# Mexico...



## Deaf Smith (Jan 27, 2009)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292962031814007.html

*Drug Gangs Have Mexico on the Ropes *

*Law enforcement south of the border is badly outgunned.*

*By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY *

A murder in the Mexican state of Chihuahua last week horrified even hardened crime stoppers. Police Commander Martin Castro's head was severed and left in an ice cooler in front of the police station in the town of Praxedis with a calling card from the Sinoloa drug cartel.

According to Mexico's attorney general, 6,616 people died in drug-trafficking violence in Mexico last year. A high percentage of those killed were themselves criminals, but many law enforcement agents battling organized crime were also murdered. The carnage continues. For the first 22 days of this year the body count is 354.
*.*
*.*
Tally all this up and what you get is Mexico on the edge of chaos, and a mess that could easily bleed across the border. The U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., warned recently that an unstable Mexico "could represent a homeland security problem of immense proportions to the United States." In a report titled "Joint Operating Environment 2008," the Command singles out Mexico and Pakistan as potentially failing states. Both "bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse . . . . The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels."

The National Drug Threat Assessment for 2009 says that Mexican drug-trafficking organizations now "control most of the U.S. drug market," with distribution capabilities in 230 U.S. cities. The cartels also "maintain cross border communication centers" that use "voice over Internet Protocol, satellite technology (broadband satellite instant messaging), encrypted messaging, cell phone technology, two-way radios, scanner devices, and text messaging, to communicate with members" and even "high-frequency radios with encryption and rolling codes to communicate during cross-border operations."
*.*
*.*
Here is how he sees the fight: "The outgunned Mexican law enforcement authorities face armed criminal attacks from platoon-sized units employing night vision goggles, electronic intercept collection, encrypted communications, fairly sophisticated information operations, sea-going submersibles, helicopters and modern transport aviation, *automatic weapons, RPG's, Anti-Tank 66 mm rockets, mines and booby traps, heavy machine guns, 50 cal sniper rifles, massive use of military hand grenades, and the most modern models of 40mm grenade machine guns."*

.
.
Comment:
Notice none of that except maybe the .50 cal. sniper rifles, can be bought at a gun show. Hmmm.

Sleep tight gang, I suspect we may need to learn a bit more than hands-n-feet methods for this. And all cause we Americans love drugs so much.

Deaf


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 27, 2009)

Legalize drugs tomorrow, and the cartel problem disappears the next day.  After all, you don't see many gun battles these days between federal agents and moonshiners.


----------



## searcher (Jan 27, 2009)

Arm the law-abiding citizens of the country and the problems go away.   People in Mexico are so poor that the only ones with guns are the BGs.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 27, 2009)

searcher said:


> Arm the law-abiding citizens of the country and the problems go away. People in Mexico are so poor that the only ones with guns are the BGs.


 

As an American who owns property in Mexico, as well as docking a boat down there (which is an added complication/loophole governed by international law) I have to say that Mexican gun laws are some of the most restrictive on the planet. What guns are permitted are mostly small calibers, and there are not a lot of _legal_ gun owners in the country. I've heard "less than 3,000 with a one year waiting list."

What guns I have in Mexico are kept in a locker by the harbormaster until the day I sail out of Mexico, but I otherwise could  not _legally_ have any guns in Mexico as an Americano...there are no guns in my condo, and, as far as I know, no one in the neighborhood has any _legal_ guns. 

Legalize drugs, and a big chunk of the problem goes away. It would, of course, bring its own set of problems, but they would be miniscule in comparison-the tax benefits of legalized marijuana alone would be remarkable for the U.S.-good bye deficit!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 27, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Legalize drugs tomorrow, and the cartel problem disappears the next day. After all, you don't see many gun battles these days between federal agents and moonshiners.


 
Uh, actually there are moonshiners and making and selling you own booze is illegal. And they do have shootouts with feds (rarely but it's done.) In fact in the county I live it's called a 'dry' country. That is no over-the-counter booze is sold. I have to drive to the next county over to buy a six pack to take home! Bootleggers are common! Our county says no more than 5 cases of beer per household. More than that and it's defacto bootlegging.

I hate what drugs do to people (and cartels to.) So how about instead anyone selling drugs gets the death penalty (kind of hard to say you sell drugs but are retarded, so it's bye bye for you if caught.) And anyone buying drugs gets 10 years, no parole, no probation. 

But in reality, we may have to one day do to Mexico what we are doing to Afghanistain (but funny, we let the Afghans make opium!) 

