The gun violence south of America’s border is staggering, in terms of its ferocity and pervasiveness. In fact, it’s time to stop worrying if Mexico has descended into a hotbed of terrorism. It IS a hotbed of terrorism. Now we could quibble about the definition of terrorism as opposed to, say, “simple” criminality. After all, Mexican drug lords have an actual product to sell, rather than a fascist political/religious philosophy . . .

But let’s go with dictionary.reference.com‘s definition, which says terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” In addition to terrorizing the civilian population, the Mexican drug cartels have murdered scores of politicians and journalists, subverting both the rule of law and democracy.

That’s good (bad) enough for me. But not apparently, for the Mexican ambassador to the United States . . .

The drug cartels operate more like businesses as terrorist organizations seeking to maximize their profits and making mergers and acquisitions as do the large companies in the international market, says the ambassador of Mexico in the United States, Arturo Sarukhan . . .

Ambassador Sarukhan said that the right title for the article should be “Let’s call that Mexican cartels are very violent transnational criminal organizations and well-funded.”

He added that the cartels are not terrorists, but “very violent criminal groups are well financed and structured. They pursue a particular goal. They want to maximize their profits and do what most businesses do: aggressive takeovers, mergers and acquisitions search “.

The Mexican diplomat stressed that the drug cartels use violence to protect their business from other competitors as well as the efforts of the governments of Mexico and the United States to retreat, and that these criminal organizations have no political motivation or agenda beyond their attempts to defend their illegal businesses.

“If these organizations labeled as terrorist, then they will have to start calling drug users in the U.S. ‘financiers of terrorist organizations’ and the arms dealers ‘suppliers of material for terrorists’.”

While I’m glad to see the drug cartels have such a prominent defender (translated by Google from elimparcial.com), I can’t argue the point about their funding source. Search TTAG’s archives and you’ll see that I’ve recommended that American gun owners refrain from consuming illegal drugs to stop funding this terrorism (and to enhance their personal security).

But I want to be very, very clear on this. Every joint you toke, every line you snort or rock you smoke leads directly to this (via laht.com):

The bodies of 11 people – nine men and two women – were found buried in a field near Ahome, a city in the northwestern Mexican state of Sinaloa, an official told Efe.

A farmer found the bodies Tuesday in shallow graves in the community of Plan de San Luis and called police.

Coroner’s office personnel and prosecutors initially found just three bodies, but a more extensive dig turned up the other human remains.

Investigators have not identified the victims and it is not known when they were killed.

Investigators have found 116 bodies in mass graves outside San Fernando, a city in the northeastern state of Tamaulipas.

Pragmatically speaking, there is no way to curtail the demand funding these terrorist organizations. (Hint: that shit is addictive.) There’s only one possible recipe to put the drug lords out of business—and it ain’t stopping the flow of FN FiveseveNs and Bushmaster ARs from Bob’s Gun Store to Mexican drug lords, who are just replenishing their supplies anyway.

1. Seal the border. Now. Whatever it takes. No doubt it will takes a big old chunk of the U.S. military. For political reasons, I’d put the troops under the command of the National Guard, but that’s just quibbling. This is a national emergency requiring a federal response.

2. Legalize drugs. I doubt President Obama could or would take the lead on this, or anything else for that matter. Perhaps Mr. Paul and the Tea Party could do the heavy lifting here. Or maybe not. I don’t know. But legalizing drugs would sure as hell help balance the budget.

3. Arm Mexican civilians. Obviously Uncle Sam can’t smuggle arms to Mexican civilians. They’re fully committed to smuggling arms to the drug cartels. Oh wait. They’ve stopped that, haven’t they? Right then. Put ENORMOUS pressure on Mexico to honor its Second Amendment, so that its people can defend itself from narco-terrorists.

Narco-terrorists. It’s got a nice ring to it wouldn’t you say? “Islamic terrorists” sounds so . . . intolerant. (I like “Islamo-Fascists” but that never caught on.) Narco-terrorists sounds like something we ought to be against. And how. Meanwhile, put down that reefer and set aside that blow, would you please?

 

9 Responses to If Mexican Drug Lords Are Terrorists, American Dope Smokers Are . . .

  1. Those 3 suggestions are far too simple to work in real life. These are complex and multi-layered issues that go far beyond the scope of average citizens to comprehend, much less find a solution to.

    Please leave the thinking and policy making to the corrupt politicians who got everyone here in the first place.

    And that is why our government and Mexico’s will continue to have a de facto open border, drive up the price of drugs to benefit the cartels, and disarm the victims of Mexico for the violent criminals.

    If there is a leak… plugging it would be far too simple a solution to work in real life.

    (These 3 things implemented would do more to stabilize both nations than EVERYTHING this and the last 3 administrations have done put together)

  2. “But I want to be very, very clear on this. Every joint you token, every line you snort or rock you smoke leads directly to this (via laht.com):”

    I think you call it the Bovine Fertilizer detection device? Off the charts. The problem isn’t that it’s factually inaccurate (or unprovable), the problem is that it is blatant anti-drug propaganda using poor logic.

    My personal choice to ingest or not ingest a plant (or the extracts of a plant), is in no way responsible for the individual actions of people involved in a violent black market created by an insane profit opportunity driven by our government’s prohibition policies.

  3. In this part of the country, a lot of the hippie lettuce comes from British Columbia. And what about the locovore ‘Toledo Windowbox” option?

  4. I agree with legalizing drugs, and not just pot, but in the meantime can we spread some of the blame around on the end users? I say yes and it sounded like you agreed.

  5. Not “legalizing” drugs is insanity compounded. Let’s be logical. Legalization would put the cartels out of business. We’d need fewer cops and fewer prisons. Political corruption would be dramatically reduced as the flow of narcotics money to politicians and police would be shut off. The benefits are innumerable. But wait, there’s more. What we perceive as a benefit is a detriment to others. The cartels wouldn’t like it. The prison guards and police unions wouldn’t like it. Crooked pols wouldn’t like it. Cops on the take wouldn’t like it. BATFE would freakin’ hate it. Moralizing “family values” schmucks would be apoplectic. So while drug violence scars the landscape, drains our ecomony and murders another generation, I guess we’re stuck.

  6. But I want to be very, very clear on this. Every joint you toke, every line you snort or rock you smoke leads directly to this

    Um, no. Most marijuana consumed in this country is not touched by Mexican cartels. Most of it is domestically produced (albeit often by the Mexican cartels) and some of it comes from Canada. Much smaller quantities arrive from more exotic origins. All of the premium quality stuff is produced in Canada by Canadians or in America by Americans.

    1. Seal the border. Now. Whatever it takes.

    You would need to nuke the border so severely that the left over radiation is an effective barrier. The problem with this (with regards to “sealing the border”) is that the drug smugglers have planes and boats and submarines and can go around the border.

    Also, the use of drugs does not directly lead to gang violence. Prohibition is the source of drug related crime, not the drugs.

    Narco-terrorists sounds like something we ought to be against.

    It is something we should be. Our government is controlled by the most powerful drug cartels. They wage violence against their competitors and against some of their customers in order to maximize their profits and to further their political goals. That’s narco-terrorism and we should all oppose it.

    Meanwhile, put down that reefer and set aside that blow, would you please?

    Why should we allow you or the narcoterrorists dictate our choices for us? Who are you to tell us that we shouldn’t use the most effective anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication ever discovered? I suppose if we get cancer, AIDS, MS, or any of the many other serious illnesses that cannabis is useful to treat we should just suffer and die so you can believe that our non-consumption of American produced pot will somehow reduce the profits of the Mexican cartels? Why should we suffer because of the criminal actions of other people?

    Shouldn’t you put down the guns and ammo since some of the guns and ammo are used by the cartels?

  7. “Every joint you toke, every line you snort or rock you smoke leads directly to this”

    I liked Sting’s version better.

  8. The War on Drugs is making too much money for LEO agencies for anyone to want it to actually be won.. Think about this… if these agencies were not paying informants, setting up stings, actually pushing drugs to “catch druglords”, letting junkies off easy as long as they squeal on somebody else, where is the money they get while setting up people by selling it and catching meduim dealers going?… would drugs be that easy to get????

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *