View Full Version : Mexican drug lords retaliate.
pjody187
12-24-2009, 11:44
I find this shocking and despicable. How do you combat such a enemy?
Mexican drug lords retaliate; kin of slain marine are killed
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MEXICO CITY — Assailants on Tuesday gunned down the mother, aunt and siblings of a marine killed in a raid that took out one of Mexico's most powerful cartel leaders — sending a chilling message to troops battling the drug war: You go after us; we wipe out your families.
The brazen pre-dawn slayings came just hours after the navy honored Melquisedet Angulo as a national hero at a memorial service.
"The message is very clear: It's to intimidate not only the government but its flesh and blood," said Jorge Chabat, a Mexican expert on drug cartels. "It's to intimidate those in the armed forces so they fear not only for their own lives, but the lives of their families."
Federal officials had warned that last week's killing of drug lord Arturo Beltran Leyva, known as the "boss of bosses," could provoke a violent backlash from smugglers, who have gone after federal police in the past after the arrest of high-ranking cartel members.
Beltran Leyva was among the most-wanted drug lords in Mexico and the United States, and he was the biggest trafficker taken down by President Felipe Calderón's administration so far. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials blamed his cartel for much of the bloodshed across Mexico.
Even so, the country was shocked by the brutal slayings of Angulo's family at its home just hours after the dead marine's mother, Irma Cordova, 55, attended his memorial service in Mexico City, where she received the Mexican flag covering his coffin.
His brother, Benito Angulo, 28; his sister, Jolidabey Angulo, 22; and his aunt, Josefa Angulo, 46, also were killed shortly after midnight when gunmen wielding assault rifles broke down the door of their home. His sister, Miraldeyi Angulo, 24, was reported in serious condition at a hospital.
The family's home, in southern Tabasco state, was littered with more than two dozen bullet casings.
Hit men linked to Beltran Leyva's cartel have a strong presence in Tabasco, a Gulf state bordering Guatemala, and were suspected of being behind the attack. State and federal forces searching for the assailants set up roadblocks across the state Tuesday.
The navy did not say whether it was taking special measures to protect marine families, including Angulo's two children, ages 16 months and 3 years. Authorities did not say where they or their mother were when their relatives were slain.
Calderón called the attack "a cowardly act" and vowed to press forward in his war involving more than 45,000 troops.
"We will not be intimidated by criminals without scruples like those who committed this barbarity," he said Tuesday. "Those who act like this deserve the unanimous repudiation of society, and they must pay for their crime."
While the armed forces have led Calderón's crackdown against organized crime that has seen more than 15,000 people killed by drug violence since it began in 2006, direct attacks by cartels on troops are rare, especially for marines, who only recently started playing a major role in the drug war.
Most of the killings have been among rival smugglers, according to the federal government. Hundreds of local, state and federal police also have been slain, but only a handful of soldiers have died at the hands of traffickers.
Angulo, 30, was the only marine killed in last Wednesday's raid that sparked a nearly two-hour shootout at an apartment complex in the colonial city of Cuernavaca, south of Mexico City. Two other marines were wounded.
Angulo was also the only marine whose identity was made public of the more than 60 who took part in the operation, which also left six other gunmen dead in addition to Beltran Leyva.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/322404
Sadly, Mexico has reached a level of chaos and can only be characterized as a failed state.
Options:
1 - Send in the Texas Rangers to prop up the Mexican LE / criminal justice system.
2 - Decapitate the cartels by other means.
Either way, annexation with enforcement / deterrent by US security forces.
That's my New Year's prediction for 2011. :D
Ambush Master
01-02-2010, 16:35
I find this shocking and despicable. How do you combat such a enemy?
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/322404
Simple, YOU KILL THEM!!! Don't waste our Treasure, Time, or our People attempting to "Prosecute" them, they're laughing at the way we "Play all PC and Fair"!!! There's NO Justice like HOT Justice!!! Just SMOKE'EM!!! Poof Soot, all gone!!!
Take care.
Martin
Right on AM!
No reason for more nation building. Other countries are more than capable of building their own representative governments.
Outside the US, kill or capture serious bad guys. Kind of like what happened to Manuel Noriega, or Pablo Escobar, or Zarqawi. Inside the US, due process. Isn't that the difference between offensive and defensive US national security?
I'm guessing the deterrent effect would not be underestimated.
mojaveman
01-02-2010, 17:10
Back in the 70s and 80s British SAS operators would shoot identified IRA terrorists on site with no warning or attempt to apprehend whatsoever. Those cartel members in Mexico became something worse than simple narcotics smugglers a long time ago.
pjody187
01-02-2010, 18:44
Agree with you both AM and mojaveman. Kill the all, from the lowest dealer to the jefe. Thats really the only answer that I can think of. I'd think it's not hard to pick out who's a narco since I've read that they drive around in convoys armed almost as well as some PMC's in Baghdad.
armymom1228
01-02-2010, 20:03
It all reminds me of Columbia in the 90's. When they were removed, the Mexicans took over from them. I have to wonder who is waiting in the wings to take over from the Mexicans?
The Columbians retaliated in the same manner as the Mexicans are doing. I think I remember they called it, "pulling the root".
That said, remove the drug cartel heads, and all personell, by any means available.
AM
Ambush Master
01-02-2010, 20:31
:munchinIt all reminds me of Columbia in the 90's. When they were removed, the Mexicans took over from them. I have to wonder who is waiting in the wings to take over from the Mexicans?
The Columbians retaliated in the same manner as the Mexicans are doing. I think I remember they called it, "pulling the root".
That said, remove the drug cartel heads, and all personell, by any means available.
AM
Before NDD jumps in here with both of his feet!!!! Exactly where is this Columbia that you speak of?!?!?!:munchin
Right on AM!
No reason for more nation building. Other countries are more than capable of building their own representative governments.
Outside the US, kill or capture serious bad guys. Kind of like what happened to Manuel Noriega, or Pablo Escobar, or Zarqawi. Inside the US, due process. Isn't that the difference between offensive and defensive US national security?
I'm guessing the deterrent effect would not be underestimated.
Why must we limit our activities to just outside the US? Seems wrong is still wrong, despite an unseen line drawn in the dirt. If the govt., either one, US or Mexico can't or won't fix, then it must be the 'good' citizens of both countries to route out the cartels.
If we make the business landscape so terrible for them to do business, then they will take their business elsewhere.
armymom1228
01-02-2010, 21:30
:munchin
Before NDD jumps in here with both of his feet!!!! Exactly where is this Columbia that you speak of?!?!?!:munchin
My apologies, my brain is not working on all cylinders tongiht.
I was refering to news media early 90's, and friends who lived in Columbia at the time.The stuff they were telling via letters and phone calls. I was living in Miami during a lot of the drug crap that was going on there, late 80s early 1990's.
It seemed like the killings were almost daily at one point.
I clearly remember the local papers called the 'family killings' directly realated to the Columbian Drug business and that the Drug Cartels called killing family members 'pulling the root', whatever that meant to them. I thought it was horrible. That was when I decided to move away from Miami. It was not even safe to drive the interstate anymore. That is what I was refering to..
I got a migraine, brain is sorta kinda fubar'd on cafergot. to bad there is not a smily of me sticking my foot in my mouth..:o
Ambush Master
01-02-2010, 21:36
My apologies, my brain is not working on all cylinders tongiht.
I was refering to news media early 90's, and friends who lived in Columbia at the time.The stuff they were telling via letters and phone calls. I was living in Miami during a lot of the drug crap that was going on there, late 80s early 1990's.
It seemed like the killings were almost daily at one point.
