TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose already. Thanks!
Pages (10): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »

Can anybody tell me which drug has the highest dead Mexican:dose ratio? 'Cause that's my new drug of choice.

quote:

Originally posted by WittyHandle These guys make the highest quality product on the market and have their own distribution network. Let them be role models to you all.

quote:

Originally posted by aNYthing Is that Brad Childress on the right?

You're dumb.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Can anybody tell me which drug has the highest dead Mexican:dose ratio? 'Cause that's my new drug of choice.

Tacoke and methamphetamale.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium Anyway, which country consumes the most drugs?

Regarding cocaine use, apparently the top 5 are: United States, Spain, El Salvador, England/Wales, Canada and Bolivia.

+1 on everything else you said.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium This is a complex issue to discuss. If drug use were to be legalized, it would have to be on an international level; the discussion itself would have to be global first. Having it legalized by just one country like the US would create or increase chaos on neighboring countries because such countries are in constant battle with cartels. But I do agree with the OP, it is immoral to be tolerant.

I'd submit having drugs legalized, or decriminalized, would change the drug economy in such a way that the cartels would be obviated. It is the "war on drugs" which has created the economic conditions which cartels thrive under. Without such conditions, the cartels are missing a key ingredient for their industry.

As it is, the United States is the largest market for drugs. Decriminalizing the growth and distribution of Marijuana, alone, would compromise a fairly significant portion of market-share currently held by cartels. I don't agree that one country's unilateral decriminalization is going to have any negative impact, so far as how cartels escalate their use of violence.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium Drug use is just part of a bigger problem. Talking specifically about the US of A, their relationship with Mexico is hypocritical (Wikileaks did show what heads of state think of Mexico and its handling of it situation). Heads of State, when visiting Mexico, talk about the importance of collaboration to battle the cartels while at the same time in the US legal use of drug is on the ballot. Janet Napolitano recently sent a message to cartels: "Don�t even think about bringing your violence and tactics across this border. You will be met by an overwhelming response." Such tactics are already present in her country. That is why many states like Arizona bordering the country line have problems with illegal immigrants and cartels. Who do you think transports the drugs once they have being smuggled with something as ancient as a catapult? It certainly is not UPS or DHL.

Yes and no, on this. I think it's wrong-headed to downplay the significance of the War on Drugs, as it relates to the economies of countries the drugs are sourced from. If anything, Napolitano, when she said what she said, was reifying the current economic dynamics. It should also be said that drug cartels have little vested interest in upsetting that status quo.

Illegal immigration has long been a source of friction within the United States but very few people understand how badly the U.S. (its companies and corporations, more specifically) subverts its neighboring economy with U.S. corporations having a vested interest in maintaining Mexico's economic stasis. U.S. companies have little use for politicians in Mexico interested in things like labor reform when cheap labor helps drive massive profits.

To a point, you're right about cartels and our porous borders, but it's partly a red-haring married to the larger issues of economic inequality. Drug mules are simply a part of the economic conditions, not simply brought about by the War on Drugs but also other forms of economic skulduggery. The War on Drugs, itself, with all the money it brings into Mexico also acts as an economic pathogen as it consistently advances social instability.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium Drug cartels are sophisticated; top-notch weapons coming from the US of A that make any weapon from Mexican officials seem like a normal penis compared to a monster-cock observable in some pornos. Because of that drug trafficking will not stop, even if Napolitano and others work hard to improve the current situation. In fact, the improvement of security in the border has only resulted in a higher consumption by the Mexican population in recent years. Not as much is being crossed as before so a big portion stays in Mexico for sale. Before that country and many south of it only served as places for transportation. But now many have to sell it there because not all can be smuggled in.

I'm not so certain about the supply and demand part of your argument, so I'll leave it alone. It's a plausible theory, but really, I don't think the cartels have as much of a problem moving product across our border as Napolitano would like to believe. It's more likely that the cartels will sell to anyone who has the money for it and, since it doesn't include shipping, it's a more accessible market to cater to.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium Gun control is another issue; an issue that only is tempting to discuss when a student decides to take a weapon to school and shoot peers and/or administrators. Or a janitor shooting a principal. In the end it is all political rhetoric, really.

John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted, has actually raised the issue of weapons smuggling to the cartels, pointing out that even the Barret .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle - a weapon I could purchase from a store, today, if I wanted - is finding its way across the border. You're spot on with this part of your argument. A couple of guys, in the news recently, have gone in, undercover, and purchased weapons "legally"; under a lawful provision (in this case, functioning as a loophole) which allows people to make undocumented purchases under the assumption that it's just one private citizen selling a weapon to another such person.

As you, yourself, observe later in your missive: it's not that it isn't in the national dialogue. It's that the national dialogue is polluted to such a degree that it's difficult to advance any agenda which challenges the status quo.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium Then you have a small 'educated' population that separates itself from the discussion as an exception because it is not addicted and/or have non-harming methods of obtaining the drug. That is crap. The behavior itself has an effect on others and as such makes the person part of the problem. There is no exception. There is a demand, and you're part of it.

Partly true. Leaving out the "elite" part, this claim, whether you wanted it to be, or not, is directed at me since I am definitely not involved politically but also have no issues with drugs beyond the fact that I am a huge fan of marijuana - and it's been a few years since I've partook. I do, however, pay more attention to this issue than your average bear so I'll attempt to inform this.

There is a mythology at work, here, which says that Americans are largely in charge of the political decisions made on their behalf and that this is a country of the people, by the people, for the people and while, ostensibly, this is true, there's some mitigating factors which foil the accessibility our government is supposed to afford us. While I am somewhat informed, mostly because my girlfriend as an avid news junkie and ferrets out stories largely over-looked by major news outlets, like CNN, my ability to communicate my wishes effectively is largely thwarted by a disproportionate level of bullshit pervasive through the political culture.

Most Americans, I'll submit, make voting decisions on largely uninformed levels. They also lack the access that industry lobbyist have to politicians. An excellent example of this is the excessive number of foreclosures occurring as a result of otherwise criminal market forces. Even though it's been established that lending institutions acted in bad faith, banks are still being allowed not simply to hike rates on adjustable interest rate loans, but also being allowed to foreclose on people who can't afford them, any longer.

CNN has actually done some decent reporting on the cartels in Mexico, but they leave a lot of information out. Furthermore, they ignore their (the cartels) intrinsic links to illegal immigration and its causes; unless it is simply to point out that a lot of border crossing is done to smuggle drugs. For quite a while Lou Dobbs railed against illegal aliens with arguments tortured enough to avoid being called polemic. He accused them of everything from increases in violent crime to spreading diseases like tuberculosis.

Mr. Dobbs relentlessly criticized illegal aliens for wanting into the United States, all the while completely ignoring the causes for their "unsavory" motivations. One, listening only to Lou, would conclude that illegal aliens didn't cross over because their economy had largely been foiled by American business interests, but because they were lazy and in need of adequate medical care. They were here to leach off the welfare systems of our country while working for tax free money under the table. Never because their economy back home was in the dark ages brought about by our corporate interests playing into the hands of their corrupt politicians.

You also have to consider that all of the policies of the United States Government are essentially designed to be hard to reverse. This feature, in conjunction with the fact that industries and personal incomes associated with U.S. drug and immigration policy (the privatization of illegal alien detention centers, for instance) retards most people's ability to address a reversal of them. It's very easy to say that no one in a position to care actually cares enough to do anything. In terms of practicality, nothing could be further from the truth; particularly when you consider your rather astute observations about the climate of political discourse in our country.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium The US has a big apolitical and apathetic sector. It's sad. The media itself does a horrid job and fails miserably to present news objectively. Trivial things such as a birth certificate or religious affiliation become an issue with the current president. The only reliable source of news for many Americans is a satirical show; it's funny, I'm not going to deny it. Politics is dull. It only becomes interesting when someone throws in the word Nazi or Hitler or if someone in the government sleeps with an intern. Or both. Sarah Palin, a person dumber than the Yale graduate, might be the next president. If that happens, the good news for the rest of the world is someone will create a site in which many Americans will upload a picture of themselves holding a sign apologizing.

Truth. I'll spare you the detailed explanation of how our political discourse resembles totalitarian thought reform. Trust me, that I can't fucking stand it, though.

I live by the 100 km rule

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Can anybody tell me which drug has the highest dead Mexican:dose ratio? 'Cause that's my new drug of choice.

My goal is to out live the mexicans

quote:

Originally posted by Lira It's not Kaka, that also means "crap" in Portuguese, it's Kaká (Incidentally "Pele" means "skin" in Portuguese... the name you want is Pelé )

Hey fuck off, my best friend is called "Skinpoop".


He's in a band.

I understand you Lira, living in San Antonio, the Cartel's are just miles away.

I haven't touched an illegal drug in a year and that is coming from someone who was a BIG drug user.

I just take Rx drugs now but the are prescribed to me. It's just as bad for ya but the violence is not there.

Every drug dealer I dealt with in the past were always cool cats, fellow drug users, hipsters and any other mellow label you can put on them but this cartel shit has to go. These cool drug dealers I used to score from are at the bottom of the drug chain and they are getting their drugs from the Cartel's.

I don't know about where you live as I didn't read this entire Thread but I live surrounded my Mexican Mafia members and it fucking blows. They don't care about shit but money, drugs and aren't afraid to put a bullet in your head if asked to by the shot caller or try to talk to your girlfriend in front of you as you walk down the street. I finally had to lay one out with a straight left punch, but I didn't get reprimanded for it.

quote:

Originally posted by ziptnf You're dumb.

Hurrrr durrr???

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker I'd submit having drugs legalized, or decriminalized, would change the drug economy in such a way that the cartels would be obviated. It is the "war on drugs" which has created the economic conditions which cartels thrive under. Without such conditions, the cartels are missing a key ingredient for their industry. As it is, the United States is the largest market for drugs. Decriminalizing the growth and distribution of Marijuana, alone, would compromise a fairly significant portion of market-share currently held by cartels. I don't agree that one country's unilateral decriminalization is going to have any negative impact, so far as how cartels escalate their use of violence.

So you actually think a country such as the US can decriminalize a drug and such modification would not have a negative impact on other countries? What do you think would come of it? Not specifically on cartels but on societies and foreign governments.

quote:

Yes and no, on this. I think it's wrong-headed to downplay the significance of the War on Drugs, as it relates to the economies of countries the drugs are sourced from. If anything, Napolitano, when she said what she said, was reifying the current economic dynamics. It should also be said that drug cartels have little vested interest in upsetting that status quo.

You underestimate the intentions of drug cartels, especially in Mexico where there are more groups battling against each other and with the government to increase their power. Surely they are not happy with their current situation seeing some of their strongest leaders captured or killed and resorting to kidnappings and killings of important people in government. They are also making a statement and want to have a bigger influence.

quote:

Partly true. Leaving out the "elite" part, this claim, whether you wanted it to be, or not, is directed at me since I am definitely not involved politically but also have no issues with drugs beyond the fact that I am a huge fan of marijuana - and it's been a few years since I've partook. I do, however, pay more attention to this issue than your average bear so I'll attempt to inform this.

It wasn't intentional. That statement is because I have encountered many in my life that have presented such claims when they were openly apolitical. Although there may be some that would argue that doing nothing is a political statement itself, it becomes almost laughable when they present a behavior that doesn't present an awareness of a big international problem which is in some way connected to them.

quote:

You also have to consider that all of the policies of the United States Government are essentially designed to be hard to reverse. This feature, in conjunction with the fact that industries and personal incomes associated with U.S. drug and immigration policy (the privatization of illegal alien detention centers, for instance) retards most people's ability to address a reversal of them. It's very easy to say that no one in a position to care actually cares enough to do anything. In terms of practicality, nothing could be further from the truth; particularly when you consider your rather astute observations about the climate of political discourse in our country.

Aren't all policies in other countries designed this way as well? I do know of the power lobbyists have. It is detrimental.

It's all about a lack of awareness or interest, not just from users in the US but all over the world--not an interest to act on it necessarily. As said in the other post, it is a complex issue. But users themselves have a responsibility not only because they are part of the problem but many also later become victims of it.

Talking further about the battle against organized crime, because even the Obama administration doesn't want to call it War on Drugs, Felipe Calderon made the mistake of not creating a clear plan to eradicate the cartels--as if it were possible. The Merida Initiative was poor. The corruption of officials and military is also a factor.

Since the beginning of this battle at the end of 2006, 34,000 lives have been lost in Mexico alone. In Michoacan La Familia is becoming a part of society. Some don't want the military there as they see better not to mess with La Familia because many are now in some way connected with them.

If you look at the routes in the map Lira posted, you will see that everything is going north to the US. So as consumers, educated or not, they have a higher responsibility to become aware of the situation. Anyone living in Mexico knows of endless stories about narcs and their spreading all over the country for more power. There are untouchables who are feared and respected in some regions. Random shootings start anywhere. There is no security. That was what Napolitano was referring to; she is content with the current situation in her country because it is better than that of Mexico. That is why she made the statement I quoted; such statement obviously carries a different meaning for different people. For example, the government of Mexico can take it as a message that implies that it is not doing its job but the neighboring country is happy that it isn't their country that has such situation.

More lives will be lost because of this endless battle. Calderon has two more years in the presidency. The way of life of the narcs is becoming each day more attractive to young people. It is not always because of economic hardships, it is also because young impressionable people become attracted to a lifestyle of easy money, power and luxury. It can also be because some people are forced into it, like some mayors. Even flight attendants in Mexico were smuggling drugs to Spain. I don't know their story yet but I'm pretty sure their excuses are going to fly with me.

COR mini-summary: If you use, you're part of the problem, more so if you create a barrier between the bigger problem and yourself.

...

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium So you actually think a country such as the US can decriminalize a drug and such modification would not have a negative impact on other countries? What do you think would come of it? Not specifically on cartels but on societies and foreign governments.

Typical American. Fuck.

Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose already. Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira As the regular posters here probably know, there are very few topics I take seriously but, when I do, I usually bomb the screen with walls of text, sources, and html codes. Also, I'm far from being an intolerant person, having argued for the liberty of all kinds of nutters. In this thread, I want to try a somewhat different approach: because of the consequences involved in this kind of activity, it'd be downright immoral to be tolerant. And I want to make it brief. It doesn't matter right now if the war on drugs is misguided or wrong. It exists and, as far as we're all concerned, it must either be repelled through legal action or obeyed. If you really need drugs and want to find a moral loophole, make sure you can either manipulate the necessary substances/plants and make your own narcotics, or buy homegrown if you absolutely know no other crimes are being committed. However, if you buy drugs of unknown origin, I'd like to politely ask you to stop it. Otherwise, if you really need drugs, please overdose. You may live in comfortable communities where your actions have little if any impact, but the drugs may well have come from some other place. And you're very likely responsible in a way or another for drug-related crime in Mexico: do you really think the routes reaching the borders are a coincidence? As someone who lives in a developing country, I can assure you that we do not have the means to revert this situation. Poverty is tough enough a problem for us to tackle, and it's already a good source of problems and criminality. If you sponsor these criminals through the acquisitions of the goods they sell, you're only making it harder for us to solve this problem. I've had loved ones kidnapped by drug pushers looking for money, and they have become all too powerful due to their profitable activities. I'm doing all I can to raise awareness where I live because the situation here is not much better than what's going on in Mexico. However, the world is now flatter than ever, and this is probably a hopeless attempt to do something abroad. But, I'm trying, and I beg you: if you want to do drugs, do the right thing - either do it responsibly or just end yourself because no upstanding citizen deserves to pay for your mindless actions CORe version: If you do drugs, please see the traffic routes in the map above. Other people may be dying so you can get high and, if that's the case, I warmly ask you to end yourself before you do any further damage. Oh, and I fucking hate you for that

Dude, you got your shit totally backwards. Do you think if there was no demand, there would be no deaths? The problem here is poverty. These people need money one way or the other. Either they make their money in drug trade or they make their money some other way (kidnapping, sex trafficking, robbery). I'll admit, I'm one of the people you would like to see "overdose", but I just wanted to say I disagree with your reasoning. The problem is not demand, the problem is poverty.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium So you actually think a country such as the US can decriminalize a drug and such modification would not have a negative impact on other countries? What do you think would come of it? Not specifically on cartels but on societies and foreign governments.

I agree.... If US legalizes all the developing countries like Mexico, Russia, etc.... would go bankrupt

quote:

Originally posted by ivofivo Typical American. Fuck.

don't say stupid shit.... russian junkies support the Chechen skum who get their stuff from Afghanistan...

douche

Re: Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose already. Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by Penalba Dude, you got your shit totally backwards. Do you think if there was no demand, there would be no deaths? The problem here is poverty. These people need money one way or the other. Either they make their money in drug trade or they make their money some other way (kidnapping, sex trafficking, robbery). I'll admit, I'm one of the people you would like to see "overdose", but I just wanted to say I disagree with your reasoning. The problem is not demand, the problem is poverty.

It's not just Mexico that's involved, they have the USA involved too. The USA is pouring money into the cartels. Drug trafficking is putting cash in the drug lord's pockets and it's helping them buy weapons, which helps them do the other stuff you just wrote down and just exacerbates the problem.

mexicans are the new niggers?

quote:

Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay mexicans are the new niggers?

Didn't get get the memo?

quote:

Originally posted by Serial Killer don't say stupid shit.... russian junkies support the Chechen skum who get their stuff from Afghanistan... douche

Clarification, it's a beautiful thing.

ATTN DRUG USERS.

Keep calm, carry on.

quote:

Originally posted by enydo ATTN DRUG USERS. Keep calm, carry on.

your a nicce lady.




*vomits on floor*

(will rebut sensorium, sometime this weekend.)

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium So you actually think a country such as the US can decriminalize a drug and such modification would not have a negative impact on other countries? What do you think would come of it? Not specifically on cartels but on societies and foreign governments.

Look at the impact criminalization has had. U.S. has the highest prison population in the United States consisting largely of non-violent drug offenders serving mandatory sentences. Most if not all gang related violence revolves around criminal activity related to illicit drug-sales.

Portugal, somewhat ironically given the OP's native language ( ), decriminalized drugs and saw dramatic improvement, in every category, from teen use to lifetime usage. Users didn't have to hide their use and could get help controlling or eliminating it, altogether.

What the War on Drugs was supposed to cure, for society, it seems to actually cause. I don't think society is any better off for having it when it seems to cost a lot more than it saves.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium You underestimate the intentions of drug cartels, especially in Mexico where there are more groups battling against each other and with the government to increase their power. Surely they are not happy with their current situation seeing some of their strongest leaders captured or killed and resorting to kidnappings and killings of important people in government. They are also making a statement and want to have a bigger influence.

The reason they're doing that is because the War on Drugs creates a construct for it. The War on Drugs creates the economic conditions to fight for control over. Without WoD, there's no reason to sustain control over territory and market-share. There's no reason for them to exist. The drug-lords might want to be left alone by the government but without the WoD, they may as well be trying to make a profit selling candy-canes, used cars, cat food, et al.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium It's all about a lack of awareness or interest, not just from users in the US but all over the world--not an interest to act on it necessarily. As said in the other post, it is a complex issue. But users themselves have a responsibility not only because they are part of the problem but many also later become victims of it.

You're right and it's one of the reasons that I don't use marijuana. The level of violence the Mexican Cartels bring to the table is beyond reprehensible. It's despicable and supporting it, however small my contribution would have been, ought to be unthinkable.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium Talking further about the battle against organized crime, because even the Obama administration doesn't want to call it War on Drugs, Felipe Calderon made the mistake of not creating a clear plan to eradicate the cartels--as if it were possible. The Merida Initiative was poor. The corruption of officials and military is also a factor. Since the beginning of this battle at the end of 2006, 34,000 lives have been lost in Mexico alone. In Michoacan La Familia is becoming a part of society. Some don't want the military there as they see better not to mess with La Familia because many are now in some way connected with them. If you look at the routes in the map Lira posted, you will see that everything is going north to the US. So as consumers, educated or not, they have a higher responsibility to become aware of the situation. Anyone living in Mexico knows of endless stories about narcs and their spreading all over the country for more power. There are untouchables who are feared and respected in some regions. Random shootings start anywhere. There is no security. That was what Napolitano was referring to; she is content with the current situation in her country because it is better than that of Mexico. That is why she made the statement I quoted; such statement obviously carries a different meaning for different people. For example, the government of Mexico can take it as a message that implies that it is not doing its job but the neighboring country is happy that it isn't their country that has such situation. More lives will be lost because of this endless battle. Calderon has two more years in the presidency. The way of life of the narcs is becoming each day more attractive to young people. It is not always because of economic hardships, it is also because young impressionable people become attracted to a lifestyle of easy money, power and luxury. It can also be because some people are forced into it, like some mayors. Even flight attendants in Mexico were smuggling drugs to Spain. I don't know their story yet but I'm pretty sure their excuses are going to fly with me.

Plata o Plomo. Relatively little has been done to make it safer to fight the crime than profitable to join its perpetrators. When one of the officers in a recent raid had his entire family killed just subsequent to it, what's the point? But that's the dynamics WoD creates. End it, and the profitability of being a gangster ends.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker You're right and it's one of the reasons that I don't use marijuana. The level of violence the Mexican Cartels bring to the table is beyond reprehensible. It's despicable and supporting it, however small my contribution would have been, ought to be unthinkable.

If you do indeed live in Michigan, I'd say the chance you are even able to acquire Mexican weed is extremely slim.

You're right and chances are I'll score something quite a bit more local. Detroit is still a major distribution hub and illicit drugs do make their appearance here. There's a Native American reservation around where we live and you can immediately tell when members of the Saginaw-Chippewa tribe are paid a monthly casino stipend (over $2,300 - referred to as percap - short for per capita) by the number of tricked-out vehicles driving around on the streets and into the reservation. The ones with the hardcore crack habits actually wind up at pay-day loan places.

Speaking of Reservations, you can typically get really awesome (Ritual) marijuana from them. Cheap as hell, too. Awww yeahhh, firewater.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.