Anonymous Kills Websites, Cartels Kill Bloggers 627
An anonymous reader writes "While drug cartels in Mexico are disemboweling people they accuse of blogging about drug violence, Anonymous busies itself taking down Mexican government websites. With all the problems facing people in Mexico right now, including drug cartels extorting teachers for 50% of their pay and killing schoolchildren (thus shutting down the school system), Mexico's biggest oil field in terminal decline and drug cartels kidnapping busloads of people and forcing them into gladiator-style contests to the death, Anonymous' actions appear particularly petty."
The solution is obvious: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because there aren't drugs to traffic doesn't mean the problem will be solved
It's not an all-or-nothing situation, cut the money flow and the violence will stop increasing at the steady pace it has those last years and eventually will start winding down. Just like any other activity, stop making it profitable and it'll decrease and disappear eventually.
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because there isn't alcohol to traffic doesn't mean the problem will be solved. Chicago and New York gangs will not vanish, but merely shift their business to some other form of social exploitation. There's a lot more than just money involved in this trade, and gang members aren't just going to go get normal jobs if the demand for alcohol diminishes. ...
Therefore, we should not repeal Prohibition.
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the bigger picture: the fact that repealing Prohibition didn't eliminate *all* gangs, is no argument against it, and neither is it an argument that the cartels won't be completely eliminated by repealing drugs/regulating them. In both cases, it limits the power of the gangs/cartels, and the fact that it doesn't do so perfectly is irrelevant.
Not even all drugs, marijuana would be huge (Score:4, Insightful)
The major drug problem between the US and Mexico is Marijuana. Our culture is very "meh" on having it outlawed, so there is a higher market for it, unlike drugs like heroin and meth with scares the crap out of most people, including the pot smokers among us. So it's not as though all those weed sales will transfer to cocaine or heroin if marijuana is legalized. They'll simply go out of business, or become legitimate, like beer producers did. Beer producers didn't say, "Shit, we can't dodge taxes and shoot at the federal lawmen anymore... so screw beer, we're going to start selling heroin!"
No, they went legit, and the guns went away. The gangs and mafias changed to do other illegal things, but they lost a huge portion of income. The same would happen with marijuana.
By the way, all those liquor taxes are paying for local community services, like schools. This is taxable, just like liquor, cigarettes, or any other luxury item.
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the quote at the very bottom of this page (at this moment):
"You can make it illegal, but you can't make it unpopular."
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:5, Insightful)
do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time?
You mean things were better during the prohibition?
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:5, Insightful)
Fewer, proportionally, than were ruined by alcohol and the alcohol trade and its effects during Prohibition.
The problem with prohibition of alcohol was that there was sufficient demand for the product prohibited that its prohibition caused more harm by providing a high-value, easy-to-produce commodity that could not be legally supplied (and thus could only be supplied by criminals), thereby fueling massive organized crime syndicates.
It was not that "nobody was following the law"; plenty of people were following the law. There were plenty of businesses that didn't sell alcohol because it was illegal, and plenty of people that chose not to buy it because it was illegal. There were plenty who didn't, as well, just as with the present prohibition of selected drugs.
Uh, no, we're not. Arguing that we should choose, through the democratic process, an approach to controlling the ills associated with certain currently-prohibited drugs that would, based on past experience with another previously-prohibited drugs whose prohibition had undesirable effects very similar to those that are manifest with the currently-prohibited drugs at issue, produce better net results for society isn't letting anyone undermine democracy. (And, if it was, ending prohibition -- which had no such clear past referent -- would have been even moreso.)
There is certainly plenty of reason to believe that it will be much easier to address those problemsif, instead of public resources being directed to fight the manufacture, distribution, and sale of the currently-banned drugs, those resources are directed at dealing with the problems of drug abuse, and further additional resources are available because the destructive side-effects of the illegal drug trade which consume public resources are removed and the newly-legal drug trade becomes a legal, taxed part of the economy.
