BajaNomad - Mexico's President Calderon says drug cartels threaten democracy

Mexico's President Calderon says drug cartels threaten democracy

Mengano - 12-4-2011 at 11:06 PM

REPORTING FROM MEXICO CITY -- President Felipe Calderon acknowledged Sunday that despite five years of battling drug cartels, criminals today pose "an open threat" to Mexico's democratic order (link in Spanish).

In a candid speech marking the start of his sixth and last year in the presidency, Calderon said interference in elections by drug gangs "is a new fact, a worrisome fact." "It is a threat to everyone," he said.

He was apparently alluding to last month's local elections in Michoacan, Calderon's home state, where traffickers and their henchmen intimidated voters and told people whom to vote for. Those events have led to fears about further meddling in July's presidential vote.

Calderon defended his decision to deploy the military to fight the cartels and scolded "political forces" that don't have the "vision" to support the struggle.

"This is a problem, friends, that has been developing for decades and that is showing us its true face, a face of violence, a face of evil," Calderon said. Violence and insecurity, he added, "are one of the greatest challenges Mexico has faced in modern history."

Since Calderon took office in December 2006, more than 40,000 people have been killed in fighting with and among drug gangs, and thousands of Mexicans have gone missing or been forced to flee hometowns.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/12/mexicos-pr...

Not mentioned in this article is that President Calderon's sister, Luisa Maria Calderon, was running for governor of Michoacan and it was she that the drug cartels made lose the election.

ELINVESTIG8R - 12-5-2011 at 06:08 AM

IF I WERE PRESIDENT OF MEXICO THIS IS HOW I WOULD CLEAN IT UP.

DO YOU HAVE A PLAN?

NOTE: This is a very simplified version on how to clean up Mexico. Many additional elements will have to be in place before attempting such a move, like obtaining the cooperation of the United States and the countries of Belize and Guatemala. Also how to come up with sanitized police to leave behind once an area is cleaned out. This is just put out here as food for thought and is not the only solution. I have included a map of Mexico depicting a rudimentary troop deployment. Nothing is in concrete and all can be modified as needed.

I would call it: Operación Marcha de Justicia (Operation March of Justice)

If I was the President of Mexico I would assemble the leaders of the Legislative and Judicial Branches of Government to consult with them to determine my powers to clean up Mexico. If I am legally authorized to suspend the constitution and civil liberties of the people I would then assemble all of my senior General Officers from each branch of my Armed Forces and all the heads of my federal law enforcement.

Each would be subjected to a polygraph to confirm they have not been corrupted. All will confer with each other to determine the logistics of how to take back and clean up Mexico from the criminal element starting at the borders of Guatemala and Belize trekking NorthWest toward the state of Baja California. I will use all of my Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, all of their reserves and Federal Law Enforcement.

Once in place at the aforementioned borders I will make an official declaration of war against the cartels and criminal element plaguing Mexico and invoke Article 29 of the Mexican Constitution suspending all rights, establish martial law and curfews.

My Armed Forces will 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.

gnukid - 12-5-2011 at 09:32 AM

Hmmm something is wrong here. Who is running the cartel?

http://news.yahoo.com/us-agents-laundered-drug-money-report-...

US agents laundered drug money: report
AFP – 22 hrs ago

Anti-narcotics agents working for the US government have laundered or smuggled millions of dollars in drug proceeds to see how the system works and use the information against Mexican drug cartels, The New York Times reported Sunday.

Citing unnamed current and former federal law enforcement officials, the newspaper said the agents, primarily with the Drug Enforcement Administration, have handled shipments of hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal cash across borders.

Some 45,000 people have been killed in Mexico since 2006, when its government launched a major military crackdown against the powerful drug cartels that have terrorized border communities as they battled over lucrative smuggling routes.

According to these officials, the operations were aimed at identifying how criminal organizations move their money, where they keep their assets and, most important, who their leaders are, the report said.

The agents had deposited the proceeds in accounts designated by traffickers, or in shell accounts set up by agents, the paper noted.

While the DEA conducted such operations in other countries, it began doing so in Mexico only in the past few years, The Times said.
As it launders drug money, the agency often allows cartels to continue their operations over months or even years before making seizures or arrests, the report said.

According to The Times, agency officials declined to publicly discuss details of their work, citing concerns about compromising their investigations.
But Michael Vigil, a former senior official who is currently working for a private contracting company called Mission Essential Personnel, is quoted by the paper as saying: "We tried to make sure there was always close supervision of these operations so that we were accomplishing our objectives, and agents weren’t laundering money for the sake of laundering money."

sanquintinsince73 - 12-5-2011 at 09:45 AM

I like your idea but I would also consult with the next American President and request that he sign an executive order declaring the situation in Mexico a "clear and present danger" to our own national security. With or without our congress' approval, I would station American forces all along the border. A massive American presence all along the border. Sealed tighter than a bulls arse during fly season.

Iflyfish - 12-5-2011 at 09:51 AM

This is a Gorilla war taking place in urban as well as rural areas. How well did the Viet Nam war work for first the French then the USofA; Afghanistan for the Russians and then the USofA? What are the successful presidents for wars like this?

How well has the legislation of morality ever worked? Have we stomped out prostitution? How about alcoholism with Prohibition? How about Tobacco use? Public education and the use of social sanction, shame and laws protecting the places where tobacco can be used have had a major impact on tobacco use in the USofA. Making tobacco illegal would not stop its use nor would a War on Tobacco.

The real game changer would be the legalization of drug use and the treatment of those who suffer from addiction to these drugs. How long will it take for us to see the self defeat we have suffered in this hugely expensive and failed War On Drugs.

Iflyfish

sanquintinsince73 - 12-5-2011 at 10:01 AM

....or we can lend Calderon a couple thousand of these guys....

http://youtu.be/S06nIz4scvI

Mengano - 12-5-2011 at 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
The real game changer would be the legalization of drug use and the treatment of those who suffer from addiction to these drugs.

Hello? Marijuana was legalized in quite a few places, California for one. It is also legal in Mexico for users and is not a criminal offense. Yet every street in every town in Mexico is "owned"by some drug cartel which sells the "derecho de piso" to somebody for the right to sell drugs on the street. And treatment for drug addiction has been around as for as long as there has been drugs. Have you never heard of a methadone clinic? In most states, first offenders for drug use do not go to jail. They go to drug diversion programs and even get their records wiped clean if the complete the program.

In spite of all that, drug use continues unabated. So, if you are going to propose a program to solve the drug problem, at least spend a few minutes getting to understand it and understand what has already been done before and failed.

And when you get past that, then you have to tell us all how legalizing drugs will stop all the other organized crime activities in Mexico. What about the extortion rings in every city? Ask Woooosh where his cousin's head ended up when he didn't pay for the right to sell tacos. What about the prostitution and human trafficking? How will you stop the car theft rings? The systematic looting of Pemex? The kidnapping rings?

Repeating these 20-second sound bites on legalizing drugs that are mindlessly chanted are of no use.

Woooosh - 12-5-2011 at 10:42 AM

thanks for not posting the photo.

It is about money, not drugs. Drugs are just the tool used to get the money. As Mengano points out- there are other ways to get money that are more dangerous to Mexican society than drugs.

[Edited on 12-5-2011 by Woooosh]

JoeJustJoe - 12-5-2011 at 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
thanks for not posting the photo.

It is about money, not drugs. Drugs are just the tool used to get the money. As Mengano points out- there are other ways to get money that are more dangerous to Mexican society than drugs.

[Edited on 12-5-2011 by Woooosh]

How profound, " it's about money, not drugs?"

No duh.
---------------

sanquintinsince73 wrote:

I like your idea but I would also consult with the next American President and request that he sign an executive order declaring the situation in Mexico a "clear and present danger" to our own national security. With or without our congress' approval, I would station American forces all along the border. A massive American presence all along the border. Sealed tighter than a bulls arse during fly season.

What's the clear and present danger? That many young kids like to smoke Marijuana, and do other drugs that come elsewhere. I hear the DEA new priority is "prescription pills." My white drug dealing neighbors sell mostly prescription drugs. Hey nothing like Xanax. Hey take a "Xanny' and some alcohol and all your troubles go away.......at least for a little while before addiction sets in and you need more and more. Prescription drugs are often way way more dangerous than Marijuana or even other types of illegal drugs.

Closing the border is non-sense it's not going to stop illegal immigration or drugs. Besides there is no real spill over yet, and the boarder cities are no more dangerous than inland cities.

Mengano wrote: In spite of all that, drug use continues unabated. So, if you are going to propose a program to solve the drug problem, at least spend a few minutes getting to understand it and understand what has already been done before and failed. And when you get past that, then you have to tell us all how legalizing drugs will stop all the other organized crime activities in Mexico. What about the extortion rings in every city? Ask Woooosh where his cousin's head ended up when he didn't pay for the right to sell tacos. What about the prostitution and human trafficking? How will you stop the car theft rings? The systematic looting of Pemex? The kidnapping rings?

The fact is the US/Mexico "war on drugs" has been a total failure and hasn't stopped the drug flow, or the end users( American junkies) from getting any drug they want.

The Mexican drug cartels are falling all over themselves serving the American's insatiable appetite for drugs. America fuels the drug violence in Mexico by buying billions of dollars worth of drugs and that money goes back to Mexico. The USA supplies almost all the assault weapons that arms the Mexican drug cartels. ( Sorry we get story after story the weapons are coming from the US directly and indirectly)

The US spends a very very small percentage on the DEMAND side of the illegal drug trade. I'm talking about treatment programs for addicted drug users, and I'm talking about good programs too. Almost all the millions of dollars to fight this drug war is OFFENSE and taking the fight to the drug dealers and jailing drug users.

Legalizing drugs will go a long way towards fighting this drug war. Nothing is accomplished my jailing drug users and it's a waste of tax payer money.

America needs to spend more money on the "DEMAND" side of this drug problem.

Kidnapping and sex trafficking doesn't bring in the kind of money that illegal drug selling does. The return on kidnapping takes a long time compared to a drug sale. Sex Trafficking is often sensationalized in the news. According to articles I read "all" sex workers are underage sex slaves, and that's just not true.

[Edited on 12-5-2011 by JoeJustJoe]

sanquintinsince73 - 12-5-2011 at 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeJustJoe

Quote:

How profound, " it's about money, not drugs?"

No duh.
---------------

sanquintinsince73 wrote:

I like your idea but I would also consult with the next American President and request that he sign an executive order declaring the situation in Mexico a "clear and present danger" to our own national security. With or without our congress' approval, I would station American forces all along the border. A massive American presence all along the border. Sealed tighter than a bulls arse during fly season.

What's the clear and present danger? That many young kids like to smoke Marijuana, and do other drugs that come elsewhere. I hear the DEA new priority is "prescription pills." My white drug dealing neighbors sell mostly prescription drugs. Hey nothing like Xanax. Hey take a "Xanny' and some alcohol and all your troubles go away.......at least for a little while before addiction sets in and you need more and more. Prescription drugs are often way way more dangerous that Marijuana.

Closing the border is non-sense it's not going to stop illegal immigration or drugs. Besides there is no real spill over yet, and the boarder cities are no more dangerous than inland cities.

Mengano wrote: In spite of all that, drug use continues unabated. So, if you are going to propose a program to solve the drug problem, at least spend a few minutes getting to understand it and understand what has already been done before and failed. And when you get past that, then you have to tell us all how legalizing drugs will stop all the other organized crime activities in Mexico. What about the extortion rings in every city? Ask Woooosh where his cousin's head ended up when he didn't pay for the right to sell tacos. What about the prostitution and human trafficking? How will you stop the car theft rings? The systematic looting of Pemex? The kidnapping rings?

The fact is the US/Mexico "war on drugs" has been a total failure and hasn't stopped the drug flow, or the end users( American junkies) from getting any drug they want.

The Mexican drug cartels are falling all over themselves serving the American's insatiable appetite for drugs. America fuels the drug violence in Mexico by buying billions of dollars worth of drugs and that money goes back to Mexico. The USA supplies almost all the assault weapons that arms the Mexican drug cartels. ( Sorry we get story after story the weapons are coming from the US directly and indirectly)

The US spends a very very small percentage on the DEMAND side of the illegal drug trade. I'm talking about treatment programs for addicted drug users, and I'm talking about good programs too. Almost all the millions of dollars to fight this drug war is OFFENSE and taking the fight to the drug dealers and jailing drug users.

Legalizing drugs will go a long way towards fighting this drug war. Nothing is accomplished my jailing drug users and it's a waste of tax payer money.

America needs to spend more money on the "DEMAND" side of this drug problem.

Kidnapping and sex trafficking doesn't bring in the kind of money that illegal drug selling does. The return on kidnapping takes a long time compared to a drug sale. Sex Trafficking is often sensationalized in the news. According to articles I read "all" sex workers are underage sex slaves, and that's just not true.

Legalizing drugs? Just what we need, a bunch of long-haired, stoned, bohemian free-thinkers driving the same freeways I do.

mcfez - 12-5-2011 at 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mengano

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
The real game changer would be the legalization of drug use and the treatment of those who suffer from addiction to these drugs.

The U.S. attorneys for the four federal districts in California are conducting a coordinated crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries this week, according to a law-enforcement official who wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The effort is limited to California, the official said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-07/california-pot-clin...

Woooosh - 12-5-2011 at 07:18 PM

The Colorado model for dispensing medical pot would have been better. The state grows what it sells and has cameras in all the stores- guaranteeing the revenues for the state are collected. California is a free for all. The pot dispensaries are being threatened and all the excess pot is now going south to Mexico to be sold. How ironic.

Oddjob - 12-5-2011 at 08:13 PM

It's difficult to imagine how things will be in Mexico in three or four years. You would need a crystal ball.

Iflyfish - 12-6-2011 at 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mengano

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
The real game changer would be the legalization of drug use and the treatment of those who suffer from addiction to these drugs.

I am not so naive as to assume that legalization of drugs would solve ALL social and legal problems that exist in Mexico. I also agree that there is a likelihood that the criminal gangs of Mexico would engage in other ways to acquire revenue. There are serious and yet to be resolved issues with both the law enforcement and judicial systems in Mexico that legalization would not address.

I appreciate that you would consider my comments to be “sound bites”. I have never been able to produce a simple sentence that a “sound bite” would require, so I consider your comment to be a compliment of my clarity.

I am not alone in my views regarding the potential positive impact of legalization of drugs. If you go to the following link you will find scores of Law Enforcement Professionals who share my perspective. These people are seasoned professionals and reasoned people. I hope you will take the time to inform yourself of their perspective.

Learn more: http://www.leap.cc/

There are also World Leaders who also propose legalization and I would also encourage you to familiarize yourself with their perspectives. The Global Commission on Drug Policy responsible for the report includes: former Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso; former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria; Mexico's former president Ernesto Zedillo; ex-UN chief Kofi Annan; former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board Paul Volcker; former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz; Mario Vargas Llosa; Carlos Fuentes; and Richard Branson.

Learn more: http://tinyurl.com/89yesc8

Legalization is not just a pipe dream or Liberal utopian fantasy but a legitimate alternative to a failed policy that has gone on for decades and has cost billions of dollars and untold numbers of lives lost or broken by this wrongheaded approach.

Iflyfish

goldhuntress - 12-6-2011 at 09:42 AM

This is a link to video interviews on "Mexico's drug war" on the LA Times website. Jorge Chabat has his opinion on legalizing drugs. He is an economist and has studied drug trafficking for over 20 years.

http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/question-and-a...

Ken Bondy - 12-6-2011 at 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mengano

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
The real game changer would be the legalization of drug use and the treatment of those who suffer from addiction to these drugs.

In spite of all that, drug use continues unabated. So, if you are going to propose a program to solve the drug problem, at least spend a few minutes getting to understand it and understand what has already been done before and failed.

Legalization has been "..done before and failed."???? I must have missed that. To those of us who realize that legalization is the only solution to the drug problem, "legalization" is not just a few pot shops in isolated jurisdictions where you have to claim to be ill to get some. Legalization is a national commitment wherein all drugs are legal and the profits from those drugs go to education and treatment. Only when the illegal profits are eliminated will the crime and violence associated with drugs disappear. Legalization will not substantially change the amount of users. Every society in history has had its intoxicants and that will not change. It is just as easy to get illegal drugs now as it will be when they are legalized. It is making drugs illegal that has been "...done before and failed", not the reverse.

Mengano - 12-6-2011 at 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
I am not alone in my views regarding the potential positive impact of legalization of drugs. If you go to the following link you will find scores of Law Enforcement Professionals who share my perspective.

Woooosh - 12-6-2011 at 10:57 AM

Interesting to note that the Netherlands has yet again changed it's policy on soft drugs. They now classify the strong "chronic" weed to be a hard drug, no longer legal. They measure the THC content and have established a cut-off strength.

Ken Bondy - 12-6-2011 at 11:20 AM

Mengano those isolated instances of local, limited legalization bear no resemblance to the type of legalization that will eliminate the illegal drug profits.

JoeJustJoe - 12-6-2011 at 11:29 AM

Boy listening to Mengano you would think Marijuana is the worse drug in the world.

I can't think of anything more ridiculous than criminalizing marijuana use. What a waste of tax money, police resources, and criminalizing drug use turns otherwise law abiding citizens to criminals with police records. It's a shame some people can't get a good job because they had a drug bust many years ago.

C'mon Mengano wouldn't you ever young and smoked a few marijuana joints? It's not a big deal. I would bet my last dollar that your young adult children at least smoke pot and have no trouble getting it despite any crackdown or major pot bust by the US or Mexican government.

It's good to see many "Nomad" members recognize the "war on drugs" is a total failure and want to try legalizing drugs.

We can also just decriminalize drug use as oppose to full blown legalization and trying to regulate drug use.

We have too many American citizens in prison because of some type of drug regulated offensive, and the minorities and poor people sure seem to get the short end of the stick when it comes to prison sentencing guidelines.

[Edited on 12-6-2011 by JoeJustJoe]

Mengano - 12-6-2011 at 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
I can't think of anything more ridiculous than criminalizing marijuana use.

I can think of lots of things more ridiculous.

Mengano - 12-6-2011 at 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Mengano those isolated instances of local, limited legalization bear no resemblance to the type of legalization that will eliminate the illegal drug profits.

I don't know. Maybe you just don't get how to formulate an argument. The time for broad generalizations with no foundation has passed. Please post some examples for somewhere in the world where legalizing drugs was a success, as measured by a drop in the crime rate and lower social costs to society to care for vegetables for the rest of their natural lives.

If you feel up to it, you can explain how legalizing drugs in the Netherlands, with a population of 16 million was an isolated, local and limited experiment and expand on how if it was done on a larger scale it would be different.

Ken Bondy - 12-6-2011 at 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mengano

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Mengano those isolated instances of local, limited legalization bear no resemblance to the type of legalization that will eliminate the illegal drug profits.

It seems like you, Mengano, can't formulate an argument without getting sarcastic and insulting. You are very clever at that but I don't think it adds much to your reasoning. I don't believe that any conclusion about the effects of legalization can be drawn between the US and the Netherlands. I don't know the crime statistics in the Netherlands, and if crime there can be categorized as drug or non-drug related. Do you?

JoeJustJoe - 12-6-2011 at 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mengano

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Mengano those isolated instances of local, limited legalization bear no resemblance to the type of legalization that will eliminate the illegal drug profits.

Now play nice you cross dressing CD Mengano who loves playing the part of women Online. I remember you played the part of Jenny, and you often don a dress and play the part of Maggie all the time.

Legalizing drugs would have to take place on a larger scale than someplace like Netherlands, where every addict from neighboring countries would flock too because the lax or non existent drug laws in the Netherlands.

If Tijuana was truly like Amsterdam in regards to drug laws. You would have a sudden surge of young American pot heads and other types of drug users who would use Tijuana as their private vice playground, before going back home. ( it's like that already but on a much smaller scale)

So I think legalization/decriminalization should be on a wider scale and happen in both countries USA and Mexico about the same time. It will at least keep the drug uses at home, and wouldn't create these sin cities like Amsterdam where of course it's going to attract citizens to the particle sins of drug and sex you can't get legally in other countries.

goldhuntress - 12-6-2011 at 12:43 PM

Mengano is this the site you pulled your stats from??? It doesn't seem to me to be a very objective site. I looked around for those Amsterdam stats in legalization failures and couldn't find those exact words anywhere except this site. Also saw the other failures you posted there too, except the Alaska one. Correct me if I'm wrong. In the footnotes there is no info more recent than 1995.
http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidrug/argument/myths.html
Sarnia is a city in Canada and that is the groups part of the cities website.
Here's another website with different stats as far as the Netherlands are concerned.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/Netherlands_v_US
And there's a Wiki site for everything
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_...

I totally support legalization. On the web you can find anything, the problem is figuring out whats BS and what is fact. And that's on both sides of the issue.

Mengano - 12-6-2011 at 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Mengano those isolated instances of local, limited legalization bear no resemblance to the type of legalization that will eliminate the illegal drug profits.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
I don't know the crime statistics in the Netherlands, and if crime there can be categorized as drug or non-drug related.

OK then, you know the failed legalization efforts were "isolated instances of local, limited legalization [which] bear no resemblance to the type of legalization that will eliminate the illegal drug profits." And at the same time you, "don't know the crime statistics in the Netherlands, and if crime there can be categorized as drug or non-drug related."

But you do know that Alaska loosened and then tightened drug laws, as well as the Netherlands, Egypt, China, etc. You just do not know why.

Mengano - 12-6-2011 at 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goldhuntress
I totally support legalization. On the web you can find anything, the problem is figuring out whats BS and what is fact. And that's on both sides of the issue.

Don't think this is BS. You can find the same news everywhere:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/us-dutch-cannabis-idINTRE74Q64420110527

wessongroup - 12-6-2011 at 01:03 PM

"I totally support legalization. On the web you can find anything, the problem is figuring out whats BS and what is fact. And that's on both sides of the issue."

Ditto's... once politics and/or religion is brought into the solution ... rather than science ... and a rather core principle of our Nation ... Freedom, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness... if it hurts no one but ME !! the individual citizen ...

Ken Bondy - 12-6-2011 at 01:10 PM

Mengano do you think keeping drugs illegal and having a "War on Drugs" is actually working? You actually think that's the best solution available to society?

Mengano - 12-6-2011 at 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Mengano do you think keeping drugs illegal and having a "War on Drugs" is actually working? You actually think that's the best solution available to society?

I will happily answer your question right after you produce real life examples of where drugs were legalized and the crime rate went down along with the social cost to society to feed all the brain dead vegetables for the rest of their lives.

What I think, or what you think, is nor really relevant, is it? What is relevant is what will work. If you tried the experiment and it did not work, why propose trying it again?

JoeJustJoe - 12-6-2011 at 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mengano

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Mengano do you think keeping drugs illegal and having a "War on Drugs" is actually working? You actually think that's the best solution available to society?

Here you go. Now answer Ken's question. Although this policy is about decriminalization not legalization. It's close enough for our purposes here:
____________

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results Street drugrelated deaths from overdoses drop and the rate of HIV cases crashes

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

"Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald, a former New York State constitutional litigator, said during a press briefing at Cato last week.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Each three-person commission includes at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker. The panel has the option of recommending treatment, a small fine, or no sanction.

Peter Reuter, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says he's skeptical decriminalization was the sole reason drug use slid in Portugal, noting that another factor, especially among teens, was a global decline in marijuana use. By the same token, he notes that critics were wrong in their warnings that decriminalizing drugs would make Lisbon a drug mecca.

"Drug decriminalization did reach its primary goal in Portugal," of reducing the health consequences of drug use, he says, "and did not lead to Lisbon becoming a drug tourist destination."

Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says decriminalization in Portugal "appears to be working." He adds that his office is putting more emphasis on improving health outcomes, such as reducing needle-borne infections, but that it does not explicitly support decriminalization, "because it smacks of legalization."

Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers. Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico's president has proposed doing the same. .

A spokesperson for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy declined to comment, citing the pending Senate confirmation of the office's new director, former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs also declined to comment on the report.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-dr...
_______________________________________

Here is also the widely cited " Cato Institute" article " Drug Decriminalization Policy Pays Off, that is more recent:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12476

Ken Bondy - 12-6-2011 at 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mengano

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Mengano do you think keeping drugs illegal and having a "War on Drugs" is actually working? You actually think that's the best solution available to society?

Mengano, I think your assertion that legalization has been tried and has failed, based on a few isolated small-population citations, is highly flawed, but I find it extremely interesting. I've never heard anyone argue against legalization with that approach. Most of the time your argument is used on my side of the issue, the US policy on drugs (make 'em illegal and go have a war on them) has been tried and IT isn't working. I realize you require me to do some research before you answer my question, but I urge you to waive that requirement and simply answer it, if you actually have an opinion. I know what you are against (legalization), I have no idea what you are for. What is your solution to the drug problem?

Mengano - 12-6-2011 at 03:24 PM

Your article on Portugal (population 10 million as opposed to the Netherlands 16 million) only discusses the rate of HIV infection and drug overdose deaths. Not total crime, and not the social costs of maintaining drug addled vegetables. The article and others from the CATO Institute do say that overall drug use has increased in Portugal since 2001, as well as the homicide rate. Furthermore, after 2006, the rate of drug deaths has been moving back up to the pre-legalization level.

Mengano - 12-6-2011 at 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
What is your solution to the drug problem?

Education and tough love.

Dave - 12-6-2011 at 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Most of the time your argument is used on my side of the issue, the US policy on drugs (make 'em illegal and go have a war on them) has been tried and IT isn't working.

I maintain that we have never made "war" on drugs. As I understand it, waging war involves killing your enemy or at least making the consequences so severe that he abandons the effort.

What would it take for the casual user to modify his behavior?

Barry A. - 12-6-2011 at 03:32 PM

JoeJustJoe-----------what you cite above is probably one of many reasons why Portugal is "broke"---------these huge social programs are EXPENSIVE------so much so that no nation other than an artificially rich one via oil, can afford to do these types of programs long-term. It would be interesting to know if the "enforcement" programs used before "decriminalization" were more expensive than these newer social programs---------That is the crucial figure, it seems to me, but of course I am a horrible mean person because I don't want to do everything possible to "help" these "addicts", etc....

You reap what you sow (always), and individual "bad" decisions are not the responsibility of society in general to try and correct, IMO. Lock em up, Dano!!!! & get them off the streets if they refuse to disapline themselves.

Barry

Mengano - 12-6-2011 at 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave
I maintain that we have never made "war" on drugs. As I understand it, waging war involves killing your enemy or at least making the consequences so severe that he abandons the effort.

What would it take for the casual user to modify his behavior?

True, there are countries that have virtually no drug problem. They're easy to find, they are the ones with severe penalties for drug possession.

Malaysian legislation provides for a mandatory death penalty for convicted drug traffickers. If you are arrested in possession of 15 grams (1/2 ounce) of heroin or 200 grams (seven ounces) of marijuana, you will be presumed by law to be trafficking in drugs and executed.

The penalty for drug trafficking in Saudi Arabia is death, and they make no exceptions.

Iflyfish - 12-6-2011 at 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mengano

Quote:

Not being alone in your argument is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad populum. This fallacy concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so." As an example, the argument that there is a God because so many people believe it is true.

Do you have any empirical evidence to present to support your argument that legalizing drugs will lower crime?

I stated:

I am not alone in my views regarding the potential positive impact of legalization of drugs. If you go to the following link you will find scores of Law Enforcement Professionals who share my perspective. These people are seasoned professionals and reasoned people. I hope you will take the time to inform yourself of their perspective.

Learn more: http://www.leap.cc/

There are also World Leaders who also propose legalization and I would also encourage you to familiarize yourself with their perspectives. The Global Commission on Drug Policy responsible for the report includes: former Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso; former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria; Mexico's former president Ernesto Zedillo; ex-UN chief Kofi Annan; former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board Paul Volcker; former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz; Mario Vargas Llosa; Carlos Fuentes; and Richard Branson.

Learn more: http://tinyurl.com/89yesc8

You state:
“Not being alone in your argument is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad populum. This fallacy concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so." As an example, the argument that there is a God because so many people believe it is true.
Do you have any empirical evidence to present to support your argument that legalizing drugs will lower crime?”

I appreciate how you could interpret my statement to be an Argumentum ad populum and appreciate your concern about logical fallacies and their impact on debate. However do you think that providing expert testimony is Argumentum ad populum? I provided you with evidence that my statements were not simply “talking points” as you assessed them to be. I responded to your trivialization of my point by demonstrating that it was not just Liberal Talking Points. By citing expert testimony I believe I rebutted your proposition that I was just parroting some “talking points” and was not familiar with either the literature or the current thinking in the field.

In response to your question regarding an example of where legalization drugs of drugs reduced crime. I would cite the repeal of the Volstead Act, otherwise known as Prohibition. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol
http://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence
Violent crime and homicides rose during Prohibition and dropped after its repeal.
Secondly I would cite Portugal and its success with decriminalization of the use of ALL drugs:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-dr...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28603.htm

I too find the sarcasm offensive and it does not contribute to a reasoned dialogue. I do appreciate the very real questions that you raise and this is exactly the dialogue that needs to happen if we are to come up with a successful approach to this very real dilemma.

I posted:
““This is a Gorilla war taking place in urban as well as rural areas. How well did the Viet Nam war work for first the French then the USofA; Afghanistan for the Russians and then the USofA? What are the successful presidents for wars like this?

How well has the legislation of morality ever worked? Have we stomped out prostitution? How about alcoholism with Prohibition? How about Tobacco use? Public education and the use of social sanction, shame and laws protecting the places where tobacco can be used have had a major impact on tobacco use in the USofA. Making tobacco illegal would not stop its use nor would a War on Tobacco.”

You have not answered my questions and then pose yours to me. You are a supporter of the War on Drugs. It is your responsibility to provide evidence of its success. Where is your evidence of the success of this approach?

I appreciate the goldhuntress link to the LA Times site, lots to explore there and I will take some time to do so. This is the sort of post that is useful.

Iflyfish

Dave - 12-6-2011 at 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
How well has the legislation of morality ever worked? Have we stomped out prostitution? How about alcoholism with Prohibition? How about Tobacco use?

Whether it's prostitution, tobacco or alcohol and drug abuse, effectiveness of legislation is directly proportional to penalties and their application. A slap on their wrist wouldn't work for most but I'm guessing that amputation at the wrist would work for mostly all.

I say give it a chance. If I'm wrong then I'll admit it and apologize.

Barry A. - 12-6-2011 at 10:07 PM

Fish----------The law enforcement actions are not designed to irradicate the illegal action, just to hopefully control it's spread. But, they have not been too successful at that, either. Still, like the Dems say about the present economy, "it would be a lot worse if not for our efforts"

Barry

Iflyfish - 12-7-2011 at 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Fish----------The law enforcement actions are not designed to irradicate the illegal action, just to hopefully control it's spread. But, they have not been too successful at that, either. Still, like the Dems say about the present economy, "it would be a lot worse if not for our efforts"

Barry

I doubt very much that you could prove this assertion. You would need to prove a hypothetical and that is impossible. This is wishful thinking.

It is not wishful thinking but a fact that the laws of the USofA have created the CRIME of drug use, in my view a medical problem. It is also a fact that because of these laws an underground economy has been created, a very lucrative and untaxed economy. It is a fact that these laws have created a criminal class who profit by this law and many of whom are then incarcerated at our (government) expense. It is true that these laws have created a trillion dollar infrastructure to fight this "War on Drugs". It is true that consumption of these illegal drugs has not decreased in relation to the escalation of this "War on Drugs". It is true that these laws have generated a generation of criminals who have become increasingly violent in their battles with eachother over turf. It is true that now innocent citizens are exposed on an ongoing basis to the violence of these criminals as they are caught in the crossfire. It is true that these laws have created a source of illegal revenue for politicians, police and judicial public servants that has undermined the very warp and woof of Mexican Society.

We can wish all we want, we can bemoan the excesses of the Cartels, the duplicity of public officials, the escalation of the violence and the personal tragedy that we witness each day in this march to folley, but there is another alternative and that is to take the profit out of the business and thereby starve the beast. It is very interesting to this writer that in the recent election in California, where decriminalization was on the ballot, and nearly passed, that the marijuana growers of California were OPPOSED to this law. Is it any wonder they would be opposed? Passage of this law would have PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS! Do you think that the Drug Cartels of Mexico are any different? The Cartels, Politicians, Corrupt Police and members of the Judiciary AND the DEA all profit from this "War on Drugs" as do the arms dealers and boots on the ground on both sides of this wack-a-mole game. It is all of us, the innocent bystanders, who are the real victims in this very dangerous game.

It is very easy to promote escalation of the use of power in the face of failure, witness the dynamics of the Viet Nam war and the subsequent wars in the Middle East. How successful were these "surges"? What in the final analysis was accomplished besides more soldiers and innocent people slaughtered, displaced and traumatized?

It is very difficult to advocate for peace and for the stopping of hostilities once the dogs of war have been unleashed. Those who have the courage to challenge the machismo of these self defeating escalations are labeled as enablers of the enemy, traiters, weak, impractical, soft on crime etc.

Beware the waving of the flag my friends, beware unleashing the dogs of war and beware the denegration of those with whom you disagree as by doing so you contribute to the escalation of anger and violence and by doing so share in the culpablity of the outcome of that which you discuss. We have already seen a very prominant and helpful member of this board leave because of the rancor of a few who have poisoned his experience on this board to the point that he felt he had to leave. Those of you who engage in personal attacks on this forum are like birds chitting in their own nests and at some point will have to sleep in it.

Iflyfish

Barry A. - 12-7-2011 at 12:04 PM

Fish------

Since you quoted me above for the "lead in" to your essay, I assume that it was directed at me, as well as others.

You make a lot of very good points, and most of them I tend to agree with. Why you chose to direct your rancor at me is a mystery as I try very hard to NOT use personal attacks and hostility in my posts. Normally your posts are fully capable of standing on their own, very readable, very logical and informative. And then sometimes you "attack"!?!?!?!? the 'pot calling the kettle black'!?!?! Why, only you know.

I apologize if I have ever offended you personally-----that was never my intention. Poke humor at you?? Yes, I admit to that, but not personal attacks.

In any case, I learn a lot from you and your intelligent and learned posts, so don't become discouraged-----you ARE getting thru to some of us. I may not agree with all you say, but I certainly listen and think about your points, and yes they even influence my beliefs sometimes.

Barry

JoeJustJoe - 12-7-2011 at 12:55 PM

I don't think he is talking about you Barry A.

But no doubt you make some pretty offensive posts. For example when you blame Portugal's economic problems on their highly successful decriminalizing drug policy in that country.

It's well known in the US that it cost more to put a drug user in prison for four years than it does to pay four years of a college education.

The "war on drugs" is nothing but a big money pit, and it does nothing to solve the drug problems in both the US or Mexico.

Barry A. - 12-7-2011 at 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeJustJoe

But no doubt you make some pretty offensive posts. For example when you blame Portugal's economic problems on their highly successful decriminalizing drug policy in that country.

It's well known in the US that it cost more to put a drug user in prison for four years than it does to pay four years of a college education.

The "war on drugs" is nothing but a big money pit, and it does nothing to solve the drug problems in both the US or Mexico.

JoeJJoe--------I believe you are misinterpreting what I said----I did not "blame" Portugal's financial problems solely on their "decrimilalization" policies----that of course is absurd--------what I said was that social programs like what Portugal is embarked upon are terribly expensive, and Portugal is in deep doo doo economically, and it is these types of programs that contribute to this state of affairs-----no matter where they are. (to me that is a "Duh" issue). Some Nations are spending way more than they are taking in--------logically that can't continue.

The fact that we spend so much on Prisons in this Country is equally absurd------they are PRISONS, for Gawd sake, not hotels. ALL this social "spending" drives me nuts as a Conservative.

I hope you are right in that Fish was not directing his criticism at me-------but that is tough for me to swallow, for now. Why did he use my statement as his "lead in"?

Barry

[Edited on 12-7-2011 by Barry A.]

Iflyfish - 12-7-2011 at 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Fish------

Since you quoted me above for the "lead in" to your essay, I assume that it was directed at me, as well as others.

You make a lot of very good points, and most of them I tend to agree with. Why you chose to direct your rancor at me is a mystery as I try very hard to NOT use personal attacks and hostility in my posts. Normally your posts are fully capable of standing on their own, very readable, very logical and informative. And then sometimes you "attack"!?!?!?!? the 'pot calling the kettle black'!?!?! Why, only you know.

I apologize if I have ever offended you personally-----that was never my intention. Poke humor at you?? Yes, I admit to that, but not personal attacks.

In any case, I learn a lot from you and your intelligent and learned posts, so don't become discouraged-----you ARE getting thru to some of us. I may not agree with all you say, but I certainly listen and think about your points, and yes they even influence my beliefs sometimes.

Barry

My apologies Barry, my comments about aggressive speech have nothing to do with you, not at all. I included my comments about verbal attacks in the context of discussing aggression/violence which exist on a micro as well as macro level and was focused on that issue in the context of my response to you. My thoughts simply moved from the macro to the micro level. You are the kind of guy I would enjoy sitting around the proverbial fire and discussing issues of the day. I respect the quality of our dialogue and feel just fine disagreeing with you. Reasonable people can disagree with out engaging in hostility and vitriol. I know that you know this and that is evident in your posts.

How does one maintain a constructive dialogue including differences without devolving into rancor? It is clear to me that this is very possible. I for one appreciate the exchange of ideas that a heterogeneous population like we have on this forum can afford us all. I consider discussions here to be an exchange of ideas among friends. For some this is not their purpose. Psychological games played with the intent of causing harm to someone else via this dialogue produce nothing of any value. The opportunity to tap into the thinking and knowledge base available here on this site is something I value. I too learn from others here.

John Gottman, PhD, UofW spent 24 years studying predictors of marital satisfaction and divorce. He followed over 2,000 couples and his conclusions are illuminating. He found that happy marriages are based upon good communication, how we talk with one another is important, very important. He also found that how couples deal with differences is another significant variable. Differences are inherent in relationships; the issue is how we deal with those differences and how compatible our styles of dealing with differences are. Having a compatible style is important. People have different styles of expressing differences. This is an important finding. Some people are very passionate and loud in their self expression, some more reserved and quiet. What is important for a happy long term relationship is that the couple shares their basic style. I recognize that on this site there is a range of styles, that’s ok. Gottman found that contempt is damaging to the physical health of the person on the receiving end of it. Exposure to contempt can actually make you sick. A significant amount of contempt in a couple’s relationship is a predictor of divorce and of physical illness of the partner exposed to it. Contempt is a gut shot, bypassing the areas of the brain that think, it goes to the core emotional areas. Contempt is corrosive and destructive in relationships and it is corrosive and destructive on this forum. I believe that some have quit posting or reading this site because some choose to communicate their contempt to others. I am not saying that you do this Barry, but I would invite all readers to read posts with this in mind and recognize that the posters using contempt are like birds crapping in the nest we all fly into.

The issues involved in the War on Drugs are complex and there clearly is no simple solution to them. How we address these issues has critical importance to all of us who love Mexico. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the varied issues involved. For instance I met a young man from Holland, PhD Theoretical Mathematics, and I asked him about the effect of decriminalization of the use of drugs in his country. He said that when the law was first passed was an increase in use, but now people just “get high sometimes”. He said that the “Americans come here and stay stoned for a week and create trouble and bounce off light posts”. I am not saying that this single person’s opinion is any more valuable than another’s, but he raises a significant perspective, that is that drug use may change over time if legalized. Different groups may increase use and other groups may decrease use. Many of us are ethnocentric and forget that there is another world out there that may experience these things in very different ways. There are some countries that execute drug users. Does this mean that we ought to do the same? There are some countries that have lax drug laws and lower per capita use of drugs in various demographic groups.

Iflyfish

wessongroup - 12-7-2011 at 02:37 PM

Interesting stuff fish... "contempt" ... maybe that is where "this®" fits in ...

Barry A. - 12-7-2011 at 02:58 PM

Another excellent post---------thanks, Fish. We NOW are on the same page. :yes:

Barry

goldhuntress - 12-7-2011 at 03:12 PM

There's a new show on Discovery call Weed Wars and I watched last week and it was pretty good. I know, I know, another reality show. I can't help it though, I watched the first episode and they got me, lol. It's on Thursday nights and I saw that tomorrow the first episode replays before the new second episode.

Two quotes I like from Albert Einstein
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

The War on Drugs has failed. Forty years and one trillion dollars later the thinking has to change. Don't be afraid, change is good. :yes:

JoeJustJoe - 12-7-2011 at 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup
Interesting stuff fish... "contempt" ... maybe that is where "this®" fits in ...

I disagree with most of the stuff Fish and John Gotman, PhD say, however I do agree with what Gottman says about "contempt." Because once you have contempt for your spouse it's just about all over. You can't save a marriage if you have contempt for your partner.

I been on many forums and blogs are rarely can so-called reasonable people can disagree with one another. The arguments almost always goes in the gutter, and that's probably why the vast majority of forums and blogs attract certain kinds of people, and others are kicked out or banned. This is especially true on political forum where the political forums are either very conservative or very liberal as are the members.

You will almost never see political forums open to both liberals and conservatives because they will fight like dogs.

There are certain people here with an agenda, and the ways of political dirty tricks are played here. And it's sometimes very effective to knock out an opponent who disagree with by finding dirt on them.

Look at what happened to Herman Cain. The democrats could have talked about how bad the 999 plan was until they were blue in the face, but it still wouldn't have mattered to conservative voters.

But when you find dirt on Herman Cain. Well then that's a different story. It's all over Harman Cain. Stick a fork in him...he's done!

That's why negative advertising and finding dirt on the other people works so well even if the dirt isn't always accurate and just is plain wrong.

I'm so sorry hard ball politics are played on the "Nomad" forum, but some of your members play for keeps. But really just about any place you go political charged topics aren't discussed rationally for very long before they degenerate IMHO.

Iflyfish - 12-7-2011 at 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeJustJoe

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup
Interesting stuff fish... "contempt" ... maybe that is where "this®" fits in ...

You offer an interesting perspective and one that I am certain has great validity. However if one play a win/lose game then one's options are limited aren't they? Complex problems often require complex solutions and as human beings I think we are hard wired to seek resolution and simplicity. It is interesting to note that the brain is designed to conserve energy and it takes energy to maintain ones tolerance for ambiguity. Thanks for your interesting and probably saddly true observation about the nature of dialogue now a days. We may have gotten so good at "playing for keeps" that we have forgotten that the marble game ends much more quickly when we "play for keeps". In addition someone always ends up feeling bad about losing their marbles and I have certainly witnessed some marbles being seriously lost on this forum (feeble attempt at humor, which usually doesn't play well in this medium).

Your post leaves me thinking about the Kings of England and France who used to exchange syphilis infected hoars in order to infect eachother in their attempts to "play for keeps". I don't know why this comes to mind at this stage in our discussion....but there you go.....

Iflyfish

Iflyfish

Cypress - 12-7-2011 at 04:07 PM

Legalize pot. And democracy? Democracy is a political process.

cielo - 12-7-2011 at 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish

Quote:

Originally posted by Mengano

Quote:

Crickets from Mengano on presenting evidence that the war on drugs has been successful. You'll also get crickets if you ask him where he lives or when's the last time he's actually stepped foot in Mexico. :?:

Gorillas in our Midst ?

MrBillM - 12-7-2011 at 06:09 PM

??????????????????

“This is a Gorilla war taking place in urban as well as rural areas".

If they turn the Gorillas loose, EVERYBODY is in trouble.

Especially if they start throwing feces.

We may have to resort to Guerrilla warfare to defeat those Gorillas.

Reminds me of a scene from "Captain Ron".

Then, there's the question asked " What are the successful presidents for wars like this"?

Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan .......... ?

[Edited on 12-8-2011 by MrBillM]

Woooosh - 12-10-2011 at 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeJustJoe

Kidnapping and sex trafficking doesn't bring in the kind of money that illegal drug selling does. The return on kidnapping takes a long time compared to a drug sale. Sex Trafficking is often sensationalized in the news. According to articles I read "all" sex workers are underage sex slaves, and that's just not true.

[Edited on 12-5-2011 by JoeJustJoe]

This Frontera article says otherwise. ..

http://www.frontera.info/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Nacional/10122...

Human trafficking more profitable than drug trafficking: UN
Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas (SUN)
The resources obtained by transferring Mexican and Central American undocumented migrants to the United States are greater than those achieved by the drug trade, said the representative of the UNODC, Paulina Trujillo. 's representative in Chiapas of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported that the fight against human trafficking requires a great social movement. In an interview, said that action to tackle this scourge must be based on the application of the law, but also grounded in an intense campaign of promotion, awareness and prevention, and prosecution of crimes and criminals. held that the challenge and commitment is to care for migrants of the risks that are, to visualize the problem from all areas, from the dignity of the person, "because we need to reduce crime and create opportunities for participation in prevention." He acknowledged the efforts of the State Council for Human Rights (ECHR) has launched a major campaign in the issue of trafficking migrants now, so they "reaffirm our commitment to join efforts to combat this crime energetic." Trujillo said that human trafficking is one of the priority areas of work of the Office United Nations Drugs and Crime, responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking, Especially Women and Children. It is also responsible, he explained, to ensure the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land , Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, in particular those provisions relating to the mechanisms of research, international cooperation and information. He said that every year men, women and children fall into the hands of traffickers in their own country and abroad, adding that trafficking affects all countries, states, either as countries of origin or destination or transit of the victims. Therefore, he stressed that there can be no default or impunity, responsibility to contain this scourge is all.

[Edited on 12-10-2011 by Woooosh]

Dave - 12-10-2011 at 03:14 PM

Sex trade margins are very profitable. As a wise marketing guru once said:

Pu$$y, Use it...still got it.

Baja Attractions

MrBillM - 12-10-2011 at 04:18 PM

From 1957 until I went to San Felipe in 1966, I had always thought that the TJ Bordello and Bar Girls were the BEST reason to visit Baja with the races at Agua Caliente and the Jai Alai games a VERY distant (but enjoyable) second and third.

Come to think of it, even AFTER seeing San Felipe, the TJ (and San Luis) hookers were still in first.