Slashdot Mirror
Narco-Blogger Beats Mexico Drug War News Blackout
An anonymous reader writes "An anonymous, twentysomething blogger is giving Mexicans what they can't get elsewhere — an inside view of their country's raging drug war. Operating from behind a thick curtain of computer security, Blog del Narco in less than six months has become Mexico's go-to Internet site at a time when mainstream media are feeling pressure and threats to stay away from the story. Many postings, including warnings and a beheading, appear to come directly from drug traffickers. Others depict crime scenes accessible only to military or police."
http://www.blogdelnarco.com/
The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control.
And the money to pay for them comes from drug sales.
People who pay for dope should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does. Ideally we would decriminalize the drugs and thereby yank the support out from under these people. But that ain't going to happen, so if you happen to use recreational drugs, please do your fellow man a favor and stop.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm a mexican living in Mexico. I won't go as far as saying that it is hell on earth, but it is getting pretty gruesome. And that's just from what you hear on the news!
Then I started diggin in alternate sources, such as blog del narco, and damn, was I missing out on all the news!
Just recently I bumped into this story about Ciudad Juarez. The story both gives hope and scares the crap out of you. No sign of that story on the two most widely spread newspapers in Mexico, though. They're just sweeping it under the rug.
I wonder if blog del narco featured it...
I hope the "second ammendment remedies" crowd is proud.
Where do you think the guns that fuel this bloodbath are coming from??
The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control. I guess you never know when you will need an M-16 with a large clip to take down your own country's elected government. Nevermined the consequences or the fact that you would be dead before you even reloaded your weapon.
The drugs are completely illegal in both Mexico and the USA. How's that been working out when it comes to eliminating them? What makes you believe that making guns completely illegal in both countries is going to work out better? When we finally figure out a way to keep drugs out of highly controlled environments like prisons, maybe then we can worry about the US-Mexico border.
I'll never understand why anyone even humors positions like prohibition and gun control. We've tried both for a long time now, more than long enough to iron out any implementation errors. They simply don't work. Acknowledge that and maybe we can come up with something that might work.
Oh, and apparently tyrants everywhere do fear armed civilians. That's why Hitler and every other "successful" dictator made it a top priority to first disarm the citizens. There can be no more honest explanation of this than a hard look at what the tyrants themselves considered a threat to their rule.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Fuck you. Perhaps the artificial restraints by the government, and the support some of these gangs receive from the same government, is the reason for these problems.
GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
I'll stop buying drugs as soon as everyone else stops buying diamonds.
I'm not a really pro-gun person, but really, considering they're selling something that's illegal to make, traffic and sell... I can't see them having a hard time making, trafficking or selling guns either if they were illegal.
Especially with the news of numerous corrupt police and government officials in the whole drug war, I can't see it being too hard for them to 'somehow' get a bunch of military weapons if they needed to.
Which is why you only buy locally grown.
I'll stop buying drugs as soon as everyone else stops buying diamonds.
Not gonna work. Buying her diamonds makes you more attractive, using drugs makes her more attractive.
Don't rock the boat.
You should be very careful to distinguish how the guns come from the US...
The US is, in fact, a pretty decent place for civilians to buy moderately zesty firearms without too much hassle. However, the US government also has a habit of handing out all sorts of military-grade goodies to governments it considers to be friends and allies.
Mexican security forces, for reasons that aren't all that hard to understand, has had some trouble stemming corruption and even the flow of former personnel into cartel forces. "Los Zetas" for instance, are largely ex-security forces, now working for the cartels.
Obviously, there is no point in arguing that none of the guns being used in Mexico are of US origin. That is almost certainly wrong, I suspect a reasonable percentage of them are. The question, though, is are they diverted hardware from the American civilian market or are they American military aid being lost because of Mexican government corruption? Both types are "American Guns"; but they have very different policy implications...
Legalize it all damn ready. Seriously, executive order, make it happen.
I debated on whether to use my mod points to mod this comment down as a troll, or to forgo the ego trip and answer the question.
The answer, as it turns out, is "not from the U.S."
