Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. bears blame for Mexico drug violence
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 8/31/11 | Alejandro Escalona

Posted on 09/01/2011 9:03:00 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy

Two and a half minutes.

That is the time it took for several armed men to storm a casino in northern Mexico, order the patrons to get out and torch the place with gasoline. Fifty-two people died in the blaze, mostly women and senior citizens who enjoyed playing bingo.

The daylight attack at the Casino Royale happened a week ago in Monterrey, Mexico. It was the worst attack on civilians since the massacre of 72 migrants last year.

...The United States shares responsibility for the thousands of people dead, injured and displaced in the five-year drug war that Mexican President Felipe Calderon has launched against the drug cartels. But we seem to ignore the connection between the high demand for illegal drugs and the violence associated with drug trafficking — not only in Mexico but in cities such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago.

The connection is crystal clear: The U.S. represents a yearly $39 billion market for the drug cartels because an estimated 25 million Americans — 12 and older — consume some type of illegal drug, according to the Justice Department.

(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Mexico
KEYWORDS: drugs; gangs; mexico; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-183 next last
To: 10thAmendmentGuy
It’s truly amazing how some people with legitimate gripes about the failed economic policies of Democrats seek to repeat these same failed policies by waging a War on Drugs.
A Propagandized Populace is a beautiful thing...to Statists/Socialists/Communists.
81 posted on 09/01/2011 11:07:39 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

But the groups you are talking about have power from illegal activity. Even when prohibition ended in the 20s the mafia still moved and dealt with illegal booze on the black market. They still are to this day. They have a hand in a lot of legal enterprises and control unions and other businesses that deal it legally, yet they still deal in illegal ways with a legal product. Prove me wrong.


82 posted on 09/01/2011 11:13:14 AM PDT by RickB444 (What one receives without working for, another must work for without receiving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
The real sad part is that their arguments are so flawed, I can make the arguments for them. They can't make our argument for us, but we can make theirs.

Here we go:

Legalizing drugs will lead to more drug addicts because making something legal means that you are endorsing it. If you legalize drugs, that won't eliminate the cartels, they will simply move on to another black market. Legalizing drugs sends the wrong message to society -- we are true conservatives, and therefore we must use the power of the federal government to tell people what they can or cannot put in their body. Except smoking -- anyone should be able to do that, because that's not a bad or unhealthy habit at all, totally different from any other illegal drug. Fatty foods are okay too, because I rather like those, and no one dies from eating those. Alcohol isn't bad either -- sure, some people abuse it and end up dying of alcohol poisoning and getting in crashes, but so what? Why would you want to add one more drug to the mix of legal drugs? You're basically a Communist, you know. Communists wanted society hooked on drugs so they could impose their communist agenda.

I tried to make it sound very jumbled, so that it fit the profile for an average pro-WOD post.

83 posted on 09/01/2011 11:14:34 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("[Drug] crusaders cannot accept the fact that they are not God." -Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: RickB444
What, in your opinion, is the motive for the drug cartels to be in the drug business in the first place?

Power.
One can have power without doing something illegal so your conclusion is false on its face.
Care to try again?

But the groups you are talking about have power from illegal activity.
What groups do you presume I'm talking about? The drug cartels? I'm not denying they have power. They have the power to destroy through violence, to control through fear and intimidation and to enslave through extortion.
What enables them to gain power? Perhaps...money?

Power doesn't accrue of its own accord.

84 posted on 09/01/2011 11:22:02 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: 10thAmendmentGuy

And how exactly would they take over this country if they weren’t able to find jobs and their illegal children were barred from entry into public schools and universities?... How about overpowering the institutions in this country like free health care, free schooling, Social Security, MedicAid, Medicare, Enclaves in neighborhoods that become “NO GO ZONES”? How about free medicine, driver’s licenses with no insurance? How about no responsibility, no accountability and no skin in the game? Get your head out of your ass and see this as what it is. Part of Obama’s crew is trying to make this country surrender. That is why they made the ..”Under the radar” attempt at confiscating ALL weapons.


