Monterrey police find 49 bodies in bags

[Stealhead]

I am not so sure that St.Thomas is all that safe actually:

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/07...-in-st-thomas/

http://virginislands-guide.info/travel.basics/crime/

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I am not so sure that St.Thomas is all that safe actually:

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/07...-in-st-thomas/

http://virginislands-guide.info/travel.basics/crime/

I surely felt safer. I didn't feel like the concierge of the hotel was trying to kidnap my wife. Now Cozumel or Acupulco on the other hand, they always ask what you plan on doing while there. They poke even after being told to practice discretion.

I am a NYC boy, I can smell someone trying to rob me, and that is all I felt in Mexico during my multiple cruises/car trips there.


Not saying you're full of crap, just saying I have my preferences

[August]

I don't think it would need to look like that Penguin. After all the IC was designed to keep people in whereas we're trying to keep people and smugglers out. Different objective, different defenses. Much better surveillance technology too.

Your point is well taken about demand though. Even a partial legalization of drugs, say just marijuana, would really cut into the cartels cash flow, not to mention free up a lot of government and police resources that could be then concentrated on the really dangerous stuff as well as human trafficking.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

I don't think it would need to look like that Penguin. After all the IC was designed to keep people in whereas we're trying to keep people and smugglers out. Different objective, different defenses. Much better surveillance technology too.

Your point is well taken about demand though. Even a partial legalization of drugs, say just marijuana, would really cut into the cartels cash flow, not to mention free up a lot of government and police resources that could be then concentrated on the really dangerous stuff as well as human trafficking.

As someone in the know, not so much a user, (as I cannot due to my job) Most of the real smokers get it from Canada, too many seeds in compressed Mestizo crap weed.

Just saying.

I feel bad for southerners with no choice, the Canadian weed is so much better (Yes I do know) Damn my job for not letting me know it better

Legal pot= broke prison industry, blasphemous to capitalist job creators.

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Legal pot= broke prison industry, blasphemous to capitalist job creators.

Good point but where's more to it than just prisons and guards. What would all those excess DEA and narcotics officers do for a living without the easy mellow pothead to chase?

Much of the damage is already done though. RICO, no knock searches, cops equipped like Assault Infantry. The war on drugs has not only created the Mexican cartels it has made our own government way too powerful for it's own britches.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

Good point but where's more to it than just prisons and guards. What would all those excess DEA and narcotics officers do for a living without the easy mellow pothead to chase?

Much of the damage is already done though. RICO, no knock searches, cops equipped like Assault Infantry. The war on drugs has not only created the Mexican cartels it has made our own government way too powerful for it's own britches.

My fear is when they use Patriot act powers to execute things with very little judicial control.

How long before they start banging stoner heads, or internet bloggers?

I believe our 3 branches system works, But the patriot act bypasses 2 of the mediating branches. Leaving the Legislative too powerful.

Look at the TSA, strip searching granny and fiddling fingers in toddlers underwear, and passengers end up thwarting every American plane explosion attempt, since 9-11. (underwear boy, and the shoe bomber)

Someone got rich off those nudity machines...
Someone got rich off the mass hirings.
Someone paid for all these people to get rich off of fear.
We did. With our liberties.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I believe our 3 branches system works, But the patriot act bypasses 2 of the mediating branches. Leaving the Legislative too powerful.

You mean the Executive branch? The legislature doesn't actually enforce the laws it passes. That's the job of the administration and it's various agencies.

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

St. Thomas is better, I was there a few months ago, wonderful, and the natives don't hate you for your skin color, or ethnicity. (or try to scam and rob you)

Must have changed since I was there last. 20+ years ago.

Off the strip and/or away from the cruise ship piers at night was dangerous. Roving bands of 8 - 10 guys would roll even a small group in a heartbeat.

Daytime, perfectly safe pretty much anywhere on the island and beautiful.

Shop for jewelry in St. Thomas and take the hop over to St. Johns. Much safer and less touristy.

[Seth8530]

My 2 cents, I feel like we created the gang related issues by making soft drugs illegal. As someone here has already mentioned we should of took a quick glance at prohibition to see what would of come of this. I believe that if we were to at least legalize marijuana we would take a big chunk out of the pocket book of the cartels thus accomplishing 5 things.

1) less government expenditure
2) less people in jail for possessing marijuana
3) a return of one of our civil liberties
4) a serious blow to cartel income
5) smaller government

Now I wonder which of these the our senators are afraid of?

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

You mean the Executive branch? The legislature doesn't actually enforce the laws it passes. That's the job of the administration and it's various agencies.

Yikes, yes, My bad.

[P_Funk]

Prohibition turned a couple of second rate thugs into millionaires. By the same token the war on drugs has turned a bunch of colombian sociopaths into billionaires.

You simply cannot fight the resources of the drug cartels. For every $1 million the American or Mexican government spends on fighting them they have probably $100 million to fight back with. Where does this money come from? Ironically from any success of the war on drugs. The more success there is the more supply is curtailed, the higher prices go, the more money the cartels make anyways, not to mention the more infighting you see over the few remaining open roads to smuggle or get access to more drugs from.

So basically everything we're seeing today is a result of the path we've taken to fighting the drug problem. So long as you treat the drug problem as a crime problem then no progress will be made except in making more and more greasy central americans into men richer than American presidents. Drugs are social issue, they always have, always will be, and soon as you stop trying to outspend or outmuscle drug cartels with fewer restrictions on morality than you... well you may see some progress.

Fact is that progressive approaches to drug problems all over the world have shown better results than the stubborn onslaught of mandatory minimum sentences and ever increasing DEA budget the US keeps betting on. You guys are supposed to be the freaking capitalists, don't you guys realize that organized crime is the purest expression of free market enterprise? Not to mention you're doing the crooks a favour by basically legislating thier entire industry into existence.

Fastest way to choke out of existence the cash flow of drug cartels: decriminalize all drugs; provide known addicts with 2 free hits a day; pour all that wasted DEA money into support and rehabilitation programs that those addicts will be exposed to through the same service that provides their free hit; watch as this process rehumanizes the victims and puts them in touch with change; watch as crime goes down because nobody has to steal anything to pay for a hit and nobody has to be killed to in order to fight over control of territory.

Blasphemy of course. I don't expect the US to ever try that concept out. Too much money is at stake. THe cartels aren't the only ones benefitting financially from the drug war. While the rest of the world is phasing out 23 hour a day solitary confinement the US is proceeding with building ever more Supermax prisons, prisons who's contruction and operation is deeply entrenched in private interests. The DEA itself is its own industry. How many thousands of livelihoods are dependent on this organization?

Basic economics says that price is a result of the available supply relative to the overall demand. Supply of drugs is such that the price is high because the government spends a lot of money to make it hard to get, which means you can get a lot of money for getting it to people. Make it easy to get drugs, see what happens to the cost benefit analysis of running the border suddenly.

Do all that and start addressing the drug problem on its own merits from a harm reduction standpoint and I guarantee you'll get your big hit to the gangland income. Problem with this solution is that its in direct conflict with the delusions imposed by generations of propaganda about drugs. Law and order pitches also make for easier campaign speeches than complex issues like harm reduction and long term health care reform to address the social and emotional issues amongst addicts.

The real problem with drugs isn't the drug dealers, its the addicts. So far the US can't wrap its head around it and as a result is directly responsible for the ever increasing black market drug trade.

[Pinko tirade over]

[Seth8530]

I disagree with giving away free drugs to addicts, but overall I feel like your tirade was pretty spot on tbh

[Penguin]

Two points in addition to Seth's list:

6. controlled quality (a legal trader is also responsible for his product = less risk of toxic substances like lead dust, or hard drugs)
7. the chance to have actually less young users

Germany and the Netherlands have a similar social structure. In Germany some states have decriminalized small amounts of pot. The cops have to take it away, otherwise they would break the law themselves. If it goes to court the judge can close the case under certain requirements (1st time drug offender, minor amount, no selling in schools, no smuggling, etc)

Contrary to many myths, marijuana is still illegal in the Netherlands. I've been told it would be very hard to legalize in regards to international law. Basically it's about some WHO agreements most states have signed where they state to do anything to fight against drugs, yada, yada, yada

So what did the smart and pragmatic Dutch do? Nearly nothing! No laws were abolished, no walls of text of new legislation was written. The police just has the simple instruction not to go against small possession. The Kofie Shops (tolerated pot bars) are allowed to have a little more generous amount than a single individual.
Some 20 years ago I was on a public forum where the police chief of Amsterdam was present and answered on the question how they control the shops: "We don't control them. If a shop sells hard drugs or alcohol (!) we get tips from the scene. Then we raid and close it."
Many "control freaks" in the audience stood there with open eyes , not believing how simple and non-interfering it can be and actually work.
(Maybe the police procedure changed today, but back then they said it worked well)

The result of two comparible countries with different marijuana laws: the percentage of adolescent users in the Netherlands is in fact smaller than in Germany. One should never underestimate the attraction of forbidden fruits, especially to juveniles. I don't have any statistics about adults, but on a limb I'd say the percentage is about the same.

Just a little food for thought for the "If pot's legal, all our kids will become stoned slackers"-crew.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Two points in addition to Seth's list:

6. controlled quality (a legal trader is also responsible for his product = less risk of toxic substances like lead dust, or hard drugs)
7. the chance to have actually less young users

I think #6 is awfully naive. Legal traders have no more accountability than anyone else. They have the concept of legitimacy but if anything legitimizing things only brings it into the sphere of political corruption. What would intevitably happen I'm sure with a full stop legalization of weed is that you'd see the government create monopolies in the private sector of "legitimate" business and then you'd get all kinds of political lobbies and people applying complex modern economics to it, doing cost benefit analyses. Anybody who's ever watched Food Inc. should remember that bit about the guy who farms chickens the old fashioned way, and slaughters them in the open air using old world implements to break the neck etc etc. He had a food inspector tell him he had to change his practices because it wasn't by the code because apparently he had to be in some big steel building with hard hats and stuff. He told them to test the average bacterial count of his chickens compared to the average in those big industrial chicken slaughter houses and apparently he had no more trouble from that inspector because the bacteria count in his chickens was way way lower despite his allegedly 'unclean' practices.

Weed already has its own regulatory system. Most people have a personal relationship with the people they get their weed from. A dealer acquires business through personal connections and recommendations. Selling bad weed leads to people being reluctant to buy from him. Even weed of a low quality, not even laced with drugs, but just low quality usually gives somebody a bad rap. Start selling stuff laced with something you're not bargaining for and his business dries up. Dealers rely on repeat customers, not on selling people bad stuff in one go.

I live in BC, a pot mecca. 420 is a proper holiday here. Nobody has trouble avoiding bad weed because your dealer is your friend usually, or a friend of your friend. Start selling this stuff out of a big mega companies then you're just more likely to have it contaminated with some chemical and then nobody will be held to account cause the litigation will be a nightmare.

Sadly the process to full legalization inevitably brings these issues into the equation, but its part of the process. One thing I can say though is that I've been around weed my whole life. I knew guys who had it in their lockers at school, I've known people who dealt it in large quantities, I've known people who smoked an entire ounce themselves in a week or less. I've never once heard of someone having trouble with laced weed, not directly. Its always that its dried out and not very good. The marijuana trade is perhaps the best expression of supply and demand economics in action, a system that self regulates because of the nature of personal relationships with the vendor. As a total lefty its takes a lot of courage to say that, but its seems true. One thing though is that the bigger market gets the harder it is to self regulate. If it stays small and local, just about you and your dealer, then its easier to keep control on it. Turn it into a monopoly where you can only get your weed from a company, then the consumer and the dealer lose control. Thats the danger. Any legalization must allow for the same underground weed industry to exist or else we're going to if anything I think make weed less safe or at least more prone to corruption that you see in all kinds of food scares and such.

And for #7, who cares if young people smoke it? Heavy and harmful drug abuse is an expression of deeper issues in a person. Its a social problem. Light and recreational drug use is just an expression of rebellion that most teens goes through. Tell them they can't do it and the more they want to do it. Relax and it'll be easier to parse between guys who smoke a bit on the weekend or people who can't cope without it. Legitimize the practice of using the drug and you make it easier to address those issues.

Alcohol has all the legalized and regulatory things most people think you need to keep young people from using it and I think almost everybody has had a beer before the legal age. Its just a fact that you can't prevent people from doing things they want to do, and with things as harmless as a little crappy 5% beer or a few joints the few times yous kipped class to feel rebellious... well that's never going to stop. Addressing it incorrectly will only make dealing with the real problems harder.

[Platapus]

Nice post P Funk, Thanks for the insight. There is much to think about in your post.