It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees

[Jamie6.5]

It's a Mexican news website PP. You won't find it in the American press, and most likely no AP, Reuters or UPI either.

Here in the U.S. we can't be shown the heroic efforts of an armed individual making headway in the war on drugs, even if he lost his life in the process.
The media wouldn't want any armed Americans getting any ideas,...

We have to be spoon fed the idea that American guns are the source of all of Mexican and U.S. border woes.
Whether it's the truth or not!

 

[dmancornell]

This is NOT going to get any better without massive, committed and decisive involvement by the United States.

Start a war by passing absurd drug laws, then invade your neighbor to the south to enforce them. Brilliant!

You can blame Mr. Alejo's death (and all the other ~25k dead) on America's ruling class and their pharmaceutical intolerance.

 

[Decker]

Start a war by passing absurd drug laws, then invade your neighbor to the south to enforce them. Brilliant!

You can blame Mr. Alejo's death (and all the other ~25k dead) on America's ruling class and their pharmaceutical intolerance.

Or you can blame it on a bunch of Americans that can't make it though life without being baked and high all the time. Which ever.

-d

 

[dmancornell]

Or you can blame it on a bunch of Americans that can't make it though life without being baked and high all the time. Which ever.

-d

Oh the horror, the thought of American citizens smoking a harmless, non-addictive plant in their own homes.

Better start a war and kill thousands of people so some criminal politicians can troll for votes from the law-and-order sheeple and waste billions of dollars. :nuts:

 

[Decker]

Oh the horror, the thought of American citizens smoking a harmless, non-addictive plant in their own homes.

Better start a war and kill thousands of people so some criminal politicians can troll for votes from the law-and-order sheeple and waste billions of dollars. :nuts:

Well, sadly for the war on drugs pot is not the main cash crop so yes the horror is still there because, once again, Americans can't seem to make it though life without getting baked or high.

And the billions 'wasted' is probably equal to the billions smoked/injected so it all evens out, right?

I'll wrap up by going back on topic and once again tipping my hat to a very brave man.

-d

 

[BigCat]

No demand = no supply = no drug cartel.

 

[dmancornell]

No demand = no supply = no drug cartel.

No demand eh? How's that effort going?

Hats off to Mr Alejo, victim of the US government.

 

[glock.40]

No demand eh? How's that effort going?

Hats off to Mr Alejo, victim of the US government.

It's an economic principle. Supply and demand, you have probably heard of it.

Don't hijack this thread.

 

[Jamie6.5]

How about blaming the people that were prepared to pull the trigger in their effort to take Mr Alejo's house/property from him. Those are the criminals here. No American forced them, supply, demand or otherwise.

You guys love to debate the underlying cause(s). You sound like you all sit on the Portland City Council. American apologists that regularly decry Obama's apologies.
People that shoot other people to get what the other guy has are debated here all the time. They get referred to as "scumbags" or other appropriate term. Applying the "supply and demand" argument makes a case for them just being free market capitalists.
I assure you, that is NOT the case!
People that cook meth in the U.S. are recognized here as gross polluters and worthless threats to society, are they not? So why not apply the same terminology and logic to foreign meth cooks?
Because there are American meth addicts? Get a clue!!!

I guess as long as you can point to a remote location and quote "underlying causes" that lie in the U.S. you're okay with that. But you are playing right into the hands of those that would limit your liberty/freedoms on behalf of the so-called "greater good."

The fact is, when you apply that scenario to your front yard, it boils down to a scumbag with a gun and an attitude.
So stop blaming me, my fellow citizens, their habits, my country and my government for Mexico's woes. When they decide to dump the cultural norms that salute machismo, dominance and violence this pantload will stop.
In the process, Mexico will get to preserve their sovereignty, and so will we!.
The principle benefit being fewer scumbags, on both sides of the border.
And that's a good thing IMO!

 

[rufus]

How about blaming the people that were prepared to pull the trigger in their effort to take Mr Alejo's house/property from him. Those are the criminals here. No American forced them, supply, demand or otherwise.

