I've always thought that the best way to kill off cartels is through maneuvers that would amount to political suicide: legalize drugs in the country and create taxes revenue streams for government sanctioned dispensaries. Give cartels first crack at licenses to grow, Process. Distribute, And sell but with the caveat that you will be prosecuting to a level not seen before for any illegal maneuvers here. The population will hate handing legitimacy over to the cartels but you would convert them to law abiding and taxed entities over night or at worst creating so much infighting at the tops of their ranks you'd heavily destabilize them. It will never happen but I think it had the best chance at dismantling the criminal enterprises with the least violent fallout.
The problem here in Mexico is that cartels have gone beyond just drugs, the CJNG who el Mencho led has sequestered avocados farm owners and took control of their lands and produce, they also steal and sell gasoline, kidnap and ransom citizens, collect "taxes" from small, medium and big businesses by force, hell they even have a monopoly from casino like slot machines across the country. This fuckers have gone way beyond drugs.
The best way to kill them off is by killing the way they launder money, but there are many powerful men there, Chinese, American, and Mexican powerful men and organizations. There's tons of money going around.
The cartels do not and can not survive without those "legitimate" businesses, banks and corporations that help them launder billions.
Do you think that if America were to legalize and regulate drugs, and gave Mexico the opportunity to become a legitimate exporter, that would in anyway help to get rid of the cartels?
Or would it ultimately just give the cartels another source of money they could continue to fund their empires with?
I think there have been many who have profited from this "war on drugs". And these people will not leave this golden goose easily. They have no other way.
This is in the end a partnership made in hell between America and Mexico that we do not want to admit. I mean even FBI and CIA agents are clearly on cocaine. So we are in this together.
It wouldn't do much, the cartels main business is Violence. So if their revenue stream with drugs slows down we'll start to see more kidnappings or killings.
Exactly this... it's at the endemic point where even if all the drugs in the world disappeared, the cartels would still gave power, you can't just use fire and arms to get rifles of them, financial and economic negotiation and cleaver, time-consuming maneuvering, it seems, will be the only way... but I'm used yo people not wanting to see it that way.
You're trying to threaten the cartels into playing nice in the new legalized environment - but if the Mexican government couldn't force them to play nice before, why would the cartels think the government will be able to force them to play nice now? If "prosecuted to a level not seen before" was possible, why aren't they already doing it?
You want to give the cartels "first crack" at licenses, but now you're asking the cartels to admit to criminal activity in order to enjoy this benefit you're promising them. Why would they do that, instead of just ignoring you and continuing their production operations regardless of your license scheme? See the first paragraph, above.
Then, eventually, you're going to open up the market for others to join. The cartels aren't going to appreciate Cargill moving in to industralize farms - and again back to the first paragraph, they're simply going to try and kill anybody who completed with them.
And even if we ignore that, a legalized market is a less profitable market. They're going to shift operations to what is most profitable, which will inevitably be other illegal things like human trafficking.
This entire line of line of reasoning is treating the cartels like rational, stable businessmen who actually want to go clean.
The truth is that these guys cut innocent people's heads off to send messages to other innocent people.
They're not going to just suddenly become law abiding citizens. They are going to do whatever makes them the most money, and they'll do it in the bloodiest way possible to scare away competitors.
>Why would they do that, instead of just ignoring you and continuing their production operations regardless of your license scheme?
Because illegal drug dealing, even in an environment of high corruption, requires massive overhead expenses in order to be run. When a legal alternative appears, they'll be able ot offer a better (and certifiable, dependable!) product, at a much much lower price.
Cartels will run out of money.
Why would you deal with your dodgy dealer who might sell you some fentanyl-laced coke cut with baby talcum powder with arsenic in it when you can go to a legal dispensary to get certifiably pure coke for cheaper than that, and attended by a nice employee?
Cartels have diversified their businesses, but their main income streams are still drug trafficking. IF they suddenly stop that influx of money, then suddenly they can't maintain their massive armment and personnel structure that allows them to easily, almost without any extra cost, engage in things like kidnapping and protection-racketeering.
And if in turn they decide to "go legal", then sustaining that massive infrastructure of guns, personnel, violence, police forces infiltration, etc; then becomes a very expensive completely unnecesary absurdity.
I think it's not a bad idea, but it would require some massive massive changes in the way the justice system and investigations into organised crime are done in MExico currently.
Not sure that would work on places like Mexico. Where corruption is rampant. Based on the article you already have a version of what you describe "cartel governnace" , why would the cartel embrace a legal system where they get a fraction of the revenue than before and be constrained by state laws, ultimately it comes down to how the tile of laws is enforced
>why would the cartel embrace a legal system where they get a fraction of the revenue than before
I don't know about revenues, but overhead costs would crash, and I can only imagine that legalisation would make demand grow; so I think it'd be extremely surprising if profits didn't simply explode under such a system.
That seems more like an argument for the cartel to use its influence too maintain the current illegal status for drugs. Which is a known tactic of black marketeers elsewhere.
Why give cartels first crack at licensing? “Thanks for the epidemic of addiction and also for all the murders, here’s an entire industry- it should be good for about a trillion dollars over like, 7-10 years.”
Wait did you mean all drugs or just weed? Holy shit.
Because holding grudges if a great way to succumb to paralysis and just never do anything.
Giving them a crack at first licenses all but ensures their complete disarment, personnel downsizing through sheer economic incentives, and makes it economically impracticable for them to continue engaging in the other criminal activities that currently they can only do because they already have this massive infrascture of guns, muscle, and violence, that's necessary to carry on their main business of drug trafficking.
And it doesn't mean that criminal prosecutions can't still take place for the crimes already commited. But given that those weren't happening anyways, at least curving the cartel's powers in such a way is a good next option.
The reason why the cartels are as powerful as they are is because the politicians are colluding with them via corrupt relationships they have with them, which gives them free rein to do what they want to do for the most part. The cartels are not the problem, they are a symptom of the problem, that being a untrustworthy and unreliable government.
In theory, sure, but if you want to see the legitimate way to prevent cartels from existing there’s always an extended method that worked against the only comparable entity, The American Mafia Commission.
Let’s say tomorrow Mexico legalizes narcotics. It doesn’t immediately stop the cartels because similar to the mob, they’ve made billions over decades and have plenty of money sitting in legitimate businesses, bribes to politicians, and civil relationships where they’ve cultivated loyalty. The cartels can still use violence to enforce their will, but diversify their activities to whatever the new black market becomes. On top of that like the Mafia or any business, they simply start reinvesting and laundering there money in other projects. Strip malls, construction, cash businesses, community centers, pharmacies are the big laundry for the Cali Cartel way back when.
Rule of thumb is if the bad guys have a system so comprehensive that they offer their members a pension and benefits plan they’re not going down easy. It would become a protracted legal battle where RICO would be needed to jail the majority of members, cutting the bosses off from labor, seizing their ill gotten gains, and toppling these families in rapid succession to prevent someone else from seizing power. In Mexico there are several cartels that simply pick up where one toppled cartel leaves off.
You would either need that or the Cartel equivalent of John Gotti being arrogant enough to operate in the daylight where he can be prosecuted to such a degree that he drags the whole organization with him.
“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
Abraham Lincoln
Now this is the type of solution that can actually work as long as we follow the Portugal model. For those unaware that includes lots of social support and decriminalizing drug use thereby allowing medical and social care teams to take over.
