BajaNomad - When will the people of Mexico take back their country?

When will the people of Mexico take back their country?

Pages: 1 2 3

Sharksbaja - 11-20-2008 at 01:50 AM

Legalize guns.

Russ - 11-20-2008 at 06:31 AM

"unify and eradicate" ~~~~ Nice thought if the gangs didn't already have that idea. To organize against the drug business/gangs would be dangerous for a community. Look what's happening to the police and federal troops. And they are armed. It would be a start to be able to trust the local authorities so that one could call for help or report a crime without thinking you may be asking for help from the head of the criminal gang. Just a thought.

CaboRon - 11-20-2008 at 06:44 AM

Trust the local authorties :lol:

CaboRon

Russ - 11-20-2008 at 07:04 AM

CaboRon That's my point :no:

k-rico - 11-20-2008 at 07:10 AM

Organized crime was a lot more peaceful. And.........

"A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (pdf, 1.2mb) on US-Mexico cooperation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States finds that the flow “has not abated, and interdiction efforts in Mexico have seized relatively small quantities of the illicit drugs estimated to be transiting through or produced in Mexico. Moreover, drug related corruption persists throughout much of Mexico, and Mexican DTOs (drug trafficking organizations) have increasingly become a threat in Mexico, which has seen an increase in drug related violence, and expanded their presence throughout much of the United States.”

The United States, in fiscal years 2000 to 2006, provided more than $7 billion in counternarcotics support to Latin American governments, including approximately $5 billion to Colombia and $397 million to Mexico, according to the report. GAO notes “some progress” over that time on cooperative US-Mexico efforts to counter money laundering and foster extraditions, as well as greater transparency in Mexican criminal trials, and some improvements in drug interdiction capacities. Still, the report says Mexican DTOs “operate with relative impunity in certain regions of Mexico, including areas along the U.S.-Mexico border. Mexican DTOs have also expanded their illicit drug business to almost every region of the United States. According to cognizant U.S. and Mexican government officials, Mexican DTOs have become increasingly sophisticated and violent in their activities.”

http://govdocsblog.kentlaw.edu/wordpress/?p=114

bajalou - 11-20-2008 at 08:23 AM

As long as there is the demand for drugs in the USA, Mexico (or any other country) has little chance of stopping the drug movement. The demand will be filled and money made.

flyfishinPam - 11-20-2008 at 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by soulpatch
Is it possible for the people of Mexico to get rid of the government/drug runners and the thieves that has destroyed the middle class over the last 40-50 years?
Yes, the U.S. has an international reputation as a bully but Mexico has a reputation as a third world haven for violent drug runners.
Will they root out and destroy the cancer in their communities?
The murder in El Rosario has only emphasized to me more how my shift away from eating at local places on our trips has changed to how I pretty much bring all my food with me or catch it and shop at grocery stores to supplement what I have has been justified. This is really a bummer. I would think the merchants would unify and eradicate.
Truly a mess with no easy answers.

These things will take time but we have hope, we have to.

Last night the story about Ciudad Juarez was aired, and this morning too. Teachers have been threatened to fork over their aginaldos (holiday bonuses) and also some have been told to instruct parents of the students to be prepared to pay a cuota (protection money) to thugs who have threatened them. The news has likened it to Sicilian style mafia tactics. (History repeating itself a.k.a. Chicago during prohibition) After several days of officials in Chihuahua dismissing this as rumor, the news has finally decided to report it. My theory is that they are reporting it only because it is all over the internet. Here is a link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/teachers-mexico-...

thanks to the internet and the wide use of it throughout Mexico news like this can no longer be supressed as easily as it was in the past.

on another note the news is also reporting the return of thousands and thousands of mirgants from the USA due to the "crisis economico" in the USA. I believe that these returning migrants are Mexico's greatest hope for change. It will happen. The people will only tolerate so much.

Dave - 11-20-2008 at 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by soulpatch
When will the people of Mexico take back their country?

Their country? :lol:

They just live here. Mexico is a mafia style oligarchy.

The Mexican people must first decide if they want an anti-corruption government. Otherwise, all you have is crooks arresting crooks. That doesn't usually work well. :rolleyes:

Ken Bondy - 11-20-2008 at 10:39 AM

The only possible solution is to legalize drugs. Yes, I know, I have heard all the arguments. But like everything else in life, you weigh the pluses and the minuses, and then act accordingly. And the obvious answer is to legalize drugs. Everything else has failed miserably. If the illegal profits didn't exist, the illegal industry wouldn't exist. It seems so simple.

Woooosh - 11-20-2008 at 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
The only possible solution is to legalize drugs. Yes, I know, I have heard all the arguments. But like everything else in life, you weigh the pluses and the minuses, and then act accordingly. And the obvious answer is to legalize drugs. Everything else has failed miserably. If the illegal profits didn't exist, the illegal industry wouldn't exist. It seems so simple.

Legalizing drugs WOULD have worked a decade ago to stop the narco-crime. But, now that they have found HUGE success with extortions and kidnappings for income- that would be their full-time jobs.

LancairDriver - 11-20-2008 at 11:56 AM

In Peru a few years ago the Shining Path guerillas were terrorizing the peasants and slaughtering whole villages in their campaign. The government got smart and with the help of good old uncle sam made a huge purchase of Remington shotguns and distributed them. Hardly compares to an assault rifle or poses no threat to the government, but is a great deterrent when in the hands of a whole village willing to defend themselves. This was a turning point in their problem.

Ken Bondy - 11-20-2008 at 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
Legalizing drugs WOULD have worked a decade ago to stop the narco-crime. But, now that they have found HUGE success with extortions and kidnappings for income- that would be their full-time jobs.

Hard to imagine that income from extortion/kidnapping approaches that from drugs, does anybody know?

Pescador - 11-20-2008 at 12:46 PM

There is absolutely no way that the two can compare. Drug income is in the billions of dollars in a given year and it is a rare extortion or kidnapping that approaches 1 million. It is more of a sideline that is followed by a group who really does not see much in the way of a threat from the government. Kinda like a guy who is out everyday poaching a boatload of fish and he sees some wildlife on one of the islands and decides it would be really easy to poach a deer or sheep for dinner.

Martyman - 11-20-2008 at 02:17 PM

Fighting violence with more guns is stupid. It is like going on a diet where all you eat is ice cream.

