Mexican drug cartels make Phoenix #2 in world for kidnappings
posted at 9:01 am on February 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
According to ABC News, the use of kidnapping by Mexican drug cartels for ransom and revenge has spread beyond the Rio Grande and into Arizona — and the federal government has done nothing to stop it. Phoenix has become the second-worst city in the world for kidnappings, right behind Mexico City, with brutal dismemberments for those abductees who do not get ransomed quickly enough:
In what officials caution is now a dangerous and even deadly crime wave, Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City and over 370 cases last year alone. But local authorities say Washington, DC is too obsessed with al Qaeda terrorists to care about what is happening in their own backyard right now.
“We’re in the eye of the storm,” Phoenix Police Chief Andy Anderson told ABC News of the violent crimes and ruthless tactics spurred by Mexico’s drug cartels that have expanded business across the border. “If it doesn’t stop here, if we’re not able to fix it here and get it turned around, it will go across the nation,” he said.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown warned that as the U.S. government focuses so intently on Islamic extremist groups, other types of terrorists — those involved with the same kidnappings, extortion and drug cartels that are sweeping Phoenix — are overlooked.
I understand about limited resources, but there simply is no excuse for government inaction on this front. First, the border should have been secured years ago to curtail the kind of access that the drug cartels have to American territory. Had we built the border wall, much of this kind of activity would have disappeared. Perhaps Jerry Brown should be asking his Democratic colleagues in Congress why they’ve deprioritized that project, passed in 2005 and still barely even started.
In fact, if Congress wants a stimulus for infrastructure, the border wall would seem like a perfect project. It would employ people, improve national security, and help protect Phoenix from a plague of drug cartels. It will bolster our security infrastructure better than golf carts at the Pentagon, condoms for teenagers, and federal health care boards dictating treatment limits to doctors.
But Brown is right that this kind of activity is a form of terrorism inflicted on an American community by foreign forces. They differ from AQ in that the drug cartels don’t plan to kill Americans on a large scale for political purposes, but the kidnapping, ransom, maiming, and murder of Phoenix residents for profit and/or revenge still qualifies as terrorism, regardless of the motivation behind it. The primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect the nation from outside attack — and if what ABC reports is accurate, it’s failing miserably in Phoenix.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
If you think drug use amongst the poor is a new problem, you should read up on the tenements 100 years ago.
Making drugs illegal hasn’t cut down drug use at all.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:04 AM
So…..a hundred year problem can be compounded by making hard drugs more readily available?
Uh…..ooooooook.
Making murder illegal hasn’t cut down on the murder rate either, presumably making murder legal would lessen the rate. I guess.
Bishop on February 12, 2009 at 10:12 AM
I repeat: the black market of drugs is the occasion of their violence, not the cause of it.
Removing the occasion by legalizing drugs does not remove the cause, as some here are suggesting.
jeff_from_mpls on February 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Read up on the history of prohibition.
How it created organized crime.
How drug gangs terrorized people and killed each other in large numbers.
Read up on how much money and man power was spent by the police in trying to stop the gin runners and capture the drug lords.
When prohibition was ended, did alcohol consumption skyrocket?
When prohibition ended, did we have an epidemic of drunks littering the streets?
In fact, when prohibition ended, problems with alcohol decreased. This was for two main reasons.
1) People switched from the hard stuff back to beer.
2) People no longer had to hide their habits.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM
You think that heroin use does not cause a problem?
Johan Klaus on February 12, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Bishop on February 12, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Why do you assume that merely taking a drug should be illegal?
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Organized crime also gets a lot of money smuggling people (especially for the sex trade) and selling counterfeit goods and bootlegged movies.
Heck, one terrorist cell in NY/NJ funded themselves by bringing truckloads of VA cigarettes to sell on the black market.
While I’m not firmly in the prohibition camp, I also don’t think the crime will magically disappear once drugs are legalized. As long as there are things that are restricted there will be black markets smuggling those things in for funding.
