BajaNomad - GALLERY: Stand Up to Stop the Mexican Drug War.

GALLERY: Stand Up to Stop the Mexican Drug War.

Cisco - 6-24-2012 at 10:03 AM

The people of Mexico unite to defy the cartels.

http://www.takepart.com/photos/drug-war-protesters

Eli - 6-24-2012 at 10:27 AM

An excellent link, thanks for putting it on board.

BajaBruno - 6-24-2012 at 09:50 PM

I greatly sympathize with these protesters. I used to think that nothing would change until the wealthy started to complain, but the wealthy have complained, publicly and indignantly in the case of Alejandro Marti, and still nothing has changed.

toneart - 6-26-2012 at 01:00 PM

This is a cut and paste, but I think it is relevant!

The War Against Battered and Confused Addicts

By Froma Harrop

Rodney King's best statement isn't what he's famous for. Twenty years ago, the African-American suffered a sadistic beating at the hands of white Los Angeles police, an event caught on tape. When the officers were acquitted of brutality charges, rioting convulsed largely black South Central Los Angeles. The pandemonium cost 53 lives and destroyed 600 buildings. In the middle of it all, King, who died this month at 47, remarked with immortal simplicity: "Can we all get along?"

In his book, "The Riot Within," King wrote (perhaps with input from his co-author), "I no longer blame them (lawyers and politicians) for taking a battered and confused addict and trying to make him into a symbol for civil rights." King knew exactly what was up. He was a drugged or drunk black ex-con tortured by racist police officers whom he had just led on a high-speed hour-long chase.

Recipe for pain. But to what extent did the war on drugs accelerate the downward spiral of King and others like him? Suppose drugs were legal. King could have been open about his addiction. Perhaps he could have gotten treatment for it. If the ban on drugs hadn't driven the price of narcotics so high, perhaps his jobs could have covered his "needs."

Your writer was once mugged at knifepoint by a glassy-eyed addict desperate for a drug that, had it been legal, could have been bought for the price of celery. Instead, he traumatized me for $35 and probably cost the city of New York over $1,000 pursuing a case that was never closed, like many thousands of others. King reminded me of him.

King had possibilities. He held jobs. He married the mothers of his children. He tried to kick his habits. He was not particularly violent, even during the grocery store robbery that put him in jail.

And he was basically humane, delivering the "Can we all get along?" comment with genuine distress. In the book, he expresses agony at seeing a tape of Reginald Denny, a white truck driver, dragged out of his vehicle during the riots and beaten mercilessly by a mob — and his pride at the heroism of Bobby Green Jr., an African-American who rescued Denny and drove him to the hospital.

The intention isn't to nominate King for sainthood, but to note that he was a forgiving man with good qualities and fine perception. His life could have gone differently, especially if being an addict weren't itself criminal.

Other victims of the prohibition against drugs are the estimated 50,000 Mexicans murdered at the hands of the cartels. New Yorker writer Patrick Radden Keefe recently described the drug gangs' sophistication in transporting their wares to the streets of Los Angeles and other U.S. cities. They use fishing boats, 747s and submarines. They've catapulted bales of marijuana over high-tech fences in Arizona and have constructed more than 100 tunnels under the border. To avoid smuggling costs, they've taken over public land in the U.S. to grow marijuana. Mexican farmers with AK-47s were found guarding their crops in the North Woods of Wisconsin.

If the war on drugs were over, the murderous drug business would be over. Americans would save about $50 billion a year prosecuting a war in which every dealer's arrest means more profits for a competitor. Addicts could find treatment without admitting criminality. Or they could get their fix without hitting strangers over the head or ripping copper pipes out of old buildings. High-schoolers caught smoking pot wouldn't have their lives ruined by a criminal record. And a "battered and confused addict" might have some chance at a decent life.

This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/war-against-battered-and-confu... All rights are reserved.

Eli - 6-26-2012 at 02:06 PM

Let it be known that I am favor of legalization for all the good reasons mentioned in the above article. I think it could create a great tax revenue.

Still, I can't help but wonder, what will the drug lords and all those who work for them do for a living if legalization did occur? They will be out of a job, no?

toneart - 6-26-2012 at 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eli
Let it be known that I am favor of legalization for all the good reasons mentioned in the above article. I think it could create a great tax revenue.

Still, I can't help but wonder, what will the drug lords and all those who work for them do for a living if legalization did occur? They will be out of a job, no?

That is a legitimate concern, Eli. I too wonder about that. We expats, and tourists would probably be impacted as victims more than we are currently...not a good thing! Overall, I think it would reduce the violence against Mexico's own people.

Maybe they would become politicians, with their foot soldiers becoming fund raisers(?)

Cisco - 6-26-2012 at 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart
This is a cut and paste, but I think it is relevant!

The War Against Battered and Confused Addicts

By Froma Harrop

Rodney King's best statement isn't what he's famous for. Twenty years ago, the African-American suffered a sadistic beating at the hands of white Los Angeles police, an event caught on tape. When the officers were acquitted of brutality charges, rioting convulsed largely black South Central Los Angeles. The pandemonium cost 53 lives and destroyed 600 buildings. In the middle of it all, King, who died this month at 47, remarked with immortal simplicity: "Can we all get along?"

In his book, "The Riot Within," King wrote (perhaps with input from his co-author), "I no longer blame them (lawyers and politicians) for taking a battered and confused addict and trying to make him into a symbol for civil rights." King knew exactly what was up. He was a drugged or drunk black ex-con tortured by racist police officers whom he had just led on a high-speed hour-long chase.

Recipe for pain. But to what extent did the war on drugs accelerate the downward spiral of King and others like him? Suppose drugs were legal. King could have been open about his addiction. Perhaps he could have gotten treatment for it. If the ban on drugs hadn't driven the price of narcotics so high, perhaps his jobs could have covered his "needs."

Your writer was once mugged at knifepoint by a glassy-eyed addict desperate for a drug that, had it been legal, could have been bought for the price of celery. Instead, he traumatized me for $35 and probably cost the city of New York over $1,000 pursuing a case that was never closed, like many thousands of others. King reminded me of him.

King had possibilities. He held jobs. He married the mothers of his children. He tried to kick his habits. He was not particularly violent, even during the grocery store robbery that put him in jail.

And he was basically humane, delivering the "Can we all get along?" comment with genuine distress. In the book, he expresses agony at seeing a tape of Reginald Denny, a white truck driver, dragged out of his vehicle during the riots and beaten mercilessly by a mob — and his pride at the heroism of Bobby Green Jr., an African-American who rescued Denny and drove him to the hospital.

The intention isn't to nominate King for sainthood, but to note that he was a forgiving man with good qualities and fine perception. His life could have gone differently, especially if being an addict weren't itself criminal.

Other victims of the prohibition against drugs are the estimated 50,000 Mexicans murdered at the hands of the cartels. New Yorker writer Patrick Radden Keefe recently described the drug gangs' sophistication in transporting their wares to the streets of Los Angeles and other U.S. cities. They use fishing boats, 747s and submarines. They've catapulted bales of marijuana over high-tech fences in Arizona and have constructed more than 100 tunnels under the border. To avoid smuggling costs, they've taken over public land in the U.S. to grow marijuana. Mexican farmers with AK-47s were found guarding their crops in the North Woods of Wisconsin.

If the war on drugs were over, the murderous drug business would be over. Americans would save about $50 billion a year prosecuting a war in which every dealer's arrest means more profits for a competitor. Addicts could find treatment without admitting criminality. Or they could get their fix without hitting strangers over the head or ripping copper pipes out of old buildings. High-schoolers caught smoking pot wouldn't have their lives ruined by a criminal record. And a "battered and confused addict" might have some chance at a decent life.

This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/war-against-battered-and-confu... All rights are reserved.

Thank you Tony, excellent article.

I really am having trouble expressing myself on this subject but here is a random sketch.

Hillary Clinton, as Sec of State, said in an interview in Mexico, and I am paraphrasing, that the legalization of drugs will not happen because there’s too much money in it.

So many took that as the money made by the narco’s themselves. I thought about it differently. If drugs were legalized we would not need enforcement personnel, private incarceration facilities (generally prisons), pharmaceutical companies that in the U.S.A. are the most expensive in the world.

Effects on ATF, ICE, CBP...and all of the equipment they buy in addition to the actual manpower costs would be decimated. The gun dealers, ATV and other custom vehicle makers, chemical manufacturers, barb-wire fence makers....well, I hope you get where I am coming from. (Casket makers in Mexico) A large part of our economy in America would be decimated overnight due to legalization. Attorneys, judges, systems of enforcement, adjudication and punishment would take huge hits.

Check out Oliver North’s success in bringing in an estimated 50% to 60% of America’s product during his productive drug running years and the money lost due to government complicity of his scheme yet the money gained (and addicts made) by the street sales of product during that time. (although as we know that money made was put to good purpose in his mind).

It’s a pretty confusing place but it all gets down to follow the money and legalization would be a big money loss to the U.S. corporations that live off of what we have made illegal.

I hope I am able to express at least an idea of the complexity of the problem.

Eli - 6-26-2012 at 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart

Quote:

Holy Toledo Tony, the politicican commet was my greatest laugh for the day. I do thank you for that.
O.k., off to the cultural center to paint for a little while.

toneart - 6-26-2012 at 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cisco

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart

Thank you Tony, excellent article.

I really am having trouble expressing myself on this subject but here is a random sketch.

Hillary Clinton, as Sec of State, said in an interview in Mexico, and I am paraphrasing, that the legalization of drugs will not happen because there’s too much money in it.

So many took that as the money made by the narco’s themselves. I thought about it differently. If drugs were legalized we would not need enforcement personnel, private incarceration facilities (generally prisons), pharmaceutical companies that in the U.S.A. are the most expensive in the world.

Effects on ATF, ICE, CBP...and all of the equipment they buy in addition to the actual manpower costs would be decimated. The gun dealers, ATV and other custom vehicle makers, chemical manufacturers, barb-wire fence makers....well, I hope you get where I am coming from. (Casket makers in Mexico) A large part of our economy in America would be decimated overnight due to legalization. Attorneys, judges, systems of enforcement, adjudication and punishment would take huge hits.

Check out Oliver North’s success in bringing in an estimated 50% to 60% of America’s product during his productive drug running years and the money lost due to government complicity of his scheme yet the money gained (and addicts made) by the street sales of product during that time. (although as we know that money made was put to good purpose in his mind).

It’s a pretty confusing place but it all gets down to follow the money and legalization would be a big money loss to the U.S. corporations that live off of what we have made illegal.

I hope I am able to express at least an idea of the complexity of the problem.

I basically said so in this string: Mexico marines detain suspected son of drug lord (UPDATE)

"War is an industry. It is what Governments do.

It is a culture. It is a low base mentality run by people who are cunning and vicious (...............redacted by me). It supports weapons manufacturers, the welfare military state, and the politicians who do not represent us in the least.

War is for profit. Violence begets violence. That makes the game go around. It is a depopulation tool for an over populated planet. It is used for exploitation. It is used to plunder natural resources. It is used to establish and enforce the power hierarchy that rules the world.

Too many innocent people die! War is a tragedy that could be prevented, but it won't for all the reasons above.

The false arrest of this young man is the culmination of the joint Military Intelligence operations between the United States and Mexico. Military Intelligence=Oxymarooon! El Chapo is laughing his a$$ off right now. :fire:

"

I am not disrespectful of our troops. They serve their country honorably and are doing what they are raised to do: serve. My rant is against the powers that send them into harm's way.

We need a defense militia, well trained, to stay on our soil and defend against invasions from foreign entities, whether that be government states or terrorists. They must not be used to support a police state here at home, either.

They should not commit aggressive acts anywhere unless we are attacked! We must withdraw from all treaties that require our commitment. If we pull out of everywhere that we now have a presence the resentment and the threats will eventually diminish. We cannot control religious fanaticism. We cannot control other countries' politics. We must mind our own business! There is plenty that is wrong here that needs attention.

We must be military isolationists but not free trade isolationists. We hold the upper hand there and are in good bargaining position, if we remain non-belligerent and peaceful.

That is my Utopian vision. And for all the reasons I stated within the quotes above, I am realistic enough to know my vision will never come to pass in our lifetime.

BajaBruno - 6-26-2012 at 05:02 PM

Good points and questions, Eli, et al. Even if none of us are old enough to have lived it, there was another Prohibition in this country and a very violent Mafia (Italian, Irish, and others) flourished under it. After liquor was again legalized, alcohol use went down and organized crime went off to other pursuits, both legitimate and illegitimate. Extortion, gambling, infiltration of legitimate businesses, labor racketeering, loan sharking, prostitution, pornography, tax-fraud schemes, and stock manipulation schemes. No doubt there are other examples.

In the unlikely event that drugs are legalized in the U.S., or even decriminalized a la Portugal, organized crime figures won't just melt away to their rancheros. They will be around causing trouble. The tragedy is that it was prohibition that created them in the first place.

BajaBruno - 6-26-2012 at 05:23 PM

Cisco, here is a link to that Clinton interview: http://mexidata.info/id2931.html

I agree with you--I think she slipped.

Cisco - 6-26-2012 at 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBruno
Cisco, here is a link to that Clinton interview: http://mexidata.info/id2931.html

I agree with you--I think she slipped.

Yeah, big time.

Thank you for your research effort, that was great and a keeper for me to refer to. So many of the things in that interview are becoming so transparent.

We have incarcerated more of our citizens per capita than any of the world's countries, one in every 100 of our people are in "PRIVATIZED' lock-ups. For Profit lock-ups. Her statement: "We are – the biggest – we have more people incarcerated, unfortunately, than any country in the world, and most of them are there because of some drug-related offense."

And Tony, sadly, is so right on. War is our business and will continue to be.

Thank you again for your help Guy.