Drug war in Mexico: Do you think the US should jump in?

[Nic01101011]

A whole fuck load of the blind leading the blind here. Some of you I'd hazard a guess at never being around having the "pleasure" of being involved in some of the workings of tweakers, addicts, dealers, ect... It's less the illegal factor and far more the chemical composition of these drugs, folks. Sorry, but you're flat out, dead wrong. Logically, this premise that legalization would end criminal behavior is incomplete. Not for a lack of smarts or intelligence, keep that in mind, it's just a lack of experience. And I don't fault anyone for it. But, you cannot reasonably claim to know or have a full understanding of what you're commenting on.

It's a far messier world than you whom I speak of think or even understand.

Decriminalization WOULD save money on court, police, and over all expenditures. Would it do ANYTHING to solve the issues with the people? No, I genuinly don't believe so. But, what you have to question when pursueing this line of reasoning/thought is what your end goal is here? Helping the people or lightening the burden placed on society by these people? Being righteous or good doesn't pay you. And while this is unfair, it's the reality of the world we live in and has been for ALL time. Not that this is an excuse, but it is a brutal reality that you have to accept if you truly wish to make any kind of difference in this world. You don't do it because it pays you, you do it because it's right. If it's all about what it gains you, you've missed the point entirely.

Full legalization would not solve this issue. That's a fact. Just because everyone turns a blind eye to any and everything doesn't mean it was solved.

What are you talking about?
Reread the OP and my reply.
We're talking about the violence of the drug cartels within Mexico.
This thread was never about the effects of the drug users within our own society(though the footnote in my post about legalization not being a good idea hints at this).
You mean drug users are less than savory? You don't say. :roll:
Nobody gives a shit about your experience with drug addicts.
Learn to read.

[ck_taft325is]

What are you talking about?
We're talking about the violence of the drug cartels within Mexico.
This thread was never about the effects of the drug users within our own society(though the footnote in my post about legalization not being a good idea hints at this).
You mean drug users are less than savory? You don't say. :roll:
Nobody gives a shit about your experience with drug addicts.
Learn to read.

Someone has a wild hair up their ass. You don't think all the talk of decriminalization here in the USA stemming the flow to the Mexican cartels and thus crippling their influence, power and over all violence has anything to do with this conversation?

Learn some comprehension.

Nobody gives a shit about your half assed wild ideals based in nothing solely beyond your own perview. Sorry.

[Nic01101011]

Someone has a wild hair up their ass. You don't think all the talk of decriminalization here in the USA stemming the flow to the Mexican cartels and thus crippling their influence, power and over all violence has anything to do with this conversation?

Learn some comprehension.

Nobody gives a shit about your half assed wild ideals based in nothing solely beyond your own perview. Sorry.

I'll rephrase what I posted earlier.

Decriminalizing drugs would do nothing to stop the violence of the Mexican cartels within Mexico since it would just be business as usual for them. The supply chain remains unchanged.

But by legalizing drugs, the manufacturing would be moved here and protected by American police forces, laws, etc.

The speculation is that Mexican cartels wouldn't dare engage in violent behavior with American police and companies - but it's only just that, speculation, which is what this discussion is about.

Follow?
Perhaps you should make your own thread about either your junkie friends or your awesome rambo police job. Because clearly whatever experience you do have is enough to distract you from the actual discussion at hand.

[ck_taft325is]

I'll rephrase what I posted earlier.

Decriminalizing drugs would do nothing to stop the violence of the Mexican cartels within Mexico since it would just be business as usual for them. The supply chain remains unchanged.

But by legalizing drugs, the manufacturing would be moved here and protected by American police forces, laws, etc.

The speculation is that Mexican cartels wouldn't dare engage in violent behavior with American police and companies - but it's only just that, speculation, which is what this discussion is about.

Follow?
Perhaps you should make your own thread about either your junkie friends or your awesome rambo police job. Because clearly whatever experience you do have is enough to distract you from the actual discussion at hand.

Totally follow, what's holding you up from following that I'm saying nearly identically the same thing?

Clearly you have a lack of experience and are only speculating at best. The Mexican cartel's already engage with DEA agents across the board.

I have personal experience with both sides of this. Junkie and Police. I don't see how either disqualifies anything I'm saying but you very clearly do believe so. Heh, how about you wisen up about what actual goes on and stop living inside your comfortable bubble. It's less about what you think you know and more about what happens.

The postulation that making these activities by junkies protected by American police resulting in "safer" drug usage and a diminishing effect of mexicen Cartel's violent influence is stupidity beyond stupidity. If I follow and you're more than welcome to correct me as I'm venturing here, you believe that by the US Government making and distributing substances that are highly addictive would in effect lessen the violence by the Mexican drug Cartels? Or are you stating that simply by making these activities legal it would lessen the Mexican drug Cartel's violent actions?

[Raxe]

Were drugs legalized and produced in the US, the demand for drugs from Mexico would be gone, and I don't think the Mexican cartels would attack their "legitimate" American competition.

Some problems here:

1. I don't think it's very likely we'd see any heavy narcotics produced and manufactured in America. Can you even begin to imagine the lawsuits and liability American companies would face by producing these drugs? If tobacco companies are still being sued for hurting their consumers, think of the shitstorm a methamphetamine producer would face. It's insane.

2. The Mexican cartels are focused on one thing and one thing only: monopolization. The violence surrounding the drug war is not caused by tweakers breaking car windows, it's groups killing groups for territory. The beheadings, hangings and slaughter are used to send messages to rivals that they had better stay away. The entire thing is a territory war and the cartels dominate and control entire regions and towns. They will not take kindly to Americans setting up on their land and stealing their profit. The cartels kill police officers and soldiers like it's a game, they're not going to hesitate killing Americans either.

[KenC]

Some of you seem to think that all drugs are equal, and affect individuals equally. Alcohol does not have the same effect on an individuals brain that crystal meth does. People don't lose their jobs, and commit violent crime over a pack of cigarettes. Don't make an alcohol/prohibition comparison to that of methamphetamines; it just makes you sound dumb.


Also some of you don't seem to be making a distinction between the supply side of drugs, and the end-user. These are two issues, that although related, need to be dealt with in a different manner.

Making it legal to produce and distribute mass amounts of methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine is just ludicrous.

The conversation that needs to occur is how to deal with drug users. Jail has proven it's not a solution.

[Nic01101011]

Clearly you have a lack of experience and are only speculating at best. The Mexican cartel's already engage with DEA agents across the board.

I have personal experience with both sides of this. Junkie and Police. I don't see how either disqualifies anything I'm saying but you very clearly do believe so. Heh, how about you wisen up about what actual goes on and stop living inside your comfortable bubble. It's less about what you think you know and more about what happens.

sigh, and then some.

If I follow and you're more than welcome to correct me as I'm venturing here, you believe that by the US Government making and distributing substances that are highly addictive would in effect lessen the violence by the Mexican drug Cartels? Or are you stating that simply by making these activities legal it would lessen the Mexican drug Cartel's violent actions?

I'm not going to repeat myself again.
What I said was very clear and did not address the other issues you keep bringing up.
The fundamental argument for legalization reducing gang violence stems from another certain once illegal drug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Society

Some problems here:

1. I don't think it's very likely we'd see any heavy narcotics produced and manufactured in America. Can you even begin to imagine the lawsuits and liability American companies would face by producing these drugs? If tobacco companies are still being sued for hurting their consumers, think of the shitstorm a methamphetamine producer would face. It's insane.

2. The Mexican cartels are focused on one thing and one thing only: monopolization. The violence surrounding the drug war is not caused by tweakers breaking car windows, it's groups killing groups for territory. The beheadings, hangings and slaughter are used to send messages to rivals that they had better stay away. The entire thing is a territory war and the cartels dominate and control entire regions and towns. They will not take kindly to Americans setting up on their land and stealing their profit. The cartels kill police officers and soldiers like it's a game, they're not going to hesitate killing Americans either.

Ah, an unjaded and concise reply.

1) Since the legalization in question is merely hypothetical, it's difficult to speculate on all the minute legal manners. Introducing morals into the picture also makes things interesting.

2) I was thinking more along the lines of having the production here. It wouldn't make much sense to set up shop in Mexico..

The conversation that needs to occur is how to deal with drug users. Jail has proven it's not a solution.

Perhaps you should start another thread, then.

I suppose it was too much to expect r3v to stick on topic.

:razz:

[KenC]

Are there really people in here that are in favor of legalizing the mass production as well as open mass distribution of methamphetamines, heroin, and cocaine within the US borders?

[mr.vang]

None of those answers. War on drug is not done at the supplier, but at the demand. If most of the demand is State side, then work your magic on this side of the border. if the demand is in Mexico, leave the Mexicans take care of their problem.

BTW are specifically talking abouth this "find"?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38755307/ns/world_news/

everybody,1,2,3

[ck_taft325is]

Retarded at best, Nic. Retarded at best my friend. I would hope you could understand the premise of this thread but, it seems you missed it.

You don't understand and I don't fault you for that but, these issues you so blithely categorize are one on the same. Each one half of a whole. Ken C put out well. If you truly believe that producing hard core drugs and distributing them in the usa would limit violence you're one step away from insane.

[Raxe]

1) Since the legalization in question is merely hypothetical, it's difficult to speculate on all the minute legal manners. Introducing morals into the picture also makes things interesting.

The minute details might be difficult, but the glaring ones are obvious. There's a reason why dangerous and harmful substances are only sold on the black market. Let's just leave it at that. ;)

[z31maniac]

Are there really people in here that are in favor of legalizing the mass production as well as open mass distribution of methamphetamines, heroin, and cocaine within the US borders?

Hmmm, no not really.

But obviously keeping them illegal isn't working, so what is the next suggestion for how to handle "hard" drugs.

[frankenbeemer]

2. The Mexican cartels are focused on one thing and one thing only: MONEY. The violence surrounding the drug war is not caused by tweakers breaking car windows, it's groups killing groups for MONEY. The beheadings, hangings and slaughter are used to send messages to rivals that they had better stay away(from their) MONEY. The entire thing is a MONEY war and the cartels dominate and control entire regions and towns. They will not take kindly to Americans setting up on their land and stealing their MONEY. The cartels kill police officers and soldiers like it's a game, they're not going to hesitate killing Americans either.

Money makes it possible for the cartels to hire the soldiers that do the killing. Remove the MONEY and the cartels won't dissappear, just like the mafia didn't dissappear after repeal of prohibition, but they will diminish in effect just as the mafia did. Does anyone think the cartels could maintain their monopoly if their product was legal? If so, do you think the mafia runs Seagrams?

[StereoInstaller1]

So let me ask you this: any of you guys who seem to think that legalizing (100% "adult legal", like alcohol) would turn us into a nation of junkies...would YOU try it?

I have never done Heroin or X or any of the really hard shit. If it were legal I STILL don't think I would even try it, and if I did, I would not get all strung out on it...just like i don't with alcohol.

Do you really think making drugs like that legal is going to make your Mom (uncle, neighbor, receptionist at work, whoever) turn into a junkie? I don't even think the number of potheads would increase, personally...but I do think quite a few "drinkers" would switch to pot.

Just my opinion, carry on.

Luke

[frankenbeemer]

So let me ask you this: any of you guys who seem to think that legalizing (100% "adult legal", like alcohol) would turn us into a nation of junkies...would YOU try it?

I have never done Heroin or X or any of the really hard shit. If it were legal I STILL don't think I would even try it, and if I did, I would not get all strung out on it...just like i don't with alcohol.

Do you really think making drugs like that legal is going to make your Mom (uncle, neighbor, receptionist at work, whoever) turn into a junkie? I don't even think the number of potheads would increase, personally...but I do think quite a few "drinkers" would switch to pot.

Just my opinion, carry on.

Luke

I don't think legalization is the apocalypse some would have you believe. Portugal's experience should be proof enough but there is also this (mostly concerning marijuana):

If drugs were legalized there would be an explosion of drug use.
Incorrect. The available research, as affirmed by a recent Federal analysis of drug policy, indicates there would be little if any increase in use.
From 1972 to 1978, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession (covering one-third of the US population) and 33 other states reduced punishment to probation with record erased after six months to one year. Yet, after 1978 marijuana use steadily declined for over a decade. Decriminalization did not increase marijuana use.
[National Research Council, "Informing America’s Policy On Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), pp. 192-193.]
The Netherlands decriminalized possession and allowed small scale sales of marijuana beginning in 1976. Yet, marijuana use in Holland is half the rate of use in the USA. It is also lower than the United Kingdom which had continued to treat possession as a crime. The UK is now moving toward decriminalization.
[Center for Drug Research, "Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997" (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CEDRO, 1999; Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, "Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report Sept. 1997-Sept. 1999 (The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Nov. 1999); US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 1998, 1999, and 2000 (Washington, DC: SAMHSA).
According to the Center for Drug Research in its report Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997, past-year cannabis use in The Netherlands is estimated at 4.5% for the entire population; past-month use is 2.5%. In the United States, according to NIDA’s National Household Survey on Drug Abuse for 2000, past-year cannabis use is 8.3% of the US population 12 and older, and past-month use is 4.8%.]
If there is an increase in the reported rate of drug use after the end of prohibition, it may be due to an increased willingness to admit to being a drug user. Currently, such an admission means admitting to breaking the law, which social scientists point out discourages honesty.
[National Research Council, "Informing America's Policy On Illegal Drugs" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001): "It is widely thought that nonresponse and inaccurate response may cause surveys such as the NHSDA and MTF to underestimate the prevalence of drug use in the surveyed populations (Caspar, 1992)." (p. 93)]
"Most cross-state comparisons in the United States (as well as in Australia; see McGeorge and Aitken, 1997) have found no significant differences in the prevalence of marijuana use in decriminalized and nondecriminalized states (e.g., Johnston et al., 1981; Single, 1989; DiNardo and Lemieux, 1992; Thies and Register, 1993). Even in the few studies that find an effect on prevalence, it is a weak one. For example, using pooled data from the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse for 1988, 1990 and 1991, Saffer and Chaloupka (1995) found that marijuana decriminalization increased past-year marijuana use by 6 to 7 percent and past-month use by 4 to 5 percent. Using Monitoring The Future survey data for 1982 and 1989, Chaloupka et al. (1998) estimated that decriminalizing marijuana in all states would raise the number of youths using marijuana in a given year by 4 to 5 percent compared with the number using it when marijuana use is criminalized in all states; however, they also found no relationship between decriminalization and past-month use or frequency of use."
Source: National Research Council, "Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001) pp. 192-193
According to the Center for Drug Research in its report Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997, past-year cannabis use in The Netherlands is estimated at 4.5% for the entire population; past-month use is 2.5%. In the United States, according to NIDA’s National Household Survey on Drug Abuse for 2000, past-year cannabis use is 8.3% of the US population 12 and older, and past-month use is 4.8%.
Sources: Center for Drug Research, "Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997" (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CEDRO, 1999; Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, "Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report Sept. 1997-Sept. 1999 (The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Nov. 1999); US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Summary of Findings from the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Washington, DC: SAMHSA).
"Still, several broad conclusions about misreporting have been drawn. At the most basic level, there appears to be consistent evidence that some respondents misreport their drug use behavior. More specifically, valid self-reporting of drug use appears to depend on the timing of the event and the social desirability of the drug. Recent use may be subject to higher rates of bias. Misreporting rates may be higher for stigmatized drugs, such as cocaine, than for marijuana. False negative reports seem to increase as drug use becomes increasingly stigmatized. The fraction of false negative reports appears to exceed the fraction of false positive reports, although these differences vary by cohorts. Finally, the validity rates can be affected by the data collection methodology. Surveys that can effectively ensure confidentiality and anonymity and that are conducted in noncoerced settings will tend to have relatively low misreporting rates." (NRC, "Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs," pp. 99-100)