JadeNYU on February 12, 2009 at 10:14 AM
No I’m not, glad to clear that up for you. Now that you’re done throwing insult can you actually like…respond to my argument.
Here’s the deal, I’m not sure if you’ve studied drug cartels but these people are not stupid. They run highly organized, well planned operations. Ruthlessness and cruelty is not exclusive of logic and rationality. Do drug cartels make “business” decisions, absolutely! Do they have “business models” yes, they do. And demonizing them as “savage animals” only does them a service, because it pretends that there’s something “inhuman” about exploiting/killing for money…when we know that so much of human progress has come from people willing to do just those kinds of things to advance their own civilization.
You seem to believe that legalizing drugs is some kind of approval or appeasement of drug cartel tactics. That’s stupid. Drug cartels THRIVE because of the illegal market. It’s not capitulating to them to legalize it, it guts them.
I’m still waiting for someone to propose the alternate black market that will be as profitable as drugs?
DeathToMediaHacks on February 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM
I saw nothing snarky in Death’s post. Yours on the other hand avoided every argument he made and resulted to childish insults instead.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Hack – Abuse of alcohol is a very dangerous situation. However, people aren’t being killed and kifnapped over alcohol.
kingsjester on February 12, 2009 at 10:17 AM
You have that completely backwards. The fact that drugs are illegal is the cause of the violence.
When alcohol was illegal, there was violence.
Before alcohol was made illegal, there was no violence.
After alcohol was made legal again, there was no violence.
Before the other drugs were made illegal, there was no violence.
When was the last time you saw two liquor store owners shooting it out over turf?
The drug trade is illegal because all of the legal remedies for conflict resolution are prohibited.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Not in and of itself.
Many famous people were heroin addicts and it did not prevent them from leading full and productive lives.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Well, since the media has tried to make drug use acceptable now, I am sure that there would be no increase in drug use with legalization.
Johan Klaus on February 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM
That’s because alcohol is legal.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Sure there is. They’re all God’s children, Ed.
Racist.
spmat on February 12, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Back when alcohol was illegal, people were being killed and kidnapped because of it.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Uh, Bernie Madoff?
You are so completely confused that I will try to be more precise.
Criminals are bad people looking for the occasion to do wrong.
Removing an occasion in one arena merely moves them to the next arena.
You seem to believe that legalizing drugs will turn criminal drug dealers to an honest life.
That’s fine. You have a very optimistic — dare I say, utopian — view of things. God bless you for that. But as a student of human nature, you get a big fat F.
jeff_from_mpls on February 12, 2009 at 10:21 AM
What I love is how opponents to this act like a drug legalization could not be carefully crafted, legalizing “soft” drugs like marijuana, mushrooms, hashish while gaining control of the cocaine, heroin and meth markets.
How do we do that? We are having trouble controlling the heavy drugs now, what would you change?
Besides, who are you to tell me that I can’t do meth, it’s my drug of choice just as weed is yours. As you said, “those who are able to use them and function, should be allowed to do so” and I swear that I won’t get out of control. Promise.
I’m trying PCP next week and again, I promise promise promise that I won’t act out and go nuts after taking a few hits. You can trust me. I’m also a gun owner, just to set your mind at ease.
Bishop on February 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM
You mean like Mick Jagger?
Johan Klaus on February 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM
No change there. You are aware that in the original Sherlock Holmes book, Sherlock was a heroin user.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM
I’m under the impression that most recreational drugs were criminalised so that AMA members could protect their prescription writing monopoly. Yet another cartel IMHO. So who has clean hands? Waste of time worrying about that.
Almost as bad as the drug cartels are the blatantly unconstitutional activities of our own government to try to enforce obviously unconstitutional laws.
So put me in the “Legalise it” camp as the least evil alternative.
sleepyhead on February 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM
16,653 alcohol-related fatalities in 2000
17,448 alcohol related fatalaties in 2001
17,419 persons were killed in alcohol-related crashes in 2002,
16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005
Yeah that doesn’t include the number of people’s whose lives are destroyed in other ways by alcohol addiction. Shouldn’t this highly dangerous and deadly drug be illegal? Or are 16,000 or so people a year just not enough to warrant legislation.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 12, 2009 at 10:23 AM
It is a false choice to say we need to either focus on domestic issues or fighting terrorism. This issue obviously does warrant much more attention, but local authorities seem to be passing the buck and absolving themselves of any responsibility.
davenp35 on February 12, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Oh, let’s have a war on drugs! What a novel idea!
paul006 on February 12, 2009 at 10:23 AM
How would that work?
Feel free to craft away.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 10:23 AM
1) I was not aware that Jagger pre-dated drug prohibition.
2) The last time I checked, Jagger was incredibly rich and famous.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Sounds good to me. I think we should switch our draconian drug sentencing from drug suppliers (who should have legal licenses) to those who commit destructive crimes while on drugs. Think of the way our society approaches alcohol. Lots of people drink, many choose not to drink and drive (amazingly the states on drunk driving are still super high as my previous post indicated). I think any crime committed while intoxicated should put you away for a really long time.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM
I’m still waiting for someone to propose the alternate black market that will be as profitable as drugs?
DeathToMediaHacks on February 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Synthetic drugs that haven’t yet been developed, stronger and better and “cooler” than what is available now? Crack superseded powdered coke for a reason and ecstasy created a cult following.
How about pure kidnapping for profit as is happening in Mexico, would that be a black market industry?
Bishop on February 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Was not Sherlock Holmes a fictional character?
Johan Klaus on February 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM
My 45 year old wife, and mother of our 5 year old son, will be dead from a rare form of cancer in 6 – 10 weeks. The ONLY reason she is alive now is due to the ability of doctor-recommended marijuana to stimulate her appetite and help in her pain relief regimen.
But I’m sure you’re right and that you obviously are more informed on the subject than all those dumb ol’ oncologists at Cedar’s Sinai Hospital and UCLA. I’ll be sure to let my wife know what a low life scumbag she is for following doctor’s orders to stay alive. But I have to hurry…
Hoof Hearted on February 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Nice
saiga on February 12, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Go look up chloramphenicol. It was a very effective antibacterial, used widely at one time. I’ve mentioned succinyl choline, ketamine, xylazine, barbituates in other threads. Which part of Pandora’s box do you think can remain closed? I’m sure some part of the population would consider these as recreational drugs.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Sounds good to me.
PCP too? You would feel fine having me live next door and doing it up heavy every night? No fears of me taking a few tabs of acids and wandering over to your place?
You’re really going to have fun when I invite a few dozen of my closest friends over on friday night for a PCP party. We’re going to sharpen knives and clean guns while we do this.
Sleep tight.
Bishop on February 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM
His suggestion wouldn’t work. But that’s irrelevant. Marijuana is 70% of the drug war. Let’s start there.
paul006 on February 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM
There aren’t many illegal drugs in Singapore. Perhaps our war on drugs doesn’t handle the punishment aspect adequately.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Hmmmm…. lets see…
The NEW head of Department of Homeland Security is?
Janet Napolitano… Ex Gov of Arizona… who apprently did not do anything about this crime wave, except to get a promotion?
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Many famous people were heroin addicts and it did not prevent them from leading full and productive lives.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:19 AM
You were referring of course to Amy Winhouse, James Taylor and Nicole Ritchey? How are they doing these days?
Bishop on February 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM
So whats your position?
How do you arrive at the claim that pot is 70% of the “drug war”? 70% of what?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM
I doubt that any are opposed to use of pot, morphine, etc. for legitimate medical purposes. That isn’t the point here, and factoid is a sh*t stirring troll, anyway.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM
The Peter Principle: advancement through incompetence.
thomasaur on February 12, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Legalize drugs and make TAX money. Wow! How progressive of us.
These gangs don’t just move some leaf or powder. It’s racketeering on a grand scale. Chop shops, theft rings, business “protection”, gambling, human smuggling, music, video and software piracy, prostitution, and on and on and on. It’s a frakkin hydra and feeds off your gawddammed political correctness. The drugs are just another part of the gangs many talents.
