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 »
Apparently you feel the government doesn’t interere with pure market forces? This is such an awkward moment in time to feel that way.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Laws don’t exist to make imperfect people perfect (read everyone). Not even the Law is designed for that.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 1:57 PM
You can never reduce the number of people who want it??
I disagree. You seem to be saying that people have no choice over their desire to get intoxicated on a particular substance. There are people with that affliction, but to state..in effect..that the choice itself does not exist to be made, I think looks down on people in general.
How would that work?
I’m waiting for someone to address the problems with the comparison of legal alcohol/legal pot, that I posted. Is there some reason to avoid dealing with those real problems?
..unless the suggestion is to actually not make an honest case for the easy of adopting pot to the same standards as legal alcohol, and actually be advocating for absolutely zero regulations for it.
Which is it?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 1:57 PM
With all due respect, you apparently have no idea how the medicinal marijuana policies in California are working. There are already people who legally grow weed for so-called “patients. That’s right, all they do is grow pot for medicinal users.
These growers market their weed based on the quality, the strains and benefits thereof to the various dispensaries all around California.
The fact that pot can be locally manufactured removes the need for heavy government intervention. Limited government intervention — do you hear that — so called conservative?
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Point of order question. Seriously. Looking for a serious answer.
Okay, for the proponents of legalizing pot, would you at least concede that the location of its use needs to be regulated? For example, I go to a Three Doors Down concert the night before a flight I’m assigned to. Dude or Dudette is smoking a fat one next to me and I can’t avoid the second hand smoke. I’m no longer fit for piloting an aircraft the next day.
Would you be allowed to smoke at a park or a restaurant? Would you be allowed to smoke in the same home as would contain underage children? In your back yard next to mine?
Folks do seem to compare to alcohol a lot. The thing with me is anything in excess is bad but I can’t get drunk from second-hand shooters.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM
I agree with that, but I don’t think anyone is making that case.
In that same vein, the law doesn’t exist to bring about some perfect interpretation of “pursuit of happiness” or some such concept.
This was not directed at you bl, as you’ve never tried to make that argument, but some have, so the muse moved me to throw that in. :)
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM
I don’t disagree at all Baldi. I’m just commenting on legalization propronets claiming a drop in crime will insue. Crook will find another dishonest living and the FARC will find another illegal and violent method of funding it’s war.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Drug legalization has it points.
It is true people will get high off of anything, including choking themselves to get high.
Alcohol is more acceptable of a drug bcs of it’s many uses.
Caffeine is a drug etc.
Prescription & OTC drugs are also abused.
Will it stop with these substances? Making them prescription only would do the same as it has for prescription drugs-abuse & a black market for them.
I think the real answer is promoting a healthy family life.
But that will never happen when people can go & get donor sperm & have all the kids they want.
Single mothers are reported as heroes in the media, even though there may be a father in the background who is not allowed to see his kids bcs the mother lied about him to the judge.
Hollywood is our perceived morality in America. This is why people do drugs.
So I’m not quite sure I want to legalize drugs, but I can see the theoretical merits.
But that’s what they are-theoretical.
I do agree that these criminals would be involved in criminal activities no matter what.
They are gangs of anarchy.
So the US military needs to patrol the border & shoot to kill trespassers.
I don’t care who’s coming across. Make it like the damned iron curtain unless you have a passport & you’ll have less of this $hit.
Ranchers in the SW have been asking for help about this stuff for years & nobody cared then.
Now bcs city-folks are dying someone suddenly cares.
Unreal.
Badger40 on February 12, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Specific about whom or specific about what?
I’ll choose ‘what.’ The legalization of presently illegal drugs will decimate its blackmarket and that blackmarket’s attendent crime (kidnapppings, shootouts, etc.) is proven by the repeal of Prohibition.
That the criminally-minded will find some other way of breaking the law isn’t the point. (Again, if the purpose of laws was to make sure that no one broke them, then all systems of laws are failures. But that’s not the purpose of laws–not unless one believes that Man is capable of being perfect; something which is manifestly impossible.)
