Fast and Furious High-Powered Assault Weapons Were Seized at Drug Cartel Enforcer’s Home


This arsenal uncovered by police in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, in April turned out to include weapons from the ATF’s ill-fated Fast and Furious operation. (La Policiaca)

Mexiacan authorities seized 24 AK-47 rifles, two rifles, Barrett 50-caliber antiaircraft machine gun Brawning caliber 30 caliber rifle sniper 308 for a 40 mm caliber grenade launcher and three 308 mm caliber guns at the location.

High-powered assault weapons were found at a drug cartel enforcer’s home in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico in April.
The LA Times reported:

High-powered assault weapons illegally purchased under the ATF’s Fast and Furious program in Phoenix ended up in a home belonging to the purported top Sinaloa cartel enforcer in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, whose organization was terrorizing that city with the worst violence in the Mexican drug wars.

In all, 100 assault weapons acquired under Fast and Furious were transported 350 miles from Phoenix to El Paso, making that West Texas city a central hub for gun traffickers. Forty of the weapons made it across the border and into the arsenal of Jose Antonio Torres Marrufo, a feared cartel leader in Ciudad Juarez, according to federal court records and trace documents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The smugglers’ tactics — quickly moving the weapons far from ATF agents in southern Arizona, where it had been assumed they would circulate — vividly demonstrate that what had been viewed as a local problem was much larger. Six other Fast and Furious guns destined for El Paso were recovered in Columbus, N.M.

“These Fast and Furious guns were going to Sinaloans, and they are killing everyone down there,” said one knowledgeable U.S. government source, who asked for anonymity because of the ongoing investigations. “But that’s only how many we know came through Texas. Hundreds more had to get through.”

Torres Marrufo, also known as “the Jaguar,” has been identified by U.S. authorities as the enforcer for Sinaloa cartel chieftain Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman. The Fast and Furious weapons were found at one of Torres Marrufo’s homes.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • Sickofobama

    Nothing to see here folks.

    Holder misunderstood.

    It’s Bush’ fault.

  • JenBee

    Oh yeah, screw Solyndra, I think THIS is the scandal that will bring down the Obama administration… as it should. I think once the meme “Why doesn’t the media care about 100 dead Mexicans?” really gains traction, Teh One is finished. How could he possibly win the Latino vote with that dragging on him?

  • Robert

    Time for the Texas Rangers to join with the Arizona Sheriffs
    in working against the criminals in the federal government.

  • Enough Is Enough

    Is anyone really surprised?

    http://www.commieblaster.com/

  • bobdog

    “Mexiacan authorities seized 24 AK-47 rifles, two rifles, Barrett 50-caliber antiaircraft machine gun Brawning caliber 30 caliber rifle sniper 308 for a 40 mm caliber grenade launcher and three 308 mm caliber guns at the location.”

    I wrote a paragraph like that once, Jim. But I quit drinking. ;o)

    More to the point, this just documents what anyone who’s been paying attention to this taxpayer funded, government sponsored clusterfu** already intuitively knows. I’m shocked – SHOCKED! – to hear that these weapons have found their way to Mexiacan criminals.

  • Militant Conservative

    I see a pod mounted maw duece and two .50 cal sniper rifles. Lots of AK 47’s and a few

    AR-15’s. Lots of magazines for the lot. Not a bad collection but really not much ammo.

    In the bad guys hands this is a nasty situation. Holder is going down.

    No statue of limitations on murder or accessory to murder. American citizens died

    due to Holder and possibly Obama/Hillary.

    powder is dry

  • Multitude

    There is a remarkably important but so far, unspoken perspective to this story:

    Barack Obama prides himself on being a radical anti-colonialist. He finds no rationale that justifies British, Dutch and American imperial colonization that his father and other mentors taught him of growing up. This is as close to a core of identity that we find in Obama. This hatred of imperial hegemony is what has driven him his whole life and forced the associations with the Leninist Progressives, the Communists, Marxists, etc.

    Yet Fast and Furious is hard proof that Obama is himself a “inferior brown killing imperialist” when it comes to a need to attain political gain. We know for certain that the evidence currently confirms that Obama has full knowledge now, yet has done absolutely nothing to stop this killing of “lesser brown people” in Mexico. He has not removed his AG but protected him. He has authorized the coverup by refusing to demand otherwise. Regardless of whether he directed this action in order to facilitate his attack on white Americans that own guns, he has allowed through inaction the people of the South to be killed for his political gains.

    Obama is an imperialist. Any set of anti-colonialist principals he once had have been cashed in for power. He’s already undergone the same transformation we find in Lenin and Mao. Power has already corrupted.

    That this man has done absolutely nothing with the blood of hundreds on his hands, that he’s personally executing American citizens through unconstitutional drone strikes, is sufficient evidence he’ll gladly embrace genocide in this country in order to sustain and grow power. Any Occupy Wall Street protester who supports this President is guilty themselves of crimes against the people.

  • Francis

    “Why doesn’t the media care about 100 dead Mexicans?”

    Why don’t the supporters of modern-day prohibition care about the 40,000-plus Mexicans who have died since 2006 as a direct result of the war on drugs? There’s simply no disputing the fact that the reason the (non-alcohol, non-tobacco) drug trade is so violent is because of prohibition. When you send armed agents of the state to confiscate sellers’ profits and lock them in cages you are introducing violence. You also render contracts unenforceable and make it impossible for competitors to use the courts or police to challenge intimidation or settle disputes. You make the drug trade extremely profitable (Econ 101: risk demands compensation), providing violent criminal gangs with billions in (tax-free!) profits. And you ensure that the gangs that rise to the top of the illicit drug trade and become the most powerful will be absolutely ruthless. (Ruthlessness provides a competitive advantage under the black market conditions you’ve created.)

    And by the way, I’m not a liberal. I’m a conservative-leaning libertarian. I oppose 99% of Obama’s policies. I didn’t vote for him in ’08, and I won’t be voting for him in ’12. I also think that Fast and Furious is a potentially impeachment-worthy scandal. But I think that Obama’s support for the war on drugs is also a scandal, and one that’s done infinitely more damage.

  • FU#K OBAMA

    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall….

  • Robert

    From the article:

    Weekly reports from U.S. intelligence authorities to the Justice Department in the summer of 2010, at the height of Fast and Furious, warned about the proliferation of guns reaching the Sinaloa cartel.”

    This HAD to have been discussed at the highest levels. There is no way any lower personnel would take this risk on themselves without approval.

  • #1AMERICAN

    how abouth we fast and furiously put holder/hillary/and odumbass in jail

  • chuck in st paul

    Hey! I recognize that .30 Cal. BMG. I bought one just like it at the local gun show. They were on sale… as long as you could attest that you were taking them out of the country. [/sarc]

  • jorgen

    Torres “the Jaguar” Marrufo and Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman are apparently a light-colored version of “Holder’s people”.

  • big L

    does FnF fall into the area of “…preserve,protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”?
    If a high govt official, like a cabinet-officer gets charged with 2nd degree murder or accessory to murder in a state court, would that be considered also a charge of High crimes and mis-demeanors? And even if the charge is thrown out, or is unenforceable for several years, can a govt stand with several of the high officals charged with a capital crime?
    Are their powerful old donks left that will go to these people and tell them to resign?

  • Pingback: More On Fast And Furious, Gun Walker, And All The People The White House Killed « Tai-Chi Policy()

  • eric holders

    i count about 87 gunz.

  • Whistleblower

    They picked Chicago as their headquarters for a reason. Go back to Illinois for answers.
    U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has been protecting all of them ! See for yourself.

    http://illinoispaytoplay.com/

  • torres ‘the jaguar” marrufo, jaoquin “chapo” guzman the kind of people the american politican wants to colonize america with.

    #7 if obama is such an anti-colonialist why is he and all liberals in favor of the colonization of the united states that the politicans have been doing since 1980.

  • JenBee

    Francis, some will think us crazy, but I agree. The potential good for legalizing at least marijuana far outweighs the bad of continuing to keep it illegal — think of all the tax money the government could collect off the legal sale of drugs; serious drug abusers would be able to be identified and could be coerced into treatment in order to continue to be able to buy their drugs legally; and the best part would be the rendering impotent of drug cartels and gangs. However, when you consider what a huge industry the war on drugs has built, you realize there’s no way the government would ever consider legalizing any drug… think of the prison industry, building new and high-tech prisons; the unions for the guards would lose their collective mind at the prospect of losing their jobs; the huge, bloated judiciary needed to try and sentence drug dealers and users; etc. It’ll never happen.

  • Ivan

    Erica must be crappin his pants right about now. Oh wait, it was Bush’s fault.

  • zomg

    stand down, this wasn’t that scary.. there were no ‘shoulder things that go up’ found, and everyone know thats where the real terror can be found!

  • Out of the Phoenix office. This is the reason Obama pushed boycotts, street agitation, and Justice Department lawsuits against Arizona for SB1070. They did NOT want state and local Arizona police and sheriffs’ offices having enhanced opportunities to discover these guns during arrests for other activities.

    .50 caliber!!! Thanks to this adminstration, our law enforcement is now facing criminals with THAT sort of weaponry? That’s COMBAT, full warfare grade. If people don’t protect our law enforcement officers by bringing the guilty to correct justice, then we will be seeing mass resignations of good people – exactly something a power-hungry regime would want.

    This has all sorts of horrible and long-lasting corrosive repercussions.

  • Francis

    Thanks JenBee. I frankly don’t understand how some people who call them conservatives can continue to support the drug war. Exactly which aspects of the war on drugs are compatible with “limited government, “individual liberty,” “respecting the 10th Amendment,” and “ending hugely expensive government programs with a proven track record of failure”? As far as the 10th Amendment goes, if you think that the commerce clause is bogus as a justification for Obamacare (and you should), you should have a real problem with the war on drugs when it’s conducted at the federal level.

    It’s pretty clear that much of the “conservative” support for the war on drugs stems from this asinine “Red Team” mentality that views opposition to the drug war as the “liberal” position. (Therefore, it must be reflexively opposed.) Guess what, it’s not. The war on drugs has been a bipartisan disaster. Then there’s the stupid “culture war” aspect. “But only hippie leftists like marijuana.” Um… pretty much EVERYONE likes marijuana. And even if it’s enjoyed disproportionately by “leftists” or “liberals,” that’s not a particularly principled reason for criminalizing it. Unless you want to start locking people up for unlawful hacky sack possession?

  • High time for Obamski and Holder to be drug off in handcuffs and fed their peas.

  • Pingback: Fast & Furious High Powered Assault Weapons Found in Mexico Drug Cartel Enforcer’s Home | Scared Monkeys()

  • xkaydet65

    If they found a 40mm grenade launcher that didn’t come from Ernies Guns to Go in Tuscon. Those weapons are military issue. Either they’re coming from black market weapon dealers in Eastern Europe or Asia, or someone’s getting access to military or nat’l guard stocks. Maybe we should crosscheck post visitor logs with the ATF personnel roster.

  • lizzy84

    No way Fast and Furious is going away. It’s oBama’s and Holder’s ‘working on it under the radar’ gun control op and spells the beginning of the end for this corrupt/to/the/core administration. Apparently, Issa is issuing new subpoenas in its investigation of F/F this week:

    link@:http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/186381-issa-holder-qdisingenousq-on-gun-program

    It’s a matter of time now. Holder is going down.

  • lizzy84

    PS. Yo, oBama, Clinton & Napolitano. You can run but you can’t hide either!

  • Pingback: Fast and Furious High-Powered Assault Weapons Were Seized at Drug Cartel Enforcer’s Home | Liberal Whoppers()

  • Ladue Pundit

    Why don’t the supporters of modern-day prohibition care about the 40,000-plus Mexicans who have died since 2006 as a direct result of the war on drugs?
    ^^^^^^
    Who says we don’t? The reason people are dead is they used force to illegally enter a sovreign nation and promote an illegal enterprise, and were met with greater force, i.e., U.S. marshals.

    How has legalizing pot worked out for the airhead undustry? It’s a taxable revenue industry that produces a neagtive result, and now more state and federal agents are required to police it. This all began for terminal patients, remember? Instead of raising tax revenue, states like CA are losing it.

    Pot IS legal north of the border in many places, but:

    a) we aren’t talking about just marijuana, but heroin and other hard drugs
    b) legalizing drugs north of the border would intensify cartel competition and tax evasion on both sides

    Francis, you and JenBee must both be puffing this stuff. The main problem in Mexico is lawlessness, and you both seem to want more of it. More drugs, more human trafficking, more murder–let’s make these things legal and see if the problem goes away. FYI- it won’t.

  • Just Axin’

    JenBee commented:
    Francis, some will think us crazy, but I agree.

    Francis commented:
    Um.. pretty much EVERYONE likes marijuana.
    ——————————————————————————–
    Well, we can see two good reasons for keeping dope illegal. Aren’t you two supposed to be occupying something?

  • Robert

    Please do not respond about legalization,
    as this allows the thread to be hijacked,
    taking attention away from the issues
    raised by the Fast and Furious scandal.

  • Francis

    “a) we aren’t talking about just marijuana, but heroin and other hard drugs”

    Who’s “we”? I happen to favor the legalization (i.e. taxation and regulation) of so-called “hard drugs.” (I don’t believe it’s the state’s job in a free society to decide what adult citizens put into their own bodies.) But legalizing marijuana alone would certainly be an improvement over the status quo since it’s BY FAR the most popular illicit drug. And right now it’s the only drug for which legalization is politically feasible. Marijuana is also infinitely safer and has far fewer negative societal consequences than alcohol. Unlike alcohol, it’s non-toxic (zero overdose risk), not associated with increased mortality (alcohol is the third-leading preventable cause of death), not physically addictive (in contrast, you can be so addicted to alcohol that you will literally die from withdrawal), and it doesn’t promote violence (something like half of all violent crimes and 70% of domestic abuse cases involve alcohol).

    “b) legalizing drugs north of the border would intensify cartel competition and tax evasion on both sides”

    Sorry, this makes no sense to me. You think Americans are going to get their marijuana from the cartels in a legal market? Do you currently buy your alcohol or tobacco (or your produce for that matter) from the cartels? Legalizing pot won’t eliminate organized crime, but it will take away one of the primary sources of their power, the illicit black market profits that they currently earn. As far as tax evasion? I suppose some level of that goes on in any industry, but who do you think pays a greater percentage of their taxes? The cartels now or Anheuser-Busch?

    “Francis, you and JenBee must both be puffing this stuff.”

    Nice ad hominem. And clever too.

    “The main problem in Mexico is lawlessness, and you both seem to want more of it.”

    Um… no I want less. Take a look at the U.S. homicide rate before, during, and after alcohol prohibition. I’ve explained how making drugs illegal creates structural incentives that lead to violence. You haven’t rebutted that argument.

    “more murder–let’s make these things legal and see if the problem goes away.”

    Seriously? The sarcastic “let’s legalize murder too” response? Can you really not differentiate between an act of violence and a consensual transaction?

  • Francis

    Following up on the historical example of alcohol prohibition…

    “Roughly speaking, therefore, there have been two periods with high homicide rates in U.S. history, the 1920-1934 period and the 1970-1990 period (Friedman 1991). Both before the first episode and between these two episodes, homicide rates were relatively low or clearly declining. Prima facie, this pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that alcohol prohibition increased violent crime: homicide rates are high in the 1920-1933 period, when constitutional prohibition of alcohol was in effect; the homicide rate drops quickly after 1933, when Prohibition was repealed; and the homicide rate remains low for a substantial period thereafter. Further, the homicide rate is low during the 1950s and early 1960s, when drug prohibition was in existence but not vigorously enforced, but high in the 1970-1990 period, when drug prohibition was enforced to a relatively stringent degree (Miron 1999).”

    If you haven’t watched the Ken Burns’ PROHIBITION documentary, I would strongly suggest that you check it out. While it never mentions the current war on drugs, it’s nevertheless one of the most devastating indictments of current drug policy I’ve ever seen.

  • Francis

    @Robert:“Please do not respond about legalization,
    as this allows the thread to be hijacked,
    taking attention away from the issues
    raised by the Fast and Furious scandal.”

    I’d say one of the issues raised by the Fast and Furious scandal was our government’s empowerment of vicious thugs. That’s the same result accomplished by our current drug policies.

    @Just Axin:“Well, we can see two good reasons for keeping dope illegal. Aren’t you two supposed to be occupying something?”

    Buddy, we probably agree on 95% of our politics. See my previous comments above. Is the hostility really necessary?

  • Capitolist

    Robert, are you the moderator?

    The topic of this thread is F&F, but there would be no F&F if illegal drugs, weapons, or U.S. entry were not happening. Making these things legal as #30 points out won’t stop it.

    Obama went to Mexico and blamed gun running on HIS country. His AG allowed this and LIED UNDER OATH about it.

    People who think this was caused by the U.S. drug policy (Frankie & Jenbee) on this thread will be called out for being the pothead dupes they said they were. If you don’t like it, set up your own website and delete the comments you don’t like.

  • Francis

    “Making these things legal as #30 points out won’t stop it.”

    Er… “points out” seems a little strong. He claimed that making drugs illegal wouldn’t reduce the violence, but he didn’t seem very interested in supporting that claim. Maybe you’d like to have a go?

    “pothead dupes”

    Again with the ad hominem? You realize that’s not actually a substitute for rebuttal, right? I mean, I never called you a “boozehead,” did I?

  • Francis

    *making drugs legal wouldn’t reduce the violence

  • lizzy84

    Thank you to Bob Owens for the invaluable work he has been doing on the Fast/Furious op.
    *pajamasmedia Gunwalker: Punch-Drunk Eric Holder Swings Back at Critics, Hits Self:

    link@:http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-punch-drunk-eric-holder-swings-back-at- critics-hits-self/

    God bless Issa..and keep him safe.

  • Molon Labe

    #8

    God not another druggie claiming to be a conservative. These cretins think they can peddle their snake oil regardless of how drugged out they are. I actually support an end to drug prohibitions. In five years you’d clean out the gene pools and get rid of the druggies.

    I’d like to hear one reason that drug use has benefited cociety? Just one. Francis shouldn’t have his means of making a living threatened. If such a war continues he might have to return to his old trade as a pimp.

  • Molon Labe

    #35

    Wow another cretin cites TV as his source for his bold assertions. I am waiting for the Daily Show quote. Violence increased during prohibition? What a frigging joke. Let’s hear it for lax enforcement in the 50s, I mean thats why the country was overwhelmed with drug addicts and school yard drug sales. Strangely as drug usage increased so did violence. But lets not connect the dots, lets not use logic, we should rather cite Ken Burns, the same tool who gave us the Civil War, with its Howard Zinn view of the causes and results of this conflict.

    Francis are you a basket weaving major or was that too complicated for you.

  • aprilnovember811

    This makes me sick to my stomach. I actually had to take a day off from reading what this criminal regime is doing. I just can’t take anymore of him being allowed to just continue where he is. How are we supposed to feel good about a Congress and other law enforcement who continue to allow this? I don’t know if I’ll ever trust the United States Government again after this.

  • Francis

    #40

    I never claimed to be a “conservative.” I claimed (truthfully) that I consider myself a “conservative-leaning libertarian.” Pot legalization is obviously one of the issues where I depart from the “Official Conservative Position.” (Of course, given the fact that conservative icon William F. Buckley shared my position, I hardly think it can be considered disqualifying.) Also “cretin” and “druggie”? You guys really are big on ad hominem, aren’t you? As far as my “druggie” credentials, the only illicit substance I’ve ever consumed is cannabis. I don’t currently use cannabis, and I’d put my lifetime consumption at well under an ounce. I also enjoy the occasional beer or glass of wine. I tried a cigar once. It wasn’t an experience I’d care to repeat. (Of course, none of this is any of your business.) As far as your request for how drugs have benefited “cociety”? Well, first of all, I don’t think that’s the test for whether or not the government should ban something. But recreational drugs (including alcohol) obviously have benefits (including, surprise, “recreation”). The fact that individuals choose to consume a particular drug suggests that they think the benefits outweigh the risks. No doubt they are sometimes mistaken. But the question is who decides? The individual or the state?

  • Molon Labe

    Francis:

    Of course you aren’t a druggie, if you weren’t you wouldn’t ramble all over the place delivering caterwauling crescendos citing moronic positions. Buckley supported drug legalization, well Ganhdi supported the Nazis position? You couldn’t answer a simple question, how does sociewty benefit.

    To demonstrate both your education and your hive mind mentality we are informed that how does society benefit itsn’t a test to determine if government should act on an issue. If one cannot understand this basic concept than there is little point in addressing an individual who cannot grasp even the simplest logical point.

    To demonstrate the asuridity of your position one need simply pose the question you have should the individual or society decide? Hmm the next time one flies on an aircraft ask yourself whether the piloyt should drink himself drunk or not/

    You are an excellent example of the difference between the opinated and the derranged.

  • Molon Labe

    Well Obama can take credit for making the US weapons supplier to drug lords. Obama, right for drug lords, right for leemings.

  • Francis

    #44

    I’d say I answered the question pretty well. Look, even if you’re right and we concluded that “drugs are bad” and that a hypothetical world without drugs would be better, it doesn’t logically follow that criminalizing drugs is the optimal policy response. In this case, the attempted cure does far more harm than the disease. And should a commercial pilot “drink himself drunk” before flying? Um… no. I’m pretty sure that’s currently illegal. (Also, the standard rhetorical question is to ask about “high” pilots. You sort of shot yourself in the foot there.) We criminalize driving (and flying) while intoxicated because it endangers third parties. Also, for future reference, if you don’t want to come across as “rambl[ing] all over the place delivering caterwauling crescendos citing moronic positions,” you might want to consider running a quick spell check, e.g.:

    “sociewty” –> “society”
    “itsn’t” –> “isn’t”
    “asuridity”–> “absurdity”
    “piloyt” –> “pilot”
    “opinated” –> “opinionated”
    “derranged” –> “deranged”
    “leemings” –> “lemmings”

  • Molon Labe

    Does this cess pool have a bottom? You’ve answered in a fashion one expects from Baghdad Bob. But if you’ve pleased yourself with a nonsensical answer who am I to deny your satisfaction with a substandard response. Its obvious that you are suffering from a moral dyslexia compounded by a dunbious set of values.

    When asked should the individual be allowed to judge whether a pilot should be drunk when flying rather than society, the best you can respond is that this is illegal?

    I loved your standrad “high” question demonstrating that you are either on drugs (obvious) or stupid (again obvious to the casual observer.)

    Nice response too bad it doesn’t answer the question, but its apparent that you are incapable of justifying your limitless hypocrisy. Ooooh I realize I have sinned by not depending on a spell check. If only you could employ such a device where reason and judgement are required.

    So in the morning I can resort to your recommendation while you shall remain bereft of morals, judgement, a reason.

    Putrid and puerile best sum up your philosophy, but I repeat myself.

  • What did the President know, and when did he know it?

  • Molon Labe

    Obama knew from the strat in his effort to subvert the 2nd Amendment, “under the radar.” Impeach the Kenyan-Indonesian half caste druggie now.

  • Robert
  • Francis

    “When asked should the individual be allowed to judge whether a pilot should be drunk when flying rather than society, the best you can respond is that this is illegal?”

    Er… no, I specifically said that “[w]e criminalize driving (and flying) while intoxicated because it endangers third parties.” In other words, it’s not a victimless crime. Pretty clearly I support such laws. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn’t support them. But the fact that we make driving while intoxicated illegal does not support making alcohol (or any other drug) illegal. You’d also be fairly hard-pressed to find someone who wants to bring back alcohol prohibition.

    “Violence increased during prohibition? What a frigging joke.”

    This isn’t really disputed. Take a look at this graph showing US homicide rates during the 1900’s. Also, are you suggesting that alcohol prohibition was a success? You don’t find it curious that the country went from the supermajority required to pass a prohibition amendment to the supermajority required to repeal that same amendment in just under 14 years?

    “you are either on drugs (obvious) or stupid (again obvious to the casual observer.) / your limitless hypocrisy / you shall remain bereft of morals, judgement, a reason / Putrid and puerile best sum up your philosophy”

    Again, why the need for the vitriol? And here I’ve been thinking that it was the left that was the more intolerant of dissent within its ranks.

  • burt

    sDrugs are legal in Mexico. And, surprise, drugs are a problem in Mexico. The cartels just sell cheaper drugs.

  • Francis

    #52

    Drugs are legal in Mexico? Sorry, but that’s just not accurate. The decriminalization of the possession of small quantities of drugs (which was enacted a few years back) does not equal “legal.” Selling drugs is still illegal. So by definition you still have a black market — and all of the violence that goes along with it. I’d suggest rereading #8.

  • Pingback: Fast & Furious High Powered Assault Weapons Found in Mexico Drug Cartel Enforcer’s Home | Pandora Bracelets Forum()

  • Pingback: Google()