Posted on 01/22/2015 12:26:19 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER
A drone carrying methamphetamine crashed in Mexico near the San Ysidro Port of Entry on Tuesday night. The unmanned aircraft hauling more than 6 pounds of crystal meth in six packages fell from the sky into the parking lot of a supermarket in Tijuana just before 10 p.m., according to Vicente Calderon, a Tijuana-based freelance journalist for NBC 7.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcsandiego.com ...
That’s some piñata.
I guess the answer would be... the Mexicans, since it feel on their side of the border.
According to narcoticnews, six pounds is worth between $48k and $90k. Of course, that's six pound in San Diego, CA USA, not 2.72 kilos spilled in a Tijuana parking lot.
Somewhere there’s is a dead drone pilot in a vat of acid.
Meth is one of the most vicious drugs and its use verges on a suicidal but it is the very depravity of the drug which should give those who would obdurately persist in the prosecution of this lost war on drugs pause to consider the hopelessness of the effort. The sheer horror which inevitably ensues from use of this drug alone should be enough to discourage its use but, of course, abuse of meth goes on and on.
Do we really think that law enforcement will do what the laws of chemistry could not?
MS 13 beat Amazon in Drone delivery...do they get the historical marker for this...or does the operation have to be legal???
The little drones are noisy and slow, they could be detected and tracked IF anyone was watching the border.
An articulate and accurate assessment my FRiend.
Drudge will not like this...NOT AT ALL (he doesn’t like drones).
Meth is one of the most vicious drugs and its use verges on a suicidal but it is the very depravity of the drug which should give those who would obdurately persist in the prosecution of this lost war on drugs pause to consider the hopelessness of the effort.
I have noted that when I see your name, an appropriate and well thought out commentary usually follows. Not so in this case. You have apparently bought in to the meme that the Libertarians have been pushing for the last sixty years; That the "war on drugs" is a failure.
This assertion is generally based on the fact that drugs are still available and that people are still using drugs. The implication being that if the "War" were a success, there would be no drugs or drug addicts.
Now I ask you, is this a realistic measure of success? Is the "War on Murder" a failure because we still have murders? Is the "War on Rape" also a failure because we still have Rapes?
I don't think anyone would argue that we should stop the "War on Murder" because we are still having murders. The Measure of success is that it keeps such crimes at a low level, and I will point out to you that drug addiction has been kept down to 2% of the population for 100 years. Usage is basically flat during that entire period of time.
Now some may argue that usage would be flat without any laws prohibiting drugs, but this theory conflicts with known facts in History. Usage goes up. It always goes up. Unless it is deliberately held down, it rises. Below is an example of what happens when drugs are legalized in a nation. You may recognize this trend as a "Logistical Growth function."
According to druglibrary.org, by 1906, half the adult population was addicted to opium. 50% is a very long ways away from 2% in terms of population.
In summation, I will reiterate that you are using an incorrect standard of success regarding the "War on Drugs." Legalizing drugs is a horrible idea. The fire is not an improvement over the frying pan.
Articulate yes. Accurate no. See my rebuttal.
When an addict murders someone in a mugging to fund his habit he is compensating for a system which makes drugs expensive and unattainable by other means (except perhaps by pushing and expanding drug usage). Thus the war on drugs victimizes the innocent and creates new innocent victims.
If criminalizing victimless behavior were in fact effective in controlling that behavior we would have stayed with prohibition, prostitution would not be the second oldest profession, and we would not be debating Internet gambling.
Criminalizing murder does not incentivize criminals to commit murder.
This is a philosophical argument against the drug war (and an erroneous one at that) not a practical argument, which is what you previously put forth.
If you want to argue theories and principles, I can do that, and if you want to argue practicality, I can do that as well. I do however believe it is more sensible to take one thing at a time instead of needlessly inflating the scope of the argument.
When we wage war on drugs we wage it in a manner that transfers the harm from the wrongdoer to the innocent. Thus we achieve a result contrary to the results we achieve in criminalizing murder.
As I regard your premise as faulty, so too do I regard your conclusions based on it. There are indeed victims of not having a drug war. I have had the unfortunate experience to witness all too many of them in the past.
Thus the war on drugs victimizes the innocent and creates new innocent victims.
Drugs do that. The "war" responds to the victims thus created. Victims are created by the passing of the knowledge and the means to get "high" to them. They should not be informed of this, and it is those who so inform them and supply them that are causing the injury.
If criminalizing victimless behavior were in fact effective in controlling that behavior we would have stayed with prohibition, prostitution would not be the second oldest profession, and we would not be debating Internet gambling.
I reject your premise that the usage of drugs is a victimless crime. I have seen all too many of them. I've known several people killed or overdosed because of their pursuit of drugs. They all left behind dependents for whom they were responsible. I also see how the government supports drug addicts who cannot work and pay for their upkeep, and that makes victims out of all of us who pay those bills. Do I not have a right to keep my own money instead of paying for a drug addict or their children?
Where Libertarians get the notion that drugs are a victimless crime is because the injury is not always apparent, or in close proximity to the initial act. No, the injury from introducing someone to drugs is often years away in time, and so people develop the false belief that no injury occurred. They have a short sighted view of the larger picture at work.
You've lived in a place and time where drugs were legal? When and where?
As you've said, "Till someone presents an argument that there are better figures, I will have no choice but to use what is available."
What's available says that addiction was low and declining in post-Civil War America: "In 1880 [...] there were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. [...] By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." (http://web.archive.org/web/20110529221013/http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm) 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.
Well said, sir. Well said indeed.
L
I’m not interested in looking at anything coming from your direction. You are an established liar, and I have no interest in wasting time with your subterfuge.
“I reject your premise that the usage of drugs is a victimless crime.”
The only “victim” is the user. No 2nd or 3rd party is directly harmed unless they choose to be. Once a person chooses to use some harmful substance the correct response of family and friends is instant rejection and shunning. Sadly many families and friends decide to tolerate it. They bring harm to themselves by doing so.
I feel no pity for them.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.