Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts Price on Ariz. Sheriff's

[zeezee]

A MILLION BUCKS for Sheriff Joe's head. Wonder how many junkies are going to try?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/02/me ... iffs-head/

[zeezee]

Arizona Sheriffs are caught in the crossfire between our federal government and the mexican drug cartel.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70324

[Crosshair]

A price on Sheriff Joe's head? Well Sheriff Joe is hardly a Choir Boy. He's kind of like Jimmy Hoffa. Something bad is probably gonna happen to him, nobody is gonna wish it on him, but he's not going to get any sympathy when it happens. Either the Feds or the cartels are gonna take him out if the voters don't take him out first.

As for the other sheriff's...Yea, that's a bad thing.

What to do? Take away the cartels funding. Duh. Just like we did with the Alcohol cartels. Last I checked the local Budweiser distributor hasn't done too many assassinations.

Prohibition is to drugs what gasoline is to a fire. It takes a bad, but small, problem and makes it much worse. Then, when the problem gets bigger, simply throwing more gas on it. Then wondering why the problem keeps getting bigger every time you throw more gas on it. WE are giving the fire it's fuel. If we stop fueling it then it putters out on it's own.

[doubloon]

...Take away the cartels funding. Duh. Just like we did with the Alcohol cartels. ...

This and I wouldn't care if the fed used all the money to pay for deadbeat health care.

[Crosshair]

This and I wouldn't care if the fed used all the money to pay for deadbeat health care.

Exactly. Dealing with someone on PCP running naked through the street to escape the zombie clowns is easy to deal with. A Cartel doing a hit on police officers, bribing police officers, bribing judges. That is near impossible to deal with.

[ick]

People are already incredibly irresponsible with the use of alchohol. I can only imagine what kind of impact a bunch of stoned pot-heads our society would become with legalization and widespread use of other narcotics.

Didn't widespread use of narcotics and mind-altering drugs virtually destroy the productive midde east during the colonial period? Seems to me the same thing would happen here.

Man doesn't have a very good track record of personal responsability, legallizing pot or other drugs would have a dastardly long-term effect on everything. People aren't responsible enough with cell phone calls and texting in a moving vehicle... and you want to legalize drugs?

The existing prohibition has its problems, but condoning use may have a larger... and greater... impact.

[continuity]

People are already incredibly irresponsible with the use of alchohol. I can only imagine what kind of impact a bunch of stoned pot-heads our society would become with legalization and widespread use of other narcotics.

...
The existing prohibition has its problems, but condoning use may have a larger... and greater... impact.

Freedom has interesting side effects. Personally, I'll take freedom along with all the associated societal issues.

[ick]

I would tend to agree, but clearly there are some serious dangers involved in such a drastic change.

[D9M9TR9S]

A MILLION BUCKS!?!?!? There are probably guys being forced to wear pink right now that would do it for a Twinkie and a cold beer.

[Crosshair]

People are already incredibly irresponsible with the use of alchohol. I can only imagine what kind of impact a bunch of stoned pot-heads our society would become with legalization and widespread use of other narcotics.

Everyone in our society who WANTS to use drugs is already doing it. They are readily available.

Or are you saying you're going to go out and start snorting cocaine and injecting Heroin the moment it was legalized? Most people don't do drugs because they realize they are a bad idea. Obama himself did drugs, quit them and went on to do other things.

The only things that legalization would do is reduce the price so the addicts don't have to steal to fund their habit, the occasional users gets left alone, money gets raised via tax revenue to fund rehab for people who want it, and the cartels are driven out of business.

Didn't widespread use of narcotics and mind-altering drugs virtually destroy the productive midde east during the colonial period? Seems to me the same thing would happen here.

Don't mistake the symptom for the disease. there were many causes for the decline.

Man doesn't have a very good track record of personal responsability, legallizing pot or other drugs would have a dastardly long-term effect on everything. People aren't responsible enough with cell phone calls and texting in a moving vehicle... and you want to legalize drugs?

People aren't responsible with guns. Why on earth do you want ordinary people to be allowed to own any guns? That line of logic you use is the EXACT same one that the Anti's use. To use it is to legitimize such arguments in favor of banning civilian ownership of guns.

Freedom has it's problems. Prohibition doesn't make those problems go away, it drives them underground and creates new problems.

The existing prohibition has its problems, but condoning use may have a larger... and greater... impact.

Which is why alcohol continues to be illegal in the US, right?

You are exhibiting the EXACT same kinds of thinking that the gun grabbers use. You feel that you would be irresponsible with drugs. To make an irrational thought seem rational you project those fears about yourself onto other around you. Switch a few words around and you could be working for the Brady Campaign.

Your fears are completely irrational with no evidence to back it up. Amsterdam has a lower rate of usage of drugs than the US. As does Portugal. Switzerland has solved it's heroin problem with heroin clinics. Decriminalization and legalization has resulted in LESS violence, LESS crime, and LESS addiction.

Back then it only took us a little over a decade to realize that for all the problems that alcohol caused, making it illegal not only failed to make the problem go away, but it created even more problems.

There are three ways to deal with a problem.
Make the problem go away.
Run away from the problem.
Deal with the problem in a way that causes the least amount of harm.

We aren't going to make the drugs go away. 40 years of "drug war" have made that clear.

You can't run away from the problem because wherever you go, drugs are available and all the problems that come with a black market.

So the only options we have left is to deal with the problem in a way that causes the least amount of harm. OK, so in this category we have three choices on how to deal with drugs.

1. Let the government regulate them.
2. Let private industry regulate them.
3. Let criminals regulate them.

Right now we CHOOSE the worst possible option. We CHOOSE to allow police officers and civilians to be murdered by the thousands in marketplace disputes. Not from drugs, from marketplace disputes. The St. Valentines day was not an alcohol related shooting and neither are the vast majority of our "drug related" shootings today. It's a result of our CHOICE to let gangs and cartels regulate these substances and resort to violence beause they lack access to the court system. We CHOOSE to lock up more people per capita than China, than Iran, than Lybia, than Cuba, than any other country in the world. We CHOOSE to fund terrorists. We CHOOSE to allow drugs to be sold in every school in the country.

This is a problem we CHOOSE to have. If we were to legalize tomorrow would our drug problem go away? No. Our crime and violence problem would go away though. We could then divert those resources to dealing with our drug problem with HONEST education and less reefer madness propaganda.

[doubloon]

This ...

...
Man doesn't have a very good track record of personal responsability,
...

and this ...



Do not belong in the same post together.

[zeezee]

A price on Sheriff Joe's head? Well Sheriff Joe is hardly a Choir Boy. He's kind of like Jimmy Hoffa. Something bad is probably gonna happen to him, nobody is gonna wish it on him, but he's not going to get any sympathy when it happens. Either the Feds or the cartels are gonna take him out if the voters don't take him out first.

As for the other sheriff's...Yea, that's a bad thing.

What to do? Take away the cartels funding. Duh. Just like we did with the Alcohol cartels. Last I checked the local Budweiser distributor hasn't done too many assassinations.

Prohibition is to drugs what gasoline is to a fire. It takes a bad, but small, problem and makes it much worse. Then, when the problem gets bigger, simply throwing more gas on it. Then wondering why the problem keeps getting bigger every time you throw more gas on it. WE are giving the fire it's fuel. If we stop fueling it then it putters out on it's own.

crosshair I don't know where you are coming from with your hatred for a Law Enforcement Officer tasked with doing the impossible and to compare him to one of chicago's worst union thug bosses is more than despicable. And then to say our own government is going to take him out is beyond contempt. Go back to writing fiction.

[Crosshair]

crosshair I don't know where you are coming from with your hatred for a Law Enforcement Officer tasked with doing the impossible and to compare him to one of chicago's worst union thug bosses is more than despicable. And then to say our own government is going to take him out is beyond contempt. Go back to writing fiction.

Sheriff Joe is a well known thug to people who pay attention.

Why is talking about the Federal government taking him out contempt? He is frequently under investigations for misconduct and illegal activities. His file at the FBI probably takes up several filing cabinets. He's gonna get taken out either in handcuffs by the feds or at the ballot box.