Limerick on February 12, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I was replying to your claim that the media has been glorifying drug use, by pointing out that the media has always glorified drug use.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM
70% of the cost of the drug war. Or least that’s the calculation from Common Sense for Drug Policy. Here’s one of their ads (pdf).
paul006 on February 12, 2009 at 10:50 AM
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM
So anything that can be misused, must be made illegal?
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Bishop on February 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM
You honestly believe that anyone who does drugs becomes an instant danger to anyone in the vicinity?
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Bishop.
How many famous people destroyed themselves using alcohol?
Should alcohol also be made illegal because of that?
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:52 AM
If not an instant danger at the very least a potential danger.
thomasaur on February 12, 2009 at 10:55 AM
LOL….the potheads argue that by making Gomez & Ahkmed a NASDAQ company that society will benefit.
ZIG-ZAG and Swisher Cigarillos for everyone!
Limerick on February 12, 2009 at 10:58 AM
One can play numbers games all day, but it has little to do with the issue imo.
There are over 30,000 deaths a year that are directly caused to aspirin alone…not aspirin related. Thats often a fuzzy area to prove.
The reasons for keeping pot illegal are valid imo.
Its just not worth the cost and effort just so a certain % of the population can get a “pot buzz” without being fined.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 11:01 AM
The sad part is that pre-Shanghai on the opium trade, Congress, lacking the power to do anything on drugs, themselves, required a list of ingredients to be on all food and drugs. This was the Food & Drug Purity Act, so that consumers could know exactly what they were buying especially in regards to cocaine and heroin. When the patent medicines actually had to list what was in them, along with wine producers and other makers of goods, the use of drugs started to decline.
Yes, absent draconian laws and just informing the public was enough to start that process going, and we will never know how that would end up as those in the religious communities wanted to wipe out the opium trade… and then started in on other drugs. The first was the Harrison Act of 1914 where you had to have a ‘valid’ ailment to get a doctor to prescribe opiates. Being addicted was not a ‘valid’ reason… soon the first doctors would be going to jail over that. Then came the ’37 Marijuana Tax Act where you had to get a stamp to buy or sell Marijuana, and it was a felony not to have it. Unfortunately you had to own the marijuana, first, so you were guilty when you applied for the stamp. Good deal, no?
While many bemoan how awful these drugs are when abused, do realize that the Nation prior to 1903 had no drug laws, and yet built the great industrial cities and the transcontinental rail system. Quite a feat for a population that we would characterize as ‘drug abusers’, ‘addicts’ and ‘alcoholics’. Even that last was shifting from hard liquor at the time of the Revolution to beer by the beginning of the 20th century, and overall alcohol consumption was dropping. Today we would be considered prim teetotalers by those standards, and unable to hold our drink.
I do agree, however, that making it legal will not solve the problem. What it would do is take off the stigmata and enticement of not being socially acceptable, and make us deal with our human failings. That is what liberty is for. Government is very, very, very good at punishing… but it sucks as a reformer of society as that is not what it is made to do. Today we have so supercharged the terrorists and illegal narcotics systems that they expand deeply into human trafficking, white slavery and a host of other areas including the legal ones that now serve as their fronts and infrastructure support system. When you find Hezbollah buying into a shopping mall in south america, you are no longer looking at old fashioned terrorism, but one that is now cross-breeding with organized crime. And the Congressional Research Service has already cited the Red Mafia, Hezbollah, HAMAS, al Qaeda and a number of other groups having ties with the Mexican Cartels and gangs. Mind you we have already taken apart a couple of Hezbollah support organizations in the US in black market goods sales, cigarette tax evasion, and one operative running a few tons of pseudoephedrine from Canada to Mexico to get processed into Meth. So the ‘easy money’ is already being supplemented in the US by other forms of crime, including such things as car theft, where multiple groups cooperate with Albanian ex-pats in the US and Canada to send money back to parent organizations.
