Mexican drug lords retaliate.

[dr. mabuse]

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'...

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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by 99meters

...... 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]

Originally Posted by Pete

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.

[Sten]

Originally Posted by 99meters

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]

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]

Originally Posted by craigepo

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.

[Richard]

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

[Marina]

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://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecuri...e-stopped.html

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Originally Posted by Defender968

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?

Originally Posted by Peregrino

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.

[NA2BN]

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]

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.

[NA2BN]

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]

Originally Posted by NA2BN

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

[NA2BN]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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