Forum: Author Hangout

The reason the problem got so bad in the first place is rampant government corruption. What makes you think their army isn't in on the corruption?

That's oversimplification for the Mexican cartel problem, but the government needs to clean house (at the federal and local levels) at the same time.

I disagree. I think that the Mexican government needs to do a good bit of cleaning up it's own house before they can even get close to making a dent in the drug cartel problem.

I think that the Mexican government needs to do a good bit of cleaning up it's own house before they can even get close to making a dent in the drug cartel problem.

It's too late for that. Whatever comes out the other side of their civil war will not be the Mexican government of before. The former Mexican government has been shattered in all but name.

Whatever comes out the other side of their civil war

Hard to call it a "civil war" when the two sides are grossly unequal. The government, rotten to the core with corruption and political self-interest, seems to have withdrawn into itself while polishing its brass, holding parades, and making speeches. Meanwhile, the wealthy elite have sequestered themselves behind walled barricades and private security forces. The CIA recently said 20% of Mexico was cartel-occupied; the current President, Oberon, merged Army units with elements of the former Federal Police to form a new force, the National Guard. It is having as little success (poor to none) as former efforts. It's not a "civil war," it's more like an inevitable surrender to syndicated crime & terrorism.

If the cartels win, do they start fighting amongst themselves, or get together form a new government, legalize drugs and go legit?

If the cartels win, do they start fighting amongst themselves, or get together form a new government, legalize drugs and go legit?

This is just a guess based on history. If the government collapses completely, i.e. losing to the combined cartels, the situation is analogous, on a much smaller scale, to the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire circa 450-600 A.D.
Which ushered in a complete balkanization of the West and the Dark Ages.

I don't see any advance in social development among the present day actors vis-a-vis the thugs that dismembered Rome. Hence, I'd expect the balkanization to proceed apace.

The only wildcard that I do see is the United States sitting right next door. But then the Eastern Roman Empire was right next door to the West and did nothing. And given the current leadership of the U.S., I hesitate to expect correct action should a breakup occur.

My two centavos.

At the risk of sounding hysterical or alarmist, I believe we here in U.S. had damn well better wake up to the danger. We already suffer the polarization of class inequality and economic dysfunction. With no shortage of violent players and given enough money, motivation, agitation, and urban paramilitary police forces losing public trust and support -- the cancer from the south will find fertile ground here and we'll have a bitter fight to contain it.

That thought has occurred to me more than a few times. In fact, one of my favorite arguments with my son is how many different countries would arise from the U.S. should such a breakup ever occur. My best estimate is five.

My best estimate is five.

Mine would be 4-6.

East Coast.
West Coast, except for Alaska.
Almost everything between the Appalachians and the Rockies.
Hawaii goes for independence due to distance.

The two big unknowns are Alaska and Texas.

Alaska won't join the rest of the West coast states, but do they go for independence, or join Canada?

Does Texas go for independence or join the rest of the middle.

I figured East Coast, West Coast, the South, Texas by itself and the rest of the country. Hawaii never entered my thought process. They might end up aligned with China but, then, Japan fought a war over the Pacific with us last century so that's anyone's guess. I think Alaska would hang with the rest of the country.

I think Alaska would hang with the rest of the country.

I don't see any advantage to Alaska in sticking with the upper mid-west. In your division, the only access for goods between AK and the upper mid west is either through Canada or across the north west passage and back in through the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

The AK population may be too low for independence to work well, which is why joining Canada whom they share a land border with might be attractive.

Question, with your split do Florida and Georgia go to the East Coast or the South?

I don't see any advantage to Alaska in sticking with the upper mid-west.

Oil, once the pipeline that Biden shitcanned got built.

Florida and Georgia stay in the South. As does Virginia, but that might mean another split ala West Virginia leaving during the Civil War. Quite possibly the same could happen in Pennsylvania with the western portion going with the rest of the country.

Oil, once the pipeline that Biden shitcanned got built.

The gulf coast states have most of the refining and shipping capacity. I don't see that as a driver for Alaska joining the Upper Mid-West in a US breakup.

Alaska's economic strengths, based on their resources, align closely with British Columbia, and Historically they would align with western WA (Seattle) as their market connection. And Seattle is very akin socially & politically with Vancouver, BC. So a very good case could be made for a coastal alliance of WWA, BC, and AK allied as a unit.

. So a very good case could be made for a coastal alliance of WWA, BC, and AK allied as a unit.

True But that presupposes a simultaneous collapse of both the US and Canada.

If the US collapses and Canada does not, that supports Alaska joining Canada.

