Friday, January 30, 2009
|
|
Fighting Narco-Gangs in Mexico
|
|
Posted by:
Chris Field at
10:21 AM
|
Townhall magazine contributor and Heritage expert Peter Brookes has a great piece in today's New York Post concerning Mexico's narco-gang problem -- make that, emergency.
From "Help Mexico Beat the Narco-Gangs":
Mexico may be headed to hell in a handbasket as a result of grizzly fighting between the federal government and drug cartels - and among the narco-gangs themselves.
Some of last week's news:
* Authorities arrested a man accused of dissolving as many as 300 bodies in bubbling vats of acid for a Tijuana-based drug lord. (This earned the perp the nightmarish nickname "El Pozolero," after a local stew.)
* Prosecutors reported three heads found in an ice box. A headless body was also discovered in a canal in Ciudad Juarez, a town known as Mexico's deadliest - just over the border from El Paso, Texas.
The headless victims? Policemen.
Peter wrote a great piece in the December 2008 issue of Townhall magazine ("Colombia: Moving in the Right Direction" -- the opening spread of the article can be seen on the subscription page) on our vital ally's headway against narco-terrorism, specifically FARC.
|
|
it took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the sale of alchoholic beverages. The violence associated with that failure led to another Constitutional Amendment recending the previous one.
Now, all it takes is a 5-4 decision (lib maj) to declare the Commerce Clause sufficient enough to violate the Constitution. And thanks to Hollywood, Americans are immune to violence.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
I know how most of you all feel about our drug laws, but this decision is just as bad as Kelo or Roe. Please read Thomas' dissent.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html
A responsible reporter would have questioned Obama more about his objection to Thomas. |
|
The best way to help Mexico fight the drug cartels would be to legalize and regulate the industry.
You never hear about the beer cartel shooting up cops.
But, of course, then you'd have to put up with dirty hippies with their reefer. |
|
Thanks for the links. Thomas is one smart man whom I hold the highest degree of respect for.
I don't know how most people think, but I am of common sense thinking, and I do not believe marijuana should be illegal in any of the 50 states. IMO it is less dangerous than alcohol, and I would prefer to be around someone who has just smoked some pot than to be around a belligerent drunk!
I have studied the ramifications on this country due to the war on drugs. This is a war that will never be won from a legal battle. It must be won through education and common sense regulation.
We currently have over 2 million prisoners in our correctional facilities. Over 1 million of them are low level, non-violent marijuana users. Common sense would dictate the release of these low levels to make room for the truly violent criminals.
We could save millions and millions of state and federal dollars by releasing these people back into productive society. Pot smokers for the most part are productive members of society. Its the hard core drugs (cocaine, crack cocaine, meth, heroin, amphetamines (sp), etc. that are detrimental to society.
I know I am going to get beat up over this, but these are my opinions based on what I have researched. |
|
Real and Grisly violence on our border, making its way into the US.........
What is Sherrif Bart Doing??
-Closing Gitmo.
-Reaching out to Islamofacists
-Bankrupting the Country with unprecedented pork spending disguised as a stimulus.
-Playing up to labor and threatening to make it easier for unions to organize......
Welcome to the Hopichange reservation....once you come here you never leave.
|
|
I think most people who have looked into it realize that you will never 'win' the 'war on Drugs', and that the consequences in fighting it are becoming increasingly worse than the possible consequences of not fighting it and turning to regulation, education, and funding rehabilitation for a fraction of what it costs to arrest, try and imprison drug offenders now.
The problem is convincing the politicians to give up the money and risk being slammed as 'pro-drug'. Because to some people, opposition to the drug war means you're automatically in favor of handing out needles to fourth graders. |
|
|
You hit the nail on the head, it is all a huge money making arrangement that they have had going on for years. |
|
Kathy's hand wringing about the war on drugs is so typical of anyone opposing anything. If it gets difficult, if lives are lost, if it gets worse before it gets better....quit!!
Like Vietnam (which was all but won), Like Iraq, and even before that, WWII. These are the people that sue for peace to feel better. Not to solve the problem. These are the same people that would have let the Japanese hold onto China and Korea just to stop the fighting.
GRRRRRRRRRRRR, Pick a side dammit..us or them. Right or Wrong. Doing drugs, selling drugs, killing for drug profit is wrong. Now I am sure someone out there is saying...well what I do with my body is my business. That I almost agree; except you cost me money when you get high and pass out on the sidewalk and hit your head, Typical altered trauma call $50,000 plus, or you cost me money when you lose your job and can't feed your kids, etc....
Time to close the border, force rehab on users, dealers get 10 years then life for 2nd offence. Mules on 2nd offence get 10 years.
Steve |
|
Suppose Obama issued a blanket pardon of all those convicted of crimes involving ONLY marijuana, now and in the future.
It would put a million pot-heads out on the streets, where they'd be indistinguishable from olympic medalists and presidents. It would also save about enough money to pay for the entire bailout. |
|
Please read my first post.
It's been a decade since I first did the numbers and I'm sure, given demographic changes, these numbers are now incorrect. I'll use them here anyway because of laziness.
Ten years ago, there were 2-3 million hardcore drug users (coke, meth, pcp, heroine), and 15-17 million pot users (over 25 million admitted to trying pot). While it is true that many of the hardcore users also use pot, the inverse is not.
The fed budget for the War on Drugs was about $50B per annum. From a fiscal conservative standpoint, "legalizing" a substance less harmful than alcohol (pot), undercuts the budget of the War on Drugs. There is no way to justify spending $50B to keep 2-3 million people from destroying their lives.
The War on Drugs is a government jobs boondoggle. |
|
A constructionist SCOTUS would have overturned the ability of the Feds to use the Commerce Clause to violate the Constitution.
See the links I provided in my first comment. |
|
[That I almost agree; except you cost me money when you get high and pass out on the sidewalk and hit your head, Typical altered trauma call $50,000 plus, or you cost me money when you lose your job and can't feed your kids, etc....]
Then I assume you favor bringing back alcohol prohibition and all of the organized crime, violence, and social ills that went with that, since irresponsible alcohol use causes negative externalities.
And I assume you're in favor of banning tobacco products as well. And possibly cell phones, red meat, real butter, salt, etc?
This war on drugs hasn't impacted drug availability or use, has created crime, has damaged 4th amendment protections, has spawned a militarized police culture (go to CATO's site and download the paper Overkill for examples), and costs billions of dollars per year that could be better spent elsewhere, with a fraction of that money retained for education and rehabilitation purposes. |
|
|
|