Slashdot Mirror
Mexican Gov't Shuts Down Zetas' Secret Cell Network
Miniaturized stealth submarines purpose-built for smuggling are an impressive example of how much technological ingenuity is poured into evading the edicts of contemporary drug prohibition. Even more impressive to me, though, is news of the communications network that was just shut down by Mexican authorities, which covered much of northern Mexico. The system is attributed to the Zetas drug cartel, and consisted of equipment in four Mexican border states. "The military confiscated more than 1,400 radios, 2,600 cell phones and computer equipment during the operation, as well as power supplies including solar panels, according the Defense Department," says the article. Too bad — a solar-powered, visually unobtrusive, encrypted cell network sounds like something I'd like to sign up for. NPR also has a story.
If US would just let its citizen get high.
Stealth submarines, solar powered call communications networks, encrypted communications. They are equipped like a damn government.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
I'm sure plenty of people said the same thing during alcohol prohibition, but somehow that was overturned?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There are plenty of non-potheads who want to lift prohibition, for very sound reasons, not the least of which is halting the flow of money to the coffers of ruthless criminal organizations.
It would also create jobs, increase tax revenue, and increase safety to drug users (regulated businesses produce higher quality non-laced drugs).
Oh, this would also reduce the overcrowding of our prisons, thus reducing taxpayer expenditures thereupon, while freeing up law enforcement to focus on protecting us from more harmful crimes.
There is also that silly notion that freedom is a core American value. There must still be a few patriots who remember this.
It is a win all around, and many people are intelligent enough to see this.
But, as you rightly point out, it is an uphill battle because many powerful organizations have a vested interest in keeping many drugs illegal.
At least a couple of guys in this zeta thing is far from being a thug.
I mean.. entire fucking cell networks... submarines and shit. You gotta give some credit to them for that.
Yes, hanging severed heads from traffic signs ain't cool, but they have a pretty nice amount of technology.
They should tell this guys there's great climate for planting coca on mars and we'll be there next month.
More dead folks.
You don't just confiscate things from these people without bad things happening to you.
You gotta get the drug cartels first. THEN their equipment.
You do if you are the Military.
For many years, the Mexican Navy was the only trustworthy service in the country. Lately some of the generals in the Mexican Army have been getting sick of what is happening to their country.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
So making cocaine legal (and regulated) would result in the worse violence that we see with it being illegal?
That's a bit difficult to believe.
Particularly since it was legal to purchase over-the-counter until 1914.
If that were correct then Prohibition would be preferable to the massive distribution of alcohol we have today.
I don't think so. I think it costs MORE lives. Again, as demonstrated with alcohol and Prohibition.
Look around the world. There are other nations that have different laws. And they are not exhibiting the behaviours that you claim they would.
Your argument is invalid. You fail to take into account the large amount of legal 'drugs' (prescriptions) that are widely available, and endorsed by the US government(not to mention many others).
So, tell me circletimessquare, how do you feel about a large amount of K-12 students being put on drugs like Ritalin or Adderall to control their 'attention span'? I'll remind you, that both of these drugs are amphetamines, and in the same class as Meth(logically, not necessarily by government standards).
I hate to inform you of this, but you do live in that totalitarian government that gives mind control drugs to its population. They just guise it as helping you through the 'wonders of modern medicine'.
Alcohol prohibition was never about money. It was about the moral uptight getting their way.
Perhaps, but it did serve a purpose.
Ken Burns recent documentary on Prohibition, and the reasons for the movement that eventually got the amendment passed.
The amount of Alcohol consumed in the US was utterly staggering prior to prohibition.
By 1830, the average American over 15 years old consumed nearly seven gallons of pure alcohol a year – three times as much as we drink today
Public drunkenness was rampant. We can't comprehend the amount of alcohol that flowed in that era, because people simply don't believe you can drink that much and get anything done, which, of course, was precisely the problem.
There was very little medical science and even less education available at that time to control this epidemic, and moral indignation was just about the only tool available. After the civil war, things got much worse, and the anti slavery movement turned its sights on alcohol.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Would you support prohibition if it caused more problems than legalization?
You're misunderstanding the difference between evidence based policy and rationale based policy.
You can make a rationale for almost anything. Most issues are not 100% black-and-white, so simply emphasizing the negatives can be used as a rationale when you want to push your own agenda.
The evidence indicates that when prescription-grade cocaine is used, the negative effects are minimal. Most of the corporeal damage comes from the substances used to dilute (ie - cut) the drug, and the true expense of maintaining a habit comes to pennies a day. The rough equivalent of drinking a 2-liter soda per day.
The evidence also indicates that people can keep a family and a job and a cocaine habit. Again, most of the social damage comes from the high expense and low quality of the illicit product.
On the other hand, making illegal something that much of the population wants gives authoritarians the perfect excuse to curtail our freedoms. The police enjoy the ability to root around in our cars, houses, and personal effects looking for drugs. The government gets to regulate how much cash we carry, where our money comes from, and how we travel because we "might" be smuggling drugs.
Don't buy into the "we need to do this because it might lead to that" mentality; don't submit to the fear.
Go where the evidence takes you.
That history repeats itself. Baptists and Bootleggers opposed the repeal of Prohibition too.
Pure alcohol isn't what your friends drink. More likely, beer, which would be about 4-6 of those per day. Then, consider the fact that this was the national average rather than the high end of the spectrum, and you can see where the problem was...
If General Mills made cocaine, a 10-pound bag would be $5 at the supermarket, and the Zetas wouldn't have money for tech toys or automatic weapons.
Moonshine still exists because stills are still illegal! What, did you think it was legal to make your own brandy and drink it yourself? That's crazy talk.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I can see right where the problem was: sanitation. Through most of the past couple thousand years, almost everything you drank had to have some alcohol in it, or it would kill you. Strangely, we started to drink a lot less alcohol once the tap water became safe.
Oh, and any decent beer has just under an ounce of alcohol in it, so we are talking 3 beers here. A bit high by today's standards, but then we have other forms of entertainment and pain relief now (and safe drinking water).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.