Alaska's economic strengths, based on their resources, align closely with British Columbia, and Historically they would align with western WA (Seattle) as their market connection. And Seattle is very akin socially & politically with Vancouver, BC. So a very good case could be made for a coastal alliance of WWA, BC, and AK allied as a unit.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to Canadian politics regarding Alberta and their efforts to build a pipeline in BC to export oil to the west. Or the fights they've had with Ontario and Quebec over building a pipeline to export to the east.

Coastal BC(where most of the population is) is solidly "team green." And if Canada gets pulled apart in the process you likely end up with most of California, the portions of Washington and Oregon west of the Cascades, and Victoria Island/Vancouver BC areas becoming a Pacific Coastal nation. The more rural northern portions of CA, and the eastern portions of Oregon, Washington, and the rural portions of BC, AB, Yukon, NW Territories, SK, and MB likely end up joining up with the Upper Midwest of the US.

Ontario also has a decent chance of breaking apart along an urban/rural split as well. Quebec would do its own thing, and the eastern English speaking provinces of Canada are on their own... Probably joining up with New England and the "East coast" faction.

West Coast, with the Rockies splitting Oregon and Washington in half

minor nit - Cascades not Rockies .. and area 'tween them more likely to join Deseret than Central ..

will sink into the Pacific.

The fault line is not under the Cascades, it is offshore to the west a couple hundred miles where the Juan de Fuca plate is being subducted under the North American plate, with the Cascades being formed by the volcanism from the melting of the JdF plate. So, if anything, the Oregon/Washington coast will be rising rather than sinking into the Pacific.

First, "US west coast" is deceptive - the PAC NW faults are very different from the CAL faults.

Second, I'm not sure what video you saw, but I suspect it was referring to the San Andreas fault in CAL. It gets a lot of attention and is probably the best-known fault in the world. It's a transverse fault between the No. American and the Pacific plates, and supposedly will dump the "granola" part of CA into the Pacific Ocean when (not if) the next "big one" hits.

That is not expected to happen further north.

From the video on it I saw the other day I was left with the impression that US west coast along that fault line is having the western lifted up. Think of it like having you hand on a table, you hold the palm still but bring the fingers back toward the palm so they bend up, thus the knuckles are lifted up, then when the fault next lets goes it will be like you then straighten your fingers out. Thus the coast is the top of the knuckles when they're raised due to the fingers being bent under and the very top of the knuckles is just above the water line, so when it's released and the fingers straighten out the land springs back like the fingers straightening out and thus it goes below the water. Then the process starts all over again.

A "big rip" is due in the northwest, and it will be a zinger when it happens. It'll make the Japan Earthquake and Tsunami from 2011 look like a cakewalk by comparison. Although Seattle and Tacoma should be "reasonably" sheltered from the Tsunami itself. The earthquake itself is another matter.

As to the subsidence that would likely result. Evidence indicates it would probably be close to what was witnessed with 2011 earthquake in Japan. The shoreline along most of the subduction zone would likely see a couple feet worth of subsidence at most. That isn't going to put Portland or Seattle under water permanently. That Seattle is built mostly on large hills further protects it on that front.

The Tsunami the quake creates might give them a run for their money though.

In the case of "the big rip" off the Pacific Northwest, you're basically looking at a near exact repeat of the 2011 Japan earthquake.

It would be an earthquake triggered along a fault line that is part of a inter-plate subduction zone, involving part or nearly all of the subduction zone beginning not far north of he California/Oregon Border and extending into Canada. Running for several hundred miles north-south.

We're not talking about one of the "lesser" fault systems running throughout the region of the Pacific Northwest.

We're talking about the one that feeds the volcanic systems of the Pacific Cascade Range courtesy of melting down the oceanic crust and the magma that seeps up to the surface ass a result of that process.

Evidently as a subduction zone builds up pressure prior to it's "release" is acts kind of like a jack on the nearby plate, slightly compressing and lifting it.

When that subduction zone lets go, as happened in Japan in 2011, and as is evidenced in the soil records here in the US. The Continently plate will move slightly to the west(relieving the compression), and also sink a bit lower until the next round of mounting pressure "ratchets" the land level back up again for the next round several centuries later.

Many parts of Coastal Oregon and Washington are likely to loose at least a couple feet in elevation when their "big one" hits. The evidence is there from prior events, and the process is becoming better understood as time progresses.

There's an excellent book called The Big Rip that came out a few years ago, explaining the situation. "Not_a_ID" describes it well. The book is NOT for anyone faint of heart who lives here in the region. As for me & my partner, growing old together, we live on an island in the middle of the impact zone. We expect to be isolated for several months should the event occur, and we've planned accordingly. (Our island is solid rock, and we reside at sufficient elevation on the lee side so tsunami impact is not relevant. But the bridge and ferry service will not survive, so we'll be relying on stockpiled resources.)

