BajaNomad - Mexico: some talk about a Failed State

Mexico: some talk about a Failed State

fulano - 5-23-2008 at 02:27 PM

http://www.isria.info/3/journal_2008_05_23_1.htm

"05/23/2008 A BBC report announced that a week ago, Mexico's top policeman, Edgar Millan, was shot dead outside his home in Mexico City. It is the equivalent of killing the head of the Metropolitan Police in London, or the director of the FBI in the US. Two other senior officers were then killed in the space of two days, the murders blamed on Mexico's powerful drug gangs.

A growing number of analysts believe the current situation of state of war between the Mexican authorities and drug cartels may turn Mexico into a failed state; a term intended to mean a weak state in which the central government has little practical control over much of its territory. Calls on the US Department of State to review the current travel advice about Mexico have multiplied. "Soon, that won't be safer to visit Mexico than any other failed states like Somalia" a Texas-based analyst told. Even comparison with Iraq has been drawn by media like Fox News which an editorialist recently wrote that "Mexico has virtually ceded a vast chunk of its sovereign territory to criminal gangs, watched its own officers of law and order hunted down and killed and seems unable to defend itself. Even the Maliki government in Iraq has finally decided to fight back against the illegal gangs of gunmen that threaten its very existence."

"We are shocked by the escalating violence against Mexican law enforcement officials. The recent murders of three high-level police officials by criminal syndicates and drug trafficking cartels are a brutal reaction to President Calderon's determination to fight organized crime. They illustrate the serious threat these organizations pose to democratic institutions in Mexico. We offer our condolences and heartfelt sorrow to the families and colleagues of these courageous Mexicans. Mexico is resolved in this fight against organized crime, has our full and immediate support. Violence and drug trafficking are shared problems and we have shared a responsibility to confront them" US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement on May 12, 2008.

The US Department of State issued an updated travel alert on April 14, 2008 that says "Recent Mexican army and police force conflicts with heavily-armed narcotics cartels have escalated to levels equivalent to military small-unit combat and have included use of machine guns and fragmentation grenades. Confrontations have taken place in numerous towns and cities in northern Mexico, including Tijuana in the Mexican state of Baja California, and Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez in the state of Chihuahua (...) Criminals are armed with a wide array of sophisticated weapons. In some cases, assailants have worn full or partial police or military uniforms and have used vehicles that resemble police vehicles." According to VOA, "Mexican President Felipe Calderon continues his fight against powerful drug cartels as the death count mounts. More than 1,300 people have died this year in Mexico in violence connected to the illicit drug trade. In recent weeks some high-ranking police officials have been targets of drug gangs, leading some analysts to wonder whether the Mexican government or the criminal gangs will win the fight."

The Federation, a recently-formed alliance of drug cartels, is waging a sophisticated war against Mexican authorities, police and military which are said to hold no comparison with better trained cartels which billions of dollars they earned for years provide them with cutting edge military equipments. The situation in Mexico has been so serious for years that as soon as early 2000s, it raised concerns that Mexican cartels' activities would spill over the US southern border. In 2005, a team of rogue Mexican commandos blamed for dozens of killings along the U.S.-Mexico border has carried out at least three drug-related slayings in Dallas (TX), a sign that the group was extending its deadly operations into U.S. cities. Main activities of the cartels that operate in Mexico and the US Southern Border Region are: drug trafficking; border violence; firearms trafficking; alien and terrorist smuggling."

pargo - 5-23-2008 at 05:09 PM

Fulano de etal

Iflyfish - 5-24-2008 at 12:12 PM

Lo siento mucho

Iflyfishattimeswithaheavyheartamigos

Barry A. - 5-24-2008 at 01:00 PM

Personally I take these "reports" very seriously, and it makes me furious. Without the help of the civilian population (now that lawlessness is nearly out of control) it will be extremely difficult to reverse the trend in Mexico, and it WILL spill over into the USA, in my opinion, and already is.

Many will continue to "wag their fingers" decrying these reports as "exageration" and "fear mongering", but I feel strongly that they are wrong. This is a very serious problem that has been "allowed" to develop by the people of Mexico, and many in the USA, who choose to look the other way, and undermine the "rule of law" which is the glue that holds any society together. The "users" of drugs, tho mainly to blame, are not going away, and obviously are hopelessly involved in the problem, in my opinion---------it is up to the general sober public to take a stand against the thugs, in any way that they can.

We had all better "wake up" and assist and support the putting-down of these rogues and parasites, each of us in any way that we can, even if that "way" is only in our attitude and support. :mad:

Barry

flyfishinPam - 5-24-2008 at 01:13 PM

Mexico should legalize all recreatioinal drugs and do what is best for Mexico, not what the big country up north tells it to do. Remove the profit incentive and the cartels will implode. Mexico cannot control this problem as it exists today and thus is out of control, and this is the epitomy of a failed state.

fulano - 5-24-2008 at 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
Mexico should legalize all recreatioinal drugs and do what is best for Mexico, not what the big country up north tells it to do. Remove the profit incentive and the cartels will implode. Mexico cannot control this problem as it exists today and thus is out of control, and this is the epitomy of a failed state.

Well, I hate to tell you this, but Mexico legalized possession of small quantities of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use 2 years ago.

Things have only gotten worse since.

oldlady - 5-24-2008 at 02:04 PM

While it is legals to posess small quanitities of those substances, I believe it is illegal to sell any of them. Doesn't that contribute to making the problem worse? In essence, those that would not buy before for fear of not wanting to be caught for possession will now enter the market. The market becomes bigger and more lucrative and then the competition for the consumers becomes more intense.
On the other hand, if both sides of the transaction are legal.....

Barry A. - 5-24-2008 at 02:42 PM

FlyFishingPam said,
"Mexico should legalize all recreatioinal drugs---------"

"recreational drugs" ????????? Interesting "take" on illegal drugs----------recreational???????----------why would ANYBODY take DRUGS for "recreational" purposes is way beyond me. Just look at the evidence-------what ARE these folks thinking??? Drug use is now "recreational"???

I guess I can comprehend "getting high" because it makes one "feel good", but taking drugs as "recreation"------no, that is a step too far, IMO.

def. of "recreation"= refreshment in body or mind, as after work, by some form of play---------taking drugs is "play"???

:?:

Barry

[Edited on 5-24-2008 by Barry A.]

mtgoat666 - 5-24-2008 at 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
FlyFishingPam said,
"Mexico should legalize all recreatioinal drugs---------"

"recreational drugs" ????????? Interesting "take" on illegal drugs----------recreational???????----------why would ANYBODY take DRUGS for "recreational" purposes is way beyond me. Just look at the evidence-------what ARE these folks thinking??? Drug use is now "recreational"???

I guess I can comprehend "getting high" because it makes one "feel good", but taking drugs as "recreation"------no, that is a step too far, IMO.

def. of "recreation"= refreshment in body or mind, as after work, by some form of play---------taking drugs is "play"???

:?:

Barry

[Edited on 5-24-2008 by Barry A.]

Do you understand that alcohol and tobacco are drugs used for recreation? Pot, coke and alcohol and tobacco are all the same. Correct that, pot is actually much better high than alcohol and tobacco.

Cypress - 5-24-2008 at 03:45 PM

flyfishinPam, :spingrin:

Makes sense. :tumble:

Unfortunately sense is in short supply now days. :tumble:

Barry A. - 5-24-2008 at 03:56 PM

MtGoat----------No, I don't understand that, and perhaps that is part of the (my??) problem.

By definition I don't believe that all those things are "recreational", but what do I know------they are addictive, I thought. :?:

Recreation is supposed to be fun, not addictive and harmful, at least in my mind.

-----but assuming you (and others??) are correct, legalizing them all is going to make everything ok??

Wow, wish I had thought of that.

Problem solved, thank God.

Barry

toneart - 5-24-2008 at 04:06 PM

Quote:

Yes! "Remove the profit incentive" is the key.

toneart - 5-24-2008 at 04:11 PM

Quote:

Barry

[Edited on 5-24-2008 by Barry A.]

Barry,

"Recreational drugs" is a term that is not new. It has been around for decades. I can understand how the concept disturbs you, but try not to get upset with the semantics.

Cypress - 5-24-2008 at 04:22 PM

Isn't alcohol a drug? :?:

It's legal. :yes:

Iflyfish - 5-24-2008 at 04:39 PM

This is a very serious matter indeed. If you carefully read up on the history of the "War on Drugs" you will find that it is not based upon science but upon a political decision made at the end of Nixon/Agnew’s first term as a way to mobilize the vote. Remember the "Silent Majority" which was a code word for those who were not "Counter Culture". The reaction to the Vietnam War and disturbance in the streets of the USofA and France, and for that matter around the world, created a lot of FEAR which was harnessed politically to secure a second term for Nixon/Agnew. Congress was poised to legalize Marijuana at the time, but since then who could advocate for legalizing that which we have a "war" on? It is like the third rail in politics, who would dare do away with Social Security?

