|
FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose already. Thanks! (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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.
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 its 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.
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-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.
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.
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.
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.
Then you have Mexico full of cartels with political power all spread throughout the country. Those that resist to cooperate with them die or disappear--officials, mayors, military, etc. Politics is also dull there. Felipe Calderón started a war against narcs that later was baptized as a battle against organized crime. Many important people have been captured or killed. The most important being José Jorge Balderas, also known as JJ, because he shot a famous Paraguayan football player--real football by the way. But that capturing and killing has only created more chaos in the country as others seek power of regions lost or leadership positions become available. It's a mess. Guerrero just had elections in which two parties that hated each other joined forces to win. PAN, PRI and PRD are a mess. It's all political races from now on as many states will have elections like Guerrero and next year a new president will be chosen. Cute boy Peña Nieto is very popular right now and opposing parties will stop at nothing to decrease his popularity before the official race to the presidency begins. It's all corruption though, and it shouldn't be a surprise if drug cartels have a direct influence on elections. Dropping a beheaded body in the middle of a freeway with a note certainly sends a message. And then they have Kalimba in' a minor?
Anyway, which country consumes the most drugs?
Bleh. |
|
|
| ivofivo |
Lira, as you know, the domino effect is never-ending. Drugs are a
product of profit, profit is a product of drugs. As coherent as this
thread is, your opinion is almost an untouchable ideal. The relations
between drugs and violence are magnetized with our legal system and
will never be resolved. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| Can anybody tell me which drug has the highest dead Mexican:dose ratio? 'Cause that's my new drug of choice. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| 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? |
:stongue:
You're dumb. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| 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-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 bull 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 ing stand it, though. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| I live by the 100 km rule |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| 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 |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
It's not Kaka, that also means "crap" in Portuguese, it's Kaká :stongue:
(Incidentally "Pele" means "skin" in Portuguese... the name you want is Pelé :D)
|
Hey off, my best friend is called "Skinpoop".
He's in a band. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
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 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 ing blows. They don't care about 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. |
|
|
| aNYthing |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
:stongue:
You're dumb. |
Hurrrr durrr???
 |
|
|
|
|