"Illegal Profits" are Mexico's middle name

Dave - 11-20-2008 at 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
the obvious answer is to legalize drugs. Everything else has failed miserably. If the illegal profits didn't exist, the illegal industry wouldn't exist. It seems so simple.

1. For many consumable industries in Mexico there are mirror illegal counterparts and Mexico has a large 'off the books' economy.

3. Mexican law is seldom enforced and largely ignored.

4. The consumer will buy off the street rather than pay the exhorbitant taxes placed on legalized drugs.

Skipjack Joe - 11-20-2008 at 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LancairDriver
In Peru a few years ago the Shining Path guerillas were terrorizing the peasants and slaughtering whole villages in their campaign. The government got smart and with the help of good old uncle sam made a huge purchase of Remington shotguns and distributed them.

My wife lost 2 brothers to the Shining Path. That organization was very structured. It was founded by a single individual who was the heart of it. Most of it's members were uneducated campesinos, native americans embittered by their place in society. Once Guzman was captured and jailed their entire organization collapsed and soon ceased to be. This is not diminish the work of Fujimori as Peruvians were at the mercy of these people for over a decade.

I don't think the drug cartel is as vulnerable and can be dealt the same way successfully.

The Sculpin - 11-20-2008 at 03:58 PM

Mexico is a country of silent resignations. The stranglehold of the catholic church doesn't help in this regard. If anything, it promotes it. Right now, there is no country for the middle class to "take back" - it was never theirs to begin with. It always has been, and will most likely continue to be ruled by a small number of rich families. In a perverse way, the narcos are actually a positive influence since they have shown that you don't have to have deep family connections, light colored skin or european lineage to be rich! So I'll answer your question with another - what country do you think they want back? If they do get it back, does their life change? How?

If this absurd war in Iraq has taught us anything, it would be a recognition that we have come a very long way in 230 years with our experiment in democracy. It is very easy to forget the trials we went through to preserve it, and it is even easier to "wish" our democracy on others. Basically, it 'aint gonna happen. If there is a country to take back, it will be the wealthy ruling class that will take it back after deciding that drugs and the drug business is no longer benefiting them.
Ah, all you populists really crack me up - bless your little hearts!

comitan - 11-20-2008 at 04:13 PM

Don't put that in your pipe and smoke it, Back to the drawing board, But I thought, and then there was, whose going anywhere!!!!!!!!!!

k-rico - 11-20-2008 at 04:14 PM

You can't legalize drugs, at least the hard, addicting, heath destroying ones, that would be stupid.

But like I said in my earlier post, it sure was a lot more peaceful before the new administration's war on drugs, when the crime was organized and controlled by the criminals.

The US military has a don't ask, don't tell policy about homosexuality. They don't condone it but don't actively seek out and prosecute either. A blind eye.

At some point it MAY be the time for Mexico to turn a blind eye and let the drugs flow to the buyers to the north and leave the traffickers to their business with the condition that the violence stops.

Maybe, I don't know.

How long do you fight a war before the fight itself becomes more of an enemy?

Ken Bondy - 11-20-2008 at 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
You can't legalize drugs, at least the hard, addicting, heath destroying ones, that would be stupid.

You mean like alcohol?

bajalou - 11-20-2008 at 04:28 PM

From the center for disease Control

The following are relative to Tobacco - the biggest killer of all--

CAUSES OF DEATH Deaths % compared to smoking

Alcohol-induced deaths 19,068 04.4%
Assault (homicide) 16,831 03.9%
Drug-induced deaths 18,443 04.3%
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease 14,681 03.4%
Injury by firearms 28,839 06.7%
Motor Vehicle Accidents 46,378 10.8%

TOTAL OF ALL ABOVE 144,258 33.5%

CDC's official estimate that "Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 430,000 deaths each year, or one in every five deaths.

So what "hard, addicting, health destroying ones" are you talking about?

k-rico - 11-20-2008 at 04:29 PM

Alcohol is nothing compared to meth and heroin. Most people that drink booze regularly don't become addicted and can control their consumption. Everybody that uses hard drugs on a regular basis become addicted rather quickly and have a small chance of controlling it.

Comparing hard drugs with booze is comparing apples and oranges.

That's one of my beefs with this whole drug discourse. You need to address different chemicals differently. You can't just lump them all together when addressing the problems they cause.

Ken Bondy - 11-20-2008 at 04:33 PM

k-rico

Your approach (keep most drugs illegal) hasn't worked so far. Do you have any positive suggestions? Like something other than calling people who think legalization is the right solution stupid?

[Edited on 11-20-2008 by Ken Bondy]

Dave - 11-20-2008 at 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
At some point it MAY be the time for Mexico to turn a blind eye and let the drugs flow to the buyers to the north and leave the traffickers to their business with the condition that the violence stops.

If it weren't for U.S. money and pressure Mexico wouldn't care. And it's not problems with the border that's causing the violence. It's infighting among the cartels. You'd think with all the billions in profits that they could come to some kind of agreement on how to split up the money. Go figure.

Nothing would please me more than a peaceful, uninterrupted flow of drugs north. The more the better. Let 'em choke on the crap.

Skipjack Joe - 11-20-2008 at 04:55 PM

As a parent hard drugs scare the hell out of me. I'm just wondering if any of you that favor legalizing drugs would have a different viewpoint of one of yours was in a life-or-death struggle to overcome drugs. I wonder how, say, Carol O'Connor feels about drug legalization.

From NY Times:

Carroll O'Connor's Son Kills Himself at 33
March 30, 1995
Hugh O'Connor, an actor and the only son of the television star Carroll O'Connor, died of a gunshot wound at his home here on Tuesday. He was 33.

The police called the death a suicide and said they had found a note.

A crisis negotiator and members of a Police Department special weapons team found Mr. O'Connor's body after his father called the police to report that Mr. O'Connor was despondent and had guns.

Carroll O'Connor said his son had been addicted to various drugs and substances for 16 years. The police today arrested a man Mr. O'Connor identified as his son's dealer.

Hugh O'Connor played Deputy Lonnie Jamison in the television series "In the Heat of the Night," which stars his father. Earlier, he worked as an assistant stage manager in New York.

In addition to his father, he is survived by his mother, Nancy O'Connor; his wife, Angela Clayton, and his son, Sean, 2

Would the suicide have been prevented if the drugs had been purchased legally?

k-rico - 11-20-2008 at 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
k-rico

Your approach (keep most drugs illegal) hasn't worked so far. Do you have any positive suggestions? Like something other than calling people who think legalization is the right solution stupid?

