Drug Policy

Republicans Decry "Lack of Execution" in Mexican Drug War

|

This past year was the Mexican drug war's bloodiest yet, with over 15,000 dead. Even former President Vincente Fox recently called for full-out legalization of all drugs:

"Prohibition didn't work in the Garden of Eden. Adam ate the apple."

But U.S. politicians seem determined to continue waging a bloody and fruitless war on our southern border. Obama's continued support for Bush's disasterous Mérida Initiative to fund Mexico's drug war is bad enough, but Republicans are telling The New York Times that they want him to go even harder:

Both Mexican and American officials, who say the two countries have never worked closer in fighting crime, are facing growing pressure to prove that their strategy is working. With Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives, the Obama administration will face renewed scrutiny to account for the $1.4 billion, multiyear Merida Initiative, the cornerstone of American aid in Mexico's drug fight.

 "Right now I am concerned whether the administration is focused on giving Merida a chance," said Representative Connie Mack, the Florida Republican who is the new chairman of a House subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. He says that while he supports the initiative, he will call hearings over what he considers the slow pace in which it has been carried out.

"There is a lack of execution," Mr. Mack said. "We are going to find out why this is."

I wonder which Republican the Sinaloa cartel is backing for 2012?

NEXT: He Loves the Mandate, He Loves It Not.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. puff… puff…

    …pass

  2. I find that image tasteless.

    1. It’s really bad. LOLCATS captioning definitely adds to the effect.

    2. It could have been worse. They could have used a Brujeria album cover.

      (no link provided for the sake of decency)

    3. “Tasteless” is another word for “effective at carrying a point I don’t want to see made”.

      1. In the same way that ‘alphabet’ is another word for ‘a bunch of letters in some order’. That is to say, true in some cases, but not all.

    4. I find that image tasteless.

      Perhaps, but not nearly as tasteless as the drug war.

      1. I prefer a piney taste to a musky basementish background. You?

  3. Judge Napolitano has this neo-turd on his show frequently to discuss fiscal and Constitutional issues.

    Time to devote an entire segment on Connie’s blatant hypocrisy when it comes to the drug war, both fiscally irresponsible and Unconstitutional… and of course an expose on why this man has a girls name.

    1. You’ve never heard A Boy Named Sue?

      1. Or Connie Mack, for that matter?

        I didn’t know this guy went on Napolitano — has Judge ever asked him about drug policy stuff? He’s usually not the type to tiptoe around that stuff.

        1. I have only seen the judge address Obamacare and debt ceiling issues with Connie. Topics he does very well with. Time to flip the script and point out his inconsistent blather on social issues and the WoD.

          1. You see a lot of conservatives on Fox News being handled with kid gloves, but it always annoys me the most when I see Napolitano do it. The ‘Stache’ (Stossel), OTOH, takes on conservatives all the time.

            1. I think The Judge like to find common ground with whomever is on his show. Hell, he had Ralph Nader on a few weeks ago and they only talked about the things that they agree on.

              1. No doubt… but it still annoys me.

    2. and of course an expose on why this man has a girls name.

      It’s easier to say than “Cornelius Harvey McGillicuddy IV.”

  4. STEVE SMITH | February 2, 2011

    LOL

  5. I want a bumpersticker that says “Prohibition didn’t work in the Garden of Eden.”

    1. That’s a great line.

    2. PROHIBITION NO WORK ON STEVE’S RAPE VICTIMS EITHER! STEVE VERY ANGRY WHEN VICTIMS LEAVE BASEMENT IN WOODS AFTER TOLD NOT TO!

    3. “””Prohibition didn’t work in the Garden of Eden.”””

      They were punished. I wonder how many would agree with the punishment or think it was too little?

    4. Seriously. Someone needs to make and sell those. I’d surely put it on my car.

    5. The bumper sticker should read “Adam listened to his wife. Look where it got him.”

  6. “” Obama’s continued support for Bush’s disasterous M?rida Initiative to fund Mexico’s drug war is bad enough,””

    Well there’s something in the budget that could be cut.

    1. I believe that this qualifies as waste, fraud, and abuse.

    2. It should be called the “Mierda* Initiative”.

      * Spanish for “sh?t”

  7. What’s this Mierda initiative?

    1. 1. Congress gives the Mexican Army a bunch of cash.
      2. The Mexican Army uses the cash to buy M-16s, M-60s, M-2 HB machineguns, and M-79 grenade launchers.
      3. Mexican soldiers vote with their feet, taking the guns to the drug cartels for higher pay and better working conditions.
      4. The Mexican Navy does battle with the drug cartels and captures some of the guns.
      5. The guns trace back to the U.S.
      6. Congress seizes this information to pass legislation shutting down gun shows and restricting gun stores.
      7. Imposing stricter gun control in the U.S. shuts down the drug cartels and peace descends upon Mexico.

      See! Your tax dollars at work!

      1. 3.5 The weathergirl on Univision busts another seam on her sweater.

        1. I’ve never seen a woman in a sweater on Univision. They’re usually in bikinis.

          1. Shucks, I tried to reply, but I got caught up in the spam filter for complimenting the lady on the nice clothing item she was wearing.

            Link again

          2. I think I’m only going to watch univision from now on.

            LarryA, winner.

    2. Mr. Lahey: Do you know what a Shit Barometer is, boy?

      Bubbles: What?

      Mr. Lahey: Measures the Shit Pressure in the air. When the Barometer rises, and you’ll feel it too, your ears will implode with the Shit Pressure. I tried to warm you, Bubs, but you picked the wrong side! Beware, the Shit Winds are a-comin’.

      1. Randy only fights with his pants off because he’s worried that he’ll ruin his tight pants. So when the pants come off… look… the fuck out.

      2. A dope trailer is no place for a kitty.

  8. “Prohibition didn’t work in the Garden of Eden. Adam ate the apple.”

    That’s not all he ate, I’m sure.

    1. No, but from what I read, he must have started with it, because he didn’t have a fucking clue beforehand.

  9. 15,000 dead Mexicans so that American politicians can grandstand an on issue that the all know that they are behind the curve ball on but don’t the fucking courage to stand up for what’s right.

    I wonder how many dead Mexican would satisfy the blood lust of both parties.

  10. Would MNG and Neu Mejican please step forward and tell everybody here that the carnage my compatriots are suffering happens to be justified by the “interstate commerce clause”? That is, if they don’t happen to be hypocrites who interpret the clause as expediency dictates….

    Because the War on Drugs HAS BEEN justified under “Interstate Commerce Clause” grounds. If it works to justify ObamaCare, surely they would be honest enough to say that the carnage and suffering are also entirely justified by the same argument.

    1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000

    2. Who gives a shit OM, they’re brown people?

    3. From your perspective, they’re hypocrites – both of them are against the WoD.

      1. Re: BakedPenguin,

        From your perspective, they’re hypocrites – both of them are against the WoD.

        Not from my perspective. If they justify ObamaCare and any other sort of benevolent mandate from the State by quoting the “interstate commerce clause”, then they would have to accept the WoD as equally justifiable under the same understanding of the Intestate Commerce Clause.

    4. The Controlled Substance Act and Obamacare are both constitutionally allowed under the Commerce Clause. But because I think something is allowed doen’t mean I support us doing it. Both the WOD and Obamacare are bad ideas and I’ve said that over and over.

      1. Maybe we are approaching this wrong.

        Minge, do you think that there are any constitutional limits to federal power?

        1. Absolutely. The state cannot establish a religion, it cannot quarter troops in my home, engage in unreasonable search and seizure, take property without paying just compensation or via due process, create an ex-post facto law….Well, you know the rest.

          I also support limit on the Commerce Clause. I’ve long said Lopez and Morrison were correctly decided. Activity that is not interstate commerce, doesn’t substantially effect interstate in the aggregate or that is not directly economic is off limits.

          I’m not sure why this is even a big deal for you guys, on the other threads many of you concede that states could mandate insurance and such.

          1. I also might be willing to go further than Lopez and Morrison regarding the rather bs “jurisdiction” loophole those decisions left open to the feds where they can ban having a gun near a school “if the gun traveled through interstate commerce.” That kind of regulation imo is not directly economic in any real sense, it’s a federal crime law, an area the feds are not authorized to get into unless it involves one of its enumerated powers (i.e., outlawing robbing the mails).