It really ain't funny, nor inconsequential. It's a fact that many will die; more will suffer. It's only a question of 'when,' and nobody can predict that.

So life goes on. And we waste resources recounting votes (again) in Arizona. Isn't the definition of insanity the engagement of the same actions over and over, expecting a different result?

dotB wrote a story that used an earthquake in that area as a key element. If I remember correctly the title was "Aftershock".

No, we won't sink into the Pacific. I live here (on a big island) so I've got a vested interest in researching the reports & predictions, including a couple of very good books.

Basically the distant offshore fault complex is a junction of several plates, one of them rather small but active. Also there is a whole subsystem of faults on the mainland, some of which have caused significant damage in the Seattle area. But...

The "big one" is expected to occur, not "if" but when, and when it does it will be the offshore fault that slips. It was a Japanese account of a 'mystery tsunami' that led to the discovery of onshore traces of a huge quake & tsunami here on the PacNW coast.

When it occurs, nobody wants to be here. We will NOT sink, but the aftermath will be terribly grim. Much of our urban development (such as petroleum tank farms) has been on landfill on Puget Sound and Elliot Bay's edge, for example. This will liquefy and be destroyed.

Many buildings are not up to earthquake code; or are insufficient to withstand a Richter 9 quake. Our main transportation corridor is Interstate 5, linking our major coastal cities. It will be destroyed at every overpass that collapses. In recent history we had a minor bridge knocked down by an over-height truck and it tied international freight traffic up in knots for several weeks while state crews frantically worked to raise and repair the bridge section. There was no practical bypass except for rural residential lanes not built to handle the load.

All of our services come down through mountain passes, along with all major highways to the east. These will be destroyed.

Airfields and ferry terminals will be severely damaged, preventing fixed wing aircraft from landing or ferry links to function.

Water and sewer arteries will be broken, out of service. Power will be down, with major transmission lines knocked down.

FEMA has warned Bend, OR to expect a huge number of quake refugees straggling in weeks after the event, as an example.

In short, we live on a very narrow band of coastal lowlands, with the high Cascades at our back with vulnerable passes carrying major resource links. And we depend on a narrow ribbon of interstate freeway and rail corridors that cross countless bridges across all the streams flowing down out of the mountains. Much of the coastal area is low, subject to tsunami destruction.

Economics dictated that when the I-5 freeway was built, there were NO practical alternative routes. Everything funnels onto the freeway. When it's broken, most everything grinds to a slow trickle.

Not a pretty picture. As I said, nobody will want to be here when it happens.

Well, lots of free and very rich farmlands 'tween the coastal range and the Cascades. Plus the last big quake was over 300 years ago ...

Ernest, you are forgetting the universal human mindset concerning things that could happen: "Not Me!"

FEMA has warned Bend, OR ....

I predict shortly after the shake that avalanches/rock slides, etc., will close off 26, 20, 58, 138 and possibly 62 ....

Also, there's a lower Coastal Range and wide Willamette Valley between the narrow coastal lowlands and high Cascades ...

Bremerton could cause some interesting problems in a tsunami. Home port for 8 boomers, 5 other nuclear submarines, one nuclear aircraft carrier and the arsenal / weapons facility for same.

While I once saw some interesting modelling of Tsunami effects on the San Juan Islands north of Whidbey, at the end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Bremerton is much further "upstream" and would be pretty well protected by Bainbridge Island from whatever tsunami effects that would reach mid-Puget Sound.

I'd guess the Navy may have had some modeling done but they'd probably be classified. My guess would be no more than a couple of feet.

I predict shortly after the shake that avalanches/rock slides, etc., will close off 26, 20, 58, 138 and possibly 62 ....

Like that saying 'Any problem can be solved with a sufficient application of high explosives'.

I predict shortly after the shake that avalanches/rock slides, etc., will close off 26, 20, 58, 138 and possibly 62 ....

Interstates 84 and 90 are also likely losses due to landslides. Less so with I90 to my knowledge, but I wouldn't count on it.

There is growing evidence however that the "Bridge of the Gods" that the local tribes talked about existing for a time on the Columbia River about 20-ish miles east of Portland was the result of a landslide that likely coincided with the last "big rip" about 500 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_of_the_Gods_(land_bridge)

offshore fault that slips

This is a potential problem for the entire Pacific Rim in North and South America and Asia as well, and most islands in the Pacific Ocean.
"Most tsunamis, about 80 percent, happen
within the Pacific Ocean's "Ring of Fire," a
geologically active area where tectonic
shifts make volcanoes and earthquakes common."

Jumping in here: remember that the Cascade Mountain range on the west coast is not only a physical barrier but a political barrier. It's commonly recognized that the western side of WA and OR would join as a liberal urban-interest state, and the eastern side of WA and OR would join forces as a conservative rural-centric state. They already vote in that fashion; it's only the state boundaries that hold them apart.

As for California, it's a crap shoot. Mostly its north vs. south, that is, north/south of Sacramento. As for anything & everything east of the Sierra Nevada, there's too little population to count. They'll have to join forces with the great interior basin of eastern WA and OR, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and so on until you reach the Mississippi River.

As for Arizona, they'll declare war on Mexico, will lose, and will become continental headquarters for the Greater North American crime syndicate.

Just supposin' ... but my knowledge of the west coast is pretty solid.

the cancer from the south will find fertile ground here and we'll have a bitter fight to contain it.

It already has. However, I'd like to point out that it's not the general population south of the border at fault. The friends I have in Mexico, C.Am, and S.Am, are all good people. The cancer you speak of takes the forms of corruption, lawlessness, and greed. The bad elements at most, make up 5-6% of their populations.

Unfortunately, any time a group in the minority starts to perpetrate violence to get what they want, the good people first try to placate them to stop the violence. That has never worked in written history.

What has worked is forcibly subduing them first, then addressing their concerns. Even then it's not guaranteed. The viability of that plan depends on the value placed on human life by those bad elements. Therein is the problem. Where human life has no value, there can be no expectations for logical solutions.

The only wildcard that I do see is the United States sitting right next door. But then the Eastern Roman Empire was right next door to the West and did nothing. And given the current leadership of the U.S., I hesitate to expect correct action should a breakup occur.

The other option here is the US cleans up its own house and switches to saner approach to the war on drugs. Mostly by legalizing a lot of it.

The cartels are only a problem in Mexico because the illegal drug habits of Americans are funding them.

As long as severs taxes exist on those items, there also exist a potential profit margin by organized crime or other criminal elements to make money from illegal sales. Make it legal minus those taxes and that changes.

Just pennies on the dollar is enough to drive people to obtain products through illegal means.

Name one legal product for which aggregate sales/stamp taxes are under 10% of final retail price and for which a significant black market exists.

Name one legal product for which aggregate sales/stamp taxes are under 10% of final retail price and for which a significant black market exists.

Here is 4 go ahead and pick 1

Movies / Video Games / Music / and the SOL favorite BOOKS

Movies / Video Games / Music / and the SOL favorite BOOKS

Someone selling pirated books on Amazon is not a black market.

Nor is selling cheaply made counterfeit copies of expensive physical products through normal retail channels a black market.

File sharing (which is largely done at no cost to down loaders) is also not a black market.

black market

Maybe you need to look up what black market is then.

black market -

Any system in which goods or currencies are sold and bought illegally, esp in violation of controls or rationing.

--------------------------------

Selling on Amazon is just a way for the person to market their goods and in no way any different then them selling it on the street, newspaper ads, or the back room of a business.

As to your comment about file sharing all I can do is shake my head as your statement alone if proof that you find it in no way illegal or a black market enterprise because you don't take money out of your own pocket. Do you really think that you could download that file for free if the place you where downloading it from wasn't making money ?

As to your comment about file sharing all I can do is shake my head as your statement alone if proof that you find it in no way illegal or a black market enterprise

No, it's definitely illegal, it's just not a market of any kind. A market requires an exchange of value. The vast majority of the downloaders aren't making any kind of contribution.

Do you really think that you could download that file for free if the place you where downloading it from wasn't making money ?

Again, I don't get involved in that sort of thing.

That said, yes, I think it would be happening even with no one making any money.

Most of it these days is happening on peer to peer networks, no big central system that someone has to pay for and that the authorities can shut down.

For most of the people driving it, it's a labor of love. They have a moral/ideological objection to the notion of copyright.

Maybe you need to look up what black market is then.

I don't accept your definition of black market, it's an oversimplifcation.

Here's another one.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blackmarket.asp

What Is a Black Market?

A black market is an economic activity that takes place outside government-sanctioned channels. Black market transactions usually occur "under the table" to let participants avoid government price controls or taxes. The goods and services offered in a black market can be illegal, meaning their purchase and sale are prohibited by law, or they can be legal but transacted to avoid taxes.

Amazon.com is not outside government sanctioned channels.

Maybe my definition is an over simplification it still says the same thing as your definition

Amazon.com is not outside government sanctioned channels.