Although the Mexican gov't has repeatedly asserted that U.S. is to blame for the flow of guns into Mexico, some forget that the U.S. has sent millions of firearms to various Central and South American factions, firearms that are readily available in Mexico (and not as a result of any 2nd Amendment rights bestowed on U.S. citizens). Or for your consideration: The blatant distortion of facts by which Mexican officials who, while claiming that 80-90% of the arms in Mexico come from the U.S. fail to mention that the number is extrapolated from a small sample of guns sent to the U.S. that could be traced. This fallacy is substantiated by numbers reported by the ATF in which Mexican authorities confiscated 29,000 firearms in 2008, of which only 5,000 were traceable to the U.S.
Can't buy M16's or other full auto/select fire weapons off the shelf in the US.
I bought my first Glock 17 for $600 right before the clip ban during Clinton's reign. Just bought a second one, same model for $450 a few months ago. (The orginal is fine even after 10,000+ rounds through it. I just wanted a another.) Yep those high prices are killing me.
Guns are stupid easy to make take a look out there at all the 3party parts suppliers and you'll soon realize even if they closed down every single major gun manufacturer it would hardly slow the supply of parts and fully assembled weaspons.
Drug abuse is a social problem and should be treated as such. Dope fiends don't care about lying to their friends and family to score more drugs, why do you think they would care about strangers in Mexico? The real people who are funding the network of gangs and cartels are those who vote for(or appoint) politicians who support drug prohibition. End of story. The cards are entirely in their hands, dope fiends will get drugs one way or the other.
Drugs are the cause.
Bzzt! Drug prohibition is the cause.
It's really quite sad that the world learned nothing from the US' futile attempt to outlaw alcohol in the 1920's. No one is saying drugs are good. They are quite bad, but making them illegal makes them much, much worse. I wish politicians didn't care about looking "soft on crime" in dealing with the drug war, and they could actually push to try to overturn this quixotic war. Make them legal and undercut the illegal drug trade which is fueled by their artificially inflated illegal prices. We saw all the same stuff during alcohol prohibition. The extreme corruption, the gang wars, the bad moonshine that made people go permanently blind, people using/selling more potent forms because it's easier to transport. It's all avoidable, but no one will push the issue because they're instantly shot down for being "soft on drugs"
I die a little inside every time I hear a story about drug gangs basically taking over cities in Mexico and kidnapping people. Think of the people women whose husbands have been kidnapped and they receive pieces of them with ransom notes asking for money that they don't have. This is what could've happened if they kept up alcohol prohibition. Drug prohibition is just as ill-conceived. The better we do reducing supply, the higher the prices go, and the more vicious the drug gangs get in protecting their business.
It's a terrible cycle, and one that can only be broken by regulation. They need to make drugs legal through special outlets stocked with health care workers, where people can safely obtain their drugs and use the proceeds to pay for the addiction specialists and treatment centers. There's nothing we can do except address the problem of addiction, and treat such users as patients, not criminals. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it's a start.
When a prisoner can make a gun in a high security prison yes.. guns can be made pretty much anywhere.
Was that particular gun a great one? No.. but it was made under some pretty serious materials control and without the advantage of some very helpful tools, under what are supposed to be some pretty watchful eyes. Firearms are a genie that are well past being out of the lamp. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard won't make them go away.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
AK-47s are made from stamped parts and deliberately designed around loose tolerances. A moderately skilled gun enthusiast machinist could probably turn out a respectable version given good plans.
1: Most guns in Mexico come from central america or from the mexican givernment/military. See those pictures of the drug lords with H&K G3 rifles or MP5 submachine guns? Yeah, those couldn't have come from America. We can't get those here. (Well, we can, but they're 30k or more)
2. Very few americans own M-16's. As in less than a thousand most likely. Why? Because the process of purchasing a fully automatic firearm is such a pain that most people don't go through with it. Do you want the ATF to have a sheet of paper where you signed a waiver allowing them to walk into your home at any point, on ant day, without notice to search your home? Neither do most of us, and that's EXACTLY what you have to do to own a fully automatic firearm in this country.
Those of us who do own full auto firearms fall into three categories:
A: Law abiding citizens who like firearms and enjoy shooting. We pay our taxes, don't dream of murdering people, and largely consider our autos to be investments much like classic cars or sports memorabillia.
B: Criminals and thugs who don't go through the proper, legal channels to purchase their weapons (I use the word weapon here intentionally, as it is these people who consider their firearms to be weapons, and intend on using them.) Outlawing firearms will not affect these people in the least as it is already illegal for them to own these firearms. When guns DO move across the border (not often as Mexico throws anyone entering their country with even a single round of ammo into jail for 20+ years) it is these outlaws and criminals who do the moving and selling.