Legalizing narcotics will not make this go away as a problem of the human condition. It *might* drain the excess cash out of the organizations involved… unless they are now investing it in cheap property to resell at a later time… wouldn’t that be fun?
ajacksonian on February 12, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I’m so sorry to hear that. My thoughts and prayers to you and your family.
Texas Gal on February 12, 2009 at 11:07 AM
“If you think drug use amongst the poor is a new problem, you should read up on the tenements 100 years ago.
Making drugs illegal hasn’t cut down drug use at all.”
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 10:04 AM
So, what’s your solution, Mark? My step mother has said that all drugs should be made legal so we could de-criminalize the user and get them ‘help’. Should the dealers be slapped on the hand and allowed to continue? Are you in agreement with my bro who says that if it weren’t for OUR drug consumption there would be no drugs in this country, or should I say North America! Is George Soros your hero?
Ah, but I’m not worried. Just like Barry got help for that homeless lady, (a Republican reached out to her), He will end the drug trade and the violence associated with it, not just in the border states, but in Mexico, and South America…Heck, He’s gonna heal the entire world after Bush raped it! he just needs to get the socialist coup rolling and he’ll get right on it.
Christine on February 12, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Maybe we are looking at this wrong. Legalize drugs and then when someone ODs or gets strung out on Meth we can use the government EMR database refusing medical treatment based on the fact they are drug users. Less crowding in prisons, no more rehab costs and lessens the burden on welfare. Win / Win
Badbrucskie on February 12, 2009 at 11:15 AM
The only thing that stands a chance of being decriminalized as the nation becomes more liberalized is marijuana and that would be a small dent in the pocketbook of the drug cartels to only be replaced by a new and more effective drug of the future. So legalizing drugs to defeat/fight the cartels on the border and elsewhere is a silly argument. What we need to be doing is helping Calderon on the other side of the southern border to clean up the corruption in the Mexican government and law enforcement. He’s fighting crime families that would make the Sicilians blush.
Texas Gal on February 12, 2009 at 11:15 AM
What do you suppose the % decrease in pot smuggling would be if legal?
It never ceases to amaze me when people try to compare alcohol legality to making pot legal.
There would be no way to regulate it in the same way as alcohol. The argument of great tax revives being reaped is bogus imo. The cost/benefit ratio is just not there.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Stop funding Mexican drug cartels. Grow your own weed. :)
Guardian on February 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM
I’m not sure I want to wade into this…. :)
I’m fairly agnostic on the drug legalization issue, but I do want to ask an honest question. It seems to me that assuming drugs are legalized there will be an increase in the number of people who do drugs. What happens with that? Is it something we should just not worry about? Would social costs not increase on the back end to accomodate new drug users, or is the assumption that it will be a relatively short-term spike?
I’m also of the, probably naive, opinion that this is something that can possibly be discussed without calling those who favor keeping some drugs illegal “fascists” and those who favor legalizing drugs “potheads.”
JohnTant on February 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Shouldn’t you be trying to turn all prescription drugs into over-the-counter first? If prescriptions will be required, who will fill the void for those without prescriptions?
Buddahpundit on February 12, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Can you name anything that isn’t a potential danger?
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Sobriety
thomasaur on February 12, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Are you capable of generating an argument that doesn’t depend on demonizing anyone who disagrees with you?
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Somewhere between 95 and 99%.
Apparently you are easily amazed.
Why? You are aware how trivially easy it is to make alcohol.
You belief that there is a huge difference. So it’s incumbent upon you to spell out what these differences are and detail why they make regulation impossible.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 11:30 AM
You appear to believe that you have made a point worth considering here.
Why?
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM
How the hell does legalization rob the cartels of their profits?
Do you think a Pfizer like company, paying market wages, production facility costs, and taxes is going to be able to out produce/price cut the cartels? They’ll do what China has done…..sink the competition. The cartels will do what they always have done, produce offshore(cheaply), smuggle(cheaply), and distribute(cheaply). The Pot-Pfizers won’t stand a chance of competing and any local Mom and Pops who try to make a buck will have the Federal tax boot land on their necks (not to mention consumer protection laws).
