Remix.run Logo
jmatthiass 7 hours ago

As someone else mentioned, there’s some speculation in aviation subreddits that the bounds of the altitude restriction map to the MANPAD capabilities that some cartels are purported to have.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1r1s4zt/comment/o...

My read is that the admin is planning forceful strikes on the cartels within Mexico and is worried about their ability to retaliate by taking down US aircraft across the border.

Edit: The closure has now been kiboshed. The wording seems a little “don’t panic-y” to me, but better that than the alternative! https://x.com/FAANews/status/2021583720465969421

omgJustTest 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Knowing the restriction goes to 18k certainly says that either S-A or A-S reach must be limited but the as your post points out no buffer between MANPAD actual range and the limit imposed. I think unlikely to say MANPAD, specifically.

There's a small private airfield to the west with only a single victor airway connecting to el-paso. the victors end at 17999 ft, effectively cutting traffic for non-commercial or non-business jet operators.

Closure of the victor airway there seems, again limiting airborne craft due to airborne hazards.

Hazards in the air, near the surface that are, seemingly, unplanned with a cone pointing at mexico.

That's kind of the most anyone will get until more info, could be some urgent testing of some capability or response to small craft (drones) coming over the boarder. Emergency timing could be to garner interest or emphasize importance, which works well politically.

Las Cruces International Airport and Dana Jetport are unaffected.

timbre1234 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The restriction goes to 18k because that's the top of VFR space. Anyone operating above 18k has to be on an IFR clearance and under positive ATC control. That makes it easy for the feds to make a call and say "Hey, center, get everyone out of this airspace" wheras in the VFR altitudes it's very difficult for them to legally clear the space since a VFR plane could be flying around not talking to anyone.

ErroneousBosh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I only know about Las Cruces from the Organ Mountain Outfitters training material in the DaVinci Resolve sample footage. Sadly they closed a few months ago, which is a shame because I never got my arse in gear to order a shirt from them.

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
Eddy_Viscosity2 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even Cartels know that shooting down civilian aircraft in US airspace would be an escalation that would lead to heavy retaliation. Doesn't seem likely to me.

reactordev 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Coming from groups that just pickup busses of people to murder, I wouldn’t be so sure that firing back at the US would be out of the question.

nessbot 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Murdering buses of people doesn't bring the full force of the US military on them. The difference is the risk not the depravity.

p-e-w 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is the answer. The cartels would have to be insane to poke that particular bear. They would get crushed like a bug. IIRC they murdered a single US undercover officer in the 90s and the retaliation was so bad that they themselves handed over the perpetrators.

ChrisMarshallNY 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> They would get crushed like a bug.

Much as I despise them, I'm not so sure that would be the case. I seem to remember folks saying the same about the Taliban, and the cartels have a lot more money and high-tech kit, than the Taliban.

Asymmetric warfare is a tough gig, on all sides.

janalsncm 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t think the technology matters nearly as much as the asymmetry. Iraq had better technology than the Taliban and their military didn’t last a week.

ChrisMarshallNY 2 hours ago | parent [-]

True enough, but the cartels are also experts at running what is basically guerrilla warfare, against each other. Not sure if the Mexican Army has ever tried to take them on. A lot of cartel soldiers come from the army.

BoredPositron 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You are right rationality is their strongest character trait.

542354234235 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How are they not rational? Violence is a tool. They operate an illegal business so they can’t sue other parties for breach of contract. They can't call the police if they are robbed or file an insurance claim for what was taken. Even the over-the-top violence has a rationale. They aren't punishing the victims as much as they are attempting to broadcast that there is a higher price to be paid than any gain from giving information, to reduce their future losses and enforcement efforts. It isn’t moral or ethical, but I wouldn’t say it is irrational.

mikkupikku 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Lots of organized crime around the world manages to operate without cutting all the limbs off somebody then arranging them like flowers in a "vase" made out of the poor soul's ribcage. The cartels take violence far beyond what is pragmatically necessary. Their system of crime breeds excessive violence and insanity.

