Situation in Mexico getting worse?

[moon]

News clip here
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2009/02/24/T24020924/

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

US State Department issues a travel warning for spring breakers:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_3028.html

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Mexico seems a constant corrupt & violent country. From the US point of view, well past time for the wall along the Rio Grand I've been advocating for years. Build it high & deep & put heavily armed troops on it. No more fuckin around.

And the US should do something about it's drug addiction. Exactly what I don't know right now.

Not certain where to start with this. Perhaps someone better spoken than me can address this properly.

 

[phildwyer]

Mexico seems a constant corrupt & violent country. From the US point of view, well past time for the wall along the Rio Grand I've been advocating for years. Build it high & deep & put heavily armed troops on it. No more fuckin around.

Right. Who's going to pick the tomatos?

 

[phildwyer]

US State Department issues a travel warning for spring breakers:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_3028.html

Pish, these travel alerts are pure BS. It's true that there is a war raging in northern Mexico (and that's no exagerration) but non-combatants are not at risk. At least, Gringo non-combatants are not at risk; I wouldn't fancy being a Mexican woman in Juarez these days. But I'm going to Nogales and Puerto Penasco for Spring Break and no-one is stopping me. Arriba!

 

[chilango]

Mexico seems a constant corrupt & violent country. From the US point of view, well past time for the wall along the Rio Grand I've been advocating for years. Build it high & deep & put heavily armed troops on it. No more fuckin around.

And the US should do something about it's drug addiction. Exactly what I don't know right now.

 

[chilango]

Pish, these travel alerts are pure BS. It's true that there is a war raging in northern Mexico (and that's no exagerration) but non-combatants are not at risk. At least, Gringo non-combatants are not at risk; I wouldn't fancy being a Mexican woman in Juarez these days. But I'm going to Nogales and Puerto Penasco for Spring Break and no-one is stopping me. Arriba!

Quite. I spent quite a lot of time in "lawless" Michoacan etc.

 

[phildwyer]

Quite. I spent quite a lot of time in "lawless" Michoacan etc.

In fact the biggest peril facing Gringos down there *is* the law. The only time I've ever been mugged in TJ (reputedly one of the most dangerous cities in the world) was by la policia.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Pish, these travel alerts are pure BS. It's true that there is a war raging in northern Mexico (and that's no exagerration) but non-combatants are not at risk. At least, Gringo non-combatants are not at risk; I wouldn't fancy being a Mexican woman in Juarez these days. But I'm going to Nogales and Puerto Penasco for Spring Break and no-one is stopping me. Arriba!

Arn't you a bit old for spring break?

I think I'll pass. I tend to get mistaken for a local unless they hear the bad accent.

 

[phildwyer]

Arn't you a bit old for spring break?

Nonsense mi amor! You're never too old to sup jello tequila shots from the navel of a 17 year-old chica caliente. Now sing after me: "Yo soy un hombre sincero, de donde crecen las palmas...."

 

[Fruitloop]

I find myself in complete agreement with this.

 

[TomUS]

Right. Who's going to pick the tomatos?

The way the economy is going, there will probably be quite a few US citizens who'll be willing to. If not, workers who enter the US legally through a guest worker program.

As far as the drug wars in Mexico, legalization of most drugs in the US would be a great help.

 

[Jessiedog]

and it's all down to drugs

Nope.


It's all down to prohibition.


End the "War on Drugs".

It's the only way forward and the only way to end the cycle of prohibition-related gang warfare, corruption and death.





Woof

 

[derf]

Nope.

It's all down to prohibition.

End the "War on Drugs".

It's the only way forward and the only way to end the cycle of prohibition-related gang warfare, corruption and death.



wimper

Look mum, it's that daft plonker again that sounds like a fucking stuck record.
You know mum, the cunt who doesn't give a shit about 6000 murdered people and uses a fucking pie in the sky dream world to try to justify his own selfish stupidity.

 

[extra dry]

sits back to watch derf get f**ked up...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Mexico seems a constant corrupt & violent country.

I wonder why that is, Tom?

From the US point of view, well past time for the wall along the Rio Grand I've been advocating for years. Build it high & deep & put heavily armed troops on it. No more fuckin around.

Except that there are swathes of US interests that don't want to see that happen, and even if it did there'd still be enough corruption for drugs and bodies to get through.
Sectors of your economy (especially your agricultural sector) depend on the cheap labour that an "open" (in relative terms) border provides.

And the US should do something about it's drug addiction. Exactly what I don't know right now.

I suppose they could start by banning US intelligence agencies from using drugs and drug money for funding of covert operations, but hey...

 

[Barking_Mad]

Look mum, it's that daft plonker again that sounds like a fucking stuck record.
You know mum, the cunt who doesn't give a shit about 6000 murdered people and uses a fucking pie in the sky dream world to try to justify his own selfish stupidity.

Your post is 'funny', unfortunately Im not sure you realise why.

 

[phildwyer]

Look mum, it's that daft plonker again that sounds like a fucking stuck record.
You know mum, the cunt who doesn't give a shit about 6000 murdered people and uses a fucking pie in the sky dream world to try to justify his own selfish stupidity.

No idea what you're on about here, but Jessie Dog has demonstrated approximately one billion times more insight into the world and it's problems than you. I suggest you keep quiet and try to learn something for a change.

 

[phildwyer]

Nope.


It's all down to prohibition.


End the "War on Drugs".

It's the only way forward and the only way to end the cycle of prohibition-related gang warfare, corruption and death.

That's right. In fact Mexico itself has shown the way forward here, by introducing "zonas de tolerencia" for drugs and prostitution. Often located within a walled compound, these "zonas" contain a police sub-station and first-aid office, as well as loads of drugs and prostitution. And donkey shows (fake).

 

[Jessiedog]

The more the truth is spoken, the more stupid the naked emperors look.

...arguments about relative drug harms are occurring in an arcane manner, at times taking a quasi-religious character reminiscent of medieval debates about angels and the heads of pins!

The reasons for this are multiple and complex, but one major element is that the drug debate takes place without reference to other causes of harm in society, which tends to give drugs a different, more worrying, status.



This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates –indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others, such as drug use.

There are many risky activities such as base jumping, climbing, bungee jumping, hang-gliding, motorcycling which have harms and risks equal to or worse than many illicit drugs.

Of course, some people engage in so called ‘extreme’ sports specifically because they are dangerous.

Horse riding is not one of these and most of those who engage in it do it for simple pleasure rather than from thrill seeking, almost certainly in complete ignorance of the risks involved. Other similarly dangerous yet fun activities are rugby, quad-biking and boxing. With the exception of boxing, which is outlawed in some European countries, sports are not illegal despite their undoubted harms.



So why are harmful sporting activities allowed, whereas relatively less harmful drugs are not?


I believe this reflects a societal approach which does not adequately balance the relative risks of drugs against their harms.

It is also a failure to understand the motivations of, particularly younger people, who take drugs and their assessment of the perceived risks compared with other activities.

The general public, especially the younger generation, are disillusioned with the lack of balanced political debate about drugs.

......


The use of rational evidence for the assessment of the harms of drugs will be one step forward to the development of a credible drugs strategy.

(My Bold.)





http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/23/1/3





I say, the emperor has no clothes.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Another measured, reasoned and sober voice, thank you Danny Kushlick.......

Drugs Prohibition - Child protection or Protection Racket




..........“To prevent them from turning to drug misuse, they must also be protected from drug dealers and the pressures of living in neighbourhoods where drugs are too often an everyday reality.”.........

......“…we will prevent young people from using drugs by maintaining prohibition which deters use…”......

UK Government’s Updated Drug Strategy 2002




......“To punish the evil of drug pushers who poison our children: I want the tough new powers…”.....

....“…we will send out a clear message that drugs are never going to be decriminalised.”.......

Gordon Brown’s speech to Labour Party Conference, Sept 2007



..............................


Protection racket – an extortion scheme whereby a powerful entity coerces other less powerful entities to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase "protection" services against external threats. (Wikipedia)


...............................


Many times over the last ten years the Government has repeated its assertion that being ‘tough on drugs’ means backing prohibition to the hilt. But is it protecting those it claims to, or is it a racket?

All the evidence shows that illegal drug use has increased massively under prohibition. In 1971 when the Misuse of Drugs Act came into force there were about 5000 heroin users. There are now over 300 000. Hundreds of thousands more use cocaine and ecstasy and millions regularly smoke cannabis. None of these users has access to minimum standards in quality control or product information (including levels of concentration or safer use guides).

Entire nation states have become politically and economically destabilised as a result of becoming dependent upon the illegal drugs trade; witness Afghanistan, Colombia, SE Asia and the Caribbean.


The economics of prohibition are simple: a totally deregulated supply chain that is heavily demand-led creates a situation where very low value agricultural produce becomes literally worth more than its weight in gold at the point of retail. Profit margins of 16 000% attract organised crime and paramilitary organisations. Peasants are forced to grow opium and coca for the cartels and warlords in order to survive and poverty stricken individuals in transit countries become drug mules to make an ‘easy’ buck.

At the consumer end, turf wars become endemic and property crime soars as dependent users resort to property crime to support their habit. (It is now estimated that in the UK half of all property crime and half of the prison population exists because of fundraising to support a heroin or crack habit.) The Home Office estimates the crime costs of heroin and crack use at £16 billion a year. Added to which the UK illegal drug trade is estimated to be worth £7 billion a year. The estimate for the global turnover in illegal drugs each year is $320 billion.

During the general election campaign in 2001 I asked Tony Blair at a public event whether prohibition created more crime than it solved. His answer: “I’m terrified for my kids.” This is a prime example of the way that fear is used to create the perception of a great threat to the section of society that is generally recognised as being the most vulnerable and therefore, the most in need of protection. Any evidence that shows that the current regime might increase harm to this group must be dismissed through politicians’ articulation of an imminent terror. One has to ask, who and what exactly is being protected by prohibition? It certainly isn’t the children running drugs on UK and US sink estates or the children of opium and coca growing peasants, for whom Gordon Brown’s heart so obviously bleeds.

Given that prohibition demonstrably puts children (and adults) at increased risk, for whom does the racket work? As described above, it is the global regime of prohibition that creates what appears to be an external threat. The Government (wittingly or not) maintains that ‘threat’ and then ‘extracts’ further money to pay for the continued enforcement of the prohibition. Lastly it ‘extracts’ far more again for the costs of the collateral damage that accrues from pursuing a war on drugs. And so it goes.

But the racket doesn’t end there. Our taxes spent on pursing prohibition effectively pay for the populist grandstanding of power hungry politicians, for whom drug war rhetoric is high value political capital. The racket also fills the coffers of enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies and the anti-drugs military forces. As explained above, global prohibition effectively acts as a price support mechanism for illegal drugs and provides a monopoly supply for organised crime. Under the auspices of the ‘war on drugs’ the US engages in imperial adventurism in parts of the world in which it wishes to have influence.

The brilliance of this racket is that anyone wanting to quit paying ‘protection money’ will be vilified as being ‘soft on drugs’. This analysis becomes even more obvious in the political parties, as those who depart from the status quo are whipped back into drug war ‘racketeering’.

This is not to suggest that prohibition is based upon a conspiracy of government agencies to extract money from unwitting tax payers. The prohibition ‘racket’ arises from an historical accretion of influences that have created perverse opportunities for some very powerful entities that will make the most of the situation, for as long as they can. But the status quo is not tenable in the longer term.

The argument for legally regulating drugs is counterintuitive, does not lend itself to simple sound bites and is no panacea for promoting children’s wellbeing. However, legal regulation is the “least worst” solution, the only effective, just and humane system for managing the trade and use of powerful psychoactive drugs. Increasingly the prohibition racket is being exposed to the light and this, combined with prohibition’s inherent ability to produce precisely the opposite of what is claimed for it, make it a very fragile policy.




Transform believes that we could put these ‘racketeers’ out of business within a decade. Then, perhaps we could explore how we might better protect our children.

There is no avoiding the truth.

An election will not be enough.





Woof

 

[TomUS]

Except that there are swathes of US interests that don't want to see that happen, and even if it did there'd still be enough corruption for drugs and bodies to get through.
Sectors of your economy (especially your agricultural sector) depend on the cheap labour that an "open" (in relative terms) border provides.

Yep, there are powerful business & gov interests in the US & Mexico that thrive on 3rd world labor flowing to the US. There's a constant political battle over it. I think the recession will tilt the battle against the illegal alien industry in the US (& other developed countries) & the drug wars spilling over the border into the US will further reduce public tolerance of this industry.

I suppose they could start by banning US intelligence agencies from using drugs and drug money for funding of covert operations, but hey...

But hey, I think that has very little to do with the overall demand for drugs in the US. Plenty of drugs flow from the 3rd world to Europe as well.

 

[Yossarian]

Look mum, it's that daft plonker again that sounds like a fucking stuck record.
You know mum, the cunt who doesn't give a shit about 6000 murdered people and uses a fucking pie in the sky dream world to try to justify his own selfish stupidity.

Yep, the guy whose wacko, far-out opinions are only echoed by the former presidents of Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia, who were among America's firmest allies in the 'war on drugs' during their time in power...

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN11358345

 

[TomUS]

Yep, the guy whose wacko, far-out opinions are only echoed by the former presidents of Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia, who were among America's firmest allies in the 'war on drugs' during their time in power...

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN11358345

Yep the war on drugs has been a total disaster for the consuming countries as well as the producing ones. Time for some legalization/decriminalization/increased addiction treatment.

 

[chilango]

As far as Mexico goes the whole prohibition vs criminalisation thing is imo a bit of a red herring.

If a legalised industry, it would still be in the hands of gangsters, maybe different gangs, but gangsters all the same.

A withdrawal by the Mexican army from pursuing its armed propaganda war on behalf of the Calderon regime however might help, a little.

 

[phildwyer]

As far as Mexico goes the whole prohibition vs criminalisation thing is imo a bit of a red herring.

If a legalised industry, it would still be in the hands of gangsters, maybe different gangs, but gangsters all the same.

Is there anything of any importance in Mexico that is *not* in the hands of gangsters?

 

[derf]

Yep the war on drugs has been a total disaster for the consuming countries as well as the producing ones. Time for some legalization/decriminalization/increased addiction treatment.

Or, even better, time for the selfish fucking idiots who use drugs to pack their daft habit in and get a real life.

That would work better.

edited to add: Saves all that fucking about in rehab trying to get away from the crap that destroyed your life as well.

 

[Jessiedog]

Or, even better, time for the selfish fucking idiots who use drugs to pack their daft habit in and get a real life.

That would work better.

edited to add: Saves all that fucking about in rehab trying to get away from the crap that destroyed your life as well.

Oh God!

Oh God!





Woof

 

[yield]

No idea what you're on about here, but Jessie Dog has demonstrated approximately one billion times more insight into the world and it's problems than you. I suggest you keep quiet and try to learn something for a change.

Yes.

See what you did derf! You made me agree with phildwyer...

 

[_float_]

If a legalised industry, it would still be in the hands of gangsters, maybe different gangs, but gangsters all the same.

If it was a legalised industry the cocaine would be transported directly from the Andes to America and wouldn't transit Mexico at all. It would also be in the hands of large corporations - like coffee for example.

If it was legalised why would gangsters get involved in the industry any more than in coffee growing/processing/distribution?