Border Security

[dbacks fan]

I have been thinking  about this, this evening, about events that have happened in the Phoenix area in the last few days, and feeling that the three stories are somehow related. The first new story involves a memo from Homeland Security that members of the Mexican drug cartel met in Rocky Point, Mexico (4 hours from Phoenix) in the spring to discuss sending assasins into Pinal County Arizona which is immediately south of Maricopa County, as a hit squad to take care of their rivals.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/articles/2010/10/15/20101015memo-warned-of-drug-cartels-assassins-arizona-border15-ON.html

We now have a Phoenix Police officer murdered with his own shot gun under strange circumstances including the facts that he 20 feet from his car, his handcuffs were out of their holder, and most important, the GPS tracking device in his cruiser was turned off.

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2010/10/20/20101020office-killed-shotgun-drenth.html

Now we have another story of an off duty DPS Officer found dead in a hotel room less than 48 hours after the death of a Phoenix PD Officer. It is being reported as an appearent suicide, pending further investigation.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/10/dps_officer_found_dead_at_scot.php

I guess that it is the cynic in me that thinks that these are related, and I will admit that I work with LEO day in and day out as a civilian, and having a friend who was a LEO murdered in January may make me overly sensitive, but I feel that this is just the begining. Just my feeling and my $.02

[Conan71]

And someone will cobble together the idea that opening the borders, creating amnesty, and lax drug laws would have prevented all this.

[nathanm]

And someone will cobble together the idea that opening the borders, creating amnesty, and lax drug laws would have prevented all this.

I'll assert that our drug laws are what makes it profitable for the cartels to operate, just like prohibition was an enormous boost to the Mob.

[Conan71]

I'll assert that our drug laws are what makes it profitable for the cartels to operate, just like prohibition was an enormous boost to the Mob.

And yet, the mob didn't go away after prohibition ended.

[Townsend]

And yet, the mob didn't go away after prohibition ended.

They were there before prohibition too.  I'm not siding one way or t'other.

He just commented on the boost it gave the mob.

[waterboy]

The potential rivals they referred to may have been on the Phoenix PD. With so much money at stake its unavoidable. They also would have been dangerous had they turned on their drug buddies. Drug mobsters don't give a flip about borders.

Nathan, think about the implications of relaxing drug enforcement efforts or liberalizing the laws. Its a slippery slope for sure. I can't imagine living in a society that turns its eyes away from such issues in the hopes that it will just go away. The result might be that Coca Cola makes the case that if cocaine is unregulated, or de-criminalized on the street, then why not put it back in their soft drink.

[nathanm]

Nathan, think about the implications of relaxing drug enforcement efforts or liberalizing the laws. Its a slippery slope for sure. I can't imagine living in a society that turns its eyes away from such issues in the hopes that it will just go away. The result might be that Coca Cola makes the case that if cocaine is unregulated, or de-criminalized on the street, then why not put it back in their soft drink.

I find it difficult to think about how we as a society double down on failed policies when things go off the rails, rather than trying to figure out a better path forward.

People are going to ruin their lives with drugs whether they are legal or not. How does funneling the all the money from addicts straight into the pockets of violent drug cartels really help anything? If somebody's got a better idea, I'd love to hear it, but until then, I'm going to be in support of legalizing it all, taxing it, and using the funds from the taxes to support treatment clinics.

[waterboy]

I'm not saying that we should redouble efforts on policies that have failed. However, to merely reverse course and drop all efforts to limit the spread of illegal, damaging drugs in order to reap taxes, control quality and establish new low ethic corporate entities while stimulating the employment of countless new workers in (mostly failing) rehab centers.......is not an answer I find responsible. That logic would spread to many different areas of crime. Pedophilia and sex slavery come to mind. Both illegal, reprehensible, unstoppable and funneling money into the pockets of violent groups. And yes, Coke would love to put a little of their magic ingredient back in if they could show the stockholders how much it would increase their stock value. With your logic, Coke would have no responsibility for that act cause people are just going to do it anyway.

We seem to be unable to sort through the facets of drug abuse and identify the players, then make a plan that addresses each of them instead of just one. There are multiple targets in the process. For instance it always amazes me how astounded we are that someone would steal a catalytic converter off the bottom of a car in plain sight of others. The solution offered is more security, park closer to the door etc., etc. Yet, no one seems to be astounded that a metals dealer bought these converters from some jake-leg off the street with no title, no working relationship, no corporate id, hell, likely no id at all AND then they pay him cash all the while protesting that they're just businessmen trying to make a living and have no responsibility in the process. Astounding indeed.

[nathanm]

The thing is that the drugs are less damaging than the law. The drug offenders are filling our prisons and the felony records involved end up creating a permanent underclass. It's a pretty big leap from legalizing a nonviolent action that people do to themselves to violent crime.

Legalization doesn't necessarily mean unfettered access. Besides, the caffeine in Coke is plenty addictive on its own.

[waterboy]

The devil is in the details. Those who have intimate knowledge of the damage that drugs effect vs the damage that the laws effect would find your remark less than accurate. If people were just casually getting a little loose like a good glass of Merlot after a tough day at work then yeah, drop the persecution. But it more often includes petty theft, pawn shops, stolen air conditioners, stolen cars, prostitution, hit and runs, std's, violent outbursts, and other cute little dependency issues. Judgement is just as impaired with legal as well as illegal cocaine. It is not just another small sin. Its not like that, it destroys families and decriminalizing and rehab centers won't change that.


Reducing the severity of the laws from felony to misdemeanor and expunging them after a period of sobriety would be a good idea. Providing publicly funded rehab centers is a good start. Providing jobs where the incredible skills a drug user acquires just to stay alive can be used is a good idea. Putting as much pressure on unscrupulous businessmen who buy or loan money on stolen metals, cars and other goods is a good idea. Understanding that even the worst of these offenders are human beings with potential.... who are our brothers, sisters, uncles, nephews, etc is a good idea. Building more prisons and creating that permanent underclass is not a good idea.

[Vashta Nerada]

U.S. Homeland Security Debunks Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's Claim of Cartel "Assassins" Runing Amok
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/10/homeland_security_spokesperson.php

We (and everyone else) got a news release earlier today from the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, whose boss, Paul Babeu (in the photo), is the man of the moment in the increasingly ugly debate over what to do with illegal immigrants.
​The dramatic release claimed that, back in May, the federal Department of Homeland Security (headed by former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano) informed several local law enforcement agencies in an e-mail that "assassins" from the Mexican drug cartels were "being sent to take out bandits in Vekol Valley."

Vekol Valley, readers may recall, is in a remote part of western Pinal County, and it is where Deputy Louie Puroll claimed to have been shot by drug smugglers last April 30. (We have written extensively about that shooting (see here and here), and currently are working on a follow-up story.)

The Homeland Security e-mail claimed that a "credible confidential source" had spoken of an alleged weekend meeting of competing cartel members in Rocky Point (Puerto Penasco), also in May.

During the clandestine meeting, the source said, it allegedly had been decided "that the cartel would send a group of fifteen, very well-equipped and armed sicarios [killers] complete with bulletproof vests, into the Vekol Valley...[The cartel] will then send groups of simulated backpackers carrying empty boxes covered with burlap into the Vekol Valley to draw out the bandits.

"Once the bandits have been identified, the sicarios will take out the bandits."

Sheriff Babeu confirmed the existence of the Homeland Security e-mail in this morning's press release after Channel 5 in Phoenix broke the story, saying "this information [the meeting of the Mexican bad guys] came from Janet Napolitano's office. She knows exactly what the citizens of Arizona are faced with, yet she continues to publicly state how much safer we all are."

Ouch!

But wait a tic, as super-spy Austin Powers used to say.

Matthew Chandler, a Washington D.C.-based spokesman for Homeland Security, responded to the blustery sheriff a few hours ago with his own e-mail.

"This particular information proved to be inaccurate," Chandler wrote.

"At this time, DHS does not have any specific, credible information on intra-cartel violence taking place in Arizona. Over the past 20 months, this administration has dedicated unprecedented manpower, technology and infrastructure to the Southwest border.

"In addition to remaining in close contact with law enforcement on the ground, over the past several months we have added personnel and assets to Arizona to assist other federal, state and local partners to keep our communities safe."

In other words, pancakes are you local yokels yapping about?

Not to be outdone, Sheriff Babeu's public information officer, Tim Gaffney, immediately fired back at Chandler, "Can you please explain to me how the Department of Homeland Security can say that the information was 'proved to be inaccurate?'

"The intelligence information disseminated by your office was correct regarding the Deputy Puroll shooting, and four weeks later we had two illegal immigrants murdered in this same area described in the e-mail where they said it would take place. One of the illegal immigrants was armed with an assault rifle. Now during the past several weeks `spotters' have been located [in] several different caves which is also referenced in the e-mail. How with three confirming facts can you say that it was `proved to be inaccurate?'"

Anyway, that's where things sit right now -- in the land of jibber and jabber.

Oh, and yes... We still are scratching our heads about what happened to those smugglers and all their dope in the Louie Puroll case.

[nathanm]

The devil is in the details. Those who have intimate knowledge of the damage that drugs effect vs the damage that the laws effect would find your remark less than accurate. If people were just casually getting a little loose like a good glass of Merlot after a tough day at work then yeah, drop the persecution. But it more often includes petty theft, pawn shops, stolen air conditioners, stolen cars, prostitution, hit and runs, std's, violent outbursts, and other cute little dependency issues. Judgement is just as impaired with legal as well as illegal cocaine. It is not just another small sin. Its not like that, it destroys families and decriminalizing and rehab centers won't change that.


Reducing the severity of the laws from felony to misdemeanor and expunging them after a period of sobriety would be a good idea. Providing publicly funded rehab centers is a good start. Providing jobs where the incredible skills a drug user acquires just to stay alive can be used is a good idea. Putting as much pressure on unscrupulous businessmen who buy or loan money on stolen metals, cars and other goods is a good idea. Understanding that even the worst of these offenders are human beings with potential.... who are our brothers, sisters, uncles, nephews, etc is a good idea. Building more prisons and creating that permanent underclass is not a good idea.

Many of the detrimental effects of drugs happen precisely because of its illegality. People steal to support their habit because it's expensive. They can't support their habit because they lost their job for failing a drug test rather than performance issues at work. Ironically enough, the largest class of drugs of abuse other than marijuana these days is prescription painkillers. 3.6% of the US population uses illegal drugs other than marijuana, while 4.6% use prescription painkillers nonmedically. The marijuana use rate is 6% while alcohol's is about 51%. 26% of the US population binge drinks. About 7.5% of the US population is dependent on or abuses alcohol. Like alcohol abuse, drug abuse is most prevalent among 18-25 year olds and drops off sharply after that point. The point of all that is that I'm wondering why it is that drugs are so bad that they should be illegal but alcohol isn't?

I also disagree with the premise that most drug users are in fact of the sort who have destroyed their life with them. The amount of money involved in the drug trade is a pretty strong indication that there's a large number of people either casually using drugs or otherwise somehow remaining a functional member of society while taking large amounts.

I'm most concerned with reducing our ridiculous criminal justice expense. However we attack that is fine by me. I just fail to see how it can be accomplished without legalization and taxation. It'll be interesting to see what happens in California if they legalize marijuana. Presuming the federal government doesn't throw a wrench in the experiment, anyway.

[waterboy]

And you think corporations who buy up the rights to manufacture and market illegal drugs are going to sell it cheaper than locals? Add up those percentages. Its staggering really. By the time you add up prescription painkillers, non prescription pain killers, marijuana, alcohol, heroin, coke, meth and whatever else you can smoke, drink or rub on your belly you're talking one screwed up country. Walk into the Walgreens at midtown and probably half the customers are "altered" in some way. I don't even want to think about who is driving the truck next to me. And you think legalizing and taxing their habits will be an improvement. I just don't. Seems like this is a repeat of the arguments for approving the lottery and casino gambling. Both were to be huge additions to our tax revenues, teacher funding, road construction. Yeah, well....

You can disagree in theory that most drug users have not destroyed their lives or the ones around them. Reality is that most people try to keep a low profile while covering for their children, spouses and friends. Their families suffer greatly while their wealth is transferred to drug dealers, the legal system and pawn shops. The drug users health declines slowly but surely putting increased pressure on the health system. And I would argue that casual users are fooling themselves (and you) if they think their contribution to society and their jobs is not negatively affected. Functional? Yeah, they can drive a car but I don't want a pot head, a tweaker or a drunk flying my plane even slightly altered. Or making my food.  Or working next to me. But they do. Our quality of life has diminished because of the influx of cheap, effective drugs embraced by a shallow, money driven society. Legalizing and taxing them only changes the ownership from entrepreneurs to banking class.

I can see changes that I have described having a much better outcome than what California is doing.

[nathanm]

I seriously doubt that the tax revenues from legalizing drugs would be a major boon in any way other than reducing our expenditures on criminal enforcement. I think it would be about enough to pay for the needed treatment programs and cost of regulation, a little more if we're lucky. We'd gain an awful lot from reducing the number of people we jail and put through the legal system, and hopefully be able to redirect police efforts toward violent crime.

If you'd like data, here's a list of all the drugs the government tracks: http://oas.samhsa.gov/drugs.cfm

You can follow the links and get data about prevalence. Maybe I'm being pollyannish, but I just don't see there being a massive uptick in use following legalization, except perhaps for marijuana. Young people are already trying all kinds of stuff. Most don't stick with it beyond age 25, even if they do become regular users.

[dbacks fan]

Well, Jan Brewer has her first beheading, and it wasn't in the desert, it was in a suburb. The perpatrators came in through California and exacted revenge for possibly stealing money or drugs, but committed the crime and were able to flee to Mexico after the fact. It's not know if they are cartel members, the results are still pending the investigation.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/10/29/20101029chandler-beheading-case-1030.html