Much of the funding for public alcohol abuse treatment and prevention comes from alcohol users through special taxes collected on alcohol, while some law enforcement expenses caused by the prohibition of drugs is funded by drug users or sellers through civil forfeiture of property, its a very small share, and only addresses a small portion of the costs imposed by prohibition, and none of the costs associated with actually dealing with drug abuse itself.
Sure, the problems of abuse haven't gone away with alcohol since the end of prohibition, but we've gotten much better at dealing with them since the government's efforts have been able to focus on the problems of abuse, rather than resources being sucked into the vast law enforcement problems created by prohibition itself.
The choices aren't between the problems "going away" and no effect whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time?
And what about the lives that have been improved by alcohol in the meantime? Yes there really are people who can't control their alcohol intake and suffer greatly for it, but they are by far the minority. Just like people who can't control their video game playing, TV watching, horseback riding, gambling, delicious foods or any number of enjoyable activities. It's a recognized issue and something that there is really no shortage of support for. Anything people enjoy can be abused to their detriment. Taking
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:5, Insightful)
"A good assassination team would remove 100% of the cartel operatives in Mexico fairly quickly."
As if the cartels don't have the money and the will to hire effective special ops types to ensure this doesn't happen. These people ship contraband in submarines, for the love of mike. They definitely can (and obviously do) hire professionals to do security.
"It's my experience that most people with which I've discussed this topic deny the effectiveness of this solution because they do not wish it to have viability."
Your Rainbow 6 fantasies notwithstanding, it's not that I don't wish it were simple. But it's not simple. You're dealing with a group of people who have more money that most of the official institutions charged with fighting them. Don't even get me started on will, either. The cartels don't have to worry about court or political considerations.
You're making up a better video game scenario than actual strategy.
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not my morals, pal. Quit conflating the way the cartel does and would respond to military action and how I feel about that.
As others have said, we've tried militarized action again and again and again. You don't think there were SpecOps folks working with Columbia? You know, since the 80s? And you can still buy cocaine easily in America.
You're arguing for not just more of the same, but a shit-ton more of the same. You are completely ignoring the demand side of the equation. You will never understand much less be able to do anything about the situation on our border until you address and accept the reality of the human desire (and I would argue right) to get fucked up.
You can't shoot enough people to make the people you're shooting stop being humans and having human desires. But shoot enough of them, and you'll find yourself dehumanized much faster than you even thought possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You're so smart! (Score:5, Insightful)
People drinking booze isn't that big a deal. People on the harder drugs leads to all sorts of problems - crime included.
There is no harder drug than alcohol. It is so addictive that withdrawal can kill you. You can't say the same about meth, PCP, crack cocaine, or heroin. Further, no drug is more strongly associated with violent behavior. If society has found a way to co-exist with the most dangerous drug in existance, why can't we do the same for every other drug?
Re: (Score:3)
True, but it does so very rarely. If someone dies during withdrawal, it's almost always due to complicating factors like frailty due to AIDS or concurrent alcohol withdrawal.
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:5, Insightful)
Or ditch the "war on drugs" entirely... The illegal trade in drugs costs authorities billions, and fuels organised crime such as the drug cartels in mexico and other countries.
So instead, legalise drugs but put in place controls on them:
Quality controls, drugs available from reputable suppliers rather than dodgy dealers, so drugs don't end up contaminated with other even more harmful substances.
Taxes - tax drugs the same way that the currently legal tobacco and alcohol are taxed.
Monitoring - know who's taking drugs.
Government saves on law enforcement costs trying to police drugs...
Government further benefits from tax income from the sale of drugs.
Drug users benefit from cheaper supplies, which are also safer and have a legal avenue for complaint.
Drug companies can develop alternatives that provide the effects the users want, while reducing the negatives (e.g. see electronic cigarettes).
Drug users need not hide their activities, and can more easily seek help to give up.
