U.S. military report warns 'sudden collapse' of Mexico is possible

[Guest aevans]

...but if there's drug organization selling it (as opposed to the Government) there goes a big section of crime.

 

What reputable pharmaceutical company would accept the liability? What insurer would underwrite it? We're talking about chemicals with restricted or no medicinal value that are known to destroy lives. You want to legalize drugs? I'll tell you what would happen -- the first company stupid enough to sell them legally would get hammered in civil court and then drugs would go back to being an illicit underground item. The DEA would continue the drug war, going after unlicensed distributors (because those are the only ones who would carry the trade) and we'd be back to square one. I'd just as soon stay on square one. As unsatisfying as it is, at least it's honest.

 

So you advocate prohibition?

 

It doesn't matter what I advocate -- these substances cannot be marketed legally, even if they were legal.

Edited January 20, 2009 by aevans

[Jeff]

What reputable pharmaceutical company would accept the liability? What insurer would underwrite it? We're talking about chemicals with restricted or no medicinal value that are known to destroy lives. You want to legalize drugs? I'll tell you what would happen -- the first company stupid enough to sell them legally would get hammered in civil court and then drugs would go back to being an illicit underground item. The DEA would continue the drug war, going after unlicensed distributors (because those are the only ones who would carry the trade) and we'd be back to square one. I'd just as soon stay on square one. As unsatisfying as it is, at least it's honest.

It doesn't matter what I advocate -- these substances cannot be marketed legally, even if they were legal.

And unless we are ready to make drug use an entitlement, the addicts will still be smashing in car windows to steal GPS units, breaking into homes etc.

[crazyinsane105]

And unless we are ready to make drug use an entitlement, the addicts will still be smashing in car windows to steal GPS units, breaking into homes etc.

 

Like that isn't happening already? Just wondering: do your or any others have any proof that the amount of drug users will actually increase if drugs are legalized? What's interesting is that after Prohibition was repealed, the amount of alcohol users didn't increase...

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

If drugs were legal, your friend would most-likely be dead, but we would still have with us several dozen policemen, several hundred drug sellers and several thousand innocent bystanders who have been hurt in this war.

 

But maybe rather than losing one of my friends I'd lose several... y'now... early 90s was pretty hard times for Russians. Both emotionally and physically. And here, just stretch your hand, dirt-cheap, is an answer to all your troubles... Tempting. No, thanks, I'd rather society sacrifices its policemen to make this escape solution real hard. You can do all you want with *your* society for all I care, and once you have a successful society for several decades with a doze of coke available at every grocery store - I might even change my mind. But not before. At the moment it is my opinion that this society won't last long. And I find analogies with Prohibition completely laughable.

 

OK, so noted. You have no solution that is acceptable to the people of the United States or any civilized country. So good luck with that.

 

Yeah, I know. Like I said... it's called "war" on drugs but it really isn't. Hell, right now NATO is *GUARDING* the largest drug production region in the world. Here's one to integrity.

[Guest aevans]

Like that isn't happening already? Just wondering: do your or any others have any proof that the amount of drug users will actually increase if drugs are legalized? What's interesting is that after Prohibition was repealed, the amount of alcohol users didn't increase...

 

Plenty of people I know don't do drugs primarily because it is illegal. Prohibition didn't last long enough to create several generations of people whose only knowledge of alcohol use came along with serious legal consequences.

 

Aside from the apples and oranges nature of the timelines, alcohol has never been shown to be medically useless. In fact, many studies show that moderate use may make our bodies operate better. Can't say that for any narcotics that I know of. As I explained above, in the case of narcotics the known effects are so negative that they couldn't be sold legally even if they were technically legal.

[Paul in Qatar]

And unless we are ready to make drug use an entitlement, the addicts will still be smashing in car windows to steal GPS units, breaking into homes etc.

 

You mean as cigarette and alcohol addicts do now? You theory does not depict the past or present, so it is unlikely to model the future.

[Guest aevans]

You mean as cigarette and alcohol addicts do now? You theory does not depict the past or present, so it is unlikely to model the future.

 

Different set of circumstances, Paul. People who smoke too much or drink too much, except for the most marginal, won't commit felonies to get that next high. As explained above, even legalized drugs will have that effect, because they won't be traded legally, and will still inhabit a high stakes black market.

[Paul in Qatar]

If they are legal they will be traded legally. In places where they are legal they are traded legally. Again, your theory does not model the past nor the present and so cast doubt on its ability to model the future.

[Guest aevans]

If they are legal they will be traded legally. In places where they are legal they are traded legally. Again, your theory does not model the past nor the present and so cast doubt on its ability to model the future.

 

You are so, so wrong. Tell us, which established pharmaceutical firm is going to accept the liability of manufacturing and distributing lethal addictive substances (1)? Which insurer is going to underwrite that liability? What is the likely fate in civil court of the first licensed company to distribute crack or meth? Where is the market going to go afterthat, except back underground?

 

1. Please don't tell us about alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol is too ingrained in society and has known medical benefits in moderation. The tobacco industry is paying through the nose as we speak.

[Ivanhoe]

A little bit of research.>

 

Something's badly wrong with that study, given that it ranks alcohol well ahead of methamphetamines.

 

And while ecstasy rarely leads to deaths, it is strongly associated with permanent brain injury;

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81009072714.htm

 

According to Professor Laws from the University’s School of Psychology, taking the drug just once can damage memory. In a talk entitled "Can taking ecstasy once damage your memory?", he will reveal that ecstasy users show significantly impaired memory when compared to non-ecstasy users and that the amount of ecstasy consumed is largely irrelevant. Indeed, taking the drug even just once may cause significant short and long-term memory loss.

 

Probably the ultimate solution is to develop anti-drugs, chemicals that block the drug in question from even getting into the brain.

 

I don't see how such an anti-drug treatment will solve anything by itself. Folks wanting to get high would have to be dosed a priori, which is extremely Big Brotherish (soma, anyone?). Barring that, then folks who are already physically addicted* would have to either be dosed by court order, with arrest and forcible treatment, or kept confined in governmental care. The former would be too expensive and difficult, the latter solves the problem without the anti-drug anyways.

 

* Meaning they have experienced the irreversible brain changes that are caused by some of the harder drugs such as crack and crystal meth.

[Ivanhoe]

Legalization of drugs overall will not result in a reduction of crime, IMHO. It will change the dynamics of the gang wars, but the repeal of prohibition didn't end organized crime, either. Just moved it into other revenue streams.

 

Drunks, smokers, and potheads for the most part are still employable; they can still earn a living wage to support themselves and their habit. But crackheads, tweakers, and such are not terribly employable. It won't matter whether their legal dose is $100 a day or $1 a day, there aren't enough aluminum cans in public trash bins to finance their habits. I have read about heroin addicts being able to function for awhile in civilized society as long as they get their maintenance doses, but I have never heard of one that was able to maintain the pretense for more than a few years.

[JWB]

I don't see how such an anti-drug treatment will solve anything by itself. Folks wanting to get high would have to be dosed a priori, which is extremely Big Brotherish (soma, anyone?). Barring that, then folks who are already physically addicted* would have to either be dosed by court order, with arrest and forcible treatment, or kept confined in governmental care. The former would be too expensive and difficult, the latter solves the problem without the anti-drug anyways.

What's the issue, ever heard of forced disulfiram dosings?

 

Also Meth is a prescrption drug.> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoxyn

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

In places where they are legal they are traded legally.

 

There are such places?

[Rubberneck]

Good thread drift on this one.

 

The narcotics issue is one of the problems. The bigger issues are the oligarchy running Mexico (60 families?), the lack of support from the police and army towards the rise in violence employed by the traficantes, and the crumbling Mexican economy which was based upon a fossil fuel and migrant workers in another country.

 

Pretty damn good mess going on down there.

[Paul in Qatar]

What is really remarkable is how little we (Americans) give a good damn about the problems were are causing in Colombia, Bolivia, Mexico, Afghanistan, let alone in semi-rural Alaska. Drug money funds the worst violence in the world. But as long as it is off our TV sceens nobody even seems to notice.

 

Legal trade in narcotics? Sure, almost no drug violence in Amsterdam, the poppy-growing regions of Afghanistan, the coca-producing areas of Boliva (the last two seem to have little law at all). Left to their own devices, farmers, manufacturers and distributors will do their business quietly and peacefully.

[Guest aevans]

Drug money funds the worst violence in the world. But as long as it is off our TV sceens nobody even seems to notice.

 

How much drug money was involved in the masacre of the Tutsis?

 

Legal trade in narcotics? Sure, almost no drug violence in Amsterdam, the poppy-growing regions of Afghanistan, the coca-producing areas of Boliva (the last two seem to have little law at all). Left to their own devices, farmers, manufacturers and distributors will do their business quietly and peacefully.

 

Very studiously dodging the point, you are. Once again, who is going to legally and openly distribute drugs in the face of the civil liability exposure?

[Old Tanker]

What is really remarkable is how little we (Americans) give a good damn about the problems were are causing in Colombia, Bolivia, Mexico, Afghanistan, let alone in semi-rural Alaska. Drug money funds the worst violence in the world. But as long as it is off our TV sceens nobody even seems to notice.

 

Legal trade in narcotics? Sure, almost no drug violence in Amsterdam, the poppy-growing regions of Afghanistan, the coca-producing areas of Boliva (the last two seem to have little law at all). Left to their own devices, farmers, manufacturers and distributors will do their business quietly and peacefully.

 

I recently read something about Amsterdam starting to have gang or mob types moving into the area to share in the wealth.

 

What makes you think legalizing drugs will fix other countries woes ?

For instance the diamond trade causes much strife in Africa as in some villages many young males with their hands cutoff to prevent their involvement in the diamond industry . You can buy diamonds all day long in the U.S. legal as all hell.

 

I also understand that even as the gov't gets involved in mob rackets such as LOTTO and OTB that the illegal bookie profession is still doing quite well.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Old Tanker

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

Sure, almost no drug violence in Amsterdam

 

Drugs that we are discussing are (of course!) illegal in Holland.

 

, the poppy-growing regions of Afghanistan

 

Oh yes, with NATO guarding the peace of local drug lords I am sure all is well over there. Can you please stop insulting my intelligence by offering such obviously absurd examples Nevermind the fact that drug trade *is* illegal both in Afghanistan and Bolivia. Keep looking

[toysoldier]

How much of a drug problem exists in Cuba today ?

 

Not very overt, limited to the very low life, the really well off and the eventual youngster. There´s simply not enough buying power to interest the traffiquers. Suffice to say, around 90% of the stuff consumed comes from shored packs that are dropped by Caribbean transporters onto the sea, and finds its way to the streets. We get high on other people´s scraps... and im not complaining.

The rest comes from a very tiny cultivation of marihuana, medical drugs and some airport activity.

[X-Files]

Police Find Stash of 500,000 Rounds of Ammo in Northern Mexico

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=...ategoryId=14091

Jan 13, 2009

 

TIJUANA, MEXICO -- Police found some 500,000 rounds of ammunition at an abandoned warehouse in the border city of Mexicali, but no arrests were made, Baja California state police spokesmen said.

 

Police went to the warehouse in the city's western section after receiving an anonymous tip, Baja California state police chief Raul Florencio Cuevas Salgado said.

 

Dozens of sacks and boxes filled with ammunition of different calibers were at the warehouse in Mexicali's Huertas de la Progreso neighborhood.

 

Police found 195,000 rounds of ammunition for AR-15 assault rifles and 160,000 rounds of ammunition for AK-47 assault rifles, one of the weapons of choice of the gunmen employed by Mexico's drug cartels.

 

Officers also found 135 sacks containing .357 caliber, .380 caliber, 10 mm, .45 caliber and .38 caliber "super" ammunition for weapons of the type that only the Mexican army can legally possess.

[swerve]

My former school friend died from drug OD. This was 15 years ago and I am still mad as hell about this. You are telling me I should accept his "free, adult choice" to snuff out his life at 19? Well I am telling you you are nuts, no offense. How would it have helped him if the drugs were legal. What a load of bull.

I've known a few people killed by alcohol. Doesn't mean I want to ban beer.

 

Nobody should have to prove legalising drugs would make anything better. The advocates of banning drugs should have to prove that legalising them would make things enough worse to justify the restriction of individual liberty.

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

I've known a few people killed by alcohol. Doesn't mean I want to ban beer.

 

You've known people killed by beer? Did their bladder explode or they were crushed by a beer keg?

 

Nobody should have to prove legalising drugs would make anything better. The advocates of banning drugs should have to prove that legalising them would make things enough worse to justify the restriction of individual liberty.

 

Yeah well in the society of your own creation perhaps. In real societies it's the other way around. Even in very individual-freedom-oriented ones

[Guest aevans]

Nobody should have to prove legalising drugs would make anything better. The advocates of banning drugs should have to prove that legalising them would make things enough worse to justify the restriction of individual liberty.

 

Except that ingestion of these substances has a known fallout on other people's lives. Yeah, alcohol is a problem, but we draw the line above it. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't draw a line at all. The current line is drawn at potency and medicinal/nutritional value (1). We draw the same line with all kinds of prescription medications that are in much wider use. Nobody cries about their rights in those cases, and no rights have been shown to be impacted. Simply put, nobody has a "right" to ingest highly potent narcotics that have little or no medicinal value, no matter how groovy it makes them feel.

 

1. Something people forget about alcohol -- it's a food item with a depressive and mildly euphoric effect. It also has increasingly recognized dietary value as a prophylactic against heart disease, in small doses.

[Paul in Qatar]

What medical harm does cannabis cause? (There is a news headline that says pot damages your sperm, but other than that.)

 

Is it worth policemen dying to rid the streets (well try to rid the streets of) pot?

[DaveDash]

Except that ingestion of these substances has a known fallout on other people's lives. Yeah, alcohol is a problem, but we draw the line above it. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't draw a line at all. The current line is drawn at potency and medicinal/nutritional value (1). We draw the same line with all kinds of prescription medications that are in much wider use. Nobody cries about their rights in those cases, and no rights have been shown to be impacted. Simply put, nobody has a "right" to ingest highly potent narcotics that have little or no medicinal value, no matter how groovy it makes them feel.

 

1. Something people forget about alcohol -- it's a food item with a depressive and mildly euphoric effect. It also has increasingly recognized dietary value as a prophylactic against heart disease, in small doses.

 

I can say quite with a lot of confidence that alcohol causes A LOT more harm to society and health in general, than a good chunk of illegal drugs do. The real bad ones, crack, heroine, etc are only make up a small percentage of illegal drugs.

 

I don't know what it's like in the states, but here in Melbourne (and many other English/European cultured places I have been) drug use in many social circles is far more prevalent than alcohol use, despite the fact they're illegal, and the social atmosphere at such places is considerably more productive socially, for lack of a better term, than drunken aggressive idiots who jump in their car later and kill someones family driving home.

 

You can't stop them, they're there anyway (probably more than many here realise), and legallising certian kinds would not only go a long way in taking money out of unregulated criminal circles, but also would go a long way in better understanding their effects.

Edited January 22, 2009 by DaveDash