How Much does the PN Head get paid?

[suarezn]

Principe: I understand your point and I think the answer as usual is somewhere in the middle. On the one hand The DR is benefiting greatly economically because of all the money flowing in or through the country as part of this business (Just look at all those gleaming towers) and on the other suffering tremendously because of the high increase in crime (proportional to the drug trade).

Honestly if I was Leonel I would make a deal with the large traffickers where they could use the country as a bridge (just as they are today) and the government would not put too much heat on them as long as they promise not to leave ANY of the drugs for local consumption and then if anyone does sell the drugs locally bring the hammer down big time.

 

[rubio_higuey]

Honestly if I was Leonel I would make a deal with the large traffickers where they could use the country as a bridge (just as they are today) and the government would not put too much heat on them as long as they promise not to leave ANY of the drugs for local consumption and then if anyone does sell the drugs locally bring the hammer down big time.

That's what Panama did. Noriega... Panama was not a production country, but state-sponsored transit country. It was also a safe haven for Colombian drug traffickers. Venezuela is also partially state-sponsoring drug trafficking (transit). The problem with such a proposal is two-fold:
I. Many times the middlemen get paid in "mercancia" - and many times they have no way t "route": it further on (e.g. USA/Europe) or it's too risky for them, so they sell it locally even though at cheaper prices.
II. If the DR government did not "put the heat on them" and they would have safe passage, a war would start for the control of such "safe passage routes". Look at Mexico. Mexico is a big transit country (they do not plant/cook/pack coca - they just are middlemen). The Mexican drug trafficking scene is much more violent than Colombia's (producer) one. Would we want that in the DR as well? --- the big money is not in selling the coke FOB in Colombia, but getting it CIF in the States...

 

[suarezn]

That's what Panama did. Noriega... Panama was not a production country, but state-sponsored transit country. It was also a safe haven for Colombian drug traffickers. Venezuela is also partially state-sponsoring drug trafficking (transit). The problem with such a proposal is two-fold:
I. Many times the middlemen get paid in "mercancia" - and many times they have no way t "route": it further on (e.g. USA/Europe) or it's too risky for them, so they sell it locally even though at cheaper prices.
II. Look at Mexico. Mexico is a big transit country (they do not plant/cook/pack coca - they just are middlemen). The Mexican drug trafficking scene is much more violent than Colombia's one. Would we want that in the DR as well?

It already IS what we have except that lot of it stays in The DR. Mexico is so violent right now because this government has decided to take a stand and fight them. As a matter of fact a lot of people in places like Tijuana and Juarez blame the government for inciting the fights and for most of the deaths.

 

[principe]

@Windeguy

The thing is striking a balance. I mean its upsetting to see the penetration of not drugs, the DR has been a transhipment point since the 80s perhaps earlier, but the domestic demand, the consumptions which was not there and now is.

And as Dominican, thats not cool man. On the other hand the benefits of the trade are tangible, visible and they have transformed Santo Domingo. Being a cash cleaner for narcos, at least doesnt look bad. In a way one could even argue that the underground economy which is suppoted by narcotrafficking is MORE DEMOCRATIC than our adaptation of the capitalist system.

Why? Well lets see, a bulk of the profit are obviously for his keep, but he also has right, left and middlemen. They all get a piece of the pie, they buy cars, clothes and luxury goods. They tip party at clubs, basically living the "lifestyle". Im not trying to glorify it, i mean your life is on the line in that business. At the same time they spit money into society.

So, yeah, its more democratic than the "drip down" system, which functions poorly in DR
Whats the minimun wage in DR, bs man. Living off of that is magic, to put it lightly.
Anywas, let me get off my soapbox. And yeah drugs are bad, but for DRs economy, right now in the words of someone else, "lets move with all deliberate speed".

 

[Mason3000]

I disagree. There is simply too much money to be made in the illegal drug trade. There will always be someone willing to step in and take the chance to make big money. Punishments happen in developed countries like the US. That has not stopped the flow of drugs and never will.

I'm talking about tryng to deter the Government and Military of the DR specifically, not drug trafficking in general. I agree that's a losing battle.

