The mayor of a Mexican city plagued by drug violence has been murdered less than a week after taking office.
Alejandro Arcos was found dead on Sunday in Chilpancingo, a city of around 280,000 people in the southwestern state of Guerrero. He had been mayor for six days.
Evelyn Salgado, the state governor, said the city was in mourning over a murder that “fills us with indignation”. His death came three days after the city government’s new secretary, Francisco Tapia, was shot dead.
Authorities have not released details of the investigation, or suspects. However, Guerrero is one of the worst-affected states for drug violence and drug cartels have murdered dozens of politicians across the country.
That happens when much of citizenry can be characterized as “rich blokes who will take coke at some point with no shadow of doubt”. When everyone involved knows that, including the voters, it’s an easy decision.
However, in many other countries the general population mostly forms their opinion on drugs, weapons and even political freedoms based on fear of what will happen.
They don’t look at all this critically, thus don’t understand that the worst things happening because of the current state of things they don’t know anything about, because information is not and will never be as available as their thought process requires.
That involves said current state of things funding things like cartels, criminal groups in governments involved in drug trade (it’s much more profitable when you ban all the competition), creating a vector of control over addicted people. These all have ugly consequences - violence abroad, strong (and rich) mafia groups in governments.
The correct thought process would be comparing abstract mechanisms. In abstract no consumable substance should be illegal, provided the buyer knows its contents and effects.
BTW, in abstract the right policy about weapons ownership would be opt out, not opt in, - mandatory mental examination of every adult citizen, but also mandatory weapons ownership for those who pass it! Perhaps except felons. With other exceptions being a process involving some justification being filed - as in pacifist views, religious reasons, bad atmosphere in family thus inability to keep it secure, something like that. It’s not about “good guy with a gun”, it’s about distributing real power. People who should own weapons are not the same people who want to own weapons generally. Thus mandatory.