I clearly remember the local papers called the 'family killings' directly realated to the Columbian Drug business and that the Drug Cartels called killing family members 'pulling the root', whatever that meant to them. I thought it was horrible. That was when I decided to move away from Miami. It was not even safe to drive the interstate anymore. That is what I was refering to..
I got a migraine, brain is sorta kinda fubar'd on cafergot. to bad there is not a smily of me sticking my foot in my mouth..:o
My point is, do you really mean Columbia (as in the university) or Colombia as in the country?!?!?!:munchin
armymom1228
01-02-2010, 21:42
My point is, do you really mean Columbia (as in the university) or Colombia as in the country!!!!!:munchin
OH crap... the country. I am going to go hide under a rock now. Spell check did not catch that. :D :rolleyes:
Ambush Master
01-02-2010, 21:45
OH crap... the country. I am going to go hide under a rock now. Spell check did not catch that. :D :rolleyes:
We can, and WILL, pick the fly-shit out of the pepper!!!:D:munchin
Remember whose minefield you are attempting to run through!!
armymom1228
01-02-2010, 21:48
We can, and WILL, pick the fly-shit out of the pepper!!!:D:munchin
I deserved that!:D _I_ should have caught that mistake.
Why must we limit our activities to just outside the US? Seems wrong is still wrong, despite an unseen line drawn in the dirt. If the govt., either one, US or Mexico can't or won't fix, then it must be the 'good' citizens of both countries to route out the cartels.
Let's see if I can navigate the QP minefield.
With respect wet dog, wrong is still wrong as you say, but the US Constitution protects US citizens in the US. I'm OK with manhunting sans borders. Can capture but need due process for Amcits within the US. Otherwise we become a security state or lawless wild, wild west.
That said, the jig is up with transnational syndicates including AQ and narco-terror HVTs who exploit the gaps in LE and governance to do their nasty work.
Now I gotta go check my pepper mill.
ZonieDiver
01-02-2010, 23:31
Were it not for the demand for drugs created in the good old USA, Mexico and Colombia, et al would not have the problems they have. For us to think up "hard core" scenarios to solve the problem there when we refuse to deal with OUR problem here is the real problem... IMHO.
rltipton
01-02-2010, 23:54
Were it not for the demand for drugs created in the good old USA, Mexico and Colombia, et al would not have the problems they have. For us to think up "hard core" scenarios to solve the problem there when we refuse to deal with OUR problem here is the real problem... IMHO.
One prime example of this comes to mind right away...
mojaveman
01-03-2010, 01:15
I learned once that certian American chemical companies make money from the Colombian drug trade because their chemicals are used to process the cocaine that eventually makes it's way here.
Crazy World isn't it?
..., but the US Constitution protects US citizens in the US. I'm OK with manhunting sans borders. Can capture but need due process for Amcits within the US. Otherwise we become a security state or lawless wild, wild west.
That said, the jig is up with transnational syndicates including AQ and narco-terror HVTs who exploit the gaps in LE and governance to do their nasty work.
Now I gotta go check my pepper mill.
And what if the US Constitution ceases to protect US citizens? LE does not prevent crime, LE reports crime. LE is effective as a deterrent as long as citizens respect the law, criminals tend not too.
And what about the 'wild west'? Civil authority was in the hands of civil citizens. Criminals feared armed citizens much more than US Marshals. A rope and a tall tree was the biggest deterrent of all.
WD
p.s., I am welcoming debate.
I was told once that executives at DOW Chemical make a tremendous amount of money from the Columbian drug trade because their chemicals are used to process the cocaine that eventually makes it's way here.
Crazy World isn't it?
DOW Chemical is a publicly traded company, share holders receive the reward for stock performance. Executive are bonus'd by stock performance. It is legal, but is it right? How do you balance a company who does many other wonderful things with chemical development against those who use certain chemicals to process drugs. You can not hold DOW responsible for illegal drugs any more than you can blame a gun manufacturer for homicides for #2 pencils for illiteracy.
(from Wet Dog) Why must we limit our activities to just outside the US? Seems wrong is still wrong, despite an unseen line drawn in the dirt. If the govt., either one, US or Mexico can't or won't fix, then it must be the 'good' citizens of both countries to route out the cartels.
If we make the business landscape so terrible for them to do business, then they will take their business elsewhere.
Concur completely with Wet Dog. W/o desecrating our Constitution it is time for citizens of civilization to stop the insanity against the innocents. The foul digits must be cut off. The charter of civilization allows nothing less. Find them, verify their deeds, then summarily remove them.
As for what waits in the wings look to the drug cartel organization in Afghanistan. Now look to the growth of Islam in Central America, esp in the Tabasco and Chiapas regions. It's not waiting anymore.
IMHO anyways.
The Reaper
01-03-2010, 10:01
I was told once that executives at DOW Chemical make a tremendous amount of money from the Columbian drug trade because their chemicals are used to process the cocaine that eventually makes it's way here.
Crazy World isn't it?
I find this very hard to believe.
The production of cocaine that I have seen did not use too many pharmaceutical or high-grade chemicals. Total annual cocaine HCL production for the entire planet usually hovers around 700 tons, IIRC. That would be a drop in the bucket for Dow in terms of scale.
TR
DOW is a big company... lets blame them anyway.
Pres. Bush caused Katrina, DOW chemicals causes drug addiction.
Rich people are bad...
Were it not for the demand for drugs created in the good old USA, Mexico and Colombia, et al would not have the problems they have. For us to think up "hard core" scenarios to solve the problem there when we refuse to deal with OUR problem here is the real problem... IMHO.
This is the long and the short of the issue.
My question is, if we were to go downrange and start just killing guys that we think are involved in the drug trade don't we just become a really big cartel with nukes?
Peregrino
01-03-2010, 11:08
Legalize it or start summary executions. The middle ground is an untenable "status quo" where the current prohibition mentality creates money and power for very unsavory characters and people of weak character are exploited like the sheep they are. Illegal drugs corrupt everybody they touch - on both sides of the law. How long before we get another generation of Kennedys financed by drug money this time?
mojaveman
01-03-2010, 11:30
DOW Chemical is a publicly traded company, share holders receive the reward for stock performance. Executive are bonus'd by stock performance. It is legal, but is it right? How do you balance a company who does many other wonderful things with chemical development against those who use certain chemicals to process drugs. You can not hold DOW responsible for illegal drugs any more than you can blame a gun manufacturer for homicides for #2 pencils for illiteracy.
I wasn't trying to finger anyone but just trying to shed some light on an enormous and complicated problem. European chemical companies do the same thing. They don't sell directly to the producers of cocaine, they sell to third party buyers and the chemicals eventually make their way to South America. It's true. Perhaps the entire business could be regulated better than it already is.
mojaveman
01-03-2010, 12:03
I find this very hard to believe.
The production of cocaine that I have seen did not use too many pharmaceutical or high-grade chemicals. Total annual cocaine HCL production for the entire planet usually hovers around 700 tons, IIRC. That would be a drop in the bucket for Dow in terms of scale.
TR
It was enlightening to me when I heard it. I have a close relative who is a narcotics agent here in the Golden State and deals with the problem intimately. Chemicals are also used by the Mexican Mafia who are probably the Worlds largest producer of Methamphetamine.
Peregrino
01-03-2010, 12:10
We've been regulating precursor chemicals in the cocaine producing regions since the begining. I worked source interdiction in the 80's, other members here are still involved in the charade. The chemicals are legal, have legitimate industrial uses, etc., etc. And you can find the production sites by following the pollution upstream to the source, usually a clandestine :rolleyes: lab surrounded by piles of rotting waste and empty 55 gal chemical drums. In Bolivia, the chemicals used to be smuggled/diverted from Brazil by the commercial truck load. (One of the unintended consequences of the road building programs to "open up" the undeveloped interior of the respective countries.) Until we remove the incentive (US consumption and the money derived from it) producers will find a way to satisfy demand. It's basic capitalism - cost/benefit analysis. Increase the risk and/or reduce the profit and the problem changes too. Unfortunately, Mexico's violence problem is hostage to our inability to deal with the consumption demand. Given the current administration (and the overall ineffective actions of previous administrations) I don't see any changes coming down the pipe. The violence will get worse until honest people have had enough or WE address the root causes. Legalize the crap and treat it like alcohol. (And yes - I'm personally familiar with the destruction drugs do. You can't save the world; you can't even save a lot of the individuals who've immersed themselves in the poison. Cut the losses and move on!) My .02
mojaveman
01-03-2010, 12:52
We've been regulating precursor chemicals in the cocaine producing regions since the begining. I worked source interdiction in the 80's, other members here are still involved in the charade. The chemicals are legal, have legitimate industrial uses, etc., etc. And you can find the production sites by following the pollution upstream to the source, usually a clandestine :rolleyes: lab surrounded by piles of rotting waste and empty 55 gal chemical drums. In Bolivia, the chemicals used to be smuggled/diverted from Brazil by the commercial truck load. (One of the unintended consequences of the road building programs to "open up" the undeveloped interior of the respective countries.) Until we remove the incentive (US consumption and the money derived from it) producers will find a way to satisfy demand. It's basic capitalism - cost/benefit analysis. Increase the risk and/or reduce the profit and the problem changes too. Unfortunately, Mexico's violence problem is hostage to our inability to deal with the consumption demand. Given the current administration (and the overall ineffective actions of previous administrations) I don't see any changes coming down the pipe. The violence will get worse until honest people have had enough or WE address the root causes. Legalize the crap and treat it like alcohol. (And yes - I'm personally familiar with the destruction drugs do. You can't save the world; you can't even save a lot of the individuals who've immersed themselves in the poison. Cut the losses and move on!) My .02
I agree.
Look at the war on drugs and how effective it is. If I am correct we intercept less than 5% of what comes across the borders yet it costs us billions of dollars to maintain. I don't use drugs but sometimes ponder how much revenue could be generated by legalizing and taxing them.
Legalize it or start summary executions. The middle ground is an untenable "status quo" ........
Legalize Drugs - and then tax them like tabacco products.
A private company can still prohibit drug use if it likes, as some do with drinking and smoking.
The War on Drugs has failed and it's now causing more crime than it's worth.
Just my opinion.
Pete
Defender968
01-03-2010, 14:09
Legalize Drugs - and then tax them like tabacco products.
A private company can still prohibit drug use if it likes, as some do with drinking and smoking.
The War on Drugs has failed and it's now causing more crime than it's worth.
Just my opinion.
Pete
I would concur on marijuana, but not on cocaine, crack, or meth. There are plenty of functional marijuana users, a few functional cocaine addicts, but I have yet to meet a functional meth or crack head, to me those are what we should be focused on. Legalize dope then tax and regulate the hell out of it, use those taxes to fund the fight against the others.
Just my .02
GratefulCitizen
01-03-2010, 18:32
I would concur on marijuana, but not on cocaine, crack, or meth. There are plenty of functional marijuana users, a few functional cocaine addicts, but I have yet to meet a functional meth or crack head, to me those are what we should be focused on. Legalize dope then tax and regulate the hell out of it, use those taxes to fund the fight against the others.
Just my .02
The problem is enabling/enablers.
Legalize it, let the addicts deal with their own problems.
We will never be able to solve the drug problem in this country until people are allowed to reap what they sow.
People should not be protected from the natural consequences of their actions.
Socialized medicine/socialism in general is the worst type of enabling.
Consequences for substance abusing individuals would be greatly reduced/mitigated.
If the nation goes down this path, we will reap what we have sown.
And what if the US Constitution ceases to protect protect US citizens? LE does not prevent crime, LE reports crime. LE is effective as a deterrent as long as citizens respect the law, criminals tend not too.
And what about the 'wild west'? Civil authority was in the hands of civil citizens. Criminals feared armed citizens much more than US Marshals. A rope and a tall tree was the biggest deterrent of all.
WD
p.s., I am welcoming debate.
WD, thanks for your welcome.
Here's the deal. We have a failed state - a narco state - on our border. It is a threat to national security, a clear and present danger. (Just like the movie!)
We must target and execute operations with the intent of deterring the threat. That will get the attention of transnational narco-terrorists. They will learn to respect the law if it is enforced or they will be annihilated. Eventually they will acquiesce.
We've come a long way since the rough justice of a rope and tall tree for US citizens within the US. Except in extreme cases, the public does not support vigilantes so there is a lack of legitimacy. As imperfectly as it may sometimes be interpreted or enforced, the Constitution still protects due process.
I think LE prevents crime and works over time with the community as an effective deterrent. But in the case of Mexico, the threat requires a national security response.
In the meantime, as others have said, de-criminalize drug use. That is the surest way to decrease the revenue stream to narco kingpins and their illicit networks.
I agree that the 'war on drugs' is a failure...
...I also believe however that the war on drugs was never truly fought with any zeal whatsoever. Far too much concern placed on the 'rights' of the criminal, far too much concern placed on social sensitivities, far too much hype placed on programs like JTF-6, not enough effort placed on objectives.
Its become little more than an academic discussion of a problem with no clear solution.
Just my two cents...
I agree that the 'war on drugs' is a failure...
which only makes the deaths of my friends who have died fighting the so-called "war on drugs", even that much more of a pill to swallow. Circa, 1989-1992. I take some pleasure that we put a sting on the bad guys, but it's of little comfort.
dr. mabuse
01-03-2010, 22:52
Well, Carlos Hathcock ( yes that Carlos ) gave me the vague impression (!) that the Phoenix Program was effective. But what the hell does he know.:rolleyes:
RIP Carl.
To attempt to equate the U.S. in any way with a drug cartel is, um, interesting.:rolleyes:
There are plenty of people that don't do drugs or try harder drugs because of possible legal ramifications. Seen and heard this for a long, long, long time.
As for marji smokers that are functional(?), anyone I know, or know of, that is/was a regular/heavy user that is now around my age, has the fuzzy focus of a 4 yo at Disneyland.
Test me on this. Ask them to calculate 33 times 7 in their head, and watch the fun. :p
I know, someone out there is now going to say they know a rocket scientist that's a heavy pot user that can work dynamics equations in their sleep.
Right:rolleyes:
Well, Carlos Hathcock ( yes that Carlos ) gave me the vague impression (!) that the Phoenix Program was effective. But what the hell does he know.:rolleyes:
RIP Carl.
To attempt to equate the U.S. in any way with a drug cartel is, um, interesting.:rolleyes:
There are plenty of people that don't do drugs or try harder drugs because of possible legal ramifications. Seen and heard this for a long, long, long time.
As for marji smokers that are functional(?), anyone I know, or know of, that is/was a regular/heavy user that is now around my age, has the fuzzy focus of a 4 yo at Disneyland.
Test me on this. Ask them to calculate 33 times 7 in their head, and watch the fun. :p
I know, someone out there is now going to say they know a rocket scientist that's a heavy pot user that can work dynamics equations in their sleep.
Right:rolleyes:
I was in the Cell Tower construction industry for awhile, and I can tell you this...
I'll trust a drunk over a pot head, for one simply reason, a drunk can not fake accute reflexes, while I can not trust a pot head to think rationally.
I had a guy, who occasionally showed up for work, not quite together or ready to work. I simply said, "...clock out, go sleep in the truck". A pot head, you never know what you're getting, espically at 120' above the ground holding my life in his hands.
Power tools, cutting torches, steel structure, cranes hold ton(s) of iron and my soft flesh do not mix well.