The problem here in Mexico is that cartels have gone beyond just drugs, the CJNG who el Mencho led has sequestered avocados farm owners and took control of their lands and produce, they also steal and sell gasoline, kidnap and ransom citizens, collect "taxes" from small, medium and big businesses by force, hell they even have a monopoly from casino like slot machines across the country. This fuckers have gone way beyond drugs.
The best way to kill them off is by killing the way they launder money, but there are many powerful men there, Chinese, American, and Mexican powerful men and organizations. There's tons of money going around.
The cartels do not and can not survive without those "legitimate" businesses, banks and corporations that help them launder billions.
This is, in theory, what all progressive states have tried. The problem with those states is they tax the ever living shit out of small businesses, making the drugs so expensive that it becomes cheaper to buy from a black market dealer again. Or, they decriminalize without any real help understanding the issues and allow homeless populations to explode. Like how Oregon and California have spent billions of dollars to tackle the issue but some counties in Oregon had homeless populations explode by 61% in that time. They aren't helping, they're enabling.
It's becoming pretty apparent that Bunny Colvin in the Wire had the best option for legalized drugs. Let people be, who they gonna be, but in a specific area and nowhere else. Portland and those types of cities have just let the insanity proliferate wherever people are because they don't want to be "punitive".
In Ontario, the price of illegal weed has dropped quite a bit right after legalization. Then the legal price followed and it's now much cheaper to buy both legal and illegal vs what it was before legalization. So most people don't bother with illegal stuff unless it's their friend or something.
Also, a lot of illegal people made the move or are making the move to the legal market.
However, I think you'd be very hard pressed to find a producer that thinks the tax system in Canada is good. It's probably one of the highest if you compared it to individual states BUT, it's mostly taxing producers, rather than a consumption tax. With competition, it's the producers that bear the brunt of the cost.
I’m in California and I get cannabis for way cheaper than when I had to buy it from dealers, even with the high tax rates, and I don’t have to deal with shady dealers.
I am more than happy to pay high taxes for it.
My problem is that we need to do way more to incentivize and protect smaller growers. Give them tax breaks, or subsidies or something like that so they don’t collapse while the huge companies who can take on the high taxes get all of the money.
But I will never go back to the black market. Fuck that shady nonsense.
Nowhere in the US has tried the only successful model which is to remove law enforcement from the picture entirely and treat addiction as a medical and social issue that it is.
That’s why drug decriminalization in America doesn’t work because at most they only implement half of the plan.
Lots of unscrupulous lawmakers have pushed for halfway decriminalization to discredit decriminalization, but the evidence speaks for itself.
Here in Oregon legal weed is absurdly cheap. I don't smoke, but I've been watching the advertised prices drop steadily year after year and now we're as low as $40 for an ounce.
States aren't sending them their homeless, their homeless are flocking there because they can be homeless and drug addicts without worry of pitfalls most of them have in other states. So far, from what I've seen, the leaders there are beginning to admit its failures. The rolling back of the decriminalization laws and reduction of inititave funding by billions shows it.
I think what most people have realized is that you can't "cure" homelessness once it's set in. Most homeless people don't want a house if it means they have to live a life like normal people. So how exactly are you supposed to help that? By just giving them everything for free for the rest of their lives? States will bring back asylums before they do that.
Idk, it's a tough thing but if you ask me(someone who ran away at 15 and spent 6 yrs homeless and addicted), making it easier for drug addicts to use and homeless people be homeless isn't the answer unless you go 100% full-fledged Hamsterdam. A "half measure" type thing doesn't so shit but create what they've done. The problem is no politician(outside of maybe Trumps crazy ass) ever does anything "full-measured". They are the KINGS of half-measures so they contain how many people they upset doing something.
Homeless and addicts use people to live the life they want. Simple as that. Take away that ability and they start rethinking their life.
What a refreshing opinion on homeless, from someone who experienced it.
So many internet people and politicians don't get it. If an addict is getting what they want, they have zero incentive to change. Any program that prioritizes the addicts' wants over fixing the problem is destined to fail.
I mentioned this in another comment. All of the experts on addiction tell parents and loved ones to kick the addicts out of their homes, stop giving them money, stop speaking to them until they change. The parents do that and the answer is to give them easy access to all the things they asked their family to stop doing? Make it make sense.
Tbh, the best thing for me was being sent to a military style boot camp for 4 months and then when I got out, because of other charges I had picked up, I was in Drug Court(outpatient rehab while on probation). I think it reset the insanity I had created. It gave me some foundational changes and gave me some confidence in myself. I stayed out of trouble for a few years from there. Had a great career as a chef going....then I met a girl and I completely backslid for a while. At this point though, I had gotten back into the world to where I wasn't about to be back on the streets. So I was living in a house while I allowed her to ruin everything I had built. After a few years of that, I decided enough was enough and I moved to another state. Then I rebuilt my life there. I now own 2 businesses, have an amazing wife, 3 kids and live a pretty fucking charmed life. All with a GED and no college.
The biggest hurdle out there is support when people leave these places. I think the best thing people could do is go through the structure of boot camp, then get out and have to stay in a place for 6-12 months, or, until you're set up in the real world. Thats where most people fail is the place they land after they get out. The getting stabilized is the biggest part. Trying to just throw homeless people/addicts into shelters isn't really helping them. I mean, here's the truth of it. All therapists, doctors and sponsors tell you that allowing people to live in your house is enabling them and the faster you kick them out, the faster they'll either ask for help or find their bottom. So how does those professionals telling us that, fall in line with giving them every single item they need to stay out on the streets for free? It's crazy. They literally beg parents to toss them out, for those people to turn around and enable them way more than their parents did.
So, I think some sort of heavily structured "shock" to the system like boot camp, then something like a halfway house but better. How we find good people to run those will be tough. The pay will need to be decent and I think hiring staff would be far better spent than spinning wheels trying to find, then build, more shelters for homeless people or drug addicts. They've literally spent tens of billions of dollars and haven't done SHIT. Send their asses to work, then support after. If they choose to be homeless, cities need to crack down on them. Put them in a work camp, specifically built for vagrants and addicts. At some point, they will realize that being homeless sucks. Right now, places like the west coast are heaven for them.
I think I remember under Obama, Mexico announced they were legalizing weed to reduce revenue for the cartels, and they sent Joe Biden down there to tell them absolutely not
The demand is in the US. You're right that it's political suicide because the US would come after them as a "narcostate" or something after most of it ended up smuggled over here.
The real trick would be to get the US to fully legalize and have everything clean/FDA certified (and redirect the drug war money towards treatment) which would kill their illicit market overnight. Not to mention the countless lives you could save from disincentivizing badly mixed or adulterated drugs.
If the country swings back hard the other way in respond to all this lately, it could happen. So many "that'll never happen" things have happened so far that I'm open to any possibility.
Yes. This is how alcohol prohibition ended in the United States.
It wasn't just stopping the violence and enjoying a new revenue stream. The cost of enforcing prohibition, just like the cost of drug enforcement today, is simply not sustainable in the long term.
Maybe, that type of move was pretty successful with pirates in China historically. Give amnesty if you join the navy, half of them leave, get paid to hunt the other half
Why would you give licenses to cartels and not legal suppliers?
When weed became legal they didn't ask El Chapo and other guys with thousands of deda bodies on them to grow it, they simply turned it over to legal businesses that sprung up over night.
None of that will work anymore. Mexico legalizing drugs doesn’t do much if there’s still a huge black market coming from the US. Also, at this point, the cartels have gotten so large that they straight up own shares in legitimate businesses in Mexico now.