[Edited on 11-20-2008 by Ken Bondy]

I'll say it for the third time. Perhaps the cops need to take the heat off of the cartels and live within a gray area, illegal but turn a blind eye, sort of.

As far as legalization using the argument that more people die of booze and cigs, look at it this way.

More people die or get injured driving their car at 60 mph that people do who are driving at 120 mph. Do we legalize driving 120 mph? Of course not. Well, hard drugs are much more dangerous that alcohol or tobacco. 20% or so of Californianss are smokers. If 20% were meth addicts, smoking would be considered a trivial problem. And I believe if you legalized the stuff, there would be many, many more addicts.

Ken Bondy - 11-20-2008 at 05:08 PM

k-rico

I'll say it for the second time. Do you have any positive suggestions"

Ken Bondy - 11-20-2008 at 05:17 PM

Quote:

Would the suicide have been prevented if the drugs had been purchased legally?

Igor no-one, of course, could know that for sure. Maybe legalization would have eliminated the "forbidden fruit" aspect of illegal drugs. Maybe the kid's problem would have been more visible to O'Connor if the drugs had been obtained legally. Maybe rehab efforts, which would go hand-in-hand with legalization, could have helped.

I don't think legalization would provide any significant benefits to the users, with the possible exception of rehab. However legalization would greatly benefit those who are robbed and killed as a result of all the illegal activities that accompany the illegal drug industry. Legalization would have certainly helped the innocent people in Mexico who have been killed in the crossfire from the cartels.

CaboRon - 11-20-2008 at 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
You can't legalize drugs, at least the hard, addicting, heath destroying ones, that would be stupid.

You mean like alcohol?

Calling people stupid is, well, stupid.

Do a little research and you will find that the rate of addiction in countries that have legalized drugs has not gone up .....

Those who have compulsive, addictive problems remains the same....

This conduct cannot be successfully legislated ....

It is the individual that is to blame for their abuse of any drug, be it cigarettes, alcohol, heroine, cocaine or mota.

So, k-rico, get off your judgemental high horse , you are part of the problem.

CaboRon

BajaBad - 11-20-2008 at 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

I'll say it for the third time. Perhaps the cops need to take the heat off of the cartels and live within a gray area, illegal but turn a blind eye, sort of.

Isn't that what most agree is the essence of the problem in the first place? Not only do Mexican cops & gov. officials turn a blind eye, (no 'sort of' in the picture), they intentionally allow and participate in the criminal activity to profit along with the drug dealers & cartels... as can occur in the U.S. of course as well, but not close to the corruption that is explicitly 'allowed' (no criminal prosecutions, the legal system as prone to complicity as the cops & politicians) in Mexico.

I agree with Ken B. that it is a no-brainer that recreational drugs (small amounts of pot/cocaine...) should be legalized like alcohol & tabacco to decrease the incentive & profit-making from illicit drug trade... though I too agree with K rico that 'hard drugs' (the 70 mph + poisons) like meth/heroin, etc. should not be legalized due to the possibility of exending addictions to larger populations.

And the most important consideration of all for Mexico and the U.S. - say NO to Plan Mexico (billion plus in U.S. aid to aid in militarization & 'train Mexico's police force') which would only support the corruption, give more money to the KNOWN collaborating criminals - Mexican cops & gov. officials.

And we'd have to say, U.S. officials as well or sanity would have already prevailed and that 'plan' would not be being promoted. Put the U.S. taxpayer money to work helping U.S. forces who are working on our border issues, who we know are not perfect, but not as near corrupt as they have to deal with daily on the other side.

BajaBad

bajalou - 11-20-2008 at 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
Alcohol is nothing compared to meth and heroin. Most people that drink booze regularly don't become addicted and can control their consumption. Everybody that uses hard drugs on a regular basis become addicted rather quickly and have a small chance of controlling it.

Comparing hard drugs with booze is comparing apples and oranges.

That's one of my beefs with this whole drug discourse. You need to address different chemicals differently. You can't just lump them all together when addressing the problems they cause.

It would appear to me you don't have any first hand experience with addiction to alcohol or illegal drugs. Saying a drug you personally like is less harmful than some other only shows your bias in this area. Your comparison of hard drugs? to alcohol is correct to some extent. I personally know many addicts who found it MUCH more difficult to get off alcohol than heroin.

fdt - 11-20-2008 at 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy

I'll say it for the second time. Do you have any positive suggestions"

I'm gona put in a couple of centavitos in here.
Legalize them all exept the frikin cristaleros, those are the adictive hijos de la that screw it all up IMHMO. Toothless mother hijos de la you know what.

Skipjack Joe - 11-20-2008 at 06:06 PM

I'm just asking questions, Ken. I really have no recommendations. Yes, the removal of drug traffic would put a big dent in the violence I am reading on this website every day and that would be a big positive. I don't know what would happen if drugs were legalized. What's worse is that I feel like a hypocrite because I smoked dope in college on a regular basis, and even later. For me, it was like water off a duck's back but for some of my friends it's been a life long struggle (failed marriages, can't hold a job, stumbling through board room meetings, eventually turning to the bible).

Ken Bondy - 11-20-2008 at 06:18 PM

Igor I don't claim to have many answers either, although legalization is the only thing that makes sense to me. Countries that have legalized most "recreational" drugs, like Holland, don't seem to have any pervasive ill effects. Health, education, and crime statistics are all better than ours.

Skipjack Joe - 11-21-2008 at 12:20 AM

I thought about it some more and decided to look at it from a different perspective: how drugs are viewed in our school system.

The school my kids go to proudly proclaim to be drug free zones. Last week one of the students was caught smoking pot at the skateboard park and was promptly expelled from the school. The following week cameras were mounted over that same park to help monitor the enforcement of the drug policy and to identify anyone who breaks it. This was done to not only punish the offender but to let the student body understand the consequences of breaking this rule. Our public school has zero tolerance for drugs and is very clear where it stands. And, most importantly, it has the full support of all the parents.

The reason I bring this up is because it shows how unlikely it would be for americans to support a free drug policy that is suggested. If anything the public here would support more stringent laws dealing with drugs.

The problems that our drug policy has created in mexico is very distant to the average american and does not compare to their feelings about drugs here in our schools and neighborhoods.

I'm not being judgmental about the presence of drugs. I'm just expressing the mood of the people where I live because I think it reflects the view of most americans.

Sharksbaja - 11-21-2008 at 01:29 AM

My God Joe they supported Bush then Palin and knew nothing of her abilities. You give people to much credit. :smug:

If you legalize drugs you change the playing field. Education with bonafide information at the correct age can help wonders.
Pot-smokers don't threaten any facet of our society in a negative way other than they simply break the antiquainted laws.
Dangerous drugs like crank and pharmaceuticals can addict people. Like cigs or booze it's not wise to get "hooked". But it happens and will never end. Some other pleasure center thang will come along and generate a new breed repeat repeat.

As far as fighting violence with violence, Martyman I was responding to the issue of being invaded and killed. I support anyones' right to defend life and property. If you think it's not a deterent then I'd have to disagree.

When it comes to defending life I vote for me/us to win. That might entail the use of a weapon.

I doubt you'll see me in a black SUV hunting down criminals. :rolleyes:

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 08:08 AM

Quote:

I apologize if I offended you. When I said legalizing drugs would be stupid I did not mean to say the people who advocate legalization are stupid, but I understand how you may think that. Using the word stupid, was stupid on my part. I should have said legalization is a bad idea because I think it would lead to more addicts. There are people who don't agree with that idea also.

One poster cited the high number of people who die from smoking compared to other drugs. That logic completely ignores the fact that a huge number of people smoke, and do so their entire adult lives, compared to how many use the other drugs.

I'm in the middle ground, legalizing dangerous but pleasureable drugs is at one end, fighting a war, expending much resources with collateral damage, to eliminate them is at the other. I would do neither. I have no problem dealing with ambiguity.

I'd like to know what legalizing drugs means? How would that work? I'm feeling a bit sluggish this morning, could I go to the 7-11 and buy some crystal to get me going? Then, perhaps some heroin tonight to bring me down?

[Edited on 11-21-2008 by k-rico]

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBad

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

I'll say it for the third time. Perhaps the cops need to take the heat off of the cartels and live within a gray area, illegal but turn a blind eye, sort of.

Yes I am advocating, for the purpose of debate, returning to the way it was, if in fact I am correct that back then the drug trade harmed fewer people, and I mean to include all the business owners in TJ and Rosarito that are now going broke, in addition to the violence.

This is a Mexican standoff.

BajaBad - 11-21-2008 at 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Yes I am advocating, for the purpose of debate, returning to the way it was, if in fact I am correct that back then the drug trade harmed fewer people, and I mean to include all the business owners in TJ and Rosarito that are now going broke, in addition to the violence.

This is a Mexican standoff.

I completely agree with you... if only it were possible. Mexico came so close - at a time before the horrors of now - to legalizing small amounts of drugs for personal use, so as to focus all efforts on the cartels... and the U.S. persuaded Fox to not sign the bill. Sad. It could have been the end of much of what is driving the hell being experienced today.

Not "all" - but much... if only we could go back to pre-Calderon sending tons of military & more corrupt officers to fix the problem, leading to what we have today.

My two cents - NOT trying to offend anyone! :no:

Skipjack Joe - 11-21-2008 at 10:36 AM

As far as I can see from where this thread is going, we're back to square one. The idea of legalizing recreational drugs but staying the course on hard drugs will not make any difference to the violence experienced in baja these days ( the subject of this thread). American gangland violence stopped with the repeal of prohibition because ALL booze was legalized, not just that which contained less than 80% alcohol.

Get real

Dave - 11-21-2008 at 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBad
Mexico came so close - at a time before the horrors of now - to legalizing small amounts of drugs for personal use, so as to focus all efforts on the cartels... and the U.S. persuaded Fox to not sign the bill. Sad. It could have been the end of much of what is driving the hell being experienced today.

You honestly think the reason Mexico can't focus attention on the cartels is because they spend so much time chasing after the small timers? Puuuleeze. :rolleyes:

BajaBad - 11-21-2008 at 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave
You honestly think the reason Mexico can't focus attention on the cartels is because they spend so much time chasing after the small timers? Puuuleeze. :rolleyes:

Good call - but, yes... I do think that if legalization legislation had gone through, and we had Obrador (Mexico almost Did start the process of 'taking back its country'... IMHO) in office, much of this would not be happening.

Not important now - but it is crucial for reality to sink in, if possible, that these 'conservative' measures promoted by Calderon have not worked, and NO to Plan Mexico. NO money to corrupt Mexican police & government officials.

They steal enough from us as it is.

Dave - 11-21-2008 at 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBad
Not important now - but it is crucial for reality to sink in, if possible, that these 'conservative' measures promoted by Calderon have not worked, and NO to Plan Mexico. NO money to corrupt Mexican police & government officials.

Calderon is in WAY over his head. Mexico is a failed state. There is now NO respect for ANY institution save the military (barely). Eventually, it's gonna cost the U.S. bigtime.

CaboRon - 11-21-2008 at 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
As far as I can see from where this thread is going, we're back to square one. The idea of legalizing recreational drugs but staying the course on hard drugs will not make any difference to the violence experienced in baja these days ( the subject of this thread). American gangland violence stopped with the repeal of prohibition because ALL booze was legalized, not just that which contained less than 80% alcohol.

JESSE - 11-21-2008 at 12:01 PM

Next two years will be difficult, after that, things will improve and get a lot better. Mexico is nowhere near to becoming a failed state.

Santiago - 11-21-2008 at 12:10 PM

I once read an artical in the WSJ that I think was tounge-in-cheek: the writer 'proved' that the US would save a ton of $ if we just gave away all optiates and coca derivatives to anyone who wanted it. He claimed a deal could be struck between the pharmecutical/tobacco companies that would 'donate' the hard stuff in exchange for producing and selling pot.
He had professionals estimating addiction rates (about the same as current, if I recall), cost of rehab, savings on the war on drugs etc.
Shock value for starting disussions/thinking was high.

toneart - 11-21-2008 at 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Santiago
I once read an artical in the WSJ that I think was tounge-in-cheek: the writer 'proved' that the US would save a ton of $ if we just gave away all optiates and coca derivatives to anyone who wanted it. He claimed a deal could be struck between the pharmecutical/tobacco companies that would 'donate' the hard stuff in exchange for producing and selling pot.
He had professionals estimating addiction rates (about the same as current, if I recall), cost of rehab, savings on the war on drugs etc.
Shock value for starting disussions/thinking was high.

Why not? Most cities in the U.S. have a free, clean/new needle handout. It cuts down on spreading disease. Just go the extra step.
The solution is going to require thinking outside of the box.

Hey! Why not give the concession to one cartel and then back them up with the military, defending them against competitors? Get them to agree to a bi-lateral "hands off" policy in exchange for price fixing and regulation. Dress em up in suits like all the "respectable" crooks in government and corporations. That way the underground economy wouldn't collapse. :wow:

Legalization of drugs with never solve Mexico's problem. The below is the only thing that will

ELINVESTIG8R - 11-21-2008 at 12:49 PM

Commence a sweep across Mexico searching every home every rancho every building and under every rock arresting and/or killing the heads of the cartels and their henchmen. Once each state has been cleaned out I will restore the constitution and leave behind a "Clean" Municipal, State and Federal Police force to keep the ground my military has cleaned out.

Santiago - 11-21-2008 at 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE
Next two years will be difficult, after that, things will improve and get a lot better. Mexico is nowhere near to becoming a failed state.

I tend to agree with Jesse; I believe we are seeing birth pangs instead of death throes. Either one's messy.
There is a growing middle and profesional class that are starting to carve out pretty good lives. It's easy for outsiders to wonder why people haven't reached their tipping point yet but eventually it will happen. The recent march by physicians in Tijuana is an example of what will grow as frustration with the DF increases.

flyfishinPam - 11-21-2008 at 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE
Next two years will be difficult, after that, things will improve and get a lot better. Mexico is nowhere near to becoming a failed state.

I think the people of Ciudad Juarez would disagree with you.

comitan - 11-21-2008 at 01:34 PM

JESSE

I hope so, but did you get away from it????????????????????

Weak sisters

Dave - 11-21-2008 at 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Santiago
The recent march by physicians in Tijuana is an example of what will grow as frustration with the DF increases.

There was a march last week in TJ that attracted 2,500 people. Multiply that figure by 100 and I'll know the populace is getting serious.

Pescador - 11-21-2008 at 02:40 PM

Because I have a background in treating Adolescent Juvenille Delinquents, I feel like I have been around this issue for a long time. I do know, for a fact, that legislation has had no impact whatsoever on the usage or non-usage of drugs. As with alcohol, tobacco, or any other substance, there is a percentage of people who will abuse and become addicted. So we are kidding ourselves if we settle the question of legalization soley on the basis of addiction. Prohibition had very little effect on the use of alcohol and primarily stimulated the underworld in sales and distribution. Is that not exactly what is going on right nows with the drug issue. Making drugs illegal has about the same effect on usage as speed limits do for most drivers. Since you get caught infrequently, the allure of using outweighs the fear of getting caught. I do not use drugs nor would I use them if they were legalized any more than I do tobacco, but it is very easy to see the parallel with prohibition.
Dave responds that the consumer will buy off of the street rather than pay exhorbitant taxes for legalized drugs, but I disagree since people pay high prices to use convenience stores all the time. While I know that "white Lightning" is still available in the south, I am not very interested in taking a trip to buy any when I can buy good scotch at my local store.
K-rico responds that most people that drink regularly do not become addicted and can control their consumption. This is inaccurate as the number of alcoholics readily confirms. They are certainly addicted to alcohol and without some outside intervention, are unable to quit. But prohibition was put into place partly due to addiction and it did not change, it just caused more conflict and disruption since an alcoholic would do whatever they had to in order to obtain booze. (Does this parallel drugs)
Skipjack says as a parent he is scared to death of drugs. This is a real problem, but as a parent and a therapist, I was scared to death of alcohol, tobacco, sexual addiction and drugs. The answer is that it is the same as any other addictive substance, you hope your kids do not get hooked. You prepare them in the same way with good, solid information and support.
Further, Skipjack talks about the drug attitude in school and that is a good step, but I also know that just north of his house in San Fransisco, it was reported this week that since the legalization of medical marijuana, that the pot shops now outnumber the Starbucks.
K-rico feels that legalizing leads to more addicts, and the scientific data does not support that theory. If you look at the percentages of users compared to the percentages of addicts, they pretty much remain constant accross the spectrum of substances. With the exception of Meth, the drug does not usually cause the addiction, the addiction is already there looking for an avenue of expression.
I do believe, however, that Krystal or Meth is a real problem in its street form. First of all it is easy to make and is cheap but is a very addictive substance. I think it is popular due to the high received and the low price.
I have heard from several researchers that if it was manufactured in a purer form it would not have some of those characteristics but I do not know that for a fact and I do not know that legalization of pot and coke would lead to a less use of Meth.
All this being said, it is fun to argue the idea back and forth, but I hold out little hope that lawmakers on either side of the border will have enough vision or intelligence to actually address and tackle this issue unless the violence gets so bad that they are forced to approach the problem with new and creative ideas.

Skipjack Joe - 11-21-2008 at 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pescador

I was scared to death of .... sexual addiction ....

Were you able to overcome that?

CaboRon - 11-21-2008 at 03:30 PM

Pescador,

Thank you for your well thought out words ...

It is nice to hear from a professional on this matter ....

Elvis, I am sorry , but wars only lead to more violence, not to solutions.

The solution can be found in education of the children, and will not happen overnight.

CaboRon

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 03:49 PM

Pescador said:

"K-rico responds that most people that drink regularly do not become addicted and can control their consumption. This is inaccurate as the number of alcoholics readily confirms."

62% dring beverage alcohol.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/DatabaseResources/QuickFa...

5.42% have alcohol dependence:

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/DatabaseResources/QuickFa...

Pescador said:

"K-rico feels that legalizing leads to more addicts, and the scientific data does not support that theory."

"Other countries have also had this experience. The Netherlands has had its own troubles with increased use of cannabis products. From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996."

See the following for many other examples of failed legalization.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

mtgoat666 - 11-21-2008 at 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ELINVESTI8
Commence a sweep across Mexico searching every home every rancho every building and under every rock arresting and/or killing the heads of the cartels and their henchmen. Once each state has been cleaned out I will restore the constitution and leave behind a "Clean" Municipal, State and Federal Police force to keep the ground my military has cleaned out.

you think the solution to crime is revoking civil rights and indisciminate cracking peoples heads? you sound like a donut eater or a Hitler wanna-be. thank god for groups like the ACLU. what is the Mexican equivalent for ACLU?

[Edited on 11-21-2008 by mtgoat666]

Sharksbaja - 11-21-2008 at 04:20 PM

K-rico, you just gotta stop all that online referencing. We all can custom tailor our sources to fit the need. There are a thousand articles in ALL camps.

You can't believe half of what you read. Take it from people on the street. Who would know better, some gov't agency? :lol:

Fisherman, bless your take.

Natalie Ann - 11-21-2008 at 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Quote:

Originally posted by Pescador

I was scared to death of .... sexual addiction ....

Were you able to overcome that?

nena

Skipjack Joe - 11-21-2008 at 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
See the following for many other examples of failed legalization.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

Wow. These are very compelling statistics and pretty much what I feared. However, statistics can be manipulated. These are presented by DEA, an organization whose very existence depends upon the pursuit of drug offenders. Are these stats supported by more independent groups?

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharksbaja
K-rico, you just gotta stop all that online referencing. We all can custom tailor our sources to fit the need. There are a thousand articles in ALL camps.

You can't believe half of what you read. Take it from people on the street. Who would know better, some gov't agency? :lol:

Fisherman, bless your take.

I try to find good references. Which of my references do you take issue with? I even try, although not always successfully, to not offend. I could have made the reference to the anti-legalization reference the first sentence:

"Legalization proponents claim, absurdly, that making illegal drugs legal would not cause more of these substances to be consumed, nor would addiction increase. "

Instead I picked a paragraph with info that contradicts what most people ABSURDLY think. Oops there I go, confrontational again.

If you chose to believe the absurd, go ahead.

[Edited on 11-21-2008 by k-rico]

mtgoat666

ELINVESTIG8R - 11-21-2008 at 04:45 PM

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
See the following for many other examples of failed legalization.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

I imagine so because it is illogical that making drugs more available won't increase drug use. Do you want to do the research or should I?

Tell you what, I'll do it right after I get back from the 7-11 with more methamphetamine. That will make things go quicker. I'll get some mild downers too to take the edge off the crystal high. Better get an 18 pack of Tecate also, it is Friday night afterall.

Ken Bondy - 11-21-2008 at 04:59 PM

Quote:

I imagine so because it is illogical that making drugs more available won't increase drug use.

I'm not sure it is all that illogical. I don't believe that legal drugs will be more "available" than illegal drugs. Illegal drugs are easily available now. If an individual wants to do drugs, he/she will do them regardless of whether they are legal or illegal.

Skipjack Joe - 11-21-2008 at 05:17 PM

I've always been fascinated by how people post on this website. It's almost always based upon their feelings about the poster they're responding to rather than the content. We often argue with people we agree with but don't like. And we seldom disagree with people we like, preferring to just be silent.

But your last post, K-rico, has made it clear to me why you seem to be the only one that nobody can seem to agree with on this thread.

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy

Quote:

I imagine so because it is illogical that making drugs more available won't increase drug use.

Well, welcome back Mr. (let's legalize drugs) Ken. Do you not think that legalization implies condoning? What would you say to your 18 year old daughter that's high on drugs when she retorts that it's legal to use them?

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
I've always been fascinated by how people post on this website. It's almost always based upon their feelings about the poster they're responding to rather than the content. We often argue with people we agree with but don't like. And we seldom disagree with people we like, preferring to just be silent.

But your last post, K-rico, has made it clear to me why you seem to be the only one that nobody can seem to agree with on this thread.

So you all agree that drugs should be legalized??!! Wow, how things have changed. Let's PARTY!

Ken Bondy - 11-21-2008 at 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
Well, welcome back Mr. (let's legalize drugs) Ken. Do you not think that legalization implies condoning? What would you say to your 18 year old daughter that's high on drugs when she retorts that it's legal to use them?

No, I don't think the fact that something is legal implies condonement. Cigarettes are legal, does society generally condone them? I think not.

Why do you have to be so sarcastic in everything you say?

BajaGringo - 11-21-2008 at 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
What would you say to your 18 year old daughter that's high on drugs when she retorts that it's legal to use them?

I would say the same thing that I would tell her if she were high on alcohol...

Since when has it come to this?

Dave - 11-21-2008 at 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
If an individual wants to do drugs, he/she will do them regardless of whether they are legal or illegal.

People will do what they want regardless of law or penalty?

Spoiled children behave this way.

Ken Bondy - 11-21-2008 at 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
If an individual wants to do drugs, he/she will do them regardless of whether they are legal or illegal.

People will do what they want regardless of law or penalty?

Spoiled children behave this way.

Do you doubt the veracity of the statement? Or are you just saying it shouldn't be that way?

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaGringo

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
What would you say to your 18 year old daughter that's high on drugs when she retorts that it's legal to use them?

I would say the same thing that I would tell her if she were high on alcohol...

Do you drink alcohol? Again, I completely disagree with the notion that alcohol and highly addictive drugs are the same. Would you tell her to use heroin/meth/coke in moderation?

BajaGringo - 11-21-2008 at 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
If an individual wants to do drugs, he/she will do them regardless of whether they are legal or illegal.

People will do what they want regardless of law or penalty?

Spoiled children behave this way.

If you doubt this is true, try outlawing cigarettes...

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
If an individual wants to do drugs, he/she will do them regardless of whether they are legal or illegal.

People will do what they want regardless of law or penalty?

Spoiled children behave this way.

Do you doubt the veracity of the statement? Or are you just saying it shouldn't be that way?

Ken, I disagree with your statement. The fact that certain behaviors are illegal certainly keeps many, many people from doing them.

BajaGringo - 11-21-2008 at 05:57 PM

At 18 years old I don't want her to do drugs, cigarettes or alcohol.

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaGringo

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
If an individual wants to do drugs, he/she will do them regardless of whether they are legal or illegal.

People will do what they want regardless of law or penalty?

Spoiled children behave this way.

If you doubt this is true, try outlawing cigarettes...

Making something illegal that is already legal is quite different from making something that is illegal, legal.

Ken Bondy - 11-21-2008 at 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
Ken, I disagree with your statement. The fact that certain behaviors are illegal certainly keeps many, many people from doing them.

We have some common ground here k-rico. Certainly laws affect our behavior on most issues. But not on drugs. Every society in history has had its intoxicants and laws have had little effect on whether they get used or they don't get used. Do you doubt that?

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaGringo
At 18 years old I don't want her to do drugs, cigarettes or alcohol.

Yes but meth/coke/heroin are so much more dangerous. You can't possibly equate them.

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
Ken, I disagree with your statement. The fact that certain behaviors are illegal certainly keeps many, many people from doing them.

YES I doubt that. More people would use them if they were legal. Did you read the reference I supplied? Give me one reference where drugs were legalized and there was not an increase in abuse.

BajaGringo - 11-21-2008 at 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
Making something illegal that is already legal is quite different from making something that is illegal, legal.

You might want to check your history book. Many of the drugs "illegal" today were once not only legal but considered a normal part of life...

Both

Dave - 11-21-2008 at 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Do you doubt the veracity of the statement? Or are you just saying it shouldn't be that way?

What you are saying is that threat of punishment makes no difference. I can't belive that.

Were you speaking about casual users, or addicts?

Ken Bondy - 11-21-2008 at 06:21 PM

Dave, yes, based upon my personal experience it is my opinion that the threat of punishment makes no difference, both with casual users and heavy duty users. That, of course, is a generality and all generalities, including this one, are false. There are probably a few people who have been deterred from drug use by the threat of punishment, but they are far in the minority.

Ken Bondy - 11-21-2008 at 06:27 PM

Quote:

You might want to check your history book. Many of the drugs "illegal" today were once not only legal but considered a normal part of life...

One of them is cocaine. Many people don't realize where the "Coca" in "Coca Cola" came from.

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaGringo

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
Making something illegal that is already legal is quite different from making something that is illegal, legal.

You might want to check your history book. Many of the drugs "illegal" today were once not only legal but considered a normal part of life...

That's true. Laudanum was common at one time. But what I said still stands. Beisdes what does making cigarettes illegal have anything to do with what this thread is about?

I was

Dave - 11-21-2008 at 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
There are probably a few people who have been deterred from drug use by the threat of punishment, but they are far in the minority.

So were most of my friends. But that was in Oklahoma in the 60's when a joint would get you five years.

Now, tell me that wouldn't deter you, or most people you know. :rolleyes:

k-rico - 11-21-2008 at 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy

Quote:

You might want to check your history book. Many of the drugs "illegal" today were once not only legal but considered a normal part of life...

One of them is cocaine. Many people don't realize where the "Coca" in "Coca Cola" came from.

So how does the fact that at one time drugs that were legal were made illegal support the notion that drugs that are now illegal should be made legal? Like I said legal to illegal is quite different than illegal to legal.

Ken Bondy - 11-21-2008 at 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaGringo

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
Making something illegal that is already legal is quite different from making something that is illegal, legal.

You might want to check your history book. Many of the drugs "illegal" today were once not only legal but considered a normal part of life...

That's true. Laudanum was common at one time. But what I said still stands. Beisdes what does making cigarettes illegal have anything to do with what this thread is about?

I thought Baja Gringo's statement about cigarettes was right on point. He opined, and I agree, that if cigarettes were made illegal most smokers would not stop smoking. Thus THAT drug behavior would not be significantly affected by whether it is legal or illegal. I think that is the essence of this thread.

BajaGringo - 11-21-2008 at 06:50 PM

You are right k-rico. The current drug policy is working. I suspect that once we get 10-20% of the population incarcerated the problem will be well under control and the narco's will finally be put out of business...

Ken Bondy - 11-21-2008 at 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy

Quote:

You might want to check your history book. Many of the drugs "illegal" today were once not only legal but considered a normal part of life...

One of them is cocaine. Many people don't realize where the "Coca" in "Coca Cola" came from.

I think the point is that drug use is not significantly affected by whether they are legal or illegal. I think it makes little difference whether the chicken came before or after the egg.

Pescador - 11-21-2008 at 09:24 PM

The big challenge about the legality question is that enforcement is a hit or miss affair and therefore is not a very effective behavior modifier. I went to a John Prine concert this summer and the funny smell was very strong in the whole area of Red Rocks. Those people were obviously not concernced about getting busted and it seemed to be pretty well understood that unless someone did something extremely stupid that they were not going to be charged for drug usage. This is almost as bad as our friends who cross the border illegally who only get busted once in awhile. The very same thing happens with law enforcement who tries to stop drug trafficking, in that people only get caught a small percentage of the time. If there were some way to bust them each and every time that they crossed over the line into illegality, then things would stop very quickly. This is further complicated by the fact that they have learned how to effectively sabotage the legal system which is supposed to be controlling the use and distribution.
Now, in reading the research, the usage of drugs increased in some of the European countries when legalization happened but two things are at play here. One, they found that some "potheads" moved to that country following legalization, and second is the effect that it is easier to get a more accurate statistic when things are out in the open.
I have read that the alcohol use and consequent abuse did not really seem to spike after prohibition was repealed.
But, if I give K-rico his due for the sake of argument and accept that use as well as abuse would increase with legalization, I still find it much more acceptable that the drug cartels and the underground are put out of business literally overnight and that people inner fires of desire be satisfied with a system that promotes the slow death of strangulation by taxation over the wanton violence and wholesale slaughter that is going on right now. When prohibition ended in the US, the underground either got on board as legal business men in the manufacture and distribution of alcohol and the killing and mayhem stopped almost overnight. It is a little hard to justify the killing of over 4,000 people this year, the destruction of a culture and lifestyle in Mexico.
My favorite saying sums it up with: "If you are riding a dead horse, you gotta have the smarts to get off".

bajaguy - 11-21-2008 at 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by soulpatch

If that were my daughter/wife/child at La Mijita I think there would be retribution on the associates of the people who brought death to my house. It is true guilt by association. I would not give a sh-t if they were not directly involved. Their actions precipitated this type of event.

There is a lot to be said for taking care of business. There may be an opportunity for a "Paladin" type of person or persons to start cleaning things up........Once the whacking of a few of these punks by an unknown "avenger" starts, the rest will beat feet for parts unknown.

Santiago - 11-21-2008 at 11:37 PM

SP: I've watched and even contributed (only 3 of us can use this term) while this thread veered off into the drug debate but wondered about what people were really thinking regarding your question. You're sufficiently cajone-ed, I think, to ask the question bluntly but most of us are too chicken to answer in a forthright manner. To be honest, it feels a little unseemly to betake of the things we enjoy in Mexico and then question the honor of the very people we love.
None the less, the question still hangs - when?
PS I've been using the hell out of your ladders.....

bajadogs - 11-22-2008 at 12:25 AM

The reason I don't snort crystal meth is because...

it's illegal. :rolleyes:

And the drug war rolls on

Sharksbaja - 11-22-2008 at 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajadogs
The reason I don't snort crystal meth is because...

it's illegal. :rolleyes:

....and if you did, then what?

Nobody would care but yerself. :rolleyes:

BajaBad - 11-22-2008 at 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pescador
I do know, for a fact, that legislation has had no impact whatsoever on the usage or non-usage of drugs.

Point taken, and agreed on by many - the 'legalization' issue is more of a smokescreen in a way. Those of us who support it understand that legalization would have a direct effect on the 'business' of illegal drug activity, which - I think everyone agrees - is the primary cause in all the violence going on.

To argue about the 'morality' of legalization and the affect on an individuals usage or choice to use or not to use, is besides the point. In reality, that discussion is what keeps the drug trade - illegal, and supported by governments and others in positions in power who profit from it - alive & well.

K-rico wants us to believe that legalizing drugs is going to make all substances available in every mini-mart but that is simply not in any way true & a bit crazy to state such a thing. Even if small amounts were 'legalized' they would still be stringently controlled & distributed, with strict age-laws enacted as we have for cigarettes and alcohol. And other 'adult' vices such as porn magazines.

Economics - maybe that is where the disucssion should be, and real reality of our supposed American 'morality' about drugs...

The U.S. has effected two countries who were going to legalize marijuanna (and in the case of Mexico, other illegal drugs for personal use) -- Canada & Mexico.

Amazingly enough, when we were rallying against Canada to not pass their legalization legislation, economic reports were being quoted about the number of U.S. tourists who travel to Canada on weekends to party... and spend money.

Our 'moral' stance imposed on Canada had absolutely NOTHING to do with affects of legalization on individual users... iand nothing to do with morality at all. It was ALL based on economics -- not wanting to lose more U.S. dollars on persons traveling there to spend their money. We simply wanted to keep our drug users within our own borders... spending money in the U.S.

Same with Mexico - the argument used by our DEA to support our stance - and effective lobbying (was 'Plan Mexico' used as a bargaining tool at that time... ?) of Vincente to not sign the bill Congress has passed was... huge suprise... because they feared "drug tourism" by U.S. citizens into Mexico. If we don't want drug users within our borders, you'd think we would have looked the other way.

They feared the loss of U.S. dollars - wanting our drug users to spend in the U.S., not Mexico.

I met some Canadian marijuana growers/workers in Guatemala - they did not want Canada to legalize marijuana... as they knew it would take away their profits. They didn't care that it meant they kept the risk of being incarcerated for their illegal activity.

BajaBad

The title of this string is:

toneart - 11-22-2008 at 01:33 PM

When will the people of Mexico take back their country? To me, that suggests that The People are the last and only hope. Of course, The People must regain their lives and their freedom, but how can they stand against the organized cartels and their firepower? Even the military can't do that. Bless them though. It may come to a bloody revolt in the streets, but I fear the we know who will win and who will lose. I am not saying it is not possible, but I don't see how.

This thread goes on and on...and wanders. Lets make a list of priorities:
What is the number one acute problem?
Violence! People are getting killed in the most gruesome ways. Man's inhumanity to Man escalates to levels we have not seen since The Holocaust. It has to stop! Any other consideration has to take a lesser place behind this number one priority.

You can and will prioritize after that, according to your belief systems. I have to say that morality, a just and unshakable virtue that is ingrained into our American Culture, has to take a back seat.
You are all discussing the morality of legalization as it pertains to drugs. That impedes and stymies any clear vision of what must be done. The reality is that this is an immoral war in which the real bad guys are the drug dealing cartels. For all the money that the U.S. has thrown at it, all the posturing by Calderon, and all of the lives that have been lost or impacted, it is only getting more violent.

Creative solutions by thinking outside of the box have to be examined. A few pages back, in this string, I proposed an absurd idea (that got no comment):
"Hey! Why not give the concession to one cartel and then back them up with the military, defending them against competitors? Get them to agree to a bi-lateral "hands off" policy in exchange for price fixing and regulation. Dress em up in suits like all the "respectable" crooks in government and corporations. That way the underground economy wouldn't collapse." Of course this is absurd! But taken from it are parallels to our days of Prohibition. It also suggests that the underground economy is a leading factor in why this reprehensible drug trade is allowed to exist and grow, with a wink and a nod. Cynical? Perhaps.

Stopping users and addicts won't work. A fence won't work. Immigration laws won't work. Depending on Mexican Police and officials in high and low places won't work.

Legalization could work.The profit margin must be taken out. Sure, the bad guys will still exist and look for other illegal ways to make a living, but then they can be divided and conquered;picked off as emasculated splinter groups. A moral stance against it wrongly rules this out as a possibility. Forget about the ruined lives of druggies and their families. You can't do anything about that. Praying won't work. You have to be pragmatic and smart; smarter than the bad guys, because their advances and determination and use of violence trumps any kind of morality, money and weaponry. Besides, the global money has disappeared down the rabbit hole. Gone!

So, are we going to stand with our Mexican brothers and sisters as they get slaughtered in a bloody street revolt. I think not! Maybe a few North American freedom fighters will, but the rest of us? Come on. What are you thinking. Where is your morality? When your burros are on the line it kinda falls away, doesn't it? :?:

Interesting

Dave - 11-22-2008 at 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart
So, are we going to stand with our Mexican brothers and sisters as they get slaughtered in a bloody street revolt. I think not! Maybe a few North American freedom fighters will, but the rest of us? Come on. What are you thinking. Where is your morality? When your burros are on the line it kinda falls away, doesn't it? :?:

What would be U.S. policy if revolution came?

We would have to get involved, but how?

Sharksbaja - 11-22-2008 at 03:56 PM

Quote:

What would be U.S. policy if revolution came?

Gee, I thought we just had one! :lol:

We'll have to wait and see.

toneart - 11-22-2008 at 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

What would be U.S. policy if revolution came?

We would have to get involved, but how?

Well Dave,
I sure don't have the answers. The revolution I was thinking of would be against the cartels in the peoples' attempt to take back their country. Now that you have asked the question, it sure could expand and go against the government. Let me be clear that I am NOT advocating a revolution in any form!

See how easy it is....

Sharksbaja - 11-22-2008 at 04:22 PM

[Edited on 11-22-2008 by Sharksbaja]

DopeDealers.jpg - 39kB

Pages: 1 2 3