There is no neat and tidy solution for this problem. There is one reality and that is that drug use will not go away. Drug use is a part of human history and experience. Tobacco, Marijuana and Cocaine have been found in the royal mummies of Egypt. Beer is one of mankind’s oldest foods. Who are we trying to kid? We are not going to stop drug use.

There is a huge vested interest in the "War on Drugs", it is a multibillion dollar enterprise that supports vast numbers of people. Its lobby effort in Washington is right up there with Pharmaceuticals, Tobacco, Alcohol and Fire Arms. This is BIG BUSINESS. What is happening is a turf war created by the serious attempts of the Mexican Government to seriously confront the Drug Cartels. This has created vacuums that are the current source of the Drug War. However, now this has gotten out of hand and the real question is whether or not the Mexican Army is outgunned in this Gorilla war? The possibility of Mexico becoming a failed state is real and not just rhetoric. So the solution, a “War on Drugs” is having the unanticipated consequence of making things worse.

Taking the profit out of the trade is the only realistic way to stop it. Legalization and government control of the product is the only way to take the Cartels out of the business. The government used to control it in the old PRI days with a wink, a nod and pay off. The tacit agreements, “don’t mess with tourism, stay underground, pay us a proper amount and you can do your thing”. Fox changed all that with a serious effort to eradicate the drugs/Cartels and to some extend succeeded to the point of creating vacuums and nature abhors a vacuum. The current President of Mexico, like Fox, highly Americanized, is following suit in a lock step with the USofA Administration’s “War on Drugs”. The Mexican Government has received a great deal of pressure from its neighbor to the north to follow these policies, and to their own detriment. These policies do not work in the USofA and they are not working in Latin America either.

Let us hope that a new paradigm will emerge in a new administration in the USofA that will take a more enlightened and nuanced view of these things.

Iflyfish

Barry A. - 5-24-2008 at 05:10 PM

Fish----

Most of what you say here is historically true, (I think) and I appreciate your insight here. As a Conservative I am somewhat disappointed in your political references which may be opinion rather than fact, and I believe that detracts from your credibility, but still you have covered many of the pertinant facts, and your take may be the generally right one.

Obviously what we are doing, and have been doing, is not really working except that it keeps a lot of we Law Enforcement types really busy, and of course we think we are having a positive affect--------perhaps that is a myth, but that is what most of us think, anyway.

You are probably right in that we need to take a different tact, but I don't think that legalization will solve the problem completely, but it may be better than what we are doing, and it will increase income to the US Treasury if taxed-----I really don't have any idea, especially since I have been "out of it" for some 12 years now.

We need to do something different------on that I will agree with you. If the "ideas" would be couched in non-political rhetoric I think we could make much more progress. The references and blame just make many of us dig our heals in, and we get no-where, I am thinking.

NOW is the time to put politics aside and try something different. What a mess it is now.

Barry

toneart - 5-24-2008 at 05:18 PM

A very astute observation, Iflyfish!

Unfortunately, I think your observations and excellent articulation will draw the wrath of those who are addicted to anything with the word war attached. As a political tool, wars haven't been going so well lately, except to perpetrate fear.

Having said that, there is much to fear; Mexico is vulnerable to becoming a "failed state". The "drug war" causes more antithetical consequences and destruction that the drugs themselves , and I am by no means condoning drug use or sales. Let us not forget, the cartels are still the real bad guys.

Alas, as you point out, the political and economic infrastructure drives ahead, carrying more pathos than ethos.

Barry's post got in there between ours. Barry, we have had this conversation in the past. I understand your viewpoint and respect it. However, it is political and tends to cause people to walk ten paces in opposite directions and draw.

[Edited on 5-25-2008 by toneart]

Barry A. - 5-24-2008 at 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart
A very astute observation, Iflyfish!

Unfortunately, I think your observations and excellent articulation will draw the wrath of those who are addicted to anything with the word war attached. As a political tool, wars haven't been going so well lately, except to perpetrate fear.

Having said that, there is much to fear; Mexico is vulnerable to becoming a "failed state". The "drug war" causes more antithetical consequences and destruction that the drugs themselves , and I am by no means condoning drug use or sales. Let us not forget, the cartels are still the real bad guys.

Alas, as you point out, the political and economic infrastructure drives ahead, carrying more pathos than ethos.

Tone----You are right, of course, but I submit that is what is causing us to not get anything done--------all these shootouts get us nowhere, and gives rise to unproductive emotions----me included.

Barry

Barry A. - 5-24-2008 at 06:21 PM

The whole concept of using drugs (all drugs) "recreationally" i.e. "for fun" is what upsets me, not the semantics. To me this smacks of personal irresponsibility, due mainly to the the harm and anxiety that it causes those who know and love us, not to mention illegalities of it. Somewhere along the line society decided that drug use/abuse in general was not good, and those that continue to "use" in spite of the law seem to me to be selfish, and acting irresponsibly. If we legalize it, then what message are we sending?

Ok, I know that we (all ?) do things like this, but do we have to actually appear to endorse it, and act like it is a "normal and good thing to do"?? because to me it appears that we actually do approve, and therefore encourage, others including kids to participate. Where does it end----------?

OK, I am preaching now-----------

Enough.

Barry

fulano - 5-24-2008 at 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
Drug use is a part of human history and experience. Tobacco, Marijuana and Cocaine have been found in the royal mummies of Egypt.

You are mixing up your data. Those ancient drugs were used as analgesics by ancient doctors. They were not "recreational" drugs used to get high. The refined form of opium, morphine, is still used as an analgesic.

You have conveniently ignored my post that told you that Mexico decriminalized possession of small quantities of illegal drugs two years ago, to no effect, and continue to bang the drum about legalizing drugs to solve the drug problem.

Your supporters have also totally ignored that fact that your great experiment was tried in the past, and failed. Up until the early 1900's, heroin, opium and marijuana were legal. There were twice the number of people, per capita, addicted to opium and heroin then than there are now that they are illegal.

fulano - 5-24-2008 at 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
The whole concept of using drugs (all drugs) "recreationally" i.e. "for fun" is what upsets me.

Drugs are for people who can't handle reality.

rts551 - 5-24-2008 at 08:29 PM

Ful

You continue to bash ... but have not put forth any answers. Lets here what you would change that would fix the problem.

fulano - 5-24-2008 at 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
Ful
You continue to bash ... but have not put forth any answers. Lets here what you would change that would fix the problem.

Which problem? (1)The problem that Mexico may be a failed state because it lacks sovereignty over large chunks of its real estate; or (2)the problem with drug gangs murdering about 4,000 people per year as they jostle for control of drug routes; or (3)the problem with illegal drugs coming through Mexico to the US; or(4)the problem with the illegal drug trade in the US?

Eugenio - 5-25-2008 at 10:00 AM

We're forgetting here that most of Mexico's problems stem from bad press in the US - and a xenophobic attitude by americans in general. In fact the only places in Mexico where crime is out of control are the areas where large numbers of mexicans live.

Viva Baja.

Iflyfish - 5-25-2008 at 10:02 AM

Barry A

You are right about my "politicizing” my proposition with references to Conservatives and the “War on Drugs”. I have a lot of resentment for what the “Neo Cons” have done to our country and to the countries of others.

I respect the real Conservatives like Barry Goldwater who was for decriminalization of drugs and who fundamentally believed that the government had no place in interfering with the private choices of people.

The “Neo Cons” took over the Republican Party and perverted many of its values and goals. I carry a lot of resentment for the harm done by these people. I own that and am afraid that these feelings will not go away until War Crime Tribunals deal with these people and that justice again prevails and this country again is seen as a beacon of hope and as a nation that supports the rule of law. I have very strong feelings about this and no doubt these feelings color my writing.

I appreciate your respectful confrontation of my resentment and how it undermines my credibility and provides a distraction from the point I am making.

Fulano

I think that FlyfishingPam addressed the issue of decriminalization vs. legalization in her post. Legalization would allow for government control of the resource, its quality, price and tax revenues to be generated from its sale.

I do not argue with the likelihood of increased use, or report of use, after legalization. However one must realize that these drugs are already in wide enough use to fund the Cartels. Those are billions of dollars amigo that are in an underground economy.

Problems of individual abuse, addiction etc. can be addressed on an individual basis. There are ways to address addiction on an INDIVIDUAL basis. Dealing with the problem in this way diffuses the issue. The individual addict is not threatening the legitimacy of the state. The individual junkie is not threatening to destabilize the entire government! The drugs Cartels are indeed doing this. I would rather treat a million addicts than fight out a house to house war in cities across Mexico in a “War”. Look at what has happened in Iraq with an occupation in the “War on Terrorism”. One must at some point ask the question whether a “War” like that in Iraq, that has displaced over two million people, disrupted or destroyed infrastructure like electricity, sewage, garbage, water etc. is better or worse than the stability of the place before the “War”.

What will Mexico look like as this “War” increases, as the firepower increases, as the battles wage on in the cities? What happens in cities where “war lords” rule? Or what happens to the private citizen living in a war zone? These are the stakes, these are some of the fundamental issues.

Give me an individual addict to cure rather than an armed, organized gang to deal with.

Iflyfish

oldlady - 5-25-2008 at 11:14 AM

Amen.

fulano - 5-25-2008 at 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IflyfishGive me an individual addict to cure rather than an armed, organized gang to deal with.
Iflyfish

Do I need to give you a lecture in logic? You have reduced the entire problem down to an "either/or" scenario. Your entire position is that if drugs are legalized, organized crime will disappear. You have no proof of that. You just assume the conclusion. There are other possible scenarios.

1) Individual drig use AND organized crime could increase.
2) A concerted effort could reduce organized crime AND individual drug use.

Your argument is a variation of the "false dilemma" fallacy.

rts551 - 5-25-2008 at 11:31 AM

I haven't heard your solution yet, Ful.

Skeet/Loreto - 5-25-2008 at 11:43 AM

Ole Skeet has a solution

Boose and Tobacco are drugs which do not have the immediate effect of lilling you-

Hard Drugs are faster to Death with more violant Deaths, also Faster.

Legalize Drugs

Put all users of Drugs who committ Crimes in Consentration Camps in the Arizona Desert/ Supply them with Drugs so that they die Faster.

Anon The Preacher

TMW - 5-25-2008 at 12:21 PM

I think you could legalize Marijuana and treat it like alcohol, but the hard core drugs I believe would swamp our national medical capabilities. We spend enormous amounts on alcohol and tobacco related medical problems now. I guess one way for national healthcare is to legalize them all, but be prepared to pay the price out of pocket. Social security and Medicare taxes will seem small fry in comparison. I think Mexico needs to get tougher with the drugs gangs. Find out where their money is and take it away. Probably start with cleaning house first and get an elite drug fighting force with well paid members. Raise the kill rate to 10,000 a year or more. I also think the military at the checkpoints could be better used elsewhere.

Cypress - 5-25-2008 at 12:47 PM

I'm with Skeet on this!

Attributing the problem to Conservatives, AKA Republicans?

Last time I checked the Democrats, AKA Liberals, held a majority of the Senate and House seats.

They can pass legalization laws today.

Naw, they're too busy holding hearings on Steriod use among sports stars and grilling oil company execs. :lol:

The drug issue and the fuel issue are based on "Supply and Demand".

oldlady - 5-25-2008 at 01:36 PM

Fulano,
In what post did any of the supporters of legalization say that if drugs are legalized organized crime would disappear? If you want to "give lectures in logic" that's fine, but why don't we start with challenging what has been stated instead of leaping to extreme conclusions by inference.
Mexico is obviously having a very difficult time with the situation. Why wouldn't they? The US has thrown vast amount of resources at the problem..no real measure of progress that I know of. Ergo...what either country is doing is not yielding an improved result. The "either/or" situation seems to be...either continue what you are doing or change what you are doing. Either change your strategy, which in my opinion is worth trying, and legalize sale and use of drugs. I'm strong on individual freedoms and don't like the idea of a government telling its citizens what they can and cannot do with their bodies. A lot of people are going to be irresponsible, abuse drugs, overdose and die in the process. Some innocent people will be killed by their cars. But many will not be mugged, beaten and killed for a few hundred dollars if the drug only costs a few bucks. Or, you commit resources to the problem and wipe out the dealers, importers, etc. Expect a lot of people are going die in the process. A lot of the best we have, as in any other war. Don't expect a perfect solution, don't even look for one. My expectation is that the situation would improve significantly enough that Mexico will not become a failed state.
Skeet's comment has a Darwinian logic to it.

Cypress - 5-25-2008 at 02:00 PM

oldlady, Darwinian logic? :spingrin:

Guess the "best we have" are dealing drugs and will be caught up in the killing fields. :no:

You equate the narco thugs and our troops in Iraq? What sort of rationalization process is oozing thru your mind?

Barry A. - 5-25-2008 at 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
oldlady, Darwinian logic? :spingrin:

Guess the "best we have" are dealing drugs and will be caught up in the killing fields. :no:

You equate the narco thugs and our troops in Iraq? What sort of rationalization process is oozing thru your mind?

Huh????????????? :?:

bacquito - 5-25-2008 at 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fulano

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam

Well, I hate to tell you this, but Mexico legalized possession of small quantities of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use 2 years ago.

Things have only gotten worse since.

The problem is the market for the drugs (the big money) is up north.

bacquito - 5-25-2008 at 02:26 PM

Quote:

Or

Put all users of Drugs who committ Crimes in Consentration Camps in the Arizona Desert/ Supply them with Drugs so that they die Faster.

Anon The Preacher

Not in Az. Better in Death Valley :lol:

BMG - 5-25-2008 at 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
oldlady, Darwinian logic? :spingrin:

Guess the "best we have" are dealing drugs and will be caught up in the killing fields. :no:

You equate the narco thugs and our troops in Iraq? What sort of rationalization process is oozing thru your mind?

Is there a post that was edited/deleted that I didn't see?

oldlady - 5-25-2008 at 02:52 PM

I didn't equate anything with Iraq, Cypress, you did. I didn't mention Iraq in my post.
Nor did I say or imply the best are narco thugs.
Escalating the war on drugs means more law enforcement resources, does it not? I posit that some of those people will be killed in the process. You may choose to believe that such will not be the case. Certainly there have been numerous posts with articles enumerating such deaths, in Mexico, in the US. I consider law enforcement officials, among others, to also be among the best we have.

fulano - 5-25-2008 at 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady
Either change your strategy, which in my opinion is worth trying, and legalize sale and use of drugs. I'm strong on individual freedoms and don't like the idea of a government telling its citizens what they can and cannot do with their bodies. A lot of people are going to be irresponsible, abuse drugs, overdose and die in the process.

Well, we just went through this on another thread and I don't like to repeat myself (too often, anyway). The problem with your strategy is that nobody has yet figured out how to charge those people who use those drugs for the social costs to society of carrying them on our backs. Somebody has to foot the bill to doctor them and feed them for the 6 or 7 decades they will live as useless, inept parasites on society. The hard-charging "neocons" are tired of paying the bill.

If you tax the price of your newly legalized "recreational drugs" to fund a medical trust to pay for the costs, nobody will pay it. They will just get their drugs cheaper and illegally because there is no social cost attached. Think about it. One $25 street priced balloon of heroin could totally amp them out. It would then cost somebody $5,000 per month in medical, psychiatric, housing and food costs to carry the person for the next 60 years until they die. That's $3.6 million of costs. How do you tack on to the $25 price for balloon of heroin the present value of another $3.6 million?

Even if you argue -- conservatively -- that only one "recreational drug" user in 100 will need this kind of lifetime support, that still puts the cost of the tax on one hit at $36,000. Take it even one step further. Even if you argue that only one user in 100 will need this kind of lifetime support, and that person will purchase 100 doses in his lifetime, that would still require a tax of $360 per dose.

There is no way you could ever fund the cost to society of drug users by taxing the drugs.

Now, lets take this little experiment to the logical absurdity. Let's say we decide to legalize drugs and not cover the costs in the taxes on the drugs, because it makes them too expensive. Let's say we put legalization up to a vote of the citizens. Just like with a ballot proposition, we have to tell the voters what the costs are. So we crunch the numbers and tell the voters that if they vote "yes" on the proposition to legalize drugs, the cost to each taxpayer in the United States will be an additional $1,000 per year, which will be deducted from their paychecks or on their tax returns as an additional tax to fund the "Recreational Drug Trust Fund".

Or, if we vote "no" on the proposition, there will be no additional tax, but 8,000 more Mexicans will die each year.

How do you think the vote will turn out?

Cypress - 5-25-2008 at 03:04 PM

oldlady,

Oops! My apologies for attributed statements to you that you're not guilty of.

oldlady - 5-25-2008 at 04:40 PM

Cypress, Thanks, very gracious of you....think you would have enjoyed my "oozing brain" searching through my post to figure out what the Hades I typed before I launched my salvo!

Skeet/Loreto - 5-25-2008 at 04:47 PM

It is False Logic to equate Mexico with the States on Drugs as a vast amount only come through mexico from columbia.

And of Course we have the Corn fields of Calif. , The Trinity Mountains for Pot. and even the Plains of Texas where now they use Movable Trailers to Cook DOPE at night and then move to another Lonely Field for the next batch.

The Problem is DEMAND.

The citizens of Amarillo just Voted Down, for the second time in 2 years, a No Smoking Ban,

Survival of The Fitest

oldlady - 5-25-2008 at 06:00 PM

Fulano,
First I am confused because most of your statements sounded like the frame of reference was the US, but the last sentence "8,000 more Mexicans will die" didn't follow, unless I missed something. (Yuk, this would be so much easier to do verbally).
Second, the answer to your question is the vote would be no.

I could pick back at you on the numbers. But I am not trying to win an argument here so I can swipe a spit laden figure across my screen and say score one for the old broad. Besides, I'm not that smart.

Sometimes, and this may be the case here, people get too knotted up in the tactical aspects of a solution that they lose sight of the problem they are trying to solve. Indeed they forget their determination to solve the problem. I think politicians are guilty of this......a lot.

Perhaps the social costs that you refer to are already being borne....As an example, that 5K a month that you reference is being spent now on the monthly income for a family with children whose policeman husband was killed or disabled in an activity directly related to or caused by drugs.
Hard hearted Hannah that I am, I would craft a bill that does not provide for caring of people who "amp" out. Let their families figure it out. Let private charitable agencies and churches figure it out. Let those who want to help them do so, but do not burden the taxpayer. Yes, if they don't get help they may die. Stuff happens.

Everybody seems to agree that the drug cartels are very dangerous. I maintained that the reason the problem worsened in Mexico was because
demand was enhanced with legalized possession. Legalize the sale and watch good ol' American capitalism(Phillip Morris, Merck, Schering Plough) marginalize them fast! Now, build a program that changes the culture. The US reduced smoking in huge numbers. We've turned smokers into pariahs. We can do it with drugs. But when we try to protect people from their own stupidity, in my opinion, it's like pushing a rope.

mtgoat666 - 5-25-2008 at 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady
Let those who want to help them do so, but do not burden the taxpayer. Yes, if they don't get help they may die. Stuff happens.

your a heartless, cold grinch. i thank the lord that most people have more humanity.

Barry A. - 5-25-2008 at 07:37 PM

MtGoat---------I think you should help them all you can--------just please don't require, or expect ME to also help--------I spend my money on helping those who demonstrate that they want to help themselves, not parasites who are bent on self-destruction. Right now that entails helping my kids and grandkids, all who are very successful but can use a little extra help from time to time to make things come together faster.

barry

rts551 - 5-25-2008 at 07:42 PM

Barry. Very successful???? why don't you say you only help your own? who are not "parasites"

Barry A. - 5-25-2008 at 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
Barry. Very successful???? why don't you say you only help your own? who are not "parasites"

Yes, my kids and grandkids (8) are all successful, so far. 6 are already adults.

I do help "my own", but when they are not needing it I also help deserving folks outside my family if I think I can facilitate them being more successful. Attitude is everything, with me, and I only help those with the "right attitude" by my deffinition.

My main help with kids and grandkids is to fund their ROTH IRAS each year----at least those that are working. It is a good tax-free investment, and will help them down the road.

barry

Iflyfish - 5-25-2008 at 10:16 PM

Oldlady wrote:

"Legalize the sale and watch good ol' American capitalism(Phillip Morris, Merck, Schering Plough) marginalize them fast! Now, build a program that changes the culture. The US reduced smoking in huge numbers. We've turned smokers into pariahs. We can do it with drugs. But when we try to protect people from their own stupidity, in my opinion, it's like pushing a rope."

This is what has happened in Amsterdam, public education and social stigma have limited the problem.

Fulano,

You have stated: “You are mixing up your data. Those ancient drugs were used as analgesics by ancient doctors. They were not "recreational" drugs used to get high. The refined form of opium, morphine, is still used as an analgesic.”

Would you please account for the presence of tobacco, marijuana and cocaine in ancient Egyptian mummies? Are you trying to tell me that people have not historically used these drugs for recreation? Give me a break! Human beings are highly addictive organisms and seek out experiences and substances that change consciousness. To deny this is to deny a basic trait of human beings. “Care for some coffee” says the Turk. “Care for some tea” says the Brit. “Care for a pull on my hooka”, says the Indian. “How about a beer mate” says the Aussie?

You said: “Do I need to give you a lecture in logic?

Having paid for a rather good education in Logic: Ancient, Medieval and Non Aristotelian, I don’t need the lecture.

You went on to say:”You have reduced the entire problem down to an "either/or" scenario. Your entire position is that if drugs are legalized, organized crime will disappear. You have no proof of that. You just assume the conclusion.”

If you examine my premise it is not an either/or but rather an if/then premise and I did not say that crime would disappear. That is a redefinition of my statements. To assert that crime would disappear is naïve at best. You are using the logical device of “redefinition” and “Reductio ad absurdum” and it is not useful to the dialogue. You further use the device of “false premise” in your positing my position as an either/or.

You have written: “Your supporters have also totally ignored that fact that your great experiment was tried in the past, and failed. Up until the early 1900's, heroin, opium and marijuana were legal. There were twice the number of people, per capita, addicted to opium and heroin then than there are now that they are illegal.”

You here use the debating device of “guilt by association” when you use the term “Your supporters”. If you mean that others have argued this point, then that is another matter. I belong to no group that advocates for the legalization of any drugs.

You make my point when you write:”Up until the early 1900's, heroin, opium and marijuana were legal. There were twice the number of people, per capita, addicted to opium and heroin then than there are now that they are illegal.”

You make my point that criminalizing behavior does not stop it. The behavior continues despite attempts to change it via criminalization. You are arguing degree not kind. You are saying that there is MORE use of some drugs prior to criminalization. That is an argument of degree. My argument is one of kind. I believe that drug use will not go away and criminalization has not decreased use of many drugs and these drugs appear to wax and wane in their use over time.

I have pointed out the failure of prohibition to stop alcohol use and the secondary consequence of it driving the trade underground which increased the number and power of gangs. Gangs existed before Prohibition; Prohibition gave the gangs a very popular commodity that they could peddle.

You conclude a causal relationship between criminalization and decreased use of illicit drugs. They are now criminalized and their use has increased, and in some cases to m epidemic proportions. I believe that social sanction is more powerful than laws i.e. the decrease in tobacco use as a result of a very powerful public education campaign. It seems to me that each generation goes about the business of learning on its own the folly of drug abuse. Note the rise and fall of cocaine use in this country. It is also clear that not all drug users are either addicts or abusers. Some people are able to drink and not have it ruin their lives. Some people are able to use other drugs and not become addicted. The problem is that it is a bit of a roulette game and those with bad genes in that department are not able to just use recreationally. Some who take up boxing will suffer from permanent brain damage.

You stated: “You have conveniently ignored my post that told you that Mexico decriminalized possession of small quantities of illegal drugs two years ago, to no effect, and continue to bang the drum about legalizing drugs to solve the drug problem.”

Here you use the debating device of an ad homonym argument. By implying that I do not respond to your statement by “conveniently ignoring” it, you imply motivation to me that does not exist. I believe that FlyfishingPam addressed this issue and I seconded her analysis, that being that decriminalization is not the same as legalization and the affect of these two different approaches would of course be different. Under decriminalization the user must still access the product, which is now primarily controlled by Cartels. Further I do not believe, nor have I stated, nor do I believe that I have implied that legalization would “solve the drug problem”. There are too many levels to this for any one approach to resolve this very complex issue. I am however saying that the current way of dealing with this problem is an abject failure and incredibly expensive and destructive to boot.

You state: “If you tax the price of your newly legalized "recreational drugs" to fund a medical trust to pay for the costs, nobody will pay it. They will just get their drugs cheaper and illegally because there is no social cost attached. Think about it. One $25 street priced balloon of heroin could totally amp them out. It would then cost somebody $5,000 per month in medical, psychiatric, housing and food costs to carry the person for the next 60 years until they die. That's $3.6 million of costs. How do you tack on to the $25 price for balloon of heroin the present value of another $3.6 million?

Even if you argue -- conservatively -- that only one "recreational drug" user in 100 will need this kind of lifetime support, that still puts the cost of the tax on one hit at $36,000. Take it even one step further. Even if you argue that only one user in 100 will need this kind of lifetime support, and that person will purchase 100 doses in his lifetime, that would still require a tax of $360 per dose.

There is no way you could ever fund the cost to society of drug users by taxing the drugs.”

There is now a significant cost to you in how this issue is being addressed. I will not cite the overall cost break down for the entire “War on Drugs” but will cite the direct cost of incarceration. I can find and post the figures for the current “War on Drugs” but don’t want to expend the time right now.

20% of those incarcerated in State prisons, whereas Federal prison percentages are higher, are incarcerated for drug offences.

In 2005 over 1,500,000 there were arrests of adults for drug charges.

The cost of incarceration for individual drug offenders in US in 1997 was over $24,000 per year. That figure is now eleven years old and now the costs are in the $30,000 plus range.

Enough, time for bed!

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 5-26-2008 at 08:00 AM

rts551

You write: "Ful, ........ Lets here what you would change that would fix the problem."

Silence

Iflfyfish

pargo - 5-26-2008 at 08:21 AM

I remember back in school, all the way back in junior high and up. There were the "good students" or "nerds" if you will...then there were the stoners of all sorts. I knew many of them. I kind of relate it all to the story of the two squirels..one was a laboriuos hard working little fellow getting ready for the long winter. The other, well you know the rest.

Those stoners are the sprung chickens and crack and meth heads we all see on the streets today. They are a burden to us all in a lot of ways.
Why should we (the hard working squirels) foot the bill for losers who knowingly made the wrong choices in life. We could all have chosen the easy path of the stoners but the majority of us worked hard for what little, or alot , of what we've accomplished in our lives. That's life. It's cruel reality. You lag behind...you lose...your fault.
OLdlady...you're right on

fulano - 5-26-2008 at 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
rts551

You write: "Ful, ........ Lets here what you would change that would fix the problem."

Silence

Iflfyfish

Well, you see, fish, I never said I had a solution. I said legalizing drugs was NOT the solution. I also gave citations to historical data that demonstrated it was not the solution. If you are having trouble with your reading comprehension, I can recommend some study books. And as far as your debating skills go, you might want to consider a college level course in logic. If you took one, you would learn that the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion. Shifting the burden of proof is a common maneuver with people who have nothing more than a few opening sound bites of information and no depth in their analysis.

I would also point out that saying, "Lets here [sic] what you would change that would fix the problem" is already doomed to logical failure as it dismisses the current drug strategy, presupposes that the current stategy is not optimal and asks for a superior strategy.

flyfishinPam - 5-26-2008 at 09:32 AM

Quote:

[Edited on 5-24-2008 by Barry A.]

Barry

What would you call alcohol then? is is something you have to take to function through life, is it something you take before work or driving or operating machinery? no it is not. it is something you do after work, on your free time for recreation. it is legal. please explain why alcohol should be legal and the other recreationsl drugs can't. also when formulating your argument please remember the prohibition era.

[Edited on 5-26-2008 by flyfishinPam]

flyfishinPam - 5-26-2008 at 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fulano

You have conveniently ignored my post that told you that Mexico decriminalized possession of small quantities of illegal drugs two years ago, to no effect, and continue to bang the drum about legalizing drugs to solve the drug problem.

Oh really? I understood that this was proposed but struck down and never passed. BTW the legislature is trying to get it through again.

OK then if small quantities are legal like you say, then how do these people get these small quantities? by growing their own? OK for pot that holds water, By constructing their own meth lab and making it themselves? naw probably not. OK they're growing their own coca and processing it in their homes...

c'mon for the most part they're buying it from the pretty much legal out in the open, everybody knows about tienditas.

so if having small quanitiies is legal as you say, and then these small quanities are being bought at illegal outposts that operate in the open becuse the failed state cannot shut them down, then this mini legalization has either not alleviated the problem or it has been made worse according to you...is this what you are implying?

I don't think so I think you're just shooting off your mouth and have little idea what you're talking about. I don't want to sway opinions I just want to provoke thought. Any reasonable person when they put their unbiased thought into this issue can come to the conclusion that the way things are now has lead to failure in every way.

Barry A. - 5-26-2008 at 09:47 AM

FFPam--------You have a good point-------I just never thought of it that way (the "recreation" aspect), and it kinda horrified me. But I will concede the point.

As to Fish (and others) "point" on education-------a case in point is on page 14 of the latest AARP BULLETIN where they point out that 85 to 90% of all Lung Cancer is caused by smoking------it is education of the folks that does impact us, and it sure impacted me. The health information is what made me finally make up my mind to quit smoking 10 years ago, and once I had made up my mind to quit, it was sooooo easy. The secret (for me at least) was MAKING THE DECISION TO QUIT. I see this as the answer to all addiction, tho that is probably a vast oversimplification. (I like simple answers)

Thanks for your feedback, Pam.

Barry

flyfishinPam - 5-26-2008 at 10:00 AM

Ok Barry, just slow down and think and smell the roses from time to time.

At this point I can plainly see the following:

primary school children going to the tiendita to buy whatever they want.

I live right down the street from a tiendita. I would suspect they bought pot or crystal.

If these recreationsl drugs were controlled the crystal could be bought at a pharmacy like with a doctors prescription and say the pot could be bought at a store like a liquor shop where they check your ID.

Can a toddler in diapers go into the Cactus liquor and buy a six pack? No they can't.
Can a toddler in diapers do to the tiendita and buy a gram of coke, say for their bonehead parents that are loo lazy to go and get it themselves?

The answer is a resoundng and unquestionable YES!

Now with this information drugs are illegal and the war on drugs is a complete failure.

flyfishinPam - 5-26-2008 at 10:19 AM

and fulano while you brought us the suggestion:

From wikipedia:

the definition of a failed state-

A failed state is a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory. The level of control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities.[citation needed] Furthermore, the declaration that a state has "failed" is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical consequences.[citation needed]

********
unfortunately a few of these qualities actually apply here. what kind of geopolitical consequences will there be for Mexico? likely the loss of its autonomy and Mexico has been in a similar position before. I say this after studying very hard for a Mexican history exam that was required to get Mex. citizenship. History is so totally repeating itself here, but if it does do a full circle we're all in big trouble. On thinking further I now understand the Mexican's view on the future and why only the present need be important.

Barry A. - 5-26-2008 at 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
Ok Barry, just slow down and think and smell the roses from time to time.

Jeeeeze!!! that is a shot from the hip without (apparently)having any idea what my background is.-----I was a Fed. Agent in the Drug Wars for some 29 years------I have "thought" about this a great deal!!! and been involved in many seminars on the subject. To say the "drug wars" is a "complete failure" is silly, and you are absolutely wrong----------what I was conceding was that you made some good points---------please don't take that concession as a license to start shooting with your scatter gun, and going off the deep end. We need to come up with new ideas, implement them, and forget the "blame game" which gets us NOWHERE, and in fact defeats our purpose.

You certainly know how to push my buttons!!! and I respect you less for that. :fire:

barry

flyfishinPam - 5-26-2008 at 10:27 AM

Barry my words were not meant as an attack as I have no way of knowing your background and I never asked for anyones respect. this is a message board where people opine and that's what I'm doing while waiting for someone to come it and kill time so to speak.

Since you are an ex fed of 29 years in the drug war, do you see this drug war as being a successful endevor?

also my legalization comment is not meant for the USA but for Mexico where the battling on the front lines is taking place. And in knowing that please also understand that it is only a matter of time that the front lines move north of the border.

Woooosh - 5-26-2008 at 10:49 AM

My two cents...

I think the narco drug situation is nearing the tipping point. With the retail price of Cocaine down to $28/gram in San Diego- the wholsale cost must be down to $15-20/gram. This to me means that too much cocaine is getting across the border in relation to the demand- thus driving down prices. I think the drug gangs are fighting in Mexico to prevent rival gangs from dumping their drugs at cheap prices in the USA and further eroding the cartel's profits.

LancairDriver - 5-26-2008 at 10:50 AM

How anyone can rationalize the "war on drugs" as bearing any resemblance to success is beyond comprehension. It is a complete failure by any yardstick. Mexico is bearing the brunt of this failure. More Mexican police, military, and ordinary citizens have lost their lives in this "war" than US lives that have been lost in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan thus far..

Iflyfish - 5-26-2008 at 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
FFPam--------You have a good point-------I just never thought of it that way (the "recreation" aspect), and it kinda horrified me. But I will concede the point.

As to Fish (and others) "point" on education-------a case in point is on page 14 of the latest AARP BULLETIN where they point out that 85 to 90% of all Lung Cancer is caused by smoking------it is education of the folks that does impact us, and it sure impacted me. The health information is what made me finally make up my mind to quit smoking 10 years ago, and once I had made up my mind to quit, it was sooooo easy. The secret (for me at least) was MAKING THE DECISION TO QUIT. I see this as the answer to all addiction, tho that is probably a vast oversimplification. (I like simple answers)

Thanks for your feedback, Pam.

Barry

From someone with your back ground this is indeed a major acknowledgement and change of perspective. I admire your openness to see things differently and to acknowledge that shift in thinking. We are in a real mess right now and continuing with the wrong premise will inevitably lead one to the worn conclusion.

Having been involved in the field of Mental Health for a few years longer than yours in the "War on Drugs" I can attest to the fact that the decision to quit is the FUNDAMENTAL decision. Once that decision is made, there is help available. The problem is that most addicts, and that is to any substance, process or relationship, need to "hit bottom" before making that decision in a meaningful way. For many addicts the decision to not use is so compelling that it can only be made a day at a time.

Drug use, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, morphine, heroin will not stop. Like Prostitution, people will seak out illicit pleasure, the bottom line is pleasure, drugs feel good, at least at first they feel good, then for some, addiction sets in and then the drugs are used to feel "normal". Drug use will wax and wane as it has through out history. Some will become addicted, that is a given. Education and social stigma are powerful forces, they are not dramatic, take time, but in the end succeed.

To those who say essentially "let the addict stew in their own juices", "I don't want to fund treatment for their stupidity" they are ignoring the very real cost that they pay anyway for this problem. Do you want to pay for incarceration? Do you want to pay the street sweeper for picking up the bodies? Do you want the psychotic on our streets to simply be ignored also? Do you believe that we have no responsibility for the plight of our fellow man? Do you indeed believe that you are not your brother's keeper?
Probably not.

Iflyfish

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 5-26-2008 at 11:25 AM

Grover:

I am so out of it.....is that an advertisement? I am a fish out of water.

Iflyfish

fulano - 5-26-2008 at 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
I say this after studying very hard for a Mexican history exam that was required to get Mex. citizenship.

Are you aware that a US citizen does not lose his US citizenship by becoming a citizen of another country? The only way to lose US citizenship is to renounce your citizenship in writing. while in a foreign country.

Unfortunately, the new Mexican rules of naturalization required you to sign a renunciation of your other citizenships. You can read it here:

http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/53.pdf

Article 17.

woody with a view - 5-26-2008 at 12:04 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately, the new Mexican rules of naturalization required you to sign a renunciation of your other citizenships. You can read it here:

CLASSIC! yet the mex govt encourages it's people to leave, hopefully be given amnesty and do you think they expect them to renounce their mexican citizenship?

"wherever you have a mexican, you have mexico"... :?:

p.s. sorry for the hijack, jack....

Cypress - 5-26-2008 at 12:04 PM

Why would anybody in their right mind denounce /give up their US citizenship? :?:

Tax dodge? :?:

Legal issues? Insanity?

flyfishinPam - 5-26-2008 at 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fulano

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
I say this after studying very hard for a Mexican history exam that was required to get Mex. citizenship.

well I haven't signed anything and we're still in tramite. i was explaining why I knew the history of Mexico and could relate it to today's happenings. if I have to sign that document I will. I really want to become a citizen of Mexico. The USA recognizes dual citizenry and according to their rules I will have to denounce my citizenship in front of a consular. this is my business entirely. and your point is?????

toneart - 5-26-2008 at 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam

Quote:

Originally posted by fulano

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
I say this after studying very hard for a Mexican history exam that was required to get Mex. citizenship.

Uh oh! We are getting off the subject here. Maybe this would better stand alone in another topic.

DENNIS - 5-26-2008 at 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Why would anybody in their right mind denounce /give up their US citizenship? :?:

Tax dodge? :?:

Legal issues? Insanity?

Because they never learned to appreciate what they are and have.

toneart - 5-26-2008 at 01:34 PM

I hesitate to validate anyone's opinion for fear of them being chastised for being guilty/offensive/wrong/politically incorrect/"un-American", etc. by association. In actuality no one is responsible for another's comments.

There is a lot of diversity among out fellow nomads. Many have specialized training in Law Enforcement and Mental Health which I do not. There have been some brilliant comments and observations; Iflyfish, Flyfishinpam, Oldlady, and I always appreciate Barry A.'s comments for being so open minded and fair, even though we often disagree politically.

My opinions are not given as an expert. I consider myself well informed and make logical deductions (according to me). :smug:

This, of course, will be held to ridicule by some of those who do not hold my points of view. My preferred choice of communication is to not attack or ridicule those with whom I disagree. Through my years I find I learn more by exchanging by civil discourse.

I think that the premise of Mexico approaching "Failed State" status is a very real possibility. Any discussion of countries, drugs and politics pushes emotional buttons. Many people allow their sense of nationalism, morality or politics to cloud their ability to think objectively.

Many of us on this board have ties to Mexico. Many of us love her people and some of us also have a vested interest, either as property owners or as travelers to a place that we love. So lets try to reason out this problem of Mexico's stability being threatened by the "War on Drugs". There are really three sides to this war; the cartels, the governments and the users. It is generally acknowledged that the current approach to end the threat to Mexico's well being is not working.

The idea of decriminalizing or legalizing the usage of drugs ( I am not making a distinction here) holds merit because it would take the profit motive or middle man out of it for now. The profiting middle man are the cartels. That is their business and they operate by intimidation, corruption and violence. They are thugs. They exist on both sides of the border. They will always be thugs but they will just have to look for other lines of work (or trouble), which they will surely do. But to deprive them of their profit will get them out of the drug trade. They will be marginalized and dispersed.

That is not to say that there will not be consequences. There will surely be victims and social costs involved. There are anyway. I believe the trade off would be worth it in terms of lives lost (fewer) and squandered resources (less). Statistics be damned! They can be skewed to support a point of view. But I believe in my heart that the negative consequences will pale in comparison to the horror we are now witnessing, and the future of Mexico and its relationship to The United States will benefit if a new approach is attempted.
:!:

Barry A. - 5-26-2008 at 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
Barry my words were not meant as an attack as I have no way of knowing your background and I never asked for anyones respect. this is a message board where people opine and that's what I'm doing while waiting for someone to come it and kill time so to speak.

Since you are an ex fed of 29 years in the drug war, do you see this drug war as being a successful endevor?

also my legalization comment is not meant for the USA but for Mexico where the battling on the front lines is taking place. And in knowing that please also understand that it is only a matter of time that the front lines move north of the border.

Pam----The Drug Wars are an incredibly complicated problem-----have they been successful? Partially. Tons of "drugs" have been destroyed that would have otherwise ended up on the streets-----that part has been a success tho we apprehended only a tiny part of the total drugs out there. Obviously there is a problem, and I am open to ideas-----but to exagerate and call the 'wars' a total failure is over the top.

Fish-----No, I am NOT my brothers keeper, at least how I interpret your meaning of that phrase. Until I know your definition of "brother's keeper" I cannot really say yes, or no. Like I said, when people make the decision to straighten themselves out, and demonstrate it, then I will help.

Maybe I would feel differently if I had "problem people" in my family or life, but I don't. It is tough for me to understand "problem people"-------I was always taught to solve my problems, and that is the way I raised all my kids. They have always solved their problems, mostly with no help. But, truthfully they did not have the type of problems we are talking about here, so again it is hard for me to relate.

I applaud your getting involved and trying to help, and I respect everybody until they give me reason to no longer deserve that respect (IMO, of course).

Barry

timely piece

flyfishinPam - 5-26-2008 at 01:57 PM

http://www.mexidata.info/id1848.html

Monday, May 26, 2008

The Drug Wars' Body Counts Continue To Mount in Mexico

By Allan Wall

In Mexico, the ongoing battles between the drug cartels, and between drug cartels and the government, go on and on – and the body count mounts.

On May 23rd, 2008, Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora announced that, thus far in calendar year 2008, killings linked to organized crime and drug trafficking have increased 47% over those in 2007.

According to Medina Mora’s figures, as of May 24th there had been 1,378 such murders. At this time last year the figure was 940.

Since it’s only May, that means that 2008 is well on the way to surpass the 2007 total of 2,500 killings.

The total body count (to date) during President Felipe Calderon’s administration is 4,152 killings, 450 of whom were policemen, prosecutors or Mexican military personnel.

(As a point of comparison, the U.S. has lost 4,081 military personnel in Iraq since 2003).

Another way to look at the death toll is as a daily average. On May 22nd (the day before Medina Mora’s higher figures were announced), Mexico’s La Jornada newspaper published its calculation of an average of 7.6 killings per day since Calderon took office, although it added that in the week previous the average was 15 such killings per day.

According to Medina Mora, there has been a “significant increase” of killings in the northern states of Chihuahua, Baja California and Sinaloa. Meanwhile, the killings have decreased in Nuevo Leon, Guerrero and Mexico City.

Ciudad Juarez (across the border from El Paso, Texas) has been the scene of heavy fighting, both between cartels, and between security forces and narco gunmen. In Ciudad Juarez alone there have been about 400 such killings thus far in 2008.

In a grisly example near the city of Durango, six severed heads were recently discovered alongside the highway. Each had been placed carefully within a cooler, four of them in an abandoned vehicle, accompanied by threatening messages to a rival.

It may be no coincidence that the heads were placed in the vicinity of where a gun battle took place several days earlier, in which eight gunmen were slain.

Reports also indicate that a realignment and reorganization is taking place among the drug cartels, who live in a grim, dog-eat-dog world of shifting dependencies and alliances.

The U.S. government is preparing to aid the Mexican government in its fight against the cartels, but this aid too is controversial.

President George W. Bush wanted to give Mexico US$500 million worth of aid, but neither congressional chamber was willing to give that much. The House approved US$400 million and the Senate US$350 million. The difference is to be worked out in House-Senate conference during the next few weeks.

Both congressional bills include making part of the funding contingent upon human rights certification. This doesn’t set well with Mexican politicians who have charged the United States with meddling. However, since this is an aid program, in which they’re getting the aid for free, Mexico will likely take whatever it is given.

Mexican Attorney General Medina Mora has long complained about the smuggling of weapons from the United States to Mexico. Cartels arrange for the purchase of weapons in the United States and move them into Mexico. This problem is exacerbated by corruption within the Mexican Customs department, and the general lawless atmosphere that exists on the U.S.-Mexican border.

Tighter border security would definitely help. However, the Mexican government complains when the United States tightens up the border. If you have a porous border it won’t be porous just for border crossers. It’s also porous for drugs and weapons! U.S. leaders might point that out to Mexican leaders.

Of course, wherever there’s a market there are suppliers. As long as U.S. drug users continue to purchase lots of narcotics there will be people willing to sell to them. That makes U.S. drug addicts themselves the principal financiers of the Mexican drug cartels.

Famed Mexico watcher George W. Grayson, a professor at the College of William and Mary, has gone so far as to say that “It’s impossible to win the drug war while the demand exists in the United States and Europe.”

Combine corruption in Mexico which aids the cartels, and massive American demand for their products, and you’ve got a big problem. As the body count continues to mount….

flyfishinPam - 5-26-2008 at 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Pam----The Drug Wars are an incredibly complicated problem-----have they been successful? Partially. Tons of "drugs" have been destroyed that would have otherwise ended up on the streets-----that part has been a success tho we apprehended only a tiny part of the total drugs out there. Obviously there is a problem, and I am open to ideas-----but to exagerate and call the 'wars' a total failure is over the top.

I know that I have become pessemistic throughout the years but I see these "busts" as something to appease the taxpayers into thinking that this expenditure is worth paying for. Its like the roadblocks on Mex 1 where they harass tourists to check for "guns and drugs" while they let the real drugrunners get by. They show you these pictures of drugs that were confiscated during the roadblock in the past to appease you into thinking "they're just doing their job" while you put up with effectively what is becoming a police state. I do not exagrerate the failure of the drug war the proof is right in front of us.

Acuity - 5-26-2008 at 04:41 PM

Uness the profit motive is removed (by legalizing access to at least some drugs), the cartels will exist and be well funded. If any move occured to legalize drugs in the US, however, is it not possible that the monetary resources of the cartels would be directed to lobbying to keep the status quo? Given their resources, what are the chances that such legislation could happen?

While it might seem counter-intuitive, the war on drugs (and the resulting "scarcity" , lack of transparency in the market and high margins ) is exactly what the cartels need to make their game extremely profitable.

I often wish people thought more about the consequences of their "point" solutions to complex, systemic problems

Back to a failed nation "GOOD MORNING BAGDAD"

bancoduo - 5-26-2008 at 04:46 PM

http://www.banderasnews.com/0805/nr-emailthreat.htm

Woooosh - 5-26-2008 at 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LancairDriver
How anyone can rationalize the "war on drugs" as bearing any resemblance to success is beyond comprehension. It is a complete failure by any yardstick. Mexico is bearing the brunt of this failure. More Mexican police, military, and ordinary citizens have lost their lives in this "war" than US lives that have been lost in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan thus far..

Ya know what? It'as just as successful as what we did in Afghanistan and that's about the best Mewxico can hope for. You wipe out the Taliban and the poppyfields once, but not for all. Well the poppies and heroin trade are bac, stringer than ever, and the US troops are helpless to do anything about it- becuase it's not important to us anymore I guess.

Mexico has the government the people deserve. The rich like it the way it is, the poor are too busy keeping their stomachs full and the middle class (who had the education and motivation to create change) gave up and went north to make it better for their own families- in this lifetime. Jourlanilsts don't push for change- becaue Mexico is the only country more dangerous in the world for journalists than Somalia.

It's my sad experience that Mexicans are more content to have a crooked cop for a friend they might need someday than to go out on a limb and take a stand against that crooked cop. They may talk about how sad they are for their country- but have no balls to do anything about it (those people are fighting the wrong fight in the USA instead). Then again- change agents aren't rewarded anywhere. JMHO of course

Iflyfish - 5-26-2008 at 05:19 PM

Barry A:

The question "Am I my brother's keeper" comes from Genesis.

In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain slew his brother in a fit of jealousy. When he came home and the Lord asked him, "Where is your brother?" Cain answered that he didn't know. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

It is clear from the question that god had some concept about the importance of Cain maintaining the life of his brother, Abel. One does not have to be a Christian to believe that we all have responsibility for each other and our common wheel. It is in my interest that you do well. It is in your interest that I do well also. If either of us is not doing well then there is a larger social cost involved. I just had a $36,000 total hip replacement. Who pays for that? I have medical insurance that covered most of the cost, I am of course a very fortunate man indeed to be able to afford this insurance. My point is that the cost of this surgery was covered by a group of people, myself included, that pay permiums for that coverage. We are all in this together. The suffering of one affects us all. Have you noticed the behavior of the drug addicted parents? There are many indirect costs to us when those in need are not provided what they need.

The issues of poverty are an example. If we do not address the issue of how to redistribute wealth in a Capitalist economy, then eventually a few own it all. That is the nature of unbridled Capitalism. When there is too much wealth accrued by a few, social instability occurs. That instability can and has historically led to revolutions and rebellions and in some cases failed states.

If we don’t pay for care for those less fortunate, in the case of addicts, we will pay in another way; they will become a potential source of civic unrest and criminal behavior. This is already occurring. If we don’t find some way to deal with legitimization of access to drugs via the state we end up with what is happening on the border of Mexico now. If we do not realistically address the very real demand for drugs, we will pay a significant cost of the nature we are seeing along the border of Mexico and the USofA. No matter what happens, we pay. It is in our interest to choose how we become our “brother’s keeper”. If we don’t decide, our brother certainly will decide for us.

Iflyfish

DENNIS - 5-26-2008 at 05:22 PM

This is all bullchit. Militarize the country and cleanse it. Not here and there, eveywhere.
Then you can figure out how to take it back from the military.

Iflyfish - 5-26-2008 at 05:31 PM

Whoooosh,

Very interesting perspective. FlyfishingPam alluded to cultural factors that might be at play also in her post.

Your information on Poppies and heroin in Afghanistan is accurate from my reading. The Taliban, religious fundamentalists, were death on drugs and nearly halted the production of Opium poppies, the source of heroin. With the American occupation the poppies are now back in greater abundance than before the Taliban ban.

The same fundamentalist mentality in the west would have us wage and all out “War on Drugs”. The cure might be worse than the problem. People on the border in Mexico are now living in a war zone. I was just getting ready to post this when DENNIS expressed this perspective.

I would be interested in others take on your perspective on cultural factures that might mediate against resolution of this issue.

Iflyfish

fulano - 5-26-2008 at 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh

It's my sad experience that Mexicans are more content to have a crooked cop for a friend they might need someday than to go out on a limb and take a stand against that crooked cop. They may talk about how sad they are for their country- but have no balls to do anything about it (those people are fighting the wrong fight in the USA instead). Then again- change agents aren't rewarded anywhere. JMHO of course

That's a good point. While my heart goes out the the average Fulano de Tal in Mexico because I know he is powerless to change the system and has suffered the most, the extreme problems Mexico is having with the drug cartels was bought and paid for with their own past 100 years of indolence. Ever since the Mexican Revolution, the socio-political-economic system of Mexico was based on two prime principles: co-opt those who stood in the way, and exploit all the rest.

This allowed a system of graft to become so ingrained that it is woven into the very fabric of the country. When first Fox, and now Claderon, tried to change it, the internal resistance was fierce and violent.

These headlines we are now reading of finding heads in icechests, gangs with automatic weapons and grenades, and whole towns "owned" by the cartels, are uniquely a Mexican experience. This just wouldn't happen in the US. If 6 heads were found in an icebox here, the authorities would be all over those criminals like stink on schitt.

Iflyfish - 5-26-2008 at 06:00 PM

fulano

Interesting post in response to Woooosh.

There are indeed differences between the USofA and Mexico. No doubt some of the issues you and Woooosh raise are significant in how this came about in Mexico. The history fits with my understanding of Mexico and also with my limited knowledge of the culture.

My heart is with DENNIS, there is a part of me that would want to kick burro and take names. Mount the most aggressive campaign possible against the Cartels. Escalate to the nines and let the heads roll. Fox and Calderone both have US education and experience in the US culture and their approach is flying in the face of alliances that have been formed over decades. In some ways I applaude the Mexican government for making legitimate efforts to address corruption. I really do. God bless those with the guts to stand up against the sort of corruption of the Cartels. No one elects them to rule. I applaud the courage of those involved in this fight on the side of the government.

Having said this, I still remain skeptical of the ability of the government to deal with this issue solely by military means. Perhaps in the end the Military will, perhaps as some think, again take back control of the trade and calm things down. Time will tell if Mexico continues to elect people who are not of the old power structure and not amenable to its seduction.

Iflyfish

Woooosh - 5-26-2008 at 06:41 PM

In my own mixed Mexican-American family the "greener on the other side" appeal of the USA is slowly wearing off. Part is social, part is economic. I have four sisters-in law who live legally/illegally with their families in the USA. 2 have become US citizens and the other two don't even speak english (after 17 years there). All of the kids are US born citizens of course. Some of their kids are honors students and some are a total embarassmments- all due to parenting skill level, not lack of opportunity- IMHO. Some of my neices/nephews came back to Mexico because they didn't like being made to feel poor or ignorant in the USA, back in Mexico they are solid middle-class and proud- good for them.

I also have one 19 year old nephew who gives me hope for Mexico. He is going to University, works hard and respects his family. His friends are all the same. They aren't interested in what the USA offers although they love the video games, TV and technology. They are learning Mandarin because they see Asia as an opportunity for Mexico. I just hope there's a few hundred thousand more like him out there. Mexico could use some educated capitalists.

jorgie - 5-26-2008 at 06:42 PM

Liss is good reading, much is covered. Except the end user. Where/when do we stop the end user and end the market ? Strange when people are users yet looked upon as celebs.........slapped on the wrist and covered by the pink press. If there is no market and where is that market, what happens to the trade?
Yup, there is corruption but corruption always has a market.
I wonder where the stones should be cast..................

DENNIS - 5-26-2008 at 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
They are learning Mandarin because they see Asia as an opportunity for Mexico.

Although inappropriate today, a saying in the 60s was, "An optomist learns Russian. A pessimist learns Chinese."
It was a different time.

rts551 - 5-26-2008 at 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
In my own mixed Mexican-American family the "greener on the other side" appeal of the USA is slowly wearing off. Part is social, part is economic. I have four sisters-in law who live legally/illegally with their families in the USA. 2 have become US citizens and the other two don't even speak english (after 17 years there). All of the kids are US born citizens of course. Some of their kids are honors students and some are a total embarassmments- all due to parenting skill level, not lack of opportunity- IMHO. Some of my neices/nephews came back to Mexico because they didn't like being made to feel poor or ignorant in the USA, back in Mexico they are solid middle-class and proud- good for them.

I also have one 19 year old nephew who gives me hope for Mexico. He is going to University, works hard and respects his family. His friends are all the same. They aren't interested in what the USA offers although they love the video games, TV and technology. They are learning Mandarin because they see Asia as an opportunity for Mexico. I just hope there's a few hundred thousand more like him out there. Mexico could use some educated capitalists.

geeze woosh what's your point.. Maybe something is failing in the North?

DENNIS - 5-26-2008 at 07:09 PM

That is some pretty sick ****, Grover. gosh darnn...What a ****** up world.

[Edited on 6-4-2008 by Hose A]

jorgie - 5-26-2008 at 07:14 PM

calm down Dennis I'll yarn it with you over a Tecate at the Osterio[sic] beach resort in october....................

Woooosh - 5-26-2008 at 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

geeze woosh what's your point.. Maybe something is failing in the North?

My point is- Millions of the last two generations of Mexicans went to the USA and worked simple jobs illegally at first. They raised families of US citizens who may or may not find themselves better off- for many reasons (economic, political, social). Instead of fighting for what's right for Mexico- they wait for an amnesty that's not coming and press for rights and priveleges they aren't entitled to. These are the same people who need to be present back in Mexico for positive social change to happen.

The next generation of Mexican young are more hopeful for their country and is staying put in Mexico using capitalist models for success fueled by better education and technology. They know Mexico is stuck on stupid. They also see business opportunities in that.

It won't get them out of the current narco-mess though.

[Edited on 5-27-2008 by Woooosh]

jorgie - 5-26-2008 at 07:55 PM

stupid is as stupid does.
Dennis, OK, it's on ......

DENNIS - 5-27-2008 at 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jorgie
stupid is as stupid does.
Dennis, OK, it's on ......

No Way. Adiós. I don't like the "stupid" reference.

CaboRon - 6-3-2008 at 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jorgie
Liss is good reading, much is covered. Except the end user. Where/when do we stop the end user and end the market ? Strange when people are users yet looked upon as celebs.........slapped on the wrist and covered by the pink press. If there is no market and where is that market, what happens to the trade?
Yup, there is corruption but corruption always has a market.
I wonder where the stones should be cast..................

The end user can never be stopped ...

All through history this is true, and your judgement will not change a thing, only create more pain and suffering.

People who live in glass houses (and we all live in glass houses because we are human) , should be carefull about the judgement making and the stone throwing . Leave that for God.

CaboRon

Barry A. - 6-4-2008 at 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaboRon

Quote:

Originally posted by jorgie

People who live in glass houses (and we all live in glass houses because we are human) , should be carefull about the judgement making and the stone throwing . Leave that for God.

CaboRon

CaboRon-----I beg to differ-------we don't ALL live in "glass houses". Many of us have nothing to hide, and simply don't understand the lack of disapline in some others. Yes, we have temptations and feelings that are perhaps not accepted by general society, but many of us don't act on them because we understand the mutual responsibility we have to each other to maintain a civilized society. Most of us know what is "right" and what is "wrong", and we do "right", at least most of the time (some all the time).

There are consequences for those that do "wrong", and THAT is the way it is, and always has been. They bring the "pain and suffering" on themselves.

barry

oldlady - 6-4-2008 at 08:52 AM

The glass house metaphor has always bothered me. The judgement of societal members, human or animal, at the individual level or the group level seems to be essential to a level of societal order; necessary to avoid chaos. While I agree with the need to be careful in our judgement, I think letting our own foibles be the guide leads to abdication and that doesn't make sense......at least to me.

CaboRon - 6-4-2008 at 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by CaboRon

Quote:

Originally posted by jorgie

People who live in glass houses (and we all live in glass houses because we are human) , should be carefull about the judgement making and the stone throwing . Leave that for God.

CaboRon

Barry A,
I bow to you who walk in purity in this life ... Just remember, Judgement is not for mortals to make, and many of the things you judge to be "wrong" are merely the result of dogma and self righteousness.
I bow to you , oh holy one :saint:

I am pleased not to carry your load :tumble:

CaboRon

Barry A. - 6-4-2008 at 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaboRon

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by CaboRon

Quote:

Originally posted by jorgie

People who live in glass houses (and we all live in glass houses because we are human) , should be carefull about the judgement making and the stone throwing . Leave that for God.

CaboRon

I am pleased not to carry your load :tumble:

CaboRon

--------"judgement is not for us to make"???? Society makes "judgements" all the time, via the courts and legislature. That is what civilized societies DO--------what you appear to be championing is anarchy, it seems to me.

As far as I know, I carry no "load"--------to be any other way WOULD be a huge load for me to bear.

(and yes, I too make mistakes, and accept the consequences)

Barry

toneart - 6-4-2008 at 11:48 AM

People Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones ( don't criticize other people when you yourself have faults and weaknesses ... )
"people who live in glass houses should not throw stones"

"People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" reminds us that we should be careful how we treat other people (with our words and actions) because we can all be easily hurt. People "throw stones" at other people to try to hurt them, and one way that people try to hurt other people is by saying bad things about them. If you lived in a "glass house" it would be very easy for other people to hurt you by throwing stones at you. "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" means that we should not say insulting things to other people because they could easily do the same thing to us. Example: "Look at that shirt you are wearing! Did you buy that back in the '80s?!" Answer: "Hey, you're not so young yourself; people who live in glass houses should not throw stones!" Something made of glass can easily break; it is vulnerable; and we are all vulnerable in different ways. Sometimes we forget our own vulnerability and "throw stones" at other people in the form of criticism. A person might remind us that we too have our own faults and weakenesses by saying "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Example: "Look at what time it is... you are late again!" Answer: "Hey, how often are you not on time? People who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

Make GoEnglish.com your home page

Key:
"we are all vulnerable in different ways"
(my observation-- Toneart

Barry A. - 6-4-2008 at 12:14 PM

All true, Tony.

Sometimes I just think we have become too complacent and tolerant of the "things" that others do that are hurtful to their fellow man, and especially those around them-------much of what others do is hurtful, even tho they may not realize it, and I just don't think we should accept that-------to do so is to, in a sense, encourage the bad behavior----------abusing drugs, alcohol, etc. is hurtful to a lot of people, and the structure of society in general---------too stand by and NOT be judgemental is too easy, and is not responsible, the way I see it. Obviously one has to be careful, and not lash out, tho, and in that sense I agree with what I perceive you and CaboRon are conveying.

Also, I have never believed that one should hold back their opinion simply because what they are saying may appear hypocritical to some (or to most???)----there are some things that are almost universally not acceptable, and occasionally we are ALL (most??) guilty of violating these taboos, but I still think that bad behavior should be held accountable by all. This type of hypocrasy bothers me not at all------what is right, is right!!! despite our own weaknesses and foibles.

On the other hand, we are all to unforgiving of our "leaders", and politicians-----they are simply humans, like us, presumably trying to do what is right in their political business. They should be criticized, and punished when they do wrong, but NOT just cast aside, it seems to me, unless they are truly guilty of criminal behavior.

Now I am mentally wandering-------------I suppose.

Barry