That may work for destinations countries but the vast majority of the money in drug trafficking is from consumption in rich countries. If Europe, the US and Canada all legalized drugs, that would be a significant blow to their income. I also doubt Coca would even grow in most of the west or in the necessary quantities but I really am unqualified to comment on that. So legalizing in Mexico or even all of Latin America would maybe reduce the violence but not end cartels. Not to mention they're pretty diversified.
Poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States
Sounded straightforward 20 years ago when US voters were told: “Legalize weed! If we simply convert production, distribution and sales into tax revenue streams, it will shift demand away from cartels and keep US dollars domestic.”
Even though I’m not a drug user, I voted for it. But from my perspective, it mostly created a ton of smoke shops and normalized the use of weed in most public spaces (even some of my job-sites with equipment operators). Did it destroy demand for the Narcos? No.
Narcos make way more off...narcotics. which have not been legalized anywhere. Moreover in Texas, weed is still highly illegal among many other non-border states. But I'm talking about Mexico. A large portion of the business dealings of cartels is totally legal (they are heavily invested in any major tourist area for instance including reports, restaurants, etc).
Are you drunk? I don’t do weed either, but between 2001 and 2010, about 7 million people were arrested for possession of marijuana. You’re crying because too many “smoke shops?” You mean dispensaries? Or do you mean shops that have always been around selling bongs and vapes? In which case, vapes are equally if not more culpable.
You’re right, that reduced sentencing for drug possession was another part of the ‘legalize weed’ push that I agreed with. I don’t want a felony assigned that easily or prison overcrowding for an issue that should be dealt with through healthcare.
We are seeing now that legalization should have also come with comprehensive care for addicts -especially those who become homeless.
Seems like the phrase ‘smoke shop’ irritates you but I’m just nieve to the naming conventions. In my city, there were 800 new licenses granted to (whatever you want to call weed shops) and it created lots of unforeseen issues. Some of them were way too close to schools, for example.
The death of a major cartel boss in Mexico has unleashed a violent backlash in which members of the criminal group have paralyzed some cities through blockades and attacks on property and security forces.
At least 73 people have died as a result of the operation to capture Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, or “El Mencho.” The head of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel was seriously wounded during a firefight with authorities on Feb. 22, 2026. He later died in custody.
As an expert in criminal groups and drug trafficking in Latin America who has been studying Mexico’s cartels for two decades, I see the violent aftermath of the operation as part of a pattern in which Mexican governments have opted for high-profile hits that often lead only to more violence without addressing the broader security problems that plague huge swaths of the country.
That news site is cancer. Impossible to read with all the insane amount of ads and absolute garbage all over the screen.This and other news sites need to stop making their pages LITTERED with shit because it makes it look trashy and very unprofessional leading most readers to question the legitimacy of their content. I can't read that shit and I am not going to wade through that garbage.
Yes, I totally do and I can't believe (well, I can) how much all these news agencies sold out just to keep making profits. I haven't come across a single news site that is not a flaming pile of garbage, illegible trash. They are the web version of the old gossip magazines, messy and chaotic layout propped up by ads delivering dubious material and everything reads like clickbait. I want the news back to delivering facts with boring ass titles, sure dedicate some space for ads, I understand that's their sole source of income but make it clean and neat. Have one or two embedded maybe a couple of times but stop with the inundation of them to the extent that there is less written content than ads. We need to stop going to these sites and just boycott this nonsense.
No offense to the author’s emphasis on their expertise but this seems quite obvious to anyone who looks into it for 5 seconds.
Given the government is corrupted by those same cartels, the proposed solution of a full scale top-down crackdown seems highly unlikely, without U.S. intervention.
You're writing that last sentence as if the american government hasn't had their hands really so far up all those cartel's ass for years, they're also corrupted and without them they just couldn't keep making business
Didn't Mexico kinda have to hit these high-level guys to show the US they are actually trying to do something different though? For years, the US has known the upper echelons of the Mexican Military and pols were protecting the narcos. And because of that, the US wouldn't share any intel with them about the cartel bosses. This is why Mayo and Mencho went so long not being touched. Those are the 2 biggest guys out there and within 19 months of each other, they're done. Now, are those same Mexican leaders only now giving these guys up to get the focus off of them? Maybe the terrorism designation opens those guys up to financial charges and they're trying to clean up before they get caught?
Harfuch and the guys he's bringing along with him seem like they are legitimate threats to the cartels.
It's a terrible article that states the obvious. Anyone with half a brain and who's read the aftermath of the capturing/killing of other crime bosses can conclude that more violence may follow.
Copy/paste from news article rather then clickthrough....
"The death of a major cartel boss in Mexico has unleashed a violent backlash in which members of the criminal group have paralyzed some cities through blockades and attacks on property and security forces.
At least 73 people have died as a result of the operation to capture Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, or “El Mencho.” The head of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel was seriously wounded during a firefight with authorities on Feb. 22, 2026. He later died in custody.
As an expert in criminal groups and drug trafficking in Latin America who has been studying Mexico’s cartels for two decades, I see the violent aftermath of the operation as part of a pattern in which Mexican governments have opted for high-profile hits that often lead only to more violence without addressing the broader security problems that plague huge swaths of the country.
Who was ‘El Mencho’?
Like many other figures involved in Mexico’s drug trafficking, Oseguera Cervantes started at the bottom and made his way up the ranks. He spent some time in prison in the U.S., where he may have forged alliances with criminal gangs before being deported back to Mexico in 1997. There, he connected with the Milenio Cartel, an organization that first allied, and then fought with, the powerful Sinaloa Cartel.
Most of the information available points to the Jalisco New Generation Cartel forming under El Mencho around 2010, following the killing of Ignacio “Nacho” Coronel Villarreal, a Sinaloa Cartel leader and main link with the Milenio Cartel.
A wanted poster for ‘El Mencho’ (U.S. State Department)
Since 2015, Jalisco New Generation Cartel has been known for its blatant attacks against security forces in Mexico – such as gunning down a helicopter in that year. And it has expanded its presence both across Mexico and internationally.
In Mexico, it is said to have a presence in all states. In some, the cartel has a direct presence and very strong local networks. In others, it has cultivated alliances with other trafficking organizations.
Besides drug trafficking, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel is also engaged in oil theft, people smuggling and extortion. As a result, it has become one of the most powerful cartels in Mexico.
What impact will his death have on the cartel?
There are a few potential scenarios, and a lot will depend on what succession plans Jalisco New Generation had in the event of Oseguera Cervantes’ capture or killing.
In general, these types of operations – in which security forces take out a cartel leader – lead to more violence, for a variety of reasons.
Mexicans have already experienced the immediate aftermath of Oseguera Cervantes’ death: retaliation attacks, blockades and official attempts to prevent civilians from going out. This is similar to what occurred after the capture of drug lord Ovidio Guzmán López in Sinaloa in 2019 and his second capture in 2023.
Violence flares in two ways following such high-profile captures and killings of cartel leaders.
In the short term, there is retaliation. At the moment, members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel are seeking revenge against Mexico’s security forces and are also trying to assert their regional authority despite El Mencho’s death.
These retaliatory campaigns tend to be violent and flashy. They include blockades as well as attacks against security forces and civilians.
Violence has flared in Mexico’s Jalisco state since the death of Nemesio ‘El Mencho’ Oseguera Cervantes (AP)
Then there is the longer-term violence associated with any succession. This can take the form of those who are below Oseguera Cervantes in rank fighting for control. But it can also result from rival groups trying to take advantage of any leadership vacuum.
