Pajamas Media

31 Comments

1. Bert:

Stop all illegal cross border traffic and the problem will take care of itself. Automatic weapons the cartels use are not comming from America. The full auto weapons that the cartels use are very rare in the US. It is next to impossible to find them and if you get caught with one here, you go straight to the fed pen. People here are not willing to take that chance in big enough numbers to supply the cartel’s needs.

Mar 21, 2009 - 3:02 am 2. Douglas:

I thought that once we elected the One, the Blame America crowd would shut up. I should have known better. Drug cartels are getting select fire FN-FAL’s at gun shows in the US?

Mar 21, 2009 - 3:37 am 3. Broadsword:

Still peddling canards, eh Ruben? Please tell me where I can go buy a fully automatic AK-47 here in St. Paul, or perhaps you could pick one up for me in San Diego…? I’d prefer a vintage Russian one. Say, now that I think about it, perhaps you could get me a German MP-44? Or a Bren gun, they are nice. Ammo for my Ma Deuce is getting too expensive. Have any facts about alien abductions?

Mar 21, 2009 - 5:56 am 4. kathy:

“Mexicans resent the hit being taken by their tourism industry” Yet they don’t want the fence and they want open borders so they can invade our country. You can’t have it both ways.

Mar 21, 2009 - 6:19 am 5. Phineas Worthington:

Clearly there are no analogies of our current drug war to the alcohol prohibition era.

Mar 21, 2009 - 6:43 am 6. MarkD:

Reuben, your guy won. The Democrats control the government. Now who was it who reneged on the trucking deal? Right, the guys who control Congress.

Quit lying about the guns. They are military weapons, not from American gun stores. Had you been honest about our need to control our borders, we wouldn’t even need to worry about this, would we?

About the drugs, you’re right. It is our fault. We elected a bunch of slow learners who haven’t yet figured out that repeating the mistakes of prohibition, only longer and harder, will not lead to a different result. Of course, your crowd hasn’t fixed anything either, so we’ll have to share the blame here.

Mar 21, 2009 - 6:59 am 7. MarkD:

Just to clarify, by “your crowd,” I mean Democrats.

Also, what would you have the US do, ignore the violence in Mexico to help the Mexican tourism industry at the expense of serving the American taxpayer? That’s a bridge too far, sir.

Mar 21, 2009 - 7:04 am 8. TalkinKamel:

Mexico has refused to go along with a fence, or to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the US—heck,the government even printed up pamphlets, to help illegals get in!

It can’t clean up its own corruption, or rein in the drug cartels, or provide its people with a better way to make a living, other than: 1. Sponging off the US, or 2. Peddling drugs, but, now that it’s precious tourism industry is taking a hit, it’s all the fault of those baaaaaaaad Americans, who won’t come visit anymore, boo-hoo, boo-hoooo! Mexico should have started fighting this war long ago.

Guys like Navarette just loved the open US/Mexico border, as long as it looked like Mexico was getting a great deal out of it; American dollars for its economy, and the chance to siphon off potential dissident citizens. Anybody who criticized it, or dared point out problems, such as drug and human smuggling, were denounced as evil racists, denying poor Mexicans a chance at a better life. Now that Mexico isn’t happy with the deal anymore, and tourism is taking a hit (gee, I wonder why?) it’s all America’s fault!

Mar 21, 2009 - 7:28 am 9. Tonto (USA):

Dang! You guys preempted me! The guns are coming from the corruption within the mex government….the generals of the mex army are selling them to the cartels, and even renting troops to them. Mexico is a mess, so, of course, the US will be expected to “fix” it and, of course, be chewed up and spit out by the MSM and the UN for “interfering”. Gotta love this modern libtard world.