Amazon has so far been able to skirt liability for this crime by claiming they are merely a venue for the sale of such products, as opposed to being the actual seller. While copyright and trademark laws are clearly being broken en masse on the Amazon platform — which has been shown ad nauseam by media sources, research firms, and even Amazon's own legal litigations — the company won a landmark lawsuit in 2015 which removed them from responsibility for what third party merchants sell via their platform.

The founders of Milo & Gabby initially thought that a lawsuit against Amazon would be a slam dunk: counterfeits of their trademarked products were clearly being advertised and sold on Amazon, the e-commerce giant was taking a commission from each sale, storing the illegal items in their warehouses, and distributing them via their Fulfillment by Amazon program. In a country that is packed with laws to prevent things like this from happening, how could they lose?

However, they were very, very mistaken. After a legal battle that dragged on for two years, a nine-member jury decided in favor of Amazon on all counts, ruling that "the company was not behind the counterfeit content listed on its site, and had technically not made an 'offer to sell' — the legal requirement to hold Amazon liable for the counterfeit goods."

Amazon took this ruling and ran with it — instantly being removed from legal liability for over 50% of what you see on their site, from bearing responsibility for hundreds of millions of products being sold. So IP-infringing, hazardous, or otherwise illegal goods can be sold on Amazon by third party merchants, stored and shipped by Amazon, with complete impunity for the company -- and if these items are being sold across international borders, this protection extends to the seller as well.

I've yet to figure out how they got around some of the international import export rules...

My guess is that they print Amazon on the box and that gets them the free pass.

Amazon took this ruling and ran with it — instantly being removed from legal liability for over 50% of what you see on their site, from bearing responsibility for hundreds of millions of products being sold.

Personally I consider Amazon a criminal organization and refuse to buy anything from there, or even go to the site.

Amazon

"Is the Amazon river healthy?
Pollution is a real threat to the Amazon. ... There have been cases of cancer and death as a result of drinking the polluted water. Animal species are becoming extinct because they live in delicate balance with the environment." There are other threats when you use the Amazon. Dangerous animals, insects and chemicals. Its water are brown for a reason. It drains a very large region. It is likely full of feces.

I regard it more as a pre-criminal organisation, indulging in unethical business practices that will eventually be banned or properly taxed.

They have passed that stage long ago. There are several examples, even some mentioned here in the forum concerning copyrights.

Personally I consider Amazon a criminal organization and refuse to buy anything from there, or even go to the site.

Agree

Tennessee has no state income tax, but they do have a high sales tax rate. We drive over into Georgia when it's time for the bigger ticket items. Tennessee does not go after people for it. However, they have arrangements to collect sales tax from Amazon and the smaller groups that sale gift cards in the state.

We have a lot of storage space here, so we keep a lot of wood and other supplies that come up short after natural disasters. Our friends along the gulf and Atlantic Coast know to call us if in need as long as they are willing to pay transport cost, we sell those items to them at cost if we have them. Some of them have purchased those items ahead of time and we've stored them.

Storage is the issue in an emergency. If your house and land gets wiped by a hurricane, it would have been pointless to have pre-supplied yourself at your location. I suspect a person could make money just setting up storage away from danger zones like that.

In my area it is people going to Indiana for liquor as it is cheaper but I don't know how much money they save as it is a 4 hour round trip drive. I myself figure the cost of gas and my time is worth more then what ever they must be saving plus I myself don't drink as I never found a beer that I like but I do like brandy and a single bottle of that can last me 5-10 years at the rate I drink it as my go to drink is coffee. I do know a person who spent 2 1/2 years in Federal Prison for buying cigarettes on the Indian Reservation and selling them out of his car at work and to college kids at the University of Michigan back in the 90's.

I do know a person who spent 2 1/2 years in Federal Prison for buying cigarettes on the Indian Reservation and selling them out of his car at work and to college kids at the University of Michigan back in the 90's.

If it avoids federal taxes, it's illegal.

If it avoids federal taxes, it's illegal.

I never said it wasn't illegal I was just stating that I personally knew someone that was doing something similar as mushroom stated and ended up in Federal Prison. That isn't the local County Jail or a State Prison but a Federal Prison that is maintained by the Government of the USA.

But if nobody has lived in a state with a State Liquor Store system, the state sets all the prices.

Little choice and state set pricing. That sounds so... Russian? Chinese? Definitely not Free Enterprise.

Johnsonville Chorizos

Sounds tasty

You know 'Johnson' is a slang synonym of penis, don't you? Why would anyone willingly want to eat spiced penises?

I do know that but as you stated it is just a slang name unlike eating Mountain Oysters / Rocky Mountain Oysters or also known as Prairie Oysters in Canada. Of course we will not even mention where the meat scraps come from to make the hot dog. Plus there are some counties and places that just straight up sell Bull, Ox, Goat, Sheep, Cow (yes there is a difference between a Bull and Cow), Deer, Yak, Donkey, Dog, Seal, Kangaroo penises for sale in the local market and no it isn't just China or Korea.

