Mexican Drug Cartels Armed to the Hilt

[EddieCoyle]

Junkies do not go out and get jobs now to support their habits, would they do so if heroin was legal? Would they flock to educational facilities to learn about how they are poisoning themselves? Would they go to detox centers to replace their sweet heroin with methadone? Or would they remain junkies, living on the streets and resorting to petty crimes and prostitution to feed the monkey - now available at every corner convenience store?

Again, how many junkies do you know?

I know (and have known) a few addicts, some very well, but I don't think it makes me an expert.

I don't think anybody is going to flock to anything (including non-users to drug dealers) if drugs are legalized. Better research will yield better treatments, and that research can be funded by a tiny fraction of what we'll save by ending policies that have been proven ineffective over the last 40+ years.

It seems that you'd rather support a government that pisses away huge sums of money, and erodes our rights and freedoms in the name of "The War On Drugs". Cool. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[OnTheRoad]

(To BillHere you go again, comparing alcoholism to heroin addiction. Apparently you must know more alkys than junkies. The cost of heroin addiction is not high because of prohibition, it is high because of the ancillary effects of addiction and the powerful effects of certain drugs, which you continue to ignore.

Crack, heroin, meth...ALL make people go "berzerk", as you say. Have you ever seen someone on meth literally pull both their shoulders out of the sockets while restrained - and not feel a thing? A person on a crack binge punch repeatedly through windshield safety glass and tear the dashboard out of his car before having his heart seize and stroke out almost simultaneously? Out of probably close to 200 junkies I have known, I would estimate that less than 20 have stayed clean. Over 50 are dead, and the rest are still emaciated, infected, unemployed, criminal junkies.

That's what I base my opinion on.

(To Eddie): I guess time will tell.

(To the Rest Gotta get ready for school. Laters.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Out of probably close to 200 junkies I have known, I would estimate that less than 20 have stayed clean. Over 50 are dead, and the rest are still emaciated, infected, unemployed, criminal junkies.

If history is any indication, making drugs legal will not increase the number of addicts. I think the only way to fix this problem is to develop better treatments, because throwing them in jail hasn't been working.

Or are you saying that throwing them in jail is the answer? Because that's what you're advocating.

(To Eddie): I guess time will tell.

It already has "told" over the last hundred years or so. Attempted enforcement doesn't work - and it's not because we're not throwing enough money at it.

 

[9000S]

Great Love to see my Work making the news...

Yeah, Cant wait to run into a group defending its Drug load with frag grenades and a LAW. That will be awesome.... Im sure its all novel for you guys up there... but this is happening LITERALLY right in my backyard. And we have gotten intel that this stuff is going to be increasing in certain areas. And it may slough off down to our neck of the woods sometime soon.
Its all about trigger control I guess right? Man Im getting an M4 tonight, and need to get some mags and a good tac thigh holster too....

Below is a report that happened just 4hrs before I got on shift.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border Patrol shot at with automatic weapons while uncovering new smuggling tactic´s
Michael Webster, Investigative Reporter December 17, 2008

{http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/85293}

Early this month U.S. Border Patrol agents from the Tucson, Ariz. sector and agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were again fired upon with what appeared to be military type automatic weapons by Mexican drug smugglers dressed in military garb. Agents after observing a Flatbed tow truck on the Mexican side of the U.S. Mexican border backed up to the new international border fence. According to witnesses the tow truck backed up on a newly constructed earthen dirt berm which put the truck almost even with the height of the fence. The tow truck operator slowly unloaded two trucks laden with marijuana over the 18 ft. high fence to the U.S. side of the border. The entire episode was caught on the remote camera surveillance system and watched by U.S. predator and National Guard camera operators who were able to coordinate Border Patrol field agents to the scene. Shortly after arriving several Border Patrol agents came under fire after chasing and stopping the drug smugglers two vehicles near Douglas, Ariz.

According to the Border Patrol, agents observed two large trucks, a Chevrolet Avalanche and a Ford F150 using the tow truck ramp to cross over the border fence. While using a remote camera surveillance system, camera operators were able to coordinate field agents to intercept the trucks. As agents got close, the trucks turned south and attempted to flee back to the border. Agents were able to deploy a tire deflation device and successfully deflated the tires of both trucks stopping them just north of the international boundary fence. A third vehicle was spotted south of the border fence where a subject was observed firing an automatic rifle in the direction of the agents. Several additional subjects with weapons were seen climbing over the fence and they began unloading marijuana from the Chevy Avalanche. The individuals were seen throwing numerous bundles of marijuana back into Mexico. As agents were able to form a security perimeter around the Ford F150, the smugglers set fire to the Avalanche and absconded back into Mexico. Agents were able to secure the Ford F150 and inside the vehicle they discovered 1,158 pounds of marijuana with an estimated street value of $1 million.

