[Edited on 4-9-2010 by Iflyfish]bajajazz - 4-9-2010 at 03:51 PM
So Joaquin Guzman is now Mexico's Pablo Escobar. Once his competition is entirely eliminated I suppose "peace" will break out and the good times will
roll. And we, pinheads that we are, will continue to throw billions of increasingly worthless dollars down the rathole of the "war on drugs."Bajahowodd - 4-9-2010 at 03:56 PM
I saw another article that dealt with much the same. In fact, given the rapacious appetite for drugs in the US, I agree that the War on Drugs is
little more than a make work program for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people in the US. So, how does one tell them, they are all fired?Iflyfish - 4-9-2010 at 05:08 PM
Given both the US and Mexican government’s historical role in drugs, both of your points are no doubt well taken. Some sort of rapprochement may have
been reached already that will allow all stake holders to have their piece of the pie.
Santiago posted an excellent analysis of this issue under the thread entitled “Stratfor (Geo. Friedman) changes it's assessment of "Failed State"Bajahowodd - 4-9-2010 at 05:19 PM
I saw it and responded to it. My primary concern is that there are two parallel operations out there. One, that understands that not in our lifetime,
or the lifetime of our children's children will the demand abate for some form of product that alleviates anxiety over what is happening in the world.
Since recorded time, people have sought to get high. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it has been.bajajazz - 4-10-2010 at 10:18 AM
The drug "problem" may not be solvable, but it can be made manageable, confined within limits much as alcohol use is handled, by reallocating funds
wasted on intervention and directing them to harm reduction efforts (treatment on demand, for instance), then moving on to gradual decriminalization,
and finally legalization and taxation.
Bajahowodd is absolutely right -- people are going to get high no matter what, always have and always will.
The real "problem" is that there's so much money to be made by maintaining the status quo. From Joaquin Guzman all the way down to DEA's newest hire,
it is in the financial interests of everyone involved to keep things just the way they are. And that is why the "war on drugs" is a charade that will
probably never change until the day comes there's no more money in the till to keep it going. And with no effective oversight of the banksters and
the games they're playing with dodgy securities, that day may come sooner than we think.redmesa - 4-10-2010 at 10:58 AM
All very true...
Once the gravy train is up to steam there seems to be no stopping it.
The old maxim --War is good for the economy and bad for people
Money is being made...ain't capitalism grand and libertarianism great?
Of course!
toneart - 4-10-2010 at 12:34 PM
I have said it before; that's the way the game of hard chess is played. Checkmate! With as much economic and political power as has
Guzman, he is a major player of influence on the International field. Indeed, peace will be breaking out any day now.
The violence must stop!
Users will always be users and there will always be suppliers at the ready. It is unfortunate that the users had taken that step in which they became
addicts (I am NOT talking about Marijuana). Addiction is an illness which usually ends in severe trouble, economic destitution, rapidly deteriorating
health and often death. That is a tragedy for their families and loved ones who must endure in along with the addict, unless or until they write
him/her off and disown them.
The War on Drugs is a stupid waste of money and lives and serves no purpose other than propping up the War Industry. DENNIS - 4-10-2010 at 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by toneart
The War on Drugs is a stupid waste of money and lives and serves no purpose other than propping up the War Industry.
If the government called it off, the unemployment numbers would be disasterous.
No No No....can't have that during this administration. We'll just have to wait till the next one takes over.DENNIS - 4-10-2010 at 01:24 PM
"The twin border cities of Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, Texas, are a primary crossing point for drugs smuggled into the United States."
-------------------------
Gaawwdamm....I just don't get it. Here it is in black and white and the US just sits there and lets it happen. It's like a football team telling
their rival the whole offensive plan and the other team ignoring it.
Doesn't this outrage anybody? Doesn't this suggest that the military should be lined up along that stretch of border?
Where is the public outcry on this issue? Nobody seems to care.Bajahowodd - 4-10-2010 at 01:55 PM
It's not about caring. It's more about not wasting time playing whack a mole. You could line up the military ten deep at that area of the border, and
all it would do is divert the entry point to somewhere else.DENNIS - 4-10-2010 at 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd
It's not about caring. It's more about not wasting time playing whack a mole. You could line up the military ten deep at that area of the border, and
all it would do is divert the entry point to somewhere else.
Then, somewhere else is where the military should go as well. Shoot to kill. Put an end to it.
This losing with dignity crap is not an honorable end.
Let the strung out users in the states deal with zero supply. Anything less than our best effort is surrender.Iflyfish - 4-10-2010 at 03:31 PM
It's interesting to note that the marijuana growers of Northern California are opposed to the proposition of legalization, bad for business. They
aught to know! Life is full of irony isn't it.
The retiring Supreme Court Justice Stevens likens this whack a mole game to his experience with the Prohibition of Alcohol. Remember all the old Edger
G Robinson films? Remember the movies of 1930's drive by shootings? Remember the Valentines day massacre? On it goes. History does indeed repeat
itself and those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
IflyfishBajahowodd - 4-10-2010 at 05:07 PM
I'm guessing that the growers fear that big companies, be it tobacco or pharma will take over the industry. But, I'm not so sure. After all, doesn't
Heinz buy tomatoes from small growers, too?
Your reference to Justice Stevens reminds me. Oh, how the US society has changed. Stevens, a Republican, was ratified in the Senate by a vote of 98-0.
When Sotomayor was nominated, despite the fact that her record is far from hard core liberal, 31 Senators voted against her. What a difference a few
decades make, eh?
