BajaNomad

Breaking News: Calderon concedes it's 'impossible' to halt drugs

woody with a view - 11-25-2012 at 06:39 PM

ENDING the consumption and the trafficking of illegal drugs is “impossible”, according to Felipe Calderón, Mexico’s outgoing president. In an interview with The Economist Mr Calderón, whose battle with organised crime has come to define his six years in office, said that countries whose citizens consume drugs should find "market mechanisms" to prevent their money from getting into the hands of criminals in Latin America.

In an interview recorded last month for this week’s special report on Mexico, Mr Calderón said: "Are there still drugs in Juárez [a violent northern border city]? Well of course, but it has never been the objective…of the public-security strategy to end something that it is impossible to end, namely the consumption of drugs or their trafficking…

"[E]ither the United States and its society, its government and its congress decide to drastically reduce their consumption of drugs, or if they are not going to reduce it they at least have the moral responsibility to reduce the flow of money towards Mexico, which goes into the hands of criminals. They have to explore even market mechanisms to see if that can allow the flow of money to reduce.

"If they want to take all the drugs they want, as far as I’m concerned let them take them. I don’t agree with it but it’s their decision, as consumers and as a society. What I do not accept is that they continue passing their money to the hands of killers."

Not so long ago these comments would have been unthinkable. Cast your mind back to 1998, when the UN Drug Control Programme (since absorbed by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, or UNODC) held a session on the “world drug problem” entitled: “A Drug-Free World: We Can Do It”. Since then it has become painfully clear that, so far at least, We Cannot Do It. Since 1998 global consumption of both cannabis and cocaine has risen by about 50% and opiate consumption has nearly trebled, according to the UNODC’s own figures.

Mr Calderón’s comments sum up what seems to be a growing consensus: stopping or even seriously reducing drug consumption has so far proved impossible, so it is time to focus on ways of making that consumption less harmful. That sort of thinking has been fashionable for a long time on the demand side, with innovations such as needle exchanges and methadone replacement now common in many rich countries. The next step is to explore legal ways of managing the supply side, as Colorado and Washington have recently voted to do.

Sitting presidents such as Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala are pushing for a rethink. As a result of this agitation the Organisation of American States, a regional body, is compiling a report on drug policy which is expected to explore alternatives to the current regime. It will be interesting to see if Mr Calderón, who is widely expected to take up a post at Harvard after leaving the presidency in December, gets bolder still in his retirement.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2012/11/drugs-bu...

Leo - 11-26-2012 at 06:53 AM

Someone is finallyt seeing the light.
De-criminalize the stuff, sell it legal and TAX it in the US is the only answer.

mtgoat666 - 11-26-2012 at 07:28 AM

he fails to mention that while US demand originally led to rise of drug lords, the past decade or more has seen dramatic rise in Mexican drug abuse, and today the drug wars are fueled as much by domestic (Mexican) consumption as international (US) consumption....

woody with a view - 11-26-2012 at 07:51 AM

also, if we stopped all of the outflow/remissions of our dollars back to Mexico there would be a second revolution so he can't have it both ways.

maybe this story is the follow on to Obama's stopping the flow of guns heading south?

bajaguy - 11-26-2012 at 08:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Leo
Someone is finallyt seeing the light.
De-criminalize the stuff, sell it legal and TAX it in the US is the only answer.





Yeah, that will solve all of the problems.........

DENNIS - 11-26-2012 at 08:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
he fails to mention that while US demand originally led to rise of drug lords,


Bullcrap. That is the lame cop out that Mexico uses to ignore responsibility for the growth of the cartels.
Although it is certain that demand fuels supply, there would be no demand for a product that didn't exist in the first place.

durrelllrobert - 11-26-2012 at 09:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Quote:
Originally posted by Leo
Someone is finallyt seeing the light.
De-criminalize the stuff, sell it legal and TAX it in the US is the only answer.





Yeah, that will solve all of the problems.........
Like the repeal of prohibition did?

woody with a view - 11-26-2012 at 09:49 AM

i don't understand how the prices have dropped but the cartels have grown. hasn't there been a demand for 40-50 years now? the growth rate of the number of users doesn't seem like it would be the determining factor. must just be the number of cartel guys trying to grab a piece of the pie?

Cypress - 11-26-2012 at 10:54 AM

WA and CO legalized pot. Might as well legalize it in all states. Keeping pot illegal is a "cash cow" to lawyers, cartels, and law enforcement agencies. A waste!:no:

monoloco - 11-26-2012 at 10:57 AM

There's always the Singapore model.

MsTerieus - 11-26-2012 at 11:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
WA and CO legalized pot. Might as well legalize it in all states. Keeping pot illegal is a "cash cow" to lawyers, cartels, and law enforcement agencies. A waste!:no:


It is not legal in any of the United States.

Cypress - 11-26-2012 at 11:09 AM

MsTerieus, If it isn't against the law it's legal.:biggrin:

vandenberg - 11-26-2012 at 11:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
There's always the Singapore model.



Can be done in a country that size, but nearly impossible in a country the size of the USA, with all the different state laws.

DENNIS - 11-26-2012 at 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
MsTerieus, If it isn't against the law it's legal.:biggrin:


I don't think state law trumps federal law. This whole issue is becoming so convoluted , one would think it's happening in Mexico.

vandenberg - 11-26-2012 at 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS


I don't think state law trumps federal law. This whole issue is becoming so convoluted , one would think it's happening in Mexico.