            1. Okay, that’s a good start, but c’mon man, you have to admit that claiming a guy growing a couple of weed plants in his backyard(for his own consumption) is stretching the meaning of interstate commerce…just a little?

          2. But quartering troops in your home has, in the aggregate, a substantial effect on interstate commerce!

      2. Re: MNG,

        The Controlled Substance Act and Obamacare are both constitutionally allowed under the Commerce Clause. But because I think something is allowed doen’t mean I support us doing it. Both the WOD and Obamacare are bad ideas and I’ve said that over and over.

        Let me translate this claptrap for you guys:

        “It’s OK when I like it, not when I don’t.”

        That’s the utilitarian’s credo. Expediency is their axiom.

    5. Would MNG and Neu Mejican please step forward and tell everybody here that the carnage my compatriots are suffering happens to be justified by the “interstate commerce clause”? That is, if they don’t happen to be hypocrites who interpret the clause as expediency dictates….

      Because the War on Drugs HAS BEEN justified under “Interstate Commerce Clause” grounds. If it works to justify ObamaCare, surely they would be honest enough to say that the carnage and suffering are also entirely justified by the same argument.

      They would likely argue that while the Commerce Clause can justify such legislation, they would not support the intent of the legislation.

      Libertarians are a unique bunch, whether right or wrong, in that we believe that some principles should not be violated, regardless of good intentions or even positive aggregate outcomes, because it would entail the deprivation of the individual’s rights. Most people, from my experience, are pragmatic and believe that intentions and outcomes are superior and therefore all issues are up for public debate and implementation.

      1. I’m not sure I would give you that advantage. There is a different idea of what constitutes a person’s “rights” at the heart of some of these disputes. On many issues liberal groups like the ACLU are quite absolutist (and I’d grant than in some areas the same could be said of conservativs).

        1. I’m not sure I would give you that advantage. There is a different idea of what constitutes a person’s “rights” at the heart of some of these disputes. On many issues liberal groups like the ACLU are quite absolutist (and I’d grant than in some areas the same could be said of conservativs).

          I would disagree that these two examples are demonstrative of the same type of first principles ideology seen in libertarianism. The ACLU and many conservatives, IMO, simply appeal to authority for their argumentation. Even though their results may be positive, I find them lacking in reasoning when the source they appeal to is flawed (the Constitution, the Bible, etc.)

  11. We Canadians don’t have this problem. Why is that? The climate? Our general whiteness? Our history? Discuss.

    1. Nah, you guys just burn as much herb as we do.

    2. Bagged milk saps and impurifies your precious bodily fluids.

    3. Coca doesn’t grow in Canada. It grows in South America, where they harvest it and refine it into cocaine and crack. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Canada isn’t on that line. It’s logistical.

      1. I meant logistics. Duh.

        1. Still though, even in Canada, marijuana prohibition enables trafficking in much harder stuff. A pound of that good BC bud gets like 2 grand tops out there. Drive that shit to NYC or Miami, where it’s worth about 3 times that, and trade it for some wholesale coke. Bring _that_ shit back to Canada, where it’s worth twice as much, and sell it on the streets. Turn 2k into 10, no problem.

      2. So it’s all about shipping? Thanks.

    4. Start shipping coke and meth south in job lots and see how quick your body count ratchets up.

    5. America is exceptional and any country let alone a tiny insignificant one like Canada would be hard pressed to generate as much bloodshed as America has helped foist on Mexico – if we wanted bloodshed in Canada there would be bloodshed in Canada.

      1. Thanks. I can’t help but notice that, among all the countries in the world that participate in the illegal drug trade, only Mexicans have killed 15,000 of their fellow citizens.

        1. Not entirely true. Most of South America has been having similar issues with Cartels over the last fifty years. 15,000 is just a matter of demographics, but other countries have been just as brutally repressive as Mexico to their own.