The level and duration of violence depend on a few factors, such as whether there was a succession plan and what kind of alliances are in place with other cartels. But generally, operations in which a cartel boss is removed lead to more violence and fragmentation of criminal groups.
Of course, people like Oseguera Cervantes who have violated laws and engaged in violence need to be captured. But in the long run, that doesn’t do anything to dismantle networks of criminality or reduce the size of their operations.
What is the current state of security in Mexico?
The upsurge in violence after Oseguera Cervantes’ killing occurs as some indicators in Mexico’s security situation seemed to be improving.
For example, homicide rates declined in 2025 – which is an important indicator of security.
But other measures are appalling. Disappearances are still unsettlingly high. The reality that many Mexicans experience on the ground is one where criminal organizations remain powerful and embedded in the local ecosystems that connect state agents, politicians and criminals in complex networks.
Criminal organizations are engaged in what we academics call “criminal governance.” They engage in a wide range of activities and regulate life in communities – sometimes coercively, but sometimes also with some degree of legitimacy from the population.
About the author
Angélica Durán-Martínez is an Associate Professor of Political Science at UMass Lowell.
In some states like Sinaloa, despite the operations to take out cartel’s leaders, the illicit economies are still extensive and profitable. But what’s more important is that levels of violence remain high and the population is still suffering deeply.
The day-to-day reality for people in some of these regions is still one of fear.
And in the greater scheme of things, criminal networks are still very powerful – they are embedded in the country’s economy and politics, and connect to communities in complex ways.
How does the El Mencho operation fit Mexico’s strategy on cartels?
The past two governments vowed to reduce the militarization of security forces. But the power of the military in Mexico has actually expanded.
The government of President Claudia Sheinbaum wanted a big, visible hit at a time when the U.S. is pushing for more militarized policies to counter Mexico’s trafficking organizations.
But this dynamic is not new. Most U.S. and Mexican policy regarding drug trafficking organizations has historically emphasized these high-profile captures – even if it is just for short-term gains.
It’s easier to say “we captured a drug lord” than address broader issues of corruption or impunity. Most of the time when these cartel leaders are captured or killed, there is generally no broader justice. It isn’t accompanied with authorities investigating disappearances, murders, corruption or even necessarily halting the flow of drugs.
Captures and killings of cartel leaders serve a strategic purpose of showing that something is being done, but the effectiveness of such policies in the long run is very limited.
Of course, taking out a drug lord is not a bad thing. But if it does not come with a broader dismantling of criminal networks and an accompanying focus on justice, then the main crimes that these groups commit – homicides, disappearances and extortion – will continue to affect the daily life of people. And the effect on illicit flows is, at best, meager."
Well maybe start with acknowledging that the US government props up the cartels and that the kind of violence we saw after his death was clearly very coordinated for something that was supposedly a surprise hit. Even if you want to pretend the government itself is not involved, to pretend like the black market is sequestered from the totally honest stock market is silly. It's as lucrative to have stock in CJNG as it is to have it in NVIDIA. The Cartels exist because someone wants them to, in their mind it's better to have a destabilized capitalist neighbor than a socialist leaning one.
Violence created by American guns financed by American addiction. You would think Mexico would just stop fighting this stupid war. But the truth is any president that dares to legalize drugs will be removed by the CIA. So thank you USA for all the misery!
Have any countries legalized drugs? Seems like with legal weed the USA is farther along on that path than most other countries. But cocaine, heroin, etc.. are illegal everywhere, so Mexico smuggles drugs to anywhere they can, as well (not just the USA).
It's not legal in any state. The criminal conspiracy to traffic marijuana on the part of state governments is a major RICO charge but for some inexplicable reason the feds ignore it.
I’m in Cancun right now and everything looks normal. No burned cars or buildings. There’s maybe a little chaos when you talk to ppl, but other than that, it looks totally fine. I started following this IG page, u/travelingosmexico, and they’re sharing daily video updates about Cancun and PDC.
The best way to get rid of them is to fully legalize and tax them in the USA, let full capitalism drive them out of business, they won’t be able to compete against Amazon once bezos is able to sell the now legal and safe drugs.
JamarcusFarcus | a day ago
I've always thought that the best way to kill off cartels is through maneuvers that would amount to political suicide: legalize drugs in the country and create taxes revenue streams for government sanctioned dispensaries. Give cartels first crack at licenses to grow, Process. Distribute, And sell but with the caveat that you will be prosecuting to a level not seen before for any illegal maneuvers here. The population will hate handing legitimacy over to the cartels but you would convert them to law abiding and taxed entities over night or at worst creating so much infighting at the tops of their ranks you'd heavily destabilize them. It will never happen but I think it had the best chance at dismantling the criminal enterprises with the least violent fallout.
chinno | a day ago
The problem here in Mexico is that cartels have gone beyond just drugs, the CJNG who el Mencho led has sequestered avocados farm owners and took control of their lands and produce, they also steal and sell gasoline, kidnap and ransom citizens, collect "taxes" from small, medium and big businesses by force, hell they even have a monopoly from casino like slot machines across the country. This fuckers have gone way beyond drugs.
The best way to kill them off is by killing the way they launder money, but there are many powerful men there, Chinese, American, and Mexican powerful men and organizations. There's tons of money going around.
The cartels do not and can not survive without those "legitimate" businesses, banks and corporations that help them launder billions.
alf0nz0 | a day ago
You follow the drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don’t know where the fuck it’s gonna take you.
bronyraurstomp | a day ago
Cool Lester Smooth.
Pretend_Safety | a day ago
Natural police
Remarkable_Goose_341 | 22 hours ago
PO
Dependent-Potato2158 | 21 hours ago
13 years and 4 months
bronyraurstomp | 20 hours ago
13 years?
chinno | a day ago
It's just like the Epstein files. You just find a wall. And that wall is money beyond our comprehension.
glity | 11 hours ago
I don’t think it’s money. I think it’s how little restraint they can brag about.
SeeMarkFly | 23 hours ago
The buck stops at...TRUMP.
Interesting_Ant_6990 | 15 hours ago
Exactly, this was either the result of “political donations” from or a message to pay up to one or more of the rival cartels.
Suspicious_Juice_150 | a day ago
Do you think that if America were to legalize and regulate drugs, and gave Mexico the opportunity to become a legitimate exporter, that would in anyway help to get rid of the cartels?
Or would it ultimately just give the cartels another source of money they could continue to fund their empires with?
chinno | a day ago
I think there have been many who have profited from this "war on drugs". And these people will not leave this golden goose easily. They have no other way.
This is in the end a partnership made in hell between America and Mexico that we do not want to admit. I mean even FBI and CIA agents are clearly on cocaine. So we are in this together.
ElephantLife8552 | 9 hours ago
Every country in the world treats cocaine and heroin as illegal substances.
unbreakablekango | 3 hours ago
You every hear of the Kennedy family in the US? They are a success story of a cartel turning legitimate.
vycko12 | 8 hours ago
It wouldn't do much, the cartels main business is Violence. So if their revenue stream with drugs slows down we'll start to see more kidnappings or killings.
obroz | 19 hours ago
Yeah that’s a serious flaw to this line of thinking. To think they will just become law abiding citizens overnight? Lmao
machinationstudio | 20 hours ago
But the places they launder money are the same places the billionaires use to dodge taxes.
Interesting_Ant_6990 | 15 hours ago
Billionaires are doing more than dodging taxes.
glity | 11 hours ago
Yes. They use the 501 c tax exemption system.
mzincali | 10 hours ago
And they now have lots of cryptocurrency to help with their laundering.
