MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Saturday vowed no respite in his crackdown on drug gangs after brazen attacks on police
stations this week killed seven.
Gunmen disguised as soldiers assaulted two police stations in the resort of Acapulco on Tuesday and killed seven in broad daylight. They left the
message: "We don't give a damn about the federal government and this is proof."
Calderon, who won a razor-thin victory in Mexico's presidential election last year, was unbowed.
"We are not going to give up, not because of provocations or attacks against the security of Mexicans," Calderon said in a speech to the military.
"There will be no truce ... against the enemies of Mexico."
Calderon, who took office on December 1, has sent thousands of troops to violent regions of Mexico to tackle drug gangs that killed 2,000 people in
feuds last year.
As part of the clampdown, soldiers have been investigating local police forces for connections with drug cartels. In the rowdy border city of Tijuana,
just south of San Diego, the army has confiscated all the city police's guns.
In January, almost 8,000 troops and federal police were sent to the region around Acapulco to clamp down on rival gangs at war for control of
lucrative drug plantations and smuggling routes.
Despite the crackdown, there were 190 drug gang-related deaths in Mexico in January, just a handful less than a year ago.capn.sharky - 2-12-2007 at 09:36 PM
Calderon is right on in his war with the Cartel. In Central America and South America the Cartel took over some of the countries. They had the
government in their pocket and had the army and police outgunned. It is time to take a stand against the Mexican Mafia and Cartel now---before it is
too late. This would be a good time for the U.S. to offer to assist in any way it can....if Bush could get his head out of Iran for a little while.Capt. George - 2-13-2007 at 02:08 AM
more oil in Iran/Iraq
why would he go to Mexico?Skeet/Loreto - 2-13-2007 at 07:33 AM
The Final and only answer to the Problem of Drugs.
Teach the Americans not to use Drugs!!!!!!!!!!Capt. George - 2-13-2007 at 07:46 AM
AMEN, AMEN Skeet
Supply and demand! will always be someone willing to supply
"anything" if the money is right.
georgecapn.sharky - 2-13-2007 at 09:48 AM
"Teach the Americans not to use Drugs!" Skeet---Easier said then done.Taco de Baja - 2-13-2007 at 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by capn.sharky
"Teach the Americans not to use Drugs!" Skeet---Easier said then done.
Amen!
Very hard, since we can't barely even teach Americans the Capital of Mexico....
Where is Mexico anyway??? Capt. George - 2-13-2007 at 05:28 PM
beat them in grammar school,
look what it did for medjh - 2-13-2007 at 05:47 PM
Ok, so that rules out beatings...Bob and Susan - 2-13-2007 at 05:50 PM
george is sure on a roll this week Capt. George - 2-14-2007 at 02:54 AM
BS (wow, what initials they are)
it's those shock treatments...they really help.
This beautiful morn I only broke two plates and one cup...
But I have yet today "to touch base with the feminin side of myself!"
djh did ya ever have a nun beat ya? it's spiritual I tell ya.......
NO!
Dave - 2-14-2007 at 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
The Final and only answer to the Problem of Drugs.
Teach the Americans not to use Drugs!!!!!!!!!!
PUNISHALL Americans who use drugs. Every...single...one!
A MANDATORY 3 month sentence for simple possession should do it.
How you gonna explain that to your boss? djh - 2-14-2007 at 04:31 PM
Hey Capt. G....
I once had a similar dream... (or maybe that was a fantasy??). Wonder if they have a special "habit" for beatings?
Dave, You sure you want to pay enough taxes for those prisons? There are sooooooooooo many who use and abuse. Yet another huge unravelling of the
deteriorated fabric of western civilization...
But, hey... Happy Valentines Day. Today we celebrate with people we love!
djhCapt. George - 2-14-2007 at 05:16 PM
I think it was just a "dirty habit".........after almost being kicked by a Dominican..................
I can't go past a woman wearing big, ugly black men's type shoes.
Maybe therapy will help?Iflyfish - 2-14-2007 at 05:21 PM
Another option would be to legalize, tax and therefore control these substances. This would take the cartels out of the business as legalized growers
and producers would be licensed by the state. This would take the profit out of the underground economy and allow tax revenue to be generated as it is
with cigarettes and alcohol.
The US tried prohibition with alcohol and it failed miserably and created a criminal class of both consumers and suppliers. Our prisons are now filled
with people who have committed drug offenses both on the production and consumption end.
It is possible to deal with drug use as a Medical and Social Problem and to attack it as has been done with cigarette smoking. When there is a social
stigma attached to this sort of behavior and sufficient public education, behavior can change. Do you recall when smoking cigarettes was accepted
everywhere? Do you recall the years when smoking was increasing among teens? This very addictive behavior has been taxed significantly and lots of
public education has changed usage patterns.