It's an obvious solution, and the only ones who stand to lose are the criminal gangs who are currently making huge profits from illegal drugs.
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:4, Informative)
Government saves on law enforcement costs trying to police drugs...
Not necessarily:
http://www.fear.org/chicago.html [fear.org]
http://www.dpeg.org/legal_issues/assetforfeiture.htm [dpeg.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Well them and, in the USA, the corporations that makes loads of money running prisons to hold people for drug possession and trafficking. They have a lot of money to throw around at politicians and media to fight the obvious solution.
The biggest counterargument is that petty crime will increase as addicts need to pay for their drug habits. I think that could easily be
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:4, Funny)
Invade? Didn't you read TFS? Their oil production is declining!
Re: (Score:3)
"I support the annexing of Mexico!"
We already did that with a big part of Mexico in the 1840s.
Re: (Score:3)
I want to know why those Mexican schoolchildren are waving the flag of India.
Bloggers seem to to a better job than the major "news outlets".
Re:The solution is obvious: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Well then, what's your explanation? This explanation certainly fits the facts and is a sound theory. Remember, "follow the money": doing this will explain most things at the higher levels of society.
Don't tell me you actually think politicians have some kind of moral problem with drug use, do you? Politicians are sociopaths; they have no morals at all. All they care about is money. They're all sociopaths because that's how they get into office. People with morals can't compete in that environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you realize what this means? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Do you realize what this means? (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry there is probably a medical insurance code for that now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I already thought Borderlands was pretty lame, but the goings-on in our real borderlands make the game seem downright tame.
Re: (Score:3)
Legalise drug trade (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Legalise drug trade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legalise drug trade (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's his point...
This country doesn't seem to have learned from its mistakes with Prohibition, which created some of the most violent gangs and cartels in this country's history, at least the most violent until the New Prohibition (aka War on Drugs).
Re: (Score:3)
I've supported legalizing (some) drugs - marijuana at the very least - for a long time because of this. It would do far more to hurt the cartels than anything we're doing now.
Unfortunately, I'm sure the cartels know this, too, and that anyone in the US or Mexico that makes serious headway in that direction will have a very short lifespan.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, betterunixthanunix made a typo, but while you seem to know that heroin and heroine are different, you don't seem to know what a heroine actually is. Hint: needing to be rescued does not make a girl a heroine. You lose at internets sir.
Re: (Score:3)
Here
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nope....
Take a look at prescription drugs... they are perfectly legal to carry, yet they kill more people than hardcore drugs, such as heroin, coke, and meth do combined, and I am also including deaths by drug deals, not by drug use alone....
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at prescription drugs... they are perfectly legal to carry, yet they kill more people than hardcore drugs, such as heroin, coke, and meth do combined, and I am also including deaths by drug deals, not by drug use alone....
Most of that is actually manslaughter by doctor, i.e. insufficient diligence on the part of the physician when prescribing. It's not really death by drug because abuse of prescription drugs is the smallest cause of death by them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Legal trade causes far less trouble, clearly the best way forward is to legalise the trade and use the extra tax income to police and jail those who still engage in crime.
What are you, some kind of neo-crypto-liberal-homo-socialist or something?! Naw, us real Americans prefer our drugs the old-fashioned way, illegal and funding criminal enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave it to a moral relativist to place the blame of murdering drug dealers on people who don't think you should do drugs.
Would you be so cavalier about a War on Human Trafficking? Or would you suggest surrendering if that war started getting messy too?
If all your decisions in life are decided by which choice is "less trouble", then you truly stand for nothing worth standing for.
The blame here starts with Americas brain-dead drug-using oxygen thieves. The blame continues with the enablers, liberal pop-cultu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed, it's not like legalised alcohol causes any problems that put burdens on the health system and increases deaths by drink driving accidents and so forth or anything.
Seriously, it's not as simple as you think. Sure legalisation gets rid of organised crime but it creates other issues in terms of higher levels of sometimes fatal substance abuse.
Note that I'm not saying legalisation isn't the best solution of a bad bunch - it might well be - but so many idiots think it's a silver bullet and it's absolutel
Re:Legalise drug trade (Score:4, Insightful)
"There's no proof for it, only common sense."
Ahh good ol' Common Sense, I miss that high school. Did you follow that up with a bachelor's degree from "It Stands To Reason" College and a doctorate from "Some Bloke at the Bar Said" University?
All apologies to Pratchett.
Petty? O_o (Score:2)
You're talking about a world-wide network of script kiddies vs an organized cadre of bloodthirsty monsters. What in the world do you expect them to do?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that taking down the government web sites serve no purpose and might even be beneficial to the drug cartels, it just doesn't make any real sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
What in the world do you expect them to do?
Wear a Guy Fawkes mask and take down the cartels ninja-style.
I can smell the plot for the next hollywood blockbuster already. All it needs is some kickass explosions, and women.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have leaders too.
There is some anarchy amongst the mindless minions due to the whole "Anonymous has no leaders" bullshit but most of their ddos attacks are coordinated by a core group. I don't think their command structure is as well organised as conventional organised crime but there are certainly people pulling the strings.
Ha. is it. (Score:2, Insightful)
and what relevance does anonymous's actions have to this ? this seems like moronic bashing just because you want to bash.
quality of accepted submissions have been declining lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a Mexican, and being anti-officialist... (Score:3)
I can just tell you are very wrong. Yes, the government is quite corrupt (although I doubt it is as corrupt as you think), but here we are not talking (at least, we are no _longer_ talking) about govt. people being bribed not to mess with them. The cartels have become militarily stronger than the State in many regions, and although the government does not want to admit it, the talks about a "failed state" and about an effective civil war are correct... In some areas of the country.
Please note the "some area
Recall... (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember when the online community castigated Yahoo for cooperating with the Chinese, a couple of years ago. People talked about it like it was a choice between giving the Chinese the information they wanted, or not giving it to them; nobody considered that the Chinese could get the information by threatening the Chinese employees of Yahoo who had access to the information, or by alternate (and even less friendly) methods. What nobody seemed to realize is that when you're dealing with certain kinds of things (like criminal organizations and repressive governments), things don't stay in online. There are kinetic repurcussions to actions, and if the 'bad people' are more comfortable in the real world than the online one, they're going to show up on your doorstep, not in your inbox.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess? Getting shot. That's a fairly direct kinetic repercussion.
RIAA In Massive Cocaine Trafficking ring (Score:4, Informative)
RIAA Label Used In Massive Cocaine Trafficking Ring
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-label-used-in-massive-cocaine-trafficking-ring-110916/ [torrentfreak.com]
Earlier this year record label boss Jimmy Rosemond was arrested on the suspicion of leading a massive cocaine trafficking ring.
The founder of Czar Entertainment used shipments of music equipment to transfer cocaine across the United States.
These shipments went to several music studios, and according to a recent court filing uncovered by The Smoking Gun, Interscope Records is one of them.
This suggests that people at the RIAA label were in on the game.
Previously entertainment industry representatives have suggested that piracy can be linked to organized crime, and the above suggests that the same can be said for the music industry.
How many people in the music industry were part of the drug ring remains unknown at this point, but we would advise the RIAA to carefully investigate its members to avoid the practices from escalating.
Eh. It's a little outside of my monkeysphere. (Score:2)
Anonymous = in it for the lulz (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course those actions appear petty. Petty is 99% of what Anonymous gets its kicks from. From abusing 12 year old girls (even if they kind of asked for it) to posting insulting comments about physically disabled people. The stuff like Project Chanology (the attacks on Scientology) was an aberration and really involved more non-Chan New Friends then it did Chan Old Friends, even though it started on the Chans. Anonymous originally got media attention for Habo Hotel/Second Life raids and harassing people on MySpace/Facebook.
Anonymous isn't your friend. Anonymous aren't moral crusaders. Anonymous are in it for the lulz.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't their slogan once. "None of us are as cruel as all of us."?
what i think the USA should do is (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a troll, right? Nobody is this dumb, are they? Just in case, those Mexican cartels only even exist because of the War On [some] Drugs here in the USA.
Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is not poor starving people willing to do anything to survive, it's rich americans needing to get their drug fix.
Re: (Score:2)
How about screw arrest... snipers just make their heads explode at 2000 yards.
Re: (Score:2)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
Re: (Score:3)
You'll note that it says no person, not no citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
The Drug Cartels ARE Anonymous (Score:2)
Anonymous is anyone; after all, they're anonymous. The drug cartels don't like the Mexican government. Since anyone can claim to be part of Anonymous, what better way to shift the blame AND send a message at the same time?
Anonymous takes the easy out, every single time. (Score:3)
They aren't interested in a fight, they want head lines.
If they had balls they would shut down every cartel in the world, but you know, that would require a gut check they can never meet.
It is one thing to go after groups who have the power to jail you but another to go after groups that WILL kill you.
Wrong target Anonymous (cowards) (Score:3)
IF "Anonymous" want to regain even the tiniest sliver of support, they'll try to stop the hack and release of petty information such as celebrity cell phones, and start taking down the EVIL guys, such as the drug cartels.
Re: (Score:2)
...start taking down the EVIL guys, such as the drug cartels.
How exactly? I really doubt if a DOS would do it, or do you expect these 'super hackers' to go rambo?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we.... (Score:2)
Fighting a war in a country that is no where near us... while Mexico has so many problems that rolling in the tanks and bombing the hell out of cartel compounds would be a far better thing to do?
Honestly, why don't we clean up our own back yard before trying to make everyone else clean theirs up first? Is the United states armed forces that afraid of the drug cartels?
or just hire the US DoD... (Score:2)
I think Mobama should send them a couple of pissed off Marines there for a little R&R (tequila, women and fire), or just hire a merc wing from the US DOD and do a cleanup... Mexico shouldnt be that difficult to overtake... a couple of M1A1 HA Abrams Main Battle Tank should do the trick... Mexico Urban layout is like afghanistan ultra light...
Daily Mail alert! (Score:5, Insightful)
and drug cartels kidnapping busloads of people and forcing them into gladiator-style contests to the death
Links to The Daily Mail, which is nearly as bad as a Goatse link.
Re:Daily Mail alert! (Score:5, Informative)
It's somewhere between "ranting homeless person with a bottle of mouthwash in his guts" and "politician expenses claims" in believability.
Anonymous (Score:3)
Anonymous would get my respect if they used their hacking skills to infiltrate the murderous thugs instead of defacing government websites.
Anonymous's action are ALWAYS petty. (Score:3)
Seriously. If they truly want to help people, they wuld be helping the government fight the drug cartel nightmare that is happening right now.
Douchbags.
Hell, whose to say a anonymous isn't being manipulated by a drug cartel?
Honeypot bloggers (Score:3)
Just have someone blog under the name Pedro Nadie or whatever. Identify him as living just outside a small town in Northern Mexico and have him really piss off the cartels. When they come to get him, the little cabin is surrounded by the army. Game over.
I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Smoking is legal and can kill you.
Drinking is legal and can kill you.
Myriad other things are legal and can kill you.
So why not legalize all drugs, tax the sh*t out of 'em like cigarettes. The self-destructive will be able to do so, the curious ones will be able to try and the recreational users will be able to do so too. I'd be curious to see what would happen.
Re: (Score:3)
So why not legalize all drugs, tax the sh*t out of 'em like cigarettes.
Because a black market will develop to avoid the taxes and other government controls, and we will be back to square one.
The self-destructive will be able to do so, the curious ones will be able to try and the recreational users will be able to do so too. I'd be curious to see what would happen.
Controlled substances are most often controlled for good reasons, even if the enforcement is misguided. The self-destructive will drag others down with them (i.e. their own kids). Allowing easy access to satisfy curiosity is a very bad idea with highly addictive and ultimately destructive substances.
What would likely result from legalization is more addicts and more drug-related crime.
Probably wouldn't end up back at square one (Score:3)
The choice here isn't between the status quo and legalized drugs taxed to the point they cost the same is illegal drugs. The choice is between the status quo and legalized drugs that are taxed heavily, but still a lot cheaper than smuggled drugs. You could raise a TON of revenue on, say, weed, and still have it be a lot cheaper than it is now (as has been shown in states where weed is quas
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Never heard of Desaparecidos, I take it? Your precious right-wing paramilitaries are a LARGE part of why Central America is having such problems with violence today.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Funny)
... bridges hanging from the cartel members?
Re: (Score:2)
It'd certainly stop them dead in their tracks, I suppose...
Re: (Score:3)
Liberals had already learned ... round the time the War On Drugs began... i.e. a long fucking time ago, that War On Drugs wasn't good.
What kinda retarded shit is it to blame Libruls for Mexico's problems?
While, even as a liberal, I find your solution somewhat appealing, being a liberal I can think it through more than one step, and therefore realize that a ruthless right-wing (why RIGHT wing, fascist sympathiser, are you?) death squad might JUST lead to other problems.
I wouldn'
Re: (Score:2)
It would be "easy" to fix Mexico's problems, but it would be unprofitable for entrenched interests.
First, terminate NAFTA, which was designed to do harm.
Second, terminate the War On Drugs, which has done nothing but make a lot of crooks a lot of money. And by that I mean first Big Pharma; and second Politicians and proto-politicians, paramilitarists, and other hangers-on; and finally, the Drug Lords, who would be relegated to the status of any other farm manager.
Third, crack down on businesses hiring illega
Re:I agree (Score:4, Interesting)
What would really help is if the US cleaned up it's drug addictions then there would be zero market. Or if the US didn't force their war on drugs onto other countries then the cartels wouldn't be fighting violence with violence so much.
BTW, IAM
Re: (Score:3)
Other than some pretty tepid Shining Path activity in Peru, left-wing militancy in Latin America just isn't that lively anymore. It's a mixture of apolitical profiteers and former rightwing state jackboots who realiz
Re: (Score:2)
Or at the very least allow the law-abiding citizens to arm themselves (not that the ones that really need it could afford to at this point).
Plus, I'm sure any Mexican politician that tried to enable this would end up dead to protect the cartel's monopoly on violence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your republicans are no different from democrats, just slightly different demographics they are pandering to.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Your republicans are no different from democrats, just slightly different demographics they are pandering to.
I despise Democrats, but to say that they're no different from Republicans is the height of cluelessness.
The Republican party is dedicated to the philosophy that the proper role of government is to make sure the rich get richer faster than they would without a government. And since they have to win elections, they've got the problem of getting half the population to vote against their own best interests. Unfortunately they've chosen to appeal to people's worst instincts to make their knees jerk, so we get
Re: (Score:2)
Common wheres Taco bell going to get its ingredients from ? .... talking of mexican try hard cartels with no substance .... I though food was a drug these days ? .... anonymous to what ?
LOL WUT
"Petty" has multiple meanings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, petty crime - like pickpocketing or shoplifting, vs serious crime like exortion or murder...?
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck do a bunch of script kiddies have to mentioned on every topic involving the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for giving sadistic drug cartels power, DEA and DHS.
And voters who think it's a good idea to have the government force their morals on everyone else.
And politicians who cater to them.
But until US voters develop enough sense to put an end to the war on drugs, they should realize that every penny they spend on drugs is funding vicious criminals, whether in Mexico or in a neighborhood gang right here at home.