Comprehensive-Job243 | 7 hours ago
Exactly this... it's at the endemic point where even if all the drugs in the world disappeared, the cartels would still gave power, you can't just use fire and arms to get rifles of them, financial and economic negotiation and cleaver, time-consuming maneuvering, it seems, will be the only way... but I'm used yo people not wanting to see it that way.
The_Law_of_Pizza | a day ago
You're trying to threaten the cartels into playing nice in the new legalized environment - but if the Mexican government couldn't force them to play nice before, why would the cartels think the government will be able to force them to play nice now? If "prosecuted to a level not seen before" was possible, why aren't they already doing it?
You want to give the cartels "first crack" at licenses, but now you're asking the cartels to admit to criminal activity in order to enjoy this benefit you're promising them. Why would they do that, instead of just ignoring you and continuing their production operations regardless of your license scheme? See the first paragraph, above.
Then, eventually, you're going to open up the market for others to join. The cartels aren't going to appreciate Cargill moving in to industralize farms - and again back to the first paragraph, they're simply going to try and kill anybody who completed with them.
And even if we ignore that, a legalized market is a less profitable market. They're going to shift operations to what is most profitable, which will inevitably be other illegal things like human trafficking.
This entire line of line of reasoning is treating the cartels like rational, stable businessmen who actually want to go clean.
The truth is that these guys cut innocent people's heads off to send messages to other innocent people.
They're not going to just suddenly become law abiding citizens. They are going to do whatever makes them the most money, and they'll do it in the bloodiest way possible to scare away competitors.
redlightsaber | 2 hours ago
>Why would they do that, instead of just ignoring you and continuing their production operations regardless of your license scheme?
Because illegal drug dealing, even in an environment of high corruption, requires massive overhead expenses in order to be run. When a legal alternative appears, they'll be able ot offer a better (and certifiable, dependable!) product, at a much much lower price.
Cartels will run out of money.
Why would you deal with your dodgy dealer who might sell you some fentanyl-laced coke cut with baby talcum powder with arsenic in it when you can go to a legal dispensary to get certifiably pure coke for cheaper than that, and attended by a nice employee?
Cartels have diversified their businesses, but their main income streams are still drug trafficking. IF they suddenly stop that influx of money, then suddenly they can't maintain their massive armment and personnel structure that allows them to easily, almost without any extra cost, engage in things like kidnapping and protection-racketeering.
And if in turn they decide to "go legal", then sustaining that massive infrastructure of guns, personnel, violence, police forces infiltration, etc; then becomes a very expensive completely unnecesary absurdity.
I think it's not a bad idea, but it would require some massive massive changes in the way the justice system and investigations into organised crime are done in MExico currently.
RektInTheHed | a day ago
Cartels won't have the profit margins on all legal businesses.
And in a fight between Cargill and the cartel, Cargill can call the Pentagon to get what they want.
abrandis | a day ago
Not sure that would work on places like Mexico. Where corruption is rampant. Based on the article you already have a version of what you describe "cartel governnace" , why would the cartel embrace a legal system where they get a fraction of the revenue than before and be constrained by state laws, ultimately it comes down to how the tile of laws is enforced
redlightsaber | 2 hours ago
>why would the cartel embrace a legal system where they get a fraction of the revenue than before
I don't know about revenues, but overhead costs would crash, and I can only imagine that legalisation would make demand grow; so I think it'd be extremely surprising if profits didn't simply explode under such a system.
RektInTheHed | a day ago
That seems more like an argument for the cartel to use its influence too maintain the current illegal status for drugs. Which is a known tactic of black marketeers elsewhere.
GrapeJuicePlus | a day ago
Why give cartels first crack at licensing? “Thanks for the epidemic of addiction and also for all the murders, here’s an entire industry- it should be good for about a trillion dollars over like, 7-10 years.”
Wait did you mean all drugs or just weed? Holy shit.
redlightsaber | an hour ago
Because holding grudges if a great way to succumb to paralysis and just never do anything.
Giving them a crack at first licenses all but ensures their complete disarment, personnel downsizing through sheer economic incentives, and makes it economically impracticable for them to continue engaging in the other criminal activities that currently they can only do because they already have this massive infrascture of guns, muscle, and violence, that's necessary to carry on their main business of drug trafficking.
And it doesn't mean that criminal prosecutions can't still take place for the crimes already commited. But given that those weren't happening anyways, at least curving the cartel's powers in such a way is a good next option.
Cane607 | a day ago
The reason why the cartels are as powerful as they are is because the politicians are colluding with them via corrupt relationships they have with them, which gives them free rein to do what they want to do for the most part. The cartels are not the problem, they are a symptom of the problem, that being a untrustworthy and unreliable government.
OrangeBird077 | a day ago
In theory, sure, but if you want to see the legitimate way to prevent cartels from existing there’s always an extended method that worked against the only comparable entity, The American Mafia Commission.
Let’s say tomorrow Mexico legalizes narcotics. It doesn’t immediately stop the cartels because similar to the mob, they’ve made billions over decades and have plenty of money sitting in legitimate businesses, bribes to politicians, and civil relationships where they’ve cultivated loyalty. The cartels can still use violence to enforce their will, but diversify their activities to whatever the new black market becomes. On top of that like the Mafia or any business, they simply start reinvesting and laundering there money in other projects. Strip malls, construction, cash businesses, community centers, pharmacies are the big laundry for the Cali Cartel way back when.
Rule of thumb is if the bad guys have a system so comprehensive that they offer their members a pension and benefits plan they’re not going down easy. It would become a protracted legal battle where RICO would be needed to jail the majority of members, cutting the bosses off from labor, seizing their ill gotten gains, and toppling these families in rapid succession to prevent someone else from seizing power. In Mexico there are several cartels that simply pick up where one toppled cartel leaves off.
You would either need that or the Cartel equivalent of John Gotti being arrogant enough to operate in the daylight where he can be prosecuted to such a degree that he drags the whole organization with him.
OptimisticSkeleton | a day ago
“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
Abraham Lincoln
Now this is the type of solution that can actually work as long as we follow the Portugal model. For those unaware that includes lots of social support and decriminalizing drug use thereby allowing medical and social care teams to take over.
chinno | a day ago
The problem here in Mexico is that cartels have gone beyond just drugs, the CJNG who el Mencho led has sequestered avocados farm owners and took control of their lands and produce, they also steal and sell gasoline, kidnap and ransom citizens, collect "taxes" from small, medium and big businesses by force, hell they even have a monopoly from casino like slot machines across the country. This fuckers have gone way beyond drugs.
The best way to kill them off is by killing the way they launder money, but there are many powerful men there, Chinese, American, and Mexican powerful men and organizations. There's tons of money going around.
The cartels do not and can not survive without those "legitimate" businesses, banks and corporations that help them launder billions.
Equal-Ad3814 | a day ago
This is, in theory, what all progressive states have tried. The problem with those states is they tax the ever living shit out of small businesses, making the drugs so expensive that it becomes cheaper to buy from a black market dealer again. Or, they decriminalize without any real help understanding the issues and allow homeless populations to explode. Like how Oregon and California have spent billions of dollars to tackle the issue but some counties in Oregon had homeless populations explode by 61% in that time. They aren't helping, they're enabling.
It's becoming pretty apparent that Bunny Colvin in the Wire had the best option for legalized drugs. Let people be, who they gonna be, but in a specific area and nowhere else. Portland and those types of cities have just let the insanity proliferate wherever people are because they don't want to be "punitive".
