 children)
When she was abducted with her daughter she begged them to let her daughter go and went with the abductors. On a side note, after her term as mayor ended she retired to a private life and married her former security guard who *was assigned by the governor after the last assassination attempt. She had separated from him soon after the marriage and it was in November of that same year that she was abducted and killed. I've not heard of a serious investigation into the killing and abduction and those responsible, so far as I have heard have not been arrested. What does her ex husband know? Is he involved? No one knows and I don't think those questions are being answered *or even asked.
Edit: I previously thought the security guard was assigned by the governor of the state after the second attempt. Looking back at the Wiki article and some news reports from that time it's clear he was assigned after the last attempt when her husband was killed.
[–]GoonCommaThe26 1306 points1307 points1308 points  (76 children)
Or y'know, the people who tried to kill her three times before killed her.
[–]Containsnochemicals 646 points647 points648 points  (15 children)
Yeah that line of thought is some serious Nancy Grace shit.
[–]ManWithNoFace 95 points96 points97 points  (8 children)
Nah, Nancy Grace's line of thought doesn't involve that much logic.
[–]evildead4075 39 points40 points41 points  (5 children)
Needs a Nancy Grace nickname. The Mustached Mexican Mafia Mass Murderer Men of Michaocan.
[–]HereComeTheEnts[🍰] 12 points13 points14 points  (4 children)
Alliteration is definitely your thing.
[–]Fordiman 8 points9 points10 points  (3 children)
Alliteration is apparently your avenue of authorship.
[–]Gibroni 26 points27 points28 points  (1 child)
It's worth investigating though. Suggesting an ex husband MIGHT be involved is different from Nancy grace's outright persecution of the accused.
[–]oldSerge 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Let us know of you find Carmen with THAT logic. /s
[–]TexanChiver 644 points645 points646 points  (469 children)
Was the kid ok?
[–]johnknoefler[S] 1640 points1641 points1642 points  (398 children)
Yes. they released her daughter and then she willingly went with them to her death.
[–]testbug0 389 points390 points391 points  (170 children)
She's a much braver person than I am.
[–]subdep 454 points455 points456 points  (154 children)
As a parent, dying is nothing compared to the hell of having your kid killed.
[–]jpastore 168 points169 points170 points  (101 children)
I would gladly take a bullet to see my son live. There is no question in my mind.
[–]lackofagoodname 159 points160 points161 points  (82 children)
See this is why I can't have children, I wouldn't do that
*edit: guys, I'm not having children for plenty of reasons, this is just one of them. My feelings won't change if I did, trust me. If anything I would hate them even more. I dislike children, even my sister's kids. I aim to enjoy my life, not spend the better part of 20 years providing for a little shit. My bloodline is nothing special, I couldn't give a shit less about keeping it going. And I don't consider this selfish because I should have no obligation to reproduce, and by choosing not to do so I'm avoiding a child having a shitty parent. Never would I ruin my life like that, especially as I get older /rant *
[–]Jaumpasama 394 points395 points396 points  (44 children)
No one can, until they have children.
[–]sirdrumalot 112 points113 points114 points  (32 children)
I've always heard parents say that you just can't explain the love you have for your child, and I never understood it. I have a wife that I've been with for 10 years, but when we had our kid that's now a year-and-a-half all I can say is that they are right. It's just not explainable.
[–]SpotNL 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
This is why I don't want children. All power to anyone who does, and I love children, but I just absolutely hate the idea of being second place in my own life. When I see my friend and brother stress out at times, I count my blessing. Sure they get back a lot, but it's nothing I personally can't live without.
I'll just try and be the best uncle to my niece.
[–]lolklolk 73 points74 points75 points  (21 children)
A parent should never have to bury the child...
[–]Dec2015account 110 points111 points112 points  (13 children)
This is a whole other level. They easily could have raped and tortured her kid in front of her before killing her. I am surprised they didn't. That's kind of their thing.
[–]TheWitandLess 31 points32 points33 points  (9 children)
It's seriously a nightmare of any parent. It's why we have sleepless nights.
[–]ChompyChomp 59 points60 points61 points  (7 children)
Well...that and the constant requests for water and tucking-in and checks for monsters. But, yeah...I'm a pretty optimistic guy but I often find myself worrying about all the horrible ways my kid might die. :(
[–]UnclePuma 1292 points1293 points1294 points  (77 children)
acquiescently she went, she sure as hell didn't go willingly.
[–]korrasam1 608 points609 points610 points  (53 children)
Noice use of acquiescence
[–]jonny1188 452 points453 points454 points  (31 children)
...wake me up inside (I can't wake up), call my name and save me from the dark...
[–]CaptainSnotRocket 92 points93 points94 points  (2 children)
Wake me up before you go-go
Don't leave me hanging on like a yo-yo
[–]grc207 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
Beautiful! I teared up a little.
[–]vizzmay 127 points128 points129 points  (24 children)
I don't think it means what you think it means.
[–]Zaozin 209 points210 points211 points  (19 children)
Lyrics from Evanescence, which was either being referenced ironically, or by accidental confusion.
[–]GoatBased 64 points65 points66 points  (12 children)
While acquiescently is probably a better word to use in this situation, there is nothing wrong with using the word willingly, because there are applicable definitions.
[–]EndOfNight 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
"acquiescently"
"In an acquiescent manner"
Thanks Google dictionary, that was helpful!
[–]Cheesemacher 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
I use that too. But you can just select the word again.
[–]Crookmeister 23 points24 points25 points  (8 children)
Wow. I always thought that in shows that when bad guys let a loved one go that it's unrealistic but I guess they do let them go sometimes.
[–]NotTheProgurt 26 points27 points28 points  (1 child)
They probably learned the expected conventions for being a bad guy from those same shows.
[–]arghhmonsters 70 points71 points72 points  (3 children)
Man on Fire level of sacrifice right there.
[–]FallenAngelII 93 points94 points95 points  (111 children)
I don't understand the mindset of her killers. "Here's a lady who tried to protect her constituents and uphold the law. She's retired now and just trying to live a normal life. We better murder her!".
[–]eSportsDig 244 points245 points246 points  (14 children)
Its to send a message
[–]LastStar007 45 points46 points47 points  (8 children)
You don't understand Mexico. Mexico is RUN by the drug cartels. Citizens cry in the streets when drug lords are arrested because they're the ones that provide running water and electricity.
She resisted, she paid the price.
[–]a_minor_sharp 79 points80 points81 points  (68 children)
Well the Wikipedia page says that she agreed to be taken after the kidnappers agreed to leave her daughter alone
[–]Stumpyflip 269 points270 points271 points  (66 children)
I hope her daughter grows up and kills every last one of them.
[–]ggg730 217 points218 points219 points  (44 children)
I'd crowdfund that shit. A real life Punisher situation.
[–]JSFR_Radio 36 points37 points38 points  (1 child)
A real life Punisher situation.
Kick Ass 3: Como Estas Motherfuckers
[–]Wootery10 302 points303 points304 points  (17 children)
Is he involved?
I'm reminded of Betteridge's law of headlines: Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no".
As others have already pointed out, there seems to be no reason whatsoever to entertain the idea that he was involved.
[–]B504 100 points101 points102 points  (5 children)
But mah sensationalism and clicks!
[–]tinkerbunny 31 points32 points33 points  (3 children)
Is her security guard ex-husband involved? These 10 facts about Mexican drug cartels will SHOCK you!
[–]KurajberForLife 73 points74 points75 points  (58 children)
Depressing man, trully. Im not mexican and im so sad too see what are those cartels doing to mexicans. I just dont know when will it end and someday it will.
[–]itonlygetsworse 40 points41 points42 points  (2 children)
What sucks the most is that even the government wasn't willing to provide her with adequate protection during the first few assassination attempts. That's how corrupt the chain goes.
[–]KurajberForLife 11 points12 points13 points  (1 child)
I dont know if you watched narcos, i belive in SE1E1, we see how cartel works. They threathen you, and your close family and friends and if you dont do what they say, they do the most gruesome stuff. I think we shouldn't judge the people who work with cartels, just domestic and foreging goverments who arent doing nearly enough and are even helping them.
[–]levon14 137 points138 points139 points  (30 children)
Cause this aint drama tv and you cant just assume shit like that without any evidence.
[–]TheRealKrow 55 points56 points57 points  (9 children)
That's actually how you do real investigation... Suspects are suspects for a reason. You rule them out after they're questioned, not before because "this ain't tv."
Edit: I have to add, he probably wasn't involved. The people that killed her are probably the same people that failed three times.
[–]hullabalooboo 19 points20 points21 points  (10 children)
I bet you it was one of the cartels.
[–]wahpoutang 132 points133 points134 points  (8 children)
Well it wasn't fucking Herbalife I guess.
[–]HBlight 72 points73 points74 points  (6 children)
Dude, DO NOT FUCK WITH HERBALIFE.
You ever hear about what happens if you fuck with them? No, because that's how good th
[–]LAW9960 556 points557 points558 points  (54 children)
And a Mexico mayor was killed one day after taking office Link
[–]Zhangar 106 points107 points108 points  (50 children)
Man, you Mexicans dont fuck about.
[–]CyberDonkey 94 points95 points96 points  (48 children)
Holy shit Mexico is a fucking scary place to live in.
[–]goldishblue 62 points63 points64 points  (4 children)
Why do you think so many Mexicans made the journey to the US?
[–]shiroishii731 39 points40 points41 points  (3 children)
To bang our white women
e: how could i forget..they steal our jobs. God damn mexicans. TRUMP, PUT UP THIS WALL
[–]lead999x 153 points154 points155 points  (12 children)
Damn. This woman couldn't catch a break.
[–]johnknoefler[S] 136 points137 points138 points  (9 children)
Her daughter did survive. We all die, so that's a given. At least she lived how she wanted and never gave in to fear.
[–]riddick3 218 points219 points220 points  (1 child)
Death is a given. Torture? Ehhhh...
[–]GrammatonYHWH 119 points120 points121 points  (5 children)
I'm pretty sure she wanted to live seeing her daughter graduate, get a job, get married, see her grandkids etc etc
[–]TrousRD 33 points34 points35 points  (3 children)
He's talking that at least she lived doing what she wanted to while she was alive, even though it could have and eventually did cost her her life. Not alot of people in the world still live like this
[–]trippingbilly0304 112 points113 points114 points  (5 children)
This woman is an inspiration to courage.
[–]HostileIguana 250 points251 points252 points  (33 children)
Why would they bother killing her if she had been out of office for about a year? Revenge, spite, make an example out of her?
[–]DoubleJesusPower 342 points343 points344 points  (3 children)
Sending a strong message to other current/future politicians.
[–]Eji1700 115 points116 points117 points  (1 child)
This really is the answer. It's very easy to say "oh they're evil" which is sorta "no shit" at this point, but ignores just how evil people can be if they're smart.
From their point of view it makes a very disgusting sort of sense. They want to make it very very clear that the question every single person involved with the war needs to ask is "am I willing to die for this". People can go to war because they "Might" die. They're making very clear that if you publicly stand against them you WILL die.
A lot of recruiting during wars is based around drumming up courage and patriotism and making sure you don't realize just how fucked you may be. They're literally doing everything in their power to make the exact opposite true, and may in fact see it as that if they DON'T kill her, more people will think it's possible to stand against them and then live unscathed.
[–]crossingtheabyss 190 points191 points192 points  (18 children)
Why would they bother killing her if she had been out of office for about a year? Revenge, spite, make an example out of her?
We're talking about the drug cartel; evil, viscous people with lots of money who have the potential of making more. They need politicians that work for them, and to scare the ones that want to stop them. These people will go to whatever lengths necessary.
[–]pjcheme 55 points56 points57 points  (7 children)
I have heard many such cases in my country too, A high ranking govt officer refused to take bribe was burned in own house and declared suicide by police; A state level government employee transferred 16 times in 6 months just because he was collecting taxes properly; A MBA Grad from a top most institute whose parents were farmer shot in his office and there was no convictions; Recently a high ranking govt officer resposible for making tax evaders pay taxes was killed in his own home which was locked from outside and again police declared suicide.
Things like these just make someone insecure and angry at the same time. I seriously feel for this lady, my dad is one of the few govt employees I've seen who do not take bribes, he in past was numerously a target of transfers and attempts of getting him removed from his job.
[–]shortymcsteve 22 points23 points24 points  (5 children)
What country do you live in?
[–]hackthat 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Good luck to your dad.
[–]PissyLips 68 points69 points70 points  (2 children)
I don't know which is worse - that her protection was withdrawn after her term as mayor - after all her bravery and commitment (presumably to standing up to organised crime) - or that she retired from politics after NOT being re-elected .. I shit into a colostomy bag for you people, fuck me, right?
[–]TheMexican_skynet 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
As my opinion of why Mexico cannot improve (being that I am Mexican and I lived most of my life there), people don't want to give a shit, or can't afford to do it.
[–]carlosortegap 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Reelection was not possible until two years ago
[–]Klammo 76 points77 points78 points  (4 children)
For anyone interested in the Mexican drug war, Al Giordano at www.narconews.com is a fantastic blogger with the same website designer as George RR Martin. Don't let the horrid website turn you off, he's got great analysis of what's going on down there. He also runs a school he posts a lot about, so you may have to search for his articles on the mexican drug war.
[–]Yerwun 25 points26 points27 points  (1 child)
Hope he stays safe. Cartels have killed bloggers before.
[–]MenShouldntHaveCats 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
I think that dude has actually had a couple attempts on his life.
[–]AddictedToFishing 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
I prefer (Warning: Pictures of mutilated bodies and videos of mutilations/brutal murders are on this site) http://www.borderlandbeat.com/ But honestly, the more people reporting about it the better. Cartels make sure there are few people talking about this.
[–]imPaprik 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Tried for two seconds, then my eyes exploded.
Great web.
[–]FallenBeing 40 points41 points42 points  (3 children)
It's hard to believe there're people brave enough to fight alone against enemies they can't beat. Epic story. Her family should be really proud.
[–]Minusguy -2 points-1 points0 points  (2 children)
That's brave but not quite reasonable. She could play safer and smarter so she stays alive and crushes them. There's no point in flighting someone you cant beat. Her daughter is an orphan now.
[–]nitiger 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
Yeah, but if you play the cartel's game aren't you also putting yourself at risk of corruption charges? Knowing their secrets isn't a good thing either. I think in a Mexican politician's case this was a lose-lose situation.
[–]Minusguy -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
I think living in Mexico is a lose-lose situation per se.
[–]lalizabk 80 points81 points82 points  (3 children)
I wish this didn't spark a memory for me, but there was a post awhile back somewhere around the time of her death with some awful pictures of what went down. I spent a while reading about her achievements, the things she's said and the life she lived (which was basically like knowingly walking around with a middle finger saying fuck you to the corrupt government and cartels), but unfortunately in my mind the correlation with her name will always be the sobering images of her death. She was an astonishingly strong and brave woman. What's worse? The people who did this were probably rewarded for the heinous things they put her through. It makes my skin crawl. I fucking hate people and what we're capable of as a species sometimes.
*edit: Found the link; it's /r/morbidreality, so obviously nsfw.
[–]darexinfinity 16 points17 points18 points  (2 children)
You're right, the cartels are trying to send a message: "Do not fight us unless you're willing to die fighting." I would imagine only a few people would be willing to take that challenge. Which brings up the question, what is worth fighting for and that is not worth dying for?
[–]TheHunnicWhale 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
what is worth fighting for and that is not worth dying for?
Anything is worth fighting and dieing for. Whether you should do so is another issue entirely.
[–]RaHead -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
Well, she directly died for the one thing she cared about most in the world - her daughter. Everything else was politics.
[–]lolzwtf 15 points16 points17 points  (0 children)
Just read up a bit more on María, I'm really humbled by her bravery. There are some things (general safety) that I take for granted here in the states.
[–]OriginalFernando 38 points39 points40 points  (6 children)
After reading the whole page, Mexico sounds like Gotham City, she sounds like Commissioner Gordon, and they are in dire need of a Batman.
[–]Theo_tokos 9 points10 points11 points  (2 children)
I was thinking the same thing!
[–]OriginalFernando 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
Ya know what, let's make it a few Batpeople. Who's with me?!
[–]TRHero777 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
You'd be hard pressed to find people who would be willing to risk getting tortured and then beheaded or shot without a guarantee that they would have some large, lasting impact.
[–]shootx 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
...and then you realize Batman DID have a superpower called plot armor unlike real heroes.
[–]OriginalFernando 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Plot armor for the supervillains, armor armor for your regular street toughs. Cartels fall into street tough category, just on a large scale.
[–]notavalid 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Batman doesn't kill and isn't till old age that he starts using mildly lethal weapons. They need the motherfucking Punisher.
[–]ruckers_sun 377 points378 points379 points  (226 children)
"but I like cocaine so I will ignore this"
[–]prologio 55 points56 points57 points  (42 children)
You can say same for drinking as well then during 1920s prohibition. "but I like beer so I will ignore this" The fault lies within US war on drugs, not the demand itself.
[–]marino1310 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
Mexico has a war on drugs too which the cartel will just sell to is the US legalizes drugs. Even then the cartel also deals in human trafficking for alot of their money which nothing can fix.
[–]zeekaran 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Alcohol was mostly brewed/distilled in state rather than importing from other countries. Even weed is like that. Most marijuana consumed in the states comes from the growers that are your neighbors, but you'd have no idea.
[–]forestcollector 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Weed used to be primarily imported. Domestic production is a more recent phenomenon.
And then methamphetamine had huge domestic production at one point too until the bans on pseudoephedrine were passed. The shift to primarily importing happened over the last many years.
But you apparently have no idea.
[–]TheMexican_skynet 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Well, if they didn't demand it, that would be better wouldn't it?
[–]John_Barlycorn -2 points-1 points0 points  (30 children)
Lol, keep telling yourself that
[–]prologio 2 points3 points4 points  (29 children)
Hey, it is just my opinion in this matter. No need to belittle me or anything. You can just disagree.
[–]John_Barlycorn 2 points3 points4 points  (28 children)
Sorry, but this is exactly the sort of thing people should belittle you over. You're trying to justify actions that directly lead to activity you, yourself consider immoral using some relatively simplistic justifications that are obviously flawed. You do not need cocaine or coffee. You've an easy solution to your moral dilemma, don't buy them. Further, your coffee example is poor. There are certified ways to get fair trade coffee. There is no way to get fair trade cocaine. If you buy cocaine, you're directly funding murder, terror and torture. The money you spend on cocaine directly funds murder. That's your fault.
[–]prologio 2 points3 points4 points  (11 children)
BTW, I am not cocaine user. I am just arguing for its sake.
You didn't answer my argument though. You call my argument flawed, so I expect you to enlighten me at least. I argued that US government is merely shifting blame to the users of cocaine or cannabis by preventing US citizens from establishing their own production. If US government allowed local production, there would be no need for drug cartel and legal business will replace it in Mexico and any other countries.
I don't see how fair trade coffee is relevant to my argument. It is a normal person who was threatening me to kill kittens if I drank coffee. Person threatening me being the US government and "me" being a user of drugs.
