Previous Post
Next Post

agua prieta (courtesy

I don’t post stories about the firearms-related killings south of our border every day. But I could. Because every single day there are tales of unfathomable horror committed at the point of a gun somewhere down in Mexico. Well-armed, perpetually warring drug cartels exert a reign of terror over the populace; extorting, kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering at will. We could – and have – focused on the question of where the drug thugs get their guns. Truth be told, you can trace the vast majority of their weapons to official American sources. But who cares? The cartels are making billions of dollars from the illegal drug trade. Guns they can get. If we want to stop this blight on human rights . . .

We have to stop the so-called War on Drugs. We have to legalize illegal drugs so that we can cut down on the money fleeing our country and fueling the well-armed terror in Mexico.

I realize that any such move would evoke the law of unintended consequences. I saw how Bath, England and Amsterdam, Holland descended into crime and filth when authorities turned a blind eye to illegal drugs. The initial fallout from legalized heroin, cocaine and/or other Schedule 1 substances could devastate entire cities.

But the War on Drugs has already devastated entire cities. Look at Chicago. Where do you think the gangs get the money to survive? And let’s not forget Mexico: The War on Drugs has destroyed the rule of law in that country, leaving hundreds of thousands of casualties in its wake, some buried in mass graves less than a hundred miles from our border.

Speaking of guns, the people are arming themselves against drug cartels and their government enablers. The Mexican government isn’t happy. We, as American gun owners, should support the autodefensas’ campaign for security, self-determination and democracy. Meanwhile, American gun owners should take a personal principled stand against arming the cartels – by not consuming illegal drugs.

Don’t get me wrong: I would never presume to tell another human being what they can and cannot put in their body (unless we’re talking about my daughters). But anyone who smokes dope, inhales a line of cocaine or ingests an illegal drug is contributing to the killing in Mexico. It’s that simple.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Depends on which one we’re talking about.

      One of the effects of the pot prohibition has been to radically increase the strength of the pot. Most hauls were being tested at around 4% or so potency 30 years ago; the average is now about triple that and they run contests various places where the winners all score over 30% THC content and as high as 37% has been recorded.

      They still haven’t been able to breed something lethal but it ain’t for lack of trying.

      Point is, the more potent strains (esp. once legalized) could end up replacing a surprising number of harder drugs, unless somebody is already a full-on addict of heroin or something. But for that there’s methadone…

        • I’m afraid not. He’s right though, pot has increased in potency drastically, however that’s the extent of it.

          Average potency (% ∆-9-THC) is around 3x greater than it used to be (at 15%) and super high potency (tehe, “super high”) can be around 25%. This isn’t because of prohibition though, it’s because of people caring about good cannabis. And most of the Mexican schwag is still at that 3-5% figure, because they don’t give a fuc…can I swear here?

          However! No, marijuana will NEVER serve as a replacement for other drugs example:

          You like Holland & Holland shotguns? Here’s a Nerf!
          You like Ferraris? Here’s a Nissan Juke!
          You shoot a .308? Here some .380 ammo, same numbers…

          Point is, drugs have drastically different effects and people are picky as all hell. Turning down my Juke like a punk ass…

          And pot CAN KILL! Its just logistically impossible for most people to do it. Unless you have a high pressure gas chromatography set up in your basement (and who here doesn’t? right next to the reloading press for me) odds are your not going to be able to do it.

          But yeah, that was an uninformed comment.

      • Imagine that, youre telling me that since 30 years ago, science to grow stuff has gotten better and more efficient?



        • if that’s true, why have we not turned the pot growers loose on carrots, tomatoes, black eyed peas…

    • Let Wal-mart sell them. Drug dealing gangbangers would be crushed out of business like every other small business in the community. Two wrongs can make a right.

      • One more thing for Al and Jesse to bumble about on MSNBC latenight about how corporations are racists and those punks were just trying to earn a living.

        • Who the hell are Al and Jessie, and why should I give a damn what they have to say?

          Although I use this sentence on anybody who claims to be an expert on a subject they know nothing about.

      • How do you suppose out of business, murderous thug former drug dealers would while away their days once the illegal drug trade goes legit? Gardening? Ceramics? Perhaps teaching water color painting to disadvantaged youths? Maybe take some career training courses at the local community college? Please.

        They’ll find some other illicit activity by which to make a murderous living. Legalizing drugs may well have some positive policy benefits, but eliminating criminal violence isn’t one of them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is at best engaging in wishful thinking.

        • True, but it would discourage people from becoming dealers in the first place, when there is no economical reason to deal in drugs.Right now, manufacturing and selling drugs can make enormous profits, due to the relative low cost of production and the fact that you can charge whatever you want. But if Wally world and Walgreens just sell the stuff at 20% above cost, or whatever they set the margins at, then suddenly your massive profits are gone, and there’s no reason to get in the game.
          The OGs who find themselves out of work, I’m hoping do something desperate, stupid, and imminently fatal.

        • That just backs up the decision to an earlier stage, but with the same result. Instead of former murderous drug dealers switching mid-career to some other murderous activity, we’d have would-be murderous drug dealers starting off their crime careers in some other murderous activity. Every argument like this was also made in favor of ending Prohibition. Yet, here we are again, still, with gangsters having found something else to kill over.

          I know, I know, drugs are prohibited, too, so we created this problem ourselves. The point is, it doesn’t really matter. These same people predisposed to lives of violent crime will prey on civilized people no matter what you surrender to them.

        • And that’s why we have guns. Criminals don’t give a damn, so we give them lead. Sure, if we legalize drugs the criminals will simply move to some other black market; all I’m advocating is not ruining somebody’s life because the plant he wanted to smoke wasn’t sanctioned by Big Brother or the Ministry of Love. Because once you throw a man into prison for 5 years for a non-crime, surround him with other criminals, and once he gets out finds that all legal avenues of self advancement are closed due to his criminal record, he’s only going to have one thing to fall back on. I want that to stop.

        • When they legalized Alcohol (repealed Prohibition), the Mob almost went out of business, at least the crime business. Yes, the Mob was still there, but much smaller and less powerful. They went into legit businesses.

    • Since we have all this expertise just sitting in penal institutions, I foresee some prison farming going on. Circle of life.

    • Legitimate business people. Marijuana legalization (or de facto legalization) has consistently been a boon to local economies and taken business away from cartels. Just legalizing weed in this country would destroy 70% of their business. Legalizing hard drugs would improve quality, fund treatment and reduce violence.

      I say all of this as someone who thinks weed is stupid, and that Scotch trickles slowly from heaven.