Yup. In the UK dried bull pizzles are still sold as dog chews.

In the UK dried bull pizzles are still sold as dog chews.

You can get them in the US too.

You can get them in the US too.

Oh..? I thought in the US you could only elect them?

:)

I thought in the US you could only elect them?

Those are rectums, not pizzles.

Yup. In the UK dried bull pizzles are still sold as dog chews.

The real reason for why they always sniff the crotch.

@joyR

Yup. In the UK dried bull pizzles are still sold as dog chews.

The real reason for why they always sniff the crotch.

I saw a video on a porn site once that showed two cats standing on their hind legs batting with their front paws at a suction cup dildo stuck on to the top drawer of a dresser. Their claws were out.

The thought that went through my head was "And then their owner's boyfriend walks in the room naked..."

The real reason for why they always sniff the crotch.

You say that like it's a bad thing...??

:)

You say that like it's a bad thing...??

Well yes it is for me if you are training your dogs to believe this is a treat and they get crazy ideas like thinking oh goody another snack.

Well yes it is for me if you are training your dogs to believe this is a treat and they get crazy ideas like thinking oh goody another snack.

Personally I find that when my guard dog's nose is within sniffing distance of an uninvited stranger they act with a more sober, polite demeanour than would otherwise be the case.

:)

Already been done as a story. I think on Lit, I can't recall the title. Wife announces she is cuckholding MC with her boss. MC starts feeding their dog with sausages tucked through the fly of his pants. Boss comes over for some midday nookie...

I use 'cow' as a generic term for the UK's domesticated bovines, but also for their females. I use 'bull' for the males.

Is US usage different?

If you talk to someone in the relevant industries no.

However, yeah for a lot of the general public, cow is a gender neutral term, bull = male cow, and they wouldn't know what you were talking about if you mentioned bovines.

Bull is a breedable male. Steer, also called bullock, is a young neutered male cattle primarily raised for beef. In the terminology used to describe the sex and age of cattle, the male is first a bull calf and if left intact becomes a bull; if castrated he becomes a steer and about two or three years grows to an ox.

Bull is a breedable male. Steer, also called bullock, is a young neutered male cattle primarily raised for beef. In the terminology used to describe the sex and age of cattle, the male is first a bull calf and if left intact becomes a bull; if castrated he becomes a steer and about two or three years grows to an ox.

I was already aware of that. However, if you think the US general public would understand any of those distinctions, you are delusional.

wouldn't know what you were talking about if you mentioned bovines.

Vines with BO (bodily odor).

I use 'cow' as a generic term for the UK's domesticated bovines, but also for their females. I use 'bull' for the males.

Is US usage different?

AJ

No technically all male bovines are called bulls unless they are castrated then they are called steers.

Once castrated the animal becomes less aggressive, has less muscle mass, and will fatten up faster for market.

They use the term cow penis in market to distinguish it from other bovine animals and to also inform the buyer that this was from a castrated animal.

You are talking fantasy, not reality.

Nope, I'm talking reality. The make it legal plan is fantasy without addressing the root cause. Will governments do that? Probably not.

The make it legal plan is fantasy without addressing the root cause.

The root cause of what?

Root cause of the violence and criminal activity. Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? Money and power.

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?

No, you may think it's clear what you were referring to, but it wasn't.

Hard to call it a "civil war"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20war

Definition of civil war

: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

It is by definition, a civil war. If you have some other definition, please do state it.

When the mayor of Tijuana disarmed the police there the crime rate went down 12 percent.

No, no senor there is no problem here.

In my recollection, TJ police were not as bad as the Rosirito police and the federales between TJ and Ensenada. However, in 2007 the Rosirito police shot the wrong person. A dozen or so of them ended up dead that weekend. Their killers cut off their heads, stuffed them into their guts (head upside down), then hung the bodies by their feet at that pedestrian bridge over Mexico 1 just south of Rosirito. The story made Mexican news, but was blacked out in San Diego.

I passed under that bridge at dawn that day. I know at least one of them had been killed less than an hour prior to that as a few drops of blood got on my truck.

Meanwhile the current president of Mexico vows 'Hugs, Not Bullets.'

That's a good reference. As usual with most, it's 11 years out of date. "New" news is hard to find.

The section labeled "The I-75 Corridor" is a bit chilling, in how it describes even way back a decade ago, the cartel leaders were evading US federal and local authorities in a cat & mouse game. Which (IMHO) highlights the frustration of asymmetrical conflict and why "sending in a strike force" is doomed to failure. Every time Mexico "sent in the army" it's resulted in failure and made the problem far worse. In some cases, the army was soundly defeated with heavy losses and El Presidente was forced to release the captives.

