Dem Senate candidates talk about Mexico’s drug war

Comments

  1. Sloppy says:

    “Perhaps it’s a very intractable problem and beyond Congress to help solve.”

    Actually, Congress is the one and only entity that can solve it, and they’re normally pretty good at the type of solution that is needed here, but for some reason they’re holding back.

    Turn our corporate masters loose against the cartels.  When Americans can get their Monsanto-patented strains of drugs for $5.99 per ounce at Wal-Mart, the drug cartels will be plunged into the same poverty, impotence, and irrelevance as those who deal in any other agricultural commodity.

    All that’s needed in order for this to happen, is to repeal the laws which don’t allow it to happen.  Our current policy is that we’re using a strange form of inverse-protectionism to keep the profits (for both foreign farmer and their intermediate middlemen) artificially high.

  2. Qui Tam says:

    How about trying something that works. The Dutch did it. Facing a huge needle problem they gave users a legal option, marijuana. Then several things unexpectedly occured besides saving needle user’s lives.

    1. drug dealers were put out of business
    2. tax money was generated
    3. marijuana ceased to contain deadly foreign contents, see “wet” or the dipping of pot into embalming fluid
    4. and most important, a generation later the Dutch population having grown up being able to smoke it decided they had better things to accomplish in life and now very few of the Dutch citizenry have a drug problem or smoke pot

    I am sad to see neither of these candidates had the juevos to be bold or, well, daring enough to purpose the solution. Afraid your political careers might be damaged? Get real, a Nation sits in the balance and so do US tax dollars.

    *and for the record I am neither a drug user or pot smoker oh, and I don’t drink alcohol (although legal) either

  3. Mike Goodenow says:

    If I understand both candidates correctly . . . 

    Congressman Heinrich is for more taxpayer-funded drug rehab, for more aid and cooperation from the U.S. government to help the Mexican government defeat the drug cartels, and for freezing the drug cartels’s financial assets.
     
    Mr. Balderas is for eTrace, reducing the flow of firearms into Mexico by enforcing all our drug laws, and easing immigration from Mexico.  And he’ll stand up for the rule of law.

    Since drug addicts can go to Narcotics Anonymous, I don’t support more public funding of rehab.   But I agree with Mr. Heinrich’s other two positions.

    I agree with Mr. Balderas on cracking down on the flow of illegal guns into Mexico.  Not sure what eTrace is or how it will help, but it sounds good.  I’m pro-immigrant but I’m not sure how easing immigration will help this particular problem.

    300,000 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico over the past decade.  I suppose we need to enforce the rule of law (Balderas) with Heinrich’s two key solutions and the one Balderas solution that seems important — and hopefully we can do a lot more to reduce the violence there.  It is truly tragic, as Mr. Balderas describes with some passion.

    Both candidates make good points.  Perhaps it’s a very intractable problem and beyond Congress to help solve. 
      

                

  4. qofdisks says:

    Utterly disappointing on both counts.  These guys mean to perpetuate the evil that is the War on Drugs as well as, perpetuate the lie that demand can be stemmed by any means including transforming our free nation into a totalitarian state.  Truly, truly horrible.  I can’t tell if these guys are just stupid or if they are paid off by status qua moneyed interests of the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is an excuse for a campaign of devastation against the people on both sides of the border using our own humanity/human nature to falsely criminalize and hence undermine Civil and Human rights.

  5. malcolmkyle says:

    “To function as the founders intended, our republic requires that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
     – Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787
     
    Fortunately we are left with one last peaceful avenue for change – Jury Nullification.
     
    Jury Nullification is a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty but do not deserve punishment. – All non-violent ‘drug offenders’ who are not selling to children – be they users, dealers or importers – clearly belong in this category. 
     
    If you sincerely believe that prohibition is a dangerous and counter-productive policy then you must stop helping to enforce it. When it comes to acquittals, you, the juror, have the very last word! 
     
    * It only takes one juror to prevent a guilty verdict. 
    * You are not lawfully required to disclose your voting intention before taking your seat on a jury.
    * You are also not required to give a reason to the other jurors for your position when voting – just simply state you find the accused not guilty.
    * Jurors must understand that it is their opinion, their vote. If the Judge and the other jurors disapprove, too bad. There is no punishment for having a dissenting opinion.
     
    We must create what we can no longer afford to wait for – PLEASE VOTE TO ACQUIT!