You guys love to debate the underlying cause(s). You sound like you all sit on the Portland City Council. American apologists that regularly decry Obama's apologies.
People that shoot other people to get what the other guy has are debated here all the time. They get referred to as "scumbags" or other appropriate term. Applying the "supply and demand" argument makes a case for them just being free market capitalists.
I assure you, that is NOT the case!
People that cook meth in the U.S. are recognized here as gross polluters and worthless threats to society, are they not? So why not apply the same terminology and logic to foreign meth cooks?
Because there are American meth addicts? Get a clue!!!

I guess as long as you can point to a remote location and quote "underlying causes" that lie in the U.S. you're okay with that. But you are playing right into the hands of those that would limit your liberty/freedoms on behalf of the so-called "greater good."

The fact is, when you apply that scenario to your front yard, it boils down to a scumbag with a gun and an attitude.
So stop blaming me, my fellow citizens, their habits, my country and my government for Mexico's woes. When they decide to dump the cultural norms that salute machismo, dominance and violence this pantload will stop.
In the process, Mexico will get to preserve their sovereignty, and so will we!.
The principle benefits is much fewer scumbags, on both sides of the border.
And that's a good thing IMO!

Very well said, could not agree more.

 

[RVTECH]

I am certainly no expert here but can anyone cite an example of a similar situation of a country with an 'appetite' for drugs to the degree of the US and having a supplying country right on their border? It has been a while since I have been to Europe but when I was there (the 80's) there was no shortage of drugs then and I am sure it is much worse now but you never seem to hear of any border violence to the degree we are experiencing.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I am certainly no expert here but can anyone cite an example of a similar situation of a country with an 'appetite' for drugs to the degree of the US and having a supplying country right on their border? It has been a while since I have been to Europe but when I was there (the 80's) there was no shortage of drugs then and I am sure it is much worse now but you never seem to hear of any border violence to the degree we are experiencing.

That is because they do not base there drug laws on archaic puritan morality. That means there is barely enough profit in the sales of drugs to make it worth it as a small business. Not enough to create a giant armed cartel.

 

[Riot]

How about blaming the people that were prepared to pull the trigger in their effort to take Mr Alejo's house/property from him. Those are the criminals here. No American forced them, supply, demand or otherwise.

You guys love to debate the underlying cause(s). You sound like you all sit on the Portland City Council. American apologists that regularly decry Obama's apologies.
People that shoot other people to get what the other guy has are debated here all the time. They get referred to as "scumbags" or other appropriate term. Applying the "supply and demand" argument makes a case for them just being free market capitalists.
I assure you, that is NOT the case!
People that cook meth in the U.S. are recognized here as gross polluters and worthless threats to society, are they not? So why not apply the same terminology and logic to foreign meth cooks?
Because there are American meth addicts? Get a clue!!!

I guess as long as you can point to a remote location and quote "underlying causes" that lie in the U.S. you're okay with that. But you are playing right into the hands of those that would limit your liberty/freedoms on behalf of the so-called "greater good."

The fact is, when you apply that scenario to your front yard, it boils down to a scumbag with a gun and an attitude.
So stop blaming me, my fellow citizens, their habits, my country and my government for Mexico's woes. When they decide to dump the cultural norms that salute machismo, dominance and violence this pantload will stop.
In the process, Mexico will get to preserve their sovereignty, and so will we!.
The principle benefit being fewer scumbags, on both sides of the border.
And that's a good thing IMO!

THANK YOU...but you have to realize that with logic, you need common sense to comprehend what you just said.

This is the same forum that demands illegals to present ID cards at will to LEO, but will strap a gun to their hip- open carry with a recorder on them and complain about having to show their ID to a cop.

Making Marijuana legal is not going to stop the criminal underground. EVER. People that blame the US appetite on Mexican crime just want to toke-up without the added paranoia.

 

[Decker]

THANK YOU...but you have to realize that with logic, you need common sense to comprehend what you just said.

This is the same forum that demands illegals to present ID cards at will to LEO, but will strap a gun to their hip- open carry with a recorder on them and complain about having to show their ID to a cop.