        • I agree. I don’t think prostitution is right, or good for either of the parties involved, but if it’s 100% voluntary and consensual between two (or more, I guess) adults then I don’t see a benefit in outlawing it. My guess would be both prostitutes and Johns are generally safer in jurisdictions where it is legal.

        • Yup, everyone pays for sex one way or another anyway.

          Who cares if consenting adults want to pay each other for sex? Free people should do what ever they want with their bodies so long as it hurts no one else.

        • Is prostitution still legal in Alaska? It was a few decades ago. Society didn’t fall apart there and then. Why should we think it would here and today?

          • Authoritarians seem to have a fear and hatred of anyone having any fun. They think they’re the stern punishing parent who must maintain order (on their terms) at all costs and fun is a sin that must be punished mercilessly..

        • I was being sarcastic guys. Laws do not create criminals. Murderers, kidnappers, rapists, swindlers, thieves will always try to victimise society. Women would be forced into prostitution by illegal pimps. Girls would be kidnapped at young ages and forced into the sex trade. Drug dealers would still game the system. I am not saying that things would be worse after legalization, but I am not so naive to think that violence would subside. And that IS the point of the article.

          • Experience has shown the opposite to be true in every case. All of those horrible things you fear would happen are currently actually happening under prohibition. But you seem to have faith, which always trumps facts.

        • Why not?

          If two people are willing to trade physical contact for money, who are you to tell them not to?

          How is sex any different than say, a massage?
          Why would it be OK in your mind for one to be a service you could pay for, and the other to be illegal to sell?

          Where do you draw the line on what constitutes prostitution anyhow?
          Can you pay for the date, and the sex be a gift from one person to the other?

          What about sex between non romantically inclined friends who do favors for each other?
          If there isn’t an inherent rationality to your stance on an issue, you aren’t able to answer questions about gray areas.

    • Same bunch of thieves that make most of “profit” in the petroleum and tobbacco business (hint isn’t the EVIL oil or cigarette co)?

    • “Guess who is going to run narcotic production once it’s legalized?”

      If it were to be under THIS outlaw administration, I’d be likin’ the USG via ObamaCare and Medicare for that. Pen and phone execution, of course.

      DEA’s already in place as the enforcement arm.

  1. If it’s legalized. The war on Drugs is deeply ingrained with our population. D.A.R.E. saw to it that every child believes that drugs are bad um…kay….. . Now on that note I personally wouldn’t use drugs nor do I recommend that anybody use them. They destroyed my mother and we aren’t on speaking terms to this day because of her poor life choices. However I can tell you right here and now that my mother put me and my siblings in very real and terrible danger because she did not have a legal place to acquire her narcotics.

    I would seek legalization simply to deprive revenue from true terrorists, thugs, and gangs. I would seek it to provide shelter to the lost sheep and their helpless dependents. I would seek it to see that we can come face to face with the darkness inside all of our souls and no longer pretend that everything bad about human nature can be banished with “laws”. I would seek it so that we may as a culture and civilization come to the agreement that we cannot force people to be better than they are, but we can help limit the damage to themselves and others with compassion and grace. I would seek it so that my neighbor, no matter the choices she/he makes, knows I respect and love them as a human being.

    • Ummm. The drugs currently illegal ARE without exception “bad”. Including pot. Only a braindead moron would put the stuff in their body. If NSA were to use on Obuma’s Gitmo buddies the progressives would call it torture.

      “DARE” has been a TOTAL abject failure and joke. Settled science. Not impact on reducing drug use just a waste of money/energy.

      • No worse, and arguably not nearly as bad as many legal drugs. Alcohol, tobacco, Xanax, Ambien, a bajillion varieties of highly addictive painkillers. It’s odd we draw the line at marijuana, which falls somewhere between alcohol and cigarettes in its danger to health and society.

      • Meh… Not really. Some of the big problem drugs where developed legally Then made illegal.

        Heroin for one. Made by Beyer as a nonaddictive alternative to morphine for kids (on that note, haha). Tylenol causes more acute liver failures in this country than alcohol, and I believe is the leader in accidental over doses. Cocaine is schedule 2 and used in this country today. Opium is…well its bad. Meth, PCP, etc: no leg to stand on.

        Pot: eat it and no ill effects (other than being high).

        It has antibacterial properties, encourages cell death (i.e. cancer=out of control cell production), anti epileptic, neuroprotective effects, and a pleasant aroma.

        It is illegal because of racism and capitalism overpowering common sense and democracy. Look it up before you call bs, because you’ll find I’m right.

        • Not capitalism – cronyism. Capitalism in and of itself is harmless. It’s when governments start playing favorites that it gets out of hand.

          When was the last time Coca-Cola and Pepsico had a turf war?

        • @Rich

          Good point, I was definitely oversimplifying that. Though to pick nits my wikipedia style Google fu tells me it is more accurately crony capitalism. Regardless, it was all sorts of f-ed up. (Legalize it etc etc)

        • Yeah, I said cronyism by itself, meaning crony capitalism, because of the difference between it and plain vanilla capitalism, which as long as nobody’s a thief, makes everybody happiest. Even the tyrants are capitalists – you can’t build anything without capital. The tyrants just own/control it all. Isn’t there a term like anarcho-capitalist? No government control, and the free market running wild! We could have space tours in a couple of years!

          People don’t make wars. Only governments make wars.

        • “Pleasant aroma” really depends on your point of view on the word “pleasant”. No argument on the aroma part.

      • Are you the arbiter of all things good and bad, or do you back your statements with any peer reviewed scientific studies? Peer reviewed studies are the gold standard in debates, anything else is just noise.

        I’m not sure how you meant to come off with the “umm” at the beginning of your comment, but I took it as condescending, and I would be willing to bet that is you you meant it, as you quickly followed with non fact based opinions (poorly) dressed as fact.

        Thoughtlessly telling others they can not, or should not do a thing, simply because it upsets your idea of right and wrong, or acceptable or unacceptable is the exact mindset this kind of website is meant to counter. You’re making the exact same arguments anti gunners make.

        Antigun/antidrug “You can’t do ____ because it is bad”
        Progun/prodrug “Can you back that up with any actual evidence?”
        Antigun/antidrug “I can’t or wont, you just take my word, it’s bad, because I dislike it”

    • So what do we do with all the addicts? I don’t care what my neighboor puts in their body either until they break in to my home to steal my LEAGAL prescribed drugs. There will always be a crime element associated with drugs, legal or not.

      • I agree there will always be crime, drugs both legal and illegal will lead to crime for some individuals. However I recognize this and would like to control the damage that is done to society as a whole through acceptance of our baser instincts. We will never be able to ban or control poor choices, impulsiveness, depression, fear, rage, hatred, or any other part of the human condition. However I do believe that we can create environments and educational programs that seek to limit the amount of harm we do to ourselves.

        No more mothers who get strung out at the local opium den and have no idea their 10 year old daughter is being sexually assaulted in the next room. When you banish people into the shadows they are forced to live with the boogyman who calls that place his home. Or to quote Joaquin Phoenix in 8mm “When you dance with the devil, you don’t change the devil. The devil changes you.”

        No more people who die because a shady dealer cut their product with AJAX. No more exploitation by pimps and thugs using illegal drugs as chains that bind their workers. Legal dispensaries and optional supervised usage environments. Just thoughts my friends. Remember, these items used to be legal before prohibition and the streets weren’t awash with blood and crime then.

        • The only thing legalizing will do is drive down the price, at least with the boot leg stuff. The “certified” stuff free from impurities will be too expensive for the crackhead. Dealers will still supply the “street dope” at a low low price. May be cut with Ajax as well. Idealism fail.

        • Yeah Michael, that must be why bootleg liquor, wine and beer is so popular!

          Logic fail.

        • Alcohol is already so cheap that you continue to buy it. If you brew your own, it is for fun not profit. Alcohol is not as transportable as drugs. Marijuana has this same problem to some extent so I don’t see it becomming as big a problem as the chemical counterparts. You and the other “legalize all drugs and leave us alone” crowd are very narow minded about this and are not much better than the idealistic Liberals. Common sense fail.

      • “So what do we do with all the addicts?”

        Nothing. Simply hold each person accountable for their own actions. It’s no skin off my nose if some addict wants to sit at home zonked out. But if they commit a crime, then treat them just the same as any other criminal, regardless of drugs or not.

      • I don’t know why people assume that if drugs are made legal, everybody and the neighbor are going to become addicts. Most people who choose not to do drugs don’t do them just because there illegal. They choose not to do them because they are smart enough to know the dangers involved. If I wanted to, I could get pretty much any drug I wanted but I don’t ( for the most part anyway). It’s not because I’m afraid of the cops busting down my door, but because I know what they can do to you.

        • Stop it man you are being irrational. Who said everybody? Nobody. You take a statement and blow it up. No not everybody is going to do drugs but you are being disingenuous if you don’t think more people will get into it once it is legalized. It is more than an assumption…it is common sense.

          And my point about all the addicts is, they will fall on hard times spending all their assets on getting a fix. Then what? The steal it or steal money to buy it. The point of legalising was to reduce crime right? FAIL!

      • I suggest that we do nothing with them, unless they are harming someone.
        I suppose they should be offered help… as we are a society that tends towards “protecting” people from their bad choices.

        I say leave them to their own devices, if they break the law… well, punish them for the infractions.

    • That’s one way to go, but I think I’d rather just banish the filthy junkies to a remote island and rid society of them, their habit-supporting crimes, and their weak genes.

        • I said banishment to an island, like a penal colony, of individuals based on their behaviors. How do you get gas chambers and ethnic cleansing from that? Quite lame. Go back to the end of the line.

        • I will.

          Give the junkies and dopers the best quality stuff that can be procured and produced. Give them cheap smack that’s incredibly pure. Let ’em chase the dragon to their heart’s contentment.

          When the inevitable OD’s happen, then that’s a solution to that particular junkie’s problems.

          Some people would call me cruel. Sorry, I didn’t put the needle in their arm. They claim they don’t want to OD? OK then, don’t do drugs. Telling me that junkies shouldn’t die from OD’s is like telling me that people should be able to set up a picnic table on the railroad tracks without painful consequences.

          The rule of life should always be: “Make stupid decisions, get stupid results.” Adults are supposed to make grown-up decisions or pay the consequences of not doing so, whether it is doing too much smack or voting for Obama because you think he’s going to decrease your health insurance costs or having unprotected sex with infected people, stupid decisions should have negative consequences.

          There’s this thing in nature called “natural selection.” I recommend people Google the term. It is well past time we started allowing this concept to work on humans again. The really stupid people should be eliminated from the breeding pool as rapidly as possible. As long as we keep catering to them, we will keep increasing the numbers of really stupid people in the population, which is counter-evolutionary.

        • My Final Solution question is in reference to your weak genes comment. Addiction can be physical or mental and can have some genetic predispositions, but mainly revolves around environmental factors, upbringing, social wealth, social geography, and opportunity.

          Brining genes into makes it sound like you are trying to brand addicts as a genetically inferior class of people whom need to be banished or purged. Furthermore, I vehemently disagree. This is a country of tolerance and second chances. Violent offenders get a second chance and so should addicts. Ask Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and John C. Lilly if they think all drug users should be banished forever. Thomas Edison used cocaine elixirs regularly. Addiction is a contest of wills within your own mind. The challenge is showing the lambs that they are indeed the lion and the addiction holds no power over them unless the submit.

          “God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in their shoes”

        • I’ve seen addicts drag people (spouses, family, friends) down into their rat-hole with them. I’ve seen the crime perpetrated by addicts, the twisted logic employed by addicts to justify their use and abuse of other people, both known and unknown to them.

          Now we’ve reached a point where the police state wants to burn the Constitutional liberties with which we were born to a crisp in their equally twisted pursuit of trying to stop these defective people from killing themselves with drugs.

          I’ve reached a point where I am no longer willing to humor these people. If they want a second chance, they’d better create it for themselves. In my perspective, we’re giving them far better treatment than they receive in many other countries, and we’ve lavished far too much attention, money and sacrifice of our liberty and safety on their self-destructive behavior in the last 40 years. The result is the police state in which we find ourselves now – with no cessation or reduction in drug use.

          So here’s my idea: Legalize it all. If they want to medicate themselves, and they think they can control it, fine. If they want to medicate themselves to the point where they kill themselves, even better by me as well. But I’m done paying for their proclivities and I’m done watching the Constitution be shredded in pursuit of an idiotic idea that removing everyone’s liberties is necessary to prevent these defects from killing themselves with their habits. Just done with it, give them the tools with which to kill themselves and let them sort it out for themselves.

          If I have to point to one image that illustrates the ultimate dark irony of the “war on drugs,” it would be Elvis meeting with Richard Nixon, advocating for stronger drug laws. The back-story of that picture really sums up the stupidity of the entire exercise.

          The other ironic, if humorous, footnote to the recent legalization in Colorado was Maureen Dowd’s recent column on her experience eating a brownie in her hotel room. Bookends, if you will, to an entire generation of rampant stupidity.

        • Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:
          June 5, 2014 at 19:18
          “I’ve seen addicts drag people (spouses, family, friends) down into their rat-hole with them. I’ve seen the crime perpetrated by addicts, the twisted logic employed by addicts to justify their use and abuse of other people, both known and unknown to them.”

          Then you say:

          “So here’s my idea: Legalize it all. If they want to medicate themselves, and they think they can control it, fine. If they want to medicate themselves to the point where they kill themselves, even better by me as well. But I’m done paying for their proclivities…”

          Do you not see the contradiction? We will continue to pay but now there will be a few more of them when you remove the stigma of being a dope head.

    • Also let me clarify: If your addiction brings you into my living room at 2am, I am not going to give you a hug and a bowl of soup. I’m going to ventilate your sorry ass for crossing the line. I’m all about rights and making the world a better place. I’m also about my right not to put up with your shit when you cross the line and place me and mine in jeopardy. I just didn’t want folks getting the wrong impression about me.

      • ” If your addiction brings you into my living room at 2am,… I’m going to ventilate your sorry ass for crossing the line.”

        As well you should, whether it’s “addiction” or merely avarice. When people are held accountable for their actions, the tools and substances completely drop out of the equation.

  2. The “war” on drugs will never end. The cops are addicted to asset forfeiture. Government bureaucracies do not go away. The government and the cartels have a symbiotic relationship, the people are merely pawns.

    • Nah. It will end. Marijuana prohibition will likely be a thing of the past in 20 years or less (at least, in most states), and as the cartels (and, God willing, Government agencies like the DEA) lose power the other stuff will fall as well. Don’t get me wrong, heroin is never going to be okay (rest in peace, of mighty defiler Oderus) but the treatment is far worse than the disease here.

      • I agree with that – growing up in Vancouver, pot was like, whatever, man (that’s pretty much the cops’ view, unless you’re talking kilos), but heroin is just a killer of everything. Sure, a safe injection site will protect from dirty needles, but it won’t stop soul-destroying lassitude, and it probably won’t stop junkies turning tricks, unless you just give away unlimited amounts of the stuff (in which case you can include a free body bag).

        • My thinking regarding heroin is that while the drug itself is putrid, prohibition makes it worse. Purity is difficult to predict, and adulterants make it more dangerous. Prohibition also inflates prices, which means addicts are more likely to steal or commit other crimes to acquire the drug. No one robs convenient stores to pay for booze, after all.

        • I watched a dude die in a Denny’s in south Philly a few weeks back while on a business trip. He shot up heroin in the bathroom and a customer found him passed out on the floor. He came out of the bathroom and stumbled through the restaurant, calling for his parents, collapsed in front of the front entrance before the ambulance arrived.

          I’ve seen countless stoners out in public in Seattle, have smoked on and off for years myself, but not too much these days. You’ll never see anyone dying in a restaurant from a pot overdose – it simply does not exist. At worst, they’ll exhaust their supply of milkshake mix.

          P.S. before anyone accuses me of supporting this BS, the west coast has been serving up “locally grown” buds for decades. Nobody will touch Mexican dirt weed here. That’s for Texans that don’t know any better.

        • Back in my callow youth, I experimented with heroin once. I smoked a little bit, on top of the pot in the bong. I got an incredible head rush, threw up, and passed out. It was like a whole night of binge drinking all packed into about 20 minutes. IOW, heroin is just like alcohol, but much quicker-acting.

  3. Legalizing drugs will do wonders for America and Mexico. When it happens, they will tell stories about how the drug prohibition devastated countries and lives for decades. Those people of that future will look back and wonder how stupid were for allowing this to continue on for years and years.

  4. How will Mexican soldiers and police survive on their salaries if the cartels can no longer afford to bribe them, or purchase firearms from them?

  5. I think the people of Mexico need to rise up and over throw the government and kill all the cartels. They could do it. And its not too far flung. I recently watched a good documentary were several older Mexican men said that if it wasn’t for the majority of Mexicans that thrive off the economy produced by illegal immigration the people would indeed start another revolution. If the ability to go to the US and work, to send money back to Mexico was gone, they’d have no option but to fight, because NAFTA destroyed what little existed of the Mexican economy so now it mainly thrives on illegal immigration money. Most of the illegal immigrants here don’t even want to be here. They’d rather be in Mexico but they want money and work. So I say we don’t deport them. I say we train them and send them back as an Army and preform a “Reconquista” of Mexico for the people.

  6. As is true with anything, the minute they made drugs illegal they created an instant black market with the predictably resultant crime surge. It was true of alcohol, tobacco, drugs and if they ever succeed in banning them, guns

    American do-gooders have been enabling criminal enterprise for EONS (there, I said it again)

  7. “We have to stop the so-called War on Drugs. We have to legalize illegal drugs so that we can cut down on the money fleeing our country and fueling the well-armed terror in Mexico.”

    I fear this will never happen for two simple reasons: money and manipulation/tyranny.

    Money: the law enforcement and prison industrial complexes will lose countless billions of dollars if illegal narcotics become legal. Physicians and big pharma could also lose billions. Those massive and well-connected large entities will NOT go quietly into the night.

    Manipulation/tyranny: narcotics laws provide government with all manner of ways to manipulate and outright imprison people. Why give that up? Even worse, the war on drugs is the justification for the standing army that is now our local and state police officers and federal law enforcement agents. The powers that be definitely want to keep those guys/gals on the payroll and ready to enforce any order — common law and constitution be damned.

  8. “But anyone who smokes dope, inhales a line of cocaine or ingests an illegal drug is contributing to the killing in Mexico”

    Marijuana is grown all over the continental US, meth labs are everywhere, lots of illegal drugs are produced in this country. Not one thin dime of the proceeds from their sale goes to the cartels south of the border.

    • I agree that your statement is factual. However I would like you to clarify whether or not your statement was meant as a moral/political position or if it was simply a stand alone fact that indeed we have domestic fabricators of illicit narcotics that are not linked to Mexico.

      • Don’t know exactly what he meant, but there are plenty of small growers here that are not violent and will not use the proceeds to support violence. So, it is possible to boycott the drug cartels without giving up weed at least (assuming one is so inclined; not suggesting that anyone seek out illegal drugs).

      • Thanks for posting that.