          1. According to Mr. Smith, “U.S. politicians seem determined to continue waging a bloody and fruitless war on our southern border.” Did U.S. politicians kill those 15,000 Mexicans last year? Drugs are illegal worldwide. Why is this carnage limited to Mexico?

            1. What the fuck is your point? Is it racist? Please tell me it’s racist, because then the fun can begin.

              1. Mexico is a race? I did not know that.

                1. You tell me, after you tell us what your fucking point is. Or are you Glenn Beck and “just asking questions?”

            2. Did you read what I said? I said it is NOT limited to Mexico.

              Since 1964 Colombia alone listed upwards of 200,000 people murdered in the drug cartel-financed war between FARC and ELN and the Colombian government.

              http://www.ploughshares.ca/lib…..tml#Deaths

              That’s just Colombia. There are plenty other examples. What point are you trying to make, exactly?

              1. I think the point he’s trying to make is that his version of America’s Hat is an ass, and he really loves to talk out of it.

              2. Looks to me that asshat is trying to claim that Mexicans are somehow prone to kill each other.
                I don’t think asshat likes those who call themselves “Mexican”.

        2. What, Kathryn Johnson doesn’t count?

        3. What, Kathryn Johnson doesn’t count?

        4. “…among all the countries in the world that participate in the illegal drug trade, only Mexicans have killed 15,000 of their fellow citizens.”

          Any idea of the toll from Opium trade in, say Afghanistan?

          1. Any idea of the toll from Opium trade in, say Afghanistan?

            Tell me. And please provide proof that a comparable number of Afghanis killed each other last year because of U.S. drug policy.

            1. As a matter of fact, I doubt seriously if you could find any reliable data for those deaths. Even less valuable than ‘brown’ people, Afghans don’t seem to attract those who count such things.
              But I also have no doubt that Mexico is not alone in senseless deaths from the ‘drug war’. Do you doubt control of the opium fields/product is handled in a other than a peaceable manner?

        5. What we are seeing in Mexico is the same thing that happened in Columbia, before it was “cleaned up”. All of the shit that was going down in Columbia, has moved to Mexico. If somehow Mexico were to be “cleaned up”, it would simply move to another location. Possibly Canada?

        6. I lived in Rio de Janeiro for awhile and can tell you that in the city slums the ‘Drug War’ is alive and well.

    6. Because you’re Canadians and no one cares enough about you to fight a drug war in your country.

      Besides all you import is Quebec Gold. Grow some coca plants and we’ll talk about giving you some drug war money.

  12. I wonder how many dead Mexican would satisfy the blood lust of both parties.

    How many you got?

    Because the War on Drugs HAS BEEN justified under “Interstate Commerce Clause” grounds.

    Exactly so. The WOD is what you get when our government slips its Constitutional leash.

    Funny, isn’t it, that alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment, but (other) drug prohibition did not?

    At least the Prohibitionists had the grace (and the grit) to do the right thing Constitutionally, and get an amendment to grant the government power it did not otherwise have.

    Since Roosevelt castrated the Court, we don’t even require a societal consensus on the expansion of government power. That’s what the amendment process guarantees: a broad consensus.

    Oddly, though, the very same people who claim to be all about small-d democracy are also the ones in favor of expanding government without ratifying that a consensus to do so actually exists.

    Funny, that. Its almost like all the blather about democracy is just a cover for their real agenda.

  13. This is one of the things that separates statists from rational people. A rational person can see when something he’s doing isn’t working and can adjust accordingly. If he needed a screwdriver and picked up a hammer instead, once he observed that using the hammer didn’t work he would put it down and reach for another tool.

    A statist simply swings the hammer faster and harder, and blames the resulting damage on somebody else.

    1. This is exactly true. And it’s equally true in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, as well.

  14. I’m to lazy to look up this Merida bullshit. Anyone want to tell me about it?

    Also, I’m thinking of changing my handle to “The Hellinator.” Any thoughts?

    1. Merida Initiative is the US sending a bunch of guns and money(lawyers?)to Mexico to help fight the drug war. Also, I think it involves treaties for extradition and banking(money laundering). Of course, like everything else that the government does, it has become a giant clusterfuck.

