The business you support by doing drugs

force-10

catefrances wrote:

i cant smoke weed cause for someone else it could be a gateway drug. get real.

As i said before, if you only smoke your friend´s grass and are able to control it, good for you. Of course, you are not responsible for what others do.

I drink. I´m not responsible for what others do when they are drunk. That´s stupid. But if I know that person, say my brother, mother, friend, then help them stop drinking.

Say you have a teen brother, talk to him about drugs, thell him the story above. See how he reacts and try to explain why those bastards did what they did.

South of Seattle

scb wrote:

South of Seattle wrote:

scb wrote:

So let's ask ourselves: What can WE do to help the situation in Mexico? What's that saying? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem? And, just to be clear, are most of you saying that U.S. citizens and their drug use bear absolutely no culpability here?

No. I just don't think you can blame it all on the US consumption of drugs. The US has had a drug problem for a long long time. The Mexican cartels are just exploiting it to the fullest due the fact that our Federal Government aren't doing anything to stop it.

I wasn't aware that anyone was blaming it ALL on the US consumption of drugs. But is part of it due to the US consumption of drugs?

It seemed like the OP was, I agree on the 2nd part of your statement. It's a supply and demand issue. We just need to legalize, control and tax the stuff. Put money into rehab.

Commy

scb wrote:

Commy wrote:

scb wrote:

So let's ask ourselves: What can WE do to help the situation in Mexico? What's that saying? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem? And, just to be clear, are most of you saying that U.S. citizens and their drug use bear absolutely no culpability here?

as far as your solution goes i am already doing my part.


as for the real solution, that's going to take more.

I think you're going to have to define "part" and "more" for this post to really say anything.

you are suggesting that if we do our "part" by not helping demand, (by not using), the problem would go away. i am telling you that i am already doing that, and that its going to do fuckall.


to really solve this problem, its going to take "more" than just individual action. we are going to have to change law. something that takes action on a popular level.




that help?

Drowned Out

force-10 wrote:

Suits in disguise in the drugworld? That´s not new. Politics is a gateway to many things.

In the end, really, it is up to us. I know it is a social issue. Raise your kids well. Look up for your little sisters and brothers. Just say no.

Like showing a smoker an xray of a cancerous lung, sometimes it does not work (most of the times) but sometimes it helps them to decide to start quitting, or prevent them from starting.

Tell the story to people you know. Maybe the sorrow for other people´s tragedy, might prevent them from bringing a tragedy to themselves, and at the same time, support the bastards mentioned before.

you're on the right track with your preference for education, but to predicate this with drug-war terminology is a mistake....You're propagating drug-war myths (gateway theory), and you're suggesting that 'just say no' is a valid response to the situation. It hasn't proved to be since before Old Mother Reagan uttered the words...
Yes it's a social issue...but to make it sound as if the drug war is a red herring, distracting us from those evil genetic dispositions we need to control, is to get it completely ass-backwards IMO. Sorry. But people will always crave inebriation. The state is waging a violent war on human nature, and these fucking massacres are just another example of it's repercussions.

catefrances

force-10 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i cant smoke weed cause for someone else it could be a gateway drug. get real.

As i said before, if you only smoke your friend´s grass and are able to control it, good for you. Of course, you are not responsible for what others do.

I drink. I´m not responsible for what others do when they are drunk. That´s stupid. But if I know that person, say my brother, mother, friend, then help them stop drinking.

Say you have a teen brother, talk to him about drugs, thell him the story above. See how he reacts and try to explain why those bastards did what they did.

i live in oz... that story would have no bearing.

force-10

No, I don´t mean us citizens only. Am i demonizing the people that use drugs (in the OP, I never mentioned weed specifically)? That was not my intention.

I was only trying to bring the story to your attention and make the connection. If I offended you than I´m sorry, but try to see the relevance of what happened and decide for yourself if indeed some of your money goes to the hands of these people.

force-10

Drowned Out wrote:

you're on the right track with your preference for education, but to predicate this with drug-war terminology is a mistake....You're propagating drug-war myths (gateway theory), and you're suggesting that 'just say no' is a valid response to the situation. It hasn't proved to be since before Old Mother Reagan uttered the words...
Yes it's a social issue...but to make it sound as if the drug war is a red herring, distracting us from those evil genetic dispositions we need to control, is to get it completely ass-backwards IMO. Sorry. But people will always crave inebriation. The state is waging a violent war on human nature, and these fucking massacres are just another example of it's repercussions.

I get what you are saying. Legalizing drugs will not change anything. There will still be people selling it illegaly. And if you consume it then you would still be supporting gangs like the zetas. Plus, these same scumbags will probably be distinguished empresarios when its legalized worldwide.

If your classmate is offering you some, tell him the story above, and see how he reacts if you are able to relate him to the whole picture.

haffajappa

force-10 wrote:

No, I don´t mean us citizens only. Am i demonizing the people that use drugs (in the OP, I never mentioned weed specifically)? That was not my intention.

I was only trying to bring the story to your attention and make the connection. If I offended you than I´m sorry, but try to see the relevance of what happened and decide for yourself if indeed some of your money goes to the hands of these people.

I'm not trying to sound pretentious, but 2 of the closest people to me have either lived in or are from Guatemala... From what it sounds like, if I had to see some of the shit that goes on there I'd be just as fired up as you, force-10.

I guess its just more complicated than saying no.

As for weed,
well... ahah, i'm from B.C.

Jason P

If drug use causes this type of consequence on our borders, why don't incidents like this happen up in Canada?

I think it has much more to due with Mexico's inability to govern and enforce law properly. They let the corruption go on for too long and now there is a giant problem that's not going away soon (unfortunately). I'm not saying they are not trying, but there is much work to be done.

haffajappa

Jason P wrote:

If drug use causes this type of consequence on our borders, why don't incidents like this happen up in Canada?

I think it has much more to due with Mexico's inability to govern and enforce law properly. They let the corruption go on for too long and now there is a giant problem that's not going away soon (unfortunately). I'm not saying they are not trying, but there is much work to be done.

Because its much harder to pay off police in Canada.

But incidents do happen - of course i no way near the capacity that they do in Central America.
Near one of the campuses i go to there was one of the worst drug related torture/murders in B.C. history.

They should seriously legalize weed, some of the gang problems in B.C. are getting ridiculous.
I'm on the fence about other drugs though.

Commy

i smoke local weed anywa, not onlyu does it knock me on my ass, buts everywhere;. there is no market for crappy weed here.


yeah mexaco is fucked, is keeping these drugs illegal worth dying for?> seriously? its certainly is worth dying to make them legal. but killing to maintain....that's a serious question youre gonna have to ask yourself when out hunting the cartels.



i'd kill do defend freedom, never to stifle it.

Drowned Out

scb wrote:

So let's ask ourselves: What can WE do to help the situation in Mexico? What's that saying? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem? And, just to be clear, are most of you saying that U.S. citizens and their drug use bear absolutely no culpability here?

The usage cannot be eliminated, the war can. Therefore, the only logical solution is obvious. We can end the drug war and focus our efforts solely on harm reduction.

Jason P wrote:

If drug use causes this type of consequence on our borders, why don't incidents like this happen up in Canada?

I think it has much more to due with Mexico's inability to govern and enforce law properly. They let the corruption go on for too long and now there is a giant problem that's not going away soon (unfortunately). I'm not saying they are not trying, but there is much work to be done.

Well, for starters, poverty....
The people involved in the lower echelons of the trade (ie: the ones dying) in Mexico are typically poor people trying to get ahead in life. The people involved in Canada are typically greedy middle class types. So the stakes are higher when the money is used to put food on the table, than when it's used to buy more toys. Also, I'm betting sentences for convicted smugglers/dealers are stiffer in Mexico than Canada, so there is less desperation amongst Canadian people avoiding law enforcement, than their Mexican counterparts.

Also, with sizeable shipments, these people often choose to barter to hide money trails....the exchange between the US/Canada is Canadian weed for US (via MEX etc) coke... the US/Mexican border trade-off is coke for guns....so you'd think more violence is a natural byproduct.

This round of the drug war has resulted in TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND deaths....they're desperate, paranoid, and running out of loyal employees.....Enforcement has ALWAYS led to escalations in risk, price, and violence. The US handed Mexico over a billion to fight this, and it has since spiralled completely out of control...just like it does every time. But the only answer the governments can come up with is stricter enforcement.

force-10 wrote:

I get what you are saying. Legalizing drugs will not change anything. There will still be people selling it illegaly. And if you consume it then you would still be supporting gangs like the zetas. Plus, these same scumbags will probably be distinguished empresarios when its legalized worldwide.

If your classmate is offering you some, tell him the story above, and see how he reacts if you are able to relate him to the whole picture.

Ideally, hard drugs WOULD be regulated for quality/purity purposes, and the governments in the supply countries would work with the producers to ensure that the businesses were run legitimately. You would think this would eliminate a lot of the corruption and bring a ton of money into these countries, rather than concentrating that income into the hands of gangs, corrupt officials, and the CIA. Reducing poverty is the best way to reduce both drug use and the violence associated with the trade. This industry could go a long way towards making that happen.

julesandian

catefrances wrote:

force-10 wrote:

I don´t intend to tell anyone how to live, I´ve made mistakes myself.