Correct Dennis.
I think the Feds are not acting to see how this is going to work out.

durrelllrobert - 11-26-2012 at 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
MsTerieus, If it isn't against the law it's legal.:biggrin:


I don't think state law trumps federal law. This whole issue is becoming so convoluted , one would think it's happening in Mexico.


Current states' rights issues include the death penalty, assisted suicide, gay marriage and the medicinal use of marijuana, the last of which is in violation of federal law.
In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, permitting the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to arrest medical marijuana patients and caregivers.
In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme court ruled the practice of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon is legal.

MsTerieus - 11-26-2012 at 01:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
MsTerieus, If it isn't against the law it's legal.:biggrin:


Cypress, It's against the law.

bajaguy - 11-26-2012 at 02:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by vandenberg
Can be done in a country that size, but nearly impossible in a country the size of the USA, with all the different state laws.





Oh, we can eradicate the illicit drug problem in the USA, we just don't have the will or the stomach to do what is necessary/needed.

vgabndo - 11-26-2012 at 06:36 PM

Bajaguy, given your signatures, I'd be interested in knowing what you think it would look like IF we had the stomach to do what was necessary to ERADICATE the problem of inappropriate use of drugs in this country.

It is illicit for me to take my WIFE'S pain pill when I hit MY thumb with a hammer. It begins there.

What do you have the stomach to do to me to eradicate that behavior.

Here's one thing that I project people like you have already laid on me with your prohibition consciousness. When I got cancer, and wound up in stage III renal failure, I got a Compassionate Use recommendation from my MD to use cannabis in my recovery. Those records go to the County, doubtlessly to the State, and are surely available to the Feds. Since Cannabis is a schedule one drug with NO KNOWN MEDICAL USE to the
Federal Government, and because anyone known to use a schedule 1 narcotic is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law, I am not allowed to possess anything to defend myself in one of the most revolutionary, heavily armed, militia infested Counties in the USA.

I invite you to provide evidence that contradicts the mountains of evidence for the positive medicinal use of the substance. I'd welcome the debate. I suggest that it is long past time to demand that the government provide evidence to support their claims that Cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, neither of which is a schedule 1 drug since both have been found to be medically effective.

Lee - 11-26-2012 at 06:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
I don't think state law trumps federal law. This whole issue is becoming so convoluted , one would think it's happening in Mexico.


Med dispensaries on every block in Boulder, CO. Breckinridge Colorado top cop says he will not enforce laws against pot. Pot smokers have the blessing of the Colorado State health department. Feds are being told to back off.

Think this might be viewed as a trump to some.

DENNIS - 11-26-2012 at 07:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lee

Think this might be viewed as a trump to some.


I don't know, Lee. The feds will only be pushed so far.....especially in public.

MsTerieus - 11-26-2012 at 07:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lee
Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
I don't think state law trumps federal law. This whole issue is becoming so convoluted , one would think it's happening in Mexico.


Med dispensaries on every block in Boulder, CO. Breckinridge Colorado top cop says he will not enforce laws against pot. Pot smokers have the blessing of the Colorado State health department. Feds are being told to back off.

Think this might be viewed as a trump to some.



Not to anyone knowledgeable about the law. And "preemption" is the word, not "trump." There is a big difference between a particular law enforcement authority's decision not to enforce a law, and a law's validity.

MsTerieus - 11-26-2012 at 07:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo
Bajaguy, given your signatures, I'd be interested in knowing what you think it would look like IF we had the stomach to do what was necessary to ERADICATE the problem of inappropriate use of drugs in this country.

It is illicit for me to take my WIFE'S pain pill when I hit MY thumb with a hammer. It begins there.

What do you have the stomach to do to me to eradicate that behavior.

Here's one thing that I project people like you have already laid on me with your prohibition consciousness. When I got cancer, and wound up in stage III renal failure, I got a Compassionate Use recommendation from my MD to use cannabis in my recovery. Those records go to the County, doubtlessly to the State, and are surely available to the Feds. Since Cannabis is a schedule one drug with NO KNOWN MEDICAL USE to the
Federal Government, and because anyone known to use a schedule 1 narcotic is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law, I am not allowed to possess anything to defend myself in one of the most revolutionary, heavily armed, militia infested Counties in the USA.

I invite you to provide evidence that contradicts the mountains of evidence for the positive medicinal use of the substance. I'd welcome the debate. I suggest that it is long past time to demand that the government provide evidence to support their claims that Cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, neither of which is a schedule 1 drug since both have been found to be medically effective.



Actually, the "Feds" (namely, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) grant "compassionate use" licenses for the use of otherwise prohibited drugs not infrequently. The FDA used to do so with respect to Marijuana, among other substances. I don't know if they still bother to do so or not.

Ateo - 11-26-2012 at 07:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee

Think this might be viewed as a trump to some.


I don't know, Lee. The feds will only be pushed so far.....especially in public.


You may be right Dennis, for now. But times are changing. I don't think drug laws will get stricter. I think drug laws will get lazier. That is where things are moving. If Obama has any sack, he should push for decriminalization of mota before his term expires.

Alcohol is a very nasty drug that destroys a lot. Marijuana is mellow in comparison. I'm not a pot smoker these days, BTW.

DENNIS - 11-26-2012 at 07:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ateo
You may be right Dennis, for now. But times are changing. I don't think drug laws will get stricter. I think drug laws will get lazier. That is where things are moving. If Obama has any sack, he should push for decriminalization of mota before his term expires.



If change is inevitable and a grossly popular idea, the administration will want credit for it and won't relinquish it to Colorado or any other state.......especially through a power play.

Anyway....I agree. It's time.