title is miss-leading, Mexico arm of anonymous has pulled back..however UK arm is going ahead with the Nov 5th plans
Source please?
Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists
141–150 of 162 posts
Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
"they are adverse because they are unhealthy for consumption" Like rocks, thumbtacks, shampoo, too much aspirin, bacon-double-cheeseburgers and daytime TV. We do not ban everything that's unhealthy. The question is whether, on balance, the benefits of prohibition are greater than the costs. I think we agree on that, though we might disagree when we estimate the balance when it comes to narcotics. Unfortunately, stati…
So, correct me if I'm wrong, is your argument that it's better to choose the lesser of two evils? In other words, we should legalize drugs because they are obtainable anyway and we need to reduce the number of people in prison?
I wouldn't put it like that, but roughly yes. I think the current policies are probably doing more harm than good. We should try decriminalizing some drugs, and spend some of the money we save on enforcement on education and health services. This is a harm reduction strategy, which is how we handle alcohol now.
Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
"they are adverse because they are unhealthy for consumption" Like rocks, thumbtacks, shampoo, too much aspirin, bacon-double-cheeseburgers and daytime TV. We do not ban everything that's unhealthy. The question is whether, on balance, the benefits of prohibition are greater than the costs. I think we agree on that, though we might disagree when we estimate the balance when it comes to narcotics. Unfortunately, stati…
So, correct me if I'm wrong, is your argument that it's better to choose the lesser of two evils? In other words, we should legalize drugs because they are obtainable anyway and we need to reduce the number of people in prison?
So, correct me if I'm wrong, is your argument that it's better to choose the lesser of two evils?
Is your argument that it's better to choose the greater of two evils?
Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it be safer & a hell of a lot cheaper if drugs were regulated according to their harm? Grass is no worse than alcohol or tobacco, while cocaine doesn't cause any more social issues than those. The cartels only exist because the illegality of those drugs creates massive profit margins. Remove that and many of the problems are solved.
I'm going through a very good book right now that this reminds me of. It's more about the middle east than Latin America, but I think it applies: "Poppy cultivation had become an agribusiness and the dealers for the Afghan drug barons now had technical advisers who were visiting Nangarhar to advise on the crop and the product, paying in advance, and so concerned about the health of their workers that they had given t…
Didn't China have big problems with opium use several hundred years ago which drove them to cut it off? (They may not have made it illegal, but they at least cut off trade routes)
Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, etc. are much more profitable, and legalizing these would be socially irresponsible, if fiscally lucrative. Are you claiming that the benefits that we actually get from the current prohibitions are greater than the costs of those prohibitions? If so, that's not obviously true. After all, I can get all of those things without too much effort, so what is huge benefit of making them illegal?…
It's not obviously false either - it's at least arguably true. When I said fiscally lucrative, I was admitting there may be a certain profit to legalizing these substances. However, it's socially irresponsible. I don't think a society will function as well with a government making clearly adverse narcotics freely available because people want them.
> However, [legalizing hard drugs is] socially irresponsible.
You've said that - I'm asking how you're defining "socially irresponsible".
> I don't think a society will function as well with a government making clearly adverse narcotics freely available because people want them.
Not banning something is not the same as "govt making available".
More to the point, those drugs are freely available despite all the laws.
I'll ask again. What benefits do we actually get from the drug laws? If you mention availability, you get to show that the laws actually affect it because if they don't, that's not a benefit. Since they are freely available, that's a tough argument to make.
Then you get to explain why the benefits that we actually get are worth the very significant costs that we pay.
I note that beer distributors don't kill folks over territory.
Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but can they put a tap into all the fiber running through the US? That's what I mean by resources.
You don't need to tap all the fiber running through the US to track down someone. That would take too long. Much easier to put "Wanted" posters up with "$$$" on the bottom and wait for the head to come back.
Sure, if you knew who they were already. But if you don't, you need to start tracking packets.
Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is true, and while I used prostitution as an example, I personally don't see why it should be illegal. However heroin addiction is not the same as corporations and governments lobbying in cahoots. Drugs aren't really viable for an effective lifestyle - at least, not the ones organized crime profits the most on. Even prescription drugs like Vicodin were nearly pulled off the market because of how dangerous they a…
> I used prostitution as an example, I personally don't see why it should be illegal. However heroin addiction is not the same as corporations and governments lobbying in cahoots. Drugs aren't really viable for an effective lifestyle - at least, not the ones organized crime profits the most on. Even prescription drugs like Vicodin were nearly pulled off the market because of how dangerous they are, even when used cor…
I'm not being judgemental - do you know of any high functioning hard drug users? Marijuana and LSD, etc. aren't what I'm talking about. Alcohol does get in the way of functioning too, but people can still use it in moderation. A drug should be banned when the grand majority of people cannot use it in moderation. Those are the drugs I'm talking about. (Again, answering a slew of responses in one).
Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't imagine ever comparing heroin to obesity or cigarettes
Which of these kills the most people and costs the most money to deal with?
Obviously the one that is more of a widespread issue. Obesity costs more money to deal with because there are infinitely more obese people in the world than there are who are addicted to heroin. Fast food is legalized which means criminal organizations aren't going to cash in with it, but it does mean more people are going to be eating it because it's easier to obtain.
Certain narcotics are very clearly adverse because they are extremely addictive with very very small amount of use. You argue against "clearly adverse narcotics", does that mean you think it is responsible to make all narcotics legal? Should people be able to get heroin as easily as they get cigarettes, never mind the kids who would easily be able to go get some dude to buy them a hit of heroin or meth.
One mistake run with heroin or meth can fuck your life up for good, no matter what kind of person you are. Proper education and good life styles are a much more effective defense against drugs then legalization.
Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there are degrees to which something is harmful, and mechanics to how they're deadly. Alcohol usually kills in car accidents. Heroin does not require a car to kill, and there is no such thing as moderation with drugs like heroin and cocaine. People don't exactly stumble about after drinking fine wine usually. (Edit) To clarify, alcohol does not need vehicular accidents to kill, it does cause damage to the liver,…
Alchohol doesn't require a car to kill either. How many cases are there of spousal murder while intoxicated? Also, heroin generally kills when people try to rob others for money to get heroin, not when people are on heroin, because it is a strong depressant and people tend to just lounge around like with pot. If heroin were legal and cheap that problem goes away.
Alcohol is a very strong depressant too, and most of the heroin deaths aren't from people robbing houses that are empty while they are in withdrawal due to lack of money to buy heroin.
Heroin (and alcohol) also cause psychosis, which is probably the biggest cause for things such as spousal murder. Legalization is a weak argument when the only evidence is "It worked for Portugal!" or "If we take away the criminal organizations then everything will be well!". Instead of fighting the infinite number of criminals I'd rather we help the dudes who fucked up and now want to make their lives better.
Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point i'm trying to make, the super glamorous "send in the military and take out the boss" kind of tactics are ultimately doomed to fail. You have to do the sucky work of grinding away at the base. a tax evasion conviction here, a conspiracy charge there. Keep enough pressure on the base of the pyramid that it starts getting a little tougher to find people willing to deal or be mules or enforcers or whatever. It'…
I don't see the "doomed to fail" part. What bad thing happens when you take out known crime bosses? They get replaced quickly? Do it again. They can only take it so long. Is it more expensive than hundreds of law-enforcement officers working for decades "grinding away at the base"? I rather doubt it. You probably don't need to go all "helicopters and M-16s" on them. I'm sure it can be done much less expensively than…
Extra judicial assassinations lead to government corruption. The gangsters on the street go away, but new gangsters in government are created.
Due process is there for a reason.