Limerick on February 12, 2009 at 11:34 AM
I tend to mean the things I say on this forum, even the ones most of you find controversial. Which leads me to my next point: what is so controversial about “if you abuse drugs you are putting money in the pockets of lowlife, depraved criminals, and that’s a bad thing, so you don’t.” I’d think that’s a pretty non-partisan opinion.
factoid on February 12, 2009 at 11:36 AM
You are ignoring the point. None of the drugs I listed have to be misused to create problems. Chloramphenicol had a nasty side effect of creating aplastic anemia, which would probably have cost many more lives than it did, had use not been regulated. How would one “misuse” a barbituate? It does what it does.
Let’s discuss legalization and taxation. Use tobacco as an example. Pelosi’s health care program supposedly will be funded by an increase in tobacco taxes. Legalize and tax pot, I guarantee a new social program funded by the revenues. Increased cost of pot will either result in decreased demand(less tax revenue and more taxes from other areas to make up the difference), or a resurgence of black market activity and we’re back to square one. Using sin taxes to fund entitlement programs which eventually have to have tax revenues from other sources isn’t something new. You know that.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 11:44 AM
O.K., I’ll accept that and apologize.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Thank you.
factoid on February 12, 2009 at 11:49 AM
W.C. Fields was plenty terrified of it.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 11:49 AM
For what reason do you believe people should be required to have a doctor’s Rx before being able to purchase their drug of choice? Does that question terrify you?
Buddahpundit on February 12, 2009 at 11:52 AM
So anything that can cause problems must be what?
Regulated? Made illegal?
Have I ever stated that I would oppose reasonable regulations?
If drugs were regulated the way alcohol is, I would not have any problem with it.
As to drugs causing side affects, as long as nobody is trying to hide the side effects, I have no problem with them being much more freely available.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Texas Gal on February 12, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Don’t agree on helping Calderon, but you are dead on in regards to these Mexican mafia families. They are just down right vicious. They are also smart, educated, and very organized. Had a drug bust in Laredo last week where they found tons of pot in a Laredo ISD school bus, completely real looking down to it’s license plate. Problem was, the school district didn’t remember ever owning that particular bus.
I am a big proponent of less government, so the “legalize or not” issue raises some interesting moral dilemmas – less government means – legalize it and let the fools ruin their own lives, but then you would want to regulate it, which is more government, you get the idea.
catlady on February 12, 2009 at 11:53 AM
I have stated on many occassions that as long as no-one is advertising fraudulently, people should be allowed to buy medicines without having to pay a doctor for permission.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Regulation is a lot less govt than the current drug war.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Hoof Hearted on February 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM
My thoughts are very much with you. My sister is in the last stages of a particularly nasty cancer, which has spread to her brain, spine, liver and lungs. If pot would keep her pain free during this time, I would be quietly growing it in my backyard.
catlady on February 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Markthegreat –
True statement, I see your line of logic.
catlady on February 12, 2009 at 11:58 AM
how do we know it isn’t the canadians doing this?
RAAAACISM!!!1
ReformedAndDangerous on February 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Good point. I’m a Pfizer retiree. I doubt the cartels provide medical insurance benefits, matching 401k funds, retirement benefits, etc. They also don’t have costs associated with proving efficacy and safety to APHIS and the FDA, plus if they do have a product related problem, I doubt they are on the hook for millions of dollars in compensation to the injured parties. For that matter, I wonder what would happen if individual pot users presently growing their own happened to share something unintentially nasty with a friend or even many friends. Hell, maybe it has already happened.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I do confess, a certain devilish side of me would like to see drug legalization if only to witness the spectacle of some Pablo Escobar-type drug lord getting named in a product liability lawsuit.
JohnTant on February 12, 2009 at 12:11 PM
That would be fun. Or, how about the FDA shutting down a production batch because it failed potency standards? :)
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 12:19 PM
“DC is too obsessed with al Qaeda terrorists to care about what is happening in their own backyard right now.”