Mexico has had meltdowns before (1909 or so, the Mexican revolution. Pancho Villa, and earlier, 1830s, Santa Anna.) Mexico has been a problem child for a long time.

On the other hand, Canada is fine and dandy. No meltdown (but then, it's pretty cold up there now.)

Deaf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 27, 2009)

Looks like Mexico is dealing with the results of a long term weak government.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 27, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Legalize drugs tomorrow, and the cartel problem disappears the next day.  After all, you don't see many gun battles these days between federal agents and moonshiners.


Way oversimplified.

And moonshining is alive, well, and still violent.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 27, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Uh, actually there are moonshiners and making and selling you own booze is illegal. And they do have shootouts with feds (rarely but it's done.) In fact in the county I live it's called a 'dry' country. That is no over-the-counter booze is sold. I have to drive to the next county over to buy a six pack to take home! Bootleggers are common! Our county says no more than 5 cases of beer per household. More than that and it's defacto bootlegging.



Your example supports the point.  Effective countywide prohibition promotes black market activity to support the demand.



Deaf Smith said:


> I hate what drugs do to people (and cartels to.) So how about instead anyone selling drugs gets the death penalty (kind of hard to say you sell drugs but are retarded, so it's bye bye for you if caught.) And anyone buying drugs gets 10 years, no parole, no probation.



Drugs can do horrible things to *some *people, no doubt about that.  Of course, over 6 thousand violent murders a year is far more horrible than that.  At what price do we protect some people from their desire to chemically alter their bodies?  What happened to individual liberty and free choice when it comes to the body?  Drug prohibition is a new thing, after all.  Only since the 1930's.  You used to be able to buy morphine syrup out of the back of a magazine.

Maybe increased penalties decrease some of the problem.  It won't do away with it however.  The demand will still be there due to the high and the addiction, and some will want to meet that demand.  Then, because legitimate methods are not available to settle disputes in the black market, guns and violence are used instead.  It is utterly predictable, and we could end it at any time.

This isn't just a problem for the Mexicans, either.  The excesses of the Drug War, on the criminal *and *the governmental side, have been ruining lives here for decades now.  Why do we continue to piss lives and futures down this endless rat hole?  It hasn't worked, and it never likely will work.  We even have the historical example of Prohibition to guide us.  Yet, we keep thinking this ridiculous "War" can be won.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 27, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Way oversimplified.



The cartels exist because of the demand for illegal drugs.  I'm not sure why they would continue to exist when that demand is taken away.



jks9199 said:


> And moonshining is alive, well, and still violent.



No source I found put it beyond a low level problem, run by a relative handful.  Most moonshine is apparently made for personal use.  There is no question that legal alcohol has made the black market for alcohol all but nonexistent, relatively speaking.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 27, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> No source I found put it beyond a low level problem, run by a relative handful. Most moonshine is apparently made for personal use. There is no question that legal alcohol has made the black market for alcohol all but nonexistent, relatively speaking.


 
Still kind of a big deal on Indian reservations-nobody dies, though, except for people who drink too much......


----------



## elder999 (Jan 27, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Way oversimplified..


 

The only places in the world that don't have a "drug _crime_" problem pursued one of two solutions: they either legalized or decriminalized drugs, and made them readily available to users, or they gathered up all the producers, distributors, and _users_, and *killed them*.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 27, 2009)

elder999 said:


> ...or they gathered up all the producers, distributors, and _users_, and *killed them*.



Could you provide examples?  I would be very interested in researching this.


----------



## terryl965 (Jan 27, 2009)

Weel if it get to be legal, alll that will do is make more trouble than it is worth. Everybody knows who they are just send in the elite and get rid of them.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 27, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Your example supports the point. Effective countywide prohibition promotes black market activity to support the demand.


 
Keep that logic up and there is nothing that is illegal cause you are afraid it will become a black market activity. Some things destroy so many that you have to take the risk of black market activity. Go to a 'shooting gallary' (and not the gun kind) and you will see what drugs do. Go to the homes where the husband and wife are addicts and see what the children are left in. Go to the mourgue and see what most of them end up as (and long before their time.)

Way to many kids, yes kids, get sucked into the drug culture, and once hooked, they go down, way down, and never have a chance.

And that is why, at least for drugs, we must restrict them severely. I'd say we don't go far enough in some respects, yet to far in others.

If there is any place I'd like to see heroin givin out, it's those that are terminaly ill with very painful cancers (like bone cancer.) But that's a very limited case.