AlotOfReading an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This stuff mostly followed after the zetas. It was a very deliberate strategy to compete in a hostile landscape that others eventually copied to survive.

xkcd-sucks an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Marketing, if you don't know the answer it's always marketing

coolhand2120 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> How are they not rational?

It's the meth.

the_sleaze_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The cartels are incredibly rational - what they lack are morals and ethics

colechristensen 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's a business not an ideology.

KPGv2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you have much evidence of them behaving irrationally?

mmh0000 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would recommend reading the Freakinomics book or listen to their podcasts on drugs.

TL;DR: drug cartels are run like businesses. They are very rational. But, unlike your boss, their boss can also shoot you in the face if you annoy them too much

Noaidi 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How did that full force of the US military work out in Vietnam?

antonymoose 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Millions of dead Vietnamese.

In any case that was a war against a hardened, experienced, determined enemy fighting for its freedom from any form of colonial occupation, both as a formal military and as an insurgent force in South Vietnam.

I scarcely think the Mexican population would rise up in defense of the cartels here.

boringg 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think a lot of people would be cheering on the destruction of the cartels.

ryandrake 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They'd probably quickly stop cheering as their own homes and families were destroyed as collateral damage, which is what would happen if the "full force of the US military" were deployed against the cartels.

TitaRusell 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The last time America invaded Mexico City it created martyrs. It's a fascinating story that they do not teach at US highschools lol.

colechristensen 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The destruction of cartels would involve careful policing and corruption controls, the best American administrations have been bad at this. The worst... can barely put its pants on much less dismantle foreign organized crime. You can't shoot a missile at a cartel and poof it's just gone.

adolph 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A non-aligned population will look out for their own interests and are aware that the attention of the US is temporary but the cuadillismo that lead to cartels are a durable cultural artifact.

  The Battle of Culiacán, also known locally as the Culiacanazo and Black 
  Thursday, was a failed attempt to capture Ovidio Guzmán López, son of Sinaloa 
  Cartel kingpin Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, who was wanted in the United States 
  for drug trafficking.
  
  Around 700 cartel gunmen began to attack civilian, government and military 
  targets around the city, despite orders from Ovidio sent at security forces' 
  request. Massive towers of smoke could be seen rising from burning cars and 
  vehicles. The cartels were well-equipped, with improvised armored vehicles, 
  bulletproof vests, .50 caliber (12.7 mm) rifles, rocket launchers, grenade 
  launchers and heavy machine guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culiac%C3%A1n
randallsquared 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It was never used, there.

kgermino 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pretty badly for both sides

boringg 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't really think you thought through that one. It sounds like what your saying is that the Vietnamese won and thats the outcome that matters. It does matter but that isn't the issue - it is the cost that everyone is talking about: the amount of destruction that was brought upon the country and people was terrible.

infecto 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The distinction is those are cases where they are murdering Mexican citizens. If a cartel murdered a bus of people in America I suspect most any administration would retaliate in some form.

reactordev 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Dude, Americans are getting kidnapped and murdered in Mexico all the time. The cartels don’t care your nationality.

If the administration strikes cartels first, they may find it egregious enough to do what they refused to do in the past…

I don’t rule out any options when it comes to murderous organizations.

*EDIT* This isn’t me saying don’t go to Mexico or that Mexico is unsafe either. Out of the tourists that visit from America, 0.001% see violence or are kidnapped or anything negative. If anything it would be petty theft near cruise ports and resort towns that would be the biggest culprit of crime for Americans.

infecto 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

“Dude”, murdering a us citizen in Mexico is different than murdering an entire bus of people on US soil.

You say it’s happening all the time but then say it’s .01%.

Looked it up myself, maybe 40 to 300 people annually. Hard to discern how many of those are pure tourism vs visiting family. I suspect you have a greater risk visiting family, especially if it’s a border town.