Making Marijuana legal is not going to stop the criminal underground. EVER. People that blame the US appetite on Mexican crime just want to toke-up without the added paranoia.

I don't toke-up and I still blame the US appetite for a large portion of the issue. And the drug war is about far more then Marijuana. Personally I'd make that legal but even if we did there would be very little reduction in the drug trade across the borders.

No matter the view point the simple fact is that if there was no demand there would be no need for the supply.

Do I care what people do in their own homes. Nope. But I do care when their choices impact the safety of me and my family and my country.

I'm not saying those with a different point of view then mine are wrong and should be tarred and feathered, just have a different view point I guess.

-d

 

[Jamie6.5]

I don't toke-up and I still blame the US appetite for a large portion of the issue. And the drug war is about far more then Marijuana. Personally I'd make that legal but even if we did there would be very little reduction in the drug trade across the borders.

I read this quite often, and it inspires me to ask a few questions. Maybe you can answer them for me, here goes.
If American's appetite for drugs is the problem, why do 99% of the killings stop once the drugs cross the border?
Shouldn't the violence and killings follow the drugs all the way to their point of sale to the user?
Why is most of the violence concentrated in Mexico, and limited to border states, if at all in the U.S?
The drugs, after-all, are sold as far away as Seattle, PDX, NY etc. Even when the gangs in Chicago that distribute them get into turf wars, the death toll isn't as high as it is in Mexico.
Why is that?
Why are drug cartels killing innocent Mexican civilians?
Case in point: Don Alejo wasn't in the drug business, he owned a ranch in the country, and from all appearances only wished to operate his ranch and recreate there.
Almost daily we hear of innocent women and children gunned down in Mexican border towns.
WHY?!?
What are these people doing that interferes with the manufacture and transportation of the drugs?

And how does killing women and children in Ciudad Juarez accomplish anything with regards to better distribution or higher profits?

And finally, should the U.S. turn our backs on those addicted to Mexican meth and heroin along with recreational users of ecstasy (extasy?) and pot by legalizing their use?
Addiction and impairment are used regularly as defense strategies in court, when someone is killed or injured by a user/addict, or when the defense attorney(s) want to portray the user/addict as the victim,...
What will legalizing these drugs do in those circumstances?

Come on all you apologists, justify your thought processes!

 

[Decker]

I read this quite often, and it inspires me to ask a few questions. Maybe you can answer them for me, here goes.
If American's appetite for drugs is the problem, why do 99% of the killings stop once the drugs cross the border?
Shouldn't the violence and killings follow the drugs all the way to their point of sale to the user?
Why is most of the violence concentrated in Mexico, and limited to border states, if at all in the U.S?
The drugs, after-all, are sold as far away as Seattle, PDX, NY etc. Even when the gangs in Chicago that distribute them get into turf wars, the death toll isn't as high as it is in Mexico.
Why is that?
Why are drug cartels killing innocent Mexican civilians?
Case in point: Don Alejo wasn't in the drug business, he owned a ranch in the country, and from all appearances only wished to operate his ranch and recreate there.
Almost daily we hear of innocent women and children gunned down in Mexican border towns.
WHY?!?
What are these people doing that interferes with the manufacture and transportation of the drugs?

And how does killing women and children in Ciudad Juarez accomplish anything with regards to better distribution or higher profits?

And finally, should the U.S. turn our backs on those addicted to Mexican meth and heroin along with recreational users of ecstasy (extasy?) an pot by legalizing their use?
Addiction and impairment are used regularly as defense strategies in court, when someone is killed or injured by a user/addict, or when the defense attorney(s) want to portray the user/addict as the victim,...
What will legalizing these drugs do in those circumstances.

Come on all you apologists, justify your thought processes!

People drink at bars but people die when they leave to go home. The correlation is still there. Again, I'm not against having a drink but I sure am against drinking and driving. I'm not against people enjoying a joint in their own homes but this isn't about pot, it's much bigger then that.

And you're also wrong to say that violence magically stops at the border. How many people are committing crimes in order to feed an addiction? And yes, some of those crimes do involved killings.

As for why the farmer was killed, I can't say for sure but I'm guessing it has a few reasons. One, it's easier to transport product across the land where nobody is. Two, if you let the old rancher off easy it will make the cartels look soft.

-d

 

[Jamie6.5]

I never said the violence stopped at the border, magically or otherwise. But don't try to tell me it's as bad on our side as it is on the Mexican side. That's preposterous. And yes there are property crimes associated with addiction(s). But that doesn't mean our death rate(s) by gun violence is anything approaching Mexico's.

And as for drinking in bars and drunks behind the wheel, the state(s) may have placed some blame on the bar owner, but to deny that a drunk driver is the sole responsibility of the bar/bartender is preposterous also. The driver bears a level of personal responsibility that is even greater.

So the cartels don't want to "look soft." Great, that's really justification in civil society for killing an innocent land owner, or bystander for that matter.
It's a good thing U.S. meth cookers and pot growers and drug dealers aren't killing near as many people for that reason,...
Gee, I wonder why that is?!?!?!?

 

[Decker]

I never said the violence stopped at the border, magically or otherwise. But don't try to tell me it's as bad on our side as it is on the Mexican side. That's preposterous. And yes there are property crimes associated with addiction(s). But that doesn't mean our death rate(s) by gun violence is anything approaching Mexico's.

And as for drinking in bars and drunks behind the wheel, the state(s) may have placed some blame on the bar owner, but to deny that a drunk driver is the sole responsibility of the bar/bartender is preposterous also. The driver bears a level of personal responsibility that is even greater.

So the cartels don't want to "look soft." Great, that's really justification in civil society for killing an innocent land owner, or bystander for that matter.
It's a good thing U.S. meth cookers and pot growers and drug dealers aren't killing near as many people for that reason,...
Gee, I wonder why that is?!?!?!?

You're comparing one side of a border that's almost totally lawless with another that's not. And even the you're ignoring the fact that there are huge stretches of our border where our own government has told us not to go. Why would that warning be required since by your logic there's no need to fear for violence if you're just a rancher minding his own business. It's about power and anything that they can do to increase it. And the addictions on this side of the border are paying for that.

Take a look at in inner city and see how many innocent people are killed because some thug simply wanted something they have. Be that a wallet or in this case the use of a ranchers land.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this and that's alright, its just two different perspectives but hopefully we can agree that we can all tip our hats to a man that stood up for his principles and gave his life to defend what he had built. May we both have the same quality of character should we face that in a similar situation.

/salute

-d

 

[mattg521]

Obviously we're not going to agree on this and that's alright, its just two different perspectives but hopefully we can agree that we can all tip our hats to a man that stood up for his principles and gave his life to defend what he had built. May we both have the same quality of character should we face that a similar situation.

+1
Amen to that.

 

[Jamie6.5]

The fact that the other side of the border is lawless is exactly my point. Million$ sent down there by the U.S. and even with modern day communications,... and it's still lawless.
That tells me more about the culture there than anything else.
Okay, Mexico is a nation of thugs.(your comparison, not mine) And if they spill over into the border states they are still thugs, only our dotgov refuses to do anything to fight them, carrying their dope or not, even on our side of the border.
I'm starting to get it,... I *think*.

They are a nation rife with thuggery, and it's our fault. And even though there are pot growers and meth cookers everywhere in North America, it's American addicts fault and American drug laws that are responsible for the death rate by violence in Mexico,...

Yeah, that one clears my logic circuits every time! <-Sarcasm.

No we won't agree, and no it's not all right. I refuse to be held responsible because someone doesn't have the fortitude to hold the criminals responsible, and would shift blame to Americans, be they addicts or gun owners or gun dealers, or just plain Americans that believe in our sovereignty.

If you want to buy into the guilt and become part of the apologist movement, go ahead.
I will continue to believe that lawlessness as a social/cultural norm is the problem. And it's on their side of the border.
Just like you pointed out.