"Mistaken". Yep .... the plates were not from Guerrero.
Unfortunately, this has been going on all year. Most likely for much longer.

Two friends of mine were driving a car with out of state plates, and were forced over by three men with long guns. They shoved the gun into his back so hard it left bruises.
They had to show their local Zihuatanejo ID to prove they weren't members of a rival drug cartel from another state in Mexico.
They were told they could no longer drive that vehicle, or risk being killed.

This is a tad worrisome for those of us who drive down, with our foreign license plates.
One day in Zihua we came across two young locals pointing to our British Columbia tags and saying, in surprise, "Mira.....Colombia !".
That's all we need: local drug cartel thugs figuring us out to be Colombians trying to horn into their territory.

You step out your front door with the smell of back bacon on you and a polar bear will have you swallowed whole in a second

You're not related to poster "cantinero46" by any chance, are you?

http://surrey.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=2105&languageId=1&contentId=46147

YTD. 3

Just as I thought: YTD 3.....and we're now in Week #33.

I get really tired of posts trying to convince me that I risk my life just stepping out my Canadian front door.

YTD. 3

If the problem is US drug policy please explain why there are not thousands of Canadien narcos slaughtering people and taking over cities in Canada just like in Mexico.

On average , there is someone slaughtered once a week in Surrey BC due to drug violence Diane.
...JB

Aw come on, Johnny. Even if your statistics are correct (and I very much doubt they are), an annual 52 drug-related killings in Surrey wouldn't even half-fill your average Mexican neighbourhood narcofosa. It is disingenuous in the extreme to draw any parallels between the levels of violent crime in Mexico and Canada.

If the problem is US drug policy please explain why there are not thousands of Canadien narcos slaughtering people and taking over cities in Canada just like in Mexico.

On average , there is someone slaughtered once a week in Surrey BC due to drug violence Diane.
...JB

Fun, no one get physically hurt other than Egos!! Lol

Picky, picky, picky. The term American Indian is a perfectly acceptable definition of a Native American. Perhaps I should have said Indigenous Mexican. How about answering the original question?

The misused term of calling local indigenous people "Indians" dates back to the errant murderous Cristobol Colón. He thought he was in the Indian Ocean of Asia and was appalled that the locals dared to resist being raped, pillaged and enslaved. How many years must an error be perpetuated before someone thinks to correct it? Same with using the word "American" to refer only to someone from the United States. It's like reading incomprehension on a massive scale!

Native Americans inhabited America from Tierra del Fuego to the Northern Territories. In what is now the United States as well as throughout the Caribbean campaigns of genocide were carried out against them.

So which native people are you referring to? There are many and apparently all don't have exactly the same genetic origins.
People from Mexico show stunning amount of genetic diversity

But here we are once again getting distracted by unimportant minutiae.

I'm fully aware of the origin of the word Indian when used in reference to the indigenous population of this continent prior to Columbus' arrival. Whether you like it or not, it is in common use. For example: a local tribe here in Montana is called Nez Perce (French for pierced nose). They were so named by French Canadian trappers - in error - after a neighboring tribe who did, in fact, pierce their noses. These folks never did, but even today they even refer to themselves as Nez Perce.
My reference was to the post by Zihuateco: "Your Latinos friends are not Latinos. They are Mexican". My question, which I prefer as not being "unimportant minutiae" still stands, unanswered.

I agree the only way to stop the insanity is to decriminalize all drugs. Slap a tax on them, paste a warning on them, and, like alcohol, let people have at it with eyes wide open. And when, inevitably, some people become addicted and ruin their lives, use the taxes for the programs that will get them clean. There will always be demand, especially with each new generation, so making their drug of choice illegal will not make it go away, and the misery caused by the narcos goes on and on.

But just say, for one crazy minute, all agreed, including various governments. How would it work? How do you set up the newly legalized organizations, the production facilities, the distribution channels, the purchasing outlets? And how do the narcos get a piece of that action? If it all falls under the purview of government, what's the incentive for the narcos to hand it over?

I'd say it isn't all that complicated except for the politics, because there will always be folks seeking to profit from misery and corruption who will fight to protect their interests no matter how despicable they might appear to be.

They can be regulated and sold like alcohol, cigarettes and OTC drugs, except I believe there is a huge number of folks who would simply prefer to grow their own pot or mescaline or psilocybin, which should be perfectly fine. Just like you are allowed to make your own beer and wine and even share it with your family and friends. No fuss no muss.

If the experience of Portugal is any indicator, decriminalization has led to a decrease in the abuse of "drugs", as well as a decrease in other problems typically associated with the distribution and use of stupidly banned substances in the USA. Here in Mexico we are decades behind the USA in fighting the stigma and stereotypes associated with people who use stupidly banned substances. The problem as always is getting folks to understand that it is infinitely better for folks WHO MAY BE YOUR OWN CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN to be able to acquire recreational substances that are relatively safe and to acquire them in a safe environment than to have to deal with possibly dangerous black market dealers who have little to no control over the quality, purity of relative safety of the substances they sell. While I'm pretty sure none of us want our children or grandchildren to do things like cocaine, heroin, meth or ecstasy, the fact is some of them are going to want to experiment. This is natural. So wouldn't you prefer your kids or grandkids be able to do so in as safe an environment as possible?

Picky, picky, picky. The term American Indian is a perfectly acceptable definition of a Native American. Perhaps I should have said Indigenous Mexican. How about answering the original question?

The misused term of calling local indigenous people "Indians" dates back to the errant murderous Cristobol Colón. He thought he was in the Indian Ocean of Asia and was appalled that the locals dared to resist being raped, pillaged and enslaved. How many years must an error be perpetuated before someone thinks to correct it? Same with using the word "American" to refer only to someone from the United States. It's like reading incomprehension on a massive scale!

Native Americans inhabited America from Tierra del Fuego to the Northern Territories. In what is now the United States as well as throughout the Caribbean campaigns of genocide were carried out against them.

So which native people are you referring to? There are many and apparently all don't have exactly the same genetic origins.
People from Mexico show stunning amount of genetic diversity

But here we are once again getting distracted by unimportant minutiae.

But just say, for one crazy minute, all agreed, including various governments. How would it work? How do you set up the newly legalized organizations, the production facilities, the distribution channels, the purchasing outlets? And how do the narcos get a piece of that action? If it all falls under the purview of government, what's the incentive for the narcos to hand it over?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that, unless a Mexican is Mexican Indian, he/she would be considered Latino, i.e. of Spanish descent.

A Mexican Indian is someone of Mexican ancestry who lives in India.

They are Mexican!