Deaf


----------



## searcher (Jan 27, 2009)

I guess we couldlegalize it and put in some rat poison.   If we kill off the users then the problem gets solved right.   No market, no problem.




Doubt that is gonna work, but eh, why not give it a shot.


----------



## Guardian (Jan 28, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Could you provide examples? I would be very interested in researching this.


 
Thailand for one.


----------



## Hagakure (Jan 28, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> The cartels exist because of the demand for illegal drugs. I'm not sure why they would continue to exist when that demand is taken away.


 
Good point.

Here's a thought. And, it's admittedly, an odd one, so I may be way off the mark. 

Supposing, just supposing, the big corporate pharmaceuticals started producing large amounts of ecstasy, heroin, cocaine, whatever, _*legally*_.... One would think that the profit they made from that, might enable them to lower the prices of their more "medicinal" drugs...

So. The logic being, if you _want_ to pollute your body with now legalised/previously illegal drugs, go ahead, but, if you've got cancer, and "need" medical treatment to fight it, oh "here, have these now newly affordable effective anti-whatever drugs". Simplified? Yes, of course, but not outside the realms of _possibility._

Yes you can counter that with "What about the likely increased medical care costs associated with drug taking", I honestly believe that it would be self sustaining. I'm not convinced that legalising drugs would see a huge upward spike in drug taking. Perhaps at first, but not in the longer term. I think my argument is great in fact. Can one self nominate for the Nobel Prize for good ideas??? :0/


----------



## Hagakure (Jan 28, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> *Keep that logic up and there is nothing that is illegal cause you are afraid it will become a black market activity.* Some things destroy so many that you have to take the risk of black market activity. Go to a 'shooting gallary' (and not the gun kind) and you will see what drugs do. Go to the homes where the husband and wife are addicts and see what the children are left in. Go to the mourgue and see what most of them end up as (and long before their time.)
> 
> Way to many kids, yes kids, get sucked into the drug culture, and once hooked, they go down, way down, and never have a chance.
> 
> ...


 
Hmmm, understandable sentiment, but almost, by the same logic, we should criminalise alcohol and ciggarettes, as they can either destroy families through drunken abuse, or, through the loss of loved one due to cancer.

Restricting drugs, has not, and is not working. As mentioned, the WAR against drugs is like trying to put a blazing house out with a thimble full of water. Utterly ineffective. Working previously in the National Probation Service in the UK, I came into contact with a lot of drug users, and you're completely right in the belief that it destroys lives. However, there is a vicious cycle of poverty and escape through drugs that is observable. Believe me, the NASTIEST b-turds that I encountered were not the drug takers, but the pushers. Imagine, for a moment, being able to obtain drugs legally, to not be criminalised and becoming part of a system that punishers more easily the taker of drugs, because, let's face it, they're easier to catch and sort out than the dealers, and, if you so choose, as a taker, you can be given all the support you need to get off them. Imagine also, that it's the pharmoceuticals making and selling these. Your average taker goes to his/her local hospital, and simply gets their fix in a safe environment, causes no trouble, and perhaps the most important part, "knows" that they'll get another fix, without resorting to crime to pay for it. 

It requires a whole shake up of cultural and personal beliefs to trial this concept, and it's not one that I think English speaking/predominantly Anglo Saxon descended countries (i.e UK/US) are likely to take. As a former member of the RN, I had a few mates take part in drugs busts, and they're attitude was "why, this is crazy?" Always reading in the headlines, "HMS .... Makes £100,000,000 cocaine drugs bust!" Little realising that this is effectively pocket money for the big cartels. As mentioned, we can carry on peeing in the wind, or, we can change tactics.

Respectfully, my tuppence.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 28, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Keep that logic up and there is nothing that is illegal cause you are afraid it will become a black market activity. Some things destroy so many that you have to take the risk of black market activity.



What's the cutoff?  We know that Prohibition isn't working now.  We know it didn't work in the past.  We know that lives are now being destroyed because of the drugs themselves *and *due to the attempts to fight drugs.  Seems to me, when something doesn't work for going on 80 years, you should stop doing it.



Deaf Smith said:


> And that is why, at least for drugs, we must restrict them severely. I'd say we don't go far enough in some respects, yet to far in others.



Many things destroy lives utterly.  Alcohol, for one.  All perfectly legal.  Where's the consistency?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2009)

True Zero Tolerance.

If caught with illegal drugs, you are shot on site, and hung in a cage on the nearest light pole until to decay to bones.