Mar 21, 2009 - 7:41 am 10. Leslie Davis:

Leslie Davis for Minnesota Governor 2010
P.O. Box 11688 – Minneapolis, MN 55411
http://www.LeslieDavis.org
612/522-9433

12 Reasons to Legalize Drugs
1. Make our streets and homes safer.
2. Put an end to prison overcrowding.
3. Free up police to fight crimes against people and property.
4. Unclog the court system.
5. Reduce official corruption.
6. Save taxpayers money, and raise new revenue.
7. Cripple organized crime.
8. Produce safer products – a consumer protection issue.
9. Stem the spread of AIDS and other diseases.
10. Halt the erosion of other personal liberties.
11. Stabilize foreign countries and make them safer to live in and travel to.
12. Repair U.S. relations with other countries and curtail anti-American sentiment around the world (Colombia, Mexico and elsewhere).
——————————————————————————–
DISCLAIMER NOTICE: Certain information in this paper deals with activities and devices that might be in violation of various federal, state, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. We do not advocate breaking any law. This is for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this paper. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained herein is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for damages resulting from the use of any information in this paper.
——————————————————————————–
Legalizing drugs comes as close as any policy could for solving a variety of social problems. Removing legal penalties from the production, sale and use of “controlled substances” would alleviate at least a dozen of our biggest social or political problems.

With proposals for legalization finally in the public eye, there might be a use for some sort of catalog listing the benefits of legalization. For advocates, it is an inventory of facts and arguments. For opponents, it is a record of the problems they are perpetuating.

Some of the information is a bit dated but still relevant.

This paper is intended both as a resource for those wishing to participate in the legalization debate and as a starting point for those wishing to get deeper into it.

Let’s stop wringing our hands and start solving the problem!

1. Legalizing drugs would make our streets and homes safer.

Estimates vary widely for the proportion of violence and property crime related to drugs. Forty percent is a midpoint figure.

In a survey by Wharton Econometrics for the U.S. Customs Service, the 739 police chiefs who responded “blamed drugs for a fifth of the murders and rapes, a quarter car thefts, two-fifths of robberies and assaults and half the nation’s burglaries and thefts.”

The theoretical and statistical links between drugs and crime are well established.

A 2 1/2-year study of Detroit crime found that a 10 percent increase in the price of heroin alone “produced an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods.” Armed robbery jumped 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent throughout the city.

When law enforcement cracks down on producers and smugglers of drugs, they restrict the supply and the prices rise. The unhappy consequence is that crime also rises, for at least four reasons:

* Addicts must shell out hundreds of times the cost of goods, so they often must turn to crime to finance their habits. The higher the price goes, the more they need to steal to buy the same amount.

* At the same time, those who deal or purchase drugs find themselves carrying extremely valuable goods, and become attractive targets for assault.

* Police officers and others suspected of being informants for law enforcement quickly become targets for reprisals.

* The streets become battlegrounds for “turf” among competing dealers, as control over a particular block or intersection can net thousands of additional drug dollars per day.

Conversely, when drugs are legalized, their price will collapse and so will the sundry drug-related motivations to commit crime. Consumers will no longer need to steal to support their habits. A packet of cocaine will be as tempting to grab from its owner as a pack of cigarettes is today. And drug dealers will be pushed out of the retail market by known retailers. When was the last time we saw employees of one drug store shoot it out with another for a corner storefront?

When drugs become legal, we will be able to sleep in our homes and walk the streets more safely. Law-abiding citizens will be able to enjoy not living in fear of assault and burglary.

2. It would put an end to prison overcrowding.

Prison overcrowding is a serious, expensive, and persistent problem. It makes the prison environment, violent and faceless to begin with, even more dangerous and dehumanizing.

Governments at all levels keep building more prisons, but the number of prisoners keeps outpacing the capacity to hold them. Those in prison for drug law violations were the largest single category.

Legalizing drugs would immediately relieve the pressure on the prison system, since people who use drugs would no longer be incarcerated for doing so. And, since many drug users would no longer need to commit violent or property crimes to pay for their habits, there would be fewer “real” criminals to house in the first place. Instead of building more prisons we could use the money elsewhere and be safer.

The inmates who remained would be left in a less cruel, degrading environment. If we repealed the drug laws, we could eventually bring the prison population down comfortably below the prison’s rated capacity.

3. Drug legalization would free up police to fight crimes against people and property.

The considerable police efforts now expended against drug activity and drug-related crime could be redirected toward protecting people from those who would still commit crimes because they are simply stupid or sick. The police could protect us more effectively by focusing resources on catching rapists, murderers and the remaining perpetrators of crimes against people and property.

4. It would unclog the court system.

If you are accused of a crime, it takes months to bring you to trial. Guilty or innocent, you must live with the anxiety of impending trial until the trial finally begins. The process is even more sluggish for civil proceedings.

There simply aren’t enough staff and judges to handle the skyrocketing caseload. Because it would cut crime and eliminate drugs as a type of crime, legalization would wipe thousands of cases off the court dockets across the country, permitting the rest to move sooner and faster. Prosecutors would have more time to handle each case; judges could make more considered decisions.

Improved efficiency at the lower levels would have a ripple effect on higher courts. Better decisions in the lower courts would yield fewer grounds for appeals, reducing the caseloads of appeals courts; and in any event there would be fewer cases to review in the first place.

5. It would reduce official corruption.

Drug-related police corruption takes one of two major forms.

Police officers can offer drug dealers protection in their districts for a share of the profits (or demand a share under threat of exposure). Or they can seize dealer’s merchandise for sale themselves.

We know of cases where police officers were indicted on charges of falsifying records of money and drugs confiscated from dealers. In one case during a house search, a man turned over $20,000 he had made from marijuana sales, but the officers gave him a “receipt” for $1870. In another a dealer told a grand jury that he was charged with possession of five pounds of marijuana, although 11 pounds were found in his house.

We know about police officers from Miami, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere being accused of trafficking, possessing or using illegal drugs. In one case 17 officers allegedly participated in a ring that stole $15 million worth of cocaine from dealers and even traffic violators.

Legalizing drugs would eliminate this inducement to corruption and help to clean up the police’s image. Eliminating drug-related corruption cases would further reduce the strain on the courts, freeing judges and investigators to handle other cases more thoroughly and expeditiously.

6. Legalization would save tax money.

The cost to interdict the drug traffic and the cost of incarcerating users, traffickers, and those who commit crime to pay for their drugs runs well above $60 billion.

The crisis in inmate housing would disappear, saving taxpayers the expense of building more prisons in the future.

As we’ve noted above, savings would be redirected toward better police protection and speedier judicial service. Or it could be converted into savings for taxpayers. For a change, it’s a happy problem to ponder. But it takes legalization to make it possible.

7. It would cripple organized crime.

The underworld is a huge recipient of drug war money. Few others would risk setting up the distribution networks, bribing officials or having to shoot up a competitor once in a while. When alcohol was re-legalized, reputable manufacturers took over. The risk and the high profits went out of the alcohol trade. Even if they wanted to keep control over it, the gangsters could not have targeted every manufacturer and every beer store.

The profits from illegal alcohol were minuscule compared to the yield from today’s illegal drugs. They are the underworld’s last great, greatest, source of illegal income–dwarfing anything to be made from gambling, prostitution or any other vice.

Legalizing drugs would knock out the prop from under organized crime. Smugglers and pushers would have to go aboveboard or go out of business. There simply wouldn’t be enough other criminal endeavors to employ them all.

If we are concerned about the influence of organized crime on government, industry and our own personal safety, we could strike no single more damaging blow against today’s gangsters than to legalize drugs.

8. Legal drugs would be safer. Legalization is a consumer protection issue.

Because it is illegal, the drug trade today lacks many of the consumer safety features common to other markets: instruction sheets, warning labels, product quality control, and manufacturer accountability. Driving it underground makes any product, including drugs, more dangerous than it needs to be.

Nobody denies that currently illegal drugs can be dangerous. But so can aspirin, countless other over-the-counter drugs and common household items; yet the proven hazards of cigarettes, matches, modeling glue and lawn mowers are not used as reasons to make them all illegal.

Practically anything can kill if used in certain ways. Like heroin, salt can make you sick or dead if you take enough of it. The point is to learn what the threshold is, and to keep below it. That many things can kill is not a reason to prohibit them all–it is a reason to find out how to handle products to provide the desired action safely. The same goes for drugs.

Today’s drug consumer literally doesn’t know what they are buying. The stuff is so valuable that sellers have an incentive to “cut” (dilute) the product with foreign substances that look like the real thing. Since purity varies greatly, consumers can never be really sure how much to take to produce the desired effects.

Manufacturers offering drugs on the open market would face different incentives than pushers. They rely on name-brand recognition to build market share, and on customer loyalty to maintain it. There would be a powerful incentive to provide a product of uniform quality: killing customers or losing them to competitors is not a proven way to success. Today, dealers can make so much off a single sale that the incentive to cultivate a clientele is weak. In fact, police persecution makes it imperative to move on, damn the customers.

Pushers don’t provide labels or instructions, let alone mailing addresses. The illegal nature of the business makes such things unnecessary or dangerous to the enterprise. After legalization, pharmaceutical companies could safely try to win each other’s customers–or guard against liability suits–with better information and more reliable products.

Even pure heroin on the open market would be safer than today’s impure drugs. As long as customers know what they’re getting and what it does, they can adjust their dosages to obtain the intended effect safely.

Information and education is the best protection against the potential hazards of drugs or any other product. Use or otherwise. Legalizing drugs would promote consumer health and safety.

9. Legalization would help stem the spread of AIDS and other diseases.

Drug prohibition has helped propagate AIDS among intravenous drug users.

Because intravenous (IV) drug users inject heroin and other narcotics, access to needles is restricted. The dearth of needles leads users to share them. If one IV user has infected blood and some of that blood enters the needle as it is pulled out, the next user may shoot the infectious agent directly into his own bloodstream.

Before the AIDS epidemic, this process was already known to spread other diseases, principally hepatitis B. Legalizing drugs would eliminate the motivation to restrict the sale of hypodermic needles. With needles cheap and freely available, the drug users would have little need to share them and risk acquiring someone else’s virus.

Despite the pain and mess involved, injection became popular because that’s the way to get the biggest, longest high for the money. Inexpensive legal heroin, on the other hand, would enable customers to get the same effect from more hygienic methods such as swallowing–cutting further into the use of needles and further slowing the spread of AIDS.

10. Legalization would halt the erosion of other personal liberties.

Many governments and corporations have used various excuses to test employees for drugs.

Some federal legislators have threatened to withhold federal money from entities that don’t guarantee a drug-free workplace. We can expect the federal government to vigorously oppose legalizing drugs because it would disrupt their crooked affairs.

Government excesses would disappear with drug legalization. Before drugs became big business, investors could put their money in secure banks abroad without fear of harassment. Mom-and-pop stores could deposit their cash receipts unafraid that they might look like criminals. But today with the government scrutinizing ten thousand dollar banking transactions people are concerned.

Failing a urine test for levels of sugar or caffeine is not a requirement for employment or grounds for dismissal. However, were they declared illegal these would certainly become a lot riskier to use, and hence a possible target for testing “for the sake of our employees.” Legalizing today’s illegal drugs would make them safer, deflating the drive to test for drug use.

11. It would stabilize foreign countries and make them safer to live in and travel to.

The connection between drug traffickers and guerrilla groups is well documented. South American revolutionaries have developed a symbiotic relationship with coca growers and smugglers: the guerrillas protect the growers and smugglers in exchange for cash to finance their subversive activities.

Traffickers are well prepared to defend their crops against intruding government forces. Helicopters have been destroyed with bazooka fire and many police and military officers were killed.

In one country scores of police officers, more than 20 judges, two newspaper editors, the attorney general and the justice minister have been killed in the war against cocaine traffickers. Two Supreme Court justices, including the court president, resigned following death threats.

Legalizing drugs would affect organized crime and subversion abroad much as it would in the United States. A major source for guerrilla funding would disappear. So would the motive for kidnapping or assassinating officials and private individuals. Once again people could walk the streets and travel the roads without fear of drug-related violence. Countries would no longer be paralyzed by smugglers.

12. Legalization would repair U.S. relations with other countries and curtail anti-American sentiment around the world.

In one country the authorities spirited away an alleged drug lord and had him extradited to the United States, His fellow countrymen rioted in the streets and demonstrated for days.

The action violated the country’s constitution, which prohibits extradition. Regardless of what the alleged drug lord did, many of his countrymen viewed the episode as a flagrant violation of their country’s laws, just to satisfy the wishes of the colossus up North.

United States pressure on foreign governments to fight their domestic drug industries has clearly reinforced the image of America as an imperialist bully, indifferent to the concerns of other peoples. To coca farmers, the U.S. government is not a beacon of freedom, but a threat to their livelihoods.

Legalizing drugs would remove some of the reasons to hate America and deprive local politicians of the chance to exploit them. The United States would have a new opportunity to repair its reputation in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

End

Mar 21, 2009 - 7:45 am 11. Mina Bender:

No matter how you try you never succeed in veiling your very own prejudices against the country you live in for the favorable ones you have and your own ties across the border. Being a “gavacho” and experiencing this kind of mentality my entire life in California I can sympathize with your feelings but not your self imposed plight.No matter what the argument involving Mexico your liberal prejudices always seep through. Your subtlety of “always blaming the white guy” is never hard to find in your articles. I think you need to decide what you are; American first and Mexican second, or Mexican first and American second, and live in that country accordingly.

Mar 21, 2009 - 8:25 am 12. Benson:

There is so much wrong with Ruben’s latest post that I am surprised he put it up. For example….

1.”…about 8,000 Mexicans have died as the result of a war against people like Guzman….” That figure is tricky, as it inclues the bad guys as well as the good guys, so don’t imagine that it means 8K killed by the cartels. Does Ruben mean Mexicans, both thugs and honest cops, are to be mourned equally? Evidently not, for if you rate Mexicans solely on their wealth, Ruben implies strongly that Guzman the billionaire does not qualify on ethical grounds to be included on that list (that’s a goofy position, but let it go). So could it be that the figure of 8K should be inflated by the additional deaths of a lot of the assassins, thugs, enforcers and genuine bad guys? I would say so, but Ruben…well, I dunno whether he wants to cops to kill the murdering villains.

2. Mexicans are “angry at the hypocrisy of Americans who criticize Mexico for drug violence while buying the drugs and supplying the guns that produce the violence.” That’s three separate groups, not one, and implying that it is a single group, and therefore hypocritical, is a filthy trick. Look at it rationally: the addicts are not hypocrites, the smugglers who supply Mexico with firearms and grenades are not hypocrites, and neither group criticizes Mexico — in fact, both depend on it and tacitly approve of its degenerate condition. The third group, US types who criticize Mexico, is entirely separate from the first two. So where’s the hypocrisy? (Yes, I know the firearms come in from the Caribbean and southern smugglers’ routes, and not from the USA. I also know that Mexicans are Americans, along with Costa Ricans, Argentines, Canadians and everybody else in the New World.)

Ruben turns a phrase well, crushing facts into untruths and crafting slogans that almost pass examination. He’s a slick propagandist, not an analyst. He is part of an element in the mass media that has long practiced deceit in its attempts to manipulate the electorate.

The problems of Mexico are rooted in a stubborn, traditional tolerance of corruption that ignores criticism, and the real concerns of the USA are poorly defined. US policy on drugs should be harm reduction, and immigration policy should begin with the firm requirement that everyone obey the law. If the USA were to adopt rational programs in accord with those principles (which it absolutely has not), Mexico would be insanely furious with its neighbor, Ruben would need tranquilizers, and we would begin to make some real progress.

The problem with a rational approach: it is late in the game. Large criminal conspiracies, if deprived of drug money, would move on to kidnapping, hijacking, large-scale robbery, extortion and invasion of the private sector. Ideally the drug cartels should be exterminated, not just put out of the drug business. Too bad, but that’s what you get when a breathtakingly stupid drug policy meets a national political apparatus for hire.

(When are we gonna get a “Preview” feature here??)

Mar 21, 2009 - 9:35 am 13. Marc Malone:

MOre trash from Navarette.

Why the heavy drug trade via Mexico. Are they big drug producers? Do they have extensive poppy fields? Maybe, Mexico might think about sealing its southern border (far smaller than ours) and its ports. Perhaps martial law is in order in various areas.

Mar 21, 2009 - 9:35 am 14. Class Clown:

Mexico needs a publicity campaign to convince American tourists that it is safe? The problem isn’t BAD publicity, the problem is TRUE publicity. Mexico is not safe.

This is just one more example of the post-modern conceit that the “narrative” is more important than the truth. Truth lives in the real world, not in the advertising office.

I spent many long and wonderful summer weeks in Mexico as a child. I miss it terribly, and I wish my own children could experience the same long lazy days on a beautiful Sonoran beach. Sadly, I haven’t been back in years, and have no intention of doing so anytime soon. And no poster or ad campaign is going to make me feel safe.

Mar 21, 2009 - 10:03 am 15. Christopher Smith:

In Forbes defense Joaquin-Guzman IS the 701st richest person in the world regardless of how he made his money.

Mar 21, 2009 - 10:51 am 16. john from cinncinatti:

Naturally, Villa later parlayed his popularity into a career in politics.
oh no he didn’t. i’m calling you on this one, he was gunned down in 1923, it was politically expedient to get rid of this nuisance, so they did. things just haven’t gotten better that’s all. i suppose it would be ok to say Al Capone was a civic leader in Chicago. how do you suppose Forbes got the information about Chapo Guzmans financial status?????????? who do they know.
it doesn’t take much to turn an AK full auto,in the USA ATF really frowns upon this procedure, but in Mexico second amendment rights read a little different.

Mar 21, 2009 - 11:00 am 17. john from cinncinatti:

forgot to add this. guns are absolutely illegal in Mexico. the Mexican revolution was supplied by and with guns from the USA and other Nations as well. do you think that new AK-47 factory in Venezuela is producing guns now? Anyone remember Ollie North and the sketchy dealings of our esteemed CIA, with Noriega and the South Americans? Do you think the funnel for drugs, which is Mexico is just a hangover from other times? so the Mexicans call us hypocrites and we retort with no that’s not it. hmmm wasn’t there a blog about the Iranians in Nicaragua.

Mar 21, 2009 - 11:14 am 18. Self-hating Boomer:

Too bad, but that’s what you get when a breathtakingly stupid drug policy meets a national political apparatus for hire.

Thank you. Yes, the US demand has something to do with this, and reviewing our drug laws should be on the table,

- but -

There’s not a problem with drug gangs along the Canadian border. There’s a reason why the drugs (and illegal immigrants, and terrorists) are coming primarily over the smaller Mexican border, and it has to do with political corruption in Mexico. Blaming the US for that makes about as much sense as blaming Israel for the rats nest in Gaza. It’s pure rationalization.

Mar 21, 2009 - 11:16 am 19. DavidN:

OK, Forbes has identified this idiot as the 701st richest person in the world. He’s a thief. Can we stipulate that regardless of how he earned his wealth, he’s still wealthy? This is sort of the financial version of Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, which of course causes controversy whenever they’re going to put Sadaam Hussein or Adolf Hitler or whichever nefarious monster is drawing attention to himself this year. They always respond by telling everyone that they’re just reporting how influential this person is, regardless of whether they’re good or evil. Forbes, of course, is merely guessing at people’s wealth, and trying to report on who’s wealthy and who isn’t. If they used moral and ethical standards too, one wonders how many people from Wall Street and corporate America would be on the list, too.

As for the recent controversy over drugs and the guns that are supposedly coming from here and going to Mexico, in return for the drugs that come here from there. When the problem was explicitly only drugs, Americans were lectured constantly that we needed to get our kids off of these illegal drugs. The responsibility for what happens to our citizens when they’re addicted to drugs is the direct responsibility of American society. It’s not the responsibility of the individual addict, and it’s definitely not the responsibility of the pusher or supplier, here in the States or elsewhere in Latin America. Instead, America needs to reduce its insatiable demand for these illegal, dangerous drugs.

Now we’re confronted with a situation where, supposedly, we’re selling something to Mexicans, and it hurts them, rather than the other way around. Of course, it turns out that this situation is our responsibility too, and we need to modify our laws (and make guns illegal, or harder to get) to mollify Mexicans upset about how many people down there are being killed.

Funny how no matter who has the problem, the responsibility for fixing is North of the border, isn’t it? Why don’t the Mexican people curb their desires for these illegal, dangerous guns? The guy here in the States who sells them is just trying to make a living…

Mar 21, 2009 - 11:30 am 20. Craig:

“Mexicans are angry at Americans who buy the drugs and supply the guns…”

Yah well, when do Mexican parents enter into this argument? Try RAISING THEM RIGHT. Now STFU. There’s enough personal responsibility lacking in this discussion to sink a fleet of drug running boats.

Mar 21, 2009 - 11:48 am 21. Qzy:

Ruben Navarrette Jr.

If the guns are coming from America, why doesn’t someone trace the serial numbers to the american dealer ? I haven’t heard of a single american dealer being implicated. My guess is that if a serial trace was done it would prove the guns used by the cartels actually came from the mexican police and army. How many mexican soldiers went AWOL in the past 5 years ? I heard the number was around 100,000. What happened to their guns ? I guess mexicans are also made about machetes coming from the USA to carry out all those beheadings.

Finally, Ruben, I know you support illegal immigration to this country. Ok, whatever. What happens to the man’s family that stays back in Mexico ? That’s right, it is a broken family. What do most prison inmates have in common ? That’s right, they come from broken families. So, you have millions of mexicans that grew up with out fathers, what did you expect would happen ?

Mar 21, 2009 - 2:35 pm 22. Kirly:

Mr Navarrette is despicable. for an itemized list as to why, see #12.

in addition, navarrette lies about the mid-19th century history. When Texas was part of Mexico, the Mexican government gave felons a choice… stay in prison or be part of a garrison in Texas. Who wouldn’t love to have murderers and such exercising power over them?

Mexico also did not have protected freedom of religion and insisted on allegiance to the Roman Catholic church. Pretty hard for a non-Catholic Christian to accept that.

Mexico also dictated what the farmers could grow like most socialist / marxist governments.

Speaking of socialism/marxism, Mexico had abolished it’s consitution in about 1825 and replaced it with an even MORE centralized government.

Ultimately, the Texians seceded from Mexico and THEN the USA annexed Texas making Texas part of the USA. Mexico INVADED the USA and killed Americans. I’d call that an open act of war. Invading in response is perfectly legitimate and acceptable.

AND, never forget the TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO. Mexico signed it making it legal. That territory and all it’s inhabitants (if they so chose) became Americans and will remain Americans.

Mar 21, 2009 - 3:51 pm 23. typos_R_us:

It’s been almost a century since the last time Mexico and the USA held a war. Sounds like we need another one. It would certainly clear the air.

Mar 21, 2009 - 4:53 pm 24. Alex:

In 1860 England went to war with China, becuae China refused british ships importing Opium to Shanghai. It was the first of the Opium wars that went one for another 40 years until China was forced to hand over Hong Kong as settlement for refusing England rights to sell Heroin inside mainland China.

In Veitnam Heroin trafficking was supervised and managed by the CIA to fund covert operations to avoid congressional Oversight.

In the mid 1980’s the Reagan Adminstration was caught running cocaine from central america and exchanging it for guns to give the Contra’s. It was using the drug trade to circumvent Congressional oversight.

In Afghanistan the CIA supported drug lords both during the Russian invasion and again today. profits are split with them to fund covert operations of US govt.

The point Mexico is making ; the US Govt is implicitly involved with south american drug lords, using profits to establish slush funds and covert operations. Govts around the world have been involved in world drug trade for hundreds of years, it is intellectually dishonest to believe US govt agencies have suddenly abandoned their long history with drug trafficking.
Every time a US legislator stands up and rants about the drug trade, it makes them appear as fools to the rest of the world that knows full well the extent US govt supports trafficking and sale of drugs.

Mar 23, 2009 - 1:17 am 25. Paul -Indiana:

I used to travel to Juarez a few times a year in my job. We always went directly from the Zarragosa crossing to the factory and back. That was 10 years ago. They couldn’t pay me enough to go now.

Mar 23, 2009 - 8:42 am 26. deguello:

Go on and blame the US for another instance of Mexico’s terminal dysfunction.Navarette,I hope the mexican kleptocracy is paying you well to write your junk.

Mar 23, 2009 - 9:45 am 27. Blackwater:

Screw mexico. Blaming us for their failures. We should send back all the illegal aliens that invaded our country. They can take their experience of living in a civilized country back to Mexico and make it less of a crap hole.

Mar 24, 2009 - 3:02 am 28. urbanleftbehind:

#22

No wonder many people think Texas is like Australia, except the “aborigines” won.

#27

You are a complex man. If you and Marc Malone each had two heads with two brains I would not be surprised.

Mar 24, 2009 - 10:24 am 29. wancow:

I strongly agree with Mexicans that the Americans that do the drugs have to shoulder a lot of the blame. So, I suggest we send all Drug USERS to Mexican Jails!

Mar 24, 2009 - 11:52 am 30. Lewis:

Legalize drugs and make guns illegal.

Mar 25, 2009 - 5:24 pm 31. David:

Secure the border going in and out of Mexico. Crack down hard on panzy American middle class recreational drug use. Stop illegal immigration from Mexico that brings in the influence of violence and drug culture. Crack down on the glorification of any gang lifestyle in the entertainment media. Let Mexico get smart and clean itself up. Let America get smart and stop feeling guilty for making tough choices.

Mar 26, 2009 - 2:08 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: