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

[X-Files]

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- The head of a new local police commander was left in an ice bucket at his police station in the Ciudad Juarez area, Mexican authorities said Tuesday. ** El Universal reported that Martin Castro Martinez was one of 15 people killed execution-style in 24 hours. Castro Martinez was abducted Saturday, four days after he became police chief in the suburb of Praxedis G. Guerrero.

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/20/New...47911232502839/

[dejawolf]

USA should have invaded mexico, and not iraq.

[Luckyorwhat]

Hate to chip in late, but how many people can provide statistics of pharmacists who A)engaged in violence to further their aims, or B)sold drugs in schoolyards, before each drug was 'criminalized'. That's right, you used to be able to buy Cocaine, Amphetamines, Opiates, Marijuana, and even Alcohol from pharmacists, just to mention a few. That's what grandpa was talking about when he said 'pep pills'. Oh yes, before Ecstasy was criminalized it was also sold by pharmacists.

 

And anyone confusing Tort Reform with the discussion is sneaky and underhanded. It's a simple fact that prohibiting alcohol acted as a price subsidy to sellers of alcohol, who were then criminals. And due to being criminals they had no access to dispute resolution mechanisms like courts. Ergo criminals are violent. They also do things like add rat poison or window cleaner to substances they sell, because they can.

 

 

 

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.

 

Congratulations on announcing that you fundamentally oppose the principles of liberty, and in general the very pillars upon which your country was founded. At least you allow one of three, life, but what's it worth without liberty or the pursuit of happiness (sometimes referenced as profit, re: Hobbes and Locke).

 

He saw this coming from the start, but no-one believed him, and now it's too late.

http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm

[dejawolf]

when alcohol was illegal:

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/prohi...e_gangsters.htm

[nitflegal]

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?

 

No pharmaceutical will touch it. Even if there are assurances that they will be free from prosecution, they won't believe that if the feces hits the fan they won't lose said immunity for very noble reasons. If there are to be legalized drugs the government itself will have to grow them, process them, and sell them.

 

Matt

[Luckyorwhat]

which established pharmaceutical firm is going to accept the liability of manufacturing and distributing lethal addictive substances

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/14/...in2358958.shtml

California Woman Dies Of Water Intoxication After Taking Part In Radio Station Contest

 

Oh my, ban water! People are hooked on the stuff, and if the stupid weak-willed beasts overindulge they can die, and by proxy stop paying taxes.

 

Tort reform is tort reform. Woman a hundred years ago found a slug in a rootbeer, and now it somehow justifies government to impose restrictions upon what individuals can do to their own bodies? Are you gracious enough to permit peons to get tattoos or piercings, or cut their hair funny? God knows your position on them expressing political or religious convictions, after-all it may be 'unsettling' to 'society'.

[X-Files]

LOS ANGELES — For tens of thousands of U.S. Marines in Southern California, new orders from the brass amount to: Baghdad si, Tijuana no. Citing a wave of violence and murder in Mexico, the commanding officer of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force based at Camp Pendleton has made the popular military "R&R" destinations of Tijuana and nearby beaches effectively off-limits for his Marines.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-01-21-camp_N.htm

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 21, 2024 by Junior FO

[Guest aevans]

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.

 

Where? Crack and meth are cheap and ubiquitous. Heroin is a boutique drug these days. Pot is all over the place, but most drug users use it in addition to something else they're doing. The real action is with cheap and deadly speed.

[Guest aevans]

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

 

That's beside the point. Above a certain degree of potency, the line is drawn at medicinal value, not medical harm.

 

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

 

Pot's not the only problem. It's not even the biggest problem.

[Guest aevans]

Hate to chip in late, but how many people can provide statistics of pharmacists...

 

And your point is what, exactly? Prescription drug abuse is a huge problem. And that's with substances that have medicinal value giving the manufacturers have some reason to take liability risks.

 

And anyone confusing Tort Reform with the discussion is sneaky and underhanded. It's a simple fact that prohibiting alcohol acted as a price subsidy to sellers of alcohol, who were then criminals. And due to being criminals they had no access to dispute resolution mechanisms like courts. Ergo criminals are violent. They also do things like add rat poison or window cleaner to substances they sell, because they can.

WHo said anything about tort reform? I'm talking about the legal system as it exists. You know -- if you manufacture and distribute a harmful substance, you're legally liable for the harm it causes. Even with every imaginable tort reform, these substances (even marijauna) are so destructive of their users' lives and the lives of others that the tort would hardly have to be proven. It would be such common knowledge that a plaintiff could come pretty close to establishing it as a matter of judicial notice.

 

Congratulations on announcing that you fundamentally oppose the principles of liberty, and in general the very pillars upon which your country was founded. At least you allow one of three, life, but what's it worth without liberty or the pursuit of happiness (sometimes referenced as profit, re: Hobbes and Locke).

 

Oh, grow up. It has been well established in law in this country that liberty doesn't extend beyond all bounds. Public interest has a place at the bar, and a powerful one. I fundamentally support the principle of individual liberty probably much more than you do, young jedi. I just don't confuse liberty and unlimited license.

Edited January 22, 2009 by aevans

[Guest aevans]

Tort reform is tort reform. Woman a hundred years ago found a slug in a rootbeer, and now it somehow justifies government to impose restrictions upon what individuals can do to their own bodies? Are you gracious enough to permit peons to get tattoos or piercings, or cut their hair funny? God knows your position on them expressing political or religious convictions, after-all it may be 'unsettling' to 'society'.

 

I have no problem with freedom of expression, ya goof. It doesn't hurt anybody, except maybe their pride, and pride isn't a right. What I'm concerned about is when people are permanently harmed by substances that have no medicinal or nutritional value. The potential tort isn't a poorly manufactured soft drink. It's manufacture and distribution of a harmful substance that has no offsetting medical or nutritional value.

 

Nobody has a right to do so without legal liability. They never have. You can go back to the time when the Framers of the Constitution were still alive and find court cases where the purveyors of poorly manufactured or inherrently dangerous goods were taken to court and held liable.

[Luckyorwhat]

And your point is what, exactly? Prescription drug abuse is a huge problem. And that's with substances that have medicinal value giving the manufacturers have some reason to take liability risks.

 

 

The fact is that basically all 'drugs' that are now criminalized were once sold by pharmacists. Pharmacists did not drive by each other's shops and shoot through crowds of bystanders at each other. Pharmacists did not cut their products with rat poison. Pharmacists did not sell their products at schoolyards. Pharmacists had amphetamines already, ergo they did not need to find a cheap dangerous way to make harmful amphetamines out of cough and cold medicines.

 

 

WHo said anything about tort reform? I'm talking about the legal system as it exists. You know -- if you manufacture and distribute a harmful substance, you're legally liable for the harm it causes. Even with every imaginable tort reform, these substances (even marijauna) are so destructive of their users' lives and the lives of others that the tort would hardly have to be proven. It would be such common knowledge that a plaintiff could come pretty close to establishing it as a matter of judicial notice.

The principle of individual liberty rests on the foundation of individual responsibility. If you take away one, you take away both. Current laws such as warning labels and product information sheets are sufficient for emancipated adults to make intelligent decisions upon. By your position of making people irresponsible for their decisions and actions, you take away their freedom to choose, you take away their freedom.

 

Oh, grow up. It has been well established in law in this country that liberty doesn't extend beyond all bounds.

Yes, you could stretch out your hand until it was in someone else's face. A proper analogy would be that you could use whatever substances you wanted, but you couldn't use them on a crowded train.

 

I fundamentally support the principle of individual liberty probably much more than you do, young jedi. I just don't confuse liberty and unlimited license.

 

People don't need to be mothered by anyone but their mother. If I were to try to force a stranger on a bus to take a milk bottle, he would rightly complain I was violating him. It is no different to play nanny in any other way; if your 'help' is not solicited or desired, it is an infringement.

[Luckyorwhat]

I have no problem with freedom of expression, ya goof. It doesn't hurt anybody, except maybe their pride, and pride isn't a right. What I'm concerned about is when people are permanently harmed by substances that have no medicinal or nutritional value. The potential tort isn't a poorly manufactured soft drink. It's manufacture and distribution of a harmful substance that has no offsetting medical or nutritional value.

 

Nobody has a right to do so without legal liability. They never have. You can go back to the time when the Framers of the Constitution were still alive and find court cases where the purveyors of poorly manufactured or inherrently dangerous goods were taken to court and held liable.

 

I like this argument better, it's clear and thus can be clearly rebutted.

 

RE freedom of expression, I suggest that you contradict yourself by letting people influence others, by making speeches or voting (high level of responsibility), while at the same time insisting they are not responsible enough to decide what things to put in their mouths (level of responsibility equated with small children). Are they adults or small children?

 

You can go back to the time when the Framers of the Constitution were still alive and find court cases where the purveyors of poorly manufactured or inherrently dangerous goods were taken to court and held liable.

Unfortunately I cannot go back in time. But I know some framers of the constitution used substances which would have them thrown in jail today. When you go to a skating rink and sign a waiver, you are releasing the custodians of duty of care. They have a product, which can be harmful to you. They can't pick and choose which people should be allowed to use it, so they have each customer accept responsibility for their own actions. People break wrists and bruise knees, but it's not possible for them to claim negligence on the rink's part, because they had full information and made an educated choice.

 

What I'm concerned about is when people are permanently harmed by substances that have no medicinal or nutritional value.

Well put, I didn't read that as the main justification before. First, you need not be concerned for other people, only yourself and your family. Ironically your great public concern could be interpreted as Nuisance Tort by people not desiring your involvement in their lives. Second, Drugs inherently have medicinal values. Some drugs like Marijuana or Heroin the values are subjective (the former), or their relative value to costs is subjective (the latter). Other drugs like cocaine or amphetamines the values are scientifically proven and widely accepted. Does not the USAF handle and distribute Dextroamphetamine? Perhaps they have a lot of pilots with ADD.

[Guest aevans]

The fact is that basically all 'drugs' that are now criminalized were once sold by pharmacists. Pharmacists did not drive by each other's shops and shoot through crowds of bystanders at each other. Pharmacists did not cut their products with rat poison. Pharmacists did not sell their products at schoolyards. Pharmacists had amphetamines already, ergo they did not need to find a cheap dangerous way to make harmful amphetamines out of cough and cold medicines.

 

It doesn't matter what used to happen. Today, if hard drugs were legalized, they could not and would not be sold by pharmacists because of legal liability. They could not an would not be manufactured and distributed openly because of legal liability. They would still be black market items, with all of the problems that the current black market exhibits.

 

You want to legalize them, fine, go ahead and legalize them -- the DEA and all other law enforcement would still conduct the War on Drugs. The only difference is they would be after people for unauthorized distribution of a legal substance instead of an illegal one.

 

The principle of individual liberty rests on the foundation of individual responsibility. If you take away one, you take away both. Current laws such as warning labels and product information sheets are sufficient for emancipated adults to make intelligent decisions upon. By your position of making people irresponsible for their decisions and actions, you take away their freedom to choose, you take away their freedom.

 

I'm not making anybody irresponsible. There are just some things people cannot be expected to manage responsibly on their own. We don't, for example, allow people to enforce the laws on their own. We require that a person receives a government license (AKA a police badge) and pursues the enforcement of law as an occupation, under special rules. We control who, how and where somebody can marry, even adults. We control who may practice medicine, once again under government supervision and with government licenses.

 

You just don't know what you're talking about.

[Luckyorwhat]

Your logic is flawed as you fail to distinguish between harm done to others and harm done to oneself. You neglect to recognize the principle of harm in any way. By 'protecting' people from themselves you (proverbial you) are the assailant, doing harm to victims. Your concern for stranger's health is noble. Your lack of recognition of them as equals is not. I doubt you would appreciate others ruling over your life as you wish to rule theirs.

 

"And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country."Luke 4:23

 

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7

 

 

Hiding behind bureaucratic inertia and esoteric guilds does nothing to further your fundamental argument. I discern that your fundamental concern is for the 'group'. I don't believe in group rights, but I recognize others do, so I ask; Ecstasy was sold legally in the 1980s. It is sold illegally now. Was society better off when responsible professionals were the custodians, or is the group better off now that criminals who answer to no authority control production and distribution of the product.

 

You just don't know what you're talking about.

 

You seem traveled, you have never been somewhere that didn't have 911?"We don't, for example, allow people to enforce the laws on their own."

As the USAF distributes amphetamines..."[drugs have] no medicinal or nutritional value"

??""I'm not making anybody irresponsible. There are just some things people cannot be expected to manage responsibly on their own."

Tell this to the people at Lysol and Sterno."if you manufacture and distribute a harmful substance, you're legally liable for the harm it causes."

Actually law is supposed to be constrained by liberty. "...has been well established in law in this country that liberty doesn't extend beyond all bounds."

Edited January 23, 2009 by Luckyorwhat

[JWB]

It doesn't matter what used to happen. Today, if hard drugs were legalized, they could not and would not be sold by pharmacists because of legal liability. They could not an would not be manufactured and distributed openly because of legal liability.

 

Legal liability can be waived by act of Congress.

[Guest aevans]

Your logic is flawed as you fail to distinguish between harm done to others and harm done to oneself. You neglect to recognize the principle of harm in any way. By 'protecting' people from themselves you (proverbial you) are the assailant, doing harm to victims. Your concern for stranger's health is noble. Your lack of recognition of them as equals is not. I doubt you would appreciate others ruling over your life as you wish to rule theirs.

 

Nobody is equal. We all have our different talents. What people have a right to is equal opportunity.

 

But I don't place myself above anyone else there, either. I wouldn't trust myself with the substances in question. I truly believe in one rule for everybody. And that doesn't assail or victimize anyone, because these substances can be shown in court to be harmful to many more people than just the users. Furthermore, the users of such substances render themselves so irresponsible that they cannot control whether or not they harm others.

 

These are facts beyond dispute. Are you really here to tell us that it is a person's right to consume a substance that renders them irresponsible in the extreme and a hazard to others? If you are, then you have a sadly mistaken idea of what rights are.

 

"And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country."Luke 4:23

 

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7

 

Meaning what? Rules should be applied equally to all, I never disputed that.

 

As for the second quote, if it were to be followed literally we would have no law except the law of the jungle, enacted by those who didn't care whether or not they were sinners.

 

Hiding behind bureaucratic inertia and esoteric guilds does nothing to further your fundamental argument. I discern that your fundamental concern is for the 'group'. I don't believe in group rights, but I recognize others do, so I ask; Ecstasy was sold legally in the 1980s. It is sold illegally now. Was society better off when responsible professionals were the custodians, or is the group better off now that criminals who answer to no authority control production and distribution of the product.

Once again you evidence an incredibly naive view of both the professions and tort law. Yes, physicians are quite a close little guild, but the government licensure of physicians, based on standards the physicians themselves recommend has been the foundation of modern medicine. Prior to that, nobody knew who they could even begin to trust, and medicine itself was a popularity contest of dueling quackeries that men of clinical science had to compete with directly, because no one was in authority to say, "This is fact-based, that is voodoo."

 

But then you contradict yourself, and the "esoteric guild" becomes "responsible professionals", because you believe they controlled the narcotics trade at some point. Well, they did, to the degree that they presrcibed those drugs to people who they thought could receive medicinal value from them. But the "recreational" use of those drugs was as uncontrolled back then as it is now. I know you don't know this, because you're obviously sloppily (self?) educated, but the 1890s had their crack heads too -- they were called "opium eaters". Their self and family destruction led to the first narcotics laws.

 

To the point of torts, I restate a question I already asked, and which you have yet to answer, which pharmacist is going to sell such dangerous substances, if they were legal? No doctor will prescribe them, because they have no medicinal value when used recreationally. No pharmacist will take it upon himself to sell them over the counter, because the legal liability would be too great. Nobody would dare underwrite or indemnify them. Nobody legitimate would dare touch the stuff as a business.

 

You seem traveled, you have never been somewhere that didn't have 911? "We don't, for example, allow people to enforce the laws on their own."

 

And all people can legally do is defend themselves and their property in extremis. They cannot conduct deterence patrols, criminal investigations, or gather criminal intelligence. They have only very limited arrest powers, which they in fact have no right to actually enforce if the arestee doesn't cooperate.

 

As the USAF distributes amphetamines..."[drugs have] no medicinal or nutritional value"

 

Most drugs don't. and those that do, like amphetimines, have no medicinal value outside of a doctors careful supervision.

 

""I'm not making anybody irresponsible. There are just some things people cannot be expected to manage responsibly on their own."

 

Is there a comment you wish to make here?

 

Tell this to the people at Lysol and Sterno."if you manufacture and distribute a harmful substance, you're legally liable for the harm it causes."

 

Are you serious? You learn in Business Law 101 that unintended uses do not confer liability on the manufacturer of an otherwise useful product. With legalized narcotics, the results of intended use are just the thing that would get manufacturers and distributors in civil court, facing ruinous damages.

 

Actually law is supposed to be constrained by liberty. "...has been well established in law in this country that liberty doesn't extend beyond all bounds."

 

Where do you learn such ignorant drivel? Law exists to protect liberty from irresponsibility.

[DaveDash]

Where? Crack and meth are cheap and ubiquitous. Heroin is a boutique drug these days. Pot is all over the place, but most drug users use it in addition to something else they're doing. The real action is with cheap and deadly speed.

 

Im not sure about the states, but in my experiences in Aus/NZ/UK/parts of Europe - MDMA (Extacy), speed, and to a lesser extent cocain make up a huge percentage of the drug use (and of course, pot).

 

I don't know anyone that does Heroine, I know a few people that smoke crack (and are far from degenerates), but every time you go to a dance party there are 50,000+ people that are on at least MDMA. Some of the biggest drug busts into Melbourne (in the tune of $700 million street value) have all been Extacy. All that money goes into the pockets of criminals, and the users are significantly less harmful to society than your average drunk on the street in the weekend.

 

Just my observations.

Edited January 23, 2009 by DaveDash

[Guest aevans]

...the users are significantly less harmful to society than your average drunk on the street in the weekend.

 

Most MDMA users do not use just MDMA. While the whole "gateway drug" theory is problematic, the reality is that many people who are drawn to drugs, perhaps the majority of them, are drawn to and use many different ones.

[Brian Kennedy]

Most MDMA users do not use just MDMA. While the whole "gateway drug" theory is problematic, the reality is that many people who are drawn to drugs, perhaps the majority of them, are drawn to and use many different ones.

 

Correlation =/= causation. Most heroin addicts have done a variety of other drugs; most people who do "soft drugs" like pot don't do heroin. (To put it even simpler, most smack addicts eat food; most food-eaters don't shoot up).

[Guest aevans]

Correlation =/= causation. Most heroin addicts have done a variety of other drugs; most people who do "soft drugs" like pot don't do heroin. (To put it even simpler, most smack addicts eat food; most food-eaters don't shoot up).

 

Did I not just say that the gateway drug theory was "problematic"? Let me check...why lookie here -- that's exactly what I said. I was reporting the facts of a phenomenon, not making any judgments as to cause. Just because MDMA is perceived to be the drug of choice by volume sold does not mean -- and I think the facts would support that most of the time it does not mean -- that MDMA users use only MDMA. IOW, so what if a lot of kids use MDMA at raves. That doesn't make MDMA the only drug they use, or raves the only place they use drugs.

[Brian Kennedy]

Did I not just say that the gateway drug theory was "problematic"? Let me check...why lookie here -- that's exactly what I said. I was reporting the facts of a phenomenon, not making any judgments as to cause. Just because MDMA is perceived to be the drug of choice by volume sold does not mean -- and I think the facts would support that most of the time it does not mean -- that MDMA users use only MDMA. IOW, so what if a lot of kids use MDMA at raves. That doesn't make MDMA the only drug they use, or raves the only place they use drugs.

 

Where the hell did I say you were in favor of the gateway drug theory? I'm saying that you're wrong about assuming that most people who do soft drugs (ref. your pot-smokers argument earlier) do hard drugs as well, which you're reiterating above.

 

Of course, being a forty-something ex-Marine living in Utah you must be a real expert on youth drug culture...

[Guest aevans]

Where the hell did I say you were in favor of the gateway drug theory? I'm saying that you're wrong about assuming that most people who do soft drugs (ref. your pot-smokers argument earlier) do hard drugs as well, which you're reiterating above.

 

Then why being up the whole causation/correlation thingy? That has nothing to do with the actual numbers.

 

Of course, being a forty-something ex-Marine living in Utah you must be a real expert on youth drug culture...

 

And I know plenty about young people taking drugs -- I was a young person at one time you know, and I not only knew young people in my social life who took drugs, I worked until eight years ago in hospitals, where I saw many more. (All of it in the Los Angeles, CA area, not in Utah.) I'm not a master of the stats, but I'd say from pretty considerable personal experience that a majority of the users of the party drug of choice -- before X we had Ludes, remember? -- are or will become pollydrug users. People that want to use drugs use drugs, as in more than one kind, of varying effects and potencies.

Edited January 23, 2009 by aevans

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

I think by now this thread earned the place in FFZ many times over...