Article

2009-01-25 Home Front: WoT

Bomb under US bridge: Mexico's ominous drug wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2009-01-25 09:42|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 Phuquing Dirtbag Scum Wetbacks. It might be gettin about time to open up a can of Woop Ass on these punks

Posted by Davey Crocket 100 years later 2009-01-25 10:22|| 2009-01-25 10:22|| Front Page Top

#2 Considering the state of Mexico today, they found the bomb on a "bridge to nowhere". Interestingly, timing is evidently everything in Mexico. One week after the Spec Ops Command issued its findings on the fragility of Mexico politically and security wise - a strong dozen page special feature ad on Mexico appears in the Sunday NY Times Magazine section. Pure coincidence no less.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2009-01-25 10:23|| 2009-01-25 10:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Jack, this has been building for a while now. Last year LOTP posted a report that was down right frightening. We as a nation have our heads in the sand over Mexico. It is going to ugly on our borders.

Posted by 49 Pan 2009-01-25 12:08|| 2009-01-25 12:08|| Front Page Top

#4 Time to end the war on drugs and create a registration, manufacturing and prescription approach. Such a plan would end the storm surge of money that is destroying the development of infrastructure in South L.A., Mexico and Afghanistan and Columbia and Peru and Burma and some new place next year.

We know from the twenties that prohibition doesn't work. I am tired of sending firemen and police to clean up toxic meth labs in our communities and soldiers to every sh1+hole country that has become the low cost producer of some horrible drug.

We can decide to stop this and we should.

Posted by rammer">rammer 2009-01-25 14:02|| www.blogoram.com]">[www.blogoram.com] 2009-01-25 14:02|| Front Page Top

#5 The flip side of your suggestion, rammer, would be the truly high rates of addiction we would suffer as a result.

After all, if it's cheap and legal, more people will try it. And we know that both cocaine and heroin are rapidly addicting in a substantial number (not all, of course) of people who try it.

I worked for a time during my residency days on a drug-rehab unit. One of my better training experiences, frankly, and I got to see, up close and personal, the debilitating effects of long-term drug addiction.

Not something I'd wish on others.

Posted by Steve White 2009-01-25 14:22|| 2009-01-25 14:22|| Front Page Top

#6 Steve, worked in comparable situation. Agree with Rammer. Knock on consequences of prohibition include burglaries, mugging, prostitution, etc. Your arguments regarding addiction could - and indeed were - made about alcohol. You are not wrong. But in my opinion the consequences of what we are doing now are worse.

Posted by Excalibur 2009-01-25 14:30|| 2009-01-25 14:30|| Front Page Top

#7 Excal, I understand the sentiment and I'm not entirely unsympathetic.

Note that Prohibition did work: alcoholism rates in the U.S. fell dramatically during that time. We judged the consequences of organized crime, etc., to be unacceptable (and FDR wanted to re-open the breweries and distilleries to provide jobs).

You could (and I think are) making the same argument: the consequences of the War on Drugs are greater than letting people consume drugs legally.

My concern is a simple one: drug addiction is much worse than alcohol addiction. It's quicker, hits a greater percentage of users, and devastates the users far worse than alcohol addiction.

Again, I understand the argument. I'm not sure legalization is the answer.

Posted by Steve White 2009-01-25 14:48|| 2009-01-25 14:48|| Front Page Top

#8 We used to live in a neighborhood full of fractured families. The effect of the parents' drug use on the kids was devastating. My home was the neighborhood safe place. We had kids coming to us to call the cops when their parents were too bombed or stoned to take care of them.

Gentlemen, if you had sat up with your neighbor's kids while their mother was in detox, you wouldn't be making such asinine statements about legalizing this poison.

Posted by mom">mom 2009-01-25 14:53|| idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2009-01-25 14:53|| Front Page Top

#9 Those who advocate drug legalization have never seen up close the devastating effects of cocaine, meth and heroin addiction. Want to see devastation of families, children thrown out like last week's trash and 100,000 murders per year? Allow adults to buy all the crack or meth they want.

Posted by ed 2009-01-25 15:33|| 2009-01-25 15:33|| Front Page Top

#10 If you're going to legalize it, you also have to declare in that same law that drug addiction is NOT a disability. No welfare, etc. - NONE of my money goes to these idiots. I'll agree to ONE chance for rehab on the taxpayers' dime - after that you can live in the gutter, kill yourself, whatever.

Also, we re-open orphanages. If you are found to be neglecting or abusing your kids because of your self-chosen drug habit, unless you have relatives who will raise your kids and keep you away from them, they go to an orphanage and you don't get them back or see them unless you clean up.

Why orphanages? Because the foster care system sucks for the kids who are in it long-term, and there aren't enough ~~decent~~ foster families as it is now. At least at an orphanage the kids have stability, and a family of sorts, and might be able to stay in the same school.

Any anyone who sells or gives this crap to minors goes to jail for LIFE. (I'd prefer they be shot, but I doubt that'll fly.)

Make drug addiction have actual consequences and maybe there'll be less of it. At the very least, they'll have less of my hard-earned and confiscated-by-the-gummint money. >:-(

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2009-01-25 15:36|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2009-01-25 15:36|| Front Page Top

#11 I resent having so much of my taxes being used in a vain attempt to prevent idiots screwing themselves up with drugs. Prohibiting drugs is an old fashioned bit of paternalistic government with the intent of protecting people from their own bad decisions. I don't need the government telling me not to take drugs and frankly the vast majority of others don't either. In a healthy society the irresponsible should be allowed to fail.

Posted by Bulldog 2009-01-25 16:40|| 2009-01-25 16:40|| Front Page Top

#12 I'm slightly confused by those who have experienced life amongst neighborhoods full of addicts. Aren't cocaine, meth and heroine illegal? Strange, then, that there could be such numbers of addicted.

Also, the War on Drugs has provided pretense for extensive abuse of asset forfeiture laws by state and local law enforcement; increased militarization of the police, and concomitant decrease in the mutual trust that should exist between civilians and civil authorities; and a complete erosion in our 4th amendment rights.

I would agree with those who argue for legalization.

Posted by mjhlaw">mjhlaw 2009-01-25 16:50|| 2009-01-25 16:50|| Front Page Top

#13 and concomitant decrease in the mutual trust that should exist between VILLAINOUS civilians and LAWFULLY APPOINTED civil authorities

And hopefully the mistrust will continue.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-01-25 17:06|| 2009-01-25 17:06|| Front Page Top

#14 ppl are gonna do the drugs whether they are legal or not so why not make them legal so that a new generation of users might not start using in the first place since the rebellion and stigma is taken off of such use? Hell the governement has pretty much started the legalization of Methadone so that opiate junkies can get their fix without going too the street dealer too get it. What's the difference in that and legalizing small amounts of marijuana or cocaine?

Posted by rabid whitetail 2009-01-25 17:08|| 2009-01-25 17:08|| Front Page Top

#15 Either way you look at it drugs ARE here too stay and the war on drugs is lost

Posted by rabid whitetail 2009-01-25 17:10|| 2009-01-25 17:10|| Front Page Top

#16 OK, here's more:
Unit A let her dogs leak all over everything and her kids were living in filth.
Unit C lost her kids because of her alcoholism
Unit D was the dealer. Mice were running merry hell in the halls. The kids had no food. Called the cops early and often on them.

Then there was the guy running a meth lab in his garage with his girlfriends kids running around.

Fight this with everything you've got. Don't roll over and play dead, whitetail, Fight 'em, dammit! Pay attention to your own kids, your neighbor's kids, and call the cops when needed

Posted by mom 2009-01-25 18:36|| 2009-01-25 18:36|| Front Page Top

#17 "I'm slightly confused by those who have experienced life amongst neighborhoods full of addicts. Aren't cocaine, meth and heroine illegal? Strange, then, that there could be such numbers of addicted."

Well, I grew up in a neighborhood like that. Have you ever gone and picked up the needles off the playlot before you play so the little kids don't get hurt? I don't think that strange is the word you are looking for, I think you want 'horrifying'.
If you haven't been in a neighborhood like that then you won't understand where I'm coming from when I say that were it legal, in that type of area it would have been even worse.

The main problem is that we have not fought a war on drugs. We have railed against it loudly without putting any serious punishments in place.
Yes, people will continue to use drugs. But legalization is not the answer.

Posted by sjb 2009-01-25 19:44|| 2009-01-25 19:44|| Front Page Top

#18 Mom, I agree with you, yet all the problems you site can be attacked with laws other than drug prohibition. All those drug users shattered lives are tragic as you say. My argument is that with prohibition we already have that tragedy, and the drug gangs too.

Legalization with regulation, much like Oxycodon, ritalin, or valium are now, would probably result in better monitoring and outcomes for those who end up addicted (c.f. Rush Limbaugh), while depriving the criminal element of most of the cash they use to corrupt the system. Our existing laws can then be enforced by uncorrupted officials to reduce the potential growth of the resulting problems.

Posted by rammer">rammer 2009-01-25 19:49|| www.blogoram.com]">[www.blogoram.com] 2009-01-25 19:49|| Front Page Top

#19 Comparisons to prescription drugs are a stretch. Nobody needs a meth prosciption, so if we do let them buy a little, they'll still get hook and find a way to fund their addiction and get it black market.

This solves nothing.

Legalizing will not stop the importing or homebrewed drugs. They will be far cheaper than the legal ones.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-01-25 20:31|| 2009-01-25 20:31|| Front Page Top

#20 I was a teenager when somebody in Congress got the great idea that we should decriminalize use of drugs and only "go after the pushers."

Of course, more people tried drugs when the penalties for use were lower.

Our existing laws can then be enforced by uncorrupted officials

Rammer, what universe do you live in?

Posted by mom 2009-01-25 20:53|| 2009-01-25 20:53|| Front Page Top

#21 Not the one in which kids with the wrong genetic susceptibility try Ecstasy 1-2 times and end up schizophrenic.

Posted by lotp 2009-01-25 21:17|| 2009-01-25 21:17|| Front Page Top

#22 Barbara, I agree with your remarks.

I am so tired of paying family members to take care of their own sister's, cousins or grandchild's kid because the mom is drug addicted. This is done without checking the family member who is assigned to take over care of the child for drug use. One would think that the family member would gladly take care of their own, but why when the government has programs to pay them to do so.

I do like the idea of orphanages, too many times I've witnessed babies and kids going back into a bad family situation and the laws on the books prevent any other intervention. If the mother has a positive screen for drugs, but is in a rehab program she is usually able to take the child home, as though that makes a difference. All that tells me is that her rehab isn't working. Many social workers hands are tied. Meanwhile, those kids have a very rough start in life. Getting away from orphanages to give kids a family setting was a good idea, but with our many broken homes with the mother working or staying home using drugs often times, I don't think is better in these times.

Clean tox screens should be used to be able to get welfare, if the kids are in an orphanage, it wouldn't be a concern that the kids are suffering as they wouldn't be living with the addicted parent.
If folks had to have clean tox screens for services, and if they were found positive for drugs, they would be encouraged to go into rehab which would be a good start. This may sound harsh, but after seeing the abuses of the system and our tax dollars going down the drain it sickens me. These drugs are expensive aren't they? If they have money for drugs do they really need welfare? Time to try a new approach. Many of these kids growing up in these broken homes where drugs are involved usually get the wrong nurturing if they get any at all, maybe it's time to go back to orphanages like Barb suggested.

I don't like the big brother mind set, but using illegals as an analogy, instead of embracing the idea of having to move them back, make it hard for them to be here. Have them show proof of citizenship at every turn, for housing, work etc, making it hard for them, they wouldn't be able to survive here and would have to go back home to Mexico for their own survival. The same for people using drugs. Instead of trying to keep drugs out of our country, say you need a clean tox screen to get a job as a start maybe. I would like to think it may slow down the use of drugs for those who want a job. No unemployment for those with a positive drug screen either, if that's why they lost their job.
The fact that marijuana stays in your system for so long and you don't have to be high for it to be found in your system is why I feel it isn't legalized. This poses a hard point when someone say gets into a car accident has the crap in their system but weren't high during the accident as an example. For this reason, to start by applying the above laws for opiates, crystal methamphetamine, and the like would be a good start.

One would think that the fact of using these opiates which are supporting the Taliban would be enough deterrent to not use the crap.

Posted by Jan 2009-01-25 22:47|| 2009-01-25 22:47|| Front Page Top

#23 I live in a city where the Mayor went to jail for a few thousand dollar bribe.

I live in a world where 30 people are killed a week in TJ. Each a tragedy. In this world, I wonder how much money it takes to erase the border between civilization and anarchy.

I live in a Universe where the people who are suffering so much now with addiction are paying to tear down that border, not just for them but for us all.

Posted by rammer">rammer 2009-01-25 22:58|| www.blogoram.com]">[www.blogoram.com] 2009-01-25 22:58|| Front Page Top

#24 Legalizing opens up the market, creates more addicts. It will always be the wrong choice.

Jan and Barbara have made some good observations about orphanages. Jan's comment about clean tox screens as a requirement to get welfare makes sense.

Rammer, your last sentence is clear as mud.

Posted by mom">mom 2009-01-25 23:15|| idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2009-01-25 23:15|| Front Page Top

23:51 JosephMendiola
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:15 mom
23:10 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
23:07 Spusosh
23:06 JosephMendiola
22:59 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
22:58 rammer
22:54 Spusosh
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:47 Jan
22:44 Herman Angulet7719
22:07 trailing wife
22:05 Zhang Fei
21:47 NCMike
21:42 DMFD
21:41 BH Obama
21:40 Besoeker
21:34 ed