85 posted on 09/01/2011 11:22:46 AM PDT by Safetgiver (I'd rather die under a free American sky than live under a Socialist regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RickB444
Prove me wrong.
How about you stop being a control freak?!
86 posted on 09/01/2011 11:23:10 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: 10thAmendmentGuy

The facts beat your microeconomics. The facts are out there for you to see. In the 20s when prohibition ended the crime bosses still dealt with sales of booze as if it were still illegal. The market was already there they just found a new way to profit from it.

In Amsterdam, the crime syndicate still had their hands in the legal prostitution and drug sales. After drugs and prostitution were made legal in Amsterdam, the society started a downward spiral that they have never crawled back out of. Before legalization, 80% of the country was christian. 20 years after legalization less than 20% are christian. Criminals will always find a way to deal in vices whether they are legal or not. Making them legal just legitimizes the criminals but it doesn’t end their criminality. Legalization destroys the community and the morals of everyone in the country. It’s evidence can be found in countries that have no laws on drugs or vices. Amsterdam is trying to clean up its act now. It has learned from its mistakes.

Good for you. You put down the bong. But you’re still wrong headed about the reason drugs are illegal and how making them legal will make crime go away. You guys talk about the WOD being used to take away our 2nd amendment rights, but you fail to see that the majority of Americans support the 2nd amendment and that we have that amendment as part of our constitution. Last time I looked there was no amendment to the right to do drugs.

Yes, I heard of the case you mention. While I don’t condone what the police did I do remember reading that Guerena greeted the officers with a shotgun. Big mistake. He would have been better off if he had not given them a reason to shoot him. The cops were wrong and mistakes do happen, but this could have been avoided if he had just kept a cool head.


87 posted on 09/01/2011 11:25:43 AM PDT by RickB444 (What one receives without working for, another must work for without receiving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Safetgiver
How about overpowering the institutions in this country like free health care, free schooling, Social Security, MedicAid, Medicare, Enclaves in neighborhoods that become “NO GO ZONES”? How about free medicine, driver’s licenses with no insurance? How about no responsibility, no accountability and no skin in the game?

I support banning illegals from receiving free health care. I already said I support banning them from receiving a free public education. What makes you think I would then supoort giving them Medicaid, Medicare or driver's licenses? Give me a break. I don't. I want them all gone, and the best way to do that is to eliminate their reasons for being here -- namely jobs and welfare.

You talk about these enclaves of neighborhoods sheltering illegals -- why do the illegals live here? Um, for the jobs and welfare. Eliminate the free education, free health care and the jobs, as well as birthright citizenhip, and the illegals wave bye-bye to this country. That will never happen however, because politicians are in bed with them. Still, that's not the fault of drugs, which is the topic of this thread.

88 posted on 09/01/2011 11:26:13 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("[Drug] crusaders cannot accept the fact that they are not God." -Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I might if you stop being an a$$hole.


89 posted on 09/01/2011 11:27:00 AM PDT by RickB444 (What one receives without working for, another must work for without receiving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RickB444
In the 20s when prohibition ended the crime bosses still dealt with sales of booze as if it were still illegal. The market was already there they just found a new way to profit from it.
And now you've been bitten in the ass by your own words and have shown yourself to be a manipulative jerk wad!
Replace "mafia/the crime bosses" with "drug cartel" and you've just proven you're full of "it"!

Keep diggin' that hole!

90 posted on 09/01/2011 11:32:49 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RickB444
I might if you stop being an a$$hole.
You had that market cornered with your first reply!
91 posted on 09/01/2011 11:33:50 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: RickB444; dcwusmc; Ken H; bamahead; rabscuttle385; Nate505; tacticalogic; philman_36; Steel Wolf
The facts beat your microeconomics. The facts are out there for you to see. In the 20s when prohibition ended the crime bosses still dealt with sales of booze as if it were still illegal. The market was already there they just found a new way to profit from it.

You're wrong. Bootleggers and gangsters financed campaigns to ban alcohol in states and localities, because the repeal of the Prohibition Amendment did not prohibit states or localities from banning it. That's why the black market still existed. They would bring it from legal states into illegal states, from legal cities into illegal cities.