Excuse me but, Arab/Muslim terrorists are coming through the border as well, they just aren’t telling us about it. ‘Enemy combatants’ are fascinated about how our borders (especially the southern one) are wide open and the Mexican human/drug traffickers take money for their services no matter who is paying the right price.
Congress has gutted the bill that would have built the fence and I’ve heard that the ‘Stimulus’ bill has no ‘pork’ for national defense in the form of border control, (missile defense, new and improved nuclear warheads). The Obama Nation doesn’t want us to be able to defend ourselves.
“Are you capable of generating an argument that doesn’t depend on demonizing anyone who disagrees with you?”
MarkTheGreat: Why can’t you answer the questions? What is your solution and is George Soros , (who is all for legalizing drugs and crime in general), your hero or not?
Those are yes or no questions, not ‘demonization’. While you play ‘victim’ and ask questions like: “So anything that can be misused, must be made illegal?” your country is slipping into chaos…But, don’t worry, Obama will save you.
Christine on February 12, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Well, for me there is no degree of separation between helping Pakistan fight the terrorists inside their borders or Columbia or the Philippines than in helping Calderon take down the corruption inside the Mexican government and law enforcement/military because that is how the drug cartels are able to thrive. And they are much closer to home and much better financed. Calderon is the first Mexican President to take them on so forcefully that is why it has reached such a boiling point on the border. I don’t want to see him fail. I worry that someone inside his circle will assassinate him.
If I had my way, I’d make possession of marijuana legal in the US but not the manufacture and production and then make it entirely legal in Mexico and use it as an economic development plan.. ;)
Texas Gal on February 12, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Somewhere between 95 and 99%.
Any reason to believe that would be accurate?
Apparently you are easily amazed.
Just my opinion, but I doubt you’ve actually compared the two.
Why? You are aware how trivially easy it is to make alcohol.
You belief that there is a huge difference. So it’s incumbent upon you to spell out what these differences are and detail why they make regulation impossible.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 11:30 AM
You’re right..I made the claim, therefore it is up to me to make a reasonable case for that claim.
I hope the shoe also fits for the opposing view.
Part of the reason I’ve not bothered to post any specific reasoning as to why I believe the legalization of pot in no way has a parallel to alcohol, is that the effort would most likely be handwaved away. In reality it would be much more complicated than most seem to think.
If you go into a store that sells alcohol, you have a great number of choices as to what you can purchase. You have beers, wines, distilled spirits, etc.
Seems simple, but every one of those products has a chain of events that must be followed by law in order for you to walk into that store and see the end product of that chain and make you choice as to what to purchase.
(I’m going to abbreviate this a lot.) There are strict standards for all the products for consumption. With alcohol there are more levels of bureaucracy and standards and licensing than there are for many other products. A class of beer has to have a set limit of active ingredient..up to X% alcohol and this has to be labeled. The same is true of wines and spirits etc. The products for sale have to be from licensed distributors, and the products themselves have to be of a licensed producer. The brewer or distillery have very exacting specifications and rules as to how the product is made. The producing facility has regular inspections to assure compliance with not only procedure, but sanitation and health concerns. Every batch as a code and is tested for content of active ingredient and consistency of end product etc. Records of compliance from the maintenance of facilities and equipment, to qualities produced, to compliance of content of active ingredient, to distribution, to the amount of product sold..for tax purposes, etc…to the training of the personnel and development of the instruments and equipment need to perform these tasks. All these things must be in compliance for alcohol to remain legal. These are just a few of the things I’m pointing out as complications in transferring the process to pot.
How would this work with pot? Unless one is advocating government controlled and regulated growing facilities that carefully monitors all steps from the growing, product safety, consistency of % of active ingredient, licensing of growing facilities and distribution points, amount delivered to those points and amounts sold in order to levy the taxes…which is a big part of the pro legalization argument, the comparison of legal alcohol to legal pot is weak.