He frequently uses his authority to retaliate against critics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N26cQaHb ... r_embedded

He neglects nearly 60,000 felony warrants to go chance illegals for photo ops. Yes illegal immigration is a problem, but get your priorities straight.

His decrepit jail conditions have cost the county over $41 million on lawsuits, most of which he looses. They have been more-or-less condemned several times because of the living conditions. Remember, a jail is where people go who have been ACCUSED of a crime. Not everyone there has been found guilty People have been beaten to the point of being brain damaged in his understaffed jails. Quite a number have died, resulting in more lawsuits that Joe looses.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/search/? ... e%20Arpaio

http://www.arpaio.com/

Over at fark.com there are several Marsopica county residents who post in on his antics. Here are a few threads.

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4577496
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=5218462
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=3996893
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=483637

he's got the oldpeople vote so it's hard to get rid of him.

[Diomed]

Didn't widespread use of narcotics and mind-altering drugs virtually destroy the productive midde east during the colonial period? Seems to me the same thing would happen here.

Screw the middle east, it happened here. Laudanum, opium, cocaine, and especially demon rum were all in heavy use in the US in the latter half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth.

We survived.

[phoenix]

We survived.

You sure? We did just vote in a socialist because he looked cool and wanted change and hope. Being on heavy drugs seems the only legitimate excuse at this point...

[ick]

The drug users in the 60s had kids in my high school in the 80s. For the most part, you could tell who those kids were.

Now, those kids have their OWN kids in high school.

It is even EASIER to tell who the third generation users are.... and there are MORE of them than ever before... even though class size hasn't changed.

Ask any school adiministrator in the united states what he thinks a lax and permissive attitude about drug use results in and he will tell you.

Anyone that doesn't see consequences to expanded use of narcotics isn't paying attention to human behavior. I am all for liberty and less government, but there is no sense being a moron on the drugs issue.

FURTHERMORE, I am so sick and tired of hearing people say "Uh, legalize it so we can tax it!!!!"

Yeah, because when your spouse has a spending addiction the answer is not controlling spending, no, it is MORE REVENUE or get ANOTHER credit card or 5th mortgage. Why would anyone even consider controlling spending? Yeah, because when you catch a theif in your house the first thing you do is help him find the stash of cash you have hidden in the wall. Yeah, because the answer isn't reducing the size of government and controlling spending... it is adding a new taxes and giving these theives even MORE power and revenue... and on top of that expand drug use in the culture. Nice.

Yeah, leagalize narcotics. That will solve all our problems. Yep.

[doubloon]

...
Yeah, legalize narcotics. That will solve all our problems. Yep.

reductio ad absurdum

denied



No sane, logical person could possibly think it would "solve all our problems".

Legalizing it and, possibly, taxing it reasonably would take money out of the hands of the cartels. The reason the drug trade is so lucrative is because our policies have made it lucrative.

The same thing happens when something is "legal" but regulated to the point of unavailability, that's why there's a gray/black market for prescription drugs as well.

Narcotics hurt people, let's make them illegal.

Alcohol hurts people, let's make it illegal.

Smoking hurts people, let's make it illegal.

Gambling hurts people, let's make it illegal.

Guns hurt people, let's make them illegal.

What's the difference in your mind ?

[phoenix]

...
Yeah, legalize narcotics. That will solve all our problems. Yep.

reductio ad absurdum

denied



No sane, logical person could possibly think it would "solve all our problems".

Legalizing it and, possibly, taxing it reasonably would take money out of the hands of the cartels. The reason the drug trade is so lucrative is because our policies have made it lucrative.

The same thing happens when something is "legal" but regulated to the point of unavailability, that's why there's a gray/black market for prescription drugs as well.

Narcotics hurt people, let's make them illegal.

Alcohol hurts people, let's make it illegal.

Smoking hurts people, let's make it illegal.

Gambling hurts people, let's make it illegal.

Guns hurt people, let's make them illegal.

What's the difference in your mind ?

he likes guns.

[ick]

You will find no black line to draw, sorry. The issue doesn't work that way.

So if you make drugs legal and tax them... you avoid the related costs AND create a revenue stream for an irresponsible government AND subject everyone to increased meth-pot heads addict late for work take care of me .gov it is not my fault leaches... and this is your solution?

I prefer the drug-law status quo over THAT any day. It is a matter of common sense and what is practical.

This country is a machine with a lot of moving parts. No thanks on a lawless horde shooting dope into their veins for me to clean up.

[Crosshair]

The drug users in the 60s had kids in my high school in the 80s. For the most part, you could tell who those kids were.

Now, those kids have their OWN kids in high school.

It is even EASIER to tell who the third generation users are.... and there are MORE of them than ever before... even though class size hasn't changed.

Bullshiat, drugs were illegal. What you're saying couldn't possibly happen. Or are you saying that the trillions spend on the drug war have been a total waste because drugs are readily available?

Not to mention the same thing can happen with parents who use alcohol, yet I don't see you advocating alcohol be banned. Such blatant hypocrisy is mind blowing..

Imagine what that Trillion dollars could have been spent on? Honest education. Rehab for those who honestly want to get clean. Building more schools instead of prisons.

Ask any school adiministrator in the united states what he thinks a lax and permissive attitude about drug use results in and he will tell you.

Then ask them if they think the current policy is working. the answer will be "No." How about you go ask law enforcement what they think about the drug war?

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Anyone that doesn't see consequences to expanded use of narcotics isn't paying attention to human behavior. I am all for liberty and less government, but there is no sense being a moron on the drugs issue.

Who says USE is going to expand? Dude, EVERYONE in the country who wants to use drugs is already doing drugs. They are readily available. Drugs were sold in my High School and College. I bought drugs as easily as one would buy a TV. I saw where they were taking me and gave them up and went on to other things. Mostpeople do the same, thus why charts like this are common fornmost every drug.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ ... 98memo.htm

Many try, only a few abuse.

I don't buy or use drugs because they are unavailable or because I can't afford them, I don't use them because I know they are a bad idea. Once again, you are projecting your own irrational fears onto others.

FURTHERMORE, I am so sick and tired of hearing people say "Uh, legalize it so we can tax it!!!!"

Yeah, because when your spouse has a spending addiction the answer is not controlling spending, no, it is MORE REVENUE or get ANOTHER credit card or 5th mortgage. Why would anyone even consider controlling spending? Yeah, because when you catch a theif in your house the first thing you do is help him find the stash of cash you have hidden in the wall. Yeah, because the answer isn't reducing the size of government and controlling spending... it is adding a new taxes and giving these theives even MORE power and revenue... and on top of that expand drug use in the culture. Nice.

You're not seeing how foolish you are making yourself look We have already TRIED to control the "spending" (drug use) IT. HAS. NOT. WORKED. People like you have had 40 frigin years to show your idea is the right one and it's a dismal failure from every aspect.

You legalize and tax it so you can fund rehab and honest education. Tax it to offset the damage it does to society, just like we do with alcohol.

Yeah, leagalize narcotics. That will solve all our problems. Yep.

Nice false Dichotomy fallacy there.

What's you alternative then? Continued prohibition is not an option as it is a clear failure. Or are you saying that you support and condone the continued murder of civilians and law enforcement? Incarceration of millions of your fellow citizens for no reason other than that they wanted to partake in something taht you don't. Because that is essentially what you are doing by continuing to support prohibition. Thousands of deaths that would not happen under a regulated marketplace.

So if you make drugs legal and tax them... you avoid the related costs AND create a revenue stream for an irresponsible government AND subject everyone to increased meth-pot heads addict late for work take care of me .gov it is not my fault leaches... and this is your solution?

Holy crap you're dense. You honestly think everyone is gonna go out and start doing meth if it were legal? Are you HONESTLY making that case? Here it is again. EVERYONE who want to do meth is already doing it. We ALREADY have to deal with those meth heads. Were drugs were legal those meth heads would have access to pure drugs and avoid most of the side effect from home-brewed stuff. Those Meth heads could openly turn to others for help when they reach that point. Probably nobody would use meth as amphetamines and cocaine would be readily available, both are many times safer than meth. Meth only became popular as a "poor mans cocaine".

Drug use may indeed become more VISIBLE, but use will likely not. Alcohol poribition documents that.

Alcohol consumption per capita.



Total Expenditure on Distilled Spirts as a Percentage of Total Alcohol Sales (1890-1960)



What you are saying has no foundation to support it.It is blind and unfounded conjecture.

[m1a185]

You can also take a look at data comparing european countries. I cant find any right now, but stats from voer there show usage in drug prohibition countries and non-prohibition countries are exactly the same.

[ick]

Bullshit, alchohol isn't the same thing and you know it. Besides, personally I DETEST alchohol , but it is here to stay wheter I like it or not, nothing can be done about that.

I refuse to support any idea that increases the number of drug using leaches on society. You leagalize drugs... you increase the # of leaches taking drugs. No question about it.

I have had quite enough of half-baked employees showing up late for work or being ineffectual because of their drug habit. No data on the cost of the drug war can counter my irritation that I am forced by my goverment to not only feed, house, clothe, coddle, and otherwise support a drug user... but now I have to pay for his health care FOREVER too. I have no problem choosing to help people in my family, church, or others that come within my pervue and I am SUPPOSED to help... and I don't want people starving in the street.... but this is WAAAAAAAAAAAY out of hand. You change the welfare state FIRST and THEN come talk to me about how wonderful repealing all the drug laws are and how shooting dope up your nose for recreation is "your right".

Cheaper drugs = the same usage? What economic planet are you located on? Simply supply and demand. You start removing all the barriers for drugs and you will lower the price. With lower price... and a total absence of lelgal conesquences... that equals MORE CONSUMPTION.

[ick]

Who says USE is going to expand? Dude, EVERYONE in the country who wants to use drugs is already doing drugs. They are readily available. Drugs were sold in my High School and College. I bought drugs as easily as one would buy a TV. I saw where they were taking me and gave them up and went on to other things. Mostpeople do the same, thus why charts like this are common fornmost every drug.

I can name five friends that don't use drugs because of legal consequences. If there was not legal consequence they are ready and waiting to smoke dope as much as they smoke cigarettes. Everyone that wants to already uses? I don't believe it. My personal knowledge of people's choices clearly tells me OTHERWISE.

CLEARLY no, not everyone is going to use drugs. Obviously that is NOT what I am saying. If you think legalization isn't going to increase consumption then you are lying to yourself.... and that doesn't even consider a massive drop in price for all drugs legalized and the effect that will have on consumption. I can't help you with that issue if you cannot see those kinds of simple economics.

[Blaubart]

A MILLION DOLLARS?

Things that make you go hmmm...

Let's just say, hypothetically speaking of course, that a guy who isn't a member of any cartel and isn't me whacked Big Joe. Then what? How does he find the right cartel boss to get his reward? If he finds them, can he really trust them to say "You da MAN! Here's your money!"

I think not...

[ick]

The drug users in the 60s had kids in my high school in the 80s. For the most part, you could tell who those kids were.

Now, those kids have their OWN kids in high school.

It is even EASIER to tell who the third generation users are.... and there are MORE of them than ever before... even though class size hasn't changed.

Ask any school adiministrator in the united states what he thinks a lax and permissive attitude about drug use results in and he will tell you.

I wasn't very clear on this point so allow me to give you more detail. I had a meeting with school district administrators. Most of them had been working in the school district system for 20+ years. They told me of how their worst kids in the 80's were the children of the druggies from the 60s.... then these kids in school in the 80s turned out to have kids in the 2000s that follow the exact same pattern. Their most disturbing conclusion... that the numbers of kids in this "category" are slowly growing in number.

This is my point here. I didn't even begin the discussion over drug use, they did.

This situation is dire, and the welfare system supports it. Change spending and the nanny state.

Secondly, legalization, increases "acceptance", facilitates dropping narcotic prices, and a nanny state that enables the drug habit. None of those things is in the right direction even if you are magically able to eliminate a trillion dollars of spending... which, of course, will not be eliminated even if you did legalize drugs.