Laws are a standard to meet.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Correction: That the legalization of presently illegal drugs will decimate its blackmarket and that blackmarket’s attendent crime (kidnapppings, shootouts, etc.) is proven by the repeal of Prohibition.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Be advised: I’m not necessarily an advocate of legalizing said durgs. I’m just saying that the arguments for it being made here are far better than the arguments against which are mostly appeals to emotion, non sequiturs and ad hominem.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Here’s a simple distinction between pot and alcohol. The government regulates a product that kills many first-time and long-time users. The substance is a poison when consumed in heavy amounts. In fact, if you have ever been drunk, you were suffering (or enjoying) the side-effects of a toxin.
The only reason we let this happen is because of the tax-base and the only reason alcohol companies don’t want pot legalized is because of the competition. It’s simple, potheads make horrible alcoholics. The buzzes are competing. If a stoner has enough or good enough weed, they will drink less…every time.
There is no such thing as deadly marijuana. Legal alcohol, beer, wine, liquor, liqueurs, etc all kill tens of thousands of people directly and more indirectly. You talk about violent crime, well a huge percentage of every criminal act in and out of prison can be traced by to the drink taken before it was committed.
Sure, people get high on pot and do stupid and/or criminal acts. But THE gateway drug, that is, the drug which serves as a gateway to criminal activity more often than not is alcohol.
Tax weed.
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Then legalize everything that people want to use.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 2:11 PM
There needs to be a reality show, that’s as graphic as some of the popular TV shows — CSI, Law & Order, etc. All of these cop shows, Cops, DEA, etc blur out the graphic parts and tone down the reality.
Make a real cop reality show. Show the victims, show the blood and guts. Show the pain…every f*cking night until we are all shamed into a sensible amount of rage over kidnappings and beheadings next door.
Hang convicted kidnappers from the soon-to-be completed border fence…over the Mexican side.
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Please, just don’t get excited when you show up to fly with me and I have that silver paint all around my mouth. It’s hard to wash off even days after I’ve used it.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Actuall I kinda do. I pointed out that my nephew works at one in the Bay area.
Everyone…Everyone.. knows its mostly a scam around the laws.
But still, that is no comparison to legality. In the M.M. hoax, one still needs a “prescription..hee..hee.”
How is this an example for what would be needed in regulation for a mass produced, for mass consumption product like alcohol…if that is what you are making an argument for?
Is that what you’re advocating for?
Anyway, what answers do you have for some of the problems I pointed out in an earlier post? Is avoidance the best policy?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 2:14 PM
No argument there Race.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Old skool deterrents generally work better.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Meth kills, cocaine kills, heroin kills….alcohol kills. If you are so stupid as to ignore the nuance in my statements, so be it.
But you have not explained the logic or consistency in your obvious, emotional argument about our current drug policy. Flat out legalization would be problematic…but it couldn’t be much worse than what we’re doing now.
Admittedly, I would have a hard time arguing against legal cocaine once pot was legal…but I have a harder time finding the consistency in legalized poison AKA booze and a plant.
What other lines shall we draw around your personal anecdotes and emotions in order to ignore strict constitutionality and consistent legislation?
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
So you’re basically saying…no regulation. Is this correct?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Did you miss the word ‘limited?’
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 2:20 PM
How does someone requiring medicinal pot know it contains sufficient active ingredient to create the desired effect? Marketing a product based on “quality, the strains and benefits thereof, is quite different than knowing those actually exist. Our marketing people at Pfizer quite frequently were at odds with our scientific and quality assurance people, particularly when backorders were involved. I would reference the recent peanut butter salmonella issue as an example of marketing carrying the day, then taking the 5th amendment.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 2:20 PM
So all drugs should be legal?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Build a friggin wall, man it with minigun crews and kill those trying to cross into the country uninvited. Message sent and received, how quick do you think this crap will stop?
Viper1 on February 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Race, you never get very far into a thread before you have to call someone stupid. Why do you do that? I didn’t say “if you are so stupid as to ignore my questions”. I’ve made comments about how I think the black market would still exist, no one answers, but I don’t impugn anyone’s intelligence for not addressing the question. I asked proponents opinion about where they think it can be used and no answer and still no trollish comments from me calling names about why you won’t answer. I point out that it’s pretty accepted that crime won’t go away because of legalization (which is a selling point by many proponents) and don’t call you stupid for being Pollyannaish about the effect.
If you want to legalize pot, legalize everything. Pot or cocaine I guess is your line in the sand like pot was with me. I don’t personally care anymore what someone wants to do with their body anymore as long as it doesn’t affect me or cost me in increased taxes. I really don’t care. I am tired of the incremental movement to a complete “if it feels good do it” society and the time, money and energy it takes to oppose it. Let’s just all agree to legalize everything and let the f*cking chips fall where they may.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 2:32 PM
What are some of the appeals to emotion etc. that you see being made, and what are some of the strong points for legalization. What regulations would leagalization entail and how would they be enforced? Just curious, because, to me, it seems like the appeals to emotion, etc. are coming for the pro legal side. The idea that seems to be made is along the lines of..”don’t worry about it..it’ll all be fine”..and “everything should be legal..I”m a sovereign citizen with the right of “pursuit of happiness”.. that appeals to an emotion kinda thing.
The idea actually seems to be not to legalize it,but to ignore it and its effects of the rest of the population, and let everyone else deal with it and pay for the problems it brings into being.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Just what I was saying.
Papers please. No papers?
Ratatatatatat!
Problem solved.
Badger40 on February 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM
My mom and dad look down from above in absolute agreement while my butt shudders at this simple truth. :)
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM
McCain must be so proud.
WisCon on February 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Actually I guess I did.
Thanks for pointing that out.
So..how would that limited government present itself?
I ask that because statements like that are often simply used as a cover for ill thought out ideas.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM
and another very interesting arguement…
Why is there a FEDERAL war on Drugs?
Where, in the Constitution, does Congress have the right to even pass laws about it? This should be a State issue… EXCEPT for when it interacts with the US Border. If it is grown inside of a state, and sold within that state, the Feds have no Constitutional Jurisdiction.
So, lets take all the Feds who are now enforcing laws in STATES about drugs, and put them on the border to control what IS a Federal Mandate, of smuggling.
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Its a national problem that has no state line boundaries.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM
To be clear, I did not call you stupid. I gave you the option of having the label apply or not.
But you are quite correct, I can be quite abrasive if not offensive in my thread/comment wrangling. I make no excuses, but you should realize that it’s mostly a function of typing fast and enjoying my own writing. It’s fairly reckless of me to do so at others expense. Many have felt the pinch of my titty-twisting words.
I apologize if you, rather if I did not make it clear that I do not think you’re stupid.
I treat comment threads like I treat any other sh*t-talking forum. I step up with thick skin, big ears and a deep-well of snark. You can sift through all of that to find the occasional sober, on-point nugget. But many choose to steer clear.
Long story short. Online I can be kinda assholish. IRL I like to buy the first and last round. I tip well, am courteous while driving and make a damn-good neighbor.
Sorry for the incessant insensitivity. Now if you pardon me, I will go back to being right all of the time.
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Where is McCain’s leadership on this issue?
getalife on February 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM
How would that apply to drug regulation? Efficacy and safety standards by production batch? Tracking adverse reactions? Notifying the public when there is a public health concern? Proof of concept on new drugs? who does the testing, if any is done? Do you trust the company to do it’s own without oversight? I assume those advocating limited govenment interference have a line in the sand. Where is it?
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM
You never apologize to me.
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM
It’s a black thang.
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Hmm, like me saying, “If you are so stupid to admit to the world you have big ears…”, neither implies I consider you stupid or believe you to have big ears? (kidding) And apology accepted.
But to the point of drawing any lines. I’m serious. Why try to act like there is any limit that can be imposed once we start moving that way?
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Is that the new standard to determine illegality?
Aspirin kills about 30,000 people a year. Should it be illegal?
What are you basing that emotional conclusion on?
What are the similarities between alcohol and pot?
What are the legal inconsistencies you’re having trouble finding?
You think the drug laws are unconstitutional and the legislation is flawed? How so?
Be specific.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 2:51 PM
the role of the government is to protect the cartels.
Xolom on February 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM
If the government can make a buck from doing nothing they will. Then saying that they will limit their involvement is cracking me up.
thomasaur on February 12, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Not a standard, but a point to be considered. You know this.
Reality-based opinion…just like you. Often, differing realities result in different opinions.
They both make sex even more fun.
Blahblahyadayada…I’m bored with this/I got nothin.
We draw lines all the time. California is the perfect test market. There is a LOT of legal weed smoked here. I don’t smoke it because it’s legal, nor does anyone I know who didn’t before.
Legalization releases a big-ass genie to put back in the bottle if things go awry. But the War on Drugs is a f*cked. Sometimes you just go a different direction. And if that direction has anything to do with expanding my personal freedoms, I tend to lean toward accepting it…or at least theorizing thusly.
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Thusly?!
Really? Your personal freedoms stop at the bounds of proper English. Come on Dude.
The Race Card on February 12, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Wherein lays the problem of criticizing each other personal opinion of what’s too dangerous. I really don’t see any agreement among everyone even here where to draw any line. HA just posted a study that claimed pot smoking causes testicular cancer. Is that enough to start a crusade over or should I push my line to Meth which makes the users teeth fall out? Should you be scared flying with me if I have paint around my mouth or do you trust me to huff paint responsibly?
Anyway, I stayed longer on this thread than I should have because you’re right Baldi, although I try to make very precise counterpoints, they’re normally at least motivated by my emotions on the subject. And regardless of how much more sense my points make than RaceCards and how more intelligent my arguments are than his, it really is a losing point of view when you consider the majority opinion here on HA.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I also tend to feel the need to leave when RaceCard starting talking to himself.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM
How odd..though not surprising. Isn’t that actually a large component of the pro legal crowd..that drug laws are unconstitutional?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Are you arguing with yourself?
“Your Honor..I rest my case”.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 3:24 PM
So is murder, and theft, and all those other pesky things left up to State Law…
Read the Constitution lately? Just because there is a problem, that does NOT give the Congress power to address it… the Congressional power has very defined borders… and all other authority goes to the STATES.
But then… I’m a very Fiscal Conservative / Social Moderate bordering on Libertarian… I don’t think the Federal Government should be meddling in ANY Social Policy…
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 3:25 PM
These topics really get off on tangents imo.
Just for my own bearings..Am I understanding the pro legal people to be advocating that pot be legalized along the same lines as alcohol?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Murder, theft, etc. have little to do with a product of commerce. The stated..and upheld ..power of the fed in drug laws has to do with interstate commerce.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 3:30 PM
I’ll beat him to the punch. His point will be he’s the only one intelligent enough to argue with here. So….
hawkdriver on February 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Not necessarily. I suspect there are a lot of silent spectators who don’t want to get drawn into the pit, but read the arguments. I don’t think all of them are totally influenced by posting style alone.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Sorry, but that is a false arguement IF the drugs do not cross state lines.
Making them illegal WITHIN a state is clearly beyond federal power…
Transportation BETWEEN States? Sure… no problem… but that is not what they are doing.
Its like the kidnapping laws… Its a STATE Law about kidnapping, right up until the victim crosses a State Line… then it becomes Federal…
Drug laws, to be Constitutional, should follow the same meme.
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 3:39 PM
LOL..I wouldn’t be surprised.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 3:40 PM
There seem to be two schools of thought among the prolegal advocates.
1. Treat it like alcoholic products, complete with regulation and taxation.
2. Ignore all regulation and just make it legal, regardless of source, potency or toxicity issues.
Those advocating limited govenment involvement seem unable to define precisely what that means. No one has addressed your excellent post comparing legalized alcohol and pot, other than in generalities.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 3:46 PM
The problem I’m having is that the same gangs are smuggling in and terrorizing illegal aliens. At some point I’m afraid the administration is going to make the very similar argument that open borders and amnesty will solve the problem and make the violence go away. Which may be true (or not). But other kinds of problems will thrive.
Shay on February 12, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Xenophobic racist.
/s
Hawkins1701 on February 12, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Hmmm…. Prohibition…
Isn’t it interesting that they needed a Constitutional Amendment to make Alchol illegal?
but can make other drugs illegal with just a law?
Isn’t that a pretty clear indication that at least back then, they understood the limits on Federal Power from Congress?
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM
I agree, and thanks for the compliment.
Why is it that these realities are always avoided in favor of abstractions and emotional arguments?
If there are valid points to be made that could deal with these issues..then make them.
“Facts do not cease to exit simply because they are ignored”
A.Huxley
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 4:09 PM
I don’t think so…but anyway, what do you suggest?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Not if you grow your own or buy from an American grower. Most pot consumed in the US today is grown domestically.
Alchohol is by far the must destructive drug in common use. When was the last time you saw a headline reading “Man smokes pot, kills wife.” Never heard of liver failure from pot either. Alcohol is THE gateway drug, and highly destructive.
Harder drugs are a more difficult problem. However, we do have laws against most bad outcomes that happen as a result of excess drug use. I wonder how many people in this country are on prescription pills that affect their behavior/performance? Millions, I would bet.
riverrat10k on February 12, 2009 at 4:22 PM
If they didn’t believe the Federal Power was limited, then why go to the trouble of using a Constitutional Amendment to make Alcohol illegal? It would have been MUCH easier just to pass a Federal Law…
As to what “I” would do? Let the States decide what is legal and illegal… Pass a law about Interstate Transport if you are transporting to a place where it would be illegal… Pass a Law about importing into the US itself (US Border is a Federal power)…
Then put all the power we currently have scattered all over the US on the Border… where it should have been all along.
Democracy works best when it is small… lets get these social decisions down to the smallest groups we can.
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I was considering a vacation to Mexico, since it’s really cheap these days(drug violence), but I guess that won’t be necessary, since Mexico is coming to me.
DFCtomm on February 12, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I think much of it has to do with the venue. Posting in an anonymous way on the ‘net lends itself to the easy one liner or snark, of which both sides are guilty. I see some valid rationale for the legalization argument, but it always tends to flounder in the details and as you noted above, shoots off in tangents. Very general concepts are useful in fleshing out the framework, but don’t work well when dealing with probable outcomes. My professional training is in the area and it does bother me that so few prolegalization advocates really know what agencies like the FDA and USDA provide in terms of public health protection. Also, having worked with them in some detail, I know they can be infuriating, wasteful, and wrong on occasion, just as can management of large corporations.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 4:32 PM
That’s a stretch. A Maginot Line approach to immigration policy won’t work. We could get better results — for less money, and without royally mucking up relations with one of our biggest trading partners — by going after the employers who hire illegal immigrants. Remember Arizona’s employer sanctions law? Arizona law enforcement doesn’t, apparently.
The “shamnesty” bill was justly rejected, but it still would have been an improvement over the current policy of doing nothing at all.
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Boy Bishop, you have a really high opinion of your children and your own parenting skills. Meth is readily available to any teenager. Illegality stops some from trying it. Others try it anyway. Some become quickly addicted, others don’t. Some folks maintain lifelong addictions to various substances and are productive members of society, others are not. I will not argue for “legalization” whatever that means. Radical anti-drug folks always start talking about heroin and meth or whatever whenever these issues come up here. I have known worthless potheads and potheads who are pillars of society. I have had old friends die from herion and cocaine addiction, and I have friends that I suspect are still using harder drugs. One comes to mind in particular. He owns his own construction business, has for 25 years, and just sent his second son off to college. He seems to be a rightous citizen to me. I don’t care what he puts into his body. Drug money that leaves the country is counterproductive however.
riverrat10k on February 12, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Translation: There are no limits to Federal powers.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 4:40 PM
How so?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM
As I have stated before, both liberals and conservatives want to use govt to force others to be more like them.
The only difference is just what part of your life they want govt to control.
MarkTheGreat on February 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM
riverrat10k on February 12, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Unless you’re advocating no regulation specific to pot, it seems like a whole new government bureaucracy would have to spring to life. In part because all the other drugs and their complications would still exist. Larger government..more interference in personal lives not less.
I agree with the small government plan though.
umm..what about that states rights thing with putting Fed troops on state land and taking over operations?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Yeah. Forgot about that. So bring in the National Guard & the Texas Rangers.
Badger40 on February 12, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Once again, you try to force a false choice.
There is nothing unconstitutional about a Federal Police force, to enforce Federal Law… or border securty… or being there to enforce things actualy having to do with interstate trade (all clearly Federal issues under the Constitution).
Problem is that right now the Federal Government has many many laws on the books, which with any common sense reading of the Constitution, are clearly beyond their power to enact.
As to the FDA (if that is the regulating body you are talking about… once again that should be a state function right up until it DOES cross State Boundaried… that should be a series of State bodies… heck, if the states wished they could even form their own alliances… and pool resources… but it being forced from the Congress is not within their powers…
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Well that was just a closing poke, no biggie.
That being said, its actually not a false choice in the same vein as a deflective argument to confuse an issue.
There actually are 2 choices..Fed jurisdiction or State.
In part, its this which caused the delay in FEMA and the response time after Katrina.
Common sense works for some things, but not for others. Constitutional law is probably one of those things where common sense would have only marginal application.
Common sense works against that.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 5:42 PM
wow… uh… you do know that the Constitution was written in the clear language of the time, as a common sense document that all men could understand?
If its your contention that the highest law of our land should NOT be based on common sense… there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.
It is amusing to me that the Founding documents of our country are just a few pages long… and in fact probably have less words than this thread… while later written law, covers hundreds and hundreds of pages in an effort to get around common sense…
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM
That would be a nightmare of redundancy, logistics, turf battles, and cooperation. Without a central gathering point for data, public health becomes an issue.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Then have the debate and change the Constitution… don’t just ignore it.
The problem is that once the Constitution is ignored for a “Good Cause”, it creates the precedent to ignore it for less laudible aims… like.. oh… Federal Gun Control Laws?
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 6:07 PM
The Constitution is a brilliant document that outlines the binding principles to guide the country as it grows and evolves over time. Amazing document.
As reality evolved and society became much more complex than the Founders could have imagined, the Constitution is still valid. That same evolving society necessitated the creation of laws to prevent a devolution into chaos and potential mob rule by either government or regional thugs. This process evolved to the point where ‘common sense’..though still applicable in some things, was eclipsed by complexity. This is not some insidious plot to keep the average guy from pursuing his happiness, its just the way things evolved. The common sense defense doesn’t work as a means to claim the right to ignore any law one doesn’t like.
If you’re honest, this is just..common sense imo.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 6:26 PM
No, its pretty simple actualy, if you don’t defend the Constitution, and what it actualy says, then slowly but surely it erodes until it is no longer effective.
Your “evolution” developed because no one defended the very simple common sense principals that had been effective in making this nation great…
Please explain, as I pointed out before, how you can use Federal LAW to make an entire group of products illegal, when less than 100 years ago, they had to use a Constitutional Amendment to do the same thing?
That is not an evolution of complexity, that is disregarding what was the clear intent, and historical precedent, upon which we base law in the first place.
Most principals are short, to the point, and common sense… its not until your “position” actualy disagrees with your principal, that you have to use a lot of verbiage (or complexity) to “explain” your position.
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 6:32 PM
They don’t have to. Someone(s) already did that for them.
Personally, I think that there are unforeseen (bad)consequences to legalizing the drugs in question–which is why I can’t count myself as an advocate–but none of them are legal consequences.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Many who claim to be pro-Constituion and in favor of federalism do not understand the implications therefrom. But you knew that.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM
If you’re claiming that the Constitution is violated by drug laws in general or specifically the pot laws, then provide your evidence and make your case.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Are you stating that complexity of society would not have developed, or that complexities could have effectively been dealt with by simple common sense…or something else?
Whats your point? I’m not going to take the time to go and study the issue, post a response only to have it blown off.
If I were to guess I’d say it was part of the process of an evolving society. Maybe the reasonings at the time was that drugs were medicinal and the idea of using them for recreation just didn’t enter the equation, whereas alcohol was seen as a behavior that had no real need in a society beyond its excess causing innumerable problems…Just guessing here.
That probably comes into play at times, but to claim that is the only other possible explanation is a false choice imo.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 6:55 PM
See: federalism.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 7:24 PM
But if they were legalized, you would favor state regulation only, or no regulation at all? Do you also feel the production of all vaccines and drugs should be regulated by the state or even the local community government in that locale?
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Bu-b-but Prez Bush said we had to “welcome the newcomers!” You’re all racists!!!
Django on February 12, 2009 at 7:37 PM
You ask me for proof, and an arguement, which I produce (prohibition)…
And then won’t take the time to answer? because I will just “blow off” your answer?
You seem willing to argue your point… and then say you have not, and will not, study the underlieing principals?
Wasting my time here…
Romeo13 on February 12, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I gave you my answer as I see it. My desire not to bother to research facts to counter your “guess” about the nature of the origins and constitutionality of the drug laws, is for the stated reasons. It seems like a deflection from the issue of the problems of legalization.
I assume, seeing its your point, that you have in fact researched it and that research is what your conclusions are based on. Why don’t you just share your research, or at least summarize it? If your conclusion is not based on a knowledge of what you’re claiming, what is it based on?
Just so things don’t once again go twirling off into a room of intellectual blacklight posters and lava lamps, am I correct in assuming that your position is that the drug laws are unconstitutional, and that the unconstitutionality is the product of a conscious action by the government to initiate a process in which the power of the individual is stolen by the means of usurping the powers of the state?
No, thats not at all what I’m saying. I’m basically saying the line of reasoning that you’re using to make your case is specious and deflective, possibly because you are unable to address the realities of the issue of drug legalization.
Thats just a suspicion and not an accusation.
You could help clarify it by offering your research into the claim of the drug laws being unconstitutional..to which I could then research a counter argument.
Like it or not, thats the way it works in the rational world. The person who makes a claim is required to support that claim with evidence, or withdraw the claim until sufficient evidence is found.
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 8:07 PM
I missed this.
How is prohibition,..nothing specific about prohibition, just the past existence of it, either proof or something that constitutes an argument? What case is it making?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Regulation of the drugs in what manner?
No.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Obama could care less. There is no love lost between the border agents and Obama. I think the story of Phoenix will spread. The Mexican gangs are already in all the major US cities.
The libs don’t want to fight it:
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/reject-police-and-anti-gang-funding-in-stimulus-package/
Hell, the libs want to scrap any “war on drugs”. -
Idiots – it is not just about drugs. It’s about money, power, crime.
Most libs are smoking pot that they buy from these gangs.
Yet the Drug Gangs Have Mexico on the Ropes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292962031814007.html
I think in the stimulus bill the dems have a line item of
like $10 Million or Billion?? to fight Mexican Drug Gangs.
Here is a partial list of democratic pork:
— $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
— $380 million for the Women, Infants & Children welfare program
— $300 million in grants to combat violence against women
— $1.2 billion to provide “youth” with summer jobs
— $2.4 billion for “neighborhood stabilization” activities
— $650 million for digital TV coupons
— $150 million for the Smithsonian
— $34 million to renovate the Dept. of Commerce headquarters
— $500 million for improvements to the National Institute of Health facility
— $44 million for repairs to the Dept. of Agriculture’s headquarters
— $350 million for agriculture department computers
— $88 million to move (that’s right, move) the Public Health Service into a new building.
— $1 billion for the Census Bureau
— $89 billion for Medicaid
— $30 billion for COBRA extensions
— $36 billion for expanded unemployment
— $20 billion for food stamps
— $850 million for Amtrak
— $87 million for a “polar ice breaking ship” (What about the ice caps melting because of global warming?)
— $1.7 million for the National Park Service
— $55 million for the Historic Preservation Fund
— $7.6 million for the Rural Advancement Program
— $150 million for “agricultural commodity purchases”
— $150 million for producers of livestock, farm-raised fish and honey bees
— $160 million for paid volunteers (what is a “paid volunteer”?) at the Corporation for National and Community Service
Huh???
You thought the IRAQ was expensive? We have gangs – a military force really at our doorstep. This will explode into all out war and Obama wants to spend
$650 million for digital TV coupons???????
$300 million in grants to combat violence against women??????
What about the violence against the citizens of Phoenix???
$2.4 billion for “neighborhood stabilization” activities
You mean money to help the citizens terrorized by Mexican gangs?????
No – you mean $2.4 billion for ACORN……
Obama -go waste the taxpayers money on stuff that won’t mean shit.
Send us money for guns & ammo. We will take care of ourselves because you don’t have the balls or brains to do it.
izoneguy on February 12, 2009 at 9:17 PM
I know that this is going to come across snarky and I don’t mean it to be but can you do your own US history homework? Prohibition (capital ‘p’) is an Amendment to the US Constitution and it was repealed by another amendment. Arguments here are based on the historical consequences of both.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Thank you.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 9:26 PM
this isn’t a surprise..the mexican gangs are exerting their power in america…and behind the scenes they are increasing their political influence, by buying police and politicians…its what they do…give you a choice, lead or silver…work with them or die…
things are going to get much uglier….the gangs are winning…and fighting them would be racist…
right4life on February 12, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Didn’t come across as snarky at all. Snark doesn’t bother me anyway.
What is the point of me doing research on Prohibition? There was no particular aspect of it that was pointed out, just the general claim that Prohibition was somehow proof of the unconstitutionality of drug laws.
I understand that it was an amendment, but don’t see how that pertains to the discussion of legalizing drugs. It was wondered why drug laws were enacted..but Prohibition was the product of an Amendment, and I gave my guess as to why it could have been treated differently at that point in the evolution of the social order. I’ll claim that my guess is just as valid as someone elses guess as to why one was established by a different process. If someone has researched some particulars concerning Prohibition…share them. To just use “Prohibition” as evidence of ones position would be a valid point if the discussion was about ‘Prohibition’ being different than a ‘law’ and the legal validity of the two. But thats not the topic, so, as I stated, I’m not interested in spending time studying it, not knowing what part of the process I’m supposed to be studying.
But that all seems beside the point of the discussion of the pros or cons of legalizing pot in the society that exists today.
Maybe I’m not understanding the point that was trying to be made, and got all off topic. Let me go back to square one.
Is the topic..and the position of those who are pro legalization:
1. Pot should be legal in the model of alcohol and be taxed?
2. All drugs should be legalized in the model of alcohol and be taxed?
3. Pot or all drugs should be legal like a hamburger is “legal”..its not even an issue and has no restrictions?
4. Or something else?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Oversight of production, research, quality control, product licensing. Tracking adverse reactions. Maintaining potency and safety standards,..by the way, who should determine those standards? Would state by state variation for the same product be allowable for license standards? Do you think a constitutional amendment should be passed in order to have consistent standards throughout the country? I’m not approaching this as an interstate commerce violation driven issue, although that might be the legal argument. I’m interested in how a pure federalist approach to the consistent oversight of pharmaceuticals/vaccines might be accomplished.
a capella on February 12, 2009 at 9:48 PM
The contemporary societal consequences of drug smuggling/sales are similar to those which surrounded the bootlegging of alcohol during Prohibition. One can look at it to get an idea of how things (like the carnage from cartel wars) might change were certain drugs to be legalized. This is an example of one of the methods used to make good decisions–by looking at situations in the past which were similar.
Of course, as I said earlier, I’m not sure there aren’t other consequences to be taken into account with the legalization of things like heroin and cocaine.
I would imagine that private companies like tobacco and spirit producers would come into existence–regulated of course by the FDA.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM
No constitutional amendment would be needed since no “illegal drug” amendment has been passed.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 10:18 PM
I understand what you mean, but disagree on the similarities between to two being so interchangeable as to act on that hope and impose the consequences on society.
Still, if the example were used and the model of alcohol legalization were to be used for drugs….all the problems I pointed out earlier would have to be solved.
Whats to be done about them?
But before I get off track again, are you suggesting legalizing pot using the same type of regulations that control alcohol as a model?
Itchee Dryback on February 12, 2009 at 10:32 PM
It’s the only situation available to look at in which the circumstances are similar. No one said that every aspect of the two situations were interchangeable.
No they don’t. There is no situation on earth in which all problems are solved before the key decisions are made.
If I were an advocate of legalizing said drugs, that model–or some aspects of it–is the best one available.
baldilocks on February 12, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »