Skip to comments.'Please spare my little girl': How Mexico's fearless female mayor sacrificed herself...
Posted on 11/27/2012 3:04:15 PM PST by Beave Meister
The woman mayor who was kidnapped and murdered by a Mexican drug gang pleaded with her attackers for her young daughters life, it emerged today.
Maria Santos Gorrostieta, who had already survived two assassination attempts, was driving the child to school at around 8.30am when she was ambushed by a car in the city of Morelia.
The 36-year-old was hauled from her vehicle and physically assaulted as horrified witnesses watched, according to newspaper El Universal. They described how she begged for her child to be left alone and then appeared to get into her abductors car willingly.
The little girl was left wailing as her mother was driven away on Monday November 12.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
naw, time to use the only solution ever found to work ~ start executing the users
I don’t think you know much about the PHARMA industry, do you. Or the abuse of pharma drugs?
And I agree with you that there will always be a market for highly dangerous and instantly addictive drugs. You can’t stop stupid.
Im more concerned with the 85%, or whatever, users could be steered away from crack or meth, if they had a safe supply from some authorized dealer.
The illegal dealers will always be problematic, no matter what they do. However, we can reduce then to a more manageable number, they would be easier to contain.
and most people IMO are in jail not because they have a little weed...they're there because of the lying, cheating, stealing, prostituting and striping they do to afford their drugs....
its a difficult problem and you can believe that its never going to just go away because again, IMO, too many Americans are making big bucks from the trade and looking "away"....
what if people suddenly became ethical and moral?...what if people turned to God?...all problems solved.
I really do not think there are people in jail for 2 oz possession of mj....also, you need to think about how mj has changed over the years....sure, regulating it would make it “safer”....except for those mixing up more POWERFUL concoctions which is what would happen. The police around here are NOT happy with the legalization of mj...they see it as a gateway drug....start in gradeschool and go from there...legalizing won’t stop stupid, either.
How much of your national debt can be attributed, in some way, to the war on drugs. It’s not working and people are killing themselves to use their drugs of choice.
No, killing people on sight for toking will not work either.
“Is it any wonder that nobody reads Time magazine anymore?”
I’m guessing there are enough doctor, lawyer, etc. offices to subscribe to bunches of magazines that the anti-American yellow journal CEOs don’t care.
With HusseinCare and more welfare office visitors, there will be even more sold.
Something about not doing something?
It's scary how sometimes you can forget the very words themselves isn't it?
My such a bave woman.
May God comfort and protect her family.
May she rest in peace.
May her assasins face God’s judgement soon. No one buys their way out of that.
“Have the big pharmaceutical companies produce legal drugs, and minimize the risk of them being instantly or strongly addictive.”
That’s a tricky proposition. For most drugs, the “high” produced, and the addictiveness of the drug are directly linked. I don’t think this is a chemical issue so much as it is a psychological issue, since you see the same phenomenon when the exact same drugs are delivered by methods of varying effectiveness. For example, snorting cocaine is less addictive than smoking cocaine, not because of any chemical difference in the drug, but just because smoking it delivers the drug more effectively to the brain, producing a more immediate and powerful high.
The consumers want the “high”, but if the “high” itself is addictive, regardless of what chemical produces it, then you won’t be able to design a drug that produces a “high” that isn’t addictive. You can produce a drug that is addictive but doesn’t produce much of a high, such as tobacco, or methadone, but it doesn’t work the other way around.
I imagine organized criminals were most affected by the repeal of prohibition. If we had not done so then, nearly 100 years later, the nation would be divided by alcohol cartels as violent as we see in Mexico today. Now, 40 years after Nixon launched the war on drugs, the new cartels are not on the losing side and the violence is spreading across the border. This isn’t an issue of morality. Certainly the Prohibitionists held the moral high ground. But at what cost to society?
Every now and then a saint walks among us.
I hope the Church considers her for sainthood
“and most people IMO are in jail not because they have a little weed...they’re there because of the lying, cheating, stealing, prostituting and striping they do to afford their drugs....”
Well, then the only people being punished by the drug possession laws are the otherwise law-abiding users. The rest of them would be in jail for those other crimes anyway, whether the drugs were legalized or not.
Drugs laws are really just one step above thoughtcrime. We’re not really punishing people for being destructive to society, just punishing them because we think they are doing something that will lead them to be destructive to society. Instead, we should just punish the people that actually are destructive, regardless of what we think caused them to do what they did. Let the sociologists worry about that stuff, not our legislators.
“NO...it will NOT end with legalization...certain segments will still be UNDERGROUND...and there will be OTHER drugs...”
That’s really an argument for, not against legalization. We didn’t have any “drug culture” or “underground” trying to find new novelty drugs to skirt drug laws until we started classifying and scheduling all the prohibited substances that the government couldn’t trust adult citizens with. As long as we have a list of prohibited substances, there will be an underground drug culture, and a constant stream of new drugs with unknown properties. The only way to get rid of those things is to get rid of the list that created them.
Really, your comment reads like you won’t be satisfied until there is no drug use in society. That’s an impossible scenario that will never happen in the real world, and conservatives don’t deal in utopian fantasies. People are always going to abuse drugs, and government will never be able to put a stop to it, even if we executed all the drug pushers AND the drug users. You might as well try to outlaw sex and see how that goes.
I agree with you that it is tricky. However, as it is, by having turned the production of drugs completely over to the cartels, there is no incentive for them to moderate their product so it is not as addictive. Who, except somebody completely lost to drugs would smoke paint thinner and turpentine, amongst the key ingredients for meth? The cartels are completely happy to turn out instant addictives like crank or crocodile.Crocodile, by the way is so damaging that users can literally watch their arm rot to bone, but users literally cannot stop.
If we did legalize, and regulate drugs, most users would also moderate their use because they would buy it from legal sellers. A few won’t, but the few are lost no matter what we do. We could handle the few hardcore drug users easier, if we weren’t so diffused trying to stop all drugs.
I don’t know, maybe you’re just trolling, but what’s your definition of “work”? I ask because, it seems to me, even if executing all the drug users managed to stamp out a drug problem, you’d just have an increase in other social problems as a result. People use drugs to escape from reality, and if they are afraid to use drugs because of the executions, they’ll escape from reality through other means. So, you’d just see more alcoholism, more prostitution, gambling, sexual abuse, domestic violence, etc.
Thinking that you can just “win” some war on drugs and declare a victory is looking at things very myopically. It’s like the psychologists who suppress the symptoms of psychological problem with drugs, and then declare the patient cured. If you don’t address the underlying issues that caused the symptoms, then those issues are probably just going to manifest in other ways.
What right does the US Congress have to make drugs illegal, short of a Constitutional Amendment? /rhetorical
Alright, I think I see what you are saying now. Not that they would produce some “safe”, non-addicting drugs, just that we could put some limits on the purity and the strength, to moderate the addictiveness and bad side effects.
We’d still always have a few people that would try to cook up stronger drugs, but we still have people that cook up moonshine so they can get something stronger than the 80 or 100 proof stuff that the state regulates. They’re a minority and they don’t cause a lot of problems. Most people would probably be happy with the 5% THC weed cigarettes or the “Meth Lite” they could buy at the 7-11.
When is the last time the US Congress worried about whether it had a right to do something or not? /rhetorical
That wouldn’t work anyway. All that would happen is, by increasing the risk, is raise the price of the product to account for the increased risk.
It would just increase the incentive for the cartels to research ways to increase the addictiveness of the crap that’s out there now.
If anybody thinks drugs like crank, crocodile, meth, and crack are the worst it can get, I’ve got news for you...