[–]John_Barlycorn -1 points0 points1 point  (10 children)
Your mistake is that you seem to be arguing that there is a better solution to the problem, legalization. Which may or may not be correct, that's irrelevant. The problem is you're using that argument to justify resuming activity that supports the cartels. You're arguing "the government is more guilty than I am, therefore I'm not guilty"
You have a very simple ethical argument here. Does the money you spend on cocaine fund activity that you find immoral? And, do you actually need cocaine? There is a very simple answer to that question.
The legalization argument is entirely separate. You can both support legalization, and stop buying cocaine at the same time.
[–]zeekaran 2 points3 points4 points  (4 children)
I think part of the issue with your argument is that you think you can hold individual users accountable.
Take cell phones for example. Required hardware for cellphones are made by sweatshops in Asia. You as an individual can think that it would therefore be unethical to continue purchasing cellphones, so you stop. Have you made any difference? Not at all, because no amount of individuals will stop the wave of society dependent upon cellphones. When an issue is that large, it's a societal issue and no individual can make a difference. So the only way to really disrupt the cycle is to fix the issue at the source. Possible solutions include trade embargoes threatening the source countries to raise their working conditions, or lose out on a huge customer, or replacing the sweatshops with automation.
In the same way, a cocaine user is not the direct source of blame when a drug cartel exists in a neighboring country.
[–]John_Barlycorn -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)
I think part of the issue with your argument is that you think you can hold individual users accountable.
Accountable? I don't think I ever typed that word and it's completely unrelated to our discussion here. I don't have the power to hold anyone accountable. This is a personal ethical argument.
If you buy cocaine are you are you ethically responsible for the murder, rape and torture your money is used for to continue that drug trade? Yes. Definitely. You're also ethically responsible for the sweatshops in Asia and factory farms, and every other brutality in the world your money goes towards funding. Weather your personal choice would end the practice is entirely irrelevant. Seriously, this is ethics 101. Give me a situation where, instead of cocaine or cellphones it was some life saving drug... or even oil in the middle east, where losing the commodity would lead to massive unemployment and the eventual decline of the western world, and we might have a real debate. But you're talking about entertainment at the expense of the lives of others. You have no argument to make. Just don't buy it, it's as simple as that. You have a clear and simple solution to this moral dilemma and other peoples or the governments guilt doesn't absolve you of your own.
[–]0_O_O_0 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Could you not say drugs are a human need though? Not in order to live , but once a drug has been introduced to a society, and people in that society know how to get it, no amount of intellectual reasoning is going to stifle the demand for it. Would the blame then not rest more squarely on the people pushing it? What society in human history has ever been drug free? Ours never has been so I would say it's not as simple as drugs being a choice like toppings on a pizza. I would say drugs might just be necessary.
[–]zeekaran 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
You put a lot of stock into personal ethics. If you buy a cellphone, you're supporting sweatshops. If you don't, you're not supporting it, but you haven't actually made any measurable difference in the world except to your own ego. So what's the point of personal morality if it doesn't actually influence anything?
[–]prologio 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
Let me go back to the example I gave.
Of course, I don't need to drink coffee and me stopping from drinking coffee will stop killing of innocent kittens. However, the act of killing kittens was not decided by me and was forced upon me by someone else I can't control. So, am I guilty of killing innocent kittens?
I understand if this example looks as if it is simplifying this matter too much, but here me out.
Now, let us go back to the real world. US government (being a counterpart to kitten-killer) forbade me from getting cocaine legally and morally by preventing legal production of cocaine. This only allows me to get cocaine from illegal and more unethical sources, such as Mexican Drug Cartel. Of course, if the buyers of drugs stop buying drugs, the cartel will disappear (or, at least, weaken). However, the buyers, if allowed, would wanted legal production to begin with and this issue was forced upon them like I was in the example. Therefore, the guilt lies on someone who forced drug regulation, which are supporters of drug regulations.
I believe someone forcing the issue holds the guilt rather than someone who was forced into the issue.
[–]John_Barlycorn 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
So, am I guilty of killing innocent kittens?
Yes, and this isn't even debatable. You are directly responsible. This is rudimentary ethics.
I believe someone forcing the issue holds the guilt rather than someone who was forced into the issue.
You are both guilty. Another persons mistakes does not absolve you of your own. Your argument, is like the Burglar arguing "Well, if someone would give me a job, I wouldn't have to rob houses" He may very well be right, the job market may be partly responsible for his criminal activity. But that does not absolve him of his unethical act.
[–]prologio -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
In this point I strongly disagree. That man who is threatening me to kill kittens is harassing me. I don't want kittens to be killed, but he is using threat to control my actions. No matter how i look at this issue, I can't see how I will be responsible for killing kittens.
You accuse me of simplifying and belittle me for it. I can say same thing for you.
[–]dPuck 1 point2 points3 points  (11 children)
Lol, we've created a system in which we've banned something of which the demand is so high for it that people are willing to kill, but that isn't a flaw in the system, that's the demands fault for existing. K.
[–]John_Barlycorn 0 points1 point2 points  (10 children)
It's both. Someone else's guilt does not absolve you of your own.
[–]dPuck 2 points3 points4 points  (9 children)
Of the two strategies to deal with the cartels, only one of them is effective at all, and its not the one where you try to guilt drug users into not using drugs.
[–]John_Barlycorn -2 points-1 points0 points  (8 children)
I'm not guilting anyone, into anything. I'm making the logical argument that if you buy products from an organization that tortures, murders and rapes, you are directly funding those activities. Weather you feel guilty about that is your own business. But to push logic aside and argue that there is somehow some entity more responsible for those activities than you, and therefore you're not complicit is ridiculous.
[–]garblegarble12342 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
Except it is extremely impractical. If you would legalize it you would solve the problem at once. Look what happened when they made alcohol illegal. It turned into a giant mess. The system is more to blame here then the users. Since it is easier to just legalize it if everyone would get their head out of their ass then for addicts to not use drugs.
[–]dPuck 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
And thats an easy argument to make to someone on a person to person basis, but unless you think its magically going convince a bunch of people to stop buying drugs to the point where it actually effects the problem, then that morality doesn't have any bearing in the real world.
Edit: I think its pretty telling that you never bothered to refute the prohibition example above, in your perfect world no one bought alcohol after it was banned, the gangs never got any traction, and its ongoing today because it worked.
[–]forestcollector -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)
That's what people said about marijuana for decades. The only reason marijuana is now legal and can be bought in several states(and counting) from a regulated producer with zero violence involved is because millions of people said "fuck you" to your argument over those many decades.
Responsibility does not lie in the user, but in the government that enacts the laws.
[–]John_Barlycorn -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
/facepalm
You don't even understand what you're arguing against. The point you're making has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
[–]forestcollector -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
I perfectly understand. I think your morality and fault arguments are bullshit.
[–]John_Barlycorn -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
I made no morality or fault argument what-so-ever. So, I think that what you believe you understand, might be off a tad.
[–]odin_the_wanderer 221 points222 points223 points  (135 children)
"Drug use is totally a victim-free crime!"
EDIT:
Okay, so since I've had a lot of replies, let's walk through the arguments:
Prohibition of alcohol was a failure! It empowered the organized crime, and at best, was ineffectual.
First of all, I think comparison between alcohol and other drugs is specious. And before you say that I'm just defending my alcohol consumption, I'm not, I despise alcohol. But regardless, let's entertain the comparison. There's simply little to no evidence that the popular narrative of Prohibition's "failure" is actually true. Here's an article from the New York Times by a professor at Harvard of Criminal Justice. More recently, here's an article published in the American Journal of Public Health which echoes this same sentiment:
The conventional view that National Prohibition failed rests upon an historically flimsy base...Repeal resulted more from this contextual shift [of voter priorities] than from characteristics of [Prohibition] itself.
Would alcohol prohibition be successful in 2016? Probably not. But please, for the love of God, stop using it as an argument!
Next up:
It we just legalized drugs, like Portugal, drug use would decrease and we could tax them instead of wasting money on prosecution!
There's tons of misinformation about Portuguese drug policy. First of all, Portugal did not legalize drugs. They decriminalized them. Here's a quote from a 2007 report on the effects of decriminalization (emphasis mine):
These changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.
Now, I'm not against the Portuguese model, in fact, I quite like it, but people here seem to be misconstruing its purpose. If we were to decriminalize drug use in that manner, it would have little to no effect on drug cartels, since dealing would still be illegal.
Secondly, the idea that even if we were to legalize production, smuggling/illicit manufacturing would end is just patently wrong. Look no further than alcohol and tobacco smuggling in New York State. Why on earth would an addict spend more money on legal drugs over legal ones? Especially considering that, if possession is legal anyway, most of the risk of buying illegally disappears. And before you say legal production would be cheaper, even putting aside taxes, I find this unlikely. If we, say, legalized cocaine manufacturing, the process would be undoubtedly highly regulated like any other pharmaceutical. I find it hard to believe that cocaine produced with rigorous adherence to safety standards could compete with cocaine made with gasoline as a solvent.
Let's draw a comparison with another sore-subject: media piracy. Netflix is dirt cheap, and yet people still pirate movies and TV shows on Netflix. Yes, this comparison isn't entirely fair, but I think it still largely holds. By the standards of this argument, piracy simply shouldn't exist, after all media consumption is clearly legal! And yet, people will regularly pirate movies of vastly inferior quality over paying for cheap, legal versions.
[–]ademnus 88 points89 points90 points  (0 children)
"We'll fix that by making laws that ENSURE there's a victim!"
[–]linkns86 130 points131 points132 points  (47 children)
More like drug laws create a vicious black market.
[–]goodatburningtoast 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
You're right, that's the problem.
[–]TheHunnicWhale 5 points6 points7 points  (23 children)
I assume you think that relaxing drug laws would fix it?
[–]iowastatefan 39 points40 points41 points  (15 children)
There was an article on r/worldnews that said that relaxing marijuana laws in the US was severely cutting into Cartel profits.
Legalizing drugs, reducing penalties for others, and allowing for the controlled, safe production of drugs in the US would make all the difference in the world, both for safety and addiction rates in the US, and for reducing the Cartel's power in Mexico.
[–]stfsu 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
The problem here is that Morelos isn't known for its drugs. Its only been in the last few years that the state's crime rate has skyrocketed, with the capital city rocked by theft, kidnappings, and extortion; all of which would probably increase with the legalization of drugs.
[–]Banana-balls 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
What about the human trafficking ransom and child sex slavery they earn the bulk of their money on?
[–]bennybrew42 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
Relaxing marijuana laws will lead to a rise in heroin when the cartels start pushing it because marijuana is no longer profitable.
[–]iowastatefan 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
Yeah, that is true. That's why I put "relaxing penalties for others." Ultimately, drug users will use drugs whether or not they are legal, no matter how they have to get it.
So stop treating drug addiction (of any kind) like a crime (instead treat it as a mental health issue), control the production and sale in the US, and you have less overdoses, less drug related violence, and lower addiction levels in the United States, and the Cartels die.
Legalizing weed won't do it alone, that is correct. But the US could certainly do more to help with the problem, both domestically and internationally.
[–]linkns86 21 points22 points23 points  (0 children)
You're assuming that heroin users and marijuana users are interchangeable. In fact, that's far from the case.
[–]marino1310 -7 points-6 points-5 points  (9 children)
Legalizing marajuana would just have the cartel pushing different drugs like heroin instead.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
That doesn't mean it's going to work. You're talking about two completely different products.
[–]Madplato 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Yeah, all the pot smokers will be turned off by legal outlets for their consumption and will turn towards hard drugs because of clever cartel marketing.
[–]rayne117 -4 points-3 points-2 points  (6 children)
Then legalize them all. JESUS YOU FUCKING RETARD. I'm the loser stoner pothead, but I can use my goddamn brain
marion1310: while breathing through their mouth Duuh, u leegalize w33d, dumb pot head, they just do utter drugs.
HOW ABOUT LEGALIZE THE OTHER DRUGS TOO
fucking mongloid1310
[–]laxd13 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
That pot doesnt seem very relaxing...
[–]marino1310 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
Becaue nothing at all can come from making incredibly dangerous and easily misused drugs openly purchasable to the public. Look at alcohol. A drug thats been in use for centuries and despite thousands of rehab centers and tons of responsibile drinking propaganda which we were even taught in school, thousands still die every year from misuse.
[–]flavenoid 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
And remember what happened when we tried to ban alcohol?
[–]marino1310 -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
Which didnt work primarily because it was so easy to make yourself and was so ingrained in society that they couldn't just remove it. No other drug is as ingrained in modern society as alcohol and cigarettes. They couldnt ban alcohol because everyone drank.
[–]linkns86 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
And things were so much better when it was illegal, amiright?
[–]garblegarble12342 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
It worked for the Mafia in the US. It bled them big time. At one point they were practically running a lot of large cities. They were much more powerful during the prohibition. And incidentally that started right around the time they banned alcohol.
[–]odin_the_wanderer 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
That's simply not true. What killed the Mafia was not the end of Prohibition, but the implementation of the RICO Act, which streamlined legal procedure and allowed police departments to more easily prosecute for things like racketeering. It was this that utterly eviscerated traditional organized crime in the US.
[–]linkns86 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Seemed to work with repealing alcohol prohibition.
[–]GEAUXUL 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
YES! It absolutely, 100% would.
[–]FeignedSanity -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
Would you rather have crazed, murderous, merciless bastards manufacturing and distributing drugs or a regulated, controlled, monitored and tested government/corporate/private organizations making and selling the drugs?
There will always be a demand for drugs. But who supplies it can change, and more regulation and less murder sounds nice to me. Then the drug cartels will just have weapon and human trafficking to run off of. We could then take the tax money made from selling drugs, and the money saved by not arresting users, sending them to court and prison, etc and use that money to fight against the human traffickers.
[–]TheHunnicWhale 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
You do realise that making the Cartels dissapear would require actual action regardless? You think that if a government approved organization was making and selling drugs every Cartel would just fuck off?
[–]FeignedSanity -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Of course it would take actual action. They wouldn't just fuck off. But it would be a large blow to their profits. They make lots of money doing other illicit activities too. I do, however, believe it would help a great deal. Far fewer people are supportive of human trafficking and organized crime than there are supportive of drugs.
Those with the power to take action against the cartels would have to actually take that action. And right now those with that power certainly show no signs of wanting to use it.
I believe there are good solutions available, but I have no trust in those in the position to do so. Which is why this mess started in the first place.
[–]PhilosophizingCowboy -5 points-4 points-3 points  (2 children)
Or... just don't do hard drugs...
Did I just blow your mind?
[–]Madplato 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
How didn't the world think of that ? Thank God we have you.
[–]linkns86 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
Oh, I don't, but I also don't think what people do in their privacy of their homes is any of my damn business.
[–]mpyne -2 points-1 points0 points  (17 children)
The cartels would not stand idly by if the black market were to be magically made legal. They will force their "product" and "protection" on the populace, if that's what's necessary.
You'd think our progressives would understand this better, given how the British once imposed the legalization of drugs on China in the Opium Wars for similar business reasons.
Following China's defeat in the Second Opium War in 1858, China was forced to legalize opium and began massive domestic production. Importation of opium peaked in 1879 at 6,700 tons, and by 1906, China was producing 85% of the world's opium, some 35,000 tons, and 27% of its adult male population regularly used opium —13.5 million people consuming 39,000 tons of opium yearly.[54] From 1880 to the beginning of the Communist era, the British attempted to discourage the use of opium in China, but this effectively promoted the use of morphine, heroin, and cocaine, further exacerbating the problem of addiction.
[–]linkns86 1 point2 points3 points  (16 children)
The cartels would not stand idly by if the black market were to be magically made legal. They will force their "product" and "protection" on the populace, if that's what's necessary.
They wouldn't have to, people could just buy it from where they wanted to. Overtime, the cartels would become less violent since they would be engaged in a legal business and not have any need for strong arm tactics . Try thinking of any legal market that has violence surrounding it like the illegal drug trade does.
You'd think our progressives would understand this better, given how the British once imposed the legalization of drugs on China in the Opium Wars for similar business reasons.
First, that doesn't tell us anything unless you also have the precentage of people 'using' before legalization. Overall, I don't really care what people do in their spare time, whether it be healthy or unhealthy for themselves. That's none of my business. However, we can eliminate the violence surrounding the drug trade- that effects non-drug users by legalizing the trade (just like with alcohol prohibition).
[–]mpyne -2 points-1 points0 points  (9 children)
Overtime, the cartels would become less violent since they would be engaged in a legal business and not have any need for strong arm tactics.
Having 'no need for strong arm tactics' in the areas ISIS controls has not made ISIS any less violent. Why would you expect the same of the cartels.
If we were talking about a bunch of local gangs and nothing more I think I'd agree with your analogy to alcohol prohibition.
But Mexico's cartels are not just some run-of-the-mill small-time crooks, and they will not simply just return to civilized society and the rule of law because you make one of their revenue streams easier to engage in. Just read the article OP linked initially -- they're already starting to expand into non-narcotics markets like human trafficking.
So what's your solution to that, legalize the rape and sexual abuse of 14 year olds to "reduce the violence" around human trafficking?
[–]linkns86 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
Having 'no need for strong arm tactics' in the areas ISIS controls has not made ISIS any less violent. Why would you expect the same of the cartels.
You're comparing apples and oranges since ISIS is try kill the infidels, not make money in a black market. Anyway, cartels rely on the demand of consumers to get rich and powerful. Since drugs are illegal, they are the only game in town- which means they have a defacto monopoly on the market. If drugs become legal, the market is flooded with alternatives, in turn cutting them off at the knees. If you're a drug user, would you rather do business with the cartel or the convenience store? At the outset they might try to strong arm the competition, but this is ultimately a losing battle since the competition now has the courts and judiciary on their side. Even if we think that Mexico will remain corrupt, the sheer drop in income from illegal imports into the US would cripple the cartel in a way nothing else could.
If we were talking about a bunch of local gangs and nothing more I think I'd agree with your analogy to alcohol prohibition.
Prohibition lead to huge, national crime syndicates that engaged in the same tactics to see the cartels engaging in. It is the most apt analogy available to us.
So what's your solution to that, legalize the rape and sexual abuse of 14 year olds to "reduce the violence" around human trafficking?
This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because I think the drug market should be legal does not mean I support slavery and rape (i shouldn't even have to clarify this...).
[–]mpyne 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
Just I think the drug market should be legal does not mean I support slavery.
I guess my point is that you seem to be focused on drug legalization, while I'm focused on the cartel. I don't think legalization is a horrible idea per se (at least, legalization of use) but it doesn't solve the crisis by itself, and it doesn't mean the state should necessarily legalize all aspects of drug production and distribution. If the cartels can simply force people to become addicted to drugs (something also done in human trafficking, btw) then we can't really speak truthfully about what people 'voluntarily' do in their own bedrooms.
This is the same logic that was used to ban advertising cigarettes to minors. Whatever else we might say, the science clearly showed that advertising cigarettes to minors led to increased rates of teenage smoking (and therefore, lifelong smokers). Banning those ads helped reduce the rate of smoking amongst teens, and did so without causing "tobacco cartels" to form, no less.
But this is getting off the topic. Legalization will not impair the cartels if the cartels have enough power to prevent new entrants onto the now-legal drug market. They already have a monopoly position, and unlike other businesses they have shown that they are willing to use violence to maintain that monopoly.
So, drug legalization is not enough. The cartels have to be weakened, but that's hard to do because they have grown so much that they represent massive nation-level insurgencies in many areas. Narco-terrorists almost imploded the state over in Colombia not very many years ago, though it's not widely known in the U.S. for some reason.
But however difficult weakening the cartels is, it's not going to get any easier if people keep acting like there's a simple policy solution here that avoid all the "muss and fuss" of actively engaging against those cartels.
[–]linkns86 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
If the cartels can simply force people to become addicted to drugs (something also done in human trafficking, btw) then we can't really speak truthfully about what people 'voluntarily' do in their own bedrooms.
Drug addicts are responsible for their decisions like everyone else. The cartel doesn't "force" people to get high, enough folks do that on their own.
This is the same logic that was used to ban advertising cigarettes to minors. Whatever else we might say, the science clearly showed that advertising cigarettes to minors led to increased rates of teenage smoking (and therefore, lifelong smokers). Banning those ads helped reduce the rate of smoking amongst teens, and did so without causing "tobacco cartels" to form, no less.
There is a clear difference here in regard to the age of consent. We acknowledge that minors are not completely responsible for their actions, that is not the case with adults.
Legalization will not impair the cartels if the cartels have enough power to prevent new entrants onto the now-legal drug market. They already have a monopoly position, and unlike other businesses they have shown that they are willing to use violence to maintain that monopoly.
Like I said, even if Mexico remains completely corrupt, the sheer reduction in trade with places like the US will cripple the cartel, in turn making them weaker at home.
But however difficult weakening the cartels is, it's not going to get any easier if people keep acting like there's a simple policy solution here that avoid all the "muss and fuss" of actively engaging against those cartels.
There is a simple solution. Eliminate their international monopoly by opening it up to competition. We can already see this happening with pot.
[–]mpyne 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
The cartel doesn't "force" people to get high, enough folks do that on their own.
They don't now (in general, at least) because they don't have to. If it is required in the future for them to survive, then they will do so. Or try, at least.
And in any event, they do engage in this practice in their human trafficking endeavors.
There is a clear difference here in regard to the age of consent. We acknowledge that minors are not completely responsible for their actions, that is not the case with adults.
There are plenty of things that adults can consent to do that remain illegal because of the detrimental impact to society at large. Either way though, the evolution in effective public policy is precisely to regulate and control the manufacturers of consumer products rather than trying to coerce compliance by each individual consumer directly. Rather than say that people must buy fuel-efficient cars, we say that manufacturers must improve fuel efficiency fleet-wide.
Even in Colorado the weed growers have to obtain licenses and comply with the standard legal suite that applies to all merchants about things like suitability for a particular purpose. So it may be that from the perspective of public policy that it's never possible to simply allow unfettered production of cocaine.
[–]pushkoshkin 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Your argument seems to be, these guys are always gonna be bad, let them kill and murder around the drug trade incase their crimes get worse? Legalising rape and murder clearly still allows there to be un unwilling victim, choosing to buy and consume a drug in your own time is totally different how can you not see that?
[–]mpyne 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Your argument seems to be, these guys are always gonna be bad, let them kill and murder around the drug trade incase their crimes get worse?
Uh, no... I don't propose just "letting" them do anything...
[–]marino1310 -2 points-1 points0 points  (5 children)
You really think the cartel would just allow drugs to be made legal? Theyd just keep killing politicians until its made illegal in Mexico again.
[–]linkns86 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
You really think the cartel would just allow drugs to be made legal? Theyd just keep killing politicians until its made illegal in Mexico again.
Make it legal in the US and cut their market down by 2/3rds. In turn, less money means they are less powerful at home. We can already see it happening with pot.
[–]marino1310 -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
A crime organization of their size simply doesnt just "go away" they find new ways of making money. Human trafficking, "protection" services, loan sharking, etc. Most of which they already practice.
[–]linkns86 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
A crime organization of their size simply doesnt just "go away" they find new ways of making money. Human trafficking, "protection" services, loan sharking, etc. Most of which they already practice.
Ok, and they become a lot weaker since they are no longer making money from drugs. Consequently, we can go after them for real crimes more effectively. I don't see the problem here.
[–]rayne117 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
weed is legal in mexico, happened a few weeks ago
[–]marino1310 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
If it was legal in america too they'd pressure for it to be illegal in mexico
[–]derp12617 32 points33 points34 points  (29 children)
it could be, if america dropped the retarded war on drugs
[–]4orsy 5 points6 points7 points  (24 children)
Let's be serious, people actually think criminal gangs would make the same amount of money by robbery or smuggling? These people should probably read a book, most preferably Killing Pablo. You think Pablo Escobar would have done the terrors he has done with colombia if he just stole and kidnapped? Cocaine is what made him a multi-billionaire.
[–]interiorlittlevenice 11 points12 points13 points  (22 children)
Actually for some cartels, drugs are now just a tiny part of overall revenue http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/17/drug-traffickingasmallpartofmexicancartelsincome.html
[–]GlyphGryph 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Just like with the mafia, but it doesn't change the fact that prohibition is what allowed them the opportunity and funding to... diversify, in such a way.
[–]StraightTalkExpress 6 points7 points8 points  (17 children)
/u/4orsy just wanted us to be serious, not provide citations on how these guys will happily do any shady shit that makes them money, from organ harvesting to sex slavery to illegal deforestation!
The answer here is to simply decriminalize everything, and then the cartels disappear because your entire society degrades into tribal conflict and you can't tell the difference.
[–][deleted]  (16 children)
[deleted]
    [–]Yohnstoppable 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    For one cartel
    [–]forestcollector 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Drugs are the #1 most profitable illegal industry. Drugs are not "a small part" but the largest part of their income. That article is referring to the Knights Templar, which are not a traditional cartel but a loosely related string of organizations. The major cartels in Mexico all make their money on drugs, because that's where the most profit is.
    [–]cincilator 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Fascinating. So it is really something like feudal economy with cartels profiting from all the economic activity over the territory they control? You can almost see them as little medieval kingdoms.
    [–]toucher 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Taking away a major revenue source would definitely harm the cartels, but at the other end of your example are people who believe that ending the war on drugs would destroy the cartels completely.
    The cartels are run very much like a business. They have resources that some fortune 500 CEOs would envy: massive amounts of money at their disposal, a huge workforce that is willing to do anything their told, a sophisticated logistics and distribution network in multiple countries and the legal top cover to make sure that they can pretty much do what they want to do. That allows them to pivot to different (ahem) "business" opportunities.
    First we have to assume that the cartels are keyed into our political and regulatory process. I'd bet that the cartels as a whole know more about our political processes than the average American does. So they'll be able to see the writing on the wall regarding drug laws at the federal and state level. This gives them time to react to changing legislation, if they're not (pure speculation) influencing the political process as well.
    The cartels will do whatever they can do to maintain their current level of control and profits. Maybe they'll eventually lose, but take drugs out of their wheelhouse (which won't happen entirely in our lifetimes, I believe), they're going to pursue other criminal enterprises. Already, Mexican criminal groups are making $42million annually with human trafficking, which is a drop in the bucket compared to their current income from drugs. But I believe that human trafficking is one of the many crimes that will increase as drug profits go down.
    One of the cartels has already started to diversify, and drugs are no longer their primary source of income. Their primary activity is illegal iron mining, which earns them up to $1.4 million a week from that crime. Now, I'd prefer that they're engaging in illegal mining to drug crimes and murder, but this is a good example of how the cartels will adjust their business model, just like any corporation.
    Taking away their drug revenue will be a good thing to hurt the cartels, but it won't destroy them alone. And it won't happen soon, either. And as their income is slowly reduced, they will get more desperate and more violent. I believe that we (being the non-cartel world that is affected by the cartels) need to act sooner than reducing drug income alone would allow. The cartels think they're fighting a war, and they're equipped and trained to be good at it. I believe that significant non-corrupted and intimidated police action or armed response is necessary to reduce their ability to operate and loosen their grip on towns and regions. This will take away their manufacturing and logistics capability, which is critical to their operations.
    [–]greyspatter 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Not about America or the police here
    [–]yep_ok_sure 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Whos citizens make up the majority of the consumers.
    [–]justgirltalk 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    Drug addictions has a strong connection to violent behavior towards others.
    Up to 75% of those who begin addiction treatment report having engaged in violent behavior (eg, physical assault, mugging, attacking others with a weapon)
    [–]derp12617 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    what's your point here?
    [–]tweakalicious 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
    It is absolutely that bullshit thinking right there that keeps drugs illegal and keeps the drug money coming back to these cartels. You are absolutely part of the reason why these people are killed.
    [–]thisismywittyhandle -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
    He put his post in quotes, indicating that he was sarcastically parroting the opinions of others. In other words, you've declared him part of the problem when he agrees with you.
    [–]chriswearingred 3 points4 points5 points  (19 children)
    Yeah, it is. It's the smuggling that leads to violence and death.
    [–][deleted]  (8 children)
    [deleted]
      [–][deleted] -20 points-19 points-18 points  (9 children)
      Make that same argument for child pornography and realize how stupid your argument is.
      [–]PavleKreator 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
      Your argument is fucking retarded
      [–]Lausiv_Edisn 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
      childs == cocaine ?
      [–]Azzlanoo 2 points3 points4 points  (4 children)
      Since when was the act of molesting a child equivalent to, as an adult, taking cocaine?
      Realize how stupid your argument is.
      [–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points  (3 children)
      • You do cocaine in privacy, nobody is hurt.
      • You get off on child pornography, nobody is hurt.
      Using either of these causes demand. Demand makes people get hurt, and people get killed. It's not hard to use your head to reach this conclusion. Convince me otherwise.
      [–]DuVega 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
      • You can make cocaine in a camp in the jungle, nobody is hurt.
      • You cannot create child pornography without hurting a child.
      [–][deleted] comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (1 child)
      Son I've lived in Bolivia you have no idea what you're talking about. Shush.