WD
The elephant in the room remains...if you legalize drugs, tax it, use the money to fight the others, etc the violence related to DRUGS will probably go down, but the criminal scum that are killing innocents will remain. IMHO, the murderers of innocent human beings need to be removed from civilization. Period.
99meters
01-04-2010, 03:43
Tabacco may kill the user (great put a heavy tax on it). Alcohol may also kill its user. Hovever, many times innocent people go along for the ride....... domestic violence, DWIs. Actually that's not true...most times the drunk idiot lives. Leagalizing drugs would result in the deaths of a lot more "innocent people".
Tabacco may kill the user (great put a heavy tax on it). Alcohol may also kill its user. Hovever, many times innocent people go along for the ride....... domestic violence, DWIs. Actually that's not true...most times the drunk idiot lives. Leagalizing drugs would result in the deaths of a lot more "innocent people".
Drugs and alcohol cause domestic violence like guns cause murder.
Life is like a grapefruit - it is colorful and squishy and has a few pips in it...and some ffolkes have half a one for breakfast.
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
99meters
01-04-2010, 08:56
Drugs and alcohol cause domestic violence like guns cause murder.
I would guess there is a good reason guns are prohibited in places that serve alcohol. Guns are cool, I like guns. Guns on an unstable person with liquid courage flowing through his blood is not cool.
Hard drugs are not anything like pot, tabacco or alcohol. People who are hooked on these drugs are willing to do things your average drunk or pot-head would not even consider. Heavy taxes would not be a problem for this new legion of crackheads that leagalizing drugs would create. More than likely they would be paying with money belonging to the non-drug users (innocent people).
Drugs and alcohol cause domestic violence like guns cause murder.
Yep. The individual make the decision to smoke crack, drink in excess or pull the trigger or throw that punch. You can make all the laws you want and people will still make the decision to locate and consume drugs, alcohol, guns and they will still beat their wives.
It's all about your decisions, personal responsibility and self control. Laws cannot control that, only you can.
The elephant in the room remains...if you legalize drugs, tax it, use the money to fight the others, etc the violence related to DRUGS will probably go down, but the criminal scum that are killing innocents will remain. IMHO, the murderers of innocent human beings need to be removed from civilization. Period.
IMHO....Even with legalized drugs, you would still have the Black Market and folks willing to kill for a market share or a fix.
The Reaper
01-04-2010, 10:11
I would guess there is a good reason guns are prohibited in places that serve alcohol. Guns are cool, I like guns. Guns on an unstable person with liquid courage flowing through his blood is not cool.
Hard drugs are not anything like pot, tabacco or alcohol. People who are hooked on these drugs are willing to do things your average drunk or pot-head would not even consider. Heavy taxes would not be a problem for this new legion of crackheads that leagalizing drugs would create. More than likely they would be paying with money belonging to the non-drug users (innocent people).
Denying people the right to carry in places, based on keeping the lawbreakers from doing likewise, is a bit like locking the barn after the horse is out.
I think restricting the rights of law-abiders in hopes that those who shouldn't drink and carry, won't drink and carry, is a bad trade-off.
There have been cries that changing the laws in many states to allow carry in places that serve alcohol would lead to drunken shootouts by CCW holders (the same argument they used to deny CCWs in the first place). These arguments have not proven to be true.
Please provide me the details of any CCW holders who carried into a place serving alcohol, imbibed, and misused their weapons.
Do we stop drunk driving by banning drivers from businesses that serve alcohol?
TR
The only reason the Mexican drug lords have so much money/power is because Americans are buying their drugs. I think that those inclined to take illegal substances will always find a way to get their hands on what they want. I also wonder how much of the "sexy factor" comes into play with people who think it's exciting to participate in something that is considered taboo. Of course that isn't such a great idea with highly addictive substances, but I doubt that red flag pops up in the head of the average addict.
I live on the Navajo Reservation, and have lived here off and on since '88. Alcohol is illegal here on the 'rez, which I think is a perfect example of "good initiative, bad judgment" in relation to the topic of legalizing drugs. In an effort to prevent the abuse of alcohol on the 'rez, the Navajo Nation does not allow the possession, use or sale of alcohol on its land. A very noble endeavor, but us humans always find a way to get what we want. Some folks simply do their drinking off of the 'rez, and/or (typically and) bring some liquor back with them. The hardcore alcoholics end up becoming "glaanis" (beggars/bums), asking for money outside of shops and using the cash to buy booze (or hairspray if they can't afford the real stuff).
Then there are the bootleggers. One of my friend's dads has a small booklet FULL of contact info for bootleggers, and the info is just for that town! Of course they double/triple the prices for the booze, since they are providing it as a convenience. The nearest towns off the 'rez can be over a 3-hour drive depending on where you live.
There is also the fact that the bootleggers don't care who they sell to. They will sell to anyone, at any age. I remember going with my friends to pick up some Garden Deluxe from a bootlegger when we were in 6th grade. I had to hide in the bushes while they went up to the house, since the presence of a "bilagaana" (anglo) kid would probably make the bootleggers a bit uncomfortable. A few minutes later my friends returned with the booze, and off we went into the desert on our BMX bikes.
I'm not saying legalizing alcohol would prevent abuse on the 'rez. However, it's apparently difficult to address a problem that isn't supposed to exist since it's illegal. How many officials would be willing to approve some sort of alcoholics anonymous type of program when alcohol is illegal? I would much rather have legalized alcohol so there are controls in place to make it harder for minors to get booze, so they can tax it and educate the public on alcohol abuse (maybe throw a little $$ to the schools to improve overall education, too), and of course have one less opportunity for bad people to do bad things.
I understand why people want drugs to remain illegal: they turn people into addicts and ruin lives. I also understand the government's reluctance to legalize drugs, as I doubt it would take long for a parent to sue for "making" their child an addict. But personally I would rather have to deal with one idiot trying to break into my home looking for things to steal so he can get his next fix than a squad of assassins pulling up next to my vehicle with high-caliber weapons because I said hi to one of their ex-girlfriends.
dr. mabuse
01-04-2010, 17:02
TR, with all due respect, it doesn't happen often, yet it does happen. One of my former students had a "stupidity spasm" outside of Marfa about a year ago.
It appears he had a temper anyway and he was drinking ( already legal in Texas ).
He started a verbal argument ( a no-no when carrying ) with a Hell's Angels wannabe.
He escalated the verbal argument ( a no-no when carrying ) and took it outside to the parking lot.
He got into the guy's face and sliipped out his Keltec 32, slipped it upder the guy's chin and set it off, killing the biker ( another no-no). Killed someone on verbal provacation alone.
Although it doesn't happen often and there is no bloodbath, some folks that get a CHL that are already marginal in the impulse control department get extra stupid after drinking, even a little.
They figure they'll display the gun just to shut someone up and then an accident happens.
The legal counsel at DPS ( the actual person that appears in court to take away your license ) said that over half of the total CHL revocations are alcohol related in some fashion. Those statistics are imbedded in other crimes lsited on the DPS website.
Still legal to drink and carry in Texas, yet I'm just sayin'... :munchin
If you need more details, I can dig around at the academy this weekend for info or ask the constable about it since he went to the hearing for this guy.
99meters
01-04-2010, 22:17
Denying people the right to carry in places, based on keeping the lawbreakers from doing likewise, is a bit like locking the barn after the horse is out.
I think restricting the rights of law-abiders in hopes that those who shouldn't drink and carry, won't drink and carry, is a bad trade-off.
There have been cries that changing the laws in many states to allow carry in places that serve alcohol would lead to drunken shootouts by CCW holders (the same argument they used to deny CCWs in the first place). These arguments have not proven to be true.