Icommentor | a day ago
In Canada, weed's been legalized where I live at least (Québec) it's cheaper than when it was illegal.
Some governments tax stupidly. Given enough time, it's bound to happen somewhere. It doesn't mean they all do, all the time.
Fireproofspider | a day ago
In Ontario, the price of illegal weed has dropped quite a bit right after legalization. Then the legal price followed and it's now much cheaper to buy both legal and illegal vs what it was before legalization. So most people don't bother with illegal stuff unless it's their friend or something.
Also, a lot of illegal people made the move or are making the move to the legal market.
However, I think you'd be very hard pressed to find a producer that thinks the tax system in Canada is good. It's probably one of the highest if you compared it to individual states BUT, it's mostly taxing producers, rather than a consumption tax. With competition, it's the producers that bear the brunt of the cost.
Islanduniverse | a day ago
I’m in California and I get cannabis for way cheaper than when I had to buy it from dealers, even with the high tax rates, and I don’t have to deal with shady dealers.
I am more than happy to pay high taxes for it.
My problem is that we need to do way more to incentivize and protect smaller growers. Give them tax breaks, or subsidies or something like that so they don’t collapse while the huge companies who can take on the high taxes get all of the money.
But I will never go back to the black market. Fuck that shady nonsense.
SirScaurus | a day ago
Yeah it's honestly worth it to me to pay more just for convenience and good customer service/options.
OptimisticSkeleton | a day ago
Nowhere in the US has tried the only successful model which is to remove law enforcement from the picture entirely and treat addiction as a medical and social issue that it is.
That’s why drug decriminalization in America doesn’t work because at most they only implement half of the plan.
Lots of unscrupulous lawmakers have pushed for halfway decriminalization to discredit decriminalization, but the evidence speaks for itself.
Edit: corrected some errors from voice text
ultraswank | a day ago
Here in Oregon legal weed is absurdly cheap. I don't smoke, but I've been watching the advertised prices drop steadily year after year and now we're as low as $40 for an ounce.
JamarcusFarcus | a day ago
Agreed on Bunny's approach
forever_erratic | a day ago
Oregon is hard because other states also send their homeless there. Not that your points are wrong, but it muddies interpretation.
Equal-Ad3814 | a day ago
States aren't sending them their homeless, their homeless are flocking there because they can be homeless and drug addicts without worry of pitfalls most of them have in other states. So far, from what I've seen, the leaders there are beginning to admit its failures. The rolling back of the decriminalization laws and reduction of inititave funding by billions shows it.
I think what most people have realized is that you can't "cure" homelessness once it's set in. Most homeless people don't want a house if it means they have to live a life like normal people. So how exactly are you supposed to help that? By just giving them everything for free for the rest of their lives? States will bring back asylums before they do that.
Idk, it's a tough thing but if you ask me(someone who ran away at 15 and spent 6 yrs homeless and addicted), making it easier for drug addicts to use and homeless people be homeless isn't the answer unless you go 100% full-fledged Hamsterdam. A "half measure" type thing doesn't so shit but create what they've done. The problem is no politician(outside of maybe Trumps crazy ass) ever does anything "full-measured". They are the KINGS of half-measures so they contain how many people they upset doing something.
Homeless and addicts use people to live the life they want. Simple as that. Take away that ability and they start rethinking their life.
reapersaurus | 21 hours ago
What a refreshing opinion on homeless, from someone who experienced it.
So many internet people and politicians don't get it. If an addict is getting what they want, they have zero incentive to change. Any program that prioritizes the addicts' wants over fixing the problem is destined to fail.
Equal-Ad3814 | 4 hours ago
I mentioned this in another comment. All of the experts on addiction tell parents and loved ones to kick the addicts out of their homes, stop giving them money, stop speaking to them until they change. The parents do that and the answer is to give them easy access to all the things they asked their family to stop doing? Make it make sense.
shawhtk | 11 hours ago
How did you break the cycle? Do you think it can be replicated on a mass scale?
Equal-Ad3814 | 4 hours ago
Tbh, the best thing for me was being sent to a military style boot camp for 4 months and then when I got out, because of other charges I had picked up, I was in Drug Court(outpatient rehab while on probation). I think it reset the insanity I had created. It gave me some foundational changes and gave me some confidence in myself. I stayed out of trouble for a few years from there. Had a great career as a chef going....then I met a girl and I completely backslid for a while. At this point though, I had gotten back into the world to where I wasn't about to be back on the streets. So I was living in a house while I allowed her to ruin everything I had built. After a few years of that, I decided enough was enough and I moved to another state. Then I rebuilt my life there. I now own 2 businesses, have an amazing wife, 3 kids and live a pretty fucking charmed life. All with a GED and no college.
The biggest hurdle out there is support when people leave these places. I think the best thing people could do is go through the structure of boot camp, then get out and have to stay in a place for 6-12 months, or, until you're set up in the real world. Thats where most people fail is the place they land after they get out. The getting stabilized is the biggest part. Trying to just throw homeless people/addicts into shelters isn't really helping them. I mean, here's the truth of it. All therapists, doctors and sponsors tell you that allowing people to live in your house is enabling them and the faster you kick them out, the faster they'll either ask for help or find their bottom. So how does those professionals telling us that, fall in line with giving them every single item they need to stay out on the streets for free? It's crazy. They literally beg parents to toss them out, for those people to turn around and enable them way more than their parents did.
So, I think some sort of heavily structured "shock" to the system like boot camp, then something like a halfway house but better. How we find good people to run those will be tough. The pay will need to be decent and I think hiring staff would be far better spent than spinning wheels trying to find, then build, more shelters for homeless people or drug addicts. They've literally spent tens of billions of dollars and haven't done SHIT. Send their asses to work, then support after. If they choose to be homeless, cities need to crack down on them. Put them in a work camp, specifically built for vagrants and addicts. At some point, they will realize that being homeless sucks. Right now, places like the west coast are heaven for them.
transitfreedom | 8 hours ago
Oregon needs to send them back or fine bus companies for bringing them in
Autodidact2 | a day ago
Unfortunately I think the country that would need to do this is the United States because that's who's buying most of the drugs.
peppaz | a day ago
I think I remember under Obama, Mexico announced they were legalizing weed to reduce revenue for the cartels, and they sent Joe Biden down there to tell them absolutely not
BlueLaceSensor128 | a day ago
>Distribute
The demand is in the US. You're right that it's political suicide because the US would come after them as a "narcostate" or something after most of it ended up smuggled over here.
The real trick would be to get the US to fully legalize and have everything clean/FDA certified (and redirect the drug war money towards treatment) which would kill their illicit market overnight. Not to mention the countless lives you could save from disincentivizing badly mixed or adulterated drugs.
If the country swings back hard the other way in respond to all this lately, it could happen. So many "that'll never happen" things have happened so far that I'm open to any possibility.
nitramv | 23 hours ago
Yes. This is how alcohol prohibition ended in the United States.
It wasn't just stopping the violence and enjoying a new revenue stream. The cost of enforcing prohibition, just like the cost of drug enforcement today, is simply not sustainable in the long term.
Splinterfight | 23 hours ago
Maybe, that type of move was pretty successful with pirates in China historically. Give amnesty if you join the navy, half of them leave, get paid to hunt the other half
Deleted_-420_points | 10 hours ago
Hamsterdam has entered the chat (The Wire reference)
ElephantLife8552 | 9 hours ago
Why would you give licenses to cartels and not legal suppliers?