        It was well known in Nevada that after the control of inputs for meth, the Mexican gangs set up “superlabs” to cater to the US Meth market. It used to be made in scabby little labs all over the midwest & west, usually all over the midwest where they could get ether (Deere starting fluid) and anhydrous (they’d drill into nurse tanks and NH3 applicator equipment and pipe it off in propane bottles)… but not as much since the Mex super-labs got set up and started cranking out industrial quantities of meth.

      • And the dirty little secret on where they are getting the precursors?

        The custom chem supply houses in China.

    • thanks bob. saved me from scrolling to the end. all the kids talk about is ‘indo’, ‘outdo’ and ‘dro’. we have a new major export. gold, red, oaxacan and michoacan are now the ditch products. it’s being cultivated on your block. states with lax medicinal regulation have grow stores that sell complete tent set ups with lights and irrigation, soil and food, timers etc. it’s a booming industry whether they’re supplying the dispensaries or not. and it’s a home grown economy.
      heroin sales should invoke the death penalty.

  9. “I would never presume to tell another human being what they can and cannot put in their body (unless we’re talking about my daughters.)”

    Have you had to stop people from putting your daughters in their bodies in the past? Kind of like Fat Bastard from Austin Powers 2? /sarc

    Good article RF.

  10. It is the widespread, intentional disregard for this law that has lead to the recent serious consideration of legalization, not the well reasoned arguments of social libertarians. Sometimes you gotta defy to get things done.

    • I disagree with you. These laws have been largely disregarded since their inception 50 odd years ago. Enforcement has ebbed and flowed over that period of time, as has the popularity of specific drugs. What’s changed is that more politicians today are willing to admit that maybe some drugs can be used responsibly, and a lot of that has to do with hard fought, grass roots (grass, hahahaha) efforts by groups like NORML, the Cato Institute and others.

    • The same arguments were made back in the days of Prohibition and the 18th Amendment. The laws were passed against sound arguments of liberty and overreach. Back then, political hacks were at least honest enough that they knew a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to effect Prohibition.

      People ignored the laws against booze from the get-go. It took over a decade before it was obvious that Prohibition was a stupid idea.

      Sometimes, it takes an overwhelming amount of evidence that the law is being not only ignored, but ignored and ridiculed, to get the point across. Politicians aren’t smart people, and sometimes the point needs to be driven home with a pile driver.

  11. I think this statement gives a false sense of security “some buried in mass graves less than a hundred miles from our border”. People have the notion that the border provides a wall to keep out anything bad.

    I think a more accurate, and telling, statement would be “some buried in mass graves less than a hundred miles from US Cities”

  12. RF, I have to take issue with your assertion that “We, as American gun owners, should support the autodefensas’ campaign for security, self-determination and democracy.” Your mentioning self-determination indicates that you believe in the individual rights principle of government. However, I disagree with your mentioning “democracy,” as democracy allows 51% of a population to enslave the other 49%.

    Our founders understood the inherent dangers in a democracy, so they instituted a constitutional republic, wherein the government exists to defend the rights of the individual (yes, and some other legitimate roles, such as negotiating with other nations, etc.). Wherever we meddle, we should promote the individual rights principle, and encourage the formation of a constitutional republic to defend those rights.

  13. Legalize the drugs, just don’t bring the overdoses to my Emergency Department. Too much effort and expense to save the life of someone that will be back in a month. That is a hard, cruel and truth filled fact.

  14. Once the drugs are legalized, the agencies will need something else to confiscate so they can stay employed.

    Lets think about the current events we read about, and ponder what other jack booted agency all those out of work DEA agents could be transferred too?

    Sometimes I think we are in the beginnings of a coming “War on Guns” to replace the “War on Drugs” now that the drugs are being made socially acceptable and legal.

    • You are correct. Sooner, or later, most likely at least within this century. There will be a War on Guns. And it will be a literal and real war here on US soil. This will happen. Eventually the US government will gamble in a push comes to shove match that will determine the fate of our still young Republic. If the people are victorious and the Republic survives- then it must be aware of the international threat to our gun rights that does exist. Other countries, that are growing more powerful, also hate our Second Amendment, and will at some point farther down the road, bring war here to try and kill it once more. That’s why we must train, and hand down the knowledge of weaponry and tactics to the younger generations. Because it will, be needed before this century is out.

  15. One of the unintended side-effects of drug legalization is that those who heretofore made their livings dealing drugs will pursue other lucrative activities. We have no reason to suppose that such other activities will be less dangerous than are the drugs.
    To illustrate, I wonder about Mexico. What would happen if both the US and Mexico legalized drugs? Would the cartels’ workers return to their family farms and shops? Or, would they devote their industry to expanding their extortion and kidnapping lines-of-business? Would they extend their territories? Forewarned is forearmed.
    That said, the real question facing our society is whether to prohibit some-:
    – thing; or,
    – behavior?
    E.g., to prohibit: alcohol; or, drunk-driving, public intoxication, violence-while-intoxicated. To prohibit: guns; or, assaults. Can our society figure this out? Do we have the empirical data and wisdom to make the choice of the lesser of two evils?
    I’m afraid that the evidence of unintended consequences from the war-on-drugs are now undeniable. When the SWAT teams begin raiding the homes and the DAs begin civil forfeiture on members of polite society then society will make that decision. So far, polite society need not trouble itself with rare reports in the main-stream-media of isolated incidents that occur to “others”. We don’t pay much attention to the canaries when they are colored, not our neighbors, not members of our profession.
    Reminds me of the attitudes of northerners in the ante-bellum era. Few reports of abuse to slaves appeared in northern newspapers. The abolitionists were regarded as kooks. It’s true that northerners didn’t approve of slavery; but, most didn’t strive to find a way to mitigate or eradicate the institution. Eventually, Washington’s oppression of Southern interests (outrageous import duties; spending Federal pork in the North but not the South; admission of new States aligned with factional interests) triggered the Civil War. Emancipation was an unintended consequence.
    Now, we speak of the 40 Shall-Issue States as “free” and the 10 Won’t-Issue States as “slave”. Will history repeat itself?
    The parallels are not clear-cut; yet, they are there. Economic oppression of those who would be free – to do as they see fit according to their own consciences (whether moral or immoral). Centralization of power. Utter disregard for the welfare of those least able to protect themselves. Widespread complacency.
    Historically, such circumstances have not ended well.

  16. While we are at it, let’s legalize murder. Then we will have less people in jail and create a fair market for hit men to make a good living. Legalization is not the answer

    • Hey Dorothy, how’s that straw man treating you?

      Murder violates someone’s rights (the murder victim). Putting chemicals into your own body violates nobody’s rights. That’s the difference.

    • Wow, reductio ad absurdum much? I’m far from the right-leaningest of folks here on TTAG, but really?

    • I haven’t spent much time thinking about what impacts legalization could have, but decriminalization at least. We read way to often about people dying from no knock raids all just about a plant.

  17. The war on drugs is the single greatest justification for violating our civil liberties. It is what changed police from “Officer Friendly” into “I just no-knock raided your ass and shot your dog.”

    • I get what you’re saying, but I still kind of think that the “War on Terror” upped the ante by giving feds an excuse to monitor all electronic communication, imprison citizens for years and strip people of citizenship without due process.

  18. Medicos rule of law was nonexistent before the war on drugs. Their government has also been corrupt for as long as anyone can remember. And no I will not support the auto defenses partially because I do not know why they are really all about.

  19. So why blame the inanimate item (drugs) rather than the self-indulgent progressive libtard baby-boomers dopers that created the market for this shit? Like everything this spoiled degenerate generation touched they made a mess.

  20. I find it telling that as pot becomes legal in more and more of the US, heroin use approaches media-described “epidemic” proportions in more and more US cities and towns. Hmmm…

    • Correlation /= Causation.

      Heroin use was rising before CO and WA legalized. The booming crop of poppy in Afghanistan means cheap heroin, coupled with an exploding opiate addiction rate here in the US due to prescription painkiller abuse. The result is a heroin “epidemic”.

      • Afghanistan’s bumper crop of Opiates predominately go to Russia, Iran and the Eastern European block. A Taliban detainee once told me the Taliban has no problem exporting (and taxing) the Opium and poppy to us American infidels because it was part of a plan to corrupt and bring down America. I responded that market forces was against that plan because it is cheaper to get our drugs from South and Central America.

        • Essentially all (92%) opium on the black market comes from Afghanistan, so they have a near monopoly. He was right, I’m afraid.

        • >> A Taliban detainee once told me the Taliban has no problem exporting (and taxing) the Opium and poppy to us American infidels because it was part of a plan to corrupt and bring down America.

          Fun fact: Taliban used to execute any poppy growers under Sharia law (they filed it under the same “intoxicating” department as alcohol). US, Russia and other countries have tacitly supported that, because it caused a very prominent drop in the heroin market. However, shortly after USA invaded Afghanistan, mullah Omar issued a fatwa declaring poppy growth legal and encouraged, provided that it is only sold to kaffirs, and that part of the profit is donated for jihad.

          • So, they’re using drug war profits to finance jihad. Yet another argument in favor of legalization. Just legalization in CO and WA has already put a dent in the cartels’ profits. Imagine the multiplier effect if the whole country relegalized it And not just pot, but cocaine and the opiates!

            There’d be a lot less need for exotic chemical designer drugs that they’ve needed to invent to replace the coca and opiates, which have just as much therapeutic value as they have always had.

  21. I am glad to see this piece on TTAG. This is a subject which I care very much about. Unfortunately, sweeping legalization isn’t the answer. I would agree that a very careful legalization/regulation process is part of the answer. One thing the narcotics “industry” needs is lobbyists. If the politicians aren’t getting their beaks wet they have no incentive to get meaningful legislation done. Another problem that was addressed above is what happens to the tens of thousands of armed and violent criminals we are proposing to put out of work? How do we deal with addicts and those already incarcerated? This is not an issue that can be “solved” by some sweeping mandate from Washington. This is a chess match on a very large scale with many players. The government and people of the United States need to make some moves and consider the opponents next moves carefully. But checkmate needs to be somewhere in the planned future.

  22. You know what Mexico can do to stop the illegal drug trade with the Right Now? Secure their damned borders! But they’re too concerned with letting their citizens (among others) illegally enter our country, and then bitching and whining when we don’t treat their criminal aliens right. Boo hoo hoo. Cry me a river.

    Yeah, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Mexicans bringing themselves problems and then not wanting to take simple initial steps to fix them – like securing their damned borders. And those Mexicans who are victims of their government? They got the exact government they asked for.

    And even if we did legalize drugs in the US, the Mexican president would just cry that America is killing jobs in his country. Everything is everyone else’s fault.

    • Mexico will not enforce the border because they count on a lot of the money coming back to Mexico and in many cases the politicians are on the cartel dole so there is incentive not to stop anything.

      The US will not shutdown the border because the democrats and other politicians see immigrants as another group they can make dependent on the government.

      There is no political incentive on either side — this is a very blatant case on how politicians publically say they “care about the people” but turn a blind eye to actual human cost and toll on society. Politicians only care about themselves and the political costs, people are 3rd or 4th importance if even that high

    • It always amazes me when commenters on a site dedicated to fighting one type of prohibition (guns) fail to see the hypocrisy in demanding prohibition of something else (in this case, immigration). 99% of the issues at the border are prohibition related. If we streamlined our immigration process and made it easier for migrant workers to come in legally they’d stop doing it illegally, they’d stop being criminals and it would be much, much easier to focus on the minority who actually pose a threat. They’d also be able to pay taxes, and the incentive to seek loopholes and amnesty would be gone, and they’d simply come and go as they please.

      • Very true, border enforcement (and I have worked the boarder with the MT Nat-G) is trying to solve one problem, but the boarder is truly unenforceable by sheer magnitude. Instead of trying to hold back the river lets identify why these people want to move from their country to ours. Freedom, Work, Security, Prosperity, and Opportunity. Do not all men seek these noble ideals. Was it once not said, “give me your tired, your poor, your hungry” Streamline the process, turn illegal aliens into taxable, honest workers.

        The only reason I’ve heard that has any weight to it at all is the idea that they will take *our* jobs. Here’s a piece of advice. BE THE MORE QUALIFIED APPLICANT. If an immigrant from Mexico whom probably does not have a great command of the English language is *taking* your job at McDonalds, Verizon, the local plant, then you obviously need to introspect on either A. Why you were less desirable from the other applicant or B. How you can improve so that next time you are the more qualified applicant.

        • What if they don’t want to be taxable, honest workers? What if they want to remain illegal so that they can compete with you on price?

          By staying illegal they can request a lower salary than it is legal to pay a citizen, and a citizen can’t compete with that.

        • I did plenty of work under the table in my younger years, and I’m natural born. The smartest way to tax migrant workers is via work visas. That eliminates paperwork, and most of them work in the lowest brackets anyway. My guess is that most of them work in agriculture, and minimum wage laws don’t generally apply there.

        • *Staying illegal* actually serves them no benefit at all. Discovery at any point in time from a traffic stop to an IRS audit of whom they’re working for gets them a free bus ride back to Mexico. Then they have to do the same arduous trip all over again. Having personally patrolled that landscape I can tell that it SUCKS! Not to mention that if you have family in the states you become separated and you have to pay a guide to get you back across. Then the whole cycle repeats while we waste millions trying to literally hold back the river.

          As a legal citizen I can do anything that an illegal alien can do, and much more. That last part, the *much more* is why I don’t do all the things that the illegals do, because I can do it the right way for more money. Giving them the option to contribute, pay taxes and avoid a costly and dangerous deportation system seems like a win-win to me.

      • @Blinky. There is no hypocrisy because you confuse the difference between honoring a Natural/God given Right with full backing of the U.S. Constitution (2A) and the movement of breaking a series of existing Constitutional statutes and laws (illegal immigration). Even during our most isolationist era when even people of Chinese ethnicity were actually barred from entering the U.S., immigration altogether was never stopped or fully prohibited. No one is advocating NO IMMIGRATION, we are demanding enforced lawful immigration.

        • Last I checked, freedom of movement is also a “Natural/God Given” right. And constitutions don’t grant you such rights, they merely enumerate them.

          And the point he is making is that when you’re demanding enforcing lawful immigration, you should also support making said lawful immigration easier (which in and of itself would solve most of illegal immigration issues). There’s no reason to deny a person the right to move through the country just on account of him being born on the wrong side of the border.

          • Ending the welfare state would go a long way toward solving the “immigration problem.” And figure out what to do about that anchor baby thing. Of coutse, voter ID is racist. Isn’t a statement like that one itself racist? Are they assuming that only persons of certain races commit fraud? Then how is asking for ID racist?

        • “Last I checked, freedom of movement is also a “Natural/God Given” right. And constitutions don’t grant you such rights, they merely enumerate them.”

          I never said the Constitution granted it. I just said it was backed by it. Many of the Founders did not feel it was necessary or did not want to define any particular rights in the U.S. Constitution, fearing it would give the government impetus to start controlling or curtailing what wasn’t mentioned. George Mason pushed hard for what would eventually be the Bill of Rights because it was promise to the States that ratified it to do so. To alleviate any the concerns of impropriety of Federal authority, they put in the 9th and 10th amendment.
          Freedom of movement is an (implicit) natural/God given right which was thought to be so fundamental i was not mentioned in the Constitution. But in the given realities of today’s world, this cannot be reciprocated externally without any limitations. I cannot expect to travel freely to every other countries, live and demand to become a citizen or access to their social services there. Likewise a foreigner who doesn’t understand our culture, language, customs and norms should not come into this country, live and demand citizenry and/or social services. There is also financial, health, safety/security and other considerations, which even the Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights acknowledges. Freedom of movement cannot be protected any better than the 2A or any other rights outside our jurisdiction.
          I have parents and friends who legally entered the United States, paid the necessary fees, went through (hostile at times) interviews, took the test and swore an oath to the United States after years of effort. I have little sympathy for the mass influx of illegal immigrants that broke our laws to come here and than clamor loudly for amnesty. That goes beyond the fundamental right to movement because it than becomes a foreign health, resource and security issue. Yes lawful immigration needs to be fixed, streamlined and made easier in some aspect, but not before the border security is addressed something the Federal government is mandated to do.

          So, again to be clearer there is no contradiction between promoting the right to bear arms in the U.S. but restricting immigration into the U.S. for a variety of different reasons.

  23. “But anyone who smokes dope, inhales a line of cocaine or ingests an illegal drug is contributing to the killing in Mexico.”
    – for this very reason, it’s impossible to call the use of illegal drugs a ‘victim-less crime’.
    “It’s that simple.”

    • By that logic, anyone who buys a bag of Cheetos in US contributes to extrajudicial murders of civilians with drones in Afghanistan and Yemen (through taxes), so that should also be considered a non-victimless crime?

  24. “Truth be told, you can trace the vast majority of their weapons to official American sources.”

    I must call bullshit. This turns out not to be the case, as extensive investigation has determined.

    Some of the firearms in Mexico are purchased in the US and move over the borders, and some are sold out the back door of the corrupted Mexican police and military. Those are usually the highest quality and most expensive firearms. .50 caliber rifles from America are popular, as are M-16s from the police and military, and tricked out AR-15 style models.

    Mexican drug dealers also buy traditional cheap AK pattern rifles in great quantities from Russia and China. Quantity has a quality all its own.

    Because gang warfare and drug dealing is an individual sport, firearms are brought in from all the other manufacturers as well – Israeli arms, Glocks, HK, and so on, in the general proportion similar to market share.

    Although ‘illegal’ of course, all it takes is a bribe to have the customs inspector sign off on a shipment that might be full of textiles, but have a crate of guns tossed in as a sweetener. These activities are well known.

    The firearms coming from the United States are nowhere near the majority, and it’s been proven over and over.

    • Also, like any statistics, they can be manipulated to fit the needs. The vast amount of recovered weaponry were missing or had scratched off registration numbers. Only a minority of weapons had them left, and only those “majority” were the ones that can be effectively tracked from America.

  25. Wait, what? No more war on drugs? No more warrior cops? No more MRAPs? No more dead dogs on the front lawn? No more asset confiscation? Half the cops in the country would be fired and relegated to doing part-time security work at Walmart.

    Nobody has a bigger investment in drugs than governments. The CIA smuggles it. Law enforcement in the US makes millions from it. The Mexican government partners with the cartels to distribute and profit from it. Politicians and cops pocket wads of cash because of it.

    Government is a scam, and drugs keep the scam going.

  26. Asking drug addicts to stop doing drugs because it causes violence in Mexico is like asking me to give up my guns because of the violence in Mexico. Not. Gonna. Happen.

    Legalize and regulate drugs. Allow heroin, crack, and meth to be through prescription system under doctors care (like methadone clinics).

    what are gang bangers going to do when their $50 bag of dope is available legally for $1.49? What are they going to fight over without the financial incentive? “Turf” aka their area to sell drugs…hmm.

    Every country that has decriminalized drugs has seen addiction go down. The war on drugs is just as dumb as gun control.

    Let’s get addicts help (if they want it) and give them opportunities to be able to hold a job because the drug is fluid and doesn’t require $200 to get through the day.