13.5mm US citizens visit d Mexico in 2024 so .00002% got kidnapped. I bet that number is even lower when you separate pure tourism vs dual nationals or similar going back home to visit.

The point is any action taken on US soil in a large capacity would be seen as an attack by any administration.

reactordev 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I never said “In the US” guy

matwood 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Of course things happen sometimes. But, the cartels typically do not want to mess with Americans, particularly in tourist areas, because that brings heat they don't want. It's literally bad for business.

_heimdall 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the GP was referring to buses on US soil rather than Americans on buses in Mexico.

reactordev 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Cartels only strike their own on US soil…

infecto 5 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re missing the point. Absolutely cartel violence impacts all types of people in the US and Mexico but large scale brutal violence that is usually saved for Mexico since unfortunately the Mexican federal government does not have control in most of the regions.

There is a huge difference between a one off gang killing in the US and someone taking a whole grey hound bus and burying the bodies in the desert.

reactordev 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is why I bring up their affinity for going after busses of people, because they have, in Mexico…

The world does not stop at the Us border.

jghn 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Dude, Americans are getting kidnapped and murdered in Mexico all the time

Dude, can you put some numbers with a citation behind that? Then we can extrapolate a risk ratio and see if it really merits the "all the time" claim.

resters 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

who are we (the US)? People who wantonly murder people on fishing boats, etc.

reactordev 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m not saying our cartel is any better…

ultrarunner 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

Your use of "our" makes me wonder if the people of Mexico see the drug cartels as "theirs".

reactordev 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

Merely pointing out that the US administration is operating like a cartel now a days.

I doubt Mexicans see the Mexican cartels as “theirs” in the same way. Cartels have only been interested in paying off politicians and (as far as I’m aware) weren’t interested in being politicians. However, our politicians here… would LOVE to be Cartel members and make millions it seems. Because they definitely don’t give a shit about law and order.

xtracto 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is different.

See, Drug cartels over here operate with the blessing and favor of our president. They are tightly connected.

If a cartel dared to ground a US flight. The US government would have a "free pass" to break all hell loose in Mexico, and Sheinbaum wouldn't have a way to stop it.

She doesn't want that in any way, so the message to the cartel bosses would be to be very careful in that respect.

Sure, there have been US citizens killed within Mexico here and there, but those can easily be attributed to local violence. And as retribution, Mexican government sends a couple of wanted criminals to the US.

ekidd 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, if a cartel actually used anti-aircraft weapons on a US passenger plane in US airspace? It wouldn't even matter if MAGA or the Democrats were in charge. The US would collectively lose its shit and spend the next 10 years and several trillion dollars retaliating against the cartels. The media would be ecstatic, because it would give them a decade of story arcs, starting with "our brave troops in uniform" all the way through to covering the eventual quagmire and anti-war protests. By year 6-8, editorial columnists would be writing columns reconsidering their initial support for the war.

Please, let's not do this.

jmatthiass 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good point. I guess it depends on the force, size, and especially effectiveness of any potential strikes. (i.e. How cornered a cartel might feel and how much flexing an outsized response might stand to gain them.)

bpodgursky 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes that might be the high-level logic, but if you give a MANPAD to a 19 year old sicario on meth, accidents do happen.

jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-]

I think you misunderstood that movie.

philistine 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If that aircraft held a person they wanted dead, I would not put it past them.

mattmaroon 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unless we start bombing them first. That’s not hard to imagine these days.

ibejoeb 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Not hard to imagine these days? Wouldn't you hope for an intervention if it were known that a hostile, state-level military planned to down civilian aircraft?

_joel 5 hours ago | parent [-]

What happened after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 ?

ibejoeb 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I can't read your mind.

KPGv2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I had a quick check, and there were zero Americans on board this Malaysian aircraft shot down by a nuclear power over Ukraine, so I don't know how you think it's relevant to an American aircraft full of Americans being shot down in American airspace by cartels immediately on the other side of the American border.

EDIT: Unless you think Malaysia not bombing the Kremlin in retribution is somehow indicative of how America would respond to the situation we're actually talking about.

mothballed 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unless the government is planning an attack on the cartel[s] that is so existential that such action wouldn't be considered an escalation but rather a tic for tat.

A trapped animal will generally use all its facilities regardless of its expected effectiveness.

beepbooptheory 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Remember that there is no "the" cartel, just so many different towns and interests and bribed officials. It makes it a significant (and perhaps convenient) misnomer dont get me wrong, but maybe important to remember.

Extremely good, highly researched book if you want to get angry at me or call me idiot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Cartels_Do_Not_Exist

estearum 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Mistakes happen though

torpfactory 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My read is most likely some kind of strike on the cartels. There hasn’t seemed to be any significant US military buildup so it’s something they’ll be able to do with a smaller force.

The trapezoid makes me worried about a ground incision there- it extends to the border and would be a cover space for an invasion force. Absolutely bonkers that we are even having this discussion.

The TFR is most likely contingency planning for possible retaliation by cartel drones and the need to keep the airspace clear so they can see (with radar) and shoot down drones and not passenger aircraft.

grosswait 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are the first person to mention invasion. Kind of bonkers to jump to that conclusion.

ben_w 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unfortunately, we find ourselves living in a bonkers time.

torpfactory 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is totally nuts. We will see I guess. If there will be a ground invasion, people will see the convoys moving into position. You can’t really hide that much stuff.

alexissantos 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nuts, definitely. Bonkers to jump to that conclusion? No, especially with this US administration. Mexico itself is concerned enough about the possibility that it's made statements to make it clear it wouldn't be acceptable. Mexico thinks it's nuts, too, but not bonkers to think the US might do it.

US troops in Mexico 'not on the table', Sheinbaum tells Trump https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20260112-us-troops-mexi...

niij 4 hours ago | parent [-]

She's on the Cartel payroll. Of course she would say that. You can't be a simple mayor without cartel involvement in Mexico.

malfist 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> She's on the Cartel payroll

> You can't be a simple mayor without cartel involvement in Mexico.

I don't know what world you're living in, but this is absolutely not the case. Mexico is not a failed state, don't get all your news from places trying to scare you.

3 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
ranger_danger 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Other commenters here in this thread as well as many people on reddit and other sites about this news are also saying the same thing. Our minds are not as unique as we think :)

matthewaveryusa 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What’s also bonkers is our political whimpiness that allowed this to happen, right? If there is a drone response it’s pretty damning evidence that we are way too dovish in our policy against drug smuggling up until now

ben_w 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It doesn't say much either way.

I'm from the UK, we had the ("real") IRA put a RPG-22 anti-tank rocket at the walls of MI6 HQ (the UK version of the CIA): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_MI6_attack

Dangerous things like these are not expensive, compared to even low budget small-time group.

gsck 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean the RIRA is a splinter group of the PIRA which had massive funding from overseas, especially from the United States. PIRA was not a small-time group.

cameldrv 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Doing a closure up to 18k feet is common because that's where class A airspace starts, i.e. you need a clearance to go there, you can't just fly around VFR wherever you want. The airspace above 18k might not be officially closed, but controllers can be instructed to just not give a clearance into whatever area they deem is unsafe on a particular day.

pigbearpig 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Maybe, or maybe FL180 is a nice clean line for class A airspace. No need to bother transcontinental flights for a local issue."

Way more plauible

satiated_grue 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

FL180 is the floor of Class A airspace, "the flight levels", where airliners etc. operate.

Relevant chapter from FAA "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge": https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/17_phak_ch15.pdf

In the "Flight Levels", altitudes are referred to not in feet above sea level but as "FLxxx" where xxx is a nominal altitude in 100s of feet.

Altimetry is done using barometric pressure. Since this varies with weather, airplanes at lower altitudes set their altimeters to the local barometric pressure for a reasonably accurate reading. In the flight levels, where planes are typically covering ground quickly and there is very little chance of your path conflicting with the surface of the Earth, every plane sets to an agreed-upon reference of 29.92 inches of mercury as the altimeter setting.

petesergeant 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What does that mean sorry?

Someone1234 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It means any aircraft transitioning over the area at high altitude isn't impacted, because they're too high to care.

It is a ground and "everything near the ground" stop. Meaning low altitude helicopters and private aircraft have to consider it, even transitioning, but realistically commercial aircraft not taking off/landing in the area won't.

bombcar 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

FL180 is 18000 feet, meaning that flights OVER don’t need to divert.

mazugrin2 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It is a pedantic but meaningful distinction that I'd only point out on a sorta geeky site like this, but actually, FL180 (or, flight level one-eight-zero) is the altitude at which an altimeter will read 18,000 feet if it's set to assume that the barometric pressure is 1013 hPa (29.92 inHg). Above a certain transition altitude, aircraft switch their altimeters from reading altitude in the local pressure to this "standard" pressure. This is because above that altitude and safely away from terrain, it's no longer important to know precisely how high you are, but it _is_ important to know what altitude you are relative to all the other aircraft nearby.

reactordev 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It means that you have no business being below FL180 or 18,000ft to enter this airspace.

anovikov 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That it limits local flights but not international ones as they fly higher.

danesparza 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's simpler. It's going to make the cartel drones easier to spot.

dylan604 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you think the cartels won’t see this news? If this is all it was, the cartels can just wait 10 days and start up again.

duxup 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Shooting down civilian American aircraft like that would seem to just be for an even more strong response…

Seems unlikely.

m4rtink 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If only this was a certainty - Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down with 298 people killed 12 years ago but still no one was directly punished for it...

bluedino 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Malaysia isn't going to attack Russia.

ethbr1 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I highly doubt the Russians/separatists running the Buk knew the identity of the flight before shooting it down.

myrmidon 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Most certainly not, but I don't see how that is relevant.

The problem (from a victim/Dutch perspective) is that there is complete denial from the Russian side (despite heaps of evidence around the people involved, origin and transport of the launcher from Russian territory).

Even if Russian judges and prosecutors are completely corrupt and biased, an actual investigation/trial is the least that would be expected here, but all we got are the bald faced lies that Russia is particularly fond of.

FergusArgyll 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Shooting down civilian *American* aircraft like that would seem to just be for an even more strong response…

guerrilla 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They would want to avoid escalation. Escalation with cartels historically does not go well for anyone involved.

alex43578 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Escalation by attacking US civilians or the homeland has also gone poorly. It’s been the casus belli many times, notably ending in two Japanese cities getting nuked…

willturman 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The homeland? Yikes.

The last time there was an attack within the United States’ borders it notably ended with a self-owning combination of perhaps the largest bureaucratic waste of time and money in human history (DHS/TSA) and the systematic erosion of enumerated rights.

guerrilla 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was in an entirely different context which has no relevance here. We're not in the middle of a global war (nor is anyone even at war with Mexico), nor in a nuclear arms race asserting nuclear capabilities for the first time in history.

You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and those cases weren't even on its own border. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... the list is very long. Creating an existential threat on your own border is a bad move for anyone. Remember how bad Columbia got? I guess not. The current situation has the potential to be much more dangerous.

johnmaguire 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and those cases weren't even on its own border.

Doesn't the US have more resources at home, not less?

Wouldn't a strike on US soil be a larger escalation and dictate a swift and larger response?

guerrilla 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This is real life. They don't to cause a problem they can't solve.

johnmaguire 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You are now leaning your premise as an argument. I disagree that it would cause a problem.

I believe it's unrealistic that "the cartel" would strike back against the USG, particularly on US soil.

derbOac 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Would that account for the trapezoidal shape of the one restricted area?

torpfactory 6 hours ago | parent [-]

My bet is a showy armored advance though the open terrain near there… it’ll look great on camera! /s

Spooky23 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sounds like a great way to reinforce the "We ready to move along from Epstein" narrative.

mothballed 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems crazy not to just, tell people that if that's what it is. "Hey if you are flying above 18,000 please don't go lower because you could be blown up by a MANPAD."

If the cartels have MANPADS then our intel is already blown by issuing the TFR, so what's the harm in just saying it out loud?

gordonhart 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Mass panic? Think of how wildly it would be misrepresented in the media and how disruptive it would be to all air travel in the country. People aren't rational actors and the most sensationalized headline is what ends up spreading

spacephysics 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For your first point, on the off chance they have other equipment capable of surpassing MANPADS I’d prefer as a passenger they just fly around.

Second point, it’s not obvious if its for MANPAD reasons or it’s our own operation though we can speculate.

mothballed 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure if the person I replied to edited their comment, or I looked at the wrong one, but the one I originally read said the TFR only had the restriction below 18,000 ft. I was addressing it on that basis, which wasn't requiring people flying above that to route around it.

JumpinJack_Cash 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Of course, the US elected the only celebrity of the 80s and 90s who hates blow.

On the other hand a careful analysis of the plumbing system of Trump's Tower and Trump's Hotels in general would reveal possibly the highest concentration of coke than any other building in the world considering the intersection of wealth and istrionic personalities who called those apartments home at one time or the other.

Fate sure loves irony

Besides I would go to my grave claiming that racism is particularly strong in the war on drugs, if coca grew plentiful and naturally in the US and Europe it would not be illegal at all.

But it's scary because uh ohh inssulfation of an extract of a plant coming from the global south we are all gonna die, somebody will please think of the children.

But hey you can gulp 60 oz of super strong energy drinks which equate to about 5-6 fat lines, matter of fact you can gulp 600 oz and cause yourself a heart attack and nobody would bat an eye or investigate the safety profile of such drinks

It's the same old story with alcohol too

frumplestlatz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> But hey you can gulp 60 oz of super strong energy drinks which equate to about 5-6 fat lines

Are you joking?

Look, I’m no stranger to drugs, but coke is not a “60oz energy drink” and its potential for generally destroying someone’s life is, while not at the same level, definitely in the same ballpark as crack, heroin, and meth.

JumpinJack_Cash 3 hours ago | parent [-]

60 oz energy drink = 5-6 fat lines perhaps more

The most dense energy drinks have 350-400 of caffeine in a can these days and on top of that there's the taurine etc.

60 oz is 4 cans, do your math. 4 * 400 = 1600mg of caffeine alone

> > potential for generally destroying someone’s life is, while not at the same level, definitely in the same ballpark as crack, heroin, and meth.

That's more of the result of the enviornment and the associated people who frequent such circles and not the stimulant per se.

frumplestlatz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't say this lightly, as someone who has spent decades around drugs, and as a result, knows more than a few recovering addicts: this comes across as wild rationalization by an addict.

And while 1600mg of caffeine is 4x the FDA's recommended daily intake and really isn't a good idea, someone on that much caffeine is neither going to feel nor behave in any way similar to someone on coke.

NedF 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

FranklinJabar 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

walletdrainer 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

“Terrorists” would tend to not consider themselves such.

I doubt the same is true of cartels and their members.

Etheryte 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm pretty sure no one else reading the comment has any trouble understanding what is meant when talking about cartels in Mexico. What exactly is ambiguous to you?

hackable_sand 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[flagged]

FranklinJabar 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

FergusArgyll 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A drug cartel is a criminal organization composed of independent drug lords who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the illegal drug trade.[1] Drug cartels form with the purpose of controlling the supply of the illegal drug trade and maintaining prices at a high level. The formations of drug cartels are common in Latin American countries. Rivalries between multiple drug cartels cause them to wage turf wars against each other. Drug cartels often transport both drugs and narcotics, and most often the term "Narcotics cartel" is not used to describe an organization that transports the latter legally defined set of illegal substances, such as marijuana.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_cartel

petesergeant 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It means organized crime focusing on drugs in this context

FranklinJabar 6 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]