• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gunmen kill 17 people at a drug rehab in Mexico

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The move to decriminalize drugs is off to a really great start.

Gunmen broke into a drug rehabilitation center and shot 17 people dead in a northern Mexican border city, an official said.

The attackers on Wednesday broke down the door of El Aliviane center in Ciudad Juarez, lined up their victims against a wall and opened fire, said Arturo Sandoval, a spokesman for the regional prosecutors' office. At least five people were injured.

My Way News - Gunmen kill 17 people at a drug rehab in Mexico
 
This just proves how prohibition on drugs leads to more death, and breaking that prohibition is even harder.
 
This just proves how prohibition on drugs leads to more death, and breaking that prohibition is even harder.

I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. These people were trying to break the dangerous hold on that drugs had over their lives, and they were brutally murdered by those who would benefit most from drug legalization.
 
Or it could be that rival drug dealers and cartel higher-ups go to rehabilitation places to protect themselves after they've been singled out for a hit? No excusing this, mind you, but that's the reason the cartels attack these places.

Mexico is the real war zone.
 
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. These people were trying to break the dangerous hold on that drugs had over their lives, and they were brutally murdered by those who would benefit most from drug legalization.

You're not serious are you?

Ending prohibition almost bankrupted the mobs here who ran illegal liquor... until the gov made gambling and other rudimentary things illegal... so they could keep up the good fight of supplying black market goods / services and stay in power.
 
You're not serious are you?

Ending prohibition almost bankrupted the mobs here who ran illegal liquor... until the gov made gambling and other rudimentary things illegal... so they could keep up the good fight of supplying black market goods / services and stay in power.

You name a single drug company or company of any kind who is willing to risk a single lawsuit from the first family of a kid who overdoses and I'll name you a company who has never heard the word bankruptcy. Drugs aren't like cigarettes, they aren't like alcohol. You can and thousands do die from their first use of drugs every year. How easy do you think it would be to sue a company selling glue or meth regardless of how many disclaimers they put on the package? Hell, people are still suing and winning against cigarette companies nearly 20 years after they starting putting disclaimers on their packages and phone books worth of research have come out on how dangerous they are. This silly understanding so many Libertarians have of drugs and how their market works is always astounding. Have Libertarians even met drug dealers? They'll fight drug companies tooth and nail for their billions of dollars in income. And I'm not talking about fighting in a court room. I'm not talking about creating a better product. I'm talking about them finding the owners of drug companies lining them up and doing the same thing they did to the poor bastards in the article. Do you think the same people who were shooting judges and cops in Colombia for the Medellin Cartel are going to have a problem with offing a few CEOs from the States? They wont let some CEO in Philly make money from what has been their business for years. Seriously. You know nothing of the drug world and this isn't the 1920s.
 
Last edited:
You name a single drug company or company of any kind who is willing to risk a single lawsuit from the first family of a kid who overdoses and I'll name you a company who has never heard the word bankruptcy. Drugs aren't like cigarettes, they aren't like alcohol. You can and thousands do die from their first use of drugs every year. How easy do you think it would be to sue a company selling glue or meth regardless of how many disclaimers they put on the package? Hell, people are still suing and winning against cigarette companies nearly 20 years after they starting putting disclaimers on their packages and phone books worth of research have come out on how dangerous they are. This silly understanding so many Libertarians have of drugs and how their market works is always astounding. Have Libertarians even met drug dealers? They'll fight drug companies tooth and nail for their billions of dollars in income. And I'm not talking about fighting in a court room. I'm not talking about creating a better product. I'm talking about them finding the owners of drug companies lining them up and doing the same thing they did to the poor bastards in the article. Do you think the same people who were shooting judges and cops in Colombia for the Medellin Cartel are going to have a problem with offing a few CEOs from the States? They wont let some CEO in Philly make money from what has been their business for years. Seriously. You know nothing of the drug world and this isn't the 1920s.

Neat.


My brother was / could still be a drug dealer for all I know.. (he's gone to prison since)... I've got quite a bit of experience with drug trafficking from secondary experience with him.

Funny thing about that whole lawsuit thing, the gov could do just like they've done for guns.. You're responsible for you... not the company that made the product you knew could hurt you.

To say that drug cartels would start killing CEOs is laughable at best.
 
At the moment the violence is frighteningly close to the US. In Tijuana and Jaurez, I think.
 
Neat.

My brother was / could still be a drug dealer for all I know.. (he's gone to prison since)... I've got quite a bit of experience with drug trafficking from secondary experience with him.

This is the second time I've heard you use personal experience as a reference. Do you know how much that is worth in a discussion? Zero.

Funny thing about that whole lawsuit thing, the gov could do just like they've done for guns.. You're responsible for you... not the company that made the product you knew could hurt you.

What stupidity :

If the sole purpose of guns was to kill people then you'd have a point. But it isn't. The sole purpose of the drugs that are illegal today with the small exception of marijuana is to get intoxicated. Meth, Coke, Heroin, name me a single person who uses it for medicinal purposes and you'll have a person who is bull****ting. And 'the government' hasn't done anything. Gun companies are still being sued for wrongful deaths ALL the time and people win ALL the time. Case and point :

Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health - Study #223

The mayors of Chicago and New Orleans have filed lawsuits on behalf of their cities against the gun industry, and two similar lawsuits filed on behalf of private citizens are already moving through the courts, with a mixed verdict rendered in one of the private suits. The Chicago suit and the private suits contend that (1) guns are a public nuisance and (2) gun manufacturers knowingly flood cities with more guns than they could expect to sell to law-abiding citizens, thus aiding criminals to obtain firearms. [The New Orleans lawsuit takes a different tack, alleging that without safety devices which would prevent unauthorized users from firing them, guns violate Louisiana's product liability laws.] The mayors argue that the firearms industry should reimburse their cities for the public health and safety costs associated with treating and preventing firearms injuries.


Judge gives OK to frivolous NYC gun manufacturer lawsuit - Homeland Stupidity

Federal judge Jack B. Weinstein on Friday ruled that New York City can proceed with its lawsuit against several gun manufacturers, despite a new federal law that was designed to prohibit such frivolous lawsuits.

In his ruling, Judge Weinstein postponed a trial so the gun manufacturers could appeal.

Gun makers named in the suit include Beretta U.S.A., Browning Arms, Colt Manufacturing, Glock and Smith & Wesson.

Even foreign gun manufactures get sued :

Crime victims can sue firearms dealer, rules 9th Circuit | International Relations & National Security > Weapons & Arms from AllBusiness.com

A federal law protecting gun manufacturers from personal injury suits doesn't bar claims against an "unlicensed" foreign firearms dealer brought by the victims of a criminal shooting spree, the 9th Circuit has ruled.

The ruling follows a similar decision issued in an earlier appeal of the case.

Even stun guns get it :

Judge rules stun gun company liable for death must pay lawyers $1.4 million | Justice News Flash | JusticeNewsFlash Release

Heston was shocked over 30 times, with a Taser made device, while police were trying to subdue him in 2005. He died from the multiple shocks. In June 2008, a jury found Taser International, a Scottsdale, Arizona based company, liable for Heston’s death and returned a $6 million verdict. The jury found Taser failed to educate police officers that the device was not meant to be used repeatedly and could be harmful.

To say that drug cartels would start killing CEOs is laughable at best.

Really?

FBI Warns Judges, Officials Drug Cartel May Target Them - The Washington Post | Encyclopedia.com

Federal judges, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials nationwide have been warned that they may be targets of "bloody retaliation" by Colombia's Medellin drug cartel.

A bulletin sent by the FBI said the warning was prompted by information obtained by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Ron Ederer, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, said today.

Mexico cartels turning into full-scale mafias - Focus on Mexico- msnbc.com

The expansion has major implications as President Felipe Calderon continues his 2 1/2-year-old drug war, which has killed more than 11,000 people and turned formerly tranquil rural towns such as Ciudad Hidalgo into major battlefronts.

TV Crime Show Host 'Plotted Judge Murder' - Yahoo! News UK

The TV host has been charged with drug trafficking, gang formation and weapons possession - but not any killings. He denies all the accusations against him.

Souza allegedly ordered the murders of at least five competing drug traffickers.

He then got a crew from his "Canal Livre" show to film exclusive footage at the crime scenes before police arrived, it is claimed.

Seriously. You'd have to be a complete ignoramus to think that if they can murder 11,000 people in Mexico every year and judges all over South America they won't start killing off businessmen in America. This is just one more topic you're completely ignorant of.
 
With as much capital as drug cartels have, what's to stop them from opening their own corporation.

If it were legal, they'd have much less overhead (smuggling).. and would be able to compete with major drug companies here.

*yawn*


btw, you were the one questioning my experience with illicit drugs... as if because I had no personal experience, I couldn't have an opinion.
 
Last edited:
This just proves how prohibition on drugs leads to more death, and breaking that prohibition is even harder.

How so? Explain how mass murder or any violent crime would be a thing of the past if we just made cocaine, heroine, crystal meth, PCP, and LSD legal.

Marijuana? I don't see the value in it, but I don't see the harm in it either.

But the people shot at the drug rehab were not pot heads.
 
You're not serious are you?

Ending prohibition almost bankrupted the mobs here who ran illegal liquor... until the gov made gambling and other rudimentary things illegal... so they could keep up the good fight of supplying black market goods / services and stay in power.

I can't believe you're serious.

Heroine and cocaine can never be regulated the way liquor is.

LSD, PCP, crystal meth..? Yeah, they're all just like beer.:roll::roll::roll:
 
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. These people were trying to break the dangerous hold on that drugs had over their lives, and they were brutally murdered by those who would benefit most from drug legalization.
Who would benefit most from drug legalization? Illegality causes massive inflation of prices for the cartels. Why would they want to lower their prices? :doh
 
I can't believe you're serious.

Heroine and cocaine can never be regulated the way liquor is.

LSD, PCP, crystal meth..? Yeah, they're all just like beer.:roll::roll::roll:

Where did I say anything about regulating them?

Why should the government regulate them in the first place? People can make their own ****ing decisions.. and drugs aren't the greatest of choices.. if they wanna smoke some **** or snort some **** up.. as long as they're not hurting anyone else... **** them.

And no, I don't care about anyone else's family or any other bull**** that you'll respond with.
 
I can't believe you're serious.

Heroine and cocaine can never be regulated the way liquor is.

LSD, PCP, crystal meth..? Yeah, they're all just like beer.:roll::roll::roll:

Alcohol kills more people than all the drugs you have named, combined. Your point is what?
 
Where did I say anything about regulating them?

Why should the government regulate them in the first place? People can make their own ****ing decisions.. and drugs aren't the greatest of choices.. if they wanna smoke some **** or snort some **** up.. as long as they're not hurting anyone else... **** them.

First of all, you made the dopey comparison to the end of prohibition. You do realize that the government regulates liquor sales??:confused:

And answer this question: When all these smokers and snorters run out of stuff to smoke and snort... and they run of money to pay of all their drugs... What does a person addicted to meth, heroine, cocaine typically do when he/she needs money to buy drugs?

COMMIT CRIME!!!

Are you starting to get why hard drugs are different than liquor??? Sure, the smoking and snorting and shooting doesn't hurt anyone but the drug addict... But its the ARMED ROBBERY and HOME INVASION and MUGGING and THEFT that hurts the rest of us.

And no, I don't care about anyone else's family or any other bull**** that you'll respond with.

I don't know what that means except that you don't care about the harm a drug addict does to his/her own family. Not your problem. Right?

Way to be compassionate toward others...:roll::(
 
This just proves how prohibition on drugs leads to more death, and breaking that prohibition is even harder.

Make sure you take MORE DRUGS Mikey.:lol:
 
First of all, you made the dopey comparison to the end of prohibition. You do realize that the government regulates liquor sales??:confused:

And answer this question: When all these smokers and snorters run out of stuff to smoke and snort... and they run of money to pay of all their drugs... What does a person addicted to meth, heroine, cocaine typically do when he/she needs money to buy drugs?

COMMIT CRIME!!!

Are you starting to get why hard drugs are different than liquor??? Sure, the smoking and snorting and shooting doesn't hurt anyone but the drug addict... But its the ARMED ROBBERY and HOME INVASION and MUGGING and THEFT that hurts the rest of us.



I don't know what that means except that you don't care about the harm a drug addict does to his/her own family. Not your problem. Right?

Way to be compassionate toward others...:roll::(

Neat, cause I made a comparison I am implying the government regulates something.


Here, I'll spell it out for you.

Make something illegal.. like drugs.. Or selling organs.

And you create a black market for it.

Who generally controls the black markets for these things? Well.. pretty bad people... tbh.

Oh, and if they commit a crime.. then punish them for the crime they committed..


That's pretty simple.


Oh, and yes.. I could give a **** about anyone else's family.
 
First of all, you made the dopey comparison to the end of prohibition. You do realize that the government regulates liquor sales??:confused:

And answer this question: When all these smokers and snorters run out of stuff to smoke and snort... and they run of money to pay of all their drugs... What does a person addicted to meth, heroine, cocaine typically do when he/she needs money to buy drugs?

COMMIT CRIME!!!
Some drug users already do this... So, again, what is your point?

Are you starting to get why hard drugs are different than liquor??? Sure, the smoking and snorting and shooting doesn't hurt anyone but the drug addict... But its the ARMED ROBBERY and HOME INVASION and MUGGING and THEFT that hurts the rest of us.
Please support your asinine assertions. It would seem you think that armed robbery, home invasion, theft and mugging will increase if drugs are legalized... Please prove this.

I don't know what that means except that you don't care about the harm a drug addict does to his/her own family. Not your problem. Right?

Way to be compassionate toward others...:roll::(
Emotional or physical harm? Physical harm is prohibited by law, emotional harm is not something anyone can help with.
 
You name a single drug company or company of any kind who is willing to risk a single lawsuit from the first family of a kid who overdoses and I'll name you a company who has never heard the word bankruptcy. Drugs aren't like cigarettes, they aren't like alcohol. You can and thousands do die from their first use of drugs every year. How easy do you think it would be to sue a company selling glue or meth regardless of how many disclaimers they put on the package? Hell, people are still suing and winning against cigarette companies nearly 20 years after they starting putting disclaimers on their packages and phone books worth of research have come out on how dangerous they are.

Last I heard, tobacco and alcohol made a lot of money. Your also right about tobacco and alcohol not being the same as illicit drugs. The first two kill and disease far more than all of the banned drugs combined. Even with lawsuits, there's plenty of money to be made. Just because you could't run an operation, doesn't make it impossible.

This silly understanding so many Libertarians have of drugs and how their market works is always astounding. Have Libertarians even met drug dealers? They'll fight drug companies tooth and nail for their billions of dollars in income. And I'm not talking about fighting in a court room. I'm not talking about creating a better product. I'm talking about them finding the owners of drug companies lining them up and doing the same thing they did to the poor bastards in the article. Do you think the same people who were shooting judges and cops in Colombia for the Medellin Cartel are going to have a problem with offing a few CEOs from the States? They wont let some CEO in Philly make money from what has been their business for years. Seriously. You know nothing of the drug world and this isn't the 1920s.

This is exactly what happened with the repeal of Prohibition, right? Last that I checked plenty of civillians were already getting caught in the cross fire of drug violence. Also, please go on on how the differances between now and the 1920s are at all relevant to this discussion
 
Last edited:
I can't believe you're serious.

Heroine and cocaine can never be regulated the way liquor is.

LSD, PCP, crystal meth..? Yeah, they're all just like beer.:roll::roll::roll:

OK, why are they differant from a regulator's viewpoint?
 
Last I heard, tobacco and alcohol made a lot of money. Your also right about tobacco and alcohol not being the same as illicit drugs. The first two kill and disease far more than all of the banned drugs combined. Even with lawsuits, there's plenty of money to be made. Just because you could't run an operation, doesn't make it impossible.

And these deaths are caused by years of abuse aren't they? Making your argument a bit irrelevant. Cigarette makers label their product that prolonged use of their product can have serious side effects. How many 16 year old kids die from illegal drug use vs. how many die from alcohol and cigarettes? How will companies tell their customers that injecting themselves with heroin a single time can kill them? Like I said no company would take such a risk.

This is exactly what happened with the repeal of Prohibition, right?

Good job at bringing up the 1920s when I specifically stated that the product and era aren't even close to being the same.

Last that I checked plenty of civillians were already getting caught in the cross fire of drug violence. Also, please go on on how the differances between now and the 1920s are at all relevant to this discussion

Of course they are relevant and you'd have to be completely ignorant of the word context not realize this. Drug cartels from Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia in the 2000s and Al Capone don't operate under the same rules of engagement. American gangsters in the 1920s weren't killing politicians, cops, judges by the dozens to maintain their business. And even if they were they'd be considered tame by today's standards of violence. Like I said, you legalize anything other then marijuana and you'll be guaranteed that we'll be hearing about Pfizers CEO getting driveby-ed in front of his kids.
 
Last edited:
OK, why are they differant from a regulator's viewpoint?

Can you show us specifically what you'd regulate within the drug trade? I'm talking specifics. THC levels, chemicals used etc? I'd love a detailed list of all that you think should be regulated.
 
Back
Top Bottom