But thats giving the fantasy too much slack. In the real world there is no means of preforming these tasks..there are no methods of testing % of active ingredient from one plant to the other nor instruments to do the testing.
Even if they could be developed, similar problems exist once the product is out in the public. How are on the spot intoxication levels determined? What are the standards for it? To date no instruments or technologies exit for carrying these tests out. Do pot users get a special right in public intoxication?..in impaired driving?..etc.
How would these things…among others..be dealt with? How many tax dollars should be spent in haggling the legislation..developing the testing processes and testing instruments, and court challenges to settle on the validity of systems to conclude these things, before the rational conclusion, imo, is “All that, just so a certain % of the population can get a ‘pot buzz’ with out a fine??”…Nah.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Five of the eight reps from AZ are dems. The former governor is a dem. Many in the state house are dems. Please name one that takes an active stand for the US citizen that wants to protect his own life and property.
TexAz on February 12, 2009 at 12:39 PM
It seems to me that a more prudent path for reaching your goals would be to first legalize the legal drugs before legalizing the more potent illegal street drugs.
Buddahpundit on February 12, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Not really, imo.
The violence is caused by the amount of money and power involved. If there was a 30% decrease in the amount of across the border smuggling of strictly pot, I doubt there would be a 30% reduction in violence. There is no “pound per violent act” ratio that I know of.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 12:52 PM
It is the illegality of drugs that makes them so profitable.
If drugs were legal, there would be no need to smuggle at all.
0 smuggling means 0 smuggling related violence.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM
When the proponent of legalization are making better arguments that those who are not, the latter need to step back, dial down their emotions and work a little harder.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Perhaps the blackmarket of illegal drugs being smuggled, sold and used because the taxed “legal” drugs are too expensive for the type of person who would be an excessive user and unable to maintain the type of job it would take to support that habit. (Don’t believe it, look at the blackmarket cigarette trade that increases as it’s taxed higher and higher.)Second and to an admitted lessor extent, the blackmarket of drugs being sold to underaged drug users who can’t buy them legally. And C, how about the drugs that even some legalization proponents here on HA have said are even too dangerous, like Meth? There are many who use Meth because it’s their brand. If it’s not legal, they’ll have o get it somewhere. If you keep it illegal, then you’re not much different than someone who drew the line at pot.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 1:13 PM
BTW, all the persons involved in the drug trade are all going to march down to the local unemployment office and sit down with a counselor seeking retraining and (finally) honest employment right after we legalize drugs, right?
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Be specific.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Yeah, wouldn’t consistency dictate it is all or nothing? From what I understand, the pure libertarian position is it should all be legal, which seems more consistent, even if I disagree with the concept.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Thats way too simplistic imo.
Theres no reason to believe the cost of high quality pot would decline, nor the illicit growers, not to mention the market/price manipulation. How much cheaper do you think legal pot would be?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Yep, and in my best Forest Gump voice I’ll just say that’s all I have to say about that before MadCon shows up and starts slapping me around.
:-)
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 1:37 PM
What is the strongest point that being made in favor of legalization iyo?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 1:37 PM
C’mon now. The drug war can only, at best, limit the SUPPLY of drugs, you can never reduce the number of people who want it. I think we can all agree that if pot was legalized, it would massively increase the SUPPLY of drugs. And what exactly happens when the SUPPLY of soemthing increases, but the DEMAND stays the same?
justfinethanks on February 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Why not put some validity into the actual experiences of places that have tried legalization?….Oh wait…that would be nowhere…but the closest might be to wonder why Holland is clamping down and moving to tighter restrictions because they found lax enforcement led to an overbearing presence of organized crime, and more recently the UK is reclassifying pot to the former more dangerous drug category.
Why do you suppose that is?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 1:46 PM
If legalized, Congress will tax it to death and use the excuse of a new revenue stream to start another entitlement program which will eventually require revenues from another source to maintain the program. The net result will be more tax liability from non users as well as users.
The DEA won’t be disbanded; another bureacracy and associated costs will be added.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Thanks John McCain.
revolution on February 12, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »