Mexican drug commandos expand ops in 6 U.S. states

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 21, 2005

[atlanta67]

baja californisa is in MEXICO not the USA

[A CA Guy]

I get what you are saying about letting these people die, but often they get others people addicted, or give other people diseases like aids and as they die, they can be costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in taxpayer money.

The better thing would be to further stigmatize drug users. Get Americans more disgusted with them, spit at them, shun them.
If the drug user got into productive life instead of drugs, there would be income tax coming in instead of going out with these people.

Drug enforcement needs to also kill off a lot more of these distributors and dealers while in the process of arrests. Would be good for everyone IMO.

[A CA Guy]

Heavens, you are talking self responsibility with drug activists and libertarians here.

This has about as much chance of getting through as Star Jones through the eye of a needle.

[Ken H]

The WOT is for the 'general welfare' of the citizens. I'm surprised you support it.

Hogwash. It is an issue of national defense, just like WWII.

And absolutely I believe everyone that buys illegal drugs is supporting terrorism.

You dodged my question, so let me try it a different way. Would a regulated drug market, similar to alcohol, result in less money for criminals and terrorists?

[G32]

"Would a regulated drug market, similar to alcohol, result in less money for criminals and terrorists?"

Answer: Short answer: Maybe. Worth the cost? No.

Long answer:

Also, maybe they'd move into the bio/chem/nuclear weapons biz if they lost this market totally. Who knows?

[G32]

I managled that post. Rewrite..


Short answer: Maybe. Worth the cost? No.

Long answer: Maybe they'd move into the bio/chem/nuclear weapons biz if they lost this market totally. Who knows?

[the anti-liberal]

Like is said:

"So who are all the violent people carrying all the illegal drugs across from Mexico to the United States?"

Jeez... Who are they- they're criminals. The question you should be asking is why- because drugs are illegal and there's a demand.

Having said that, I'll point out that I don't agree with the willy-nilly use of drugs as a means of instant gratification or simply to get high, I believe there's a difference between using and abusing. (Incidentally, I don't smoke, not even cigs, and rarely if ever drink- and I don't use drugs because they're illegal).

Further, I contend that the drug problem is primarily one of misuse, which stems from our terrible socialist education system and a society that ignores the subject of emotional health and intelligence, and a poor class with very little from which to derive happiness.

But like guns, knives and whatnot, the problem is not with the objects themselves, but the misuse and abuse of them.

[A CA Guy]

So if we legalize rape, mutilations, beatings, shootings by law, it will all go away?

[Black Tooth]

WHY have we allowed cowardly politicians, arrogant egocentric judges, twisted entertainment figures, and biased journalists turn us into such a nation of compliant whimps???

Just sign me "Disgusted".

Seems only one option. Another poster said it the other night, and it didn't involve voting.

I agree with you, it's a very alarming when those we pay to protect and defend our country don't.

What another person said was, why do we keep electing the same people over and over? It's a good question.

You mentioned American history. Many years ago American leaders didn't make careers out of politics. Now, they all do, and make life long careers out of it. Long ago, they served one term and went back to the farm or where ever.

This in my opinion is one of the biggest problems.

Look at those in Politics. That's all they know, and go from one office to another, riding the wave. Look at those in Congress and the Senate. Most have been there for many years. City counsel members go on to be county supervisors, then Mayors, and then any number of positions in state governments.

Lets face it. The longer they are in office the more the potential for corruption. It's no secret.

They cultivate friends and buddys over the years, and we know where all this goes from there.

[G32]

One thing I find interesting..

Gun ownership is very high in the USA because they are legal. They are very low England where it's illegal.

Personally, I prefer an armed society. However, I strongly believe legality and ease of buying is directly correlated with how much of something is bought.

If the libertarians had their way, meth would be as easy to buy as a coke. hmmmmmmmm... Not that hard to figure out that people picking it up to give it a shot would skyrocket.

[A CA Guy]

Why are illegal drug activists present at FR?

Addiction isn't a conservative behavior, so why is FR so connected with anarchist and liberal libertarians with this issue?

[G32]

I suppose because conservativism is stuck with warped libertarianism which is a tiny step away from anarchism.

[A CA Guy]

Libertarians aren't conservative IMO, they are just liberals that want small nearly nonexistent government and civilization.
They are the party of vice.

[the anti-liberal]

So if we legalize rape, mutilations, beatings, shootings by law, it will all go away?

You're being silly and you know it.

This has become a circular argument- once again, those are activities- a drug, any drug, is merely an inanimate object. Are you afraid a steel pipe is going to sprout legs and jump up and hit you in the head?

Do you feel like going around this circle again? Because I don't. You have a mind designed for intelligent thought- use it.

[A CA Guy]

A knife is an inanimate object until it enters a human body, so what's the difference.

Your trying to play games and dance around the facts that illegal drugs are pure cr@p. They are for mostly criminal types with little or no connection to self responsibility of conservatism.

[the anti-liberal]

Your trying to play games and dance around the facts that illegal drugs are pure cr@p. They are for mostly criminal types with little or no connection to self responsibility of conservatism.

Some people use drugs to indulge in self-destructive behaviours, certainly. Cocaine and morphine are used as anesthetics, but can be misused or abused- as I said, it's a result of behaviour, which stems from poor education and character development.

[G32]

A lot of educated people use drugs. It's all poor judgement and character and disregard of the law as far as I am concerned.

[coloradan]

Bash the criminals, not the law.

Any law that causes reasonably forseeable, serious harms is a bad law. That was true of Prohibition I and is also true of Prohibition II. One would have to be stupid or blind to not bash bad laws. (In fact, your comment denies that bad laws could possibly even exist! Stupid or blind.)

[backtothestreets]

Bestiality and pedophilia, now there's a couple practices where I wouldn't mind changing the law. Just shoot on sight. We can hold a trial later to if an animal was accidentally shot in the process.

I don't think we would be releasing more people with problems on society if managed the same way as alcohol. They are already in our everyday lives, but living in the shadows. I want them out where I can see them. It would make it easier to spot them. They aren't all people living terrible lives. I recall the sons of a mayor and the lead narcotics detective in a California city I lived in being the biggest drug dealers around. This was before Nixon launched our present "War on Drugs". (Yeah, I'm one of those Viet Nam era, hippy aged guys.)

What would improve is that the gang violence involved in the present distribution scheme would be stopped cold. The other thing that would end is the crooked politician on the payroll. They are there, just as they were there in the days of bootlegging.

When I have a business lunch, and people in the group start ordering beer, they've helped me decide with that simple act how trustworthy I think they might be. Spending company money on alcohol is a serious issue with me. If they order a second or third, they've closed the door on future business dealings, and I'll tell them why. I have the same attitude toward drug users.

I wouldn't want to remove the stigma for any substance abuse. That goes for drugs, alcohol, and any other substance. In fact, I wish our elected would make the alcohol distributors stop glorifying alcohol and show some of what it really does. That's not likely to happen as long as the distributors keep the campaign coffers full though.

BTW, I see a lot less morality and respect in the generation following mine, so I'd expect things to get much worse before they improve.

I am glad we can discuss this.

[G32]

During the AWB, I didn't put folding stocks on post-ban rifles. You follow the law and try to get it changed while you are under it.

At least, that's what adults do. What you do, who knows.