Even if you only smoke weed, it still opens the door to other drugs, including coccaine, wich is the main illegal substance that crosses many borders in so many ways....

no doors are opened for me smoking weed. i live in oz there is no south of the border here. and yep im well aware that hard drugs enter my country but thats got nothing to do with my illegal habits. weed is not a gateway drug for me.

I dislike the term gateway drug labelling any drug. If weed was a gateway drug then anyone who smoked it would progress to other drugs, but that is simply not the case. I have never in my life taken a pill, cocaine, heroin, or prescription med but I have smoked cannabis for over 20 years, I tried LSD when I was a teenager a few times but not since. Most of my friends smoke as well, a few take pills, some do coke and I have a couple of friends I have lost to smack. They choose to do what they do, the same as someone can choose to drink beer or a bottle of Jack, but no one says "beer - the gateway drug" when you see someone struggling with booze problems.

This world needs to stop hiding behind media invented terms and ideas like "gateway drugs" and take responsibility for their own actions. If you have spoken to heroin addicts they rarely blame weed or other drugs for the way they are. They blame themselves. My generation grew up with the Aids explosion in addicts, the just say no campaigns and realistic depictions of addicts in posters and advertising yet people still do stupid things because they are stupid.


People do not try harder drugs because of weed, they try them because thats what they want to try, and weed or no weed they will try it.

_

Drowned Out wrote:

scb wrote:

So let's ask ourselves: What can WE do to help the situation in Mexico? What's that saying? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem? And, just to be clear, are most of you saying that U.S. citizens and their drug use bear absolutely no culpability here?

The usage cannot be eliminated, the war can. Therefore, the only logical solution is obvious. We can end the drug war and focus our efforts solely on harm reduction.

Thanks. But that wasn't my question.

Drowned Out

scb wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

scb wrote:

So let's ask ourselves: What can WE do to help the situation in Mexico? What's that saying? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem? And, just to be clear, are most of you saying that U.S. citizens and their drug use bear absolutely no culpability here?

The usage cannot be eliminated, the war can. Therefore, the only logical solution is obvious. We can end the drug war and focus our efforts solely on harm reduction.

Thanks. But that wasn't my question.

"What can WE do to help the situation in Mexico?"

End the drug war.
The culpability is the drug war, not the consumption. Chicken or the egg, right?...well...realistically, usage cannot be eliminated, the war can.

_

Drowned Out wrote:

scb wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

The usage cannot be eliminated, the war can. Therefore, the only logical solution is obvious. We can end the drug war and focus our efforts solely on harm reduction.

Thanks. But that wasn't my question.

"What can WE do to help the situation in Mexico?"

End the drug war.
The culpability is the drug war, not the consumption. Chicken or the egg, right?...well...realistically, usage cannot be eliminated, the war can.

I see. I guess I was looking for more specifics about what we can each do on an individual basis. I can't just wake up tomorrow and end the drug war. That's not realistic either.

Also, I don't think inability to eliminate something precludes its contribution to a problem. If it were eliminated, that would help the problem, right? It seems to me that there is some culpability there as well, or at least some opportunity to reduce part of the source of the problem.

Drowned Out

scb wrote:

I see. I guess I was looking for more specifics about what we can each do on an individual basis. I can't just wake up tomorrow and end the drug war. That's not realistic either.

Also, I don't think inability to eliminate something precludes its contribution to a problem. If it were eliminated, that would help the problem, right? It seems to me that there is some culpability there as well, or at least some opportunity to reduce part of the source of the problem.

So it’s illogical to think that we, on an individual basis, can protest or lobby our politicians to end the drug war …but it’s logical to think that we, as individuals, can stop the violence by not using drugs? What’s the difference? Neither will work if it’s one person, or a small group of people….Both would work en masse.
While I think it’s unlikely to see the public support legalization of cocaine any time soon (without a huge about-face in drug education)….we’re just as unlikely to get coke addicts to quit in order to stop the violence in Mexico. In the meantime, we’re ruining more lives than we’re saving with current policy. Time for a new approach.

The first half of your second paragraph is circular reasoning…you can’t concede an inability to eliminate something, then turn around and say eliminating it would help the problem. Of course people’s decision to use drugs irresponsibly is the MAIN contributor to the problem of addiction….But it’s waging war on the users and profiteers that is the main contributor to drug-related violence, as well as a host of other social problems that would not exist otherwise.

Cosmo

Is it possible that the drug distribution route has changed and Mexico is the newest trade route? Remember when all of the violence was coming from Colombia... the Medellín Cartel... Pablo Escobar... Bogota? Haven't heard much from there.
Does that mean that Colombia is no longer a source? Or has the route changed to go through Mexico, instead of directly from Colombia to the U.S.... where the U.S.D.E.A keeps a close watch on that passage?
..
I don't know... I'm asking.

Commy

Cosmo wrote:

Is it possible that the drug distribution route has changed and Mexico is the newest trade route? Remember when all of the violence was coming from Colombia... the Medellín Cartel... Pablo Escobar... Bogota? Haven't heard much from there.
Does that mean that Colombia is no longer a source? Or has the route changed to go through Mexico, instead of directly from Colombia to the U.S.... where the U.S.D.E.A keeps a close watch on that passage?
..
I don't know... I'm asking.

Its a lot of things, change in mexican gov't policy, the signing of nafta.

nafta motivated farmers to switch coca, as produce became less profitable, more coke moving around mexico. i think the biggest change has been mexican gov't policy tho. they stopped moderating the cartels for some time, things got out of hand. now they are trying to regulate them again.

but you're right, the routes have changed, are going through mexico.



http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?opt ... mival=5572

_

Drowned Out wrote:

scb wrote:

I see. I guess I was looking for more specifics about what we can each do on an individual basis. I can't just wake up tomorrow and end the drug war. That's not realistic either.

Also, I don't think inability to eliminate something precludes its contribution to a problem. If it were eliminated, that would help the problem, right? It seems to me that there is some culpability there as well, or at least some opportunity to reduce part of the source of the problem.

So it’s illogical to think that we, on an individual basis, can protest or lobby our politicians to end the drug war …but it’s logical to think that we, as individuals, can stop the violence by not using drugs? What’s the difference?

That's not what I said. I asked what we (meaning each of us) can do to help the problem and you said end the drug war. I said I can't wake up tomorrow and end the drug war. Nowhere did I say that it's illogical to lobby our politicians - and nowhere did you say that we should. "End the drug war" is an abstract concept that doesn't answer my question about what we should actually do. Plenty of people say "end the drug war" - and that's it; they just go around saying it and never actually do anything about it. So what can we do to try to help the situation? We can write letters to our politicians. We can vote for candidates who support ending the drug war. We can educate the public about why we should end the drug war. See... now those statements would have answered my question.

Also, I never said that we, as individuals, can stop violence by using drugs. Never. Anywhere. I said that we have "some opportunity to reduce part of the source of the problem". That's totally different. The OP said Americans' drug use contributes to the problem. And it does. (I know, I know... everyone grows their own or whatever. So let's just say we're only talking about the Americans who use drugs that come from Latin America.) I'm not sure why anyone would argue as if it doesn't. And just because none of us can single-handedly rid the world of drug violence by just saying no, doesn't mean it's okay for us to contribute to the problem. That's all I'm saying.

Drowned Out wrote:

Neither will work if it’s one person, or a small group of people….Both would work en masse.
While I think it’s unlikely to see the public support legalization of cocaine any time soon (without a huge about-face in drug education)….we’re just as unlikely to get coke addicts to quit in order to stop the violence in Mexico. In the meantime, we’re ruining more lives than we’re saving with current policy. Time for a new approach.

Of course we're unlikely to get coke addicts to quit just to stop the violence in Mexico. But, back to what we can do, we can work for better access to rehab for those who want to quit anyway. I just don't think listing all the things we can't do is particularly helpful.

Drowned Out wrote:

The first half of your second paragraph is circular reasoning…you can’t concede an inability to eliminate something, then turn around and say eliminating it would help the problem. Of course people’s decision to use drugs irresponsibly is the MAIN contributor to the problem of addiction….But it’s waging war on the users and profiteers that is the main contributor to drug-related violence, as well as a host of other social problems that would not exist otherwise.

Okay, first of all I didn't concede anything; I just acknowledged your position. Secondly, it's not at all circular reasoning; the point was that it contributes to the problem whether or not it can be eliminated. Third, the second half of the paragraph goes with the first half; if something contributes to a problem we can at least try to reduce it, if not eliminate it.

Basically, I just don't like the attitude that just because we should end the drug war, we shouldn't also try to reduce U.S. dependence on Mexican drugs. Or that there's only one contributing factor to the problem. Or that just because we will never completely eliminate all drug use we shouldn't do our part to reduce it. Or that it's okay to contribute to a problem just because your individual effort won't solve everything. I see these attitudes applied to all kinds of issues around here and I think they are part of the problem more than part of the solution.