Human beings are addictive organisms. Schemes like the "war against drugs" are doomed to failure. The Nixon administration turned the nations
attention toward its "war on drugs" in order to counter the increased power of the "counter culture" of the seventies. A successful scare campaign
identified and mobilized a "silent majority" against the behavior of pot smoking and drug use, which were common in the "counter culture." A huge
industry has now grown around the "War on Drugs" with powerful stake in the "war" continuing. This has been an unanticipated consequence of this
reactionary approach to drug use.
Prior to the Nixon/Agnew campaign, the Congress was on the verge of legalizing or decriminalizing the use of marijuana, after studies, like the
LaGuardia report, found that smoking marijuana was a rather benign activity. Since then the pot that is grown, due to the underground nature of the
product, has become exponentially more powerful as underground growers turned to growing this cash crop indoors. This has been another unintended
consequence of this failed approach to the problem.
Marijuana is the second leading cash crop of both Oregon and British Columbia. It would appear that the current efforts to eradicate its use have
actually increased its use. It certainly has increased the potency of the drug. There is a tremendous demand for these illicit drugs.
It is difficult to propose and support a nuanced approach to issues like drug abuse. It is easy to say, “lock ‘em up”. It is easy to characterize one
who proposes other solutions like legalization, social education, and the use of medical interventions to the problem of drug use, as advocating for
the use of these drugs. I have personally seen people destroyed by drugs. I have seen families destroyed by drugs. I have seen people die of drug use,
including alcohol and tobacco. I am not advocating drug use, I am advocating a different way to think about and approach this very significant social
and medical problem.
I believe there are those people who are hooked on drugs, alcohol, or tobacco either the first time they use them or who become addicted or dependant
upon them over time. I also know that there are people who have used these drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, like Cigars, in a way that does not destroy
their lives. There appear to be people who can moderate their use of these substances and others who cannot. I think it is important to distinguish
between these people and to provide medical help to those who become addicted.
I believe that this war on drugs is as great a folly as the “War on Terrorism.” What is required in both situations is not simplistic solutions, i.e.
use of force alone, but a combination of well thought out responses that take into account the underlying issues involved.
It is easy to label someone who supports more nuanced approaches to the drug problem as an advocate of drug use. Just like it was easy to label those
opposed the invasion of Iraq, as advocating for the "enemy.” These are ad hominum arguments, aimed at discrediting the proponent; they do not address
the issues. I do not wish to engage in this sort of argument.
IflyfishIflyfish - 2-14-2007 at 05:27 PM
I neglected to state that I also support the current campaign against the Cartels and their goons. If I were alive during prohibition, I wouild also
have been an advocate of imprisonment for Sociopaths like Al Capone.
Iflyfish
iflyfish
sylens - 2-14-2007 at 05:32 PM
de acuerdo.
eventually legalization will happen. but not soon. and not easily. as someone recently noted, there's waaaaay too much money in it for the current
situation to change.
i appreciate how clearly you identified the issues. and when the bashing begins, don't let the reactionary responses hook youIflyfish - 2-14-2007 at 05:36 PM
sylens,
Good to hear from you!
Happy Valentines Day!
Fore warned is fore armed.
Iflyfishdjh - 2-14-2007 at 05:41 PM
You state some very good points, Uflyfish.. Good food for thought (not chum, right? . And it is going to take MUCH good thinking to turn the tide on this issue ~ and many others humans face on our shrinking planet.
I especially like your comment "These are ad hominum arguments, aimed at discrediting the proponent; they do not address the issues. I do not wish to
engage in this sort of argument."
I've commented on this on Nomads several times before. Diverse views, experiences, expertise, and skills are required to create real solutions.
Marginalizing differing views, opinions, etc., detours diverse people from creating real, workable solutions. ie., fellow nomads, please both
consider and be considerate
djhBaja&Back - 2-14-2007 at 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Another option would be to legalize, tax and therefore control these substances.
Which substances? I can see & aggree with your point about pot,
but,
people I've known who killed themselves with speed would be just as dead if that substance was legalized.
Legalization would multiply the number of dead & dying junkies by 10 times, at a minimum!Don Alley - 2-14-2007 at 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Baja&Back
Legalization would multiply the number of dead & dying junkies by 10 times, at a minimum!
Maybe. But many who advocate legalization do not do so for the benefit of the junkies. They may advocate legaliztion to remove the profit source that
so benefits the cartels, and to lower the street prices so the rest of use don't lose as much stuff to rip-offs for drug money.
One possible "unintended" consequence may be an incrrease in drug use due to legalization, although some argu that availability is currently so
widespread that the opportunities will scarcely increase.
I have one other concern. I wonder if those who profit in the business of supplying drugs are criminals simply for purposes related to the drugs they
manufacture or sell. In other words, legalize, and take away, their drug business, and will they find legitimate ways to earn a living? My guess is
that there could be the unintended consequence of substitute criminal behavior more damaging than the drug trade.
Mr Flyfish
Sharksbaja - 2-15-2007 at 12:14 AM
You strike a sound argument with your proposition. The only real problem I see would be the proliferation of corporate entities and lobbyists greasing
the proverbial favor-wheel. Like the alcohol and pharmacuetical companies, they wield so much political and media weight and are so savvy at
convoluting a legitimate biz into a megalithic empire and we see that thru their advertising , sponsering and funding of damn near every avenue of our
lives. Don't forget how tobacco and alcohol companies enrich our lives thru their involvement in so many sports. I see so many drug commercials aimed
at funneling people to their brand. "Ask Doc for blabla".
I have trouble sorting this out because while I feel legalization could actually change the substance(s) into a nonprofit commodity for cartels, I
have little trust in the way greedy corporations and govt would involve themselves. Who do you trust?
Other than that I think we have few choices.The current drug war failed miserably years ago.Iflyfish - 2-15-2007 at 08:06 AM
Baja&Back and Don both make good points.
Don Alley says:
“..many who advocate legalization do not do so for the benefit of the junkies. They may advocate legalization to remove the profit source that so
benefits the cartels, and to lower the street prices so the rest of use don't lose as much stuff to rip-offs for drug money.
One possible "unintended" consequence may be an increase in drug use due to legalization, although some argue that availability is currently so
widespread that the opportunities will scarcely increase.”
Crime committed to obtain money for the drugs extorts a very high price indeed from ordinary citizens who are not a part of the drug culture. Your
point that legalization may benefit those who are victimized by addicts is a good one. That perspective shifts the focus to what is in the best
interest of the general population in addressing a social problem like this. This perspective gets us out of the cops/robbers paradigm that locks us
into escalating either/or, zero sum games. It is in my interest that addicts have access to their drugs without having to burglarize my house or steal
my car stereo. It is in my interest for there to be a source of revenue to treat those who become addicted to drugs. I would rather that their
consumption pays for the solutions. I like high taxes on tobacco products and alcohol. I like a significant portion of these revenues devoted to
treatment of people with problems with these drugs.
Baja&Back makes the point that legalization may actually increase the use of drugs. “Legalization would multiply the number of dead & dying
junkies by 10 times, at a minimum!”
It may be true in the short run that more people would use drugs. It would of course appear that way, as those who are now closeted drug users would
be free to go public. There is of course also the probability that those who use drugs will do so whether or not they are legal. This now seems to be
the case. I would prefer that the issue be dealt with openly than to have an underground culture and economy that is beyond the influence of
legitimate society.
I do not know where you get the statistic that would predict a ten-fold increase in deaths among addicts if legalization would occur. While we are on
the point of statistics, there is a huge industry that has sprung up around the “War on Drugs.” Statistics are thrown around fast and furiously by the
“War on Drug” industry just as the Military Industrial Complex has done with the “War on Terrorism,” the Vietnam and Iraq war. If one has a dog in the
race, I would not count on their book.
There are countries that have liberalized their drug laws without the dire consequences you predict.
It is interesting to learn about the history of Absinth, the popular French drink, which was demonized by the US wine industry after the end of
Prohibition. At the time, it was the leading competition to wine. A successful PR campaign was mounted that imbedded in the American publics mind that
Absinth caused all sorts of serious health problems. Laws were passed to criminalize Absenth production and consumption. The diamond used to be a
relatively useless white stone until the DeBeers Company cornered the market on these stones and hired a New York advertising agency to sell them. The
company started a campaign designed to link diamonds with marriage. It then became the norm for men to buy diamonds for their brides. Who would marry
now without having to deal with that issue in their relationship? By the way, have you ever tried to sell a used diamond? My point is that the public
mind is consciously molded by those with a vested interest in the issue at hand. Who benefits from this “War on Drugs?” It costs BILLIONS of dollars.
What has it benefited us? Has drug use decreased? Are you now safer?
You asked if I would advocate the legalization of all drugs. I think that if the US legalized marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines that the majority
of the underground economy in drugs would be ended, NOW. I would advocate the licensing of growers, manufacturers, distributors etc. and that these
drugs be standardized as to purity, dosage etc. so that consumers would know exactly what they were buying and that they would be protected from
contaminated or dangerous product. A distribution system would need to be established that insured that adequate revenue was generated from licenses,
taxes, fees etc. to ensure that the industry was well regulated. Adequate monies from these revenue sources would be relegated to drug rehabilitation
and treatment and to public education on the negative issues related to drug use.
When you talk of increased deaths from increased drug use, have you considered the death toll that is now growing in the “War on Drugs.” Had we as a
society pursued a different path, say the one I am advocating here, would we now be engaged in running gun battles with Drug Cartels? Would we be
seeing the deaths of law enforcement personnel on the streets of our cities? One can only speculate. Would we be seeing the expenditure of Billions of
dollars per year on this “War on Drugs?” Would we be asking ourselves if we are being helped or hurt by this “War on Drugs?”
I am not familiar with the groups around the country that are advocating legalization. I am certain that a good literature exists on the subject, if
one can weed out the self-serving studies. I am not an activist on this issue. I have had many years of experience working in the Mental Health and
Criminal Justice fields and it is from that perspective that I have concluded what I have concluded. I am not an advocate of drug use, as I have
previously stated. I just think we are pursuing another massive and very expensive public folly that will not work.
Sharksbaja
I share your cynacism/realism/cynacism/realism regarding Corporations and how they have obtained the same rights as individuals. We have been through
this before in this country with the Trusts, which Teddy Roosevelt helped break with anti trust laws. The problem is that we have had so many years of
Conservative administrations who have promoted the interests of the upper class and successfully re defined the political landscape beyond any
recognition. Take Broadcasting. The airwaves belong to Us!!! The people. They have been sold and now the ownership has gone to a very few individuals,
like Rupert Murdock, who control the informatoin that most of us are exposed to. Public Broadcasting and a very few independant, publicaly supported
radio stations are the only vestige of free press left in the US and it fights for it's survival against Conservative/Corporate interests. The public
actually owns all of the frequencies on the band.
Conservatives tend to bifurcate the world. Black/White. No gray. With us/ Agin us! Good/Bad. Godly/Heathen etc. This sort of thinking has so permiated
our pubic discourse as to render us blind to more subtle and nuanced approaches to problems. Bill Moyers, who by the way was Lyndon Johnson's Press
Secretary, produced a wonderful documentary, many years ago, called The Public Mind, in which he documented the way the advertising industry had
infiltrated politics. It is true that images have more power than words. They bypass the part of the brain used for reason and go directly to the part
of the brain that reacts, like it/don't like it, good/bad, danger/safe. So Michael Deaver, Reagans advisor, learned how to show positive images on the
news shows while bad news was being delivered. An excellent example of this is when Reagan busted the Air Traffic Controlers Union and there were
images on the screen of him drinking beer in an Irish bar on the screen. Nice image, bad news, the image won out. This is why they called him the
tephlon President. This is why we all saw Bush on the deck of a carrier saying "Mission Accomplished".
We all have good call to distrust the media as well as our elected officials. Corporations have indeed taken over control of how we think.
Eisenhower was exactly right when he warned us against the Military Industrial Complex. He was a Republican and saw it coming.
I appreciate the thoughtful responses.
Iflyfishgnukid - 2-15-2007 at 11:34 AM
Hmmm In la paz the drugs are definitely a huge problem for many people. "Chukie" or crack I guess is so addictative that those who try it lose
everything they have and will steal from their own family and friends.
Those of us who don't use drugs have no choice but to resist any contact with those who do, even previous friends, for fear of being dragged into
lies, chaos, theft and all the most depressing things one can imagine. It's very sad -- the number of really smart people who have become addicted to
drugs. I love to see the police driving down the dark streets, filled with kids hiding in shadows, smoking crack in the empty lots. The kids run and
scatter and the police go for one to take or maybe two. They need to step it up and stop the trend, get the dealers and the buyers too. Please Police
come to e/Sonora y Topete y SinaloaIflyfish - 2-16-2007 at 05:33 PM
gnukid
Good for you! You are making good choices for yourself. You are seeing clearly the pain that is caused by drugs and addiction.
We all must make choices about drugs. Do we want to use them? Will they add or subtract from our lives.
You are seeing the terrible things that can happen with drugs and are choosing not to use them. Good for you young nomad! You have strength and
courage. You also have a big heart to be so concerned about the other kids who are having problems with drugs. It is wise of you to have made the
decisions you have made. Many of those who use drugs will have serious problems, like you describe. It is important to be clear, as you are, that the
problems other people get into with drugs are their problems and not yours to take care of. Many people have to "hit bottom" before they will stop
their addictive behavior. It hurts a lot to watch people destroy themselves.
...they really help. 
side of myself!"
