| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8
9
..
14 |
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3922
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
If we can somehow convert the entire country to amish, mormon or other similar type of religious type communities that exert strong control over their
followers you might be right. Somehow I think that has an ice cube's chance in hell of happening so the other alternative is just continue on until we
have all the drug users (addicts and recreational) incarcerated. Once those 30-50 million are safely behind bars we will probably be able to say that
the war on drugs has been won for the moment.
Of course we will all be living in cardboard boxes as all of our income will be taken in taxes to support that model but at least we will sleep well
knowing that war was fought to victory!
I do not fall in the trap of your statement that we are simply redefining crime to solve a problem. What is crime and by whose definition? I do agree
that when someone causes physical or economical harm on another when on drugs it is a crime - be it heroine, prescription drugs or alcohol. But I find
it ridiculous to make it a crime what someone chooses to do in the privacy of their own home and to their own body. Hold them responsible for what
they do when on drugs but we cannot make ourselves Gods over what one chooses to do to their own body.
There has to be a point where we accept this is not working. We are lost in a failed drug war that continues to escalate in the face of the hundreds
of billions spent fighting it. What is the definition of lunacy? Continuing to attempt the same thing and expecting a different result? Do any of you
here think this is suddenly going to start working tomorrow? Or the day after? Or next week? Next year?
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Hard drugs will never be legalized, I believe. Opinions depend upon the segment of society or age bracket you belong to. But I am certain that those
with kids under 18 who are still making their way through life will never support the legalization of hard drugs. I don't buy into the idea that a
potential drug addictor will find a way to drugs no matter what their availabiltiy. How often do you find drug addiction in amish or mormon social
groups? If education or religion can lessen the probability of becoming a drug user then so can it's absence.
It's tantalizing to solve your crime problems by redefining crime and no longer call it that. To bad we can't solve all out problems that way.
Mexico is going to solve it's crime problems the old fashioned way this time. Latin culture has always been one of exceptions. The currrent president
is right to crack down on drug dealers. It's the only way. Either you're a country of laws .... or you're not. It's just a matter of time before the
citizens of Mexico get fed up enough to stand up to this. |
 |
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Bajagringo,
You took my comments and ran with them in a direction convenient to your point of view. I never suggested that we form quasi religious communities,
did I? I pointed out that the likelihood of one becoming a drug addict is greater in a society where it's banned than where it's not. And I'm using
social groups where that is obvious the case. Pick one to your liking.
| Quote: | Originally posted by BajaGringo
Once those 30-50 million are safely behind bars we will probably be able to say that the war on drugs has been won for the moment.
|
What the hell are you talking about?
| Quote: | Originally posted by BajaGringo
I do not fall in the trap of your statement that we are simply redefining crime to solve a problem. What is crime and by whose definition?
|
That's exactly what we're doing. The drug dealers are proving to be too much to handle and we're trying to change the laws in order to not have to do
it. We're not doing it to make it more convenient for you to enjoy the drug of your choice in the privacy of your home.
It's not about morality. It's about the consequences of a life that's dependent upon drug usage. Comparing cigarette smoking to meth and cocaine is
not instructive.
|
|
|
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3922
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
As to your first statement, The point I was trying to make is that I think it is impractical to use religious groups that represent small fringes of
society to dictate a behavioral solution to the majority that does not share their beliefs/community behaviors. Making these drugs illegal has not
altered personal behavior of what folks want to do to their bodies/lives and I don't see how you can use what the mormons/amish do as a realistic
answer/solution. I agree that it would be nice but just not going to ever happen.
As far what I meant about incarcerating 30-50 million I was referring to the number estimated in the USA to currently be using illegal drugs, albeit
as addicts or recreational users. Obviously increasing jail time, penalties, increased enforcement and billions of dollars has not worked so to get
rid of the demand problem we will just have to jail them all eventually. Obviously it is an absurd idea but that seems to be the policy we are
currently following. One of the qualities of citizens in the USA is that we have developed a strong sense of personal freedom not necessarily tied to
how government defines it. The general population has demonstrated over and over through its history that it will simply not follow government
policies they find absurd, unfair or unjust. Those who want to put drugs in their bodies think it is none of the governments business what they choose
to do in the privacy of their home that affects only their own body. While I don't choose to do drugs myself I can understand their point.
That was the same attitude the general population took during prohibition and why it was never successful except in small regions controlled by strict
religious factions (going back to your first point).
About redefining criminal activity, I think it is a very valid point. What is a basic definition of criminal activity? As I understand it that is
generally accepted to be behavior that causes serious physical/economical harm on another, not to ones self. In my opinion we should treat currently
illegal drugs just like any other harmful substance - cigarettes, alcohol, chemicals, etc. What I think we need to focus on is peoples behavior which
affects others.
A few examples:
Alcohol is legal to drink but drunk driving is illegal as is public intoxication.
Cigarettes are legal to smoke but not inside closed public spaces where others may be affected by second hand smoke.
Neither may be legally consumed by minors.
Drugs should be managed the same way IMHO.
I agree with you that it would be nice if we could somehow just remove the problem from society but after all the billions that have been spent to
fight it, incarcerate those involved and the lives lost we are further than ever from any hope of any solution based on current policy.
I am just trying to be pragmatic. Please don't think I take any joy or satisfaction in my answer. I wish somehow it could be different but I have yet
to hear one single answer that even approaches any chance of success trying to keep these drugs illegal as we have done.
If you have one I would love to hear it and if realistic I would give it my full support...
[Edited on 11-25-2008 by BajaGringo]
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
Skipjack Joe says:
"It's not about morality. It's about the consequences of a life that's dependent upon drug usage. Comparing cigarette smoking to meth and cocaine is
not instructive."
I think this is the wrong priority. (As you stated before, it is your priority due to a family experience. I understand and empathize with you,
but I also disagree.)
My opinion: The main, and most acute priority is to find a way to stop the violence. I also floated the premise that the underground economy has a lot
to do with the fact that the military has not crushed this. Nomads...do I have any support in this? I posted twice and received nothing but a flame
from a past Nomad that had been banned in a former manifestation. Now he is banned again and so I have returned to this string.
I am looking for constructive dialog.There have been many good ideas here. Of course, we Nomads do not have any power stop the violence, but we need
fresh ideas. A forum is just that; an exchange of ideas. The status quo, meeting violence with violence, isn't working.
I have not seen anything that I would call "whining", unless it is the ones who are saying we are not facing reality, and that we are doomed. To me,
that is whining because they have given up.
Sirenita has wisdom beyond her years, and adds lots of value to this discussion. Words and thoughts, which bear/bare the soul of the poster,carry a
lot of power. What you visualize is usually what you get. That is why I refuse to visualize doom and fatality. It is not Pollyannish to visualize
positive solutions. Call it religion or spirituality or humanism....whatever. It works. And never give up; your freedom or your life. Live it until
there is no life left. And that does not mean be careless or stupid. Be aware of your surroundings and live life without it being driven by fear.
You are what you eat, and I am not eating doom. Not for Baja and its people, whom I love.
Skipjack Joe,
What you are contributing is good dialog. I do not mean to diminish the value of your opinion.
[Edited on 11-25-2008 by toneart]
|
|
|
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3922
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
Great post!
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Explain
| Quote: | Originally posted by toneart
I also floated the premise that the underground economy has a lot to do with the fact that the military has not crushed this. Nomads...do I have any
support in this? |
I understand why the underground economy contributes to the problem but don't follow as to why this would prevent the military from action. What does
one have to do with the other?
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Dave
| Quote: | Originally posted by toneart
I also floated the premise that the underground economy has a lot to do with the fact that the military has not crushed this. Nomads...do I have any
support in this? |
I understand why the underground economy contributes to the problem but don't follow as to why this would prevent the military from action. What does
one have to do with the other? |
Because it is political grandstanding to make declarations and parade the military. They are easy to deploy. They make the governments (Mexican and
U.S.) look like they are doing something, whereas they are not allowed to do all they could in order to not collapse the economy, underground or above
ground. A lot of that drug money circulates. This premise is not originated by me, although I can see how it is possible.
There is also another reason for the push/pull military campaign. It has already been substantiated that many Mexican Drug Police, from the bottom all
the way to the very top, have been corrupted and on the take. If drugs were legalized, the gangster profit motive would evaporate, and the revenue
could be channeled, taxed and regulated.
Addicts and their families are of secondary importance, albeit tragic. In the world of public opinion, they don't garner as much importance or
sympathy as do the victims of cartel violence. Also, they do not present nearly the same menacing threat to all citizens, including us.
I will not defend the premise as mine. I hope it is wrong. If you want to refute it, be my guest. None of us are privy to what is really going on.
|
|
|
SiReNiTa
Special Correspondent
Posts: 881
Registered: 5-5-2006
Location: Ensenada, B.C.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Savoring life while saving the world!
|
|
oh goodness..!!
well...one thing...nomads are a great help to baja...i have met some of the nicest people from this board...and it's not true that you have no say in
the matter because as i said before baja is as much mine as it is yours because the people of baja have decided to share it with you so it's your home
to!!
and all your ideas a great and i believe that if everyone stands together in this we can pull through eventually...it's not going to happen in a year
but i'm not thinking about my generation...i'm thinking about my kids and grand kids if God grants me that in the far future...imagine what kind of
world they will come in to...not a nice thought eh!!??
i know we can do better...mexico has so much potential...but people are scared...the bow under pressure...they hide from fear...
but it will come together soon enough...
Live life as well as you can,
don\'t regret the things that once made you smile,
learn from your mistakes,
and thank God for every second he gives you upon this earth.
Visit me at
Http://BajaScents.Scentsy.com.mx
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by toneart
My opinion: The main, and most acute priority is to find a way to stop the violence. ...
I am looking for constructive dialog.There have been many good ideas here. Of course, we Nomads do not have any power stop the violence, but we need
fresh ideas. A forum is just that; an exchange of ideas. The status quo, meeting violence with violence, isn't working.
|
Let me ask these question?
Why is it that the problem of drugs exists on both sides of the border but the violence does not. With the exception of , perhaps our inner cities,
like downtown Oakland.
How would the American public and government respond if a severed head of a police official appeared on a lampost?
If we are asked to legalize drugs it would be for the right reason - that we can deal with their inherent problems. It wouldn't be because our law
enforcement couldn't deal with law breakers.
How is it that the US is responsible for Mexico's violence? If we can deal with it on our side then so should Mexico. The idea that our demand for
drugs is causing their violence is outdated: they have their own clientele now. The drug wars would continue if we were on the other side of the
planet. Mexico's violence is due to improper security. Corruption has been a problem for decades in all of latin america. It's just that the stakes
are higher now - lives instead of money.
I do agree with you that in this discussion the presence of violence is of greater priority because the problem is clear. In our country there are
various classes of drugs and the law enforcement has appropriate measures for each type. This is a democracy and if the public wanted to legalize the
hard drugs it would have done so by now. Our system pursues hard drugs and turns a blind eye to the others. This has been a policy for quite some time
now. Bajagringo, you asked what's the solution? That's the solution now and I don't hear the public clamoring to change it. And there's no reason why
this can't be Mexico's solution, except ......
<<gangster profit motive would evaporate>>
For how long? Until another scheme comes up. Do you know that in Peru the Shining Path initially were concerned with redistributing the wealth of the
wealthy. When that worked so successfully they changed their tactics and required every business and store owner to pay a percent of their profits if
they wanted to keep their businesses. A sort of tax, you might say.
It's a good thing that we've legalized gambling. Just think of the opportunities if Americans had to cross the border for that pleasure.
[Edited on 11-25-2008 by Skipjack Joe]
|
|
|
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3922
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
Skipjack...
I think we agree more than we disagree in theory. We probably have different views of what is realistically possible however but I will also recognize
that your opinion is just as valid as mine. Obviously only time will tell...
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
From what I've read in the press, the violence along the border is mostly due to an imbalance of power among the several cartels that control the
smuggling to the US. The imbalance is due to the elimination of the cartel's command and control personnel, especially within the AFO (Arelleno-Felix
Organization). I read the local TJ papers the best I can and I've noticed, I think correctly, that most of the guys getting killed are 20 to 30 years
old. In other words it appears the younger criminals are fighting each other to gain control.
A 50 year old friend of mine who has lived in TJ all his life tells me the same violent situation existed in TJ in the early 90s before the AFO gained
control. In fact he says it was worse because there was not a police response like today, few cops on the street and no Feds or military.
Remember the 10 years or so before the current violence started? Tourism was sky high, real estate was booming, and few tourists or residents feared
drug violence. Kidnappings were extremely rare. The biggest problem was the modida. Well, that was when the AFO was in control of the western corridor
and other cartels controlled the central and eastern corridors. It was rather peaceful.
The pro legalization argument says the violence associated with trafficking will end if drugs were legalized. Maybe so but it's not clear to me that
legaliztion will eliminate the black market, and it's my opinion based upon previous attempts at legalization of softer drugs that use will
significantly increase. No country, that I know of, has ever legalized storngly addictive drugs that were once illegal. In fact, just the opposite.
Read about the opium addiction problem in the United States before it was made illegal in the early 1900s.
True, was it the Swiss or Dutch, that decriminalized heroin use in an area called "needle park" in some city? The specific place is unimportant. What
is important is the experiment was a failure and they went back to enforcing the laws.
I know my solution has ambiguities and therefore would be difficult to state as policy, but it is a practical solution that would significantly
decrease the violence. Simply put, keep the laws on the books, but decrease the enforcement as it pertains to smuggling.
Also, I think more emphasis should be placed upon the manufacturers of cocaine, meth, and heroin. Especially methamphetamine because it is so popular,
so addictive, and is "low hanging fruit". The required precursor chemicals are complicated to make and are made by "legitimate" chemical companies
that are well known. I don't understand why they are allowed to make and sell these chemicals. They are the true culprits in the methamphetamine
problem and are legally making healthy profits from it. The only legitimate use of these chemicals is the manufacture of cold medicines to relieve
stuffy noses.
[Edited on 11-25-2008 by k-rico]
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
Come on Ron, some people, like me, like to think and debate. What's wrong with that? There are many discussions that I'm not interested in, but I
don't think they should end.
I think you posted that you were pro legalization. What, I make a counter argument and you want to stop the debate?
I think I have some insight into the problem. My brother-in-law was murdered doing a drug deal, I divorced my first wife because she became a meth
addict and alcoholic, and I live in TJ.
[Edited on 11-25-2008 by k-rico]
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
| Quote: | Originally posted by toneart
My opinion: The main, and most acute priority is to find a way to stop the violence. ...
I am looking for constructive dialog.There have been many good ideas here. Of course, we Nomads do not have any power stop the violence, but we need
fresh ideas. A forum is just that; an exchange of ideas. The status quo, meeting violence with violence, isn't working.
|
Let me ask these question?
Why is it that the problem of drugs exists on both sides of the border but the violence does not. With the exception of , perhaps our inner cities,
like downtown Oakland.
Many reasons, the drug problem in the US is one of consumption. Consumption certainly exists in Mexico but so does the extremely lucrative
business of supply and trafficking. The US has a better paid, better educated, more expansive police force whose members are difficult to corrupt. The
border area is where the BIG money is made and drug hauls are frequently measured in huge quantities. The problem is concentrated in a small area. And
generally there are greater opportunities to make money legally in the US.
How would the American public and government respond if a severed head of a police official appeared on a lampost?
Don't know why but that question made me think of the mass killings in US schools. Anyway the US crooks know that killing a cop will almost
certainly lead to capture. Head attached or detached.
If we are asked to legalize drugs it would be for the right reason - that we can deal with their inherent problems. It wouldn't be because our law
enforcement couldn't deal with law breakers.
How is it that the US is responsible for Mexico's violence? If we can deal with it on our side then so should Mexico. The idea that our demand for
drugs is causing their violence is outdated: they have their own clientele now. The drug wars would continue if we were on the other side of the
planet. Mexico's violence is due to improper security. Corruption has been a problem for decades in all of latin america. It's just that the stakes
are higher now - lives instead of money.
Eventhough drug use is rising in Mexico, the US is a HUGE market. You can't deny that consumption in the US is a big part of the equation.
I do agree with you that in this discussion the presence of violence is of greater priority because the problem is clear. In our country there are
various classes of drugs and the law enforcement has appropriate measures for each type. This is a democracy and if the public wanted to legalize the
hard drugs it would have done so by now. Our system pursues hard drugs and turns a blind eye to the others. This has been a policy for quite some time
now. Bajagringo, you asked what's the solution? That's the solution now and I don't hear the public clamoring to change it. And there's no reason why
this can't be Mexico's solution, except ......
Except Mexico is a poorer country, with much less opportunity, many uneducated people, and a significant number of people find nothing wrong with
killing other people for personal gain. Plus the chances of getting caught are slim.
<<gangster profit motive would evaporate>>
For how long? Until another scheme comes up. Do you know that in Peru the Shining Path initially were concerned with redistributing the wealth of the
wealthy. When that worked so successfully they changed their tactics and required every business and store owner to pay a percent of their profits if
they wanted to keep their businesses. A sort of tax, you might say.
True, drug trafficking has become more difficult and a horrendous crime, kidnapping is on the rise.
It's a good thing that we've legalized gambling. Just think of the opportunities if Americans had to cross the border for that pleasure.
All the losers are also helping out the state treasuries and giving American Indians jobs. But that's way off-topic.
[Edited on 11-25-2008 by Skipjack Joe] |
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
K-Rico has done a good job in answering Skipjack Joe's questions, to the extent that there are any answers. I think I am reading that your resistance
to legalizing drugs as a possible solution is not particularly based on morality. Oh, of course, morality is running concurrently...with me too. But
It looks like your objections are more tactically based.
Who knows if legalization would work? I am suggesting that it must be tried. Vicente Fox almost pulled it off and then the U.S. put on the pressure to
stop the idea from advancing.
If legalized, other measures need to also be implemented at the same time. Control, funneling through sanctioned channels, taxing, ongoing drug
treatment and rehab, education, social isolation of the users (this can be accomplished over time as a cultural standard of behavior). Peer pressure
is the strongest motivator of youth.
Meth is the most insidious of all. It is the most harmful to the user and to society. And yes, it is pervasive throughout Mexico too. It is cheap. It
causes sleep deprivation, anxiety, paranoia, distortion of perception and violence within an altered state of mind. Perhaps Meth could be excluded
from the legalization list. That way, the enforcement would be concentrated, isolated as a smaller focus, and maybe easier to contain. The big problem
with that, however, is that it is easy to manufacture and can be done anywhere. Maybe get rid of all the ingredients. Cold remedies that use these
ingredients merely mask the symptoms, thereby giving relief to the cold sufferer. Maybe they will have to suck it up and suffer. They will get better
just the same and just as fast without the remedy.
This is like putting out multiple wildfires. Where do you begin and which one needs the most immediate, critical attention? It is a lot like the
problems with the economy. You have to quickly make a plan because there is no time to waste. You have to start somewhere; to do something, because
the old ways aren't working. The violence has to stop!
Hey!  Maybe we should make ourselves available as a Nomad think tank, and
hire out as consultants. 
I'm off to Berkeley (I know, I know), but that is where I am going for Thanksgiving. I'll be out of touch here for a few days, but I will check back
in when I return.
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
Nothing will help the current situation if there is is no hope for a better future. Mexico is already a failed state in the eyes of her people!
My family WAS hopeful of better security when the 500 TJ cops were replaced by Army troops last week. That hope ended saturday evening when the Army
came to my sisters house in the La Mesa area, and physically took my 19 year old nephew. He's just a good college student with no ties to anything
bad. They took him out to the Hummer, punched him three times in the gut and then let him go. Nice country huh? No trust of the people no matter
who you put in charge. They are all stuck on stupid.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
The Sculpin
Nomad
Posts: 401
Registered: 9-3-2002
Location: Back in the Saddle
Member Is Offline
Mood: Riding into the Sunset, looking for a sunrise.
|
|
Woooosh, time to look in the mirror. My experience with totalitarian regimes is they do nothing randomly. Absent pure evil, those with absolute power
are rarely arbitrary. I'm not condoning, I'm not offering excuses, but if the army takes your nephew aside to punch him in the gut a few times, they
are giving him a very explicit message and a warning. Whatever he did, or was percieved to have done, he just used up his "get out of jail free" card.
Time to send him to a college far, far away whatever the cost.
As for this drug thing, I'm still of the opinion that Mexico is run by a few, and when those few tire of the drug trade, or no longer profit from it,
only then will things change. The reason drugs will never be legal is because decriminalization is far too expensive. Profits will go down, regulation
will take place, and a very important clandestine source of cash, power, and influence available to and used by every major government will be gone.
In some respects, the current violence in Mexico is chump change in the global drug network. It's messy, unprofessional, disruptive to others in the
buisness and a necessary evil. This is where you can only act local, with very little effect globally. If you don't like drugs, don't use them. If you
don't want them around, get rid of them. After that, you're p!$$ing up a firehose.
Whoa there, Cowboy - pull back on those reins!
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
I'm going with the pure eveil scenario.
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
The Sculpin
Nomad
Posts: 401
Registered: 9-3-2002
Location: Back in the Saddle
Member Is Offline
Mood: Riding into the Sunset, looking for a sunrise.
|
|
Thanks for the compliment! But what I said is true, isn't it? Yes, it took you 12 classes over 10 years, but you did it! Why? Because you didn't like
it, and you got rid of it. I have found that complex and difficult problems are usually very easy to solve during the conceptual phase. It's the
implementation that drives you nuts! So yes, my comment sounds rather flippant and trite, but conceptually it's true on an individual basis. It is not
true as a solution to drugs and the drug trade in general. For that you need to look at motivations and behaviours that have nothing to do with drugs
and everything to do with $$$, power, influence and greed. Your observations about the Shining Path is on point. I hope this adds some texture.
Uhhhhhh...what happened......I was responding to a post that is no longer here.....where are my meds.....
[Edited on 11-25-2008 by The Sculpin]
Whoa there, Cowboy - pull back on those reins!
|
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
There are a couple of articles that shed a little light on this topic and we find that the court leaders and so called experts have about the same
ideas as everyone has been expressing here.
First is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
Another interesting article is http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880105.htmll
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sorry Sculpin. I felt like I was taking a cheap shot there and decided to can it before too many read it. Then, when I came back from lunch I
discovered there was a response. Oh well.
On a different subject: I've come around to your way of thinking that if there's any part of baja you particularly like it's just best to keep it to
yourself. Nothing to do with this thread, however.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8
9
..
14 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