      The soldiers in the Mexican army received elite training and weaponry then proceeded to put their services and weapons up for sale to the highest bidder(cartel).

      in re: the name change…Seriously?

    2. I would advise against “The Hellinator”, personally.

    3. Helen Thomas beat you to it. It’s Obama’s pet name for her.

    4. Yeah that second part was a joke…

    5. Also, I’m thinking of changing my handle to “The Hellinator.” Any thoughts?

      Dipshit485 is a better fit.

      1. Max made me smile, need to go take a rape shower.

  15. “”changing my handle to “The Hellinator.” Any thoughts?””

    Sounds like a Judas Priest CD, or hardcore band.

  16. Probably the only way most people would care about violence in Mexico would be if it spilled over to their local Taco Bells and shit on their Burrito Supremes. Otherwise, they’d rather go with Anslinger’s tried and true totally made up BS, because of the nice warm feeling of moral superiority they supply, rather than risk the munchies.

  17. Otherwise, they (team red) fully realize along with their compadres in chicanery (team blue) that it’s a pretty damned powerful handle on ‘control’ that it affords them – which neither team is really itching to let go of.

  18. U.S. drug policy (the War on Drugs) extends worldwide. Drug trafficking is a global phenomenon. Illegal drugs are received on both U.S. oceanic coasts, the Gulf of Mexico, Hawaii, over the Canadian border, over the Mexican border. But all the violence, extortion, murder and mayhem is concentrated in one country: Mexico. Why is that?

    1. Are you okay, buddy? Yer lookin’ a little pale there. We’ll answer all of your questions in a minute, just lay down for a minute, okay.

    2. It’s a matter of degree. A few Canadians shuttling BC weed is different from the massive networks moving all manner of drugs into the US from points South. Most of the drugs come in from the south, due to easily corrupted officials in those countries. The Mounties are harder to bribe then the federales. Mexico is a Third World country, with all that entails. Canada is First World, and that’s the difference.

      Smuggling via cargo containers or across beaches at dark is a whole different animal as well.

    3. We literally give them the guns with which they kill each other.

    4. The Columbians thought they ‘won’ back in the 90s with the death of people like Escobar. The US considers its efforts their a ‘big success’. In the end, all they really did was move a major center for trafficking (Columbia to Miami for example) to Mexico. Now Calderon is fighting the cartels who are also fighting amongst themselves resulting in 15000 deaths last year, and over 30000 during the last 3 years. Maybe Calderon will ‘win’, but all that means is that the trafficking will move somewhere else and the process will begin again. I’d almost want it to come here to the US so the population could truly see the results of the polices its government as so successfully sold to them. Then again, US institutions are probably too strong for the cartels to take hold of the way they’ve managed to in Mexico.

      All that said, it isn’t necessarily true that “all the violence, extortion, murder and mayhem is concentrated” in Mexico. The drug trade fuels the Taliban and a helluva lot of corruption within the Karzai regime. You could say that, in a way, the war in Afghanistan is an indirect extension of the US sponsored WoD.

    5. Ya know, this is the umpteenth comment you’ve made with the same ambiguous non-point. Do you just not get very far beyond the ‘just asking stupid questions’ phase, or are you permanently barred from ‘answer’ land, and persona non-grata in the Federated State of Research? Or did you just eat a whole pan of brownies made with about 5 O’s of primo BC bud and are stuck in a repetitive fixation loop for the next couple of hours?

      Or are you being obnoxious and playing a dumbass on the internet, or is this an accurate projection of you in real life?

      Hey, just askin questions, like, why is that?

  19. ccrrrmmm ccrrrmmm:
    “all” started with USA shooting the authority raid JUST BECAUSE bho&neolib; congre$$ick park HAD AN ASTRO CELESTIAL BODY dinoasteroid on nov 10, before jan 11 1st “nuclear warming winter” THEY SEEK PHYSSICALLY on mideast region ALONG bho’s AYERS, FAHRACAN, ALINSKI… ect. blame Bush, blame Sarah Palin, blame Teaparty, blame Foxnews, Talkradio, internet… cyberc$ar SELF DECLARES INTERNET SELECTIVE GOV CARD RIGHTS TO THE “FUTURE INTRANET LIKE CUBA”…
    With that”media(luna)tic” terror on the background (BHO BASES: ayatola revolution CHANGE “thing” sharia law Muslimbrotherhood hammas-alinski- tedpalpatinekennedy-anamontes “legal” visions-castroland-TERROR)…
    Then… cuba has 1 mill govunemployees, for a… MEGAMARIEL TO COMPLEMENT AND START SO. BORDER CASTROCOYOTE-FARC INSURGENCY TO COMPLEMENT THE COYOTE CIVILIAN PRE-INVASION…
    Middeast ayatolahammas hezbola(all copy castrogov), they COPY… the fires of MOREGOV…
    But… HEY! EGIPTIAN ARMY, THE TERROR DEMOSTRATORS AREN’T ARMED WITH THE aMERICAN WEAPONRY JET…
    THE QUASINSURGENCY DEMOSTRATORS ARE VULNERABLE, LOOTING, MAYOR JAIL ESCAPE KILLING EVEN THE DIRECTOR, ATTACKING AUTHOROTY…
    WHAT, IN THE NAME OF ALLA, GOD, BUDA, ZEUS WHATEVER NAME, YOU THINK is happening to you once starts the revolvilusion of the muslim brotherhood, who created the logistics for carter’s ayatoland bho tryes on Egipt?
    Psst, America, the muslim brotherhood is responsible for the 1st WTC bombing, wich failed because the truckbomb wasn’t exactely under one tower, so wasn’t any vertical domino effect groundshake to destroy the other one…
    mmm, bho, “my” YOUR ACORN miamidade castrocoyote stepmother still like nothing, having me out of my place and rights on my bloodline family, same dadepred molesting, cop gunpointing me when I complain to the protected by police-judge preds, and paralegals, you know MY BACK IS BROKEN, SLAVED -$2/hr subemployed, ETC still, so…
    bho… YOUR STAFF IS BROKEN!
    YOU WHERE THE “CHOOSEN ONE”, TO SUPPOSEDLY DESTROY THE GOV$ITH$&TERRORISTS; NOT JOIN THEM!!…
    I’m sorry Kara…

    1. And to what do I owe this honor, Glenn?

    2. (Thats what she said)

    3. I didn’t think they were allowing Loughner Internet access.

      Too soon?

    4. Hey everyone COMMANDER’s back!

  20. I think I understand now. American libertarians, who ostensibly preach personal responsibility, absolve Mexican murderers on the pretext that the American drug war made them do it. Why the drug war makes only Mexicans kill each other in such numbers remains a mystery.

    1. You fail at reading comprehension. I listed above the example from Colombia, which you have conveniently ignored.

      I would excuse you because you claim to be Canadian, but we have other Canadians here who are nowhere near as hopeless as you are, so that won’t work.

      Begone troll and take your hat with you.

    2. You still haven’t explained what your fucking point is, douchebag. But then again, that’s probably because you don’t have one, other than to be a douchebag. Guess what? You’ve succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

    3. Americas Hat|2.2.11 @ 7:36PM|#
      “I think I understand now….”

      So no one bit on your silly question, and now we get the strawman hiding behind?
      Not very original.

    4. Oh, I see what you did there.

    5. “Why the drug war makes only Mexicans kill each other in such numbers remains a mystery.”

      Its because Mexicans are animals. Either that or you don’t know shit about basic economics and the role of incentives.

    6. Yes, only the Mexicans kill each other, our SWAT teams never kill people on drug raids…

    7. Or it’s because America news media doesn’t know, care, or report on the shit happening in South America if it doesn’t lap over our borders.

      And you’re a dip$hit.

  21. Any drug users out there feel uncomfortable they’re patronizing an industry that provokes its employees to engage in ruthless murder? Or is it simply freedom of choice, and they should have known what they’re getting into? I’m not saying this in support of the drug war: this is aside from what’s provoking the phenomenon. The blunt fact is that a lot of people are dying, whether civilian or slumlord.

    So I’m asking: does it give you any pause knowing the cost of your stash in bodies?

    Because if I learned that apple growers were routinely beheading each other to get me my apples, I would probably back off eating apples for a while. And drugs are even more optional.

    Anyone?

    1. This is similar to blood diamonds — anything commodity that can’t get to market without excessive human cruelty, basically…

      Why buy it?

      1. anything = any

        Would love an edit feature…

      2. SxCx|2.2.11 @ 7:54PM|#
        “This is similar to blood diamonds — anything commodity that can’t get to market without excessive human cruelty, basically…”

        No, it’s not. There is nothing inherent in any drug that causes it to ‘get to market with cruelty’; the cruelty is “kindly” introduced by those in the government who wish to save us from ourselves.

        1. I realize that, but it’s still happening. I’m talking about personal choice outside the war itself. I completely agree with the notion that governments are spurning this bloodbath. But by the same token, I can’t say I feel too enthused to buy a product so anchored to human misery. It almost feels…unlibertarian? Or maybe just humanitarian.

          1. “But by the same token, I can’t say I feel too enthused to buy a product so anchored to human misery.”

            Interesting question (we, who aren’t being shot at, get to say).
            Can’t remember the philosopher who made the point ‘if *everyone* did it…’, and it would take everyone not doing it (buying dope) to end the deaths. But would it solve the problem?
            For now, I’m gonna say “no”; it would only encourage governments to outlaw, well, ‘happy meal toys’ or what ever they’re called.
            It’s a tragedy, but I don’t think the solution is what you propose.

      3. Perched over a newspaper, snorting coke off the headline “SEVENTEEN MUTILATED BODIES FOUND OUTSIDE PLAYGROUND”.

        Such a tragedy!

    2. SxCx|2.2.11 @ 7:50PM|#
      “Any drug users out there feel uncomfortable they’re patronizing an industry that provokes its employees to engage in ruthless murder?”

      As someone who no longer “uses drugs”, I get to answer this with no dog in the fight. And I’ll answer with a question:
      If the government made your fave flavor (coffee, tea, organically-grown, first-named tomatoes) illegal, and people started dying as a result, how would you feel putting that tomato named Wanda on your salad?
      Sorry, it’s not the users; it’s the stupid governments that cause the deaths.

      1. Fuck, I always hit the wrong reply thing…response below…

    3. Do any of the cops, prosecutors, judges and politicians feel uncomfortable placing normally law abiding citizens in jail, where they learn how to become real criminals, and placing a near permanent mark on their criminal record so they can’t even get a fucking job stocking shelves at Wal-Mart?

    4. Relatively simple answer:

      Prohibition puts a huge dollar premium on drugs. Drug gangsters are killing each other for the dollars, not the drugs. Just like alcohol during the 18th amendment.

      People like to alter their mental state, hence alcohol and pot. Not much harm in doing so, especially with pot. People are not going to change their preference for an occasional buzz.

      So, whose fault is it that strong demand results in huge profits for drug dealers? The answer is clear, it is the drug warriors who have caused this carnage. They wanted a war and they got one. Probably what we are seeing in Mexico is more just a battle than a war; look for the war to expand into the US and Canada, and yes it will still be the drug warriors fault.

    5. Would you be willing to give up all fruit? How about meat? Sex? At some point, when the activity becomes important enough to you, you would stop and look rationally at the choice. You’d realize you are not to blame and continue with the activity that provides you pleasure. Sure if it’s insignificant like apples most people could give it up.

      I think the problem for you might be that you don’t truly understand drug use. You don’t see how it could be of value to someone therefore you don’t see why they don’t just give it up (I mean just casual use, not someone physically addicted).

      1. Sex is the perfect example. Just think if the government declared a war on unwed sex, so we didn’t have all these welfare babies out there. We would still have all the out off wedlock babies, but a lot of their mothers would be dead.

    6. H&R “libertarians” don’t believe in personal responsibility. If there’s a problem somewhere, it’s always The State’s fault.

  22. I agree, but yes, I would probably try to grow my own tomatoes.

    But of course you can’t grow your own drugs! And this is the entire problem.

    I’m just saying I’m more comfortable putting off drug use until the product is made with civility. And I realize that governments do not allow it to be made with civility as it stands…

    1. You sound like the kind of person who agonizes over whether their food was grown locally or if it was farmed in a sustainable way, etc. In other words, a self-flagellator.

    2. Actually you can grow your own drugs. But this will prompt the SWAT team to bust through your windows, arrest everyone you’ve ever met, and pump a couple of rounds into your dog for good measure.

    3. You can certainly make your own drugs. Ask the Good Doctor and his wife, the Shulgins. Read PIHKAL, and TIHKAL.

    4. The high-quality marijuana market is very peaceful and consensual, and is mostly based out of Northern California. The low-quality stuff comes from Mexico and has blood on it, but high-quality domestic and Canadian is worry-free.

    5. Yes, let’s all stop taking drugs, that will definitely bring about the end of the drug war…

    6. What if I restrict myself to ecstasy brought over from Europe?

  23. those fuckin drug users killin themselves all over the Netherlands….

    bastade

  24. Well, libertards, even the Mexican government is against your war on drugs. But, don’t give up, you can win that war on drugs.

    1. Tony, Tony, Tony…

      Hasn’t anyone ever told you that it’s for the children?

      All arguments, concerns, questions, and rationales are automatically rendered invalid before the children.

    2. OUR war on drugs? Tony, that’s too stupid even for you. Put the mushrooms down and slowly back away…

  25. I really find drug legalization a long ways away because most people have equated doing drugs on par with child molesting. For that reason, the moral outrage will be enough to continue the war on drugs.

  26. Hey, the question was simply: do drug users have a moral problem with buying a product presently steeped in death? And judging from the responses, the answer is mostly “no”.

    That’s all I wanted to know! Thanks to all who responded.

    And for the record: getting high is great.

  27. I am disappointed in the number of STEVE SMITH jokes in this post.

  28. I’m coming in kind of late with this question, but I was hoping to get some thoughts.

    What happens to professional criminals after Libertopia is achieved? With drugs, prostitution, and gambling legalized all over the place, what will they do? Not trolling, serious question. Big Pharma will take over cocaine, ADM and MonSantos will start growing everyone’s favorite herb, strip clubs will start offering takeout, bars will bring the roulette wheels out into the open, etc. So where will the criminals go? Going off Prohibition, we see that the competitive advantage a gangster has is his willingness to break the law. After Prohibition, the syndicate went into other profitable illegal markets. So what will they do if everything is made legal?

    1. So what will they do if everything is made legal?

      Well, legal things, I guess. What, are they going to move into kidnapping as a viable long-term business plan? There is no crime more lucrative than drugs in the US. I mean, if marijuana alone were legalized, it’s already a $36 billion domestic industry, which is $300 per household. You’d be hard-pressed to make that up with other crime. Prostitution, for reference, is $14 billion, so our gangsters would have to expand the industry by multiple orders. And, of course, your argument involves prostitution’s legalization.

      So either they’d step it up by massively expanding robbery, kidnapping, bribery, murder for hire, etc., which is ridiculously risky with mostly low returns, and the new breed of criminals would be drawn to that life just as much as selling a dimebag on the corner, or crime would shrink.

      And it’s a sunk cost, anyway. Legalization would move people out of the black market and violence immediately, and some of its effects would be felt over the longer term as the profits from crime fell.

      1. I think it was John Gotti that said something like, “we give people the things that they want, that the government won’t let them have”. If everything were made legal, the underground would be “forced” to go “legit”.

    2. If this “Libertopia” was achieved, there would be no special favoritism by the government to corporations, like Monsanto and ADM, in the form of grants, subsidies, special regulations, and IP rights, and there would be no Federal Reserve indirectly pumping those companies up with cheap, easy money, so they probably wouldn’t exist anywhere near their present form. The smaller, more innovative and more efficient entrepreneurs will “control” the markets, not a select few monopolistic giants that are currently “chosen” by the government. Without rent-seeking politicians, large corporations will lose their unfair competitive advantage.

      1. Unfortunately, if all this was legal, the taxes on it will be so high, that there may still be a lucrative black market.

        1. For evidence, see the growing black market for cigarettes.

  29. I understand America is considering sending some Mexicans over to Cairo, just to see what happens.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.