Registration checks were run on the Ford F150 and agents discovered the vehicle was reported stolen out of Douglas, Ariz. Mexican law enforcement was contacted but at this time no arrests have been made or expected.

An official close to the investigation tells the Laguna Journal that agents did not return fire when they were fired upon. Later an agent who wants to remain anonymous says many Border Patrol agents are fearful of losing there job or worse being arrested should they return fire particularly since the Ramos and Compean case. "These men are still in prison for doing what many of us think was just doing their jobs as Border Patrol Agents.

In a similar incident last month Border Patrol agents from the San Diego sector seized nearly a ton of marijuana and seized two vehicles after agents spotted two vehicles jump over the border fence also using a ramp system, five miles east of Tecate, Calif.

San Diego Chief Patrol Agent Michael J. Fisher commented, "This significant drug seizure exemplifies smugglers´ disregard for our laws and the safety of the general public. The Border Patrol´s mission includes securing our Nation´s borders and preventing dangerous drugs from reaching our streets."

In the past the Laguna Journal reported locals said they have witnessed, not far from this tow truck incident on the Mexican side of the border a big yellow crane that they refer to as a cherry picker it was seen lifting several vehicles, one at a time up and over the fence and put down gently on the American side. These witnesses say they believe those vehicles were loaded with drugs. There are also many reports from locals seeing armed Mexican solders operating on both sides of the international border and they believe the Mexican army is being used by the Mexican drug cartels to escort and protect drug runners, human smugglers and gun runners and they say they have reported these activities to the authorities.

There are many reports of Mexican troops being spotted on our side of the border and just as many we never hear of. Seven members of the Mexican military were found inside the United States recently, telling border agents they had become disoriented while on patrol and accidentally crossed into the country, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol said.

The incident began when the Border Patrol's Yuma, Arizona, sector was notified that a military-style Hummer was broken down, Customs and Border Patrol said in a written statement.

Agents said they found the vehicle about 200 yards from the Colorado River, and the seven individuals were dressed in military-style clothing. Customs and Border Patrol later determined that the troops' entry was unauthorized.

U.S. agents told the Mexican troops they were inside the United States and took them into custody, the statement said.

"This is not an uncommon occurrence," Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, said, "Often times, it is the result of the Mexican military providing cover essentially for drug transportation across into our country, and/or creating a diversion so it will draw our people away from the place where the drugs are coming across."

In August, the Border Patrol said Mexican troops had crossed the border illegally 42 times since October 2007.

Tancredo said the U.S. State Department lodged a complaint with the Mexican government for the first time over these and other military incursions. Attempts where made by this reporter to contact the State Department and the Mexican government those efforts were unsuccessful. Nor did they return our calls.

Secretary Michael Chertoff said last month that attacks on agents were an "unhappy" consequence of heightened enforcement. According to the latest figures available the Border Patrol said its agents were attacked 1,097 times during the fiscal year that ended in September, 2008 an 11 percent increase from the record 987 a year earlier.

The mostly uninformed U.S. public about the escalating levels of military incursions into the U.S. and the violence associated with warring Mexican drug cartels in Mexico and along our border is alarming.

As reported earlier this year in the Laguna Journal the explanations for the void of information on a national scale is believed at least partly because of the cozy relationship between the Bush and Caldron administrations. Both governments filter the information that is made available to the public, some call it diplomatic courtesy.

 

[pdm]

9k, does this stuff make your local news all the time, or is it completely swept under the rug?

 

[Migmojo]

Somebody just let me know when it's okay to start growing weed again....K?

+1

 

[economist]

The argument that legalizing drugs would make unspecified bad things happen, and is therefore not a good idea, illustrates perfectly why any growth in government should be opposed. It is almost impossible to kill government regulation or activity if this counter argument prevails. Try to legalize drugs, or kill the FDA, the department of education, gun regulation, etc, and what you hear is that all hell will break loose, that government control is essential to life as we know it, and that there is no way that people can be trusted to manage themselves.

 

[ephemeratta]

Seven .50's, rpg's... whatever, give them all the firepower they want. They clearly can't fight worth sh!t.

If everyone had a nice and neat FA-10 system like the one in MA then they'd never have been able to buy that stuff... wait. Well, it must've been through the gun show loophole then... okay that's not it either. Hmmmmmm. Let me call the brady campaign and find out who's to blame.

 

[JoeyB]

I think comparing the addictive properties and riskiness of alcohol and, say, heroin is more than just a reach. It's a completely different ballpark. How many junkies do you know? I see junkies on a daily basis and would venture to guess that the cost of prohibition is far less than the costs of treatment, detoxification and welfare disability that would result from selling heroin at your corner store next to the Pokemon zipper pulls.

I don't know any junkies, but it doesn't change anything. Creating laws and enforcing them with guns is not the way to solve a problem. Coercion is wrong. Plus, you or society should not be responsible to bear the costs of their addiction. If they want treatment then they pay for it.

If people want to do heroin it shouldn't be a concern to you. It's their body and they can do what they want. It only becomes a problem is they use violence to achieve their end. In other words if they steal or murder to get money or drugs.

Would you agree or would you still want to use enforcement to get your way?

 

[JoeyB]

It seems that you'd rather support a government that pisses away huge sums of money, and erodes our rights and freedoms in the name of "The War On Drugs". Cool. We'll agree to disagree.

+1

Knowing addicts is a moot point. You can tell which people don't care about individual rights and don't understand that violence against another is wrong.

If some idiot wants to ruin their life by doing heroin so be it. People who want to use force to stop people from doing drugs are hypocrites.

How can you be for allowing people to have guns, but against people doing heroin? You complain about government trampling all over your "rights" but you have no problem flipping the table when its not about guns.

 

[GSG]

You know what would be cool, if the government would spend way more money on education, research into addiction, and treatment, so that we could reduce the number of addicts. It would cost a lot of money though, probably 1/100th of what they're spending now on ineffective attempts at enforcement.

If we can't properly educate kids about sex, I highly doubt drug classes will get us anywhere.

You're advocating subsituting one form of goverment involvement for another.

 

[GSG]

Like the Brady Campaign, the newspeople insinuate that grenade launchers, machine guns, anti-aircraft missiles and other evil, untracable weapons are available for purchase at your local Wal-Mart. You don't even need an ID to buy one.

I'd better hit the local gunshop before they make selling hand grenades to people illegal.

 

[Ultimate]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but their "picture gallery" really pisses me off.

Their "specific" pictures are random pictures pulled from the internet to display well known firearms for the shock factor. All of the guns pictured, as far as I can tell by looking at them, are completely legal to own in the US.

 

[GSG]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but their "picture gallery" really pisses me off.

Their "specific" pictures are random pictures pulled from the internet to display well known firearms for the shock factor. All of the guns pictured, as far as I can tell by looking at them, are completely legal to own in the US.

Those are the ones they want to ban.

 

[EddieCoyle]

You're advocating subsituting one form of goverment involvement for another.

How is funding research a form of "goverment"?

 

[GSG]

If we can't properly educate kids about sex, I highly doubt drug classes will get us anywhere.

You're advocating subsituting one form of goverment involvement for another.

How is funding research a form of "goverment"?

I'm talking about government involvement, which isn't necessarily more government, but does mean more money spent.

You know what would be cool, if the government would spend way more money on education, research into addiction, and treatment, so that we could reduce the number of addicts.

Education...the DARE program, and many other like it.

Research...government funded studies, institutions to run the research and an agency to oversee it. Grants to run research. Hospitals to do studies in.

Treatment...methadone clinics (who'll gladly give it to you with absolutley no limit on how long you can get it, courtesy of tax dollars), needle exchange programs, needle sterilization kits, drug counselling, halfway houses, all run by the government, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

My point is that it's just more blind government involvement.

 

[EddieCoyle]

I'm talking about government involvement, which isn't necessarily more government, but does mean more money spent.



Education...the DARE program, and many other like it.

Research...government funded studies, institutions to run the research and an agency to oversee it. Grants to run research. Hospitals to do studies in.

Treatment...methadone clinics (who'll gladly give it to you with absolutley no limit on how long you can get it, courtesy of tax dollars), needle exchange programs, needle sterilization kits, drug counselling, halfway houses, all run by the government, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

My point is that it's just more blind government involvement.