      [–]dspman11 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      What? Your experience in Bolivia doesn't change the validity of what he said
      [–]ezmacro 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      the difference is though, that we are talking about adults deciding what to put in their bodies. Your example of child pornography is exactly not getting the point.
      [–]chriswearingred -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
      Are you.... Are you special? Where's your caretaker. go back to your short bus .
      [–]benevolinsolence 2 points3 points4 points  (5 children)
      Would you say the same thing about limes?
      [–]ruckers_sun 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
      Yes. I haven't seen any lime beheading videos but if you have evidence, I'll gladly change my behaviour. Then again, I think my limes mostly come from Spain.
      [–]waylonsmithersjr 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      TITLE TEXT HERE
      Subtitle Text Here
      [–]Mr-Frog 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Those monsters
      [–]benevolinsolence 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      They are all cartel beheadings, it's not like they behead them with cocaine.
      The point is, the cartels control a lot of different things. The problem is much bigger than just "don't do cocaine".
      [–]joey_knight 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      This needs to be high up in this thread. The sole reason for the cartels' existence is because the market for drugs in US is so lucrative. A dialogue from the movie Sicario comes to my mind at this time which goes like "Until we can make 20% of the population stop smoking this shit, order is the best thing we can hope for".
      [–]muchdogeisenseinyou 4 points5 points6 points  (4 children)
      Legalize all the drugs and these problems will just disappear! Libertarian utopia man!
      [–]linuxuser86 -3 points-2 points-1 points  (2 children)
      Auctually they pretty much will...
      [–]marino1310 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      And a whole different set of problems will arise.
      [–]forestcollector 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      And each country will take responsibility for it appropriately. With the status quo almost all the responsibility lies on poor producing and transit countries like Mexico, while the rich Western nations are absolved of most of the responsibility. That's really not fair.
      [–]Nottabird_Nottaplane 1 point2 points3 points  (24 children)
      To be fair it's more like: "I'm addicted to cocaine and can't really think of much beyond how to get more of it."
      [–]monkeyking15 51 points52 points53 points  (16 children)
      No it's not. Lots of people use cocaine recreationally. They are not addicted, they buy it on the weekend to party with and don't think twice (or even once) about the international cocaine trade.
      [–]Minusguy 5 points6 points7 points  (10 children)
      That's not really good recreation if you ask me. Like, reading a book is much much better.
      [–]Nimrond 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
      Cool. Others prefer playing baseball or taking a bath. What does it have to do with the discussion what YOU think good recreation looks like?
      [–]Lanoir97 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      "Who's ready to get fucked up? I got the Harry Potter box set and Green Eggs and Ham"
      [–]KhalmiNatty 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
      Nerd
      [–]eldlammet 3 points4 points5 points  (5 children)
      Well, that's based on your opinion, the majority of drug users can handle it, so they won't get addicted. So if they could get their Cocaine legally the only major difference would be that they don't have to talk to shady people to get it, and criminal organizations wouldn't earn money, thus making it non-profitable for them to kill innocent politicians, and just normal people.
      [–]Minusguy 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
      I don't think I would get addicted either. And I don't give a shit about shady people. It's just not healthy, that's it. Can you argue with that? Doubt it.
      [–]PersonalPreference 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
      There is so much in today's society that isn't healthy.
      [–]Minusguy 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      But it's up to you what to choose. That's why I'm saying cocaine is not a good recreation.
      [–]AllIWillSayIs 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      Sounds like a contradictory comment.
      [–]eldlammet -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
      It's honestly not that unhealthy, probably comparable to eating red meat for a week... Well, as long as you don't OD, wich isn't that hard not to do. The same goes for Heroin, the only real health concern of taking Heroin in a safe environment is constipation, the reason why it's such a bad drug for you, is because of the ease of getting addicted to it, and then possibly OD'ing or getting a bad batch. Taking Heroin just once poses little to no threat to your health.
      [–]LaserWashD 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      To each their own
      [–]RufusMcCoot 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      It's the same with the clothes on your back.
      [–]r6662 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      The money of cocaine only goes to the cartel because the government refuses to legalize it. If it's someone's fault it's the government's and the people who are unable to think two steps ahead and are against the government taking care of some of the drug's traffic.
      [–]Nimitz14 -4 points-3 points-2 points  (1 child)
      I do think twice about it. But I hope maybe the stuck up retards in the government will realize through my continued demand that legalizing might be a good idea.
      [–]AphexLookalike 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      stuck up retards
      [–]pok3_smot -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
      Its not the individuals fault that government created laws that allowed these monsters to rise to power they otherwise wouldnt have achieved.
      [–]ShadowAssassinQueef -3 points-2 points-1 points  (6 children)
      Everyone I know who uses Coke are not addicted to it. It's like a special party drug. Because it's more expensive it's only used like once every month or so.
      [–]Gatorboy4life 13 points14 points15 points  (0 children)
      Yeah and everyone I know likes to drink with a bendy straw. Doesn't change the fact that cocaine is addictive.
      [–]mashedpenguins 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
      Great, good for you and your friends.
      [–]ruckers_sun -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      And my friends.
      [–]HotlineLosSantos comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (1 child)
      Hey fuck you buddy.
      We all buy shit where the money will likely end up in the hands of some evil motherfuckers but that's just the way of the market.
      And 9/10 times the "cocaine" at parties is usually just some prescription stimulant that is being passed around as cocaine so people can sell that shit for more money.
      [–]Fuzzleton 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
      Other people doing the same thing doesn't justify anything, it just rationalizes it. Lots of people steal, cheat on their partners, lie, etc etc etc. Knowing you're funnelling noney to these particular deplorable humans but continuing out of self interest is definitely being shitty, regardless of what other people do
      People are not responsible for their environment, but they are accountable for their actions within it.
      This guy isn't wrong to blame the cartel's source of profit - eliminating that will eliminate them. Through legalization, I imagine, since education just leads to rationalization
      [–]ShadowAssassinQueef -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
      Not me. I don't use anything really. Just drink a lot. And I used the word "friends" generously. They were just people I knew. So great. And good for you too.
      [–][deleted]  (3 children)
      [deleted]
        [–]Badyk 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        It is very moreish.
        [–]coolshifts 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        There is a difference between drugs and the war on drugs. The war on drugs has killed far more people than the drugs have.
        [–]yep_ok_sure 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        That's a very good point, who is buying most of this stuff anyway?
        [–]ShadowMadness 12 points13 points14 points  (0 children)
        Her first husband José Sánchez Chávez who just so happens to have been a mayor as well was killed in a 2009 attack.
        [–]blackhotchilipepper 88 points89 points90 points  (53 children)
        ELI5: When you're doing cocaine, are you indirectly supporting these cartels and partly responsible for the deaths of innocent people?
        [–]iZumba 118 points119 points120 points  (8 children)
        Yes. Well, no, you're directly supporting the cartels, not indirectly. And if you have a choice, you should either stop, or ensure your cocaine comes from the most 'ethical' source possible. Since you can't really guarantee the second, I think the first is the best option until legislation changes to bring about actual change in the drugs supply routes.
        [–]ibericospam 56 points57 points58 points  (1 child)
        I mean, we shit on people for buying conflict diamonds, so it makes sense to me.
        [–]RufusMcCoot 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
        I like to crush and snort diamonds.
        [–]FishAndRiceKeks 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        ensure your cocaine comes from the most 'ethical' source possible.
        100% organic.
        [–]filthyridh 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        only buy fair trade crack.
        [–]EverGlow89 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        You just know there are some strict vegetarians that do coke.
        [–]Fyodor007 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
        This is true of buying diamonds as well
        [–]Banana-balls 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
        Most diamonds in the US are mined in canada and Australia. You can buy certified conflict free diamonds.
        [–]Fyodor007 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        That are still largely held by deBeers and are sold at artificially high prices.
        [–]Yerwun 51 points52 points53 points  (28 children)
        Yes.
        And unfortunately, legalizing the sale of cocaine might not be as good an idea as many Redditors seem to think. It's seriously cardiotoxic and its illegality does limit its usage. I do think possession of small amounts should be legal though.
        But basically, don't do coke kids. It's terrible for you and it's covered in the blood of people like this mayor. If you really want to try an upper, ecstasy is a safer and more ethical way to go.
        [–]RufusMcCoot 12 points13 points14 points  (13 children)
        I was with you until the last sentence.
        [–]KegelsReminder 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
        Care to elaborate? You disagree that ecstasy isn't safer or that it isn't more ethical? Or both? What about MDMA, the pure form of ecstasy without any added amphetamines?
        [–]turtlesdontlie -2 points-1 points0 points  (11 children)
        Yea lol don't do ecstasy wtf. MDMA, maybe.
        [–]ChubblesMcgee -2 points-1 points0 points  (6 children)
        You know ecstasy is just a street name for MDMA right?
        [–]turtlesdontlie 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
        Uhm, no its not. MDMA and Ecstasy are two different things. E does indeed have MDMA in it though. But the two words are not to be used interchangeably.
        [–]Stylux 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
        Isn't ecstacy commonly cut with other drugs?
        [–]DNMDL 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Oftentimes yes, same with 'molly'. MDMA is what you want but not always get
        [–]xioh333 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Yes, ecstacy is a designer drug. Mix MDMA with heroin, coke, meth, etc. and it's ecstacy. When people refer to Molly, they are talking about pure, crystal MDMA.
        Edit: Ecstasy is also usually a pill.
        [–]fosho_away 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        It's all cut, bud. Buy yourself a testing kit online or just accept that you have no idea exactly what is in your drugs
        [–]Slaytounge 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Why was this obviously incorrect comment upvoted?
        [–]Overzealous_BlackGuy 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
        Serious? Im trying to get over cocaine. Im not struggling but i would like an alternative for the time being
        [–]RufusMcCoot 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
        Sidenote: Replacing one drug with another doesn't address the underlying issues in my experience. Good luck to you either way though.
        [–]turtlesdontlie 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Get a test kit and get some MDMA. With ecstasy its pressed into a pill along with other stuff and who knows what the fuck they're putting into it.
        [–]torontorollin 2 points3 points4 points  (4 children)
        Alcohol has similar addictive properties to cocaine , one of the most toxic things you can put in your body, correction thanks 5minutestillmidnight but that is not a reason to make the manufacture, sale and possession of it illegal.
        Anything short of legalization of manufacture of drugs only continues to enrich criminal enterprises. This is why the Hells Angels protested the proposed legalization of marijuana in Canada this fall:
        The sad thing is that the situation in Mexico and other places has gone so far that the cartels would likely resort to more kidnappings to maintain their profits if drugs were to be legalized (still not a reason to keep drugs illegal, there are laws against kidnapping and murder already)
        [–]5minutestillmidnight 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
        Ethanol has an Median lethal dose of about 7060 mg per kilogram, which is very high compared to many other substances. Salt has a median lethal dose of 3,000 mg/kg, arsenic has median lethal dose of 763 mg/kg, aspirin has a median lethal dose of 200mg/kg, caffine has a median lethal dose of 192 mg/kg, capsaicin has a median lethal dose of 47.2 mg/kg, nicotine has a median lethal dose of 13 mg/kg, White Phosphorus has a median lethal dose of 3.03 mg/kg, VX has a median lethal dose of .0023 mg/kg, and Botox has a median lethal dose of .000001 mg/kg.
        [–]torontorollin 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Thanks, those are some interesting figures.. Now I know to reduce my botulism intake ;)
        I don't think death is the only downside to consumption of particular drugs, certainly there are effects to ones life that extend to employment, family, etc.
        My point is that none of those facets are helped by putting someone in jail or creating an environment where criminals have near unlimited amounts of money and power and indiscriminately cause mayhem to further their goals
        [–]Yerwun 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
        Alcohol is dangerous if you consume very large amounts, or too much over a long period of time. Cocaine is risky in any amount. Trust me, you do not want cocaine dispensaries to be a thing, or you shouldn't. The whole reason for legalizing weed is that it isn't dangerous enough to justify being illegal.
        [–]torontorollin 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        But the alternative is business as usual.. Isn't keeping drugs illegal just adding to the misery they already cause. I think you're under the assumption that illegal drugs are not already easy to obtain. I would argue that is quite easy to come by illicit drugs and are sold by less scrupulous, unregulated sellers who don't care about selling to minors. Legalizing drugs with regulations for manufacturers and sellers to follow, would reduce the risk to the drug using population, and reduce the sale to minors.
        Also, I don't think there is going to be a large portion of the population, able to control themselves thus far, going hog wild trying anything they can get their hands on if drugs became legal.
        Why not treat it as a health matter instead of a criminal matter. Like cigarettes and alcohol (in some countries) is heavily taxed and the proceeds used for health interventions for those who need it. Jailing people, creating a billion+ black market only contributes to the societal misery and problems related to drugs.
        If the intention is to reduce harm to society, full legalization is the way to go in my opinion
        [–]marino1310 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Also I doubt the cartels would allow legalization. They'd kill as many politicians in Mexico as they need in order to stop it.
        [–]ghettomuffin 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        And way better
        [–]forestcollector 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Ecstasy is safer (assuming it's clean), but you'll have a hard time convincing anyone it's more ethical. The precursor for Ecstasy grows in the Golden Triangle in Southeast Asia. Large-scale organized criminal groups are involved in its sale.
        [–]illvm 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
        I don't know how ethical MDMA is given that cartels produce it, too, and its popularity is endangering the sassafras tree. Still, this is a product of the illegality of the substance, though. I don't think legalizing any substance will just lead to people abusing it. In fact, I think just the opposite. Education and exposure seem to temper people with regards to substances. If things are easy to obtain and learn about people make their own decisions to not use them. If that weren't the case, we'd be a world full of alcoholics and we'd be far too intoxicated to do anything.
        [–]Yerwun 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
        The world isn't full of alcoholics, but it is full of people who drink alcohol. The difference is that there is no 'safe' amount of cocaine. Even a relatively small amount can result in dangerous artery spasms, or occasionally cardiomyopathy. Most people survive it fine, but it is a significant risk in comparison to other drugs.
        [–]illvm 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
        I think that's fine and more people need to know this type of information. As it is, most new users just know that cocaine is a stimulant and "makes you feel good." People are smart enough to make their own decisions on what goes into their bodies. If they choose to do harm that should be their choice. But strict prohibiton and taboo does a lot more harm than good.
        [–]JingoDave 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
        When you're a kid, they just tell you that drugs are bad, but they never really tell you why drugs are bad. I think that is a great distinction. I'm just curious enough that I want to know what really happens to your body, not that your brain is an egg and when its on drugs it sizzles in a frying pan.
        [–]bikefan83 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
        I think so. All the cocaine producing countries are in Latin America and it's all controlled by cartels. Not that the drug trade in drugs produced in other parts of the world is that much more savory. I suppose if you're into drugs the one with the least human rights implications is abusing prescription drugs... or making your own meth. I wouldn't recommend either though!!
        [–]MenShouldntHaveCats -1 points0 points1 point  (4 children)
        Well not just coke. But weed is really their main source of income. So lighting up a splif if not in Colorado. Is as well.
        [–]blackhotchilipepper 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
        I'm not from USA. Is weed legal in Colorado?
        [–]MenShouldntHaveCats 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
        There weed goes all over the place too.
        Yes it is.
        [–]Banana-balls 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
        Weed is not at all their biggest income.
        [–]MenShouldntHaveCats 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        For many like Sinalo cartel. It makes up nearly half of the profits. Which is their biggest single money maker.
        [–]terryfrombronx -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
        Just how if you hire someone who does cocaine to mow your lawn you indirectly support these cartels. Or if you do business with someone who hires someone to mow their lawn and he does cocaine. And so on.
        You probably indirectly support the cartels just by breathing.
        [–][deleted]  (6 children)
        [deleted]
          [–]BeerMatters 69 points70 points71 points  (10 children)
          Well, that's depressing and makes me hate the world even more. Thanks.
          [–]crimson_dude 82 points83 points84 points  (8 children)
          Good. Good.
          [–]ShadowAssassinQueef 20 points21 points22 points  (7 children)
          I can feel you're anger. It gives you focus.
          [–]Rui_Idol 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
          *your
          [–]ShadowAssassinQueef 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
          I'm hungover. Can I have this one?
          [–]Rui_Idol 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
          No! The darkside flows through me. May all your cookies have raisins instead of chocolate!
          [–]ettamilk 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I'll take it.
          [–]Ignimbrite 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          I can feel your angah.
          [–]koh_kun 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          He's not anger; I'm anger.
          [–]FuckDeeper 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          To me its the opposite, it makes me depressed and apathetic, but still I read these things..
          [–]VoidTorcher 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I happen to be listening to this and I'm just...
          [–]GlassCaraffe 261 points262 points263 points  (33 children)
          Fred Rogers once said:
          "When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, 'Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.'"
          Don't let the tragedy of her death overwhelm her life's work as a helper. And fuck the cartels.
          [–]ruacomic 71 points72 points73 points  (24 children)
          Two armed men descended from their vehicle and forced her out of her car as onlookers watched. Gorrostieta Salazar pleaded with her abductors to let her daughter go unharmed, and then agreed to go with the kidnappers.
          No helpers here.
          [–]peaceman709 81 points82 points83 points  (0 children)
          She was the helper.
          [–]ademnus 45 points46 points47 points  (0 children)
          Yes there was -the child's mother.
          [–]TheHuscarl 71 points72 points73 points  (12 children)
          What would they have done? Charged unarmed at armed professional killers? I don't think this woman would've wanted people to die in an impossible rescue attempt. Not only that, but these things happen so fast it's entirely possible that no one really realized what was happening before the kidnapper's vehicle was rolling out. Don't bash those innocent people who just happened to be around.
          [–]NotKony -12 points-11 points-10 points  (11 children)
          If they had guns....
          [–]mr-spectre 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
          you know life isn't an action move right?
          [–]Bullroarer86 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
          I mean, motherfuckers with guns abducting mayors in broad daylight sounds like some Expendables level shit to me...
          [–]omegashadow 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
          More bullets would have hit onlookers on the other side than the abductors themselves.
          [–]justduck01 comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (2 children)
          Right, best to not do anything then and just let the bad guys win. Fighting back and defending innocent people will only make things worse.
          /s
          [–]iamnewstudent 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          LMFAO. You're a lot of talk. You sure you'd mess around with mexican drug cartels in real life?
          [–]omegashadow 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Best to have an effective police force to deal with these issues, who have a consistent level of firearms training like most of the nations in the world with gun control.
          Mexico's desparate situation could benefit from having an armed civilian population but not in the "only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is good guy with a gun" sense but as a broader form of deterrence especially against the corrupt police. Even then enabling mob justice is dangerous and you could end up with hardly 10% of gun related incidents being cartel related.
          [–]EpicPhail60 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
          LOL yeah let's just give everyone guns. That's working out real well in the States, after all
          [–]justduck01 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
          This is from the extremely far-right and Neo-Conservative news outlet known as "National Public Radio", so take it with a grain of salt: /s
          And last time I checked our mayors and police chiefs were not being outright abducted and murdered in broad daylight. So yeah, maybe it is working out better for us than in Mexico.
          [–]EpicPhail60 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
          LOL, glad to hear your gun violence rates have gone down a bit. Find me a source telling me that US gun violence rates are lower than Canada, or anywhere in Europe, and I might actually think that's relevant.
          Saying "Hey, we're not as bad as we used to be!" has as much bearing as McDonald's saying "our food isn't as unhealthy as it used to be 20 years ago." Just because it's improved somewhat doesn't make it healthy.
          [–]weiss_schneenis 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          *if they were in america.
          They know that even if they shoot those people, then they're on a fucking hitlist. Then they've got people chasing them until they and their entire family are dead.
          [–]moal09 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          If they had guns, the cartels would've made sure that every single one of them had themselves and their families horribly tortured to death.
          If I killed a cartel member for any reason, I'd probably just kill myself after before they could get to me.
          [–]bathroomstalin 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          The woman is the helper here, Bubba.
          [–]pjokinen 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I mean, what do you expect? Armed men with a hostage there wasn't much the onlookers could do
          [–]iamnewstudent 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I'd rather not be gunned down in broad day light while I tell them to stop it.
          [–]RaHead -16 points-15 points-14 points  (5 children)
          Relax everybody, it's just a prank bros, we'll bring her back
          [–]tchutchu 8 points9 points10 points  (2 children)
          Why reddit? Why do you force the joke so hard that you become 10000x more annoying than everything you've ever made fun of?
          [–]maynardftw 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          It's a thing. We do it, instinctively, because we're annoyed by it, and we know that overdoing it will sour the taste in the mouth of those who would use it unironically.
          I say 'we' because it's a thing people do, not necessarily just redditors.
          [–]RaHead 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          The butthurt is real
          [–]themindlessone 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          Higher order thinking going on in this comment, watch out boys!
          [–]muchdogeisenseinyou 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          In Mexico they're all lying in pools of blood.
          [–]GlyphGryph 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I read this as the "helpers" doing every thing they can to enable to enable those scary things before realizing that wasn't what you meant. Although that's also true - if you want to try to fix the scary things, it's the enablers that you want to look out for and do something about.
          [–]fax-on-fax-off 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          As much as I like that quote it feels really forced in this situation.
          [–]de-inspired 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I'm so sick of seeing this quote. Redditors have abused this wonderful quote to a pulp.
          [–]Huumptydumpty -36 points-35 points-34 points  (1 child)
          Fred Rogers can suck it. Nuke the place.
          [–]i_wanna_be_the_guide 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
          FOUND THE CARTEL GUYS!!
          [–]ddashner -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
          I agree with your statement. I am, however, disappointed to see that the entire thing was not a Fred Rogers quote. I would have liked it very much if he said "fuck the cartels"
          [–]IFlyAircrafts 201 points202 points203 points  (22 children)
          Being a Mexico in mayor is one job I would never do!
          [–]Mr_YoungGun 545 points546 points547 points  (6 children)
          I imagine being an entire country is pretty taxing
          [–]DXvegas 208 points209 points210 points  (5 children)
          Especially when you're in mayor.
          [–]Kuzune 63 points64 points65 points  (3 children)
          Come on guys, it was clearly a typo. He meant "in mayo". As in "being a Mexico in mayo".
          [–]Wheres_The_Pepsi 141 points142 points143 points  (2 children)
          Ayy El Mayo
          [–]bearcam 10 points11 points12 points  (1 child)
          This comment is under appreciated
          [–]Duz_MMA 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Mayo Pequeña?
          [–]donquexada 108 points109 points110 points  (3 children)
          i think u alcohol too much drank!
          [–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
          to time to bed go
          [–]flitbee 13 points14 points15 points  (0 children)
          R u correct
          [–]mysticmusti 22 points23 points24 points  (0 children)
          Don't worry, if you're lucky you won't have to do it for longer than a day.
          [–]FiredFox 24 points25 points26 points  (0 children)
          El mayor Mayor. Grande como un pais.
          [–]MongolUB 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
          True hero. Fuck the cartels.
          [–]Copenhagen2014 12 points13 points14 points  (0 children)
          I hope the memory of this great woman is kept alive. She lived a very meaningful life and we can all learn from her brief time on this planet.
          [–]ChristianSyrian 12 points13 points14 points  (0 children)
          Wow shes brave as hell, if everyone could be more like her the world would be a much better place.
          RIP
          [–]Acid_sprinkles 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
          What in the fuck? I never expected my tiny, rural, Mexican hometown to ever have anything happen worthy of news. I never even knew this happened. This just goes to show you how messed up Mexico is.
          [–]freemanposse 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
          At that point, it's just making an example. It's just "don't defy us, at all, ever, or we will make a point of killing you, even if you resign or retire." There was no longer any actual need to kill her; she was no longer in a position to be in their way. They killed her because she had been in their way previously, and the cartels want people to think of that as a guaranteed death sentence.
          [–]tissueroll 10 points11 points12 points  (2 children)
          This is alarming. Also just read in the news today that a mayor in Mexico, who was just sworn into office a day (or hours) before, was killed. Attackers broke into her home and shot her dead.
          [–]cr0ft 14 points15 points16 points  (7 children)
          The only way to fix that place is if the rest of the world stops funding the drug mafias.
          And the only way to do that is to legalize all drugs everywhere, and then put the money saved into propaganda and education and care, not treating a health issue like a criminal one. Prohibition doesn't work and gives rise to massive crime issues.
          We already have proof that a) criminalization does nothing good, and lots of bad and that b) decriminalizing halves the problem; see Portugal.
          [–]JCoop8 132 points133 points134 points  (8 children)
          Respect how badass that woman is. And that's the hottest mayor I've ever seen.
          [–]BaconIsFruit 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
          You've obviously never seen former Toronto mayor Rob Ford.
          [–]jizmak11 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
          Put down the schwagg, heroin, and coke and these guys are out of business...stick to the droski.
          [–]PrometheusIsFree 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
          These Mexican cartels are as bad as ISIS except they don't even have religion as an excuse.
          [–]FriedMackerel 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
          Thanks America for the drug market and arms influx.
          [–]i6uuaq 16 points17 points18 points  (0 children)
          :'(
          [–]shenglow 19 points20 points21 points  (8 children)
          Note to self: Don't ever read the comments below Fox News articles.
          [–]Speedly 229 points230 points231 points  (121 children)
          Every time you buy drugs, you give those people money either directly or by proxy.
          [–]l-rs2 57 points58 points59 points  (6 children)
          This war is also pretty lucrative for law enforcement, gun manufacturers, politicians, the prison system - and countless other industries that surround the self-declared 'good guys' in this insane drug war. A war that incidentally has been waged for decades without a drop in drug use.
          [–]4Vesta 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
          Inelastic demand means that when law enforcement removes suppliers, others fill in the gap at a higher price. The result is the same level of use with more efficient (deadlier) and better funded (better armed) suppliers.
          [–]Suibian_ni 88 points89 points90 points  (11 children)
          Every time you vote for politicians who support the War On Drugs, you give the cartels money either directly or by proxy.
          FTFY
          [–]Nuggetry 34 points35 points36 points  (5 children)
          You can't get rid of the demand so you have to control the supply. Don't know what the fuck the government's waiting for...
          [–]Peytoria 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          It'd be great if I could get my drugs and have that money go to something constructive, like taxes or education. Because you can fucking bet I'm still going to buy drugs.
          [–][deleted]  (1 child)
          [deleted]
            [–]Raider8799 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
            That's fucking terrible.
            [–]gjvah 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
            Fucking animals
            [–]Nuwanda84 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
            "The governor of Michoacán said that organized crime was undoubtedly involved." Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I thought when she randomly walked around some farm she just tripped over her own feet, beat herself up and crashed into a barn head first causing brain trauma which she died of.
            [–]hoss7071 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
            Everyone hates the cartels... until your dopeman runs out of product.
            [–]FortyYearOldVirgin 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
            I know this will not be a popular notion (especially in a conservative nation like the U.S. and maybe not even on Reddit) but if people want to consume stuff like marijuana, cocaine, heroine, meth, LSD, whatever... well, let them. Make it all available just like alcohol and cigarettes. Drug cartels would soon lose their relevancy (just like the mob control of Las Vegas - it's all corporate now).
            Salazar's summarized life history would certainly make for a good motion picture but it's anything but. I cannot imagine the level of stress and fear living life constantly being in fear of your life and then being abducted and beaten to death...
            [–]Wupta 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
            What an injustice. We are shocked and disgusted by what Daesh has done in the ME how is this any different?
            [–]joshecf 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
            I love my country but stuff like this make me sad and want better for my country.
            [–]Porfinlohice 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
            As a Mexican this shit hurts bad
            [–]preemptivebanana 54 points55 points56 points  (25 children)
            That's our dollars at work.
            [–]Bashar_Al_Dat_Assad 23 points24 points25 points  (8 children)
            The irony that there undoubtedly many potsmoking vegetarians in the US who refuse to buy meat to not indirectly finance animal mistreatment and then go and buy shady pot that directly finances the murder and torture of human beings.
            [–]shadowbannedkiwi 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
            It's a real smack to reality how tough our world is. We can look at our homes and feel safe, but when we see things like this happening, you realize that not everyone is as sane as you'd have thought.
            [–]Umithylel 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
            What a brave and beautiful young woman. I hope her daughter finds the strength to carry on her in her mother's footsteps and show every one of those insane murderers and the rest of the world, that a woman can not be stopped even if beaten down and killed. A woman will live through her children and through her family because a woman is a mother and a wife, and this woman is even a leader so she will live on in the hearts of her supporters. RIP Maria Santos, the great.
            [–]roskatili 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
            ELI5: What's the cause of those neverending kidnappings and assassinations of both mere citizens and politicians in Mexico?
            Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
            REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
            π Rendered by PID 27642 on app-343 at 2016-01-10 05:32:59.238445+00:00 running 11f0405 country code: DE.
            Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
            0%
             
            10%
             
            20%
             
            30%
             
            40%
             
            50%
             
            60%
             
            70%
             
            80%
             
            90%
             
            100%