The most recent information will only come from direct contacts. People around this site are quick to scream for a source, so I deliberately did not mention my most recent information for that reason. Giving the names of my sources simply isn't going to happen.

What I will say is this. The situation is a few order of magnitudes worse than what you originally posted in your OP.

The maximum sentence there is 40 years, so there is little reason for people to not break the law.

It's reported that prison sentences in the US are on average eight times longer than other countries, yet we have the largest prison population, percentagewise, of any of them. So Q: how is a longer sentence proving to be a deterrent, or are we just that much better at running criminals to ground?

Also,

"But until the government there gets serious about trying to actually stop the problem, it will not end."

Yes, we can agree on that. But the reason the Mexican gov't isn't "serious" about fixing the problem is the simple fact that the Mexican gov't is a huge part of the problem! That, and the Mexican state governments who are outspent, outgunned, outmanned, and as a result the Governors and their lieutenants hop into bed with the cartels rather than die opposing them. It's also reported that--traditionally--the various state governors treat the state police as a political extension of their personal power base...

Yes, the US is a huge sponsor of Mexican drug trade and the cartel domination. No, we will do nothing to change that fact that will succeed. We've had this so-called "War on Drugs" for as long as I can remember, and it has done nothing effective.

My _personal_ opinion is that drug addiction in the US is a symptom of cultural dysfunction. We're an extremely UNHAPPY population, and many take drugs to escape it. There is little to be done: the 1% who own and dominate this nation are too short-sighted to even recognize the problem, let alone lend a hand to fix it. So down we go... spiraling down.

Mexico is leading the way. As long as drugs flow north, and guns and money flow south, its a permanent bargain with the four horsemen.

No, we will do nothing to change that fact that will succeed. We've had this so-called "War on Drugs" for as long as I can remember, and it has done nothing effective.

If would probably make a significant positive difference if we ended the "war on drugs" and de-criminalized recreational drugs.

If would probably make a significant positive difference if we ended the "war on drugs" and de-criminalized recreational drugs.

And YES! We can _absolutely_ agree on that! Then we could sit back and enjoy the evening news again, watching reports of the drug companies at war with each other (grin). Speaking of which, its kinda illuminating that one of the most destructive in terms of human lives and economic damage to the U.S. was the drug addiction brought on by the pharmaceutical companies in their wild-assed dash for profits with opioid-based painkillers, and the reckless use of them by the medical community. We're still reeling from that, but the news has shifted to death by police bullets rather than death by addiction. (Sorry for that trigger statement, but I'm rattled: today's cable news brings us the joy of the Chicago video of a 13-year old boy being shot to death while his empty hands are raised in the air. Sure, maybe he threw something over the fence, but a _reasonable_ person would wait until the kid was cuffed and _then_ take peek behind the fence. Shooting is kind of permanent; seldom can one "unshoot" someone.)

Speaking of which, its kinda illuminating that one of the most destructive in terms of human lives and economic damage to the U.S. was the drug addiction brought on by the pharmaceutical companies in their wild-assed dash for profits with opioid-based painkillers, and the reckless use of them by the medical community.

Just another lie by the drug warriors.
https://reason.com/2021/04/09/a-new-study-finds-no-relationship-between-opioid-prescriptions-and-unintentional-deaths/

One of the most mind bending cases of bootlegging I have ever read about happened within few last years somewhere in Africa. Some sold a significant amount of, supposedly, rice (and we're talking about dozen or dozens of metric tons) that in fact where potato flour in plastic skins. Someone, presumably in China, had set up production of such strange stuff on industrial scale. If boiled, such "rice" predictably disintegrated. The plastic skin of the "rice" grains wasn't very toxic, as implied from what I read about it, but definitely inedible.

There's no way you can possibly "purify" such a product to become indeed rice.

That's extreme example, of course, but in many cases bootlegged products aren't even close to what they supposedly represent. And in almost all cases, almost by definition, they are of much lesser value than the original product imited.

That's not really bootlegging in the drugs/alcohol sense, it's just fraud. The goods aren't what they are represented to be, but they are more than likely moving in the normal stream of commerce, not in some sort of black market operation.

No, you couldn't purify that to become rice, but you could break the plastic skins, separate them out from the potato flour and sell the potato flour as potato flour.

This kind of fraud does happen with recreational drugs (selling powdered sugar as cocaine or some innocuous herb (oregano) as marijuana). But that is an entirely separate problem from real drugs.

Ararat cigarettes are Turkish cigarettes. Any mafia would sell anything if there is a profit in it. I have doubts that the Armenian Mafia would work with Russian mafia elements.

Actually, an amazing number of "bootleg" products really are mostly legitimate.

About a decade or so back, there was a flood of fake Levi and Nike products started to come from China. And after investigation, it turns out they were coming from the actual factories that made the real products.

That is a standard business practice in China.
They make 1000 of your product, then they take the part of the mold that has your name out and make 10,000 with another name and sell them in competition against you.

That is a standard business practice in China.
They make 1000 of your product, then they take the part of the mold that has your name out and make 10,000 with another name and sell them in competition against you.

Those products are counterfeits, but they aren't bootleg in the sense of being smuggled in and sold on a black market.

As to black market cigarettes, that is 100% about tax avoidance. In many states, cigarette taxes are higher than the wholesale cost of the cigarettes sans taxes.

As to black market cigarettes, that is 100% about tax avoidance. In many states, cigarette taxes are higher than the wholesale cost of the cigarettes sans taxes.

True.
Some years ago Canada was adding a dollar per pack tax on cigarettes per year in an attempt to discourage smoking due to their socialized medicine system or at least make the smokers pay a larger share for their own treatment.
They forgot that their border with the US is twice as long as the US border with Mexico and is less well watched.

you do not even need to smuggle.

During that time the Canadian govt. made bringing them in very restricted; a single opened carton was all that was allowed, more was confiscated as was a single unopened carton.

take the captured drugs and purify them, then sell them at low rates to the public.

Nah, I'd take the captured drugs, cut them with cyanide (or Ricin, or Thallium...), and return them to the illicit supply chain and publicise that this has been/will be done. Will that reduce demand?

and publicise that this has been/will be done. Will that reduce demand?

Not publicizing will reduce demand faster, the number of customers will literally drop fast :D

Not publicizing will reduce demand faster

No, publicising will drive away many more customers than are directly killed (look how people reacted to the pesticides-on-apples flap), and those who do die, they're incapable of kicking the habit without major intervention - they'll either stick with the illicit supply (and a few will die), or they'll register as addicts to get a clean supply and enter a program to safely wean them off it. The effects will be far wider than the distribution of the tainted illicit product - people won't be able to know if their supplier is has got good stuff or bad. A few deaths, however, will do a lot to drive down demand even further, so if you say you're going to do this, then you really will need to do it.

ETA: ...and this can be run in parallel with EB's suggestion.

You might be right, fear is a very strong motivator. On the other hand, we're talking drug addicts here. Very little will prevent them to take whatever they can get, even if it kills them. Registering for rehab will only help those that aren't too far along yet, for a time. The real success rates for rehab are hard to find but they seem to be way below 50%. The relapse percentages are almost impossible to find. All in all that route isn't going to help a lot of them.

Nah, I'd take the captured drugs, cut them with cyanide (or Ricin, or Thallium...), and return them to the illicit supply chain and publicise that this has been/will be done. Will that reduce demand?

Committing premeditated murder isn't really a cure. Demand might drop, but since the messed up lives and deaths from un-poisoned drugs doesn't stop new people taking them the demand will likely remain.

What might work, but not in the USA, is making certain drugs legal and cheaper than is cost effective for drug dealers to produce, plus introducing the death penalty for anyone buying, selling, making or using illegal drugs. Include anyone involved in manufacturing legal drugs without a license.

I say it won't work in the USA because the legal system couldn't do it speedily, efficiently and without plea bargains or 'special circumstances' for the Senator's daughter.

California largely did that a decade ago, yet illegal pot is still shipped there by the ton. After all, the street sellers can sell it for a fraction of what the clinics charge, and still make a good profit.

Mostly because of California imposed ridiculously high taxes on it. Taxes are also the main driver of black markets in alcohol and cigarettes.

Then you have the problem that its still illegal under federal law and federal law blocks state legal sellers from financial services.

Would decriminalization of drugs be a panacea for Mexico? No, of course not. That does not mean it would have no effect at all.

Juarez

Is the city name pronounced War is?

Great! See my email.

That sounds good in theory, but there's a problem with states and localities taking up the slack, imposing high taxes on the "legalized" market. One criminal network is replaced by another: the state legislatures and greedy county and city tax vampires. As has been explained earlier, the tax-inflated pricing structure will encourage massive smuggling and black markets... so little will have been gained except a grossly-misshapen drug economy. And just like the tobacco billions from an earlier misguided legislative fiasco, none of the tax revenues will go to treatment or assistance for the victims. It will wind up in pork projects for elected officials, shouldering each other aside in a rush to the trough like avaricious swine.

Yeh, color me cynical. Decades of observing the results does that to a person.