When weed became legal they didn't ask El Chapo and other guys with thousands of deda bodies on them to grow it, they simply turned it over to legal businesses that sprung up over night.
bessone-2707 | 7 hours ago
None of that will work anymore. Mexico legalizing drugs doesn’t do much if there’s still a huge black market coming from the US. Also, at this point, the cartels have gotten so large that they straight up own shares in legitimate businesses in Mexico now.
rod_zero | 2 hours ago
You could give the licenses to the army and pharma companies if you don't want to legitimize the cartels.
wolferaz | 21 hours ago
That may work for destinations countries but the vast majority of the money in drug trafficking is from consumption in rich countries. If Europe, the US and Canada all legalized drugs, that would be a significant blow to their income. I also doubt Coca would even grow in most of the west or in the necessary quantities but I really am unqualified to comment on that. So legalizing in Mexico or even all of Latin America would maybe reduce the violence but not end cartels. Not to mention they're pretty diversified.
Poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States
1ndependent_Obvious | a day ago
Sounded straightforward 20 years ago when US voters were told: “Legalize weed! If we simply convert production, distribution and sales into tax revenue streams, it will shift demand away from cartels and keep US dollars domestic.”
Even though I’m not a drug user, I voted for it. But from my perspective, it mostly created a ton of smoke shops and normalized the use of weed in most public spaces (even some of my job-sites with equipment operators). Did it destroy demand for the Narcos? No.
JamarcusFarcus | a day ago
Narcos make way more off...narcotics. which have not been legalized anywhere. Moreover in Texas, weed is still highly illegal among many other non-border states. But I'm talking about Mexico. A large portion of the business dealings of cartels is totally legal (they are heavily invested in any major tourist area for instance including reports, restaurants, etc).
GrapeJuicePlus | a day ago
Are you drunk? I don’t do weed either, but between 2001 and 2010, about 7 million people were arrested for possession of marijuana. You’re crying because too many “smoke shops?” You mean dispensaries? Or do you mean shops that have always been around selling bongs and vapes? In which case, vapes are equally if not more culpable.
1ndependent_Obvious | a day ago
You’re right, that reduced sentencing for drug possession was another part of the ‘legalize weed’ push that I agreed with. I don’t want a felony assigned that easily or prison overcrowding for an issue that should be dealt with through healthcare.
We are seeing now that legalization should have also come with comprehensive care for addicts -especially those who become homeless.
Seems like the phrase ‘smoke shop’ irritates you but I’m just nieve to the naming conventions. In my city, there were 800 new licenses granted to (whatever you want to call weed shops) and it created lots of unforeseen issues. Some of them were way too close to schools, for example.
Edits: grammar
LurkerBurkeria | a day ago
Destroyed their weed market, the mistake was thinking they wouldn't just go find other drugs to push
Chicago1871 | a day ago
You want to legalize fentanyl and heroin?
CamelJ0key | a day ago
I’d vote for you!
[OP] theindependentonline | a day ago
The death of a major cartel boss in Mexico has unleashed a violent backlash in which members of the criminal group have paralyzed some cities through blockades and attacks on property and security forces.
At least 73 people have died as a result of the operation to capture Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, or “El Mencho.” The head of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel was seriously wounded during a firefight with authorities on Feb. 22, 2026. He later died in custody.
As an expert in criminal groups and drug trafficking in Latin America who has been studying Mexico’s cartels for two decades, I see the violent aftermath of the operation as part of a pattern in which Mexican governments have opted for high-profile hits that often lead only to more violence without addressing the broader security problems that plague huge swaths of the country.
disasteress | a day ago
That news site is cancer. Impossible to read with all the insane amount of ads and absolute garbage all over the screen.This and other news sites need to stop making their pages LITTERED with shit because it makes it look trashy and very unprofessional leading most readers to question the legitimacy of their content. I can't read that shit and I am not going to wade through that garbage.
So post the whole article here or fix that site.
eat_my_ass_n_balls | a day ago
Yea fuck this website
evfuwy | a day ago
“Swipe for next article” taking 20% of readable space.
Plus, like many of these clickbait headlines with “what will happen next”, it never tells you. Total rubbish media site.
mvrander | 23 hours ago
Basically every UK newspaper site is like that now
Remember when the internet used to be good?
disasteress | 19 hours ago
Yes, I totally do and I can't believe (well, I can) how much all these news agencies sold out just to keep making profits. I haven't come across a single news site that is not a flaming pile of garbage, illegible trash. They are the web version of the old gossip magazines, messy and chaotic layout propped up by ads delivering dubious material and everything reads like clickbait. I want the news back to delivering facts with boring ass titles, sure dedicate some space for ads, I understand that's their sole source of income but make it clean and neat. Have one or two embedded maybe a couple of times but stop with the inundation of them to the extent that there is less written content than ads. We need to stop going to these sites and just boycott this nonsense.
So fed up.
suavaleesko | 23 hours ago
I immediately assume the content is of equal or lesser quality than the website
Fit_Wish_2049 | a day ago
This article has zero insight. Shameful read really.
123456789OOOO | a day ago
No offense to the author’s emphasis on their expertise but this seems quite obvious to anyone who looks into it for 5 seconds.
Given the government is corrupted by those same cartels, the proposed solution of a full scale top-down crackdown seems highly unlikely, without U.S. intervention.
feel-T_ornado | 7 hours ago
You're writing that last sentence as if the american government hasn't had their hands really so far up all those cartel's ass for years, they're also corrupted and without them they just couldn't keep making business
Equal-Ad3814 | a day ago
Didn't Mexico kinda have to hit these high-level guys to show the US they are actually trying to do something different though? For years, the US has known the upper echelons of the Mexican Military and pols were protecting the narcos. And because of that, the US wouldn't share any intel with them about the cartel bosses. This is why Mayo and Mencho went so long not being touched. Those are the 2 biggest guys out there and within 19 months of each other, they're done. Now, are those same Mexican leaders only now giving these guys up to get the focus off of them? Maybe the terrorism designation opens those guys up to financial charges and they're trying to clean up before they get caught?
Harfuch and the guys he's bringing along with him seem like they are legitimate threats to the cartels.
Have you heard anything different?
Detmon | 5 hours ago
It's a terrible article that states the obvious. Anyone with half a brain and who's read the aftermath of the capturing/killing of other crime bosses can conclude that more violence may follow.
dubbleplusgood | a day ago
The article said absolutely nothing we didn't already know. More violence, no improvements. No sh.. Sherlock.
FortheredditLOLz | a day ago
Copy/paste from news article rather then clickthrough....
"The death of a major cartel boss in Mexico has unleashed a violent backlash in which members of the criminal group have paralyzed some cities through blockades and attacks on property and security forces.
At least 73 people have died as a result of the operation to capture Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, or “El Mencho.” The head of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel was seriously wounded during a firefight with authorities on Feb. 22, 2026. He later died in custody.
As an expert in criminal groups and drug trafficking in Latin America who has been studying Mexico’s cartels for two decades, I see the violent aftermath of the operation as part of a pattern in which Mexican governments have opted for high-profile hits that often lead only to more violence without addressing the broader security problems that plague huge swaths of the country.
Who was ‘El Mencho’?
Like many other figures involved in Mexico’s drug trafficking, Oseguera Cervantes started at the bottom and made his way up the ranks. He spent some time in prison in the U.S., where he may have forged alliances with criminal gangs before being deported back to Mexico in 1997. There, he connected with the Milenio Cartel, an organization that first allied, and then fought with, the powerful Sinaloa Cartel.