C: Fringe elements made up of crazy mountain men and people who consider their friends to be a militia of some sort and are still out in the woods each weekend preparing for the Soviet Union to invade their small town. Really? Are you worried about these people taking over your country? They aren't a threat to anything except their local dentist's children getting the money for college... Sure, they're vocal and love making a spectacle, but they're on every watch list in the country and are largely law abiding citizens like group A. Those who fall into group B don't usually last more than a year or two before the ATF is at their door taking their toys to the furnace and hauling them off to federal prison for drug or firearms charges.
Being scared of an armed citizenry is about as sane as being scared of dogs. Sure, there are bad apples out there, but just because one in ten dogs have bitten someone doesn't mean that your neighbors lab is about to rip into your leg as you walk by...
I carry a pistol every day. You know how many people I've ever shot? none.
The other day I was at the grocery store and a woman saw my pistol. When she noticed that the hammer was back (the proper way to carry a 1911 is with a round in the chamber, the hammer back, and the safety on) she asked me "Isn't that dangerous."
My answer to her: "Yes, that's the point of owning a pistol. They're dangerous when you need them to be."
She smiled, got the point, and went about her day.
--Forest C. Adcock--
If it were legalised and taxed there would be.
Look, it's very simple. I'm a Mexican living in Mexico, I also know more cities of the us than most us citizens. Drugs are consumed in Mexico (at a tenth of the price, btw), by some people and that ain't never going to go away neither here nor there in the us.
We cannot, because your government will not let us, decriminalize consumption in Mexico. And it wouldn't do as much good as it could because if they aren't legal up there then most of the Dough that comes here, that buys guns and officials and blood, will still be puouring in.
We need an international effort to legalize personal production of all personally produceable drugs. Not public consumption, not a blanket for junkies, but just a way for people to use their freedom in NOT helping the cartels.
As a side note, we could also start subsidizing legal drug prime matter, such as opium poppy and coca plant so that pfizer and all those Bauer fuckers would buy from the guys that now make the prime matter for illegal drugs. If you've ever seen a porter business analysis you will see that this two pronged strategy hits at both sides of the drug cartel business.
NO SIG
Strictly speaking, the actual cause is the demand for the drugs. Making it illegal exacerbates the problem, but one could envision a scenario where the drugs were legal but cartels still ruled. One cannot envision such a scenario where there is no demand.
Why is GP labeled troll? Simply because he has a different opinion?
It's not about logic it's about social norms, in the US it's always been common for someone to have a handgun in the house, in Australia it's always been frowned on by society (even when it was perfectly legal to own a gun for self-defense). The gun laws in both countries are simply a reflection of the norms that each society had already imposed on itself.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Because he occupies an interesting space where both the police and the drug cartels are using him as a front for their media outreach campaign. As long as he's useful to both sides, and not too much of an annoyance, he'll be played by both.
Most of them are being shipped south across the border. They need something to haul back after they sell all the drugs up here, after all.
You would make a great truck broker (booking loads for the return trip), but the weapons that the cartels are using are not readily available in the US. They are far easier to acquire from the Mexican army deserters and the southern border.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
It isn't dangerous. Especially not if he is carrying a series 80 1911. If you like, see if you can find someone with one that will let you wear it for a few days. You don't have to chamber it or anything. Just cock it, flip on the safety, and wear it. Go jogging if you like. Do yardwork. Home improvement. Whatever you like. You will find, at the end of the day, that the hammer is still locked back.
You could, even, leave the safety off. The sear is pretty aggressive. It won't let go if you don't pull the trigger. The safety is there to be extra sure, not as the only means of safety.
Modern firearms that fire without a trigger pull are poorly built, poorly maintained, or they've been garage gunsmithed.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
That's why Hitler and every other "successful" dictator made it a top priority to first disarm the citizens.
Bullshit. Citation or it didn't happen. For your info: Hitler REARMED Germans after the western world thought it wise to limit what kind of weapons Germans could produce.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
No, the GP is correct. It is prohibition and the resulting corruption of the authorities that is causing the bloodshed. We haven't learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition yet. So the war will continue until then. This is not an NRA issue at all. It should be a lesson of how power corrupts. Legalize now, and the gangs will be out of business before the week is out.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
How many alcohol cartels are out killing people right now? Only where there is prohibition do you have this problem. The demand will always be there. In fact it's possible the cartels are the ones who threaten politicians if they don't impose prohibition to begin with. Oh damn! I just made your point. Well, I suppose we could organize a boycott... Then again you could read up on the Opium Wars of the 1850s..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The California legislature has estimated that taxing the previously untaxed domestically grown $14 billion marijuana market would produce $1.4 billion a year,[4] Taxing marijuana, supporters say, could be a smart way to help alleviate pressure on the state budget.[5]
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Between this and Wikileaks, what's Big Brother supposed to do? It was supposed to be his game. Looks like he fumbled the ball, and the average Joe ran with it. At least, that's how it looks for now...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"The top-heavy distibution of wealth in the U.S. requires more of a real executive's drug, cocaine, which is not grown here"
Some if it IS grown here, for pharmaceutical production. Live plant stock is provided by Enaco S.A.
I just provided them with a couple of hydroponic production sheds - coca is still quite legal and widespread in Peru, and the entire Andes mountain region has a huge market of coca teas, granola bars, cookies, etc.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"Can't buy M16's or other full auto/select fire weapons off the shelf in the US."
Excuse me? There's a fully-automatic Browning .380 machine gun, fully functional with ammunition box, for sale in a pawn shop in Memphis right next door to the Hickory Ridge Mall.
Only thing you need is a Federal Firearms Permit and you can pick it right up off the floor.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
What ended the black market in liquor was the corner liquor store that sells to anyone, without question. If you have an ID that says you are 18, they can sell to you. And there is always a way to get someone else to buy for you if you aren't 18.
The only way we get out of the black market in drugs is for there to be a corner drug store without any restrictions. And end drug tests for employment. Open and legal drug consumption for all.
We cannot, because your government will not let us, decriminalize consumption in Mexico.
I think you guys just did about a year ago.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That's what they pay teenagers to do in Juarez and Nuevo Laredo.
So I actually agree with the general point of your post. I was raised hunting and shooting and I agree that prohibition is a losing strategy (although I vehemently disagree that it's necessary to routinely carry a loaded weapon around for your personal safety, but that's an argument for another day). But I'll play devil's advocate because there are a couple things I disagree with.
The only purpose of a firearm is to kill/maim. They are weapons. Always. It's what they are designed for. There is absolutely no other practical use for them.
Usually the targets aren't human, and usually gun owners don't use them to commit crimes, but that's what they are. Suggesting that there are certain cases where an operational firearm is *not* a weapon is insincere. As a gun owner, you should always be aware of the fact that your gun is a machine designed to kill.
I'm not so much worried about them taking over the country, but to say that militia movements aren't a threat is definitely not true. A good example being the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Also, many militia movements in rural areas are closely associated with white supremacist groups. I grew up in rural Eastern Oregon/Idaho and those groups are not all talk. They are very serious, and they do carry out violent attacks against minorities when they think they can get away with it. I think it's justified that the feds monitor these groups.
That we can modify the Constitution to enforce morality?
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
It's not the drugs. At worst you can say that drugs exacerbate the problem. Mexico has a lot of other problems they need to fix besides drugs. If it were just drugs, then Canada would be much more violent than they are now, because of the vast quantities of drugs produced in that region.
Qxe4
My only problem with the Cig tax is all the complaints that its way too high, but then theres all the evidence that shows that it isn't even high enough to cover the health problems created by it.
Granted, I'm from Canada, and its more of a problem here since the taxes on cigs more directly pay the health care bills of the folks sucking them back, but still, our cig tax is higher, and still not high enough. They have gotten it a lot closer to enough in recent years though. I think the last time I saw them do a study on it, the total was sitting around 70% of the estimated health care costs(purely related to cigs) were taken care of by the cig taxes.
It has gotten so bad that they're close to letting doctors here in a lot of provinces refuse to treat you if you smoke, purely on the basis that you smoke. Its actually a fair policy. You're doing something thats very very bad for you, willfully, that is going to increase work load to treat you in any way. Certain anesthetics will outright kill you because of reactions to cig chemicals, the ones that will work without killing you have a much higher chance of killing you. Your BP and other stats are going to be messed up and harder to use as indicators of anything... theres just so many problems related to it.
I'm not saying ban it, I'm just saying make the taxes on certain products reflective of their real costs.
"100 years ago there was no way to internationally distribute drugs on a large scale."
Oh yes, there was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
And also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_cola#Coca_.E2.80.94_cocaine
And please don't tell me modern art, music and culture could have evolved the way they did without recreational drug use. I don't care about "the children" for that reason alone, because I can not and will not protect everyone's children from all dangers. This is not anyone's responsibility but their parent's and no one but them can ever hope to fulfill that but them.
The liquor store on the corner sells hard spirits. 40%, 80%, you name it. One small bottle would kill a child. We sell it to adults only. If anyone gives it to a kid that dies, they go to jail for the rest of their lives.
The gas station sells highly flammable, toxic liquids. A kid could easily burn or kill themselves with that stuff. We sell it to adults only, same deal. We also have cars, power tools, gas-fired stoves, sharp knives, open fireplaces, barbecue pits and lawn darts. And somehow we only outlawed the lawn darts because they looked like kid's toys, instead of entire generations of kids surviving them.
Anyhow, I will absolutely resist outlawing things that have a purpose for adults for the reason that they're dangerous to kids. I am not a kid, I will protect my own kids from danger and I cannot accept if people want to transform the world into a padded cell that is safe for kids.
If free men own guns and slaves don't, free men can definitely grow plants in their own backyards and eat them.
Shows how much you know: The Browning you're talking about is the Model 1919--probably chambered in .30-06. By all rights, they're antiques, and own-able examples are priced accordingly. And, you can't just go in, plunk down 25 grand and legally buy it off the shelf--even if you are a Federal Firearms Licensee, because even FFLs must APPLY with the BATF for Each and Every machine gun (and other title 2 firarms) they transfer to their inventories--which can take one to two months, depending on how busy the ATF is..
Sure, you can go reserve it and put down a deposit while they wait for the paperwork to go through, but you won't have it in your hands for some time after that. That has been the standard operating procedure for wanna-be machine gun owners for oh... For about 80 years now.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Hitler didn't rearm the GERMANS, he re-armed the German ARMY. That is the first major difference to consider.
Second: the Nazis in 1938
1) completely disarmed Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and anyone that was "untrustworthy" to the gun control authorities, which hit of course communists, intellectuals and people showing a faint idea of resistance.
2) disallowed innocent civilians from carrying a usable weapon
3) allowed Nazi Party officials and members of their organization to *freely* carry guns without any permit at all.
I think that can be called a three-pronged approach to the Nazis ultimate goals, can it?
Disarm Jews, disallow civilians from carrying guns, allow SS members to own and carry guns without any permit at all.
We know how well that worked out towards the Final Solution.
Sorry for not completely translating http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwaffnung_der_deutschen_Juden for everyone, maybe the Google translations can be read...
People who pay taxes should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does
There, fixed that for you. Our government has a good track record of going into other countries, identifying future terrorists and despots, and giving them guns. Your pot hookup? Probably contributed less to the Taliban than Uncle Sam.
You said "American society has been whipped into a paranoid, trigger happy frenzy by 24 hour propaganda on film and tv."
That's such bullshit. Most Americans have always seen guns as just another cool, dangerous tool, like a power saw or dynamite. Teenagers and foreigners are the only people who buy into the bullshit about guns from the American media. It's a fantasy, like porn, and adult Americans know this.
Many, maybe even most, of the people in my area own guns, and almost all of them treat them with the utmost respect and care. None of them are trying to recreate The Matrix with their deer rifles.
They're not coming from the US, that's for sure.
Small time shit? Maybe. The cartels? Not a fucking chance. They have M16s (which aren't the domestic firearm that you see typical American citizens buying; M16s are fully automatic, and would run you or I several thousand dollars and some big-time licenses from the ATF). They have AK47s. They have fucking grenade launchers.
This crime, down in Mexico? It's not a few gangs running around scrounging up supplies. It's large paramilitary organizations. They have no interest in Pappy's scattergun. They want military arms.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
You know, if someone is intent and willing to kill for drugs or money, then then I don't think it is too far a stretch to think that that person would kill for less. So legalize drugs;sell it legally in some shop. The cartels kill the competition when it is legal. Why would they all of a sudden become better people and let the legal competition slide?
Nothing would change, other than maybe freeing money and resources from prosecution to hunt and kill cartel members.
I'm all for drug legalization. But to think that it (legalization) will somehow make shitty murderous people better is pretty naive.
So they will kill you for your iPod or whatever makes them money.
If Mexico simply closed the border, with force. Stopped ALL americans from entering, the problem would be solved.
Because it is the US that is the problem, not Mexico. The US taste for drugs causes problems around the globe. Isolate the US and the drug trade ceases. The US are clearly to incompetent and to poor to patrol their own borders, so someone else should do it for them. Maybe the UN should blokkade the US :P
And the US could hardly protest, after all, they are against drugs aren't they? So UN ships blokkading their harbours would be a powerful move in the war on drugs.
Unless of course the war on drugs is merely a ruse for a different agenda... but that couldn't be, could it?
Basically the problem is that small countries cannot fight the endless stream of money that the American drug users generate. Similar problem to Iraq/Iran being able to wield large armies in a poor region from western oil money.
You can't stop the flow of drugs, so stop the flow of money.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
100 years ago there was no way to internationally distribute drugs on a large scale.
I really hope you're not American, because if you are you should go back to school, take a history lesson, and see why a lot of states were colonised in the first place. Start with Virginia...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You should be ashamed of such a blatant misrepresentation of facts. There is an obvious difference between the re-arming of the German army and the dis-arming of the German citizenry. Sadly, most people that read your post will not have noticed and will now be able to spread your ignorance further.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Mq5wQIFJE2YJ:www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
(Not an unbiased article, to be sure, but it does have all the references necessary to disprove your claim in the footnotes.)
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html There's your citation. How about some 1st hand testimony? I come from an eastern european communist dictatorship instituded by the Russians. First the Nazis came and confiscated all the weapons in WWII, then the Russians finished the job. We were left powerless with a horrible dictator in place. People just have no clue how important an armed citizenry is in ensuring liberty.
Legalising drugs is not what the drug lords want, it's what the drug consumers want. They could not compete with legal operations in terms of price. They would continue to do bad things, but they would not be able to keep large numbers of armed thugs on their staff without a source of income similar to the one that would evaporate with legalisation. They could switch to providing some other commodity, but what? It would take time to transition their production infrastructure over, and they would be faced with competition from established players. At least some of them would probably have underlings who realised that they could make money (although maybe not as much) as a legal supplier. A few at the top would probably be killed off, and some other sociopath would take their place, but that's not necessarily a bad thing: most CEOs of US companies are just as sociopathic as typical drug lords, but they exist in a system where their best interests are not served by killing people.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"All legalization would do in the US is increase consumption."
Bullshit. As with alcohol, consumption tops out at whatever level consumers prefer.
Back in the 1970s, when weed didn't have the absurd legal consequences attached to it (and head shops were extremely common) getting high was perfectly normal in many areas. It didn't cause any trouble,and if the cops found any on you they often poured it out (or, ahem, confiscated it) and told you to move on. Weed was easier to get than booze if you were young, and since it is vastly more pleasant than the nasty buzz of alcohol, most of a generation smoked it.
Paying millions of dollars to bust and incarcerate pot smokers isn't intelligent social policy. It is driven be religionist loathing of any pleasure they do not control. The fanatical pseudo-moralist streak in America drives policies that exist for their own sake, don't facilitate their professed goals, and waste billions of our tax dollars.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Though it does occur to me that the ammunition may be harder. One would have to be skilled indeed to make brass casings but that isn't the super hard part. The really sticky bit are the primers and powder. Both involve chemistries that aren't tolerant of sloppiness or errors. You won't be firing black powder out of AK though the Mythbusters showed that mixing up your own black powder and getting it right isn't trivial either.
That won't change a fucking thing. People will still do drugs, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Just out of curiosity, what do people who live out in the middle of nowhere do to defend themselves against thieves? It's one thing when the police are minutes away in the city, but in the outback, I'm sure that's not always the case.
Two answers.
One: our thieves by and large don't have guns because they're not trivial to come by for petty criminals. In the US, any citizen can get a gun so they're more widely available.
Two: our cultures by and large aren't fed by fear. B&Es are rare. The odds of actually getting broken into if you don't live in a slum are pretty low. We're not constantly living in fear. Funny, that.
Bonus answer number three: in our cultures, killing someone who's trying to steal your TV isn't considered reasonable response. This isn't the Wild West.
"Oh no... he found the
That assumes that they are killing because it's good times and not to protect their own lives and/or business interests, which seems unlikely.
If drugs were legal you wouldn't need to kill to eliminate competition, you wouldn't need to kill to protect yourself from law enforcement and you wouldn't need to kill to protect your product; not only would you not NEED to kill to accomplish those ends, killing wouldn't even be the most efficient way. Once the law in on your side you can ruin a man AND get all his money AND come out of it being the Good Guy. Someone steals your drugs? The police look into it for you, and the stuff was insured even if they don't find it.
It's not like you don't have a pretty good model to see that your stance isn't realistic.
People have done drugs as long as we have had recorded history. It's not social, it's biological.
No, but I know many people who have a gun "for self defense" who live in rural areas with nearly no, or no violent crime rate other than domestic violence which is actually made worse by gun ownership. They aren't out shooting innocent people. But they are living in a form of fear.
We don't lock our doors. the cops occasionally have something to do in our area, but it's rare. Living life in preparation for an exceedingly unlikely event is paranoia. Paranoia may increase survivability for a very small number of people for whom the very unlikely becomes a reality, but if you aren't one of them, it makes your life worse.
Watching the news makes us americans paranoid. I live in maine and the few violent crimes we do have get plenty of airplay. You'd think it was common if you just watched the news and didn't think too deeply. It's easy to forget that the stories we are hearing are ALL of them, and there are a lot of people in this state who have never even heard a gunshot fired other than during hunting season or target practice.
The fantasy the OP was referring to was the fantasy that most of us outside of major metro areas are ever, ever, ever going to want or need a gun for defense. Within major metro areas, it would be easier and better to call a cop and run.
>Fuck this nanny state shit.
>Tax the fuck out of people that want to do things that are unhealthy for them.
You do realise these are competing viewpoints, right? Taxing people for doing things you consider unhealthy or morally 'wrong' (sin tax) is nannying. "No no, you mustn't do that" "If you dont want to pay the extra taxes, you'll be a better person and quit all that nasty smoking!"
Browsing with classic discussion, noscript, at -1 and nested
no hidden comments and I only mod UP
I wonder how traceable a gun with no serial number is.
Very. Acid can be used to recover a filed-off serial number. It is a basic forensics technique.
Oh wait, your sources are shills for the weapon manufacturers and the NRA. And you believe it cuz you like guns. Good for you.
And you dismiss his source "cuz you [hate] guns. Good for you." See? Other people can play at that too. Of course, you didn't do what he did; he actually made a point and backed it up. You're just sitting there whining because he doesn't agree with you.
almost every gun used to kill an American in the United States was purchased legally at some point
And every car and beer that leads to a DUI vehicular homicide were purchased legally. Only their owners' irresponsible and illegal use of them differentiates them from the perfectly legal ones safely used every day. So, naturally we should ban them all ...
American guns are causing an epic bloodbath in Mexico
No. People are pulling those triggers. Criminals motivated by lucrative drug trade and protected by a corrupt government are pulling those triggers, and you and I both know that they source their weapons from any number of sources, many of which are not American.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I'm all for drug legalization. But to think that it (legalization) will somehow make shitty murderous people better is pretty naive.
It's not that legalization would make "shitty murderous people" better, it would make "shitty murderous" behavior less profitable. Unless you want to believe that such behavior is entirely genetic and only is committed by "bad" people, and that no one gets enticed into such bad behavior because it is the most lucrative opportunity available to them, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that policy which makes bad behavior less lucrative will over time will lead to less of that behavior.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
You know, if someone is intent and willing to kill for drugs or money, then then I don't think it is too far a stretch to think that that person would kill for less. So legalize drugs;sell it legally in some shop. The cartels kill the competition when it is legal. Why would they all of a sudden become better people and let the legal competition slide?
That part is funny!!
Do you think any cartel could stop some company of the size of Philip Morris, for example, from trading pot and cocaine if it were legal?
Drug cartels are no competition for large corporations.
Take a shower, groom yourself and don't pass out in parks with a needle sticking out of your feet and you won't be looked down upon.