# Some interesting thoughts on the drug war



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

There were a few very interesting points raised during the responses to the thread about Gov. Perry. 

Here are some facts and some opinions, all mine. I'm using this as an attachment because it does take a lot of room and those who do not want to read it can just pass it over.


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

One 'control measure' might work in the USA: Failure of a drug test would result in mandatory loss of welfare for a minimum of one year and the requirement to work; if not for a private employer, then for the state on WPA type projects. Failure to do so cheerfully would result in incarceration in a large fenced 'farm'. Each internee would be given a set of hand tools and seeds, along with enough rice and beans for a year.
Oh yeah; I forgot the sterilization part.


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

RVGRINGO said:


> One 'control measure' might work in the USA: Failure of a drug test would result in mandatory loss of welfare for a minimum of one year and the requirement to work; if not for a private employer, then for the state on WPA type projects. Failure to do so cheerfully would result in incarceration in a large fenced 'farm'. Each internee would be given a set of hand tools and seeds, along with enough rice and beans for a year.
> Oh yeah; I forgot the sterilization part.


RV - if your assumption is that all druggies are on welfare, and for that group this may be a decent idea. But, there are so many druggies and marijuana users who are way above that on the scale. Cocaine is the drug of choice of the non-welfare set, what would we do about them?

You see, I do not think that the entire drug problem in the US has to do with welfare recipients...I have to believe that many not on welfare are using/buying/smoking. So, unless we want to lock up most of our rock stars, movie and TV personalities (can anyone say Charlie Sheen?) punishment is not the answer.

Yes, I am advocating for legalized drugs in the US, controlled by the government like alcohol and firearms (yes, there will be violators, just like speeders). It will take an education program, a health care initiative, regulation and enforcement, and that is costly, agreed.

But, it would free up the 1 in 10 Americans who are now in jail for as little as two joints, make our prisons a place for violent crime and Bernie Madoff, and not consume law enforcement and the courts for these crimes.

Next, it will produce a tax stream. Enough said.

And finally, I see that there are levels of drugs. By that I mean we would not treat grass like we treat cocaine or heroin. Legally obtaining grass would not be as difficult as hard drugs. It is sort of like the Saturday night guy who goes out with his buds and has a few beers, it is bad, but I'd much rather put up with him than a person who goes out Saturday night and puts away a half a bottle of scotch. Am I making myself clear? [Anyone remember 3.2 beer-before the US told us that we could get killed for our country, we can vote in our country, but we can't drink until we are 21 - the rest of the world is smarter-18 - if you can vote and fight you should be able to get a drink.)

Yes, put an age limit on it, over 18 and under 21 - grass OK, hard drugs no way. Over 21 - you are on your own.

Look, for all intents and purposes, if you want grass, you are only only three steps away (think the Kevin Bacon game) from getting it. Top dollar, uncontrolled quality and no tax revenue. If grass was legal (let's leave hard drugs for right now), think of all the effort in would NOT take to enforce the law.

So, while I can agree that punishment for a crime may be an answer, the bigger question is why make it a crime to begin with? Do we think that, like booze and like cigarettes we cannot after a time control it? (  If you tax it, then the group you are talking about probably couldn't afford it anyway)


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Back in the '60's one of the national debate topics (along with "Resolved Prostitution Should be legalized") was "Resolved the use, ownership and distribution of Marijuana should be legalized". 

The biggest point made by those on the negative was that the people who sold it were also the ones who sold the harder drugs and since they made their money on the amount that was sold it would make sense to try to move marijuana users into the hard drugs. Not only are they more costly but they are habit forming. The positive response was very simple. It's really about as dangerous as booze and not quite as bad as smoking.

In my opinion I think it would be a wonderful first step. If that happens I can call my younger son and have him ship me my hookah (it was hand made in Israel). OK so I will not hold my breath.:tongue1:


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

I tend to like the approach used in Singapore, or even Turkey. Zero tolerance. The problem in the USA is too much 'forgiveness'. It is a cultural problem that is less apparent in other cultures. I have no problem with 'rock stars' strumming their bars behind bars. However, it seems not to matter much, as the country is in a pretty deep hole & may not climb out. If the druggies don't learn subsistence farming, they may be the first to starve.
As you can tell, my patience with the drug users, and the problems they cause, has worn out.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2011)

This is a dilemma. 

If the US were to legalize drugs (all or some), or on the other hand, adopt a Singapore approach and line the border with troops to totally shut down importation, it would create much bigger problems here for me in MX. The bad guys here would be looking for other ways to make money that would probably inflict great misery on those of us not involved. 

On the other hand, leaving things as they are, with the US government telling people how to live their lives and what they can and cannot do, I must help pay the tab for the current idiotic system through taxes for more cops, more prisons and drug treatment.


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

There is no 'incentive' to stop using drugs in the USA. In places where the prisons aren't so nice, and the families must provide food, clothing and toilet paper, things are different; much different. In the USA, many released inmates can't make it on the outside and commit another crime, just to get back into prison, where they can get three excellent meals, hot showers, TV, and other comforts that exceed those in their own homes, if they had one.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

This thread does get a little personal for me. My daughter spent a year in a locked door program when she was 13. And I spent the next 15 years working as a volunteer with CARE (Chemical Abuse Reduced through Education--Nancy Regan's brainchild). I was the one who got called at 2AM to go and talk to the parents of kids who had OD'd (dead or alive). 

Some of the times I got to talk to the kids who were pushing the stuff. In my opinion this is the biggest drawback to any program to stop the movement of drugs. Here is a 15 year old kid who can make $20,000+ a month selling to his friends. I spoke to many kids who had more income than the Mayor of their home city. 

People have tried since Adam and Eve to regulate sin what gives us the gall to think we can regulate drugs? So long as there's the immense amount of money to be made and the penalty for being caught is a slap on the wrist then why should they stop. The Romans would cut of the hand of someone who stole and still there were a lot of Romans walking around with one hand. 

The penalty must be so severe that people will stop and think. How about saying that anyone who is caught selling drugs will be sentenced to 20 years of work on a chain gang with living conditions similar to the ones that the Arizona Sheriff using in his work gang. 

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder how that might work???


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

1st RV ****** you have so much "tongue in cheek" that it must be hard to eat & drink.
My friends could well think I'm crazy but I do believe that the only way to manage demand is some form of legalization. My preference is to treat marijuana as alcohol and the rest as prescription drugs. I think that we could then expand all the existing testing, driving-work-etc.
I think that this would be good for the US but probably problematic for Mexico in the shorter term. We are already seeing some of the unintended consequences of the government focus on taking out cartel leaders. Much like the mafia, there is often a fight between lieutenants that results in multiple less connected cartels which lack the same capability to leverage the US drug trade. As pointed out in earlier thread, these folk unlikely to become baggers at Mega and therefore an increase in "street" crime inside Mexico is almost inevitable. This will really require the police departments to start doing their part and that not a given.
Of course, the real unknown is what is going to happen next year after the presidential election. Big decision to continue the "war" or go back to appeasement.


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

*Enjoying This*

[It is great to have discussion like this. We seem to be coming at this from some different POVs, and yet the civility is very evident. As a side note, this is why we have chosen to retire to the Lakeside - to have discussions where personal rancor (I love that word) is not mixed in the discussion - I just hope that my ideal of it does not get crushed.]

:focus: 
I don't know if I agree, RV. Hard line anything does not work. Are you saying that fear is the savior of the USA? If that is the case, then aren't we, US citizens going to start to feel we are living in a police state? And then, who decides what is appropriate punishment, who gets to be the judge, how much of our lives will the "powers" whomever they are be controlling our lives? Now I am not saying you are advocating for "1984", but, to use the term, if we go the way of Turkey and Singapore, wouldn't the USA be heading down that slippery slope to having the proverbial "they" control what "we" do?

I think what I am saying is: What would be next? [In absurdity] over eating, not sleeping the required 6-8 hours, walking around without shoes, sneezing next to someone. What I am saying is, to your point, I see too much of "them" interfering with "us". Based on 2011 USA - it means the corporations, the rich, the corrupt (yes they are corrupt) politicians deciding what is good for me.

Now - I am not a libertarian - I believe that laws are needed to protect the common good. Traffic laws, murder, homicide, rape, Bernie Madoff felonies and the like. These laws are in place, and should be, to protect each of us from heinous crimes that are KNOWN to cause harm. The same cannot be blanketly applied to grass and even hard drugs. There is no positive correlation that a person stoned on grass will, every time, go out and commit a felony: yes I agree with felony laws.

Will we apply a stricter gun law, and the analogy is apt to drugs, because we can make a prima facie case that everyone who has a gun will go out a commit murder and homicide? Of course not, but under a Singapore statute, that would be the slippery slope conclusion and therefore we should ban guns, and trample on the Second Amendment. Now while not a hunter, I would not deny that the right to own a gun is wrong (the right to have hand guns or semi-automatic weapons are another case), and I would not be in favor of an outright ban on them. This is a case of responsibility, personal responsibility.

In legalizing drugs, and let's stick to grass right now, we are saying that, like guns, driving, beer and alcohol, "You have taken the responsibility to do this. You need to know that if you choose this activity, if your actions cross that line where you hurt someone else, you are going to be punished."

You see, that is where I draw the line. If my actions, drinking, smoking, driving or hunting does not injure someone else, as excessive drinking will do to my person, then we need not to lock people up.

This is really running long, I apologize.

RV, I do not know if what I have described is what you are advocating, and I look forward to meeting you in person in April to continue our discussion.

Papa - me too, I'll bring the Boone's Farm Apple Wine, my black light and lava lamp and join you. You see, whether we like to admit it or not, a great majority of us have broken the law. And yet, here we are. Many of us have driven drunk, yet here we are. I daresay that hardly anyone who communicates here is totally without sin, or what the government calls sin. Yet here we are. Why?

When I was a war resister in the 60's-70's I knew that my actions had consequences if I crossed the line that hurt other people. Although I yelled at the police, I recognized that they had the power over me, and if I crossed that line, I had only myself to blame for what happened. If you are saying that in 2011 personal responsibility is dying, I agree.

Well, I've been way too long winded - in summary, I can't see Singapore rules for the US, but neither should lack of personal responsibility be tolerated. You want to smoke or use cocaine, let it be legalized but through re-education realize that you are responsible for your actions and your right to do this means you can violate the rights of another person.

Sunday Morning sermons can be so tedious....sorry.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

I think that your posts are very thoughtful and well done but you can't believe that RV ****** is serious. He almost got me with his 1st post in this thread till he ended with the sterilization comment.


----------



## malcolmkyle (Oct 16, 2011)

RVGRINGO said:


> I tend to like the approach used in Singapore, or even Turkey. Zero tolerance. The problem in the USA is too much 'forgiveness'. It is a cultural problem that is less apparent in other cultures. I have no problem with 'rock stars' strumming their bars behind bars. However, it seems not to matter much, as the country is in a pretty deep hole & may not climb out. If the druggies don't learn subsistence farming, they may be the first to starve.
> As you can tell, my patience with the drug users, and the problems they cause, has worn out.


How about the patience of the rest of us who have to put up with prohibitionists posting false information or 'pipe-dreams'?

The Singapore CNB (Central Narcotic Bureau) announced in September 2011 that the the 5% drop per year, which they often proudly proclaimed as proof of the effectiveness of their tough drug stance, was totally inaccurate. Arrests it seems have actually increased since 2008 contradicting Singapore’s assertion that being tough on drugs (even with mandatory death sentences) has ever been effective.
*
From January to June 2011 there was a 20% increase in arrests compared to last year. This not only indicates that drugs are entering Singapore but also that the amount of people in Singapore using drugs is steadily and surely increasing. 
*
This isn’t just a problem Singapore can claim is due to chronic drug users, as a large percentage of those being arrested are first time users -- 41% in 2008, 45% in 2009 and 46% in 2010. This clearly shows that threats of caning, harsh prison sentences and even death does nothing to deter neither 'chronic users' nor 'first time users'.
*
The government has promised to "look at the problem afresh and comprehensively", but they've also pledged to maintain Singapore’s 'zero-tolerance policy'. So no change there then, which is what we've come to expect from people who's livelihood depends on an historically failed and dangerous policy.

The Singapore government, and those who blindly support them, now have no proof whatsoever that their laws are curtailing drug smuggling or drug usage rates.

Kindly google: Central Narcotics Bureau blames under-reporting of statistics on migration to new computer system in 2008


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

I lived in Singapore for 3 years in the '90's. There was always something a little disconcerting about reading in the morning paper that yesterday a drug dealer was arrested, tried and executed. Be that as it may, I don't think RV ****** had any idea about Singapore but was really firing for effect rather than putting forth a position so you can calm down.


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

Yes, I've also been to Singapore, and a lot of other 'eastern' places, including Turkey, where I lived for a few years. Both places are neater and safer than many of the US cities, aren't they?
True, no solution is perfect, and I do 'fire for effect' sometimes. The point is that drugs (not necessarily 'pot', which I put in the same class as alcohol) have a devastating effect on society. Zero tolerance should apply equally to sellers and users. Forget spending money on treatment for any addiction, as the good results are a tiny percentage of those treated. It is a waste. Forced 'cold turkey' might have better results, if I had to guess.
Anyway, the USA remains the biggest user of hard drugs. Afghanistan and Columbia are doing better than ever in those markets and Mexico is a trafficking route for the latter, and the source of some; mostly 'pot'.
Ok; end of this topic. Now, how about our history as an imperialistic empire as it winds down. Is there a connection? Remember how or forefathers 'broke' into the China trade? China remembers.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

Since I also lived in Beijing for three years, I'll give you what my Chinese friends told me. Granted some of this could be since I was the audience.
1st, the Chinese look a lot more favorably on the US than on the British & French.
We sat out the results of the Canton "tea party" when the British pulled the French along to protest the Qing Dynasty not allowing the British to import opium since the Chinese felt that Britain had nothing that they would want to trade for. Britain ended up with Hong Kong and the British/French got Shanghai opened and divided. Actually the US was late and pretty benign.
Now if you really want whom the Chinese both despise and look down on it is the Japanese.
6 million Jews tragically killed in the holocaust but 20 million Chinese killed by the Japanese.

Lets go back to your sterilization comment. Are you saying that also what you believe.


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

Haven't you figured that out yet? 
You did pass the history test, though. Remember, the British were our 'forefathers'.
New topic???


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

Not sure whom you mean when say British forefathers-celts, anglo saxons, normans, or the present german monarchy. If celts & germans, then I guess that I'm included!


----------



## JoParsons (Jun 25, 2011)

Why are we talking about it?


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

The two of them are having some word games. They've moved on from the OP and now are fencing with words. Very funny and a very good end to the topic.

You see there is no answer. Each and every option has such horrific consequences that it can't be used. There are no right or wrong just which is less horrific.

I'm glad that I'm over 65 and that I live in Mexico. I'm so very sorry that my wife and I have combined 9 kids and 15 grandkids and that they live in the US. I guess we cold all move to Andorra and tend sheep.


----------



## DNP (May 3, 2011)

My hat is off to each of you who have participated in this thoughtful and important discussion.

WashDC/SMA


----------



## JoParsons (Jun 25, 2011)

Errrr? Okay, I get so much out of this forum and I love you all so much for all your help; but maybe we could have a special form space for "Speculation on Things over which we have no control". It must be me, cause I respect all of the support and advice I've received from each of the contributors; BUT for me, when I'm in on a conversation, a discussion, that obviously has no solution that I can work towards . . . well, it irritates me that I wasted my time on it.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

JoParsons said:


> Errrr? Okay, I get so much out of this forum and I love you all so much for all your help; but maybe we could have a special form space for "Speculation on Things over which we have no control". It must be me, cause I respect all of the support and advice I've received from each of the contributors; BUT for me, when I'm in on a conversation, a discussion, that obviously has no solution that I can work towards . . . well, it irritates me that I wasted my time on it.


I can understand frustration but this site is for sharing ideas. We also answer questions and make suggestions. So I don't see the problem with putting forth ideas that might not have any solutions. We can't change the immigration laws nor, at this point, can we even give suggestions as to what could happen by the end of the year. But we sure spend a lot of time and effort discussing it. 

To me sharing ideas, voicing (in a respectful manner) opinions, stating preferences and even pulling legs can never be a waste of time. Someone once said that 'count the day lost when you fail to learn one thing'. You may not like it, you don't have to agree with it but you must agree that you have learned at least one new thing from this discussion.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

JoParsons said:


> Errrr? Okay, I get so much out of this forum and I love you all so much for all your help; but maybe we could have a special form space for "Speculation on Things over which we have no control". It must be me, cause I respect all of the support and advice I've received from each of the contributors; BUT for me, when I'm in on a conversation, a discussion, that obviously has no solution that I can work towards . . . well, it irritates me that I wasted my time on it.


I understand your frustration as well, but I doubt that we will ever succeed in stopping people from discussing things that they can't control. The weather is perhaps the classic example. At least here you have the option of not reading the threads that don't interest or frustrate you.


----------



## JoParsons (Jun 25, 2011)

*agreed*

I'll stop now.



TundraGreen said:


> I understand your frustration as well, but I doubt that we will ever succeed in stopping people from discussing things that they can't control. The weather is perhaps the classic example. At least here you have the option of not reading the threads that don't interest or frustrate you.


----------



## jreedbrundage (Oct 16, 2011)

Legalization, which goes beyond decriminalization, to make the regulated sale and consumption of drugs possible, is the answer. As with the end of prohibition of alcohol, the market would be legal and taxable, ending the flow of funds to the cartels. Mexico would still have to deal with creating a functioning justice system -- police, courts and prisons -- in order to confront other criminal activities of the cartels such as kidnapping and extortion of businesses.


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

Jo - I sort of agree, and knowing that the OP and some of the replies were just meant for mental gymnastics got me a bit annoyed as well. 

Then I thought two things: 
1)  these old retired guys in Mexico [of which I can't become one of soon enough] who have nothing else to do can spend the time doing this. We still here with our noses to the grindstone sometimes don't feel the need to spend the time on it. Thanks, Old Retired Guys [of which I soon will be one!] - or maybe they are just tired of talking to the spouses/life companions 
2) It was a really interesting thing to have to use my brain for something else than my business. Debate and discussion is great mental exercise. Yes, being fooled thinking it was a serious topic got me a bit miffed, but as you saw, I liked to express my opinions, and writing. So, again, thanks Old Guys [of which I soon will be one!]

It only proves that in retirement, in a place where your life is good, allows you to do those things you were "too busy" to do while you were building your life.

Beware, once I join their ranks there may be more open discussions on topics which we can't do anything about, only give our minds some exercise!


----------



## jreedbrundage (Oct 16, 2011)

Yes, I am focused on this issue of the drug war because three years ago I retired (the Spanish word is better, "jubilado," -- on jubilee!). After a year of trying to ignore the drug war, I found it impossible to do so and, as a U.S. citizen, I began to look at the responsibility of my country for the disaster that is happening in Mexico. It became clear to me that U.S. drug prohibition laws create the illegal market and, thus the flow of the billions of dollars to the cartels, giving them the reason to murder and their power to corrupt Mexican society. In order to educate my fellow citizens, I then started a blog, the Americas MexicoBlog, where daily I post news about the drug war, as well as about immigration.


----------



## malcolmkyle (Oct 16, 2011)

conklinwh said:


> I lived in Singapore for 3 years in the '90's. There was always something a little disconcerting about reading in the morning paper that yesterday a drug dealer was arrested, tried and executed. Be that as it may, I don't think RV ****** had any idea about Singapore but was really firing for effect rather than putting forth a position so you can calm down.


Kindly calm down yourself!

It is our moral duty to rectify false statements whenever and wherever we may find them.

prohibition is one of the most dangerous public policies ever dreamed up in the history of mankind, anybody using lies to support it deserves to be exposed.

Our own Federal government has recently trafficked over 2000 guns to Mexico in a blatant, back-door attempt to rob us of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

These 'fast & furious' gun-running Feds are not only guilty of perjury and murder but also of bankrolling ruthless criminals, international terrorists, right/left-wing paramilitaries and various death squads with their counter-productive, sado-moralist policy of Prohibition.

Colombia, Peru, Mexico or Afghanistan with their coca leaves, marijuana buds or poppy sap are not igniting temptation in the minds of our weak, innocent citizens. These countries are duly responding to the enormous demand that comes from within our own borders. Invading or destroying these countries, thus creating more hate, violence, instability, injustice and corruption, will not fix our problem. We need to collectively admit that we are sick. -- Prohibition is neither a sane nor a safe approach; left unabated, its puritanical flames will surely engulf every last one of us!

When we legally regulate something, (as opposed to when we foolishly attempt to prohibit something) we do NOT automatically condone it's use; the legal regulations concerning the sale and manufacture of alcohol and tobacco are there to protect us from the vast increase in criminality and mayhem that would otherwise surely exist if we were foolish enough to prohibit them.

When governments prohibit drugs they effectively and knowingly hand a monopoly on their sale to dangerous criminals and terrorists. Without a legal framework in which to operate, these black-market entities can always be expected to settle their disputes violently, while terrorizing many peaceful and innocent citizens in the process. Were the users of alcohol to blame for the St Valentines massacre in the US in 1929? Of course not! It is just as naive to assume that one can compel all the users of Marijuana or Cocaine to simply quit, as it is to assume that all the users of Alcohol should have stopped drinking after the introduction of alcohol prohibition in 1919.

Protect our Children; Legalize, Regulate & Tax!


----------



## johnleeward (Oct 17, 2011)

*Moctezuma's Revenge*

Just imagine if Mexico completely legalized marijuana. One result might very well be a diminution in the scale and violence of the drug wars. Maybe American kids would come back to Mexican border towns and start smoking pot. I am sure the Mexican people would rather deal with stoned gringos than drunk gringos. 

Another great step for ameliorating the negative effects of the drug problem would be for the United States to adopt a realistic gun policy. Clearly, the US gun policy is irrational if judged by prevailing attitudes of just about all nominally educated non-Americans on the planet. Only in the US exist persons who claim (with a straight face) that keeping an AK-47 in thier home helps protect democracy and is a "fundamental right". 

Just my $.02....


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

*I Like This*

Poppa - looks like the intellectual exchange on your tongue in cheek OP has gotten "legs". I am reading good, well thought out ideas. This is really great. I can just imagine this topic thread if it was on cnn.com, or some other more mainstream national blog. Altho you may have started it just to stir up the pot (every pun intended) it has exposed, at least to me, that there are intelligent people from all over who can still engage in argumentation.

When I have more time, I will add my two cents to some of the comments, but for us working stiffs, not yet jubilitos, I have to get back to work. G'day and thanks to all.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

I think that there are really two parallel discussions.
I suspect that anyone spending time in Mexico and talking with local Mexican friends can understand their frustration with the inability of the US to significantly reduce demand or stem the flow of semi & automatic weapons into Mexico. I'm sure that there are multiple views on how this can be done, I've already given mine, and over what time frame.
However as somebody living in Mexico, my real concern is the impact of both the status quo and what it might be if the US got it's act together.
In fact, I think what we are starting to see gives a pretty good indication of the latter. Where the Mexican government is having success is on removing the heads of the cartels. This is starting to cause an increase in the number of cartels but not necessarily the same success in controlling the drug routes. We are starting to see much more inter cartel violence as they fight for territory as well as an increase in "street crime". Mexico must restructure to fight this change as it puts more pressure on local policed because this will look minor if in fact the US figures out how to stop demand.
As much as we can all wring our hands about the ills of US policy. My concern is more what if the drug flow north stops. A key part of this of course is the 2012 Mexican Presidential election.


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

We, gente jubilado, have time to relax and enjoy the reparteé of conversational intercourse among friends; strangers we haven't met yet. It is interesting that expats and experienced world travelers are able to do that and enjoy the civil ping pong game, while the same jibs and jabs in the USA seem to stir up animosities; even violent reactions. Sometimes, when one tires of the process, it can be refreshed by switching sides as an intellectual exercise to avoid boredom. Of course, one must always avoid such activity with those who believe in mythological beings or the absolute correctness of a particular political party. As such, most of these forums have rules against discussing religion or politics; really the same entity, and that does take a lot of the fun out of the game.


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

You cannot legislate morality. All drugs should be legal for those who want to use them responsibly. Is America the land of the free or not? There was a time when one could walk into a pharmacy and buy heroin and we didn't have the problems we have today.
Just one thing, though... if you are going to abuse drugs (alcohol included) don't ask the government to tax me to take care of you.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

Monty, I personally agree with you; however, my far bigger concern is the impact on my friends in Mexico under the status quo and various change scenarios. I really don't see an option that will be good for Mexico in the next 5 or even 10 years and that the real problem.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Monty Floyd said:


> You cannot legislate morality. All drugs should be legal for those who want to use them responsibly. Is America the land of the free or not? There was a time when one could walk into a pharmacy and buy heroin and we didn't have the problems we have today.
> Just one thing, though... if you are going to abuse drugs (alcohol included) don't ask the government to tax me to take care of you.


You have unsheathed a two edged sword. You say that all drugs should be legal for those who want to use them responsibly--what about those who do not or will not?

You don't want the government to tax you to take care of abusers so what happens to them? Do we just ship them off to the moon?? OK I know that's dumb but still what does the government do with them? AND who's going to enforce the "responsibly" laws. Come on, there's only so much room at Walden Pond.

As I said earlier, there is no answer. We Americans tend to abuse what we want and tell someone else to take care of it. We eat 4-5 times the amount of food that we really need and then say what about National Health Care so someone will take care of all the heart attacks, strokes, sugar, and the rest. We drink and drive and tell everyone 'it's our right to get drunk, just stay out of our way'. AND we use drugs because it makes us feel better (or at least it did while we were still in control-now we let the drugs control us) and we say where are all the facilities to take care of us since we no longer can take care of ourselves. 

Then we say why is big brother messing with our lives. OK OK now I'm off the soap box again. :ranger:


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

_edit to add quote from conklin_


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

conklinwh said:


> Monty, I personally agree with you; however, my far bigger concern is the impact on my friends in Mexico under the status quo and various change scenarios. I really don't see an option that will be good for Mexico in the next 5 or even 10 years and that the real problem.


I'd like you to elaborate, please.


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

pappabee said:


> You have unsheathed a two edged sword. You say that all drugs should be legal for those who want to use them responsibly--what about those who do not or will not?
> 
> You don't want the government to tax you to take care of abusers so what happens to them? Do we just ship them off to the moon?? OK I know that's dumb but still what does the government do with them? AND who's going to enforce the "responsibly" laws. Come on, there's only so much room at Walden Pond.
> 
> ...


People that refuse to act responsibly will have to rely on family or charity, just as they did before "big daddy" government stepped in to relieve us all of our responsibility. We are either a nation founded on the principles of individual freedom (that includes the right to do stupid things) or we are a nation of subjects.
The drug war may not be the birth of the "big brother" mindset but it has quickened it's growth.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Monty Floyd said:


> People that refuse to act responsibly will have to rely on family or charity, just as they did before "big daddy" government stepped in to relieve us all of our responsibility. We are either a nation founded on the principles of individual freedom (that includes the right to do stupid things) or we are a nation of subjects.
> The drug war may not be the birth of the "big brother" mindset but it has quickened it's growth.


OK in keeping with the thoughts that you need to take care of yourself. I don't agree but it's a common thought. But what about the rest of us? I really don't want my wife or daughter to have to walk through a bunch of hop heads in order to get the bus or go somewhere. In other words, again, who's going to enforce the "responsibility" laws? 

You see you have done what many people have done for years. You have addressed part of the problem (the easiest) and ignored the rest (the hardest). Because there is no answer to the hard part. At least none that most thinking people could accept. 

This site and these threads have shown that there are a lot of very smart, thinking people out there. People with a very wide range of experiences and ideas. Yet no one has come up with any new ideas. That's part of the reason that I started this thread, to show us that there are no new ideas and the ones that have been tried only work a little.

What a shame, our Walden Pond here in Mexico is looking better and better.


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

pappabee said:


> OK in keeping with the thoughts that you need to take care of yourself. I don't agree but it's a common thought. But what about the rest of us? I really don't want my wife or daughter to have to walk through a bunch of hop heads in order to get the bus or go somewhere. In other words, again, who's going to enforce the "responsibility" laws?
> 
> You see you have done what many people have done for years. You have addressed part of the problem (the easiest) and ignored the rest (the hardest). Because there is no answer to the hard part. At least none that most thinking people could accept.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your concern for safety but I believe you are making the assumption that there will be more "hop heads", as you put it, if drugs were legalized. I think that the stats on places that have legalized or at least decriminalized drugs will show that is not true. I am from Texas and when the Texas legislature was considering issuing "concealed carry permits" the opponents were crying that there will be "rivers blood running in the streets". Of course that never happened. In fact, there have been many instances where an armed citizen has prevented a crime, most of the time without discharging his weapon. 
The bottom line is that there are already laws against assault, battery, theft, public intoxication, driving while impaired and all the other dangerous things that straight people are guilty of as well as drug users. Assuming that legalizing drugs will somehow open a "Pandora's Box" of crime and violence is, in my opinion, paranoia. 
What I am trying to say is that what the government is doing is clearly not working and we need to change our perspective on the role of government in our lives. The latest Gallup poll just out says 50% of Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana. I think it's time to admit to our mistakes of the past and head in a new direction.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Monty Floyd said:


> I appreciate your concern for safety but I believe you are making the assumption that there will be more "hop heads", as you put it, if drugs were legalized. I think that the stats on places that have legalized or at least decriminalized drugs will show that is not true. *No place has legalized drugs but there have been places that have legalized marijuana and in those places there has been a marked increase in it's use. * I am from Texas and when the Texas legislature was considering issuing "concealed carry permits" the opponents were crying that there will be "rivers blood running in the streets". Of course that never happened. In fact, there have been many instances where an armed citizen has prevented a crime, most of the time without discharging his weapon. I would be very interested in where you got your informaiton on this.The bottom line is that there are already laws against assault, battery, theft, public intoxication, driving while impaired and all the other dangerous things that straight people are guilty of as well as drug users. Assuming that legalizing drugs will somehow open a "Pandora's Box" of crime and violence is, in my opinion, paranoia.
> 
> I never said that I was worried about a "Pandora's Box" of crime. What I was concerned with was who was going to INFORCE the rights of the rest of us based on your desire that you not be made to pay taxes with regard to drug use and care.
> 
> What I am trying to say is that what the government is doing is clearly not working and we need to change our perspective on the role of government in our lives. The latest Gallup poll just out says 50% of Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana. I think it's time to admit to our mistakes of the past and head in a new direction.


First of all I already said that I was in favor of de-criminalization of marijuana. But my response to you was in regard to your statement "if you are going to abuse drugs (alcohol included) don't ask the government to tax me to take care of you". 

According to your comments "intoxication, driving while impaired and all the other dangerous things that straight people are guilty of as well as drug users" all these people are drug users. Now again who's going to take care of them? We have laws but you don't want to be taxed to take care of the users. What about the rest of us?

Please make some suggestions as to who is going to take care of the rest of us or admit that there really isn't a good solution for the problem. I'm not trying to push any buttons, just asking for suggestions or answers to something that I don't think exists. 

All the way back to the start of dirt people have looked at problems and said that we must do something. The problem was and is, no one has a workable solution.


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

pappabee said:


> First of all I already said that I was in favor of de-criminalization of marijuana. But my response to you was in regard to your statement "if you are going to abuse drugs (alcohol included) don't ask the government to tax me to take care of you".
> 
> According to your comments "intoxication, driving while impaired and all the other dangerous things that straight people are guilty of as well as drug users" all these people are drug users. Now again who's going to take care of them? We have laws but you don't want to be taxed to take care of the users.


They take care of themselves, if they cannot, their family and if their family is unwilling or non existent then charity. 



pappabee said:


> What about the rest of us?


I don't understand the question.



pappabee said:


> Please make some suggestions as to who is going to take care of the rest of us or admit that there really isn't a good solution for the problem. I'm not trying to push any buttons, just asking for suggestions or answers to something that I don't think exists.


I am unclear as to what you mean by "who is going to take care of the rest of us". Why can you not take care of yourself?



pappabee said:


> All the way back to the start of dirt people have looked at problems and said that we must do something. The problem was and is, no one has a workable solution.


I disagree.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

Monty, my point is that almost no matter what the US does about drugs, Mexico has the ever expanding cartels that need huge cash to maintain their position.
Pick a US option on drugs and tell me how that will positively impact Mexico. I think that under any option that the next 5 to maybe even 10 years will be very tough. Just look at Columbia and how long it took Uribe. Now think about the 2012 Mexican election.


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

conklinwh said:


> Monty, my point is that almost no matter what the US does about drugs, Mexico has the ever expanding cartels that need huge cash to maintain their position.
> Pick a US option on drugs and tell me how that will positively impact Mexico. I think that under any option that the next 5 to maybe even 10 years will be very tough. Just look at Columbia and how long it took Uribe. Now think about the 2012 Mexican election.


The huge profits that the cartels are making are a direct result from the drugs being illegal. If they were made legal once again (like they were once before), it would take the gigantic profits out of the trade. The cartels are not going away, they've already made enough to be a permanent fixture for many years to come. Legalization would not only take away the profits but also dramatically reduce the violence.
Look back at the 20's in America when the thought was "alcohol is a scourge and we must eliminate it'. What happened? Organized crime made huge profits from providing a product that the people wanted. There were shootings and bombings and the violence was rampant, often spilling over to include innocents. Finally, common sense prevailed and the prohibition was ended. It didn't make organized crime disappear, they just went after other illegal ways to make money, namely drugs.
My point is that if you make something illegal because the opinion is that it is bad for society but society still wants that "something", there will always be someone there willing to provide it for a profit. If I can produce something that the people want and I can make 1000% profit from it, you can NEVER stop it. Look at gambling and prostitution. They have been around at least as long as mind altering substances and they will be around forever because there is a market for it. The best that we can do is to acknowledge this, make it legal and let the government regulate and tax it.


----------



## abscissa (Apr 5, 2010)

you can't legislate morality

booze 
drugs
prostitution
abortion
etc

It never works and just drives it underground


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

*Vicente Fox speach 10-18-2011 in the US*

The past Mexican president [PAN] advocates legalizing drugs worldwide. I saw this on C-Span last night. A very good speech.


Vicente Fox Remarks on Drug Legalization - C-SPAN Video Library


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

Inherent in your logic is that the cartels will declare that they have enough money or will all become baggers at Mega. Ain't going to happen. Just as after prohibition where in the US crime groups went after other revenue sources, the lack of a drug market will drive alternate crime.
A little aside, there is a huge traffic in the US between states for cigarets. i.e $4/pack in NC/VA, $12/pack in NYC. Now think about states taxing drugs. Wouldn't you think that producing states such as CA would have a much lower state tax as with NC/VA versus consuming states. 
I never underestimate the ability of people to find illegal ways to make money or groups to want to control that process.
I think we are seeing that start with increased extortion and kidnappings in Mexico as the splinter groups look for alternate revenue sources. My view is that if the income from the US has a significant decrease is that there will be a focus within Mexico to backfill the short fall and that even with a committed government it will take 5-10 years to get control.


----------



## malcolmkyle (Oct 16, 2011)

pappabee said:


> OK in keeping with the thoughts that you need to take care of yourself. I don't agree but it's a common thought. But what about the rest of us? I really don't want my wife or daughter to have to walk through a bunch of hop heads in order to get the bus or go somewhere. In other words, again, who's going to enforce the "responsibility" laws?


Alcohol is a factor in the following:

* 73% of all felonies * 73% of child beating cases * 41% of rape cases * 80% of wife battering cases * 72% of stabbings * 83% of homicides.

According to the Australian National Drug Research Institute (2003): "Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs are prematurely killing around seven million people worldwide each year, and robbing tens of millions more of a healthy life. The research into the global burden of disease attributable to alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs found that in 2000, tobacco use was responsible for 4.9 million deaths worldwide, equating to 71 percent of all drug-related deaths. Around 1.8 million deaths were attributable to the use of alcohol (26 percent of all drug-related deaths), and illicit drugs (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) caused approximately 223,000 deaths (3 percent of all drug-related deaths)."

According to DrugRehabs.Org, national mortality figures for 2009 were: tobacco 435,000; poor diet and physical inactivity 365,000; alcohol 85,000; microbial agents 75,000; toxic agents 55,000; motor vehicle crashes 26,347; adverse reactions to prescription drugs 32,000; suicide 30,622; incidents involving firearms 29,000; homicide 20,308; sexual behaviors 20,000; all illicit drug use, direct and indirect 17,000; and marijuana 0.

Apart from the fact that legal drugs kill far more people than all the illegal drugs combined, debating whether a particular drug is harmless or not is missing the whole point. Are drugs like Heroin, Meth or Alcohol dangerous? It simply doesn't matter, because if we prohibit them then we sure as hell know that it makes a bad situation far worse. If someone wants to attempt to enhance or destroy their lives with particular medicines or poisons, that should be their business, not anybody else's. Their lives aren't ours to direct. And anyway, who wants to give criminals a huge un-taxed, endless revenue stream?

A great many of us are slowly but surely wising up to the fact that the best avenue towards realistically dealing with drug use and addiction is through proper regulation which is what we already do with alcohol & tobacco, clearly two of our most dangerous mood altering substances. But for those of you whose ignorant and irrational minds traverse a fantasy plane of existence, you will no doubt remain sorely upset with any type of solution that does not seem to lead to your absurd and unattainable utopia of a drug free society.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

"But for those of you whose ignorant and irrational minds traverse a fantasy plane of existence, you will no doubt remain sorely upset with any type of solution that does not seem to lead to your absurd and unattainable utopia of a drug free society."

Sorry, I think the above statement doesn't meet any criteria of civil discourse.

In fact, I thought this forum was focused on Moving/Living/Jobs in Mexico and not to debate US drug policy as it relates to anything.
I've tried multiple times to try to get the discourse to focus on Mexico under various US drug options which I do think is a valid discussion as that we all need live with but not very successful so I quit!

Hopefully we can get back to more useful threads to people living in or considering Mexico.


----------



## joaquinx (Jul 3, 2010)

conklinwh said:


> "But for those of you whose ignorant and irrational minds traverse a fantasy plane of existence, you will no doubt remain sorely upset with any type of solution that does not seem to lead to your absurd and unattainable utopia of a drug free society."
> 
> Sorry, I think the above statement doesn't meet any criteria of civil discourse.
> 
> ...


Reading this, I broke down in tears knowing that your attempts were for not.


----------



## malcolmkyle (Oct 16, 2011)

conklinwh said:


> "But for those of you whose ignorant and irrational minds traverse a fantasy plane of existence, you will no doubt remain sorely upset with any type of solution that does not seem to lead to your absurd and unattainable utopia of a drug free society."
> 
> Sorry, I think the above statement doesn't meet any criteria of civil discourse.


Sorry, but I feel we've all suffered enough at the hands of you prohibitionists. 

If you think a drug free society is possible then kindly explain to us how and when this will be achieved without another 50,000 deaths in Mexico, without incarcerating another 2 million Americans, without removing what scant civil liberties we still have left, without spending another trillion dollars of our hard earned tax dollars, etc, etc, etc.

If you're unable to do this then then at least give us straight answers to the following questions:

#1.*Why do you rejoice at the fact that we have all been stripped of our 4th amendment rights and are now totally subordinate to a corporatized, despotic government with a heavily armed and corrupt, militarized police force whose often deadly intrusions into our homes and lives are condoned by an equally corrupt and spineless judiciary?

#2. Why do you wish to continue to spend $50 billion a year to prosecute and cage your fellow citizens for choosing drugs which are not more dangerous than those of which you yourself use and approve of such as alcohol and tobacco?

#3. Do you honestly expect the rest of us to look on passively while you waste another trillion dollars on this ruinously expensive garbage policy?

#4. Why are your waging war on your own family, friends and neighbors?

#5. Why are you so complacent with the fact that our once 'free & proud' nation now has the largest percentage of it's citizenry incarcerated than any other on the entire planet?

#6. Why are you helping to fuel a budget crisis to the point of closing hospitals, schools and libraries?

#7. Why do you rejoice at wasting precious resources on prohibition related undercover work while rapists and murderers walk free, while additionally, many cases involving murder and rape do not even get taken to trial because law enforcement priorities are subverted by your beloved failed and dangerous policy?

#8. Why are you such a supporter of the 'prison industrial complex' to the extent of endangering our own children?

#9. Will you graciously applaud, when due to your own incipient and authoritarian approach, even your own child is caged and raped?

* It is estimated that there are over 300,000 instances of prison rape a year. * 196,000 are estimated to happen to men in prison. * 123,000 are estimated to happen to men in county jail. * 40,000 are estimated to be committed against boys in either adult prisons or while in juvenile facilities or lock ups. * 5000 women are estimated to be raped in prison. 

#10. And will you also applaud when your own child, due to an unnecessary and counter productive felony conviction, can no longer find employment? 

Be well and God bless!
malc


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

malcolmkyle said:


> Sorry, but I feel we've all suffered enough at the hands of you prohibitionists.
> 
> If you think a drug free society is possible then kindly explain to us how and when this will be achieved without another 50,000 deaths in Mexico, without incarcerating another 2 million Americans, without removing what scant civil liberties we still have left, without spending another trillion dollars of our hard earned tax dollars, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


Excuse me but your post shows your completely one sided attitude and NOTHING that anyone could say could change it. Your post is a perfect example of yellow journalism. Where do you get your supposed facts? 
In 2001, Human Rights Watch estimated that at least 140,000 inmates had been raped while incarcerated. That's a very long cry from your 300,000. 
I will not take the time or energy to question each of your supposed facts but will request that you post them again with the supporting details. If you don’t have the details then rescind the posts. 
Most of the rest of your post is a listing of extreme garbage that has absolutely no basis in fact. It’s the same kind of information spread by Joseph Goebbels. Again, tell a big enough lie-loud enough and often enough and people will start to believe it. 
Just so you understand my position I not disagree with the fact that marijuana must be either de-criminalized or legalized. The use of marijuana is not currently considered addictive but it could be habit forming. In other words it does not create a physical need nor a physical withdrawal but like cigarettes and alcohol it can form an emotional attachment. It would help the Mexican Government; it would help the US Government and each and every state in the US if they didn’t have to “protect us” from grass. 
I will end by asking you just to do one thing again, if your statements are true then please post them again with the supporting details. In other words either put up or (you know the rest).


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

conklinwh said:


> "But for those of you whose ignorant and irrational minds traverse a fantasy plane of existence, you will no doubt remain sorely upset with any type of solution that does not seem to lead to your absurd and unattainable utopia of a drug free society."
> 
> Sorry, I think the above statement doesn't meet any criteria of civil discourse.
> 
> ...


We got onto the US drug problem because some posters said that until the US finds out how to control its drug use, there is no way that Mexico can do much more to control the Cartels. I'm not sure if that's the case or not. But it sure will be interesting to see what the new President of Mexico does. Oh BTW, I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me and as a matter of fact I truly enjoy it. It's back from my old debate days and the board room where I had to sit and defend my sneeze sometimes.
:focus:


----------



## johnmex (Nov 30, 2010)

Legalizing _just_ marijuana would have hardly any benefit for Mexico in the current War on Drugs, the majority of pot consumed in the USA is grown in the USA. The cartels big bucks are made through the coke and herion trade. And (say it softly) moving illegal immigrants into the USA.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

johnmex said:


> Legalizing _just_ marijuana would have hardly any benefit for Mexico in the current War on Drugs, the majority of pot consumed in the USA is grown in the USA. The cartels big bucks are made through the coke and herion trade. And (say it softly) moving illegal immigrants into the USA.



I must disagree according to the NDIC (National Drug Intellence Center) this was published in December 2008.

"Marijuana Production in Mexico Shifting Closer to the U.S. Border

Mexico is the primary foreign source of marijuana in the United States. According to U.S. Government estimates, approximately 15,500 metric tons of marijuana were produced in Mexico in 2007, primarily for export to the United States. The GOM reports that in 2007 approximately 30,000 hectares of cannabis were eradicated primarily from nine states (Chihuahua, Durango, Guerrero, Jalisco, Michoacán, Nayarit, Oaxaca, Sinaloa, and Sonora), where cultivation and eradication activities are most concentrated. Marijuana production is highest in Guerrero, Nayarit, and Michoacán. However, according to intelligence reporting, since the 1990s, Mexican DTOs have relocated many of their cannabis-growing operations from Guerrero, Michoacán, and Nayarit to remote mountain areas of Durango, Sinaloa, and Sonora in central and northern Mexico. Intelligence reports indicate that this relocation is likely a reaction to sustained high levels of detection and eradication in traditional growing areas as well as a desire by Mexican DTOs to reduce transportation costs to the Southwest Border and gain more direct access to drug markets in the United States."


----------



## joaquinx (Jul 3, 2010)

pappabee said:


> Mexico is the primary foreign source of marijuana in the United States.


Once again, you failed to read what the poster said. He was talking about the MAJORITY, not the primary FOREIGN source.

We need an "Unlike" in addition to the "Like."


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

joaquinx said:


> Once again, you failed to read what the poster said. He was talking about the MAJORITY, not the primary FOREIGN source.
> 
> We need an "Unlike" in addition to the "Like."


You are correct and I can't find anywhere where they list the actual figures of how much comes from Mexico and how much is home grown. 

BTW I did read what the poster said, (and I'll use the excuse of old age and deformity) but it just didn't register correctly. 

Thank our for correcting me and please feel free to do so any time it's needed. My kids tell me that I may not always be right but I'm never wrong. (hey, it worked for the years I was raising them alone. Now my kids know how to pull my chain when it's needed-and they do a great job of it).


----------



## Mona Lisa76 (Mar 10, 2011)

Legalize the whole lot and tax it! Make it highly illegal to drive or operation machinery under the influence though...It's all moralizing, let's face it; drinking is often far worse than the likes of pot or even mdma, etc. 

I could go on but am off the bed now, ta!


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

*El Sábado por la Tarde*

Yes, it is Saturday afternoon and we are back from errands, so I opened up this thread to see how it is going. Looks like the discussion of the issue is far from over. 

One of us said that in all of the posts, still there was no new ideas. I believe that to be correct, but it doesn't mean all the existing ideas, implemented or not, are not able to curtail the problem.

The laundry list posted by malcolmkyle should not be easily dismissed with a "prove it" phrase. I agree I like assertions backed with citations and checked facts and some of those on the list do deserve that, however, it appears that a good many, while not empirically backed up are the sentiments of many Americans.

I'll go a step beyond _mi amigo_ pappabee and say, as Mona Lisa 76 said, that all drugs need to need legalized and regulated. But there must be put in place severe penalties for those who do not comply with this new legalization. So, while in favor of legalization, I also advocate for a lot stricter enforcement. I know it gives people a new freedom, but the penalties for abusing that freedom also come with it. It is sort of like the authority/responsibility quotient we all know from business and other social dealings: you can't really have one without accepting the other.
:ranger:
Last point, the Expat Forum is indeed for those seeking to move to Mexico and looking for insight and advice. Saying this though, do we not measure that advice from not only the answer as to where I can rent a car, but from the legitimacy of knowing that other people here, through what may be called "irrelevant" threads [like this one], are intelligent and can be trusted? 

I would not like the Expat Forum to turn into a million other places to post and stay true to its first purpose, but it is nice to convene people with at least one like trait: either living in or contemplating living in Mexico, who can discuss other things and be there when advice or such is needed. Yes, _mis amigos_, we must not allow this forum to become solely a debate club on "irrelevant" issues, and a bit of a diversion is a good thing, but if it turns only into that, its purpose ceases to exist.


----------



## joaquinx (Jul 3, 2010)

FHBOY said:


> . . .that all drugs need to need legalized and regulated. But there must be put in place severe penalties for those who do not comply with this new legalization. So, while in favor of legalization, I also advocate for a lot stricter enforcement. I know it gives people a new freedom, but the penalties for abusing that freedom also come with it. It is sort of like the authority/responsibility quotient we all know from business and other social dealings: you can't really have one without accepting the other.


This sounds like a discussion I had years ago with a lawyer friend who ended the point that he was making regarding a proposed law with ". . .and now we come to the punishment clause." 

You have passed out freedoms yet advocate stricter enforcement. In a time when the US is laying-off police and firefighters, who will be left to enforce these new freedoms? Yet your choice of words suggests even more offenders will be sent to court and then onto prisons or workhouses.

Charles Dickens would be cringe to read your passage and Walt Whitman would shed a tear.


----------



## malcolmkyle (Oct 16, 2011)

pappabee said:


> Excuse me but your post shows your completely one sided attitude and NOTHING that anyone could say could change it. Your post is a perfect example of yellow journalism. Where do you get your supposed facts?


* On the contrary; my post shows that I deal only in facts:

* As a new contributor here, I am disallowed from posting links to external sites. So kindly Google the following: "Prison Rape by by Scott L. Anderson" 

Rape in male prisons is a highly discussed topic in regards to incarceration in the United States. Although sometimes going unnoticed, rape of young men in prison is a very common occurrence and a dangerous one at that. Most often this topic is referred to as “Prison Rape”. Scott L. Anderson a former prison guard at a Minnesota Prison discusses the reasoning behind prison rapes and some interesting facts regarding the topic. Overall there is a total of 196,000 cases of men being raped in prison each year. Out of the 196,000 cases, 40,000 are juveniles being raped in adult prisons (Anderson). Although these are shocking statistics, most rapes go unnoticed and accounted for, so in reality there are most likely many more cases. Moreover, it is estimated that most rapes occur against young men who are white, middle class and physically small. From this group, 56% of rapes are committed by black men raping white men (Anderson). The majority of rapes by men are estimated to be done by black gangs within the prison system, this is largely because white young males lack solidarity within the system and are in fact the minority group among the prison population (Anderson).

Furthermore, Anderson describes three common groups that are involved or are the typical victims of prison rape. The first group is commonly known as “the predators”, also known as the jocks. The second group is called “the jailhouse queens,” this group tends to be those men who have feminine characteristics and identities within the prison. The last group is “the punks” also known as the inmates who are younger and weaker (Anderson).
Overall, the argument discussing prison rape and the problems that go with it is not only violence and violation, but it is a discussion of physical and mental health as well. It is estimated that 15.4 inmates commit suicide to every 100,000 prisoners, with the exception of California which has an estimated 179 suicides to every 100,000 inmates (Anderson). Moreover, considering the lack of contraception in the prison system the average rate of HIV and AIDS is six times the national average in prison (Anderson).

Ultimately, Anderson describes many shocking statistics regarding the violence and abundance of male rapes in prison. Through this action there are many cases of deaths because of AIDS and suicides. The mental health of a prisoner who has suffered numerous rapes can be very difficult to overcome once released from ones sentence. TJ Parsell is an example of this difficulty, which, he discusses in his memoir “Fish: a Memoir of a Boy in Man’s Prison” about being a young man (17-21) serving a sentence for armed robbery. In his experience in Jackson Prison in Michigan, Parsell now an adult discusses the psychological trauma he faces after his prison rape experiences. Ultimately, he discusses the struggles he faced being constantly raped in prison and the experience he went through in overcoming that trauma after being released.

Lastly, prison rape in men’s prisons is from what we can see a common occurrence. From these rapes leads to mental and physical instability and ultimately, trauma.

Your turn!


----------



## malcolmkyle (Oct 16, 2011)

FHBOY said:


> Last point, the Expat Forum is indeed for those seeking to move to Mexico and looking for insight and advice. Saying this though, do we not measure that advice from not only the answer as to where I can rent a car, but from the legitimacy of knowing that other people here, through what may be called "irrelevant" threads [like this one], are intelligent and can be trusted?


I completely agree and therefor wish to add the following important facts concerning the Mexican Government's deep involvement with the Sinaloa Cartel. Once again due to my status of Newbe here, I will not be allowed to post links. So, for verification, kindly just Google:

In 2009, NPR analyzed thousands of news releases on the federal attorney general’s website announcing arrests for organized crime, weapons and drug offenses. The information surveyed spanned from the day Calderon assumed the presidency in December 2006. The analysis showed that Nationwide, 44 percent of all cartel defendants are with the Zetas and Gulf cartels. Only 12 percent of the defendants are with the Sinaloa cartel. The numbers contradict the Mexican government, which claims it has arrested twice the percentage of Sinaloa gang members.

“I think you’ve identified an issue of concern, and that is, why is the Sinaloa doing so much better than the others and why is the Sinaloa cartel been the one that has escaped a lot of the prosecutions compared to the other cartel numbers?” 
— U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), a former federal prosecutor who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, when asked to review the NPR analysis.

NPR’s analysis is supported by a Mexican law professor and organized crime expert, Edgardo Buscaglia, who has done his own analysis of cartel arrests.

“If you look at the main organized crime group in Mexico, that is, the Sinaloan confederation, it has been left relatively untouched. The Sinaloa has been clearly the winner of all that competition among organized crime groups. And as a result of that, they have gained more economic power, they have been able to corrupt with more frequency and corrupt with more scope. Now you see that Sinaloa is the most powerful criminal group, not just in Mexico, but all over Latin America,” 
— Law professor and organized crime expert. Edgardo Buscaglia

“Has the Sinaloa infiltrated the Mexican government? Absolutely. Has the Sinaloa infiltrated the Mexican military? Absolutely.” 
— Texas Congressman Michael McCaul

“When the Sinaloan cartel began to be protected by all the apparatus of the government after 2001, it felt the power for the first time in history to occupy plazas that for dozens of years belonged to other cartels. So you saw them take on the Gulf cartel in Nuevo Laredo [in 2005], My hypothesis, after five years of investigation, is that Joaquin Guzman Loera is the best example of corruption in Mexico.” 
— Anabel Hernandez, an award-winning investigative reporter who has spent five years researching a book on Guzman.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

malcolmkyle said:


> * On the contrary; my post shows that I deal only in facts: facts are not merely stating something they require some form of back up. You have shown nothing. If this is your idea of FACTS then I would question anything that you would write.
> * As a new contributor here, I am disallowed from posting links to external sites. So kindly Google the following: "Prison Rape by by Scott L. Anderson"
> 
> Rape in male prisons is a highly discussed topic in regards to incarceration in the United States. Although sometimes going unnoticed, rape of young men in prison is a very common occurrence and a dangerous one at that. Most often this topic is referred to as “Prison Rape”. Scott L. Anderson a former prison guard at a Minnesota Prison discusses the reasoning behind prison rapes and some interesting facts regarding the topic. Overall there is a total of 196,000 cases of men being raped in prison each year. Out of the 196,000 cases, 40,000 are juveniles being raped in adult prisons (Anderson). Although these are shocking statistics, most rapes go unnoticed and accounted for, so in reality there are most likely many more cases. Moreover, it is estimated that most rapes occur against young men who are white, middle class and physically small. From this group, 56% of rapes are committed by black men raping white men (Anderson). The majority of rapes by men are estimated to be done by black gangs within the prison system, this is largely because white young males lack solidarity within the system and are in fact the minority group among the prison population (Anderson).
> ...


OK I'm going to finish this off once and for all. What you have quoted is directly from a posting that is designed to sell a book. The "facts" in it are those listed by the author and not any known quality source. The publisher is so off center that many sights will not allow it to list their books. Also they are out of business as of 2006. I am not saying that the information is not correct what I am saying is that ANYONE can list ANYTHING on a blog or on a posting but that doesn't mean that there is ANY fact attached to it. The author was a prison guard and that's where he got is ideas and the direction of his supposed facts. The listing of the supposed facts in the article are directly attributed to Anderson. Don't prove a thing.

here is the link to the bio of the publishing company. Loompanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This topic has run it's course and I'm through with it. I will not respond to any more posts.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

malcolmkyle said:


> I completely agree and therefor wish to add the following important facts concerning the Mexican Government's deep involvement with the Sinaloa Cartel. Once again due to my status of Newbe here, I will not be allowed to post links. So, for verification, kindly just Google:
> 
> In 2009, NPR analyzed thousands of news releases on the federal attorney general’s website announcing arrests for organized crime, weapons and drug offenses. The information surveyed spanned from the day Calderon assumed the presidency in December 2006. The analysis showed that Nationwide, 44 percent of all cartel defendants are with the Zetas and Gulf cartels. Only 12 percent of the defendants are with the Sinaloa cartel. The numbers contradict the Mexican government, which claims it has arrested twice the percentage of Sinaloa gang members.
> 
> ...


This is what I call backing up your posts with facts and you have done an excellent job of it here. I do not nor could I disagree with what you have said here.:clap2:


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

Malcolmkyle:
Thank you for your work on these last two posts. Since the second one is more on target, I read it more carefully. 

I do not dispute the post on prison rape, however that is way off the topic, however worthy of discussion. 
:focus:
What we are concerned with here on this board is those things concerning Mexico specifically. Even though some have the time in retirement to "solve the world's problems" (e.g. prison rape), would it be agreeable to stick to Mexico related issues?

As far as that goes, your compilation of facts and quotes is impressive and well put together, but I was left wondering, other than putting new ideas on the table, where you are going with this as it relates to ex-pats in Mexico. I know little of the Sinaloa cartel, perhaps to my detriment, but in your opinion, how does it affect Expat Life? As to the Mexican government's involvement with it, well this is certainly probable, even the US government gets into bed with some unsavory people - only we call them "lobbyists".

And finally, are you advocating any solutions to the problem vis a vis US consumption, enforcement, etc. etc. that you would find effective. :confused2:

I look forward to this continuing conversation.


----------