 

[Mason3000]

Riiiighhht....The DEA has a very high stake in keeping the drugs flowing, otherwise there's no reason for them to exist right? Many agents would lose their well paying jobs. Of course they will get some people here and there (Typically someone who has fallen out of grace for whatever reason) to give the impression they are actually doing something, but we all know they haven't put a dent on the drug trafficking business.

I'm not singing the praises of the US or the DEA, just stating a fact. When the DEA decides to target someone, they get them. It appears, they've targeted the Dominican Military/Govt and if that's true then they're going away in US prisons for a long, long time.

 

[Expat13]

It seems there is a consensus here regarding fighting the losing battle "war on drugs" its not going away. Also it seems obvious that it does create a financial influx into the economy-you can see this here, and a multitude of other countries.
Now the big question; if the control of the drug trade is no longer in the hands of the Government and military as suspected, and they go down. Who will succeed as the new Cartel, and will this be a better, safer option than what already exists?

 

[woofsback]

if the government don't take care of it the people will

like alcohol..
until the governments take it and control it and profit from it...
there will always be individuals who are going to do it.

there are still moonshiners and after-hour booze cans...
but nothing compared to the banned years

 

[Mason3000]

I know we're having two different conversations, but for clarity I'm not saying that jailing the guilty parties is gong to stop drug trafficking. I'm saying it's absurd that the Dominican Military & Government is actively involved in narco trafficking and whoever is involved needs to go down hard. Leave the drug trafficking to the bad guys.

 

[andy_089]

Can this be true???
Guzm?n Ferm?n y Rosado Mateo con apartamentos en Torre Atiemar

 

[Mariot]

That's what Panama did. Noriega... Panama was not a production country, but state-sponsored transit country. It was also a safe haven for Colombian drug traffickers. Venezuela is also partially state-sponsoring drug trafficking (transit). The problem with such a proposal is two-fold:
I. Many times the middlemen get paid in "mercancia" - and many times they have no way t "route": it further on (e.g. USA/Europe) or it's too risky for them, so they sell it locally even though at cheaper prices.
II. If the DR government did not "put the heat on them" and they would have safe passage, a war would start for the control of such "safe passage routes". Look at Mexico. Mexico is a big transit country (they do not plant/cook/pack coca - they just are middlemen). The Mexican drug trafficking scene is much more violent than Colombia's (producer) one. Would we want that in the DR as well? --- the big money is not in selling the coke FOB in Colombia, but getting it CIF in the States...

this is an interesting article on the causes of the increased violence in mexico:
The Real War in Mexico | Foreign Affairs
i read it in the magazine, but unfortunatly you have to buy it to read it online in its entirety. the author argues that violence started to rise once (former state party) pri dominance faded in mexico, and established agreements between local authorities and drug traders had to be "renegotiated".
it is not mentioned in the article, but in fact, before 9/11, president fox was seriously considering legalizing the drug trade, or at least reaching an agreement with the cartels, and leave them in peace. this was due to the fact that the drugs where largely sold to foreign countries, and not consumed in mexico. the thinking behind this was "why bother with drugs, when they are essentially a us problem, and we have enough issues to take care of on our own". reaching an agreement with the few cartel leaders, as had alledgedly existed under pri rule, would have had the benefit of keeping drugs and guns out of mexico, and control of the drug trade stable. but after 9/11 priorities of the us government changed, and things got out of hand when calderon initiated the "war on drugs" to regain attention from the united states. putting the heads of the cartels behind bars fractioned the organizations. the results are turf wars, never before seen violence, small gangs that start to sell drugs locally and the inflow of weapons at an all time high. mexico now has more problems with drugs than it had before, and essentially proved that its governments resources are no match for the narcos.

my point is, putting the head honchos behind bars will not solve anything, it will most likely worsen the problem. when those that control the drug trade in the dr are persecuted and get scared, they will resort to violence. when they go down, profits from trafficing will still remain huge, which means that people will want to succeed them. succession wars will break out, further increasing the violence. at best, those that are taken out of the game will be silently replaced by others. the author of the foreign affairs article suggests that strengthening democratization processes and the mexican middle class might be a solution. this could also work in the dr. but in my opinion, the strategic position of the dominican republic (just like mexico) in the international drug trade makes this problem extremely difficult to solve. legalization would drastically reduce the profits, but is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. and a more equal distribution of wealth would change the equation between the risks and benefits of participation in the drug game, reducing the number of people willing to put their life on the line. but given the economic situation of the dominican republic, and the history of oligarchy and corruption on the island, this is almost as unlikely to happen as legalization.