In Amsterdam, the crime syndicate still had their hands in the legal prostitution and drug sales. After drugs and prostitution were made legal in Amsterdam, the society started a downward spiral that they have never crawled back out of. Before legalization, 80% of the country was christian. 20 years after legalization less than 20% are christian. Criminals will always find a way to deal in vices whether they are legal or not. Making them legal just legitimizes the criminals but it doesn’t end their criminality. Legalization destroys the community and the morals of everyone in the country. It’s evidence can be found in countries that have no laws on drugs or vices. Amsterdam is trying to clean up its act now. It has learned from its mistakes.

Amsterdam never legalized drugs. They decriminalized drug possession in the home and in cafes. That is a far cry from legalizing drugs. In addition, the only thing the new regulations do is require people to buy a membership card. Foreigners can still get it there if they want to, and Dutch residents can certainly still get drugs. Portugal has gone further than any other country towards legalizing drugs and they have a lower crime rate and less drug use than we do. Why isn't Portugal trying to go back to the old days if what you say is true?

Good for you. You put down the bong. But you’re still wrong headed about the reason drugs are illegal and how making them legal will make crime go away. You guys talk about the WOD being used to take away our 2nd amendment rights, but you fail to see that the majority of Americans support the 2nd amendment and that we have that amendment as part of our constitution. Last time I looked there was no amendment to the right to do drugs.

You clearly don't understand the Constitution. First of all, the Second Amendment didn't stop the federal government from banning the importation of machine guns manufactured after 1986. The Second Amendment didn't stop the federal government from passing an Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, just to name a couple of examples.

Now you say that the Constitution creates a right to bear arms. I agree with you. You're also right that the Constitution doesn't give people a right to do drugs. It also gives the federal government NO power to wage a drug war. Do you dispute this? If so, point to me where the federal government derives its constitutional authority to wage a drug war. Drug regulation is the responsibility of our 50 states. Ever read the Tenth Amendment? The powers not enumerated and given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. If you disagree with the Tenth Amendment, you don't have standing to oppose ObamaCare. The Obama Administration is using the same twisted language of the Commerce Clause that the Nixon Administration used to create the Controlled Substances Act and the DEA. We required a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol -- that was the Prohibition Amendment. Do you think the federal government needs one to constitutionally wage a war on other drugs?

Yes, I heard of the case you mention. While I don’t condone what the police did I do remember reading that Guerena greeted the officers with a shotgun. Big mistake. He would have been better off if he had not given them a reason to shoot him. The cops were wrong and mistakes do happen, but this could have been avoided if he had just kept a cool head.

Guerena's relatives had been the victim of a home invasion where two of Vanessa Guerena's relatives were murdered by armed intruders. The children were also shot.

I imagine that Jose Guerena was unconvinced that they were actually police, and had the gun in hand to defend his family. The safety was on when they killed him, so he clearly wasn't acting recklessly. It's a common tactic of home invaders to pretend to be police, and it's certainly common in border towns with a drug problem.

Please don't defend what they did. They murdered him in cold blood. And the idiotic Sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, basically applauded the outcome. This is the same guy who blamed Tea Party members for the Giffords shooting. Whose side are you on?

92 posted on 09/01/2011 11:40:03 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("[Drug] crusaders cannot accept the fact that they are not God." -Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RickB444
The cops were wrong and mistakes do happen, but this could have been avoided if he had just kept a cool head.


Remember 11 year old Alberto Sepulvida? Alberto was killed by a shotgun blast to the back while following police orders and lying face down on the floor during a SWAT raid. He was a seventh-grader at Prescott Senior Elementary School.

Should Alberto have kept a cool head too?

You disgust me!

93 posted on 09/01/2011 11:54:55 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RickB444
The cops were wrong and mistakes do happen...
Just how many "mistakes" are acceptable to you? I really want you to answer that question 'cause after all these years of fighting this "war" we're already up to thousands of "mistakes" right now!

Friendly Fire has taken on a whole new meaning!

94 posted on 09/01/2011 12:10:40 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RickB444

How typical! You come in like Billy Bad Ass with your guns blazing and all you've really got, in the light of day, is nothing more than a simple cap gun.

95 posted on 09/01/2011 12:35:33 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: 10thAmendmentGuy

You do know that America, and most of the civilized world, had legal drug usage up until the 30s right?

So we know how society did when drugs were legal. There are studies that showed the destruction that drugs did to society. The reason that laws were passed was to stem the amount of damage that the drugs could do. Libertarians like you guys appear to be, keep fantasizing that by legalization things would sort themselves out and everyone would be better off with them legal. But history proves you wrong. What you wind up with is destruction of family, society and morals. You are willing to play out the experiment at the risk of the destruction of society. Yet we know what it once did to the very same society to get those laws passed in the first place. Study history of the 1800s to when the laws were passed and you’ll not see a utopia free from crime like you think. Quite the contrary.

Where is your proof that bootleggers and gangsters financed campains to do what you claim? I call BS on this conspiracy theory.

Amsterdam just passed laws that makes the sale of narcotics to tourists illegal. The reason? They hate all the drug users coming there to spend their vacations getting high and causing problems.

Portugal has strict laws on how you can behave too. They won’t allow a lot of other freedoms. Do you want us to emulate that?

The constitution doesn’t give us anything. It is a list of our rights should we be willing to fight for them. I was wrong in using that term. The constitution is the line in the sand of what we, as free people, should watch to make sure government doesn’t try to take away our god given rights. The prohibition on drugs came about from a major outcry of the people of America wanting to get a handle on the problems drugs were causing society. Government can only do what we allow them to do. And sometimes we do allow them too much power. The reason for the WOD is because every country has came to the realization that the drug trade is a destructive thing for society as a whole. It does destroy lives. It does bring down the morals of the society that tolerates it. Even those who choose not to imbibe in the narcotics are effected by it.

For a good example of a country that has such lack of laws or control, look at Somalia. The country is a haven for drug lords. There is no illegal drugs in Somalia, it’s free from any prohibitions. The people live in squalor and they are slaves to those who are ruthless and willing to deal death on anyone who opposes them. Think this isn’t a good example? Show me a country that is as free as America, economically sound, and the people are all happy that has legalized drugs.

As for Jose Guerena, the fact that he had the safety on shows he was stupid. You don’t greet a swat team with any gun in your hand. If you do then you will get shot and could die. As happened here. To say he wasn’t acting “recklessly” is insane. Greeting cops with a gun in your hand will always end badly. Period. If a cop goes through a door and sees someone with a gun his first instinct is to defend himself and shoot the guy with the gun. Tell me you would be able to see the safety of the gun in a high stress situation like that. Impossible. And you “imagine” you know what he was thinking? Bull. You don’t know anymore about it than I do since neither of us were there. But I can tell you from observation of many cases, you don’t greet a swat team with a gun in your hand and expect to come out on the winning end.

Your logic has been proven to be that of the typical libertarian. Someone who has a theory that the legalization of drugs will eliminate their harmful effects, make gangs and criminals behave, and make us all more free as a people. Total BS. History has already proven you wrong. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them. In this case, the majority of society says they are not willing to try this experiment again just to see if you’re right or wrong.


96 posted on 09/01/2011 12:41:35 PM PDT by RickB444 (What one receives without working for, another must work for without receiving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

Comment #97 Removed by Moderator

To: philman_36

You really are ignorant enough to think that if drugs are legal that cops won’t kill innocent people or that criminals won’t kill innocent people?

It appears you don’t know the slightest bit about human nature, nor have you ever been in a situation where guns are waving about and stress is high.

Effen arm chair quarterback with a highschool playbook.


98 posted on 09/01/2011 12:46:29 PM PDT by RickB444 (What one receives without working for, another must work for without receiving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RickB444; dcwusmc; Ken H; bamahead; rabscuttle385; Nate505; tacticalogic; philman_36; Steel Wolf; ..

I have to go run some errands. If I have time later, I will respond to the multiple falsehoods in your post. I think that others can rip it apart just as easily, however, and they very well might.


99 posted on 09/01/2011 12:54:39 PM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("[Drug] crusaders cannot accept the fact that they are not God." -Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

Comment #100 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-183 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson