1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
  1. Balzafire
    Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, wants Mexican drug-smuggling organizations designated as terrorists.

    A bill he has proposed would help authorities go after cartels and those who assist them, he said during a May 11 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

    "Federal law defines terrorism as activity that is intended to intimidate a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping," McCaul said during the hearing. "In my judgment, the drug cartels fall squarely within this definition."

    One factor behind the push is the violent turf battles in Mexico between drug-smuggling organizations, which killed more than 34,500 people from December 2006 to December 2010, says the Trans Border Institute at the University of San Diego.

    The highly publicized death of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata in Mexico in February escalated concerns even more. Zapata was killed when gunmen attacked a vehicle he was in with another agent in the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi.

    Classifying Mexican organized-crime groups as terrorist organization would be ill-advised because they are "clearly illicit business enterprises that lack any political motivation other than profit," said David Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute.

    Given the chaotic and unpredictable violent conflict in Mexico, the cartels are a real and present danger to the United States, Shirk testified in late March before a House Committee on Homeland Security. But designating them as terrorists could present a serious problem to U.S. foreign policy.

    "The concept of terrorism will be so expansive we could apply the same label to virtually any group of illicit actors that coerce through scare tactics and intimidation: human traffickers, kidnappers, U.S. gangs, and maybe even FIFA," Shirk wrote in an email. FIFA, world soccer's governing body, is embroiled in a bribery and corruption scandal.

    But McCaul says the cartels are a growing national-security threat to both the U.S. and Mexico. His bill, which has been referred to committee, would give cartels reason to be afraid, he said.

    "In my view, Mexico is losing this war and so are we," he said on May 11. "The cartels do not fear U.S. law enforcement."

    Arizona Daily Star
    June 7, 2011


  1. trdofbeingtrd
    What the fuck? The first thing that stands out to me out of all of it, is that they are saying that these people who cause all the deaths on the boarder (cartels) are NOT terrorists? The same people who control an entire government with fear. How afraid is this country? Jeeze, this is freaking insane. What, they don't want to hurt feelings?

    So basically, instead of these genius politicians calling it like it is to combat this problem, Americans have to lose MORE rights?

    Honestly, I can't be the only one seeing the rights disappearing one by one like lemmings dropping off a cliff. What rights? Is that what someone is asking? The right to not have bullshit laws because people want to be kiss ass to a bunch of criminals.

    Maybe I am reading this wrong, I got some personal shit happening, and am starting to slowly lose it.........I even bought a benzedrex inhaler today because I am starting to get weak........sorry, didn't mean to go off into never never land like these law makers.
  2. Logitech
    During the cold war days there were two boogeymen: communist and socialist, now there's terrorist. It appears that they're attempting to create another vague term to describe anything disliked. If you're muslim you're a terrorist, if you question TSA's work you're a terrorist, if you support Wikileaks you're a terrorist, if you bring a razor blade or toy soldier on a plane you're a terrorist, if you film or photograph a police officer at work you're a terrorist (OK, that's UK; in the US you'll be punished under wiretapping laws), if you buy drugs you're financing terrorists and so on.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!