BajaNomad

Border Violence

MrBillM - 5-14-2008 at 03:18 PM

Watching Cable News this a.m. I found out that the Mexican Government, concerned with violence along the U.S. border, had moved additional Army Troops into the area along the border in Sinaloa state.

I suppose it's too much to expect the News Bimbos to know that Sonora, and not Sinaloa, borders the U.S.

comitan - 5-14-2008 at 03:41 PM

Here is a very good read on what is happening with the drug cartels;

Mexico: On the Road to a Failed State?
May 13, 2008
Related Links
Mexico’s Cartel Wars: Toward a Tipping Point?
FREE PODCAST
Related Special Topic Page
Tracking Mexico’s Drug Cartels
By George Friedman

Edgar Millan Gomez was shot dead in his own home in Mexico City on May 8. Millan Gomez was the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in Mexico, responsible for overseeing most of Mexico’s counternarcotics efforts. He orchestrated the January arrest of one of the leaders of the Sinaloa cartel, Alfredo Beltran Leyva. (Several Sinaloa members have been arrested in Mexico City since the beginning of the year.) The week before, Roberto Velasco Bravo died when he was shot in the head at close range by two armed men near his home in Mexico City. He was the director of organized criminal investigations in a tactical analysis unit of the federal police. The Mexican government believes the Sinaloa drug cartel ordered the assassinations of Velasco Bravo and Millan Gomez. Combined with the assassination of other federal police officials in Mexico City, we now see a pattern of intensifying warfare in Mexico City.

The fighting also extended to the killing of the son of the Sinaloa cartel leader, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera, who was killed outside a shopping center in Culiacan, the capital of Sinaloa state. Also killed was the son of reputed top Sinaloa money launderer Blanca Margarita Cazares Salazar in an attack carried out by 40 gunmen. According to sources, Los Zetas, the enforcement arm of the rival Gulf cartel, carried out the attack. Reports also indicate a split between Sinaloa and a resurgent Juarez cartel, which also could have been behind the Millan Gomez killing.

Spiraling Violence
Violence along the U.S.-Mexican border has been intensifying for several years, and there have been attacks in Mexico City. But last week was noteworthy not so much for the body count, but for the type of people being killed. Very senior government police officials in Mexico City were killed along with senior Sinaloa cartel operatives in Sinaloa state. In other words, the killings are extending from low-level operatives to higher-ranking ones, and the attacks are reaching into enemy territory, so to speak. Mexican government officials are being killed in Mexico City, Sinaloan operatives in Sinaloa. The conflict is becoming more intense and placing senior officials at risk.

The killings pose a strategic problem for the Mexican government. The bulk of its effective troops are deployed along the U.S. border, attempting to suppress violence and smuggling among the grunts along the border, as well as the well-known smuggling routes elsewhere in the country. The attacks in Mexico raise the question of whether forces should be shifted from these assignments to Mexico City to protect officials and break up the infrastructure of the Sinaloa and other cartels there. The government also faces the secondary task of suppressing violence between cartels. The Sinaloa cartel struck in Mexico City not only to kill troublesome officials and intimidate others, but also to pose a problem for the Mexican government by increasing areas requiring forces, thereby requiring the government to consider splitting its forces — thus reducing the government presence along the border. It was a strategically smart move by Sinaloa, but no one has accused the cartels of being stupid.

Mexico now faces a classic problem. Multiple, well-armed organized groups have emerged. They are fighting among themselves while simultaneously fighting the government. The groups are fueled by vast amounts of money earned via drug smuggling to the United States. The amount of money involved — estimated at some $40 billion a year — is sufficient to increase tension between these criminal groups and give them the resources to conduct wars against each other. It also provides them with resources to bribe and intimidate government officials. The resources they deploy in some ways are superior to the resources the government employs.

Given the amount of money they have, the organized criminal groups can be very effective in bribing government officials at all levels, from squad leaders patrolling the border to high-ranking state and federal officials. Given the resources they have, they can reach out and kill government officials at all levels as well. Government officials are human; and faced with the carrot of bribes and the stick of death, even the most incorruptible is going to be cautious in executing operations against the cartels.

Toward a Failed State?
There comes a moment when the imbalance in resources reverses the relationship between government and cartels. Government officials, seeing the futility of resistance, effectively become tools of the cartels. Since there are multiple cartels, the area of competition ceases to be solely the border towns, shifting to the corridors of power in Mexico City. Government officials begin giving their primary loyalty not to the government but to one of the cartels. The government thus becomes both an arena for competition among the cartels and an instrument used by one cartel against another. That is the prescription for what is called a “failed state” — a state that no longer can function as a state. Lebanon in the 1980s is one such example.

There are examples in American history as well. Chicago in the 1920s was overwhelmed by a similar process. Smuggling alcohol created huge pools of money on the U.S. side of the border, controlled by criminals both by definition (bootlegging was illegal) and by inclination (people who engage in one sort of illegality are prepared to be criminals, more broadly understood). The smuggling laws gave these criminals huge amounts of power, which they used to intimidate and effectively absorb the city government. Facing a choice between being killed or being enriched, city officials chose the latter. City government shifted from controlling the criminals to being an arm of criminal power. In the meantime, various criminal gangs competed with each other for power.

Chicago had a failed city government. The resources available to the Chicago gangs were limited, however, and it was not possible for them to carry out the same function in Washington. Ultimately, Washington deployed resources in Chicago and destroyed one of the main gangs. But if Al Capone had been able to carry out the same operation in Washington as he did in Chicago, the United States could have become a failed state.

It is important to point out that we are not speaking here of corruption, which exists in all governments everywhere. Instead, we are talking about a systematic breakdown of the state, in which government is not simply influenced by criminals, but becomes an instrument of criminals — either simply an arena for battling among groups or under the control of a particular group. The state no longer can carry out its primary function of imposing peace, and it becomes helpless, or itself a direct perpetrator of crime. Corruption has been seen in Washington — some triggered by organized crime, but never state failure.

The Mexican state has not yet failed. If the activities of the last week have become a pattern, however, we must begin thinking about the potential for state failure. The killing of Millan Gomez transmitted a critical message: No one is safe, no matter how high his rank or how well protected, if he works against cartel interests. The killing of El Chapo’s son transmitted the message that no one in the leading cartel is safe from competing gangs, no matter how high his rank or how well protected.

The killing of senior state police officials causes other officials to recalculate their attitudes. The state is no longer seen as a competent protector, and being a state official is seen as a liability — potentially a fatal liability — unless protection is sought from a cartel, a protection that can be very lucrative indeed for the protector. The killing of senior cartel members intensifies conflict among cartels, making it even more difficult for the government to control the situation and intensifying the movement toward failure.

It is important to remember that Mexico has a tradition of failed governments, particularly in the 19th and early 20th century. In those periods, Mexico City became an arena for struggle among army officers and regional groups straddling the line between criminal and political. The Mexican army became an instrument in this struggle and its control a prize. The one thing missing was the vast amounts of money at stake. So there is a tradition of state failure in Mexico, and there are higher stakes today than before.

The Drug Trade’s High Stakes
To benchmark the amount at stake, assume that the total amount of drug trafficking is $40 billion, a frequently used figure, but hardly an exact one by any means. In 2007, Mexico exported about $210 billion worth of goods to the United States and imported about $136 billion from the United States. If the drug trade is $40 billion dollars, it represents about 25 percent of all exports to the United States. That in itself is huge, but what makes it more important is that while the $210 billion is divided among many businesses and individuals, the $40 billion is concentrated in the hands of a few, fairly tightly controlled cartels. Sinaloa and Gulf, currently the strongest, have vast resources at their disposal; a substantial part of the economy can be controlled through this money. This creates tremendous instability as other cartels vie for the top spot, with the state lacking the resources to control the situation and having its officials seduced and intimidated by the car tels.

We have seen failed states elsewhere. Colombia in the 1980s failed over the same issue — drug money. Lebanon failed in the 1970s and 1980s. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was a failed state.

Mexico’s potential failure is important for three reasons. First, Mexico is a huge country, with a population of more than 100 million. Second, it has a large economy — the 14th-largest in the world. And third, it shares an extended border with the world’s only global power, one that has assumed for most of the 20th century that its domination of North America and control of its borders is a foregone conclusion. If Mexico fails, there are serious geopolitical repercussions. This is not simply a criminal matter.

The amount of money accumulated in Mexico derives from smuggling operations in the United States. Drugs go one way, money another. But all the money doesn’t have to return to Mexico or to third-party countries. If Mexico fails, the leading cartels will compete in the United States, and that competition will extend to the source of the money as well. We have already seen cartel violence in the border areas of the United States, but this risk is not limited to that. The same process that we see under way in Mexico could extend to the United States; logic dictates that it would.

The current issue is control of the source of drugs and of the supply chain that delivers drugs to retail customers in the United States. The struggle for control of the source and the supply chain also will involve a struggle for control of markets. The process of intimidation of government and police officials, as well as bribing them, can take place in market towns such as Los Angeles or Chicago, as well as production centers or transshipment points.

Cartel Incentives for U.S. Expansion
That means there are economic incentives for the cartels to extend their operations into the United States. With those incentives comes intercartel competition, and with that competition comes pressure on U.S. local, state and, ultimately, federal government and police functions. Were that to happen, the global implications obviously would be stunning. Imagine an extreme case in which the Mexican scenario is acted out in the United States. The effect on the global system economically and politically would be astounding, since U.S. failure would see the world reshaping itself in startling ways.

Failure for the United States is much harder than for Mexico, however. The United States has a gross domestic product of about $14 trillion, while Mexico’s economy is about $900 billion. The impact of the cartels’ money is vastly greater in Mexico than in the United States, where it would be dwarfed by other pools of money with a powerful interest in maintaining U.S. stability. The idea of a failed American state is therefore far-fetched.

Less far-fetched is the extension of a Mexican failure into the borderlands of the United States. Street-level violence already has crossed the border. But a deeper, more-systemic corruption — particularly on the local level — could easily extend into the United States, along with paramilitary operations between cartels and between the Mexican government and cartels.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently visited Mexico, and there are potential plans for U.S. aid in support of Mexican government operations. But if the Mexican government became paralyzed and couldn’t carry out these operations, the U.S. government would face a stark and unpleasant choice. It could attempt to protect the United States from the violence defensively by sealing off Mexico or controlling the area north of the border more effectively. Or, as it did in the early 20th century, the United States could adopt a forward defense by sending U.S. troops south of the border to fight the battle in Mexico.

There have been suggestions that the border be sealed. But Mexico is the United States’ third-largest customer, and the United States is Mexico’s largest customer. This was the case well before NAFTA, and has nothing to do with treaties and everything to do with economics and geography. Cutting that trade would have catastrophic effects on both sides of the border, and would guarantee the failure of the Mexican state. It isn’t going to happen.

The Impossibility of Sealing the Border
So long as vast quantities of goods flow across the border, the border cannot be sealed. Immigration might be limited by a wall, but the goods that cross the border do so at roads and bridges, and the sheer amount of goods crossing the border makes careful inspection impossible. The drugs will come across the border embedded in this trade as well as by other routes. So will gunmen from the cartel and anything else needed to take control of Los Angeles’ drug market.

A purely passive defense won’t work unless the economic cost of blockade is absorbed. The choices are a defensive posture to deal with the battle on American soil if it spills over, or an offensive posture to suppress the battle on the other side of the border. Bearing in mind that Mexico is not a small country and that counterinsurgency is not the United States’ strong suit, the latter is a dangerous game. But the first option isn’t likely to work either.

One way to deal with the problem would be ending the artificial price of drugs by legalizing them. This would rapidly lower the price of drugs and vastly reduce the money to be made in smuggling them. Nothing hurt the American cartels more than the repeal of Prohibition, and nothing helped them more than Prohibition itself. Nevertheless, from an objective point of view, drug legalization isn’t going to happen. There is no visible political coalition of substantial size advocating this solution. Therefore, U.S. drug policy will continue to raise the price of drugs artificially, effective interdiction will be impossible, and the Mexican cartels will prosper and make war on each other and on the Mexican state.

We are not yet at the worst-case scenario, and we may never get there. Mexican President Felipe Calderon, perhaps with assistance from the United States, may devise a strategy to immunize his government from intimidation and corruption and take the war home to the cartels. This is a serious possibility that should not be ruled out. Nevertheless, the events of last week raise the serious possibility of a failed state in Mexico. That should not be taken lightly, as it could change far more than Mexico.

shari - 5-14-2008 at 05:42 PM

muchas gracias for this very enlightening/disturbing article....food for thought.

When was Sinaloa moved?

The Gull - 5-14-2008 at 06:04 PM

The drug cartel moved Sinaloa to the border with the US? When did that happen? Those drug guys need to be stopped.

If we let them get away with moving Sinaloa to the border, next they will be setting up meth production in Todos Santos.

Very Sad

TonyC - 5-14-2008 at 06:05 PM

Since this war has to happen, should the goverment take the gloves off to win?

How about the death penalty, and doing what Los Pepes did in Colombia to get Pablo Escobar?:?:

There's so much to lose.

bacquito - 5-14-2008 at 06:30 PM

I believe a high police official in one of the border cities resigned because of the killings. Truly a serious situation. I am beginning to regret the day 20 years ago that my wife (Mexican) and I bought land in Ensenada and where I wanted to retire to-I am now retired.
Thanks for the article. Frankly, I have felt for some time we should legalize drugs and make them available at stores similiar to pharmacies. After all when we ended prohibition not everybody ended up an alcoholic. But I realize it will never happen.

Baja&Back - 5-15-2008 at 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bacquito
Frankly, I have felt for some time we should legalize drugs and make them available at stores similiar to pharmacies. After all when we ended prohibition not everybody ended up an alcoholic.


Here in the city of Vancouver BC, hard drugs (injectables) are essentially legalized. City has financed "safe injection sites", with leather couches, soft music & free coffee, for 4 years now. The police are directed to not hassle junkies, but to show them respect. :lol:

As a direct result, there are now four times as many junkies shooting up in Vancouver, property crimes have skyrocketed, and more junkies arrive daily from foreign countries as the word spreads about druggie utopia.

:fire:Legalize drugs? i think NOT. :?:

Don Alley - 5-15-2008 at 07:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Baja&Back

Here in the city of Vancouver BC, hard drugs (injectables) are essentially legalized. City has financed "safe injection sites", with leather couches, soft music & free coffee, for 4 years now. The police are directed to not hassle junkies, but to show them respect. :lol:

As a direct result, there are now four times as many junkies shooting up in Vancouver, property crimes have skyrocketed, and more junkies arrive daily from foreign countries as the word spreads about druggie utopia.

:fire:Legalize drugs? i think NOT. :?:


No, in Vancouver drugs are NOT "essentially legalized."

The argument for legalization suggested in the article is not to protect addicts, but to legalize the production and distribution of drugs, thereby reducing their intrinsic value to something close to that of sugar or flour.

Nothing like that has been done in Vancouver. Drugs remain expensive. Profits and incentives for cartels remain high. As do the amounts of money needed by addicts, hence the high amount of crime to finance their habits.

Vancouver has perhaps chosen the worst possible scenario: prohibit the drug trade, yet protect the end users and perhaps increase their numbers.

But hey, on the other hand, if Canada wants to provide a haven for junkies ,I guess that's OK. Mexico can export the drugs north, and the US can export the junkies north.
:biggrin:

postholedigger - 5-15-2008 at 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by The Gull
The drug cartel moved Sinaloa to the border with the US? When did that happen? Those drug guys need to be stopped.

If we let them get away with moving Sinaloa to the border, next they will be setting up meth production in Todos Santos.


How long before they smuggle Sinaloa in to the US?

bancoduo - 5-15-2008 at 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by postholedigger
Quote:
Originally posted by The Gull
The drug cartel moved Sinaloa to the border with the US? When did that happen? Those drug guys need to be stopped.

If we let them get away with moving Sinaloa to the border, next they will be setting up meth production in Todos Santos.


How long before they smuggle Sinaloa in to the US?
Half of Sinaloa is here already. They live in Pacoima and Moreno Valley.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

bajajazz - 5-15-2008 at 11:57 AM

It's not possible for our gutless politicians to take the giant step of moving from the "War On Drugs" to legalization. It is something that has to happen eventually, but it will have to be accomplished incrementally, i.e., by starting out with re-directing the "drug war" dollars to what's called "harm reduction," a policy of creating sufficient treatment centers so that treatment becomes available to addicts on demand, rather than putting them on a waiting list during which time the addict loses his motivation to get well -- or possibly loses his life.

Harm-reduction policies should next be augmented by decriminalization of drugs and their use, and finally the body-politic might be persuaded that legalization is the ultimate answer, just as it was by the ending of Prohibition in FDR's first term. (By the time Prohibition was ended, however, organized crime had become so rich and powerful the crime families and their control of many labor unions are still with us today).

Will decriminalization and legalization result in a loss of human life among those who play around with drugs they can't control? Yes. But that's happening anyway, and when weighed against the possibility of entire countries becoming "failed states," it's an acceptable trade-off.

Iflyfish - 5-15-2008 at 01:44 PM

There is so much vested economic and political interest in the War On Drugs that it indeed will be hard to stop and I doubt that we will do it "cold turkey".

Holland is a better model than Vancouver. Anectodal stories are used to shape our perceptions, this is how the USofA population was sold on supporting for profit medical care in the USofA. There are good studies, but who needs them when one can point to junkies and say "they are ruining everything". Cheap talk. Look at the research. The USofA nearly legalized Marijuana in the 1970s till Nixon/Agnew decided to get re-elected on the backs of those afraid of the "counter culture" and started the "War on Drugs" Congress was poised to legalize Marijuana use till the political decision was made to start a "War".

This is one of the most serious issues and crisis facing Mexico in our life time and they had better get it right! or the dance macabe of devolution into chaos will result. The world now is rife with failed states and it can indeed happen here. The efforts to legalize drug use are not the pipe dreams of addicts, but very serious social policy with very serious social outcomes.

Thanks for posting this very comprehensive and insightful article Comitan.

Iflyfish

fulano - 5-15-2008 at 02:08 PM

The problem with all the theories of legalizing drugs to stop the illegal drug trade is that any model put forth does not include the "social cost" of the drugs. Look at alcohol, which is legal. Every year in the US about 16,000 people are killed by drunk drivers. The "social costs" of those deaths is not paid by the alcohol companies and it is not included in the price of the booze. The costs of all the deaths -- and the injuries and property damage - is paid for by the victims, or by society as a whole.

If you legalize drugs, you will still have the same "social costs" that have to be paid. The social costs include the costs to society to care for and feed millions of amped-out space cadets, who are totally useless parasites on society. If you price the now "legal" drugs high enough to pay for these social costs with the drug sale proceeds, the legal drugs would be so expensive that the illegal drug trade would still be profitable...only now there would be even more customers.

Iflyfish - 5-15-2008 at 04:39 PM

fulano

You don't think we pay that social cost now? Think about it.
You don't think a junkie with a $200 a day habit and no employment does not extract a social cost? Where does he get his/her money?

Where are the studies that substantiate your claims?

There is good research on this topic that should be informing our policies, not fear! There are plenty of good studies that take into account the "social cost" of the way we are trying to deal with this problem now vs legalization or decriminalization. If you read the literature you would know this.

If you have any interest in reading some studies, I will be happy to provide citations. Most people want to react emotionally to this issue and target those who advocate a more carefully thought out policy as "enablers" of drug use and abuse. Few have read the literature. Please do so. You might form a different conclusion that is based upon information and not fear.

Have you ever read the literature from the time of prohibition of alcohol. Same arguments, same tone, same fear. People use drugs and die whether or not they are legal or not. Treating addiction as a medical problem takes the whole issue out of the cat/mouse, cop/con dynamic and into the arena of medical care, where it belongs.

Iflyfish

[Edited on 5-15-2008 by Iflyfish]

Iflyfish - 5-15-2008 at 04:53 PM

"One way to deal with the problem would be ending the artificial price of drugs by legalizing them. This would rapidly lower the price of drugs and vastly reduce the money to be made in smuggling them. Nothing hurt the American cartels more than the repeal of Prohibition, and nothing helped them more than Prohibition itself. Nevertheless, from an objective point of view, drug legalization isn’t going to happen. There is no visible political coalition of substantial size advocating this solution. Therefore, U.S. drug policy will continue to raise the price of drugs artificially, effective interdiction will be impossible, and the Mexican cartels will prosper and make war on each other and on the Mexican state."

The problem that must be addressed is the imense fear that people have about legalization. We see this in the responses to suggestions for legalization. It is not that this approach would not work, it is that the fear of the average person is too great to impliment it and the lack of political will and the courage of conviction in politicians who are not willing to stand up and educate the population. Sad. Good people will continue to be corrupted and die in this sensless whack a mole game. Same thinking that has us in another Viet Nam now in a futile attempt to use force and power to kill off those who disagree with us. Works great doesn't it? Rant over.

IflyfishwhennotcontemplatingthelevelofintelligenceoftheUSpopulation15%ofwhomstilltbelieveobamaisamuslim.

Iflyfish - 5-15-2008 at 05:44 PM

International Studies:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383#intl_studies

Iflyfishwhennotpersevoratingonnowinissues

fulano - 5-15-2008 at 07:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
fulano

You don't think we pay that social cost now? Think about it.
You don't think a junkie with a $200 a day habit and no employment does not extract a social cost? Where does he get his/her money?

Where are the studies that substantiate your claims?


Here:
http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/05so.htm

I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

Now, kindly present your studies that show legalizing drugs will lower the social costs to Americans.

I can wait..........:smug:

In his own words---

beercan - 5-15-2008 at 11:10 PM

Writings such as this will lead many "folks" to believe that he is a "muslim"---

I too believe most of the "American People" shouldn't be voting. But the winds are blowing in "an ugly direction", from both drugs & terrorism.



From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the
political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
Quote:
by iflyfish
IflyfishwhennotcontemplatingthelevelofintelligenceoftheUSpopulation15%ofwhomstilltbelieveobamaisamuslim.

Iflyfish - 5-15-2008 at 11:13 PM

The War on Pot: America's $42 Billion Annual Boondoggle

By Rob Kampia, AlterNet. Posted October 9, 2007.

What else could we spend $42 billion each year on? Health insurance for kids? Better paid teachers? It's our choice. Tools

What would you buy if you had an extra $42 billion to spend every year? What might our government buy if it suddenly had that much money dropped onto its lap every year?

For one thing, it might pay for the entire $7 billion annual increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program that President Bush is threatening to veto because of its cost -- and there'd still be $35 billion left over.

Or perhaps you'd hire 880,000 schoolteachers at the average U.S. teacher salary of $47,602 per year.

Or give every one of our current teachers a 30 percent raise (at a cost of $15 billion, according to the American Federation of Teachers) and use what's left to take a $27 billion whack out of the federal deficit.

Or use all $42 billion for a massive tax cut that would put an extra $140 in the pockets of every person in the country -- $560 for a family of four.

The mind reels at the ways such a massive sum of money could be put to use.

Why $42 billion? Because that's what our current marijuana laws cost American taxpayers each year, according to a new study by researcher Jon Gettman, Ph.D. -- $10.7 billion in direct law enforcement costs, and $31.1 billion in lost tax revenues. And that may be an underestimate, at least on the law enforcement side, since Gettman made his calculations before the FBI released its latest arrest statistics in late September. The new FBI stats show an all-time record 829,627 marijuana arrests in 2006, 43,000 more than in 2005.

That's like arresting every man, woman and child in the state of North Dakota plus every man, woman, and child in Des Moines, Iowa on marijuana charges ... every year. Arrests for marijuana possession -- not sales or trafficking, just possession -- totaled 738,916. By comparison, there were 611,523 arrests last year for all violent crimes combined.

Basing his calculations mainly on U.S. government statistics, Gettman concludes that marijuana in the U.S. is a $113 billion dollar business. That's a huge chunk of economic activity that is unregulated and untaxed because it's almost entirely off the books.

Of course, the cost of our marijuana laws goes far beyond lost tax revenues and money spent on law enforcement. By consigning a very popular product -- one that's been used by about 100 million Americans, according to government surveys -- to the criminal underground, we've effectively cut legitimate businesspeople out of the market and handed a monopoly to criminals and gangs.

Strangely, government officials love to warn us that some unsavory characters profit off of marijuana sales, while ignoring the obvious: Our prohibitionist laws handed them the marijuana business in the first place, effectively giving marijuana dealers a $113 billion free ride.

All this might make some sense if marijuana were so terribly dangerous that it needed to be banned at all costs, but science long ago came to precisely the opposite conclusion. Compared to alcohol, for example, marijuana is astonishingly safe. For one thing, marijuana is much less addictive than alcohol, with just nine percent of users becoming dependent, as opposed to 15 percent for booze. And marijuana is much less toxic. Heavy drinking is well-documented to damage the brain and liver, and to increase the risk of many types of cancer. Marijuana, on the other hand, has never caused a medically documented overdose death, and scientists are still debating whether even heavy marijuana use causes any permanent harm at all. And then there's violence. Again, the scientific findings are overwhelming: Booze incites violence and aggression; marijuana doesn't.

Despite all that, we now arrest one American every 38 seconds on marijuana charges. And we do so at a staggering cost in law enforcement expenses, lost tax revenues, and staggering profits for criminal gangs.

The alternative is clear: Regulate marijuana just as we do beer, wine, and liquor. The only thing lacking is the political will.

But no doubt these costs do not matter.

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 5-15-2008 at 11:32 PM

Beercan:

The entire quote made shortly after 911 when anti Muslim feelings were running high in the USofA and American Muslims were being targeted by ignorant and freightened people, Obama took a rather courageus stand to protect the rights of the Muslim minority in this country.

"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

This sort of distortion is rampant now in our political and social dialogue and creates a "fog of war" that makes it very difficult for people to get real information. Those who have, with malice of intent, taken this quote out of context have an agenda to distort the character and intention of an honorable man. This quote has been restated over and over by the right wing press who own the airwaves in this country and have created the best propaganda machine since the Third Reich. Leni Reifenstahl had nothing on these folks.

I appreciate the quote of Burke, a real conservative, who had a sense of right and wrong and who would not at all appreciate the right wing reactionaries who now parade around as Conservatives. A recent article in Atlantic Monthly quotes Burke in some detail while discussing McCain, who is more like Burke than Reagan, Bush, Limbaugh or Hannity!

Iflyfishwhennotcontemplatingthewoldofillusioncreatedbytherupertmurdocksoftheworldandthefoxthatheloosedinourchickencoop

Capt. George - 5-16-2008 at 03:53 AM

All about money being "legally" made by the Fat Cats. Also the incredible lack of balls of all our Politicos.

Imagine the number of cushy, overpaid bullchit jobs now being held because of the "War on Drugs"?

I agree with iflyfish, I'd rather pay a Teacher!

Santiago - 5-16-2008 at 05:30 AM

Beercan: we're waiting.... (insert sounds of crickets)

Iflyfish - 5-16-2008 at 06:24 AM

Santiago:

Love the Haiku: and the sound of silence.

I tip Juan
And he tips me
Started out with us two
Now there are three!

Yikes! Fish On!

IflyfishwithjuanwheneverIcan

CaboRon - 5-16-2008 at 06:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Santiago:

Love the Haiku: and the sound of silence.

I tip Juan
And he tips me
Started out with us two
Now there are three!

Yikes! Fish On!

IflyfishwithjuanwheneverIcan


Although I applaud your attempt ... the Haiku form is expressed in only three lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku

Just an fyi .

CaboRon

[Edited on 5-16-2008 by CaboRon]

Iflyfish - 5-16-2008 at 06:42 AM

Yup
No Haiku
There!

Iflyfishbetterthanpenbadpoetryeh?

iflyfish I support your words here

flyfishinPam - 5-16-2008 at 12:54 PM

hi there iflyfish I flyfish too!

I support your words but there are issues that people can never agree on so don't get too wordy on some of these people.

I did a complete turnaround in my thinking a little while back and now I am for the complete legalization of recreational drugs. I'd like to see Mexico legalize them as it would be a good income for the government, more taxes more tourism from all over the world. Instead Mexico chooses to fight an unwinnable war on drugs while their government and people are outgunned by the cartels. (and we can't even have guns to protect ourselves)

We definately have to remove the profit factor and these problems will lessen and this has been proved in history with prohibition.

I live right down the street from a "tiendita". I have read that these tienditas pay something like $30,000 a WEEK for police protection to remain in business uninterrupted. Believe me this is the biggest busienss in town, when tourism (our only industry) is down like in the fall or right before xmas, the tiendita does a booming business. Hell when Hurricane Henriette blew through I watched people continue to buy right during the storm while lamina was flying around that could have chopped off their heads! Its not going away any time soon. People from ALL walks of life, foreign and national buy product at the tiendita. The taxis are even in on it charging 100 pesos one way from the center of town when its only 40 pesos to my house (300 meters away).

With the military going against the cartels the violence has escalated, fortunately not in our area yet but eventually it will as the growth here increases. Its inevitable, like development here. right now there are lots of tweekers and they steal for their habit. once stealing isn't enough they move on to kidnapping for randsom and this has already happened here too.

Personally I would rather see addicts able to buy their product in pharmacies with a prescription and with a portion of the proceeds going to a tax that funds treatment of addiction. I am afraid that the pharmaceutical companies are against legalization because meth would be so easy to make and they couldn't charge so much for it, pot can be grown, cocaine grown and processed easily, opium, heroin similar. If someone could smoke a gallo then maybe they won't need prozac or whatever is the in pill these days. Its all the same.

wouldn't it be luscious if the money spent on the war on drugs and all the other endless wars could be spent on people instead, educating people, medical care, feeding and helping people such as Katrina victims. I can dream can't I? enuf dreamin' now gotta git back to werk

If you had a real name..........

Sharksbaja - 5-16-2008 at 02:27 PM

and a real hand I'd shake it! You are spot-on with this post. Eloquent and precise., thanks.

Cypress - 5-16-2008 at 02:46 PM

If drugs were legal, who do you think would have control of the profits and the taxes derived from them?:spingrin: The same people that tax alcoholic beverages, fuel, tobacco, your income and everything else.:spingrin: Isn't that a comforting thought.:biggrin:

DENNIS - 5-16-2008 at 02:59 PM

If our efing government would properly punish those who break the law...low level offendors should be made to work.....we would have a deterrent. People who break the law must be convinced that they will be punished in a manner they will not like. Maybe they could clean toilets in Iraq.

Iflyfish - 5-16-2008 at 03:09 PM

FlyfisinPam, you are on my list to visit on my next swing thru Loreto. I was too dibilitated last time I visited your lovely town.

I share your dream, including a singing flyline!

Iflyfish

sloopy - 5-21-2008 at 06:04 AM

Very, very interesting information and comments. Dare I say what China did to their opium addicts in the early 30's? That is documented history. Check it out.

CaboRon - 5-21-2008 at 07:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sloopy
Very, very interesting information and comments. Dare I say what China did to their opium addicts in the early 30's? That is documented history. Check it out.


Are you going to provide a link to your documentation ?

Woooosh - 5-21-2008 at 12:07 PM

The price of Cocaine is already downto $28/gram in San Diego. This stunning fact was revealed last month from documents in the San Diego State University drug bust- that took almost a year and netted 90 narco-students. How much lower does it have to get?