 

[Mason3000]

"putting the head honchos behind bars will not solve anything, it will most likely worsen the problem."

So, you're advocating that DR military and Government officials should be allowed to continue distributing drugs on the streets of the DR, as well as shipping to North America and Europe, even though it's illegal?

 

[Mason3000]

I see your point about destabilizing, etc. and it's valid.

The Government legalizing drugs is one thing (A good idea imho), but the Government receiving millions of dollars a year in foreign aid and god knows how much from the yearly DR budget to combat drug trafficking and then illegally smuggling it themselves is quite another. How can they prosecute people for drug trafficking if they're actively involved? The hypocrisy is preposterous.

 

[Lambada]

Look on the bright side: we appear to have one cartel which is government/military supported. Mexico has two powerful cartels & they fight it out with each other leading to increased violence for ordinary citizens. How much worse would it be here if there wasn't a monopoly? Probably, like parts of Mexico.

 

[mart1n]

The fix is so simple make drugs undesirable or dangerous. Like I posted before if you poisoned the shipments of drugs the profit would disappear and the drug cartels would have no customers. Would have no money for corruption. The only reason there is a problem is they have a market for their product without a market no money. How many innocent people are getting killed right now when their homes or businesses are being robbed to get money to buy drugs. So we lose a few thousand people that can't stop using drugs or will not seek help. Probably save a few thousand innocent people. Make drugs nonprofitable

 

[pedrochemical]

The fix is so simple make drugs undesirable or dangerous. Like I posted before if you poisoned the shipments of drugs the profit would disappear and the drug cartels would have no customers. Would have no money for corruption. The only reason there is a problem is they have a market for their product without a market no money. How many innocent people are getting killed right now when their homes or businesses are being robbed to get money to buy drugs. So we lose a few thousand people that can't stop using drugs or will not seek help. Probably save a few thousand innocent people. Make drugs nonprofitable

You would need the drugs in your possession to poison them. So to do this effectively you would need to intercept most of the drugs that are shipped. If you could do that there would not be a drug problem in the first place.

The reason drugs are so profitable are because of the enormous risk in shipping them. The main risk is that it is illegal - which de-facto puts it in the hands of criminals. If you took away the risk then you would reduce the profitability so the criminals would not be interested in the business.

Remember - drugs are not of themselves evil. The people who enjoy taking them are as a rule not evil people.

 

[mart1n]

Does not the D.R. and the US and Canada have a few tons that they already in their possession. They don't need to poison all just enough to make it a real gamble to use them.

 

[Mariot]

The fix is so simple make drugs undesirable or dangerous. Like I posted before if you poisoned the shipments of drugs the profit would disappear and the drug cartels would have no customers. Would have no money for corruption. The only reason there is a problem is they have a market for their product without a market no money. How many innocent people are getting killed right now when their homes or businesses are being robbed to get money to buy drugs. So we lose a few thousand people that can't stop using drugs or will not seek help. Probably save a few thousand innocent people. Make drugs nonprofitable

wrong. first of, drugs are poison, they are undesirable and dangerous, that is the reason why they are illegal. second, addicts don't care, most drug related death occur because of contaminated drugs. and have you seen people on heroin? becoming a zombie like that is worse than dying, and yet, people still buy that stuff. cocaine doesn't have the same effects, but it still ruins people, and people die using it. i have seen people smoke weed, which is not even highly addictive, that they knew was mixed with sand, sugar or hairspray, all toxic when burned. hell, there was even a case when somebody mixed marihuana with lead, and this did not alter the demand.
it would be much more helpfull to put all the money that is senselessly burned in the so called war on drugs into prevention programs.

 

[mart1n]

These [zombie] are still killing innocent people to get money for their next high. If a few thousand died in a short length of time. The next generation would thing differently. If you where thinking about starting and you knew it means sudden death you just might think again

 

[Hillbilly]

As for the original question in this thread, the Major General, P.N. Rafael Guillermos Guzman Fermin, stated that his SALARY was RD$197,000 a month!! and that his total assets are over 35 MILLION...gee, do you think ?????

HB