Connect to share and comment
More than 40 people were killed across Mexico at the weekend as violence linked to the country's drug war intensifies.
GUADALAJARA, Mexico – More than 40 people were killed across Mexico at the weekend, including 12 in the famous Pacific resort city of Acapulco.
According to the Spanish news agency EFE, 10 men and two women were shot dead in the seaside city, which has seen an escalation in drug-related violence in recent years.
Authorities have responded to the wave of deadly incidents by launching a security operation in tourist areas in the city, EFE reported.
Acapulco has been losing tourists to other parts of the country as Mexican and foreign holiday makers seek out safer destinations.
Mexican newspaper El Universal reported that six people were killed in three separate incidents in Torreon, a city in the northern state of Coahuila, where the Zetas and Sinaloa drug gangs have been fighting a deadly turf war.
In the western state of Michoacan, the bodies of two photographers were found in the trunk of a car on Sunday afternoon.
The victims, Jose Antonio Aguilar Mota, 26, and Arturo Barajas, 46, appeared to have been tortured, Proceso magazine reported, joining a growing list of Mexican journalists murdered by drug cartels.
After several weeks of relative calm following the July 1 presidential election, Mexico has seen a wave of deadly violence in the past two weeks.
More than 55,000 people have died in drug-related violence in the past six years.
More from GlobalPost: Wal-Mart: Mexico unit faces probe for alleged tax evasion, money laundering
The war on (some) drugs fuels violence because the “WAR” on drugs IS violence. It’s the policy of sending men with guns to arrest the sellers of certain drugs and their customers and lock them in government cages. All of the other violence that surrounds the (non-alcohol, non-tobacco) drug trade is fundamentally a REACTION to that initial state-sponsored violence. Prohibition renders contracts unenforceable and makes it impossible for competitors to use the courts or the police to challenge intimidation or settle disputes. There are plenty of legal businesses that might love to “kill the competition,” but that only becomes a viable strategy under the black market conditions that prohibition creates. (Note that nobody from Coke or Pepsi has their decapitated corpse hung from a bridge as a result of the so-called “Cola Wars.”) Prohibition also raises the prices of illicit drugs and hence their profitability. (Econ 101: risk demands compensation.) This only increases sellers’ incentives to do “whatever it takes” to capture market share. Today you don’t see rival beer distributors engaging in deadly shoot-outs over turf, but you USED TO — during alcohol prohibition. Run a Google image search for “U.S. homicide rate graph” (not all together in quotes). Take a look at the murder rate before, after, and during alcohol prohibition (1919-1933). Then read some current news out of Mexico (pretty much any news will do). Spot a pattern? The use of state violence to address what is really a medical and health issue (as well as a matter of personal choice) has been a disaster. And it needs to stop.
U.S. federal marijuana prohibition kills another 40 people with no end to the carnage in sight. Have YOU told your legislators that you oppose their failed and deadly prohibition?
Do you hate the idea of corrupt public officials and the whole criminal fraternity laughing their way to the money launderer? Then fortunately for you there is 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. You are entitled to act according to your conscience: Acquit the defendant/s if you feel that true justice requires such a result. 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 on your position when voting. Simply state that 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. “It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” —John Adams We must create what we can no longer afford to wait for: PLEASE VOTE TO ACQUIT!