Then send in some stealth bombers to napalm and tri-ox the fields where they grow the ****.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> True Zero Tolerance.
> 
> If caught with illegal drugs, you are shot on site, and hung in a cage on the nearest light pole until to decay to bones.
> 
> Then send in some stealth bombers to napalm and tri-ox the fields where they grow the ****.



I'm not clear, is this something you would support?  Seems like a pretty odd position for a self-described Libertarian to take.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 28, 2009)

My guess is he's using exaggeration to make the point that this is the level you would have to go to to make "zero tolerance" work, and thus is arguing for its impracticality/impossibility.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 28, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> What's the cutoff? We know that Prohibition isn't working now. We know it didn't work in the past. We know that lives are now being destroyed because of the drugs themselves *and *due to the attempts to fight drugs. Seems to me, when something doesn't work for going on 80 years, you should stop doing it. Many things destroy lives utterly. Alcohol, for one. All perfectly legal. Where's the consistency?


 
Alcohol is no where near as damaging as drugs. No where near. Yes it has destoryed lives and families, but except for a few, it is no where near as adicting as drugs. Especially cocaine, heroin, and meth. And that's why the draconion methods of restriction as compaired to alcohol.



Hagakure said:


> Hmmm, understandable sentiment, but almost, by the same logic, we should criminalise alcohol and ciggarettes, as they can either destroy families through drunken abuse, or, through the loss of loved one due to cancer.


 
We do. We price the ciggarettes out of existance by taxing them and lawsuits. Alcohol? Nowdays if you are caught on the road with more than .08 on the breathanalizer, it's DWI. If you even register any alcohol, you loose such as your CHL permit. And they still want to go to zero tolerance and arrest you for any drinking and driving. So we do go after those two.

So guys, you see there is a differenced between such as alcohol/smokes and drugs. 

http://www.thecyn.com/drug-addiction/

"There is no cure for drug addiction. Because the brain is altered on its most fundamental levels during chronic drug use, the addictive personality will never be able to use drugs recreationally without eventually falling back into addictive, destructive behavior."

http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/dopamine.html

http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Alcohol_addiction__How_to_stop_this_agony__a85_f0.html

http://www1.wfubmc.edu/articles/Alcohol+addiction

You will see that hard drugs are way way harder to cure and most people can be hooked on them, yet alcohol is not like that. Not all, or even most, people become alcoholics if they drink some booze.

So there are differences and thus how the laws treate them are, or should be,  different.

Deaf


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 28, 2009)

searcher said:


> I guess we couldlegalize it and put in some rat poison.   If we kill off the users then the problem gets solved right.   No market, no problem.



I prefer the solution in "Prayer of the Rollerboys"

The Rollerboys made drugs laced with Sterilization chemicals, the idea was if they sterilized the users, they couldn't breed...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 28, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Alcohol is no where near as damaging as drugs. No where near. Yes it has destoryed lives and families, but except for a few, it is no where near as adicting as drugs.



Do you have support for this statement?  The studies I have seen put alcoholism recovery rates below that of harder drugs like heroin.  Both of course have better recovery rates than cigarettes, which top the list.



Deaf Smith said:


> Not all, or even most, people become alcoholics if they drink some booze.



Same with hard drugs.  Addiction propensity is mostly a function of genetics, not the drug of choice.  Your own sources put problem drinking as high as 15% of the general population.  

Also, you should know that alcohol addiction goes by the same dopamine mechanism described in your source as for hard drugs.


----------



## Hagakure (Jan 28, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Alcohol is no where near as damaging as drugs. No where near. Yes it has destoryed lives and families, but except for a few, it is no where near as adicting as drugs. Especially cocaine, heroin, and meth. And that's why the draconion methods of restriction as compaired to alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm, not sure I'd agree with most of those comments. Alcohol, is a drug in itself, which, given the binge drinking culture the UK certainly has, and I can only guess the US _may _have causes billions of £'s worth of damage to town/city centres every year and costings in terms of policing, not to mention the massively increased levels of alcohol related violence. I'd say that was quite a poor show. But again, we don't criminalise booze? 

As for ciggies becoming more expensive, tell me about it, my wife smokes, much to my annoyance. What's even more annoying is that regardless of the extra cost, she still does it. Why? Because there are certain studies that state/show that giving up cigarettes is harder than giving up herion. Again, the costs of combatting smoking related illnesses to the NHS runs into the billions of £'s per year. Yet again, we don't criminalise it.

As I've said before, the concept of altering the strategy of how we deal with drug usage would entail a whole change in cultural and individual mindset, not such an issue on the continent (Europe), but even in the UK, I've heard senior police officers and some MPs state that a change is needed. For while there is demand (and it's human nature to like things that get us sideways once in a while), there will ALWAYS be supply. Regulate the supply, you're more in control of the situation.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 28, 2009)

Empty Hands,

Read the links I posted. Plus..

http://www.drug-rehabs.com/fewer-addicted-alcohol.htm

http://www.sierratucson.com/treatment/alcohol_addiction.html

http://www.drug-statistics.com/heroin.htm


Now alcohol CAN be uses as an icebreaker to get into harder drugs (so can marijuana.) And you can trade one addiction for another. But..

Notice that far more people drink alcohol than take drugs. Yet percentage wise the number of alcoholics .vs. alcohol users is no where near the number of heroin/meth users .vs. heroin/meth addicts (that is, most users of heroin and meth ARE addicts but most of the alcohol users are not alcoholics.)

The reason this is true is because drugs like Meth/Heroin/etc... are so much more addictive than alcohol. That's the unfourtunate fact.

Deaf


----------



## Guardian (Jan 28, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> I'm not clear, is this something you would support? Seems like a pretty odd position for a self-described Libertarian to take.


 
Not really, even libertarians can have strong feelings on certain subjects.  Being libertarian doesn't mean you give having strong feelings or ways of dealing it a particular problem.

The age old argument of alcohol vs drugs which one is worse.  Look at the price and that should answer most questions.  Quantity doesn't have anything to do with it either.  Drugs cost more pure and simple.

This problem with the border and Mexico is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later.  It's going to come to that explosive head, but as usual, it'll be a major problem by the time some in our Government figure out their heads are in their butts.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 29, 2009)

Guardian said:


> This problem with the border and Mexico is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. It's going to come to that explosive head, but as usual, it'll be a major problem by the time some in our Government figure out their heads are in their butts.


 
And it's always been like that. 

We waited till the British tried to round up our guns to fight them. 

We waited till the Rebs opened fire on Fort Sumner to fight them (and hey, I'm a Texican!)

We waited till the Maine blew up to fight the Spanish. 

We waited till the Germans sank ships with our civilians on to fight them.

We waited till the Japanese blew up our battleships to fight them. 

We waited till the North Koreans almost took the entire peninsula to fight them (and then made the mistake of not trying to win.) 

We got into Vietnam early but again we didn't try to win (I guess it became unsporting after what we did to Japan and Germany.)

We waited till Saddam invaded Kuwait to stand up to him (and again didn't try to win, really WIN.)

We again went after Saddam (but only after 3000 people died and the WTC towers were destroyed.) This time we won! But we till have to finish Afghanistan (and I hope we continue winning!)

Yes, our government has a huge track record of passing the buck till it's almost to late. One day, we will wait to long, just as Rome did, and the Visigoths will be at the gates.

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 29, 2009)

We really need another Leander McNelly...not that that's ever gonna happen.


----------



## searcher (Jan 29, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> We really need another Leander McNelly...not that that's ever gonna happen.


 


Or Teddy Roosevelt.   If he would have been The POTUS when 9/11 happened, all of the world would have shook with terror.   Theproblem with the good ole' USA is we have become soft.   The UN sticks their collective noses in our business and tell us what we can do.   Are we not the baddest nation on this planet?   Its time we started acting like it again.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jan 31, 2009)

Welcome everyone to forthcoming RANT!...................

The country, as it stands to date, can be compared to someone who has cancer. They have a listing of 4 levels\phases for cancer and in my opinion, the country is in the 3rd stage\phase. Can it still be cured? Perhaps, but not without a long and painful fight. Do I believe it's going to happen? Sadly, NO!
There comes a point in time where no matter what one may do, they still can't deter what's going to happen and I feel were at the point now with the country. Lets do a breakdown of what's going on;

1) Economy is on the verge of collapse (Many factors)
2) Crime is out of control and getting worse (Again, many factors)
3) Our borders are non-existent
4) The American culture has been replaced with individual ethnic cultures and continues to grow in that fashion as more and more come here.
5) The corruption within out government is and has been out of control for decades and it seems to be getting worse.
6) Moral corruption also has gotten out of control and that also is getting worse.

Look back into history, at the roman empire. We, the U.S. of A. are forging headlong on the same path and we all know what happened! I think that we're on the downhill portion of that path and were too far gone to do anything about it, even if the powers that be wanted to do anything. :disgust:


----------