    Consider this. We have 5% of he worlds population yet 25% of the worlds imprisoned population. Half of which are non violent drug offenders. T

  27. “I saw how Bath, England and Amsterdam, Holland descended into crime and filth when authorities turned a blind eye to illegal drugs. The initial fallout from legalized heroin, cocaine and/or other Schedule 1 substances could devastate entire cities.”

    Show me. I believe this is a fabrication, because every report I’ve heard said the exact opposite. In plain fact, every place that has decriminalized drugs has seen a drop in crime. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary, it behooves you to produce such evidence or quit lying.

    • Not to take a stand either way, but I believe there was a CSmonitor article some time ago (can’t find it now) that mentioned that Holland had to refine their drug laws because of the problems with users from other countries coming in and causing trouble. I forget what those particular troubles were, I think mostly disruptive behavior, some of it from not understanding Holland’s laws to begin with and exceeding their limits, inexperience, rowdiness, theft, etc.

    • I’ll assume that RF’s statement is true for this argument. There’s a big difference between legalizing drugs and turning a blind eye to illegal drug use. There’s the ever corrupting effect of doing something illegal even if most of the time there is no penalty. There’s still the risk that of the penalty. You don’t see people sneaking around back alleys to get a fifth of whiskey.

  28. Yes! Legalize NOW! It will substantially put criminal drug gangs out of business, and into another crime area that will impact everyone, instead of merely drug users. And this will put a stop to criminal gangs, because people will no longer be able to blame it on drug users.

    It’s about the CRIME, not about the drugs.

    • Criminals go where the money is, especially the easy money.

      Drugs are easy money. Most of the other criminal pursuits are messier and more involved, which is why the largest criminal gangs in the country and western world center their profit motives around drugs.

      Think for a minute about trying to raise all the money that comes from drug consumers via another criminal enterprise. Let’s say… oh, illicit firearms.

      Go ahead, scratch some numbers around on paper and figure out how many guns you’d have to move to equal the amount of money that the drug cartels are able to move in their shipments now.

      Take a car where the trunk is filled with dope – a couple $mil worth… and start thinking about how much cubic volume a couple million in guns is. Pretty soon, you’re into a couple of double trailer trucks – where you could move that net worth in one car’s trunk before.

      Drugs have several very attractive attributes to them – they’re habit forming, the cost of getting someone into the habit is low, the resupply transport issue is pretty easy to solve, either by technology or by purity of product. For some drugs, you can ship precursor chemicals easily around the country to labs (eg, meth precursors) and effectively evade all but the most astute law enforcement. Pot will grow just about anywhere, and the ganja farmers have made so many advances in the last 30 years, they’re on par with major crop producers for efficiency and agronomy.

      Illegal guns enjoy none of these advantages, as an example.

      Neither does prostitution, racketeering, extortion, etc. When you think hard about the criminal enterprise, it is pretty difficult to replicate the ease and profit margins of the drug trade.

      • “getting someone into the habit”

        You still believe that old line of claptrap? The only people who “get into the habit” are those who already want to do the drug. Some may experiment, but I challenge you to show me ONE person who got put into the habit at someone else’s behest. “Hey, kid, wanna try this?” Some kids will, some won’t, and the ones who don’t won’t be converted into ones who do by the guy who merely provides the product. If you’re talking “for the children,” then control your children, not my drugs!

        • If you’d put down that doobie for a second and READ what I wrote, I said “the cost of getting someone into the habit” – ie, the cost of marketing, so to speak, and the “habit” being “buying from YOU, the dealer.”

          For a drug dealer to start selling to a new drug customer (whether wholly new or a convert to this particular dealer from some other prior source), the cost to the dealer to market to a new customer is very low. The customer wants to try some of the dealer’s wares. OK, here’s a small quantity – a very low cost of marketing to the dealer.

          Want to get someone who hasn’t bought guns (eg) from you before to try your product(s)? Now we’re talking of supplying at least one gun, some ammo, etc, etc. There’s physical concealment issues, issues with where the customer might try out the gun before they buy more from you, etc.

          The point of what I wrote is the complexity to the dealer to sell the product.

  29. I don’t claim to know the longterm effects of drug legalization but there are some immediate effects we have seen. Within the first month of legalizing pot in CO it negatively affected the Mexican cartel over $14,000,000. I see 14 mill for the state of CO that they would not have had if they didn’t legalize it. Also, how many unnecessary deaths have come from no knock raids in CO over the last few months? I would venture to say that TX has had more. Just an observation.

  30. I say legalize them all. They have to sign wavers that if they take them they forfeit health insurance. My tax dollars shouldnt have to pay for some idiot who knowingly takes drugs that will likely cause great harm. If they are dumb enough to start on heroin knowing full well what it will do to them I hope they OD quickly as I dont really want them in society. Call it population control.

    • Now we’re talking. Abolish the DEA, IRS, DOE and wellfare and then we can talk about legalizing drugs. I would accept that only drugs manufactured for personal consumption can be used or else perscribed.

    • In the grand scheme of things, is fast food not as harmful, or even more than some drugs?

      Either police and regulate everything, or nothing (so long as there is no victim).

  31. We Offer all kinds of loan packages
    (Personal Loan, Commercial Loans, etc.) our Loan amount ranges from
    $2,000.00 USD to $50,000,000.00 USD and a re-payment period of 1 year
    to 30 years duration. To commence the loan application process, you
    can find some vital information about the loan we offer below. In
    getting a loan from our company, there is some information we need to
    pass across to you before we can proceed to the application process.

    contact [email protected]


    In the loan we offer, we do charge 3% yearly for the loan. Note that
    the loan re-payment schedule starts 4 months after loan has been
    transferred to applicants.


    As for the information needed, you will need to fill an application
    which contains your personal information and also the loan
    information, this will help us give you a full documentation of the
    loan terms and agreement contract which you will be expected to sign
    and send back to the company for approval if satisfied.


    After receiving your application form, all documents will be forwarded
    to you either by fax or email attachment within 24hours. Immediately
    the signed document is received from the applicant, approval document
    follows within 24hours. So I will rather say, it will take 48hours to
    have your loan processed, approved and released to you.

    Please fill this application Form below:

    Full Name………………
    Contact Address……….
    loan amount…………..
    Loan Duration………….
    Next of Kin………………
    Mobile No……………
    Purpose of Loan ……….

    Thanks for your time and understanding, CUSTOMER’S SATISFACTION IS OUR PRIDE.
    Most Sincerely,
    Jonathan Progress

    contact [email protected]

Comments are closed.