Your third paragraph doesn't follow from the first two paragraphs. The first two paragraphs make the interesting conjecture that increased police corruption in Mexico lowers drug prices in the US. This is something potentially worth discussing.
The third paragraph asserts that legalizing drugs won't stop the violence, and that Mexican police aren't "doing their job." The first point contradicts the original article, and thus requires supporting evidence (e.g. quotations from the original article, followed by references to contradictory studies). The second point is simply unnecessarily accusatory, and is ignorant of the reality expressed by burgerbrain (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3228850).
Meta: you've commented (and I've responded) in this pattern before. You start with something that will be perceived as inflammatory by the typical HN crowd (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3172594), then follow up with a complaint about the votes you receive or the changing HN culture (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3172744). Maybe you're not trolling on purpose, but it sure looks like it.
As I said before (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3173159), you'd do a better job of conveying your message and be less likely to start a flame war if you restructured your arguments to be more appropriate to the audience -- present evidence, apply logical analysis, and draw a logical conclusion. State your assumptions (e.g. in this case if you believe that absolute societal order is more important than individual freedom, state up front that your argument depends on that). Most importantly, if you want others to change their minds, be willing to change yours if the argument goes the other way.
The third paragraph asserts that legalizing drugs won't stop the violence, and that Mexican police aren't "doing their job." The first point contradicts the original article, and thus requires supporting evidence (e.g. quotations from the original article, followed by references to contradictory studies). The second point is simply unnecessarily accusatory, and is ignorant of the reality expressed by burgerbrain (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3228850).
Meta: you've commented (and I've responded) in this pattern before. You start with something that will be perceived as inflammatory by the typical HN crowd (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3172594), then follow up with a complaint about the votes you receive or the changing HN culture (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3172744). Maybe you're not trolling on purpose, but it sure looks like it.
As I said before (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3173159), you'd do a better job of conveying your message and be less likely to start a flame war if you restructured your arguments to be more appropriate to the audience -- present evidence, apply logical analysis, and draw a logical conclusion. State your assumptions (e.g. in this case if you believe that absolute societal order is more important than individual freedom, state up front that your argument depends on that). Most importantly, if you want others to change their minds, be willing to change yours if the argument goes the other way.