18 killed in bloody Acapulco shootout as Mexican drug war spreads – Times Online — Once a vacation hotspot. Now a charming hell hole.
Sixteen gunmen and two soldiers died in a bloody five-hour shootout in Acapulco at the weekend as the Mexican drug war erupted in the heart of the beach resort.
Members of a drug gang hurled grenades and opened fire on troops laying siege to a house in the city’s hotel zone, where four police officers were apparently being held hostage.
The fierce two-hour gun battle took place late on Saturday night after the army received a tip about the presence of armed men at a gated house. Up to nine soldiers and three Mexican bystanders were injured, while several Mexican tourists were evacuated from nearby hotels.
yes, this is so obviously safer than the horrors of legalizing drug use.
@brm well said
Mexico risks becoming a failed drug state like Afghanistan. And right on our border. Good thing our armed forces are tied down in two land wars in Asia.
Legalize drugs and the cartels disappear overnight, since they only exist to skim the massive risk premia in the drug trade.
And two of the kids from the day care fire are now in the US!! with visas waived!!
More like North Western Africa, than Afghanistan. Many of the gunmen are addicts, fighting for their next fix. Making it legal, probably will not make much of a difference.
The solution to this problem is super obvious so the leaders have to be corrupt or REAAAAALLY stupid to let this go on.
#5–Bob==you pose a quandary. Tough call.
I almost went to Acapulco just about this time but decided against it more for having been there already than for generalized crime violence. I think Mexico is on my “DO NOT VISIT” list until DRUGS ARE LEGALIZED.
Would love to do the same for USA==but whats a citizen to do?
Before I can support legalization of drugs, I want to know the costs of increased drug use.
The legal-drugs advocates I’ve talk to claimed that usage won’t go up this strikes me as nonsense. Legal behavior is always much more prevalent than illegal behavior.
Domestic violence, sex crimes, fighting, rage, car wrecks, theft, and all kinds of anti-social behavior is associated with drug use — legal or not.
I want to know if the INCREASE of these behaviors will be less onerous and expensive than crime associated with the illegal drug trade.
I am open-minded about this — really I am — but I just can’t accept that legalizing drugs will have no downsides as the pro-drugs crowd pretends.
#7:
“Before I can support legalization of drugs, I want to know the costs of increased drug use.”
I’d be very, very surprised if the costs of legalized drug use included having GRENADES lobbed around innocent bystanders.
It’s probably going to be similar to what happened after prohibition.
Yeah, more cases of public drunkenness and drunk driving, but in exchange for not having Al Capone tommy-gunning it up all over town.
#4:
“Many of the gunmen are addicts, fighting for their next fix. Making it legal, probably will not make much of a difference.”
They’re ‘fighting for their next fix’ because they’re working for a drug lord selling the shit on the illegal black market.
Were there gangsters shooting people after prohibition ended because they were looking for a bottle of booze?
Your logic is ridiculous.
@ Greg A.
Lookit man. If you’re the type to get high then you probably already do. The drug laws aren’t stopping you. If the drug use became legal then sure – it would become more prevalent – but only because it wouldn’t be hidden anymore.
Even if there is an increase in individual crimes they should always be considered less onerous than those committed by organizations.
As to expense? Howz about all the money we’d stop pissing away on the ‘war’ on drugs?
This presumption that use won’t go up when it’s cheap and legal simply defies common sense.
And, I’ve heard that “ending prohibition reduced crime” argument all my life but I don’t buy it.
As I see it, ending prohibition reduced my chance of getting shot by Bugs Moran or Al Capone a teeny-bit closer to near-zero.
But it increased my chance of getting killed by an intoxicated driver or beat to death by an ugly drunk — a far more likely scenario.
Don’t get me wrong — I honestly don’t how much drug-induced crime will go up if we legalize drugs but it strikes me as folly to say it won’t.
I think it’s pretty reasonable to ask for an expert estimate before we start selling crack and meth at our liquor stores.
#12:
“This presumption that use won’t go up when it’s cheap and legal simply defies common sense.”
The presumption isn’t that it won’t go up – it’s that it won’t go up a lot over the long run. You’ll probably see people already using use more, but it’s unlikely that normal people are going to go out and try crack or heroin just because it’s legal.
“And, I’ve heard that “ending prohibition reduced crime” argument all my life but I don’t buy it.”
You don’t have to believe the sky is blue either. The fact is that a big reason why prohibition was repealed is because it generated so much violent organized crime.
“I honestly don’t how much drug-induced crime”
Yeah, drug *induced* crime probably will go up.
But this is dwarfed by the fact that almost all of our violent crime is a result of the drug *trade*, not drug *consumption*.
Like, geez, a few thousand more DUI’s a year in exchange for eliminating EVERY SINGLE gang drug turf war and EVERY SINGLE mugging and robbery to pay for an artificially high priced habit seems worth it to me.
#12 Crack and meth are dirty unsafe drugs that are largely a result of drug illegality.
#14:
Excellent point.
It’s like arguing that the 21st Amendment was going to unleash a plague of blindness and death because it legalized bathtub gin.
WOW, if Acapulco is like this, then there is absolutely no place safe left in Mexico. This plus swine flu is gonna totally finish what little tourism they had left.
I really don’t give a shit about Mexico. Fuck them.
I don’t do drugs because they are illegal. I don’t care about law breaking, I do care about getting caught, associating with criminals to get the drugs, and the unknown/non-recourse quality of what is being bought.
Already in my life, friends, family, and myself have been negatively affected by the illegality surrounding drugs.
Morally, it makes sense to me that on legalization, only those CHOOSING to ruing their lives by taking drugs will primarily suffer the negative impacts, and those not wishing to will not–just the way it should be. Even if drug addicts increased, so would freedom.
People correctly identify that new/different people will be harmed by legalized drugs but they turn a blind eye/to dogma to ignore the harm that is done by illegality now.
The pres of Mexico wanted to make drugs legal about 5 years back.
Then Dumbass sent some of his DEA thugs dowm to Mexico to put a end to that.
Just one more thing Dumbass screwed up.
Southern Cali will look like this in ~10-15 years if things continue down this path.
#13, brm,
You don’t have to believe the sky is blue either. The fact is that a big reason why prohibition was repealed is because it generated so much violent organized crime.
Which shows how much television has shaped our kids intellect. Prohibition was overturned because the majority of people were responsible drinkers and wanted to drink without breaking the law. It was totally a social swing in opinion.
After the repeal of prohibition came further crime waves. Although Al Capone was off the streets, he was replaced by a bunch of other criminals, Bonnie & Clyde, John Dillinger, Machine Gun Kelly, Ma Barker and her kids, to name just a few. While the earlier gangsters killed each other, the bank robbers killed more innocent people.
. . . a few thousand more DUI’s a year in exchange for eliminating EVERY SINGLE gang drug turf war and EVERY SINGLE mugging and robbery to pay for an artificially high priced habit seems worth it to me.
So you would rather kill a lot more innocent people on the road in order to save the lives of a few gangbangers. Why not take away their guns if you really want to save a gangsters life?
#7 & #12 Greg Allen. I have the same questions. Most of the crime comes from users of hard core drugs as the users are so messed up that they can’t make $ and turn to crime. Lowering the price & increasing accessibility won’t create less of these people.
…if drinking the water doesn’t kill you first
#22 Fusion:
“Which shows how much television has shaped our kids intellect.”
Well, tell that to Congress, who penned this little diddy on the 75th anniversary of the 21st Amendment:
“Whereas passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited `the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors’ in the United States, resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws;”
As in this passage, I said the crime associated with the black market was *A* factor, not *THE* factor.
“After the repeal of prohibition came further crime waves.”
I also said that crime might go up initially, but drop over the long term. But I’m not sure how Bonnie and Clyde are a direct result of legalizing alcohol.
“to save the lives of a few gangbangers.”
So all the innocent people in the neighborhoods they run, the people caught in the crossfire of their turf wars and drive-by shootings, the children they push drugs onto because we have no legal, regulated distribution…
these people are all guilty? You’re a heartless bastard.
What’s next? Mexican mafia kidnappings in Phoenix Arizona, USA?
Oh, wait a minute. That’s right! There’s a “war on drugs” too. Isn’t there?
#18 Not all drugs are illegal. Not all people who take drugs ruin their lives. I’m able to enjoy a few beers or a red wine or two without ruining my life. I’m sure most people are capable of doing the same with a few joints or some cocaine.
Remove all the hysteria and misinformation regarding drug and all you are left with is bad laws.
#25, brm,
So what is your point. You point to the violence caused by alcohol prohibition as the reason it was repealed. That isn’t the case. There were several.
The leading one is the social mores wanted to be able to drink legal alcohol.
People were disturbed by the disregard for the law they were required to have in order to obtain a drink.
Many more people lost their lives to drinking bad alcohol then were ever killed by organized crime. Even more were blinded or rendered vegetables by the effects of the bad booze.
People were moving away from the strict governing of their lives by Christians. The Volstead Act was generally viewed as condescending.
And there was a Democrat in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress. 🙂
Someday you might want to look up something before you blindly start publishing it.
*
So all the innocent people in the neighborhoods they run, the people caught in the crossfire of their turf wars and drive-by shootings, the children they push drugs onto because we have no legal, regulated distribution…
Hhmmm, a two parter.
Why not just ban the guns? Without guns they would have a much harder time shooting each other.
So the children have to buy their drugs because there isn’t a regulated distribution system? Say what? Do you really think being carded is going to stop someone from buying drugs?
Regardless, you seem to prefer allowing drunks on the road. I’ve lost several friends to drunk drivers. You will never convince me that anyone caught doing a DUI should be let go. That is just sick.
See, it’s events like this that make me question the propaganda in favor of Mexican illegal immigration.
And good argumentation:
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/mexico.html
#28 Fusion:
“Why not just ban the guns? Without guns they would have a much harder time shooting each other.”
Like how we’ve banned drugs and now they’re much harder to get?
“You will never convince me that anyone caught doing a DUI should be let go.”
omg, when have I *ever* said this?