Most of the information available points to the Jalisco New Generation Cartel forming under El Mencho around 2010, following the killing of Ignacio “Nacho” Coronel Villarreal, a Sinaloa Cartel leader and main link with the Milenio Cartel.
A wanted poster for ‘El Mencho’ (U.S. State Department)
Since 2015, Jalisco New Generation Cartel has been known for its blatant attacks against security forces in Mexico – such as gunning down a helicopter in that year. And it has expanded its presence both across Mexico and internationally.
In Mexico, it is said to have a presence in all states. In some, the cartel has a direct presence and very strong local networks. In others, it has cultivated alliances with other trafficking organizations.
Besides drug trafficking, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel is also engaged in oil theft, people smuggling and extortion. As a result, it has become one of the most powerful cartels in Mexico.
What impact will his death have on the cartel?
There are a few potential scenarios, and a lot will depend on what succession plans Jalisco New Generation had in the event of Oseguera Cervantes’ capture or killing.
In general, these types of operations – in which security forces take out a cartel leader – lead to more violence, for a variety of reasons.
Mexicans have already experienced the immediate aftermath of Oseguera Cervantes’ death: retaliation attacks, blockades and official attempts to prevent civilians from going out. This is similar to what occurred after the capture of drug lord Ovidio Guzmán López in Sinaloa in 2019 and his second capture in 2023.
Violence flares in two ways following such high-profile captures and killings of cartel leaders.
In the short term, there is retaliation. At the moment, members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel are seeking revenge against Mexico’s security forces and are also trying to assert their regional authority despite El Mencho’s death.
These retaliatory campaigns tend to be violent and flashy. They include blockades as well as attacks against security forces and civilians.
Violence has flared in Mexico’s Jalisco state since the death of Nemesio ‘El Mencho’ Oseguera Cervantes (AP)
Then there is the longer-term violence associated with any succession. This can take the form of those who are below Oseguera Cervantes in rank fighting for control. But it can also result from rival groups trying to take advantage of any leadership vacuum.
The level and duration of violence depend on a few factors, such as whether there was a succession plan and what kind of alliances are in place with other cartels. But generally, operations in which a cartel boss is removed lead to more violence and fragmentation of criminal groups.
Of course, people like Oseguera Cervantes who have violated laws and engaged in violence need to be captured. But in the long run, that doesn’t do anything to dismantle networks of criminality or reduce the size of their operations.
What is the current state of security in Mexico?
The upsurge in violence after Oseguera Cervantes’ killing occurs as some indicators in Mexico’s security situation seemed to be improving.
For example, homicide rates declined in 2025 – which is an important indicator of security.
But other measures are appalling. Disappearances are still unsettlingly high. The reality that many Mexicans experience on the ground is one where criminal organizations remain powerful and embedded in the local ecosystems that connect state agents, politicians and criminals in complex networks.
Criminal organizations are engaged in what we academics call “criminal governance.” They engage in a wide range of activities and regulate life in communities – sometimes coercively, but sometimes also with some degree of legitimacy from the population.
About the author
Angélica Durán-Martínez is an Associate Professor of Political Science at UMass Lowell.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
In some states like Sinaloa, despite the operations to take out cartel’s leaders, the illicit economies are still extensive and profitable. But what’s more important is that levels of violence remain high and the population is still suffering deeply.
The day-to-day reality for people in some of these regions is still one of fear.
And in the greater scheme of things, criminal networks are still very powerful – they are embedded in the country’s economy and politics, and connect to communities in complex ways.
How does the El Mencho operation fit Mexico’s strategy on cartels?
The past two governments vowed to reduce the militarization of security forces. But the power of the military in Mexico has actually expanded.
The government of President Claudia Sheinbaum wanted a big, visible hit at a time when the U.S. is pushing for more militarized policies to counter Mexico’s trafficking organizations.
But this dynamic is not new. Most U.S. and Mexican policy regarding drug trafficking organizations has historically emphasized these high-profile captures – even if it is just for short-term gains.
It’s easier to say “we captured a drug lord” than address broader issues of corruption or impunity. Most of the time when these cartel leaders are captured or killed, there is generally no broader justice. It isn’t accompanied with authorities investigating disappearances, murders, corruption or even necessarily halting the flow of drugs.
Captures and killings of cartel leaders serve a strategic purpose of showing that something is being done, but the effectiveness of such policies in the long run is very limited.
Of course, taking out a drug lord is not a bad thing. But if it does not come with a broader dismantling of criminal networks and an accompanying focus on justice, then the main crimes that these groups commit – homicides, disappearances and extortion – will continue to affect the daily life of people. And the effect on illicit flows is, at best, meager."
Agitated-Proof-9661 | a day ago
In the US, it's not what drugs you're taking that they government cares about. It's WHOSE drugs you're taking and who is making money off of it.
HauntedandHorny | a day ago
Well maybe start with acknowledging that the US government props up the cartels and that the kind of violence we saw after his death was clearly very coordinated for something that was supposedly a surprise hit. Even if you want to pretend the government itself is not involved, to pretend like the black market is sequestered from the totally honest stock market is silly. It's as lucrative to have stock in CJNG as it is to have it in NVIDIA. The Cartels exist because someone wants them to, in their mind it's better to have a destabilized capitalist neighbor than a socialist leaning one.
accountability_board | 19 hours ago
Violence created by American guns financed by American addiction. You would think Mexico would just stop fighting this stupid war. But the truth is any president that dares to legalize drugs will be removed by the CIA. So thank you USA for all the misery!
ElephantLife8552 | 8 hours ago
Have any countries legalized drugs? Seems like with legal weed the USA is farther along on that path than most other countries. But cocaine, heroin, etc.. are illegal everywhere, so Mexico smuggles drugs to anywhere they can, as well (not just the USA).
HR_Paul | 7 hours ago
>Have any countries legalized drugs?
Nope.
Note that in the USA weed is illegal unless it's hemp (until November barring more legislation).
ElephantLife8552 | 7 hours ago
I guess you mean at the Federal level?
Weed is legal in enough states that it's de facto legal in most of the USA. Mexico doesn't smuggle weed here anymore
HR_Paul | 7 hours ago
It's not legal in any state. The criminal conspiracy to traffic marijuana on the part of state governments is a major RICO charge but for some inexplicable reason the feds ignore it.
Loose_Specialist_147 | 13 hours ago
Wow this article told me nothing after the first paragraph. Just repeating the same phrases.
SunnyRain_99 | a day ago
Business is too big and too good to fail. Someone always is ready to fill the demand.
col_buendia | a day ago
Are you Ioan Grillo?
Psychological-Long-5 | a day ago
Website is illegible
StatisticianAway663 | a day ago
fr, cartels don't follow the same rules. their history shows they won't just go legit overnight
ScoreEquivalent7284 | a day ago
need more context here lol, but if it’s what I think, that’s hilariosu... or maybe concerning? idk you decide haha
UndeadChesh | 13 hours ago
Is Mexico still unsafe, or is everything back to normal?
Thisisimo | 13 hours ago
I’m in Cancun right now and everything looks normal. No burned cars or buildings. There’s maybe a little chaos when you talk to ppl, but other than that, it looks totally fine. I started following this IG page, u/travelingosmexico, and they’re sharing daily video updates about Cancun and PDC.
UndeadChesh | 13 hours ago
Thank you, I’ll check it out now.
MXAI00D | 12 hours ago
The best way to get rid of them is to fully legalize and tax them in the USA, let full capitalism drive them out of business, they won’t be able to compete against Amazon once bezos is able to sell the now legal and safe drugs.