America's War on Drugs Has Killed 12 Times More Victims in Mexico Than The U.S. War in Iraq
If you thought the War in Iraq was costly, in terms of American causalities (248 so far this year), it's nothing compared to the 3,000 Mexican casualities in 2008, largely from America's War on Drugs, which has killed 12 times more Mexican than the Americans killed in the Iraq War this year. The Economist: In total, there have been some 3,000 killings so far this year in Mexico, most related to the drug trade. Recently these included the assassination of an entire extended family, including children, and the discovery of 12 decapitated bodies in Yucatán state.
WSJ: One reason that Mexican security has so deteriorated in the past decade is the demand in the U.S. for illegal narcotics, and the U.S. government's crackdown on the Caribbean trafficking route. Mexican cartels have risen up to serve the U.S. market, and their earnings have made them rich and well-armed.
The victims of last week's killing spree include the deputy police chief of the state of Michoacan and one of his men, a detective in the state of Chihuahua, and a deputy police chief in the state of Quintana Roo. As of July, 449 police and military officers have died in the Calderón offensive, further underscoring the price Mexico is paying for the U.S. "war on drugs."
10 Comments:
When I was in the Army - back in 1993 - my Cavalry unit deployed on JTF-6 (Joint Task Force Six) operations with DEA and Border Patrol in Nogales, AZ. As a military unit, we did not apprehend "drug mules" but simply set up OPs to be the eyes and ears for the civlian enforcement officers.
I never realized the futility and the waste of resources that this War on Drugs represented until I spent 45 days doing that. Trying to stop the flow of drugs across that border is like trying to plug a sieve with a wet sponge.
I say it's time to stop the madness and legalize certain drugs. At least then the Federal govt., which has proven itself quite fond of regulation and taxation, can make them a source of revenue instead of continuing to throw good $ after bad. Just my $.02.
Legalizing 'certain drugs' isn't going to work, but decriminalizing would (let's face it, we're talking about pot).
The reason is pot is a weed, and grows like one - Which is to say, everywhere there is dirt, sunshine and water.
As such, it's almost impossible to regulate like other drugs e.g. alcohol (which is hard to make illegally in quantity and sell in quantity), and tobacco (which consumers demand in nifty pre-rolled tubes, necessitating equipment and a location, making it unfeasible to set up an illegal cigarette manufacturing plant - Not to mention the profit margin isn't big enough to run the risk of the BATF kicking down your door)
As a result, decriminalization is the best bet - No jail time or record if you're caught with it, only a fine depending on the number of grams you're in possession of.
If you're some hop-head out at a Phish concert lighting up outside the hall, and the fuzz pinches you, catches you with a gram or so of weed, you get a (let's say) $50.00 fine, (and the cop gets to confiscate and smoke whatever weed he doesn't turn in to the station).
If you happen to be a weight dealer in possession of tens of thousands of grams, then you forfeit all your money and possessions.
This keeps behavior in check (you'll be discrete in your reefer madness, unless you can afford the fine and don't care), and raises revenue for the state to cover the extra police time.
Cocaine and heroin, on the other hand... That's a much more difficult call, and requires a lot more time for a solution than anyone has here.
Shouldn't one also consider the thousands of Iraqi deaths? By this standard, deaths in Iraq dwarfs deaths in Mexico.
Crime statistics are normally given in per capita terms. So isn't comparing a country with a population of 109 million to deaths among U.S. troops (146,000 thousand at present) kinda applies to oranges?
Mexico does have a high murder rate ranking 6th in the world so why aren't we hearing these facts rather than a bogus hoopla about Iraq? A really lame argument kinda ticks me off.
How about this.
According to the CBS affiliate in Chicago From January-July (2008), the police department reports 291 people were murdered.
The TV station estimates that 125 people were killed in Chicago over the summer season [Memorial day to Labor Day].
More people were murdered in one American city than all of the military deaths in a war zone.
so many lives, so much money wasted . . . and nothing accomplished.
still it goes on and on
yeah, too bad Sadam Hussein is still not in charge. He could have gone on killing hundreds of thousands of people and filling hi mass graves. Iraq was a paradise then.
The Kurds just loved the gas parties Saddam used to throw. That was the good life.
Good times .... good times
At first I thought you were going to say that Americans are killing Mexicans or that Americans were getting killed. Then I saw that it's Mexicans killing Mexicans.
I am wondering, what is your point?
Somehow you are implying that America's war on drugs is responsible for Mexicans killing Mexicans in Mexico but your blog post doesn't state the connection.
Maybe it is obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to all of your readers. It leaves the impression
that you are being misleading because you don't have the facts to back up your opinions.
We shouldn't be at war in Iraq and we shouldn't be at war with drugs.
U.S. laws outlawing drugs create a violent black market that the drug cartels exploit.
When prohibition ended, so did the bootleggers.
> Then I saw that it's Mexicans killing Mexicans
Yes, indeed, Dr. Perry left out the markedly obvious fact that they are doing it because of the tremendous profits to be made in transportation of illicit drugs into the USA.
Maybe it is obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to all of your readers.
Some people are rather just naturally clueless, and need everything explicitly spelled out.
Hopefully, this resolves that problem for you.
> We shouldn't be at war in Iraq
Well, let's go completely off-topic, hey? What the hell, let's consider it --
I'm assuming this wasn't you, though you're both anonys:
yeah, too bad Sadam Hussein is still not in charge. He could have gone on killing hundreds of thousands of people and filling hi mass graves. Iraq was a paradise then.
and
The Kurds just loved the gas parties Saddam used to throw. That was the good life.
That says it pretty clearly, but, then again, you seem to need everything spelled out explicitly:
Yeah, we should've left Saddam in power. That way, he would've had anthrax and botulin toxins in large quantities by now, and be providing them to terrorist groups all over the ME for usage anywhere they want.
In fact, he almost certainly WOULD have a nuke by now, which he could be using to threaten Israel and any number of other states.
Yeah, you're right. We had no business in Iraq at all. Screw the rape room victims, the dissidents fed, alive, into meatgrinders.
Who the hell cares about them, the stupid ragheads? Right?
Proactive measures to protect the American people? Naw.
Humanitarian measures to help other nations by removing a dictator, when that dictator ALSO threatens our interests? NAW.
Impressing scientists with the fact that someone's gotten their head so far up into their rectal cavity that it's sticking back out the top? *Priceless*
Post a Comment
<< Home