Whiteguy, I am very well read on the subject, forgive my blatant use of sarcasm. Easily transmitted in person, not on the internet.

 

 

 

I agree that corruption affects Mexico in the law enforcement agencies and military. But at some point they really do need to take control of their country back from the cartels. Even if that means asking for outside assistance. The cartels can network with Mexican officials all they want, but if Mexico invited the US in to deal with this the cartels would be naked and exposed. The problem is that politicians are worried about retribution and rightly so, but also because they fear what happened to Mexico the last time the US decided to stop by and intervene (the Pancho Villa crisis during the Revolution).

 

 

 

It's really a sad state of affairs, but something does need to be done.

 

 

 

I'm sorry if I came across as being ignorant. I'm told I have a flair for the dramatic at times.

Drugs will always be a part of society. That's why there is currently the case for Harm Minimisation. Almost every person in the world has access to some psychoactive drug and most people in Australia use at least one, regularly!

 

 

 

Decisions about which drugs should be legal and which ones should be banned have rarely been based on any scientific determination of innate risk or danger of the particular substance. For example "Kava" was used by the aboriginals originally for tribal and ritual reasons but was soon abused as a legal-psychoactive drug. Or Benzodiazepines, which are legitimately available over the counter with a prescription but can be sold illegally on the streets.

 

 

 

In Muslim countries alcohol is subject to controls similar to those that apply in most Australian states to marijuana. Yet these same Muslim states allow the use of hash or marijuana.

 

 

 

Neither prohibitionist law-enforcement policies, nor prevention through information and education strategies, have succeeded in curbing either the supply of drugs or the demand for them. Many treatment responses have only moderate success. Hence the "harm minimisation" approach was introduced. Harm minimisation tries to assess the actual harm associated with any particular drug and asks how this harm could be minimised or reduced.

 

 

 

This approach accepts that:

 

* psychoactive substances are and will continue to be a part of our society

 

* their eradication is impossible

 

* the continuation of attempts to eradicate them many result in maximising net harms for society.

 

 

 

Attempts to reduce the adverse consequences of illicit drug use are almost always successful, while attempts to eliminate harm are often inadvertently counterproductive.

 

 

 

Wodak, 2000, p. 199

 

 

 

This is especially the case when focus turns to eliminating use (demand) or supply.

 

 

 

Prior to the development of this approach, many workers in the drug and alcohol field had been facing contradictions in their own domains; domains such as the prevention of drug use, the treatment of users, and the search for humane and consistent policies. The accumulated knowledge of such contradictions contributed for the need to build this new harm minimisation approach.

 

 

 

For example when there was a HIV outbreak in Australia and we decided to make a legal needle exchange program in attempts to reduce the spread of HIV, it was successful. This measure is recognised as a major reason the rate of spread of HIV in the heterosexual community has been lower here than in comparable countries such as the United States, where the idea remained illegal (Health Outcomes International, 2002.)

 

 

 

Generally speaking, strategies to reduce drug-related harm can be characterised in one or more of the following ways:

 

 

 

* demand reducation (education & treatment)

 

* supply reducation ( regulation & law enforcement)

 

* environmental responses that aim to assist drug users to use their drugs in the safest possible manner

 

 

 

All of the aforementioned strategies can be used in the harm minimisation approach.

 

 

 

I could go on for pages but I'll just sit back and see what everyone else has to say and then comment.

PHOENIX The raging drug war among cartels in Mexico and their push to expand operations in the United States has led to a wave of kidnappings, shootings and home invasions in Arizona, state and federal officials said at a legislative hearing on Monday.

 

 

 

The drug trade has long brought violence to the state, which serves as a hub as illicit drugs, like cocaine and marijuana, and illegal immigrants are smuggled to the rest of the nation.

 

 

 

Over all, in this city and surrounding Maricopa County, homicides and violent crime decreased last year. But the authorities are sounding an alarm over what they consider changing tactics in border-related crime that bear the marks of the violence in Mexico.

 

 

 

A home invasion here last year was carried out by attackers wielding military-style rifles and dressed in uniforms similar to a Phoenix police tactical unit. The discovery of grenades and other military-style weaponry bound for Mexico is becoming more routine, as is hostage-taking and kidnapping for ransom, law enforcement officials said.

 

 

 

The Phoenix police regularly receive reports involving a border-related kidnapping or hostage-taking in a home.

 

 

 

The Maricopa County attorneys office said such cases rose to 241 last year from 48 in 2004, though investigators are not sure of the true number because they believe many crimes go unreported.

 

 

 

The violence in Mexico where more than 6,000 people were killed in the last year in drug-related violence, double the number of the previous year is reaching into Arizona, and that is what is really alarming local and state law enforcement, said Cmdr. Dan Allen of the State Department of Public Safety.

 

 

 

We are finding home invasion and attacks involving people impersonating law enforcement officers, Commander Allen told the State Senate Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Jonathan Paton of the Tucson area, called the hearing. They are very forceful and aggressive. They are heavily armed, and they threaten, assail, bind and sometimes kill victims.

 

 

 

Chief David Denlinger of the State Department of Public Safety said that while tactics like home invasions might not be new in the drug trade, they are getting more prevalent.

 

 

 

Border crimes are not just on the border, Chief Denlinger said, pointing to posters showing weapons, drugs and people who had been held hostage.

 

 

 

The hearing comes at a time of heightened anxiety in the United States brought on by the escalating violence in Mexico and a federal report in December that said the Mexican cartels maintain drug distribution networks or supply drugs to distributors in at least 230 U.S. cities.

 

 

 

The report from the National Drug Intelligence Center said the cartels posed the greatest drug trafficking threat to the United States; they control most of the U.S. drug market and have established varied transportation routes, advanced communications capabilities and strong affiliations with gangs in the United States.

 

 

 

The violence in Mexico has come from a government crackdown on the cartels and a war among them over turf and trading routes to the United States.

 

 

 

Still, federal authorities have said there is no sign that the pattern of beheadings and mutilations of victims and the regular killings of law enforcement officers that characterize the violence in Mexico has arrived in the United States.

 

 

 

In some cases, the connection to the cartels in American cities are tenuous or not fully understood, law enforcement officials have said.

 

 

 

But in this border state, the anxiety is acute and the ties to drug and human smuggling strong.

 

 

 

The police and federal agents regularly seize large loads of cocaine, marijuana and other drugs smuggled in vehicles and sometimes on the backs of couriers and illegal immigrants linked to drug organizations.

 

 

 

At the same time, the vast majority of the weapons used in Mexicos drug-related killings come from the United States, and Arizona is a top exporter.

 

 

 

Terry Goddard, the Arizona attorney general, said his office had sought to clamp down on money wire transfers through the state that were believed to help finance the smuggling of drugs and people.

 

 

 

They send us drugs and people, and we send them guns and cash, Mr. Paton said in an interview.

 

 

 

Mr. Paton, a Republican who favors gun rights, said he was considering the possibility of introducing legislation intended to restrict straw purchasers, people who buy guns with legal documentation at shops and gun shows and then turn them over to drug traffickers.

 

 

 

Federal laws prohibit such purchases, but Mr. Paton said he believed that adding state sanctions would provide more muscle in fighting the practice.

 

 

 

Mr. Paton said there were already bills pending in the Legislature focusing on border crime. Prompted by the discovery of a rash of so-called drophouses in and around Phoenix, where migrants have been held against their will, one bill would increase penalties for those caught smuggling people.

 

 

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/24/ ... border.php

And yet again it is California who takes the first step; Introduce mj legalisation.

 

 

 

The whole so-called "Drug war" is ridicilous. For people disapproving drugs, just do -for once- your research instead of believing the [cabbage] the government feeds you.

 

 

 

-Renate : .

And yet again it is California who takes the first step; Introduce mj legalisation.

 

 

 

The whole so-called "Drug war" is ridicilous. For people disapproving drugs, just do -for once- your research instead of believing the [cabbage] your government feeds you.

 

 

 

-Renate : .

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 had to stay off mountain dew and other pops with citric acid for a month because my gums were disolving from it. My aunt (dental hygenist) said its fairly common, they even call it "Mountain Dew Mouth".

 

 

 

And back on topic. I really think weed should be legalized, really from that one graph someone posted it would be the least addictive of my vices at this moment.

 

 

 

And on the topic of ecstasy. I have seen reports and stuides where people have died after just their first dose. There is a much higher risk of complication with E than any other drug (based on a dose by dose basis).

 

 

 

Also at this rate we will have to invade Mexico for the sake of national security. And nobody wants that so they better get things under control and fast.

And on the topic of ecstasy. I have seen reports and stuides where people have died after just their first dose. There is a much higher risk of complication with E than any other drug (based on a dose by dose basis).

 

 

 

Please share with us the online reports and studies. I'd like to know the reason why this person died. My bet is they didn't educate themselves. Lack of water, therefore cooking their insides, too much water and causing the lungs to collapse, therefore drowning, drinking alcohol which dehydrates you quicker, which then leads back to "lack of water", or quite simply they were stupid enough not to test it or buy it from a complete stranger who mixed it with toxic substances. Although there are kits available where you can test the purity. If you actually educate yourself with the drug or educate the person who is about to take the drug, I absolutely disagree that complications are higher with E than any other drug. I don't believe your last sentence anyway. It's best to provide a source when you give such a brick-wall-in-the-face statistic such as the one you provided.

And on the topic of ecstasy. I have seen reports and stuides where people have died after just their first dose. There is a much higher risk of complication with E than any other drug (based on a dose by dose basis).

 

 

 

Please share with us the online reports and studies. I'd like to know the reason why this person died. My bet is they didn't educate themselves. Lack of water, therefore cooking their insides, too much water and causing the lungs to collapse, therefore drowning, drinking alcohol which dehydrates you quicker, which then leads back to "lack of water", or quite simply they were stupid enough not to test it or buy it from a complete stranger who mixed it with toxic substances. Although there are kits available where you can test the purity. If you actually educate yourself with the drug or educate the person who is about to take the drug, I absolutely disagree that complications are higher with E than any other drug. I don't believe your last sentence anyway. It's best to provide a source when you give such a brick-wall-in-the-face statistic such as the one you provided.

 

Off hand i can tell you one of the sources was my Health class book and teacher. Mostly it had to do with allergic reaction.

So...you can have an allergic reaction to peanuts as well. Allergies are not reasons to criminalise substances. In UK ecstasy amounts to around 30 deaths per year which, to put this in context, is less than the number of people killed riding horses every year.

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... iding.html

Off hand i can tell you one of the sources was my Health class book and teacher. Mostly it had to do with allergic reaction.

 

 

 

It's very easy these days to go to google or even google scholar for really good research articles. By reading and accessing them alone you will come to realize this is a pretty "postmodernism" society. Question the people who told you, who says? Are they reliable sources just because they say so? Who do you believe, your health teacher who is doing their job feeding the students with half facts, half propaganda, or scientific research with actual research data? Educated E users themselves probably have a better understanding of the drug than your teacher, although who probably only has good intentions.

Off hand i can tell you one of the sources was my Health class book and teacher. Mostly it had to do with allergic reaction.

 

 

 

It's very easy these days to go to google or even google scholar for really good research articles. By reading and accessing them alone you will come to realize this is a pretty "postmodernism" society. Question the people who told you, who says? Are they reliable sources just because they say so? Who do you believe, your health teacher who is doing their job feeding the students with half facts, half propaganda, or scientific research with actual research data? Educated E users themselves probably have a better understanding of the drug than your teacher, although who probably only has good intentions.

 

Take it up with my teacher and Glencoe (makes the book) then, not me.

 

 

 

And i admit i inflated that fact about E just because i really don't care.

And i admit i inflated that fact about E just because i really don't care.

 

 

 

So if you're not credible and you make things up, nobody will read your posts. So what is your value to this thread/board? If you don't care about you, then who will? Note to self... completely ignore your posts from now on.

And i admit i inflated that fact about E just because i really don't care.

 

 

 

So if you're not credible and you make things up, nobody will read your posts. So what is your value to this thread/board? If you don't care about you, then who will? Note to self... completely ignore your posts from now on.

 

I didn't make it up, i somewhat exagerated it from memory of something i learned/was told long ago. And yeah, seriously stop reading my god damn posts, I already [bleep]ing hate you.

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.

 

 

 

 

arent you forgetting something? oh yeah, people already die from drug use. Why not save those lives of the innocent people that are being harmed or killed because of the war on drugs. On top of that it's likely that the drugs available for purchase will be a lot more clean that street grade. We might even get proper drug education..

You think decriminalizing drugs here will actually stop all the fighting in Mexico? Hah. It isn't even the illegality of drugs now. Whole lotta stuff. Imagine the 1940's, New York City. Yeah, they got their own Godfather going on down there.

i've never done any type of illegal drug use, but i'm 100% for legalizing a lot of it (especially marijuana).

 

 

 

people are dying from lung cancer - people still smoke cigarettes.

 

people are dying from cirrhosis / liver damage - people still drink alcohol.

 

 

 

people already make stupid health decisions, at least make drugs legal so it can be sold and taxed like other addictive goods.

 

 

 

(by legal, i don't mean that they shouldn't be let loose without restrictions... of course there should be laws controlling the use of the drugs, like there are for drinking (DIU, age limit) and cigarettes (age, smoking locations)).

 

 

 

 

 

i mean, there's the whole stigma of how bad people who use drugs can be, but once people realize that you can smoke pot or do cocaine and still be successful (for example- Michael Phelps, many U.S. Presidents) , i imagine the idea will eventually catch on.

You think decriminalizing drugs here will actually stop all the fighting in Mexico? Hah. It isn't even the illegality of drugs now. Whole lotta stuff. Imagine the 1940's, New York City. Yeah, they got their own Godfather going on down there.

 

 

 

If you look more closely at the key periods of mafia violence in the US you'll find that there are 3 key flare ups - the early period when the Italian factions are first arriving and gaining power, during prohibition and during the 60's & 70's when they are moving into narcotics in a big way. Criminals are motivated by easy money, that is why people are ultimately lured into that lifestyle and that is why they end up killing - take away ways to make money and you take away the attraction of that lifestyle. If you stop or reduce the numbers of youngsters getting into that lifestyle then you can still severely hurt these organised crime groups.

True, but I don't think that it would be an end-all to the problems. A lotta these major cartel wars are just over bitterness now. At least, plenty of the killings seem to be.

You think decriminalizing drugs here will actually stop all the fighting in Mexico? Hah. It isn't even the illegality of drugs now. Whole lotta stuff. Imagine the 1940's, New York City. Yeah, they got their own Godfather going on down there.

 

 

 

It will end the flow of a lot of their profits. First, decriminalize, if not outright legalize, marijuana. That's not the only thing that they're dealing in, but it WILL slow a lot of their profits.

 

 

 

We need to strengthen existing gun laws (and renew the assault weapons ban), and reform other drug laws to target traffickers and dealers...not arrest average citizens for posession.

 

 

 

People are gonna need to accept some gun control in America, because it's hurting our security on our own southern border (and dare I say it, making people less secure in America as well).

 

 

 

edit: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

 

 

 

 

 

YES!

I do kind of agree with that ban. I was not fond of seeing AK47's marked down at flea markets with some redneck giving me the sales pitch of "better buy it before Obama makes it illegal!"

 

 

 

Then again, who the hell hunts with an AK47 or similar weapon? There is no reason for them to be on the market, not even home defense.

 

 

 

EDIT: Sold assault rifles are not automatic, however. The automatic rifles and grenades in that news post were obviously given to drug runners by dirty military contacts. You can not buy grenades anywhere in America legally, period.

You think decriminalizing drugs here will actually stop all the fighting in Mexico? Hah. It isn't even the illegality of drugs now. Whole lotta stuff. Imagine the 1940's, New York City. Yeah, they got their own Godfather going on down there.

 

 

 

It will end the flow of a lot of their profits. First, decriminalize, if not outright legalize, marijuana. That's not the only thing that they're dealing in, but it WILL slow a lot of their profits.

 

 

 

We need to strengthen existing gun laws (and renew the assault weapons ban), and reform other drug laws to target traffickers and dealers...not arrest average citizens for posession.

 

 

 

People are gonna need to accept some gun control in America, because it's hurting our security on our own southern border (and dare I say it, making people less secure in America as well).

 

 

 

edit: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

 

 

 

 

 

YES!

 

If we're going to try to take drug cartels profits away we need to hit them where they make the most, cocaine. 1 kilo of cocaine is easy to traffick compared to its profit equivalent in marijuana. If anything, the drug war has increased the amount of hard drugs being brought into the country due to their ease of transport. However, cocaine's not really a drug we want legalized, so the only solution that comes to mind seems to be to increase the efforts of Mexican authorites in stopping the cartels.

Yes, and we bring down the price exponentially by decriminalizing it. The Mexican Authorities are doing everything that they can. Mexico, despite having a fairly large GDP (13th? I think) is still a developing country with a fairly large population. Per capita, they're 57th (just looked that one up lol). I really don't know how much more that they can do. As I said, soon enough we're going to have to send our own National Guard to help them.

Yes, and we bring down the price exponentially by decriminalizing it. The Mexican Authorities are doing everything that they can. Mexico, despite having a fairly large GDP (13th? I think) is still a developing country with a fairly large population. Per capita, they're 57th (just looked that one up lol). I really don't know how much more that they can do. As I said, soon enough we're going to have to send our own National Guard to help them.

 

Yeah, I was more refering to us helping them. Mexico also has a pretty unbalanced share of income too. The top 20% receive a little over 51% of income compared to ~45% in the US (the US number isn't completely adjusted for taxes and nondirect transfers, so it's less than it seems).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26 ... ss&emc=rss

 

 

 

PHOENIX The Mexican agents who moved in on a safe house full of drug dealers last May were not prepared for the fire power that greeted them.

 

 

 

When the shooting was over, eight agents were dead. Among the guns the police recovered was an assault rifle traced back across the border to a dingy gun store here called X-Caliber Guns.

 

 

 

Now, the owner, George Iknadosian, will go on trial on charges he sold hundreds of weapons, mostly AK-47 rifles, to smugglers, knowing they would send them to a drug cartel in the western state of Sinaloa. The guns helped fuel the gang warfare in which more than 6,000 Mexicans died last year.

 

 

 

Mexican authorities have long complained that American gun dealers are arming the cartels. This case is the most prominent prosecution of an American gun dealer since the United States promised Mexico two years ago it would clamp down on the smuggling of weapons across the border. It also offers a rare glimpse of how weapons delivered to American gun dealers are being moved into Mexico and wielded in horrific crimes.

 

 

 

We had a direct pipeline from Iknadosian to the Sinaloa cartel, said Thomas G. Mangan, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Phoenix.

 

 

 

Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.

 

 

 

Continued in the link above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This gun is popular among the drug cartels, and it's sold in our gun shops.

While it's stupid for them to be sold anyways, it is tough to buy a gun like that. These cartels aren't just waltzing up to America and buying a few hundred guns. They're getting large numbers of them illegally without a doubt. It might even be cheaper, although I can't be sure about that.