Please provide me the details of any CCW holders who carried into a place serving alcohol, imbibed, and misused their weapons.
Do we stop drunk driving by banning drivers from businesses that serve alcohol?
TR
TR, I have no official stats to offer, I'm just giving my opinions.
I work the night shift on my job and usually eat my lunch between 2:00am and 3:00am. My buddies and I can eat for free at at one restaurant and get 1/2 price at another. Both restaurants are located next to a club that closes at 2:00. Every so often we earn our free meal by breaking up fights between drunk a$$holes that feel the need impress their dates (the owners know that we understand why they offer that special). The funny thing is, alcohol is a downer. Just imagine what it would be like, if instead of a long island ice-tea these idiots had a hit of cocaine or crack; all in the name of having fun and blowing off some steam.
I stole my first cigarette from my grandfather when I was approximately 8 years old. I lit that baby up and took the biggest pull. I believe my throat burned far at least 1hour and I coughed for about 2hours. That was my last cigarette. I stole my first shot of rum from my father's abandoned glass when I was 5 or 6 yrs old. That burn like hell also, however, I've tried that again.
If drugs became legal people will have them in their homes. You may keep yours locked up, but the parents of your child's best friend may not. And there is always the older cousin or friend that is willing to buy for the under-aged (it makes them cool). A lot of kids like me, had there first drink in a safe and secure place (their home or a friends home). Luckly for me tabacco and alcohol are not highly addictive. I would have hated to be an alcoholic before I had hair on my ......
Two of my buddies who were cops in local school districts said the #1 type of drug they would take off of kids were "legal"prescription drugs.
No good can come from making drugs legal.
...... You may keep yours locked up, but the parents of your child's best friend may not. And there is always the older cousin or friend that is willing to buy for the under-aged (it makes them cool).....
Talked with your kids lately?
Drugs can be found right now in the nicest schools and at the homes of some of the nicest parents - even though it's illegal.
99meters
01-05-2010, 12:14
Talked with your kids lately?
Yes. I see him almost every morning before he leaves for school and I'm there every afternoon he gets home from school. Being there (to talk) for him is the reason I work the night shift. I get your point, but I don't believe good parenting would fix the problems legalizing drugs would bring about.
If something has the potential to be abused, humans will abuse it. Making it more accessible is simply going to lead to more abuse. We only need to look at our current economy for an example (credit abuse). The innocent (tax payers) are now going to pay the price. If drugs are leagalized, soon after we will be setting aside bail out money to help idiots recover.
Again, my only point is this.... if drugs are made legal a lot of innocent people will get hurt. I can see job security for me, but I'll be afraid for the wife and child. About two months ago I helped out with a scene where a 28 year old doctor was shot twice in the back and once in the neck by a "functional" drug addict. The addict may not be a violent person, but drugs can make you do some stupid sh#t.
Why would anyone want to live in a world with more crackheads is beyond me.
Why would anyone want to live in a world with more crackheads is beyond me.
Sir, we live in that world now, whoever wants drugs gets them.
As it is now the narco-terrorists and cartels are getting rich beyond reason and this is feeding a criminal network that we can not defeat.
craigepo
01-05-2010, 23:13
When I first took the bench, in a very rural county, I was arraigning 4-5 people per week who were "tweaking"(under the influence of meth) while I was informing them of the charges against them. I estimate that close to 1/3 of the families in the county were harmed by methamphetamine in some form or fashion. Luckily, the law putting pseudoephedrine greatly reduced that number.
When we talk about "legalizing drugs", we need to understand the distinction of the effect of each drug we discuss. For example, if a person's normal seratonin level is zero, at the moment of sexual climax it would be 50. Now, a person on cocaine achieves a seratonin level of 300. Want to guess what the level is for a person on meth? 1000. Stated differently, a person who gets high on meth for the first time feels 1000 times better than his/her first sexual climax.
These seratonin levels are of immense importance when discussing legalization. Legalizing tobacco and alcohol, no doubt chemicals that cause harm to the human body, gives easy access by the citizenry to substances that cause addiction over a (somewhat) long period of time. On the contrary, methamphetamine, for all intents and purposes, causes an addict at first use. And why not? Hell, the user feels 1000x better than the best orgasm he/she ever had. Of course, everybody has enough knowledge of drug addicts to realize the hazards upon the occurance of such addiction.
While I heartily concur that the war on drugs has not went well, I cannot agree with the proposition that we should legalize drugs. Meth, coke, heroin, etc, being available for sale on a store shelf, is simply more than this country, or its citizens, can handle. I would hate to guess how many children I have put into foster care, terminated parental rights, etc., because the parents are addicts. What would that number be if crackhead mom and dad could just run to the local pharmacy to buy drugs, instead of having to find a pusher somewhere on the bad side of town? Moreover, while we say that addicts should have to fend for themselves vis-a-vis medical care, the reality is that those folks will go into emergency rooms, and will be given medical treatment at taxpayer expense.
I further agree that the war on drugs has been expensive. However, as our country ages, I suggest that we really examine what we want to spend our tax money on. As we all know, within the last year, the federal government has spent a lot of money on TARP, bailouts, and is looking to spend even more money on health care. Maybe the old idea of a government that merely kept its citizenry safe and just, as well as promoting commerce was a better idea. Imagine where the drug war would be if just 10% of the federal paychecks now sent to DC bureaucrats were instead paid to narcotics agents. No doubt the drug war would still go on, but we would have something to show for our tax money expenditures. But, my conservatism rant will have to wait.
craigiepooh
Dozer523
01-06-2010, 07:08
Now, a person on cocaine achieves a seratonin level of 300. Want to guess what the level is for a person on meth? 1000. Stated differently, a person who gets high on meth for the first time feels 1000 times better than his/her first sexual climax.
craigiepooh I have been exposed to the anti-drug campaign almost all my life and this is the first time I ever actually was told what the big deal about "high" is. Still glad I don't do that crap, but can now see why some do. Great post, Your Honor.
For example, if a person's normal seratonin level is zero, at the moment of sexual climax it would be 50. Now, a person on cocaine achieves a seratonin level of 300. Want to guess what the level is for a person on meth? 1000. Stated differently, a person who gets high on meth for the first time feels 1000 times better than his/her first sexual climax.
Actually - 20 times better - unless you're using the same charts I think Congress uses in determining what we can or cannot afford as a nation - but however you figure it, meth is still a hell of a boost. However, I think I'll just stick with sex. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Eeban Barlow makes the point that the cartels have expanded to east Africa. (Sort of a reverse "Middle Passage" from the triangular slave trade route.) While the US gorges itself on substances and debates non-sensical internal policies, the narcos and the Ts are daring and adaptive as they expand their capabilities and their reach. Cunning, lethal global guerrillas right out our back door.
"The west coast of Africa is increasingly becoming a hub for the illegal drugs trade and trafficking from especially South America. What was once known as the Gold Coast is rapidly becoming known the Coke Coast. If no action is taken, this volatile area may soon become a focal point from which not only increased drug trafficking is launched into Europe, but very possibly narco-terrorism. But, the longer this serious issue is ignored, the more time the narco-terrorists are given to entrench themselves and their followers, build their networks and wreak havoc. But this volatile area in Africa is also starting to produce its own drugs – the implications can be imagined. Likewise, East Africa is also becoming a hub for narco-terrorism.
Despite the noises made about narco-terrorism, it is unlikely that much real effort will go into stopping this very lucrative and dangerous criminal endeavour. Where efforts are made, they fall far short of denting the narco networks. Throwing money at a problem will not make it go away. Only a decent aggressive strategy will do that."
http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/narco-terrorism-can-be-stopped.html
6.8SPC_DUMP
01-06-2010, 21:51
I would concur on marijuana, but not on cocaine, crack, or meth. There are plenty of functional marijuana users, a few functional cocaine addicts, but I have yet to meet a functional meth or crack head, to me those are what we should be focused on. Legalize dope then tax and regulate the hell out of it, use those taxes to fund the fight against the others.
Just my .02
I agree that it would be very hard to ever sell the American public on legalizing heroin, meth, PCP, cocaine (crack) and whatever new drug is just getting started. It sends a worse message than assisted suicide for the terminally ill IMHO. But what are the alternatives in avoiding the trade benefiting organized crime?
The result of our "War on Drugs" has been an increase of supply and profit made on the poison. I think there will always be people willing to risk the death penalty to make quick money supplying for the demand.
Has anyone but the taliban been able to stop the drug trade in "their" area? Maybe the Chinese who executed addicts when they became over whelmed by opium?
I also think that it becomes a great deal harder for LE to follow the money trail, than the drug trail, but I'm no Narcotics LE Professional. Makes sense that drug dealers would be big campaign contributors for conservative reps - not to mention institutions that "wash" the money. Hell, how many LE and Prison Guards would be out of a job if we just sent junkies to the often revolving door of rehab?
Illegal drugs corrupt everybody they touch - on both sides of the law. How long before we get another generation of Kennedys financed by drug money this time?
Ted Kennedy will have his sixth month of sobriety this Feb. 25, 2010. :)
Switzerland started a pretty liberal drug policy in 1990 and seems to have had pretty good success with it.
1 article here explains some of it: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44417.php
Otherwise just google it, pretty interesting stuff.
edit: And btw, i quite firmly believe that most drug users are not drug addicts (pretty big difference...) though actual statistics on this would ofcourse not be possible to attain without legalizing it
dr. mabuse
01-07-2010, 21:23
It might be useful in your research to study the mechanisms of addiction.
I would like to medically monitor anyone that has used maryjane or anything for a long time, even in light dosages, and not be addicted. That would be one for the record books.
The old,old addage, " I can stop...( enter substance used ) anytime I want, I just don't want to stop", should be a major clue.:D
I'm not researching anything, its just my opinion based on my experiences.
What i mean is that the majority of users do not overuse it or use it often.
They just try stuff every now and then and its pretty much harmless, but there is still so many who starts off like that and then do it more and more often, and becomes addicted.
It's what i think, i've seen alot of other weird opinions posted in this thread and i felt like posting my own to try and show the problem from a different perspective;)
The Reaper
01-08-2010, 17:34
I'm not researching anything, its just my opinion based on my experiences.
What i mean is that the majority of users do not overuse it or use it often.
They just try stuff every now and then and its pretty much harmless, but there is still so many who starts off like that and then do it more and more often, and becomes addicted.
It's what i think, i've seen alot of other weird opinions posted in this thread and i felt like posting my own to try and show the problem from a different perspective;)
Do you think you know enough addicts to make that kind of statistical analysis of them as a group?
TR
Do you think you know enough addicts to make that kind of statistical analysis of them as a group?
TR
No, i know several non-addicts though.
People who use drugs on special occasions to get that sick ride once in a while but can still go months without using anything.
I dont know how it is in US but in Europe there are several large trance/techno festivals, Q-base and Sensation white being among the bigger ones (afaik?) and the drug usage here is quite extensive.
You can probably argue that many of these are addicts but i'm also quite certain that many save drug usage for occasions such as these.
Edit: To simplify my opinion a bit, I think its wrong to assume anyone who uses drugs (in a casual maner or however you can say it...) is a drug addict.
I know i sometimes go a bit far, but i like a good argument, and they do need to be started:munchin
The Reaper
01-08-2010, 19:33
People who use drugs on special occasions to get that sick ride once in a while but can still go months without using anything.
How do you know that?
IMHO, there are few, if any casual (non-addicted) users of heroin, opium, codiene (natural or synthetic), cocaine, or amphetimines.
TR
i know several non-addicts though. People who use drugs on special occasions to get that sick ride once in a while but can still go months without using anything.
Being able to take it or leave it is an argument I have heard several recovering addicts relate as their feeling while their addiction was developing. The illusion that they are "in control", that they can stop using or disregard the use of drugs any time they choose. The tragedy for them comes when they can no longer leave it alone. The addicted people I have met who are recovering didn't start out with their use of drugs or alcohol saying that they were going to become addicts. That's the humanity of the disease that makes it a tragedy, IMO.
LarryW--
Well said.
I would add that we should not forget the impact that even "casual" use of "recreational" drugs can have on the life of the user, his/her family, and friends.
It doesn't take a glass pipe or a syringe to send a father to an early grave, or to see him joined decades later by a life long friend, and then by his older brother. (Although a pipe did play a significant role with the last.)
It can be as simple as an empty cigar box, some rolling papers, and a "harmless" green herb, along with cans of beer, badly mixed sangria, a small spoon, and a short vial.
From there, it is a blur of missed appointments, unkept promises, watching a star crossed marriage capsize, a badly understocked pantry, fending for oneself, vital life lessons going untaught, bad habits being imitated, seemingly endless hours alone. An attempted homicide. The life of a latch-key kid.
Then there's the night before Thanksgiving. The national network news broadcasts have not yet ritualized the counting of days that Americans have been held hostages in Iran. The phone rings endlessly until one awakes from a troubled sleep, knowing what the call means before the receiver is picked up.
The voice on the other side asks "Is your father home?" One prays quickly, silently, vainly, while opening a door to find a room with a made bed. One picks up the phone, answers the question, "No" and is told "I'll be right over."
A moment later, a lifetime later, one learns that what was feared is what is true now and forever. The answer to the second question of the evening--"Do you want to be alone?"--is the same as the answer to the first question. "No."
In my opinion, the fact that the state cannot legislate morality does not mean that the state should legislate chaos.
Just my $0.02.
DinDinA-2
01-09-2010, 00:04
Would it be accurate to say that EVERY addict started out with the thought they could "take it or leave it"? I wonder how many meth, heroin or cocaine addicts NEVER smoked marijuana?
Just an opinion, but I would think taking that first drug, of any type, is more likely to lead to addiction than taking that first drink, smoking that first cigarette or playing that first slot machine.
Of all the addictions out there, which leads to the most crime, most health problems, most family relationship problems, most job problems, most loss of personal control? I don't really kinow. But what I do know is, in the families I know,...drug addiction is the worst! Suicide, homicide, property crimes and just plain family despair.
I think it is a pathetic cop-out to consider drug legalization.
My .02
I'm not saying drugs are good in any way, but to get addicted you need to use them more then is "safe" for your body and mind.
Most people are in my opinion are able to recognise this line and stay a healthy distance away from it, yet so many succumb to it and become addicts.
So upto the point where a person actually is addicted, which is probably alot earlier then when he becomes aware of it, he will still have made conscious decisions to take drugs and increase the amount of drugs hes taking, neglecting the fact that hes going to far with it.
So in my opinion for each addict saying he once was in control, i think there are several more who stays in control.
How often a person uses drugs i think is also very related to his social circles and wether his friends will tell him to get a fucking grip if they feel he's slipping or if they will just feed him more.
As for knowing all this, i can't really know much without having done extensive research,
But suppose i hang out in some social circles where drugs are more or less accepted but not used much.
I'm not saying i use drugs here, but i know for a fact its possible to go for years and use drugs on occasions and not become addicted.
This all being said it's also important to recognise the differences in drugs, some are alot more addictive then others.
And once you cross the line and start injecting drugs into your body you're pretty much there already...
Hope I haven't derailed the thread to much here:confused:
Think i was wrong in my earlier asumption that there isn't any statistics on this.
I came across this: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf#066
I may have misread some statistics here so correct me if im wrong.
This document claims that about 20% of everyone beetween 18-25 years in the US has tried an illegal drug, 16% of these having done marijuana.
And as you can see the use is down to 11% with people 26-34 years of age.
After that its 5% for people 35 years and above.
I dont think you have that many addicts in your country.
So where is the compromise that will prevent drug lords/drug dealers from getting richer/more dangerous while also keeping drugs like cocaine/meth illegal?
I hear a lot of talk about people becoming addicts, and that number being even higher if these drugs were legalized. I live in a very remote location in the US and I know drugs are being sold illegally here. Just the other day a few kids got stopped leaving a local school early, and school security found a gallon ziploc bag full of weed in the car. These are kids in a very small town in possession of a relatively harmless (in comparison to the more addictive), yet illegal, drug. If they're already living a destructive lifestyle and smoking/selling pot at their age, I think the odds of them moving on to something like meth eventually are very good.
As for the more addictive drugs, I've seen them here on the reservation as well. I recently had a run-in with a couple of locals that decided to threaten me because I was about to go for a run. Apparently a white guy running on "Navajo Land", as they put it, could be shot for trespassing. Both of them were drunk at the least, while one definitely looked like a meth addict to boot. (On an aside, they also chose to have this conversation with me while their kids were in the car. Talk about good role models!) And drugs aren't new to the rez, as I witnessed kids my age taking cocaine while I was in high school. That was about 15 years ago.
It is obvious to me that those who want to take drugs will always find a way to get them, and drug dealers will always be pushing their illegal drugs on the ignorant/naive among us. I personally have no interest in taking cocaine/meth, and I definitely don't want my children taking them. I don't know if the odds of my kids taking cocaine/meth would increase if it were legalized, but I do know that if it were legalized and controlled, they wouldn't have access to them until they were old enough to legally purchase them, and hopefully by then they'd be smart enough to know what the risks are and choose not to take them.
We can't protect everyone from themselves, but we can take the rug right from under the feet of the drug lords by doing more about the drug situation. Maybe legalizing these drugs isn't the best answer, but I really haven't heard of a better option, just moral/ethical disapproval.
This thread began with a discussion re: drug lords murdering the children and families of some LEOs killed in the line of duty in Mexico. In my heart I have such disdain for that behavior that it pales the discussion re: illegal drug use.
IMO, behavior that is victimless has been the argument for years re: the legalization of drugs. Drugs are not in and of themselves harmless. They have potential for great harm to people and to society. Drug manufacturing and distribution cannot IMO be considered victimless behavior, never mind whether it's legal or not. As for addressing the drug lords who make millions without regard for any of their clientele, and junkies who commit felonies to get the money to buy drugs, I am more hawkish on the matter.
The Reaper
01-09-2010, 10:39
Think i was wrong in my earlier asumption that there isn't any statistics on this.
I came across this: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf#066
I may have misread some statistics here so correct me if im wrong.
This document claims that about 20% of everyone beetween 18-25 years in the US has tried an illegal drug, 16% of these having done marijuana.
And as you can see the use is down to 11% with people 26-34 years of age.
After that its 5% for people 35 years and above.
I dont think you have that many addicts in your country.
Addiction is not defined by the number of days, hours, or minutes between usages.
What do you consider to be an acceptable number of addicts in a society, and would that number be higher or lower if usage were legalized?
Just because we are not doing as well in the war as we had hoped does not mean we are going to give up.
TR
The only reason the Mexican drug lords have so much money/power is because Americans are buying their drugs.
Yeah, we're funding both sides like we do with foreign aid to Af, Pak, etc. that gets ciphoned off by corrupt foreign officials or paid directly to fixers.
Cartels would not command massive resources if we didn't hand over dollars.
Recalibrating Drug Laws Based On Science
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-pothier_10edi.State.Edition1.24ff49c.html
Richard
The Congressional Research Service just issued a report on the convergence of criminal syndicates and terrorist groups. The report mentions one Mexican cartel influenced by religious extremism (not Islam), but not much on the narcos in LATAM.
"Over time, a purely criminal group may transform, adopting political goals and new operational objectives. These organizations can form alliances with existing terrorist organizations or foreign governments to help achieve their strategic aspirations. Or they can initiate, direct, and perpetrate terrorist attacks without external assistance, resulting in the group becoming labeled a terrorist organization. Criminal syndicates often already possess the operational expertise needed to engage in terrorist acts. They may already employ terrorist specialists to conduct surveillance, transfer money, purchase weapons, build bombs, and eliminate rivals. A criminal organization can easily transfer this apparatus toward politically motivated ends. The result is either a truly evolved criminal-turned-terrorist group or a 'fused' criminal-terrorist organization that seeks to develop ties with like-minded ideological movements. The use of criminal skills for terrorist ends raises the concern among some experts that terrorists may seek out criminals for recruitment or radicalization, believing them to be a higher skilled partner than non-criminals. A criminal’s participation in terrorist activity, however, brings greater scrutiny from law enforcement agencies and politicians.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2010/01/dawood_ibrahim_al_qaeda_and_th.php
Recalibrating Drug Laws Based On Science
Interesting controversy over fact-based research in the UK.
No. 1 on the experts' list was an easy call: heroin. It's extremely addictive and, by any measure, destructive to the user and the society around him. Cocaine came in second, followed by barbiturates and street methadone.
Then the list got interesting. Alcohol, which has always been legal in England and was only briefly outlawed in the United States, took the fifth position, above tobacco (9), marijuana (11), LSD (14) and ecstasy (18). The least harmful drug in all respects was khat, a stimulant derived from the leaves of an African shrub.
Planting the Seed for Legal Pot
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Planting-the-Seed-for-Legal-Pot-81222877.html
".........The bill, authored by San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, would essentially treat pot the same way alcohol is treated under the law and would allow adults over 21 to possess, smoke and grow marijuana.
The law would also call for a fee of $50 per ounce sold and would help fund drug eradication and awareness programs. It could help pull California out of debt, supporters say, raising up to $990 million from the fees........"
The state/feds are having a had time finding growers right now. Make it legal to grow and the state will find a hard time collecting the $50 per oz fee. If it passes look for every house to have a few plants out back.
Planting the Seed for Legal Pot
".........The bill, authored by San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, would essentially treat pot the same way alcohol is treated under the law and would allow adults over 21 to possess, smoke and grow marijuana.
If it passes look for every house to have a few plants out back.
I'd move back to CA just to grow pot out my back door. :D
The big money's probably in hard drugs and synthetics, but it's a start. States could license marijuana stores like some have licensed liquor stores. Cartels wouldn't have a chance against Wal-Mart.
we can't legalize too soon . . .
"Mexico's drug war reached new levels of brutality at the weekend when a gang member was killed and cut into seven pieces as a warning to members of a cartel.
To drive home the point, the victim's face was sliced off and stitched on to a football.
"Hugo Hernandez, 36, was taken to Sinaloa after being kidnapped on January 2 in neighbouring Sonora state, in an area known for marijuana growing. His torso was found in a plastic container on the streets of Los Mochis; elsewhere another box contained his arms, legs and skull . . . "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242243/Murdered-mans-face-stitched-football-warning-rival-drugs-gangs.html#ixzz0cRWXyMQm
GratefulCitizen
01-12-2010, 17:25
If the drug problems are to be mitigated, the economic benefits of trafficking have to be reduced.
Step 1: Don't interdict. Let the traffickers spread around as much as they want.
Step 2: Go after the end user. Make it a "traffic ticket" with steep fines.
Supply up + demand down will lower price to where there's no significant criminal profit.
If the consequences of being a user are made worse, more will seek help or avoid using in the first place.
The end users have less ability to thwart LE efforts.
Go after the soft target.
It sounds cruel, but it would work.
Step 2: Go after the end user. Make it a "traffic ticket" with steep fines.
Why bother? Seriously?
Just tax it to a fare-thee-well. It works for alcohol. It works for cigarettes. And frankly, I like the idea of letting users pay a tax so my own taxes stay low. :cool:
GratefulCitizen
01-12-2010, 18:03
Why bother? Seriously?
Just tax it to a fare-thee-well. It works for alcohol. It works for cigarettes. And frankly, I like the idea of letting users pay a tax so my own taxes stay low. :cool:
Agree in principle, not in practice.
Taxation will create a black market.
Leave it black, fine (tax) the end user.
This gives additional motivation for users to contain their behavior.
Strangle demand, let the supply flow, kill the benefits of trafficking.
This idea is proposed for those who want a law-enforcement approach.
MOO-legalize it, don't tax it, let people suffer in the gutter until they decide to change their behavior and get help.
Let people reap what they sow.
6.8SPC_DUMP
01-12-2010, 19:20
If the drug problems are to be mitigated, the economic benefits of trafficking have to be reduced.
Step 1: Don't interdict. Let the traffickers spread around as much as they want.
Step 2: Go after the end user. Make it a "traffic ticket" with steep fines.
Supply up + demand down will lower price to where there's no significant criminal profit.
If the consequences of being a user are made worse, more will seek help or avoid using in the first place.
The end users have less ability to thwart LE efforts.
Go after the soft target.
It sounds cruel, but it would work.
Taxation will create a black market.
Leave it black, fine (tax) the end user.
This gives additional motivation for users to contain their behavior.
Strangle demand, let the supply flow, kill the benefits of trafficking.
I humbly disagree that letting drug cartels sell with impunity would result in there being "no significant criminal profit" or prevent future Hugo "Wilson" Hernandez's.
My understanding of drug legalization and taxation is that it kills the black market of the substance. I don't see how traffic ticket sized fines for users will strangle the demand.
Sidney Weintraub, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes Mexican drug cartels are making about $25 billion annually from us and about 40% of what they sell is marijuana.Link (http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-03-12/news/17211910_1_drug-cartels-mexican-drug-gangs-heart-of-mexico-city/3)
Just my .00000002
Mexico drug kingpin arrest highlights new strategy
By ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press
TIJUANA, Mexico – Federal troops stormed a seaside vacation home and captured one of the country's most brutal drug lords Tuesday, the second time in less than a month that Mexico has taken down one of its most powerful traffickers.
The arrest was considered another victory for enhanced surveillance techniques that are being cultivated with the assistance of the United States. American anti-drug officials had been helping Mexican authorities track Teodoro Garcia Simental for more than five months.
Garcia, known as "El Teo," was arrested before dawn near the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula, where his gang had been bringing in planeloads of drugs to smuggle across the U.S. border, said Ramon Eduardo Pequeno, head of the federal police's anti-drug unit.
Garcia, in his mid-30s, is connected to the deaths of at least 300 people, authorities say, and ordered his rivals disposed of in especially grisly ways: beheading them, hanging their bodies from bridges or dissolving them in caustic soda. He took hefty ransom payments from kidnapping Tijuana business leaders.
He is also believed to be behind many of the dozens of assassinations of Tijuana police officers over the last two years. Pequeno said Garcia had recently stepped up efforts to kill Baja California's attorney general, Rommel Moreno, and Tijuana's public safety chief, Julian Leyzaola.
President Felipe Calderon launched an all-out war upon taking office in December 2006, sending thousands of troops out to combat the drug gangs. But until recently the government had little success in taking down the top kingpins, and Mexicans have been growing increasingly frustrated with a war that has left more than 15,000 casualties.
That changed on Dec. 16, when another drug lord, Arturo Beltran Leyva, was killed in a raid by Mexican marines in the colonial city of Cuernavaca, just south of Mexico City. Authorities said U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials had been helping them track Beltran Leyva as well. On Jan. 2, federal officials arrested his brother, Carlos Beltran Leyva.
"The government is being more subtle with regard to its pursuit of drug traffickers," said George W. Grayson, a Mexico expert at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. "It's relying much more on electronic techniques, eavesdropping, inspection of one's lifestyle. It's also paying pretty good money to informants."
U.S. Ambassador Carlos Pascual said Garcia's arrest shows the sharing of information between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement is producing results.
"Mexico's operational capacity is growing," Pascual said in a statement. "We continue to improve our sharing of information. The Mexican government is unrelenting in its determination and commitment."
More than 150 federal troops raided a two-story, vacation home near the city of La Paz, shooting at the door and then barging in, said a neighbor who asked not to be identified out of fear the gang could retaliate. The troops quickly escorted Garcia and another man out of the home and into SUVs.
Police seized two rifles, 19 mobile phones, two laptop computers and more than $35,000 in Mexican and U.S. currency, Pequeno said.
Garcia appeared with authorities in Mexico City looking much heavier than in the two photos that have been widely circulated. Another alleged trafficker, Diego Raymundo Guerrero, was also detained.
Garcia joined the Tijuana-based Arellano Felix in 1995, Pequeno said, and rose through the ranks. He broke from the group in an April 2008 shootout, plunging the city across the border from San Diego into a period of unprecedented violence. More than 1,500 people have been murdered in Tijuana since the beginning of 2008.
He ruled by ordering the killings of drug dealers who betrayed him, and buying off corrupt officials.
The arrest marks one of the most significant blows to Mexico's Sinaloa cartel under Calderon — assuming that the Mexican government's claims linking Garcia to that cartel are correct, said David Shirk, director of the University of San Diego's Transborder Institute. Mexican officials say Garcia was the cartel's point man in wresting control of the Baja California peninsula from the rival Arellano Felix cartel.
Garcia represents a new generation of Mexican drug traffickers who are much more savage than their predecessors, Shirk said.
"They play by a different set of rules, or maybe no rules, in terms of how they relate to their rivals," he said.
Shirk speculated that the arrest of Garcia could be a result of intelligence gleaned from the capture of Arturo Beltran Leyva and other leaders of that organization.
"It's quite possible that Beltran Leyva — no friend of the Sinaloa cartel — gave up information that helped track down El Teo," he said.
He said the arrest could also reflect a strategy to hit several cartels at once. That could also bolster public support for Calderon's fight among Mexicans who had been growing frustrated over the escalating violence.
Mexican federal authorities, acting on intelligence provided by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, said they tracked him down following a five-month surveillance operation.
Police seized two rifles, 19 mobile phones, two laptop computers and more than $35,000 in Mexican and U.S. currency.
nicely done
GratefulCitizen
01-12-2010, 22:30
I humbly disagree that letting drug cartels sell with impunity would result in there being "no significant criminal profit" or prevent future Hugo "Wilson" Hernandez's.
My understanding of drug legalization and taxation is that it kills the black market of the substance. I don't see how traffic ticket sized fines for users will strangle the demand.
Sidney Weintraub, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes Mexican drug cartels are making about $25 billion annually from us and about 40% of what they sell is marijuana.Link (http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-03-12/news/17211910_1_drug-cartels-mexican-drug-gangs-heart-of-mexico-city/3)
Just my .00000002
It would appear that drug cartels already do sell with impunity.
When one is removed, another takes its place. The hydra will not be slain while demand remains.
I don't agree with the choice many Americans have made (buying drugs).
The fact is: they have voted with their dollars.
Why should massive tax revenue be collected from everyone else in order to fund a drug war?
We're just trying to outspend our fellow citizens.
Prohibition was tried last century.
It didn't work.
Let people destroy their own bodies, if they wish.
Just don't use public money to prevent it nor fix their problems later (socialized medicine).