Are you in favor of keeping things the way they are now?

If drugs were legalized, the overall savings would be huge. I'm not talking about simply cutting the DEA's bloated budget either. The costs for all of law enforcement, the courts, public defenders, the overburdened prison system, would all drop dramatically. Gangs would lose their profit center, with the indirect result likely being less gang-related "gun crime" in the public eye.

If a tiny fraction of the savings was spent on research instead of pissed away on enforcement, it would only be a matter of time (and probably a short time) before a much more effective treatment is found than the 70+ year old drugs we're using now.

That's a lot less money spent, and a lot less government involvement than we have now. What exactly are you advocating?

 

[kevin9]

Wow, almost 5 pages of people mostly missing the point. It's not the media talking about this; it's Mexican, and more importantly, US government officials who are really doing the talking:

The high-powered guns used in both incidents on the evening of Sept. 24 undoubtedly came from the United States, say police here [Tijuana], who estimate that 100 percent of drug-related killings are committed with smuggled U.S. weapons.

Houston has become the top source for firearms going into Mexico to supply drug cartel gangsters with weapons for their deadly insurgency, according to federal law enforcement officials.

"It's a war," said Bill Newell, special agent in charge of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Arizona and New Mexico. "It's a war between the drug cartels. And it's a war between the government and the drug cartels. And the weapons of war are the weapons that they are acquiring illegally here in the United States."

This is pretty much how I'd start a deliberate marketing campaign to "build public support" for "closing the gun show loophole".

 

[Bill Nance]

I think it is on topic. The only reason there is a problem like this is the criminalization of drugs. Absent that, no weapons, no drug war, no money for cartels, problem solved.

 

[Reptile]

150 grenades, 14 cartridges of dynamite, 98 fragmentation grenades...

If you buy more than one of the above items from one shop in within one week, you must file a special form with the ATF. IIRC.

 

[terraformer]

This is pretty much how I'd start a deliberate marketing campaign to "build public support" for "closing the gun show loophole".

Let them keep calling it a gunshow loophole. If they try to pass a law that says one can't sell a gun at a gun show then they got what they said they wanted and just about no-one is harmed. Their focus on gun shows has got to be the dumbest strategy I have seen in a long time. They have deviated from their real goal (banning private sales) to some side show.

 

[GSG]

Are you in favor of keeping things the way they are now?

If drugs were legalized, the overall savings would be huge. I'm not talking about simply cutting the DEA's bloated budget either. The costs for all of law enforcement, the courts, public defenders, the overburdened prison system, would all drop dramatically. Gangs would lose their profit center, with the indirect result likely being less gang-related "gun crime" in the public eye.

If a tiny fraction of the savings was spent on research instead of pissed away on enforcement, it would only be a matter of time (and probably a short time) before a much more effective treatment is found than the 70+ year old drugs we're using now.

That's a lot less money spent, and a lot less government involvement than we have now. What exactly are you advocating?

Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and a ridiculously low gun crime rate. England has nearly identical gun control laws, but a much higher rate of gun crime and violent crime in general. Two nations, nearly similar laws, completely different results.

When alcohol was legalized and prohibition ended, Chicago didn't turn into a gang-free happy place. Capone, Moran and others made illegal money in lots of ways, and continued violently killing people in public long after alcohol was legalized.

Crime is a cultural issue. Laws define crime, penalize it, but they don't create it or promote it somehow. Legalizing drugs won't eliminate the crimes that go on to support it, and there's no way to say that violent crime will drop, prisons will empty and people will take to the streets singing love songs.

 

[maee]

I agree, we should lower our standard of freedom to accommodate Mexico since it is clearly our fault that they are in their current situation. I think any reasonable person can agree that acquiescing to Mexico's demand upon American's rights, thereby lowering ourselves to their least-common-denominator system and proven human rights record, is a good thing. In fact, we should do the same for China and Iran and Britain, just as the United Nations has been begging for years.

Who are we, as Americans, to say that we deserve certain liberties or freedoms when more sophisticated countries like the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom have clearly demonstrated the superiority of nanny-state control?!

 

[terraformer]

I agree, we should lower our standard of freedom to accommodate Mexico since it is clearly our fault that they are in their current situation. I think any reasonable person can agree that acquiescing to Mexico's demand upon American's rights, thereby lowering ourselves to their least-common-denominator system and proven human rights record, is a good thing. In fact, we should do the same for China and Iran and Britain, just as the United Nations has been begging for years.

Who are we, as Americans, to say that we deserve certain liberties or freedoms when more sophisticated countries like the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom have clearly demonstrated the superiority of nanny-state control?!

It's simpler than that. They are blaming us to deflect the blame off of them. Who is worse? A country that weapons can be smuggled from (and I highly doubt that anything came from here) or a country whose politicians and government officials are so corrupt they help drug dealers smuggle dope over the border? 'nuff said, this is such a smoke screen. The problem is south of the border, not north of it.

 

[EddieCoyle]

When alcohol was legalized and prohibition ended, Chicago didn't turn into a gang-free happy place. Capone, Moran and others made illegal money in lots of ways, and continued violently killing people in public long after alcohol was legalized.

Yup. You're right. When prohibition (of alcohol) was repealed, the gangs either had to find another way to make money, or cease to exist on such a large scale. So they turned to the only remaining banned consumable with large market potential: Drugs.

 

[JoeyB]

I think it is on topic. The only reason there is a problem like this is the criminalization of drugs. Absent that, no weapons, no drug war, no money for cartels, problem solved.

Yup.

 

[clinotus]

I think it is on topic. The only reason there is a problem like this is the criminalization of drugs. Absent that, no weapons, no drug war, no money for cartels, problem solved.

They'll move to human trafficking or salt trafficking or something else. In the end there will always be a black market and that black market has to have certain prerequisites in place for it to function, such as economic availability and market restrictions; later it must have supporting elements: The tools of violence.

 

[EddieCoyle]

They'll move to human trafficking or salt trafficking or something else. In the end there will always be a black market and that black market has to have certain prerequisites in place for it to function, such as economic availability and market restrictions; later it must have supporting elements: The tools of violence.

You are right. There will always be a black market for items that cannot be obtained legally. The size of the market determines the revenue. Black markets exist for people, drugs, guns, stolen goods, etc.

By far, the largest of these is the black market for drugs. If that market is removed in the US (through legalization), criminal gangs will not be able make up the lost revenue in other markets because the demand will not increase. An illicit salt (or any other) market is not going to create itself just because criminals decide to start trafficking in it.

If the US illegal drug market disappeared, the big players will be forced to move to other countries to ply their wares. There will no doubt be gang wars until the distribution arrangements are settled, but they won't be here.

The local criminals that depend on the drug trade for income will have to find another way. In the short term, other crimes are likely to increase, but without the drug money, criminal gangs will be less well-funded, and less able to prosecute their "war on society". Also, with the drug-enforcement burden removed, law enforcement, the courts, and the prison system will have the resources to quickly deflate the resulting "crime bubble".

 

[TomH]

I have no idea, but something will. If I knew what it was, it's likely that someone would come up with a solution. As Don Rumsfeld said, it's the stuff that you don't know you don't know, that bites you in the ass.

Sounds like fearmongering to me. Whats the worst that could happen, people take drugs in their own homes and enjoy it? Sure you will have some problems with driving under the influence, etc. We don't ban alcohol and it consists of those same problems. Addiction, overdose, and death will be a slight side effect too but honestly one could attribute that to Darwinism... Its the violence of the drug trade that is the problem, not the drugs themselves. Making this stuff illegal has created an entire culture of violence and lawlessness. Legalize it so anyone can grow the stuff in their backyard and/or make it with a chemical set (depending on what "it" is) and that entire culture of violence is null and void overnight. Then all the drug gangs will have to get jobs.

 

[Bill Nance]

You are right. There will always be a black market for items that cannot be obtained legally. The size of the market determines the revenue. Black markets exist for people, drugs, guns, stolen goods, etc.

By far, the largest of these is the black market for drugs. If that market is removed in the US (through legalization), criminal gangs will not be able make up the lost revenue in other markets because the demand will not increase. An illicit salt (or any other) market is not going to create itself just because criminals decide to start trafficking in it.

If the US illegal drug market disappeared, the big players will be forced to move to other countries to ply their wares. There will no doubt be gang wars until the distribution arrangements are settled, but they won't be here.

The local criminals that depend on the drug trade for income will have to find another way. In the short term, other crimes are likely to increase, but without the drug money, criminal gangs will be less well-funded, and less able to prosecute their "war on society". Also, with the drug-enforcement burden removed from law enforcement, the courts, and the prison system, authorities will have the resources to quickly deflate the resulting "crime bubble".

AMEN.