http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123518102536038463.html

 

 

 

Detective Ramon Jasso was heading to work in this bustling city a few days ago when an SUV pulled alongside and slowed ominously. Within seconds, gunmen fired 97 bullets at the 37-year-old policeman, killing him instantly.

 

 

 

Mr. Jasso had been warned. The day before, someone called his cellphone and said he would be killed if he didn't immediately release a young man who had been arrested for organizing a violent protest in support of the city's drug gangs. The demonstrators were demanding that the Mexican army withdraw from the drug war. The protests have since spread from Monterrey -- once a model of order and industry -- to five other cities.

 

 

 

Much as Pakistan is fighting for survival against Islamic radicals, Mexico is waging a do-or-die battle with the world's most powerful drug cartels. Last year, some 6,000 people died in drug-related violence here, more than twice the number killed the previous year. The dead included several dozen who were beheaded, a chilling echo of the scare tactics used by Islamic radicals. Mexican drug gangs even have an unofficial religion: They worship La Santa Muerte, a Mexican version of the Grim Reaper.

 

 

 

It seems as though Mexico is going to be one of Obama's biggest challenges in the coming years. Many analysts have said that Mexico poses a bigger threat to the security of the United States than radical terrorists (I can't find my link for this...). This uprising in violence and essential "take over" of many border cities, mixed with public reception of marijuana 1, could lead to a more sensible drug policy in America.

 

 

 

Decriminalization among all drugs is a must. A sensible gun policy along the border may very well be necessary as well, as approximately 90% of the weaponry among the drug cartels come legally from US gun shops/shows 2. Eventually, our National Guard is going to have to go into Mexican border cities because the Mexican government can't find enough clean cops and military personal for Calderon's anti-Cartel efforts. It hasn't reached the point of a narco-state, yet. However, it is fast approaching the levels of one. The Mexican Army can currently contain the cartels, but for how long?

 

 

 

Will this be the catalyst for the beginning of the end to the failed US Drug War? Or will we continue down the same path that we always have? Eric Holder recently called America as a nation of cowards when it comes to race issues, and I would agree with him. However, Mr. Holder had better ramp up some serious changes with respect to drug policy in America, or he is a part of those cowards himself.

The so-called drug war never will end. When people want something and are willing to pay for it, somebody will supply it. The only way to put a dent into it is to legalize marijuana, and even then the more extreme drugs will still have some demand.

The so-called drug war never will end. When people want something and are willing to pay for it, somebody will supply it. The only way to put a dent into it is to legalize marijuana, and even then the more extreme drugs will still have some demand.

 

I think he's talking about this literal war.

 

 

 

Yeah, this is pretty bad. You aren't even allowed to walk along the border in El Paso any more, when last year my mother and brother walked around alone in its neighbor, Cuidad Juarez. Pretty insane.

The so-called drug war never will end. When people want something and are willing to pay for it, somebody will supply it. The only way to put a dent into it is to legalize marijuana, and even then the more extreme drugs will still have some demand.

 

 

 

Um, the policies called, "The War on Drugs" is something proposed by the US, not some gang war battle about drugs (1).

 

 

 

The most extreme drugs are the cause for concern with respect to these cartels, they barely even deal in marijuana. Legalizing marijuana is the first step, and you could even combine decriminalizing all other drugs with the legalization of marijuana. Decriminalization is really the only first step that I see towards making these cartels lose some of their power. We can go from there when we figure out how to truly stop them.

completely agree with everything youre saying mage

The so-called drug war never will end. When people want something and are willing to pay for it, somebody will supply it. The only way to put a dent into it is to legalize marijuana, and even then the more extreme drugs will still have some demand.

 

 

 

Um, the policies called, "The War on Drugs" is something proposed by the US, not some gang war battle about drugs (1).

 

 

 

The most extreme drugs are the cause for concern with respect to these cartels, they barely even deal in marijuana. Legalizing marijuana is the first step, and you could even combine decriminalizing all other drugs with the legalization of marijuana. Decriminalization is really the only first step that I see towards making these cartels lose some of their power. We can go from there when we figure out how to truly stop them.

 

 

 

I agree with you 100%. Criminalising drug use will never solve the 'problem'. Education is the way forward.

 

 

 

Here's a link I think will interest you that is relevant, it deals with a conversation/interview between Bill Maher and Ron Paul...

 

 

 

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ron_Paul_ ... _0221.html

 

 

 

For those too lazy to check the link I'll post the parts I find most interesting...

 

 

 

"What about when FDR came to office in '33," asked Maher. "One of the first things he did was repeal prohibition. He said we can't afford this anymore. Well, we have prohibition in this country. ... When he was making radical changes he said look, we're serious now. We're going to make serious changes and people like liquor... Well, in this country, people like pot," said Maher to a wave of cheers and applause. "If we ended that prohibition, that would be a giant pooling of money."

 

 

 

 

"I don't like pot," said the congressman. "But I hate the drug war, so I would repeal all of prohibition. But, I wouldn't even bother taxing it. People have the right in a free country to make important decisions on their own lives. If they want to make mistakes, they can. They just can't come crawling to the government to get bailed out or taken care of if they get sick.

 

 

 

"I believe in freedom of choice in all that we do, as long as the individual never hurts anybody else. So that means I would get rid of all the federal laws. I would dispose with the drug war. We're spending tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars on this, then we march into places like California, override state law, arrest sick people and put them in prison."

I believe all drugs should be legal, even the really bad ones. As long as the individual is not hurting anyone else except themselves there should be no law against it.

 

 

 

Here's an interesting picture about 6 different drugs:

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Here is another one:

 

I'm simply astonished how ignorant some people are about ecstasy. Pure MDMA is one of the least harmful drugs out there (much less so then cannabis, and obviously smoking and alchohol) and yet it's classified along with meth and crack.

 

It's a much better, calmer, more in control amazing high then cannabis I don't see why there's so many campaigns and fuss about weed, then XTC. Kinda offtopic but yes.

 

 

 

The drug wars will never end, unless all these ridicules laws about drugs are repelled. Or at least eliminate a huge portion of it for calm-soft drugs such as Marijuana (major cutdown for drug dealers), Ecstasy, LSD and a couple of other. Drinking should definitely be banned tho.

As someone addicted to Caffeine, those graphs suprise me about weed and X being less addictive, I disagree out of sheer experience of knowing others on or who use both.

 

 

 

 

 

I can only see weed being legalized and still even then - doubtful. I personally believe many more deaths will occur while drugs are still profitable. I don't feel legalizing weed is an answer to it, but I don't feel one death will spark a final attack on drugs.

As someone addicted to Caffeine, those graphs suprise me about weed and X being less addictive, I disagree out of sheer experience of knowing others on or who use both.

 

 

 

 

 

I can only see weed being legalized and still even then - doubtful. I personally believe many more deaths will occur while drugs are still profitable. I don't feel legalizing weed is an answer to it, but I don't feel one death will spark a final attack on drugs.

 

 

 

Really? Millions are addicted to caffeine, and they simply do not know it. I'm not addicted to anything, I don't think. I have no real withdrawal symptoms with regard to cigarettes, marijuana, caffeine, or alcohol; at least I don't think I have any withdrawal symptoms from marijuana. They're a tad harder to pin point, as one of them is simply, "grouchiness", but I digress.

 

 

 

Second, I think the way that it begins to be rolled back is through the state initiatives. They're getting more and more popular when placed on ballots, and marijuana is as good as legal in California because of how lax their medical marijuana laws are. Massachusetts just decriminalized small possession, and it's now only a fine of $100 and confiscation. However, because the prison systems aren't profiting by throwing people in jail anymore, $100 is such junk change that they barely even enforce it (unless it's just extremely blatant).

I've been trying to cut down from 5-7 mountain dews a day to 1-2 soda a day over the past few years, It was painfully obvious I was addicted to it as I made the change.

I drank 4-7 cans of pop daily a few years ago. I changed to drink the sugarless, caffeine free pop, but I still drink 1-2 a day. When you change your habits, or realize what you're doing, it becomes much more obvious how consumed you are by what you eat/drink.

 

 

 

Legalizing any drug for any use, isn't acceptable. Cannabis should only be legalized for medical reasons, with prescriptions. As I'm pretty sure there's drugs that are less harmful than cannabis but are still only legal for medical personal to prescribe.

 

 

 

Still Mexico has always had a history a drugs and violence, I really don't think it's that bad as it has been, but we're certainly seeing a peak. If this peak continues for a several months, then something more than now needs to be done, but any longer will have long-term effects.

I drank 4-7 cans of pop daily a few years ago. I changed to drink the sugarless, caffeine free pop, but I still drink 1-2 a day. When you change your habits, or realize what you're doing, it becomes much more obvious how consumed you are by what you eat/drink.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

Glad it wasn't just me

 

 

 

 

 

I think weed could be legal, no worse than getting drunk IMO

its a no win situation either way.

 

 

 

if you legalize it there will be a greater tax revenue for the government, plus the millions saved on the war, but it might cause outrage from parents who will see it as an incentive for their children to try it and might get hooked.

 

 

 

if it stays illegal drugs will still cross the boarder as long as there is demand.

 

 

 

obviously legalizing it is better as long as proper safe guards are met such as setting up a national regersty system where only specific amounts of each substance can be bought over certain time frames to reduce misuse.

such as setting up a national regersty system where only specific amounts of each substance can be bought over certain time frames to reduce misuse.

 

This would be costly, unrealistic and unnecessary. Imagine if something similar was put in place with alcohol use. :lol:

 

 

 

I'm simply astonished how ignorant some people are about ecstasy. Pure MDMA is one of the least harmful drugs out there (much less so then cannabis, and obviously smoking and alchohol) and yet it's classified along with meth and crack.

 

 

 

It's a much better, calmer, more in control amazing high then cannabis I don't see why there's so many campaigns and fuss about weed, then XTC. Kinda offtopic but yes.

 

Less harmful than cannabis? You will need to provide sources for that.

 

 

 

MDMA can have strong psychedelic effects. It's use can result in the same bad trips, flashbacks and HPPD that are attributed to LSD and psilocybin[1]. MDMA also has a much higher risk of fatal overdose than cannabis, something which children are particularly vulnerable to, and have even died from[2]. MDMA's neurotoxicity, while not conclusively established, has also been at the centre of debate among researchers. Risks such as behavioural changes and long-term memory deficits has been suggested[3][4]. Other evidence suggests that MDMA may create complications such as fatal neurologic effects (e.g. subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral infarction, or intracranial bleeds[5][6]) and liver failure[7]. Lockjaw and teeth grinding are other subtle problems that can be seen during an MDMA trip; both of which are difficult to control. There is also a considerable amount of evidence to suggest poor psychomotor control while under the influence of MDMA (i.e. you are not necessarily as "in control" as you suggest)[8]. Lastly, misuse of MDMA can produce physiological problems that can and often do lead to death; this includes hyponatremia (from drinking too much water), hyperthermia (high heat from too much dancing) and serotonin syndrome (too much serotonin is released; often the result of mixing 5-HTP and MDMA in order to reduce the depressive after-effects).

 

 

 

All in all, while MDMA is relatively safe compared to alcohol and cigarettes, it is generally considered more harmful than a drug like cannabis, particularly when compared to non-smoked cannabis (i.e. vapourized). It's effects also tend to be seen as less predictable and less sedating than cannabis, and more stimulating (it is, after all, a stimulant).

I believe all drugs should be legal, even the really bad ones. As long as the individual is not hurting anyone else except themselves there should be no law against it.

 

 

 

Here's an interesting picture about 6 different drugs:

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

EDIT: Here is another one:

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

The first chart is a subjective ranking made by just one health professional; Dr. Jack E. Henningfield.

 

 

 

The second study, minus the World of Warcraft addition, is a little more reliable, but it is still merely the results of subjective rankings from various health professionals[1].

 

 

 

Both marijuana and caffeine are habit-forming substances with low physical addiction potential. Some individuals will prefer the stimulating effects of coffee, and thus may be more at risk of caffeine dependence, while others may prefer the sedating and euphoric effects of marijuana, and thus may be more at risk of cannabis dependence. It's difficult to suggest which one is "more addicting" than the other, as addiction potential from either depends so strongly on the individual and their environment.

Marijuana should probably be legalized, its not much more harmful then already legal stuff(cigarretes and alcohol specifically). Also, its not as if banning marijuana has actually hurt its availability, does anyone believe the illegal status has made it harder for school children to get the stuff? If legalized, the tax money is one clear benefit, another is the harm it would cause to illegal dealers. With a legal marijuana it can be assumed that some company would begin to produce and undercut street dealers, this would lead to a fall in crime, and allow police to focus on more serious drugs such as heroin that have a much more harmful effect on society.

The so-called drug war never will end. When people want something and are willing to pay for it, somebody will supply it. The only way to put a dent into it is to legalize marijuana, and even then the more extreme drugs will still have some demand.

 

 

 

Um, the policies called, "The War on Drugs" is something proposed by the US, not some gang war battle about drugs (1).

 

 

 

The most extreme drugs are the cause for concern with respect to these cartels, they barely even deal in marijuana. Legalizing marijuana is the first step, and you could even combine decriminalizing all other drugs with the legalization of marijuana. Decriminalization is really the only first step that I see towards making these cartels lose some of their power. We can go from there when we figure out how to truly stop them.

 

 

 

Wait, I'm sorry. Are you pushing for the decriminalization of cocaine, meth, and other drugs that are proven to be EXTREMELY bad for you?

 

 

 

These drugs are not bad because of the drug trade, their crime against humanity is rooted in the distributor/buyer relationship. Even if legalized, only the wealthy will be able to afford them (like it is now) which they can distribute amongst the poor in the ability to keep them coming back for more...like now. Putting a tax on it's sale is essentially profiting off of people's misery and exploitation. It's also a pretty bourgeois thing to say, considering this is you. Screwing the poor for the benefit of the rich, and so on.

 

 

 

Sure, you may hurt the cartels. Or you can make them expand their networks with no repercussions. Never mind the blatant disregard for Americans who are going to be getting hooked and dying with no legal recourse (hell, the distributors would have legal protection, actually). This is like dropping a nuclear bomb where a bullet might have sufficed.

 

 

 

How about instead of legalizing narcotics, we give one rifle, a handful of bullets, and some intelligence to the Mexican authorities and tell them if they can't grow a pair of balls, we will march in their country and do it ourselves. Set a nice precedent for the South Americans, while we are at it.

 

 

 

Marijuana can be argued and debated as being "harmless" all day and all night. Narcotics are a completely different category of drug that have profound health impacts even after the first use and are extremely addictive. While we are at it, let's re-legalize slavery to end the illegal slave trade that has cropped up in the US. Because it exists, and Mexicans are smuggled across the border much more than drugs. That ought to put a dampener on the slaver's profits. Or will it?

 

 

 

Also, this thread is crack full of half-baked speculation, subjective sources, and crackpot theories. All referring to people other than magekllr. I thought his post was great, except for the little bit that launched my tirade above.

Why not legalize all drugs and just tax the hell out of them? We'd make a crap load of money, the people would be happy, and there would be 6,000 less deaths per year.

 

 

 

Aren't you forgetting something? Oh yeah, the people dying from drug use.

 

 

 

Cocaine in it's purest form is dangerous, but not necessarily lethal. Problem is that it's expensive, even if it would be legalized. The poor would still be turning to unrefined or dirty drugs to get their fixes. The gangs centered around illegal drugs would still be there, so would the crackhouses and prostitution.

 

 

 

It's the exact same game except the government makes the money, not the cartels.

Wait, I'm sorry. Are you pushing for the decriminalization of cocaine, meth, and other drugs that are proven to be EXTREMELY bad for you?

 

 

 

Yes. Why should they be criminals with criminal records for using drugs? They should be getting help to treat their addictions, not thrown into prison where it will undoubtedly grow worse. I also find it ridiculous to throw the users in prison because prisons are an industry like anything else. The more people in jail, the more they profit. Not only that, but we subsidize their profit with our taxes. It's asinine. I don't mind throwing tax money at prisons because we certainly need them, but the whole way it operates needs to be restructured.

 

 

 

These drugs are not bad because of the drug trade, their crime against humanity is rooted in the distributor/buyer relationship.

 

 

 

Come again? The amount of people dying in these gang wars in the US, and these drug wars between cartels in Mexico are causing far more problems than people using drugs on themselves. Bringing a more sensible drug policy to America than making it criminal is a better approach.

 

 

 

Even if legalized, only the wealthy will be able to afford them (like it is now) which they can distribute amongst the poor in the ability to keep them coming back for more...like now.

 

 

 

Well I'm not calling for legalization, at least not at this point. I'm not even calling for marijuana legalization at this point until the whole system/education is restructured. I'm saying that they shouldn't be criminals for using drugs, just like people aren't criminals for using alcohol.

 

 

 

Second, if legalized, they'd be far...far cheaper. Being legal, they wouldn't under any sensible way be distributed through the rich anyway, I'd consider this an FDA matter like anything else. However, I'm not calling for legalization, just decriminalization.

 

 

 

utting a tax on it's sale is essentially profiting off of people's misery and exploitation.

 

 

 

Cigarettes, alcohol...some wouldn't exactly call it misery, either. Plenty of people profit off of exploiting others, through other industries. It shouldn't be encouraged, but it's not a justifiable reason to make something illegal. Alright, that's poor wording, as it should definitely be illegal to exploit children for 18 hours of work a day, but I think you understand what I am saying.

 

 

 

It's also a pretty bourgeois thing to say, considering this is you. Screwing the poor for the benefit of the rich, and so on.

 

 

 

They already get screwed and exploited with the current laws that we have, as minorities and poor people are targeted. It'd be better if it was federally regulated. We could also use the money taxed to build infrastructure and provide health care benefits. Although I'm more communal than individual...

 

 

 

We could also control the dosage, which is very important with regard to addiction and cost. Heroine addicts are gotten off the stuff from small doses from Methadone Clinics.

 

 

 

Never mind the blatant disregard for Americans who are going to be getting hooked and dying with no legal recourse

 

 

 

Well I don't believe there would be that many people getting hooked if we had proper education in schools, at least not anymore than there currently are (which is a slim slim minority). The health care costs to take care of such people would also be smaller than waging a war against prohibition. I mean, think about cigarettes. Proper education throughout the years has led to a reduction in the amount of people smoking 1. That's a fairly significant reduction, and I would venture to guess that the 1965 group smoked more often than the group in the present.

 

 

 

How about instead of legalizing narcotics, we give one rifle, a handful of bullets, and some intelligence to the Mexican authorities and tell them if they can't grow a pair of balls, we will march in their country and do it ourselves. Set a nice precedent for the South Americans, while we are at it.

 

 

 

 

Because that's an act of preemptive war, and an invasion of a sovereign nation. I suppose America's history shows that we really don't care about the sovereignty of other nations, but I do. Doing something like this would be very illegal, and violate so many other international laws. We'd lose far more soldiers in the process, kill thousands of civilians, and only propagate the problem. They might be staved off for a while, but they'll be back. You're trying to treat a cancer by addressing the patient's cold sweats.

 

 

 

Marijuana can be argued and debated as being "harmless" all day and all night.

 

 

 

Yeah I usually don't hold these people with high regard. Marijuana certainly can cause health problems, and it certainly is addictive. Although the withdrawal symptoms are more or less harmless and cannot cause death, they're still there (loss of appetite, grouchy behavior, some experience headaches and nausea). It has not, however, caused cancer, and repeated studies have shown it reduces cancer. As a matter of fact, another one was done recently (I can't find the recent one, so how's 2007? 2).

 

 

 

Narcotics are a completely different category of drug that have profound health impacts even after the first use and are extremely addictive.

 

 

 

So can alcohol and tobacco. Withdrawal from alcohol, if severe enough, can easily kill a person. It's not a reason to keep something illegal, and it's most certainly NOT a reason to keep it a criminal activity.

 

 

 

While we are at it, let's re-legalize slavery to end the illegal slave trade that has cropped up in the US.

 

 

 

No, but this directly affects other people. Moreover, prostitution is a strong contributor to this trade, and it should definitely be legalized (prostitution).

 

 

 

I agree with some of the rest of your post, but venomai knows what he is talking about. I don't think anything should be outright legal, not when we have no real grasp of historical precedent of when it once was legal (such as with alcohol and prohibition). It should be slow, and start with decriminalization. A "Drug War" CAN work, but I'm not so sure it can work in our context. Take Sweden, for example. Drugs are illegal to use, including marijuana...yet they have the fewest people in prison, and the lowest drug use among most Western countries. What are they doing different? They don't have a prison industrial complex, and they treat their patients like patients and not criminals. The patients are also offered schooling and job opportunities to better their lives. It's how we approach the "drug war" that's essential. Although, as I said, I have ideological problems with the drug war in itself, but it CAN be successful if implemented the right way (I don't know if it would work in our context because of Mexico being there).

Wait, I'm sorry. Are you pushing for the decriminalization of cocaine, meth, and other drugs that are proven to be EXTREMELY bad for you?

 

A lot of substances (e.g. alcohol) can be "extremely bad for you." This does not mean that criminalizing their use and possession (e.g. American Prohibition) is necessarily the best route of action, nor does it mean that the government should necessarily have power over how you use your body and mind.

 

 

 

Even if legalized, only the wealthy will be able to afford them (like it is now) ... Problem is that it's expensive, even if it would be legalized.

 

The cost of cocaine in Columbia is about $2 per gram[1]. The high prices of these drugs in America is not due to their production costs. If cocaine and meth were to be decriminalized/legalized, their price would likely drop substantially.

 

 

 

Putting a tax on it's sale is essentially profiting off of people's misery and exploitation.

 

And putting a tax on the sale of cigarettes/alcohol is not an exploitation?

 

 

 

Never mind the blatant disregard for Americans who are going to be getting hooked and dying with no legal recourse (hell, the distributors would have legal protection, actually).

 

Alcohol kills more people than all illicit drugs combined; however, it would be ludicrous to start prosecuting the manufacturers and distributors of alcohol for the misuse of their drug by the general public.

 

 

 

While we are at it, let's re-legalize slavery to end the illegal slave trade that has cropped up in the US.

 

Personal use and/or possession of a drug is not analogous to personal use and/or possession of another person against their will. :lol:

Forgive me, I misunderstood decriminalization as legalization. That makes a ton more sense. I agree with that assessment, I was thinking decriminalization in the sense of legalizing the narcotics. That was driving me insane.

 

 

 

I fully support detox programs and things like that for first timers and that distributors should be the ones going to jail. I fully disagree on legalizing prostitution but this debate isn't really about that. Sorry for causing a fuss.

 

 

 

I do believe that legalization and taxation of these products would be a very bad thing. However, people who habitually abuse these drugs and begin to drain the detox programs should probably have some legal discourse enforced on them. Would that be considered fair?

 

 

 

How about instead of legalizing narcotics, we give one rifle, a handful of bullets, and some intelligence to the Mexican authorities and tell them if they can't grow a pair of balls, we will march in their country and do it ourselves. Set a nice precedent for the South Americans, while we are at it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have no idea what are you talking about. Drug cartels are alot more powerful than the police and the army.

 

 

 

--------

 

 

 

Mexico has a very big problem with drugs, as i'm Mexican, i live on it and it's seriously sad to see that. Felip Calderon is a good president, the problem is in the rank on police and the army. Most of the people that are captured for drug dealing are ex-marines.

 

 

 

In fact, it's so bad that a month ago 4 persons were shot about 2-3 blocks from my house. A complete family was killed because the man was a cousin of a rival drug dealer from a rival cartel.

 

 

 

I am very sick of that, every day i see the same newspaper headline

 

 

 

"Van 75 muertos en el Pais, llega a mas de 100 muertos en 2 meses"

 

 

 

Everytime i turn on the radio, i can hear people debating the issue. It has been said numerous times, that if this is not stopped, our next president might aswell be a drug dealer. I'm afraid that might be true.

That's gotta be scary. And I assume you're relatively wealthy, right?

That's gotta be scary. And I assume you're relatively wealthy, right?

 

 

 

 

 

If i wanted to be classified, it would be something like upper middle class.

 

 

 

Yea, you could assume that.