Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    geomancer's Avatar
    geomancer
     

    The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars | | AlterNet

    The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars
    Why Ciudad Juárez has a murder rate nearly four times higher than Baghdad's.
    April 8, 2010

    [Editor's Note: This report appears in the Spring 2010 issue of World Policy Journal and is reprinted by permission of the editors. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates fromTomDispatch.com here.]

    AGUASCALIENTES, Mexico -- Just before noon on February 15, 2007, four municipal police officers in Aguascalientes, the picturesque capital of the central Mexican state bearing the same name, were called to a mundane road accident. An overturned, black Chevy Suburban with out-of-state license plates was blocking traffic on the quiet Boulevard John Paul II that runs through the city’s sleepy western suburbs.

    When local police commander Juan José Navarro Rincón and his three colleagues arrived, they saw two men who did not appear to be hurt, removing AK-47 assault rifles and police uniforms from the crashed vehicle to a white Nissan sport utility vehicle (SUV) parked nearby. Navarro Rincón called for reinforcements. He was about to arrest the pair when two other cars came to an abrupt stop just up the road. Three gunmen climbed out and opened fire with automatic weapons. Navarro Rincón was killed instantly. Three other officers also died.

    The killings, dubbed “Black Thursday” by the local press, were the first shootings of police officers in Aguascalientes by drug gangs. Until then, Aguascalientes had been a quiet place, immune to the violence that was raging in cities along the U.S.-Mexico border and elsewhere in the country. The firefight sparked a manhunt throughout the state’s rocky plateaus, involving some five dozen federal police patrol cars and a military helicopter. Later that day, with the gunmen and the drivers of the escape vehicles captured and in police custody, Aguascalientes State Attorney Xavier González Fisher tried to reassure the rattled public. He told the media that the burst of violence was an isolated incident. “Aguascalientes is quiet, is at peace... this does not happen every day.” For a long time, his words might have served as an accurate description of the state of affairs in Aguascalientes. But the incident was a telltale mark that the bloody, corrosive nexus of drugs, crime, and corruption growing malignantly along the Mexico-U.S. border has metastasized to regions previously immune to this cancer.

    The Drug War Moves North

    In some respects, the Mexican problem is the result of Colombia’s successful war on the Cali and Medellín drug cartels in the 1990s. Pablo Escobar Gaviria, the notorious leader of the Medellín Cartel, was gunned down by police commandos in 1993. Brothers Gilberto and Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela, who formed and ran the Cali Cartel, were captured in 1995, and later extradited to the United States to serve 30-year prison sentences. Although the Cali and Medellín cartels continued to operate, the removal of their leaders weakened them and created an opening for Mexican organized crime groups, such as the Guadalajara Cartel led by Miguel “El Padrino” (“the Godfather”) Ángel Félix Gallardo and his successors, to seize control of the lucrative North American drug trade.

    The Guadalajara Cartel and similar groups had traditionally moved the Colombian drugs north. Félix Gallardo cultivated friendships with politicians, businessmen, and journalists, as well as with other drug lords. Distributing power and spoils, he built a nationwide trafficking network whose members rarely resorted to violence. Under Félix Gallardo’s system, territories were carved out for local chieftains, and whenever another group needed access to his region, a tribute was paid. Though he was captured by the Mexican government in 1989, Félix Gallardo remained in charge, orchestrating meetings and dividing territory from prison. It was ultimately a failing effort. With the Guadalajara Cartel’s ringleader locked up and the Colombians under attack, others started developing their own drug operations from scratch -- covering transportation, warehousing, and, eventually, the sale of the product itself.

    Barry R. McCaffrey, former director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, testified before the Senate that the “Colombians paid the Mexican trafficking organizations $1,500 to $2,000 for each kilogram of cocaine smuggled to the United States.” But during the 1990s, as a more chaotic arrangement began to take shape, the Colombian and Mexican trafficking groups established a new deal allowing the Mexicans to receive a percentage of the cocaine in each shipment as payment for their transportation services. “This ‘payment-in-product’ agreement enabled Mexican organizations to become involved in the wholesale distribution of cocaine in the United States,” McCaffrey observed. This also ended the Colombians’ monopoly and set the stage for the war that followed.

    As the Mexican cartels expanded their control over the drug supply chain, revenues exploded. There are no precise historical figures describing the size of the business. But, by any account, there was an enormous amount of money to be made. In 2002, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft described the size of the U.S. drug market, reporting that Americans spent $62.9 billion on drugs in 2000. More than half ($36.1 billion), was spent on cocaine -- of which an estimated 90 percent transits through Mexico. In 2009, the U.S. National Drug Intelligence Center estimated that Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking organizations generated somewhere in the range of $17 billion to $38 billion annually in gross wholesale proceeds from drug sales in the United States. By comparison, Google’s worldwide revenue in 2009 was $23.6 billion.

    As earnings shot up, so did violence. Starting in the mid-1990s, drug gangs in Mexico grew more independent and began fighting for more control and larger territories. A decades-long war, which has claimed some 20,000 lives so far, broke out between Félix Gallardo’s lieutenant, Joaquín “El Chapo” (“Shorty”) Guzmán, currently Mexico’s most wanted person, and rival drug lords. Gone was Félix Gallardo’s divide-and-conquer approach, replaced by intimidation, brazen violence, and the executions of officials and anyone else who dared stand in the way. By 2004, the war had reached a simmer: the first mass graves started to appear in Mexico, and newspapers carried accounts of gruesome killings involving beheadings and acid. In the border town of Nuevo Laredo, more than 100 people were murdered from January to August, 2005.

    President Vicente Fox had taken a relatively soft approach to combating the violence, but all that changed when President Felipe Calderón took office on December 1, 2006. Within weeks, some 6,500 troops were dispatched to the state of Michoacán (along the country’s mid-Pacific coast) to curtail drug violence. It was of little avail. McCaffrey testified in 2009 that “squad-sized units of the police and [Mexican] army have been tortured, murdered, and their decapitated bodies publicly left on display.” Media accounts appeared describing instances where police auctioned their loyalty to the highest bidder. Today, some 45,000 Mexican troops -- about a quarter of the standing army -- are engaged in a domestic war with drug cartels, which shows no signs of abating anytime soon.

    Rise of the New Cartels

    Amid such seemingly indiscriminate violence, it’s critical to understand who is fighting whom, and to have a little history of the major players today. The Mexican drug wars have seen the rise of two dominant cartels, which have elevated indiscriminate violence and coercion to levels previously unimaginable. The Sinaloa gang is the country’s largest cartel, based on the volume of drugs it moves. It grew out of the coastal state of Sinaloa, once known for its poppy fields and opium gum produced by Chinese immigrants. Now it is produced by hundreds of thousands of Mexican campesinos. The Sinaloa Cartel operates up Mexico’s Pacific coast and along the U.S. border -- from Tijuana in the west, to Ciudad Juárez and Nuevo Laredo in the east. Since a different chief, or capo (the Mexican cartels have adopted the same terminology as their mafia counterparts), controls each territory, the Sinaloa Cartel has also become known as “The Federation.” But at the top of the chain sits Félix Gallardo’s former lieutenant, “El Chapo” Guzmán; Forbes magazine estimates his wealth at $1 billion. The U.S. government is offering a $5 million reward for his capture.

    The second group is the Gulf Cartel, founded in the 1970s in the northeastern border state of Tamaulipas, along the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf Cartel grew dramatically during the chaos of the early 1990s, expanding its territory and moving from drug trafficking into direct sales, while engaging in a host of other nefarious rackets. The growth inevitably brought them into conflict with “El Chapo” Guzmán and the Sinaloa Cartel. But while the Sinaloa Cartel tried to maintain the veneer of a legitimate business enterprise, the Gulf Cartel burnished a bloody, violent image.

    At its core was Los Zetas, originally a small group of deserters from the Mexican Special Forces, hired in 2000 by the Gulf Cartel’s former leader, Osiel Cárdenas Guillén, to serve as his bodyguards. But Los Zetas was not content to run merely security. Following the capture of Cárdenas Guillén in 2003 by Mexican authorities (sentenced to 25 years in prison by a U.S. federal court in Feburary 2010), Los Zetas started to branch off from the cartel and began independently building capacity in the drug trade and violent crime in general, engaging in kidnapping, extortion, and killings.

    In a short time, it had evolved into an armed group with some 1,200 members, both men and women, capable of deploying significant fighting forces across Mexico. A 2008 government raid on the Gulf Cartel seized a cache of anti-armor weapons, cluster grenades, anti-aircraft missiles, armored HUMVEES, and even chemical protective suits. Los Zetas has also developed ties with American and other foreign criminal and paramilitary groups. According to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Los Zetas is now connected to U.S. gangs and has a presence in Dallas, Houston, and other American cities.

    Today, it is not clear who runs the Gulf Cartel; but Los Zetas appears to play an important role. Though most experts seem to ascribe a unique decentralized structure to the cartel, in 2009, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control named Cárdenas Guillén’s brother, Ezequiel “Tony Tormenta” Cárdenas Guillén, and Jorge Eduardo “El Coss” Costilla Sánchez as the nominal leaders.

    Much of the current violence in Mexico can be attributed to a war raging between the Sinaloa Cartel and Los Zetas, among other smaller participants. The war erupted in 2003 over control of the city of Nuevo Laredo, the home of Los Zetas and the country’s largest inland port, just across the Rio Grande from Texas. It provoked a wave of violence that is still cresting today. As the war ticked up in intensity, powerful groups pacified by “El Chapo” Guzmán, such as the Tijuana and Juárez Cartels, re-emerged along the U.S.-Mexican border. The truce between the Sinaloa and Juárez was shattered when Rodolfo Carrillo Fuentés, a Juárez leader, was gunned down in the city of Culiacán, in Guzmán’s home state of Sinaloa in 2004.

    Perhaps the most ominous rift was the departure of Arturo “El Barbas” Beltrán Leyva and his brothers, former allies of Guzmán, from under the Sinaloa umbrella. They allied themselves with Los Zetas with the idea of forming a new cartel. Matters escalated when Alfredo “El Mochomo” (“Red Ant”) Beltrán Leyva was arrested in 2008. The Beltrán Leyva family blamed the Sinaloa Cartel and reportedly ordered the killing of Guzmán’s 22-year old son, Édgar Guzmán López, in a Culiacán shopping mall. And the seemingly endless cycle of violence continues unabated. No one is keeping an official score, but according to the prominent Mexican newspaper Reforma, there were 6,587 drug-related murders in 2009 in Mexico, up from 5,207 in 2008 and 2,275 in 2007. During January and February 2010, there were more than 1,500 executions according to Reforma. At this pace, Mexico may end this year with 9,000 drug-related murders.

    Indeed, the question lingers: just who is in charge across broad stretches of Mexico? On December 16, 2009, Mexican Navy special forces killed “El Barbas” Beltrán Leyva in a raid. Though apparently a big law enforcement success, the aftermath highlighted Los Zetas’ loyalty, brazenness, and brutality -- and the difficulty of curtailing the ability of drug gangs to wage this war. The Navy lost one man, Ensign Melquisedet Ángulo Córdova, in the raid on Beltrán Leyva. President Calderón hailed Ángulo Córdova as a hero and gave him a state funeral. But hours after he was laid to rest, gunmen went to his grieving family’s home, killing his mother, two sisters, brother, and aunt as they slept. Only one sister survived the attack.

    The Plague Spreads North

    Until Black Thursday, Aguascalientes was immune to such violence. Nestled high on Mexico’s central rocky plateau some 300 miles north of Mexico City, the city and the state had remained a haven of relative stability and prosperity. As recently as 2004, the University of London published a study that ranked Aguascalientes “as one of the only few [Mexican] states that has a well-functioning judicial system.” An earlier survey ranked Aguascalientes first in terms of confidence in the judicial system, and indicated that it had the lowest levels of corruption in the country. Business flowed into the state. Aguascalientes’ skilled labor attracted some $4.3 billion in foreign direct investment from companies like Nissan, Bosch, and Texas Instruments. Its colonial heritage, baroque-inspired architecture, and prodigious hot springs made it a tourist magnet.

    It did not last. Eventually, the drug gangs arrived in Aguascalientes, attracted by its tranquility and promise of a good place to hide. While most of the rest of the country was already staked out by warring drug gangs, Aguascalientes was still up for grabs. The local police were ill-prepared for what came next.

    Los Zetas arrived in Aguascalientes and plunged the city into violence with alarming speed. By August 2007, six months after “Black Thursday,” 11 Aguascalientes police officers had been murdered. One of the victims was a deputy police chief who was shot, execution style, in the nearby town of Pabellón de Arteaga while he was eating in a restaurant. After the attack, Mexican media speculated that he was killed in reprisal for the drug-related arrests of seven suspected gunmen several weeks earlier.

    In early 2008, a wave of kidnappings spread across the state targeting the children of prominent businessmen. By this time, Los Zetas had perfected the art. Kidnapping, especially in wealthy and relatively drug-free states, can be a more immediate source of liquid funds than trafficking in drugs. In May 2008, Nicolás Martínez Reyes, the son of a wine distributor, was kidnapped from El Pescador del Pargo, a busy seafood restaurant in downtown Aguascalientes where he was dining with a group of friends. Martínez Reyes was held for 35 days. His kidnappers tortured him and cut off one of his fingers before his father agreed to pay the ransom.

    The police and the public have tried to stand up to the gangs in Aguascalientes, but with little success. Take the example of Gerardo Medrano Ibarra, who ran a family-owned trucking business called Frio Express. Launched in 1980, the Medranos built a two-truck delivery shop into a large shipping business shuttling perishables like meat, strawberries, and prepackaged guacamole between Mexico City and Laredo, Texas, with a fleet of several dozen Freightliner and Volvo tractor trailers. Medrano’s business boomed after the North American Free Trade Agreement came into force in 1994. His trucks moved quickly in and out of the United States because they were certified through the U.S. Customs and Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, a voluntary government-business program that pre-screens cargo for bombs and other contraband. In the spring of 2008, Medrano Ibarra received a distress call from one of his drivers traveling north. The driver said that he was attacked in the city of Guadalajara by an unknown assailant who cracked open the doors of the trailer, inserted a load of drugs, and instructed the driver to keep going to Laredo. Medrano Ibarra told the driver to unhook the trailer and turn back. He did so, abandoning the trailer and the drugs on the side of the road. Within days, Medrano Ibarra was receiving threatening telephone calls from a gang of drug traffickers thought to be Los Zetas. They made it clear that Medrano Ibarra would allow the future transit of narcotics to the United States in his trucks. He reported the calls to the police, but they were powerless to prevent what came next.

    On July 2, 2008, as he was leaving his suburban home in his gray Volvo, Medrano Ibarra noticed that he was being followed by three SUVs. When he failed to lose his pursuers in the maze of city streets, he made a U-turn over the median of the busy Avenida Miguel de la Madrid east of downtown Aguascalientes, jumped out of his moving car, and tried to flee on foot. Two gunmen opened fire. Medrano Ibarra was killed on the spot, just ten feet from a police post. No one came to his aid; the killers got away. Federal forces arrived on the scene an hour later. In August 2008, state authorities arrested six suspects, including two women, all members of Los Zetas, and charged them with the kidnapping of Martínez Reyes and the murder of Medrano Ibarra.

    By early 2009, Aguascalientes had become a terrifying place to live in. Awash in unsold drug inventory due to stepped-up enforcement along the U.S.-Mexican border, a local retail market has sprung up. Indeed, the city now has one of the highest rates of drug abuse among youth in all of Mexico. Home invasions and assaults by drug addicts have skyrocketed.

    Not surprisingly, the police find themselves regularly overpowered by the criminals, who have become increasingly brazen in bringing the fight to the state. In December 2009, some 40 gunmen opened fire with automatic weapons and threw grenades at a police station in San Francisco de los Romo, a small town ten miles north of Aguascalientes. The mayor was inside at the time, attending a security meeting. After a ten-minute firefight, the attackers climbed into their SUVs and drove away, leaving two officers dead and three wounded.

    Private Security Enters the Drug Wars

    With the police strained and outgunned, the crisis created an opening for a motley group of private security companies and armed bands that offer services not only to wealthy individuals and companies, but also to local governments and municipalities. In 2008, the municipal president of Aguascalientes hired the State Police Intelligence Corps (CIPOL) to help combat the increasing violence. Founded in 2005 in the state of Chihuahua by one-time local politician and public security chief Raúl Grajeda Domínguez and Jesús Manuel García Salcido, the former head of Chihuahua’s municipal police, CIPOL has a murky, quasi-governmental status. Despite its ties to the Chihuahua state government, CIPOL behaves like a private police force, even driving its own distinctive red-and-white patrol cruisers. When CIPOL arrived in Aguascalientes, García Salcido quickly was appointed by the mayor as the municipal chief of police. His tenure was short. In August 2009, he was arrested by agents from the federal attorney general’s Office for the Specialized Investigation of Organized Crime (SIEDO) for supposed ties to drug cartels. Charges that CIPOL overcharged Aguascalientes for equipment, including the purchase of a helicopter, were also raised. His trial is pending.

    While CIPOL operates in the open, other extra-judicial groups prefer to remain in the shadows. In May 2009, Mexico’s Milenio Diario newspaper interviewed the leader of a secretive outfit called El Grupo (“The Group”), whose existence until then had never been confirmed. El Grupo was set up to hunt down and punish kidnappers who prey on the wealthy. In lieu of state protection, vigilante justice has an understandable appeal, but the hefty fees make this little more than a tool of the wealthy and powerful. The Mexican government avows no knowledge of the group, but the Milenio Diario interview disclosed that the entity was established 12 years ago and now has the ability to carry out investigations, capture suspects, and conduct interrogations.

    Outside of Aguascalientes, ordinary Mexicans have tried peaceful tactics as a way of standing up to violence. In May 2009, an armed group kidnapped a 17-year-old Mormon youth, Erick Le Barón, in the town of Galeana in the state of Chihuahua, and demanded a $1 million ransom. It was the eleventh kidnapping the Mormons had endured in just eight months. (The community, which numbers some 1,000 members, was perceived as relatively well off, which made it a target.) They decided to push back. Led by Erick’s outspoken older brother, Benjamin, they marched to Galeana’s central square and demanded that the state authorities find and free Erick. The Mormons were joined in their public protest by local Mennonites, another religious group that has suffered from extortion and violence. Together, several thousand people spent the night protesting on the square. They publicly declared that they would not pay the ransom. Erick was released several days later, without any money being paid. But such examples of public bravery are rare and their outcome far from certain. Two months later, Benjamin was taken from the home he shared with his wife and five children, along with his brother-in-law. They were both shot and killed.

    Leading from the Top

    What is President Calderón to do? If Mexico’s drug wars have their origins in Colombia, perhaps part of the solution might come from there as well. Though the Colombian government beheaded the Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s by arresting the Rodríguez Orejuela brothers and assassinating Escobar, the hydra simply grew, spawning hundreds of smaller organizations, penetrating deeper into and corrupting more profoundly the Colombian government and bureaucracy.

    The Cali cocaine cartel, for example, penetrated deep into the country’s economy, taking ownership stakes in legitimate businesses, including the National Coffee Corporation and the professional soccer team, América de Cali. Troublesome legislators, law enforcement, and judges were bought off, threatened, or killed. Meanwhile, Colombia’s guerilla and paramilitary groups -- such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self Defense (AUC) -- became the main suppliers of heroin and controlled the farming of coca, which provides the base material for cocaine production.

    The way out of that nation’s morass appeared in 2000, when the Colombian government implemented measures designed to isolate and cripple the influence of the guerillas and the cartels. It passed a draconian “disengagement” decree, which gave authorities the power to dismiss any police officer or soldier for alleged corruption without the need of legal proceedings. Over the next seven years, hundreds of persons in the police and the military were discharged over suspected links to criminal groups. The decree was rolled back in 2008 by Colombia’s Constitutional Court, which ruled that all discretionary dismissals of military personnel must be substantiated. But, by then, the policy had already had its salutary effect, purging the armed forces of corrupt officials and implanting a culture of professionalism.

    The government also centralized its police command, retrained the police and the military in anti-narcotics tactics, and increased their salaries -- removing the temptation to take petty bribes. The extra funds for these initiatives came from a “peace premium,” essentially a tax on businesses and the wealthy to finance the fight against armed groups. Though controversial, the past two Colombian governments have supported this legislation. The results have been encouraging. In 2000, Colombia reported 3,000 kidnappings. By 2008, the number dropped to 600. Cases of extortion shrank from 2,000 in 2004 to 830 in 2007.

    Indeed, some of Calderón’s recent initiatives are remarkably similar to Colombia’s approach to stemming its rampant cartels. He has tasked Secretary of Public Security Genaro García Luna with implementing plans for a sweeping police reform. Luna, a stocky 41-year old with short cropped hair, introduced rigorous new standards for testing new police hires and screening officers already on the force, and carried out arrests of federal, state, and municipal officers. In June 2007, some 284 federal police officers were purged, but this was just the tip of the iceberg. The following year saw more high-profile arrests: Fernando Rivera Hernández, deputy director of intelligence at the attorney general’s organized crime unit, SIEDO, and the acting federal police chief, Gerardo Garay Cadena. Both were accused of ties to drug gangs. The attorney general’s office charged that Rivera Hernández received large cash bribes from the Beltrán Leyva cartel in exchange for tipping them off about upcoming federal drug raids.

    According to a November 2009 account in the Los Angeles Times, Mexican cadets and veteran cops are now “forced to bare their credit card and bank accounts, submit to polygraph tests and even reveal their family members to screeners to prove they have no shady connections.” A new piece of legislation, called the General Law of the National System of Public Security, proposed by Calderón and passed in January 2009, imposes a prison sentence of up to eight years for hiring police officers with dubious backgrounds and has created a National Register of Public Security Personnel. All the while, the federal forces have grown, swelling by 30 percent, from 25,000 to 32,000 personnel, in one year. Luna is now reportedly pushing for the elimination of the country’s 2,022 municipal police agencies, with the intention of folding them into the state police forces, which would (in theory) have greater oversight of training and tactics. The fact that this step is highly controversial and would likely require an amendment to the Mexican constitution shows how high the stakes are.

    Help from Washington?

    Despite the proximity to the United States, the Obama administration has been providing only modest support to its southern neighbor. Mexico will largely have to make do with $1.4 billion in funds over three years appropriated under the so-called Merida Initiative, a program launched by President George W. Bush aimed at buttressing border, maritime, and air control from the U.S. southern border to Panama. But some officials are concerned that this will not be nearly enough.

    In October 2009, former drug czar McCaffrey told Congress that Merida, was “a drop in the bucket.” “The stakes in Mexico are enormous,” McCaffrey said. “We cannot afford to have a narco-state as our neighbor... It is not inconceivable that the violent, warring collection of criminal drug cartels could overwhelm the institutions of the state and establish de facto control over broad regions of Mexico... [The Mexican government] is not confronting dangerous criminality -- it is fighting for survival against narco-terrorism.” Indeed, most of the Merida funds earmarked for Mexico have yet to find their way there. Instead, they have ended up funding American defense and security contractors -- who have refused to disclose how they are being used in the drug interdiction program.

    In the end, as in most democracies, it falls to the public to call for change. And the Mexican electorate, caught in the cross-fire and terrorized by the rising tide of violence, is now openly challenging Calderón to fix the problem. In one week this February, the president twice traveled to Ciudad Juárez, after gunmen sealed off a street in this city on the U.S.-Mexico border and opened fire on a house where high school students were having a party. Fifteen people were killed, and at least a dozen wounded. Ciudad Juárez’s mayor, José Reyes Ferris, told the press that police officers could ascertain no motive for the crime, that the victims were innocent civilians, and that the gunmen may have been acting on mistaken information.

    This was too much even for Ciudad Juárez, where the murder rate has been reported at 165 deaths per 100,000 residents -- nearly four times higher than in Baghdad. Angry crowds spilled out onto the streets and lashed out at the president. “I told them that I understood perfectly the discomfort, irritation, and incomprehension,” Calderón said later. “I promised the parents...to give a new meaning to this fight, to join together the different levels of government, law enforcement, civil society...to face this challenge we have yet to overcome.” Just what the nature of this action -- or indeed how effective it will be -- remains to be seen. But the Mexican people are losing their patience.

    Tomas Kellner and Francesco Pipitone are senior directors at Kroll Associates. Kellner previously spent eight years as staff writer at Forbes magazine, writing investigative articles focusing on government program abuse and fraud in the corporate and non-profit sectors. Pipitone formerly worked for Mexico's Ministry of the Interior, the Office of the President of the Republic, and the National Human Rights Commission as an analyst on numerous political and social issues.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. TopTop #2
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Thanks. At my age little frightens me anymore. This stuff is terrifying as it is more than 'next door'. We are not ready for a 'solution''; there is no political will here.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  3. TopTop #3
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    ... We are not ready for a 'solution''; there is no political will here.
    It's really time to end this Failed War on Some Drugs. It's costing way too much to keep it going. I'm so glad I'll be able to vote to legalize marijuana. It's the first step and once again, California can show leadership in the nation. Can our nation show leadership in the world, or even in our hemisphere?

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. TopTop #4
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    It's really time to end this Failed War on Some Drugs. It's costing way too much to keep it going. I'm so glad I'll be able to vote to legalize marijuana. It's the first step and once again, California can show leadership in the nation. Can our nation show leadership in the world, or even in our hemisphere?
    -Jeff
    Ya know I get lost all to easily. You think a little legal weed modification is going to dry up the Bandito Boys and their evil ways?
    BOHICA
    You want to legalize kidnappings and ransoms too?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. TopTop #5
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Ya know I get lost all to easily. You think a little legal weed modification is going to dry up the Bandito Boys and their evil ways?
    You sound lost. And no, it will take full legalization of all drugs to accomplish that.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. TopTop #6
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    You sound lost. And no, it will take full legalization of all drugs to accomplish that.
    -Jeff
    I feel lost AND out of place...not here in Wacco....just the world!

    As far as the other thing, please read up on opium and China from about 1800 until the Boxer Rebellion. And from a source other than than Wiki!
    Or even our own USA from about 1870 until 1914....or why heroin was invented, or why methadone was invented. Though I am tired of this argument I would be interested a little on what you find.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  7. TopTop #7
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    I feel lost AND out of place...not here in Wacco....just the world!

    As far as the other thing, please read up on opium and China from about 1800 until the Boxer Rebellion. And from a source other than than Wiki!
    Or even our own USA from about 1870 until 1914....or why heroin was invented, or why methadone was invented. Though I am tired of this argument I would be interested a little on what you find.
    Yup. I've known all about those histories for about 40 years since I made it a topic of study all through high school. The date is now April 14th, 2010. It's a different world. No, I don't think we're a lot smarter than we were then. That's why we're still fighting this Failed War on Some Drugs that's been going on since Biblical times. But I have hope we can grow up as a culture. Obama is taking us (U.S.) a few baby steps in that direction. Now California has the opportunity to lead as well. Let's hope and pray the measure passes.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. TopTop #8
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    I'm with you in the hope and prayer, but we've seen the affects of alcohol & cigarettes and I don't think they've gone down any, medically or socially speaking. As you know in fewer than 20 years a growing portion of the Chinese population was having a strung out time of it and by 100 years they had over 1/3 of their folks doing 'the stuff dreams are made of'. You wish to have that hear? And to get by only with a hope and prayer? How about the fact that Americans were getting well loaded in rather large numbers prior to 1914? You call that 'the greater good'? Sorry, we part company here.
    Passing such will condemn our population to misery. You know we've not grown up as a people, just as we know we cannot make another person grow up! The human condition has not changed or 'evolved' such that turning that lose will make for a better life.
    As a libertarian I can say it's a good IDEA, and as one who tries compassion it's a hell of a way to go to hell.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Yup. I've known all about those histories for about 40 years since I made it a topic of study all through high school. The date is now April 14th, 2010. It's a different world. No, I don't think we're a lot smarter than we were then. That's why we're still fighting this Failed War on Some Drugs that's been going on since Biblical times. But I have hope we can grow up as a culture. Obama is taking us (U.S.) a few baby steps in that direction. Now California has the opportunity to lead as well. Let's hope and pray the measure passes.
    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  9. TopTop #9
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    I'm with you in the hope and prayer, but we've seen the affects of alcohol & cigarettes and I don't think they've gone down any, medically or socially speaking. ... How about the fact that Americans were getting well loaded in rather large numbers prior to 1914? ...
    You seem to know something about history from a hundred years ago. Do you know anything about what's going on now? Riddle me this: what is the drug of abuse that has been dropping in popularity in the United States year after year for the last 40 years?

    Here's another: what anti drug law that was passed in the last 40 years dramatically reduced the use of a drug?

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. TopTop #10
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    You seem to know something about history from a hundred years ago. Do you know anything about what's going on now? Riddle me this: what is the drug of abuse that has been dropping in popularity in the United States year after year for the last 40 years?Here's another: what anti drug law that was passed in the last 40 years dramatically reduced the use of a drug?-Jeff
    You got me!
    What drug has gone down in use? Coffee? Booze? Cigs?
    Methamphetamine? Smack? Ecstacy? Hash? Date Rape?
    Go ahead....give me your statistics that support you questions AND the sources. I mean High Times has it's little agenda as do all those conspiratorial outfits like the National Center for Drug Abuse. Hit me with it. As you do let me know to what end. TIA
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  11. TopTop #11
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    You got me!
    What drug has gone down in use? ...
    I'm writing this at the Psychedelic Science in the 21st Century conference in San Jose. This is a meeting of about 1,100 medical doctors, researchers, therapists and healers from all over the world. They have come together here to share experience and wisdom as well as report on findings and progress on legally sanctioned studies and medical applications of drugs, most of which are considered illegal in this country and that have "no recognized medical use." I wonder how you feel about these drugs and these people who have come together here to further research and expanded use of these substances? Please note that most of the people in attendance have MD, PhD, LCSW, MFCC, JD, EDD and similar letters after their names on their business cards. These are not ignorant fools. They are some of the wisest people on the planet. What say you about this meeting of great minds?

    The drug I was talking about is tobacco. The steady decline in use over the last 40 years in this country did not come about because of laws passed against its use. This is a perfectly legal drug and the harm associated with it is on the decline, thankfully. The harm has been reduced through laws passed that require general education of the public and warning messages on the packaging. If a law was passed outlawing this substance it would merely drive the trade in it underground which would support illegal gangs and drug cartels and give them another product to sell. Are you in favor of that or are you in favor of education?

    Education works to reduce harm. Prohibition works to increase harm. History is my witness. At this conference we are making history. We are actively working to bring some sanity to bear against the Failed War on Some Drugs. I wonder what you'd think of it.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. TopTop #12
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    I'm writing this at the Psychedelic Science in the 21st Century conference in San Jose. This is a meeting of about 1,100 medical doctors, researchers, therapists and healers from all over the world. They have come together here to share experience and wisdom as well as report on findings and progress on legally sanctioned studies and medical applications of drugs, most of which are considered illegal in this country and that have "no recognized medical use." I wonder how you feel about these drugs and these people who have come together here to further research and expanded use of these substances? Please note that most of the people in attendance have MD, PhD, LCSW, MFCC, JD, EDD and similar letters after their names on their business cards. These are not ignorant fools. They are some of the wisest people on the planet. What say you about this meeting of great minds?
    I am glad that it takes the wisest to discern and know that such sanctions need to be addressed in such a setting. The reason they can discuss the matter in a civilized manner is because those substances are banned. I gather we agree based on your enthusiasm. As we see, it takes professionals to deal with such materials within the social setting, and not Hell's Angels passing stuff out at a Dead concert. None may deny the use of psychedelics under certain conditions, but we both were there 40 years ago, or at least I was in S.F., and saw the waste visited on many with the indiscriminate use of same. The fact that you are there proves my point, no?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    The drug I was talking about is tobacco. The steady decline in use over the last 40 years in this country did not come about because of laws passed against its use. This is a perfectly legal drug and the harm associated with it is on the decline, thankfully. The harm has been reduced through laws passed that require general education of the public and warning messages on the packaging. If a law was passed outlawing this substance it would merely drive the trade in it underground which would support illegal gangs and drug cartels and give them another product to sell. Are you in favor of that or are you in favor of education?
    You may reread the above paragraph and I will concur with half of it! The half "the laws passed..." reverses your second sentence; the social stigma of smoking has increased in certain areas, like Sebastopol environs, but those tobacco companies are still good stock purchases because their market is growing, even though it is ILLEGAL for them to advertise in so many modes.
    But of course there are laws and regulations mandating education on drug use however the problems at our borders seem to indicate the market has not subsided in spite of the education.
    It was the law suits that tobacco companies faced due to the laws passed that "education" became the mode in restricting. Also the price of tobacco has played a significant factor in the use too. We are educating our young folks in drugs, sex and alcohol, are those incidents of related maladies decreasing as well? IOW, it was because laws were passed we find tobacco use declining, as you put it, but I don't think the decline is all that much, if at all! Though it is true that when I see young people lighting up it does look funny, but the laws coming in Sebastopol will put an end to that.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Education works to reduce harm. Prohibition works to increase harm. History is my witness. At this conference we are making history. We are actively working to bring some sanity to bear against the Failed War on Some Drugs. I wonder what you'd think of it. -Jeff
    With all those educated folk, see if you can find any work or papers done that would show the statistics on alcohol related medical matters during the Prohibition era. I'll bet, since they are educated AND impartial, they can produce or know where such stats are. Oh, and please, leave the sensational gangsterism out as we all know it is sexy. The straight measurable facts & stats will bear out that during alcohol prohibition there was a curtailing of alcohol related crimes & medical maladies. Prohibition did work during the 20's and yet there are real forces that do not want that information promulgated. The same forces that had the prohibition repealed. We know what talks and we know what walks!
    Your last paragraph comes across a bit strong as if you are making history. It's simply a conference to delineate the medical uses, which means all the substances will be controlled by the medical industry, which is a good thing for those of us who wish to remain free. Such a conference will ask to mandate fewer restrictions from the gov't and that is a good thing. Making ALL drugs legal will negate such a conference, no?
    And now the following is a moral statement: we ARE free, born free and those of us who wish to do as we choose soon realize that there are consequences to our freedom. We CAN do as we please and will calculate the consequences of our actions when we feel strong enough to express our freedom. Can we agree on that?
    As free people we can chose to take any drug, or do anything we choose. As that is true then keeping drugs illegal sends a clear signal and assists those on the fence about the issue. Those folks that may be influenced by the various stressors in our social structure such as friends, ads, and the non-sanctioning position of the gov't are also helped on being clear on their choice to use drugs simply by the aforementioned and identified facts. Those who will decide to risk to do as they freely chose and use drugs can understand the consequences of their actions and put that factor and risks that into their actions. As for children, incapable of choice by definition, will be protected. What it comes down to is that those advocates of freely available drugs intend to impose their judgment, just as strongly, onto those who hold not. However those that do advocate such are taking a position that already exists in people who are free, onto those that find drug use, or any other activity which harms the greater good, to be essentially evil, onto the greater good, and in large numbers. That is malevolent and morally wrong.
    It would be like making shotguns mandatory in all cars and then suspending all laws on murder.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. TopTop #13
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    I am glad that it takes the wisest to discern and know that such sanctions need to be addressed in such a setting. The reason they can discuss the matter in a civilized manner is because those substances are banned. I gather we agree based on your enthusiasm. ...
    Len, I don't think you could have found a single person at that conference who would agree that putting the substances being discussed on Schedule 1 ever benefitted anyone except the law enforcement industry, which has grown into a monster in response.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    ... As we see, it takes professionals to deal with such materials within the social setting, and not Hell's Angels passing stuff out at a Dead concert. None may deny the use of psychedelics under certain conditions, but we both were there 40 years ago, or at least I was in S.F., and saw the waste visited on many with the indiscriminate use of same. The fact that you are there proves my point, no?
    You'll need to do your own research to learn about what really happened 40 years ago. Being there isn't the same as understanding what happened, clearly.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    I
    You may reread the above paragraph and I will concur with half of it! The half "the laws passed..." reverses your second sentence; the social stigma of smoking has increased in certain areas, like Sebastopol environs, but those tobacco companies are still good stock purchases because their market is growing, even though it is ILLEGAL for them to advertise in so many modes.
    ... .
    They are good stock purchases because of their growing export market. Domestic use of tobacco as a percent of the population has been in steady decline for decades.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    ... I'll bet, since they are educated AND impartial, they can produce or know where such stats are. Oh, and please, leave the sensational gangsterism out as we all know it is sexy. The straight measurable facts & stats will bear out that during alcohol prohibition there was a curtailing of alcohol related crimes & medical maladies. Prohibition did work during the 20's and yet there are real forces that do not want that information promulgated. The same forces that had the prohibition repealed. We know what talks and we know what walks! ...
    You really should get comfortable with google searches and read up before making posts. You could start here on the massive increase in crime related to alcohol prohibition, but remember that most alcohol related crimes were never reported and statistics from that era are very incomplete: Did Alcohol Prohibition increase crime?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    ... Your last paragraph comes across a bit strong as if you are making history. It's simply a conference to delineate the medical uses, which means all the substances will be controlled by the medical industry, which is a good thing for those of us who wish to remain free. Such a conference will ask to mandate fewer restrictions from the gov't and that is a good thing. Making ALL drugs legal will negate such a conference, no? ...
    Uh, no. As far as "making history" is concerned, do a search on: "psychedelic research" and another on "Psychedelic Science in the 21st Century." Yup, we made history and will continue to.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    ... And now the following is a moral statement: we ARE free, born free and those of us who wish to do as we choose soon realize that there are consequences to our freedom. We CAN do as we please and will calculate the consequences of our actions when we feel strong enough to express our freedom. Can we agree on that?
    As free people we can chose to take any drug, or do anything we choose. ...
    Huh? Len, we are so far apart on our thinking and our knowledge and experience on this issue I can't find anything to agree with you on. I'm trying to pick out statements you are making as though fact and explaining why they are not. There is so much more implied in your comments that I could respond to, but I can't spend the hours that would be necessary to bring you up to speed.

    No, you can't take any drug you choose because so many are illegal and the legal ramifications could land you in prison. Strangely, the most benign classes of drugs carry the harshest penalties. Or maybe it's not so strange. Maybe there is a reason the "powers that be" provide access to the most dangerous drugs while simultaneously suppressing access to and information about the least dangerous drugs. Think about it.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    ... keeping drugs illegal sends a clear signal and assists those on the fence about the issue. ... What it comes down to is that those advocates of freely available drugs intend to impose their judgment, just as strongly, onto those who hold not. However those that do advocate such are taking a position that already exists in people who are free, onto those that find drug use, or any other activity which harms the greater good, to be essentially evil, onto the greater good, and in large numbers. That is malevolent and morally wrong. ...
    Oh, Len, this is so made up of WRONG it's probably clear to those following along that you have no idea what I'm even talking about let alone understand the history of the Failed War on Some Drugs or the concept of harm reduction. Perhaps a google search on "harm reduction" would do you some good.

    Moralizing and preconceived notions have to be set aside in order to learn about controversial issues. I wish you good luck.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. TopTop #14
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. TopTop #15
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Len, I don't think you could have found a single person at that conference who would agree that putting the substances being discussed on Schedule 1 ever benefitted anyone except the law enforcement industry, which has grown into a monster in response.
    Jeff, I've no idea what a Schedule 1 drug is and I apologize for leading you on as such. I was under the notion that the issue was drug legalization meaning "freely" available as in laissez faire. I am not equipped to deal with the regulations, etc.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    You'll need to do your own research to learn about what really happened 40 years ago. Being there isn't the same as understanding what happened, clearly.
    Hard to argue with that, since it is the case that academia by it's nature deals with the narrow range within a subset of complexity called life, otherwise it could not study a SINGLE thing. One's experience is not limited to the singularity, as in academia, but contains a gestalt that defies the approach your erudite friends utilize to further their research grants. Theirs is valuable to a fixed goal, but the freely available drugs and the culture that ensued in that time and place is more than a matter of what I witnessed, for that too is history, as your children and grandchildren may speak about from their studies in school.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    They are good stock purchases because of their growing export market. Domestic use of tobacco as a percent of the population has been in steady decline for decades.
    A fine point that in which you defeat one of my premises.
    If I had the money and the ethics of a monster I suppose purchasing them would be worthwhile.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    You really should get comfortable with google searches and read up before making posts. You could start here on the massive increase in crime related to alcohol prohibition, but remember that most alcohol related crimes were never reported and statistics from that era are very incomplete: Did Alcohol Prohibition increase crime?
    I seem to be apologizing a lot to you, and again I am sorry for not being clear in my statements. Sending me to a site ABOUT alcohol related crime increase as a RESULT of prohibition is not the same as finding data about crime. I've not the wherewithal at the moment to phrase it properly, but allow the following: most crimes, then as now, are committed under the influence of alcohol.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Uh, no. As far as "making history" is concerned, do a search on: "psychedelic research" and another on "Psychedelic Science in the 21st Century." Yup, we made history and will continue to.
    Well, no arguing the point. Must be a matter of definition, and I am sure the fault is mine, as daily events "make history".

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    No, you can't take any drug you choose because so many are illegal and the legal ramifications could land you in prison. Strangely, the most benign classes of drugs carry the harshest penalties. Or maybe it's not so strange. Maybe there is a reason the "powers that be" provide access to the most dangerous drugs while simultaneously suppressing access to and information about the least dangerous drugs. Think about it.
    We are at odds here. I've family and friends that have chosen to live in the way that I am trying to elucidate on and that involves responsibility. I did not make my writings clear enough: we ARE free. As free people we make choices. There are people that live as such and choose their actions KNOWING that some are illegal. That IS ONE OF the definitions of being free. When caught they go to prison as well because they chose to live a free life. Now I find I have to shout as you don't seem to understand. Yes, there are some actions that land one in prison. Yes, that lifestyle IS a choice, not to go to prison, but to do those actions, like drugs. Yes, those are choices free people make. I know you find prison to be a deterrent and that is good. Making things illegal, LIKE DRUGS, keeps some folks, like you, out of the more difficult things that drugs bring into one's life, prison being only ONE of them. There are other bad things that happen to drug users with only a FEW of them being the legalities of prison. Those that understand those "other things" made laws so that most folks can avoid those OTHER problems. Those that live that free life count prison as part of the deal. It sounds as though you wish to reverse that, so that prison is not the "bogy man" place. The REAL facts are prison is not the major one, the strung out drug life IS.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Oh, Len, this is so made up of WRONG it's probably clear to those following along that you have no idea what I'm even talking about let alone understand the history of the Failed War on Some Drugs or the concept of harm reduction. Perhaps a google search on "harm reduction" would do you some good.
    Thanks for pointing the direction. I've got more work to do before the rain and it's late, but I note that the site has principles. They are looking through the glass bass ackwards. They start with "strung out" to make it "safe" and wind up with abstinence, after passing through "managed use".
    Harm Reduction Coalition*:*Principles of Harm Reduction

    It is odd that you wish to legalize something that has the notion of HARM REDUCTION and such built into it. They too note the legalities are only one part, a small part but time consuming for the individual who is taking drugs, and that the real devil is in the addiction itself. How come many don't see THAT point?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Moralizing and preconceived notions have to be set aside in order to learn about controversial issues. I wish you good luck.-Jeff
    We are off here. And you win. As drugs become more laissez faire in our culture more "managed use" facilities, more "harm reduction" (note the HARM part) philosophies will have to enter our lexicon. What I don't understand is how one may miss the forest via trees.
    I am glad you enjoyed yourself and hope that your enterprise is fruitful for all and not simply the ones requiring harm reduction and the like.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. TopTop #16
    Hotspring 44's Avatar
    Hotspring 44
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    We are at odds here. I've family and friends that have chosen to live in the way that I am trying to elucidate on and that involves responsibility
    Just because somebody uses a particular substance that you don't approve of does not mean they are irresponsible.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    I did not make my writings clear enough: we ARE free. As free people we make choices. There are people that live as such and choose their actions KNOWING that some are illegal. That IS ONE OF the definitions of being free. When caught they go to prison…
    I think you're confusing the meaning of free with the meaning of, can choose to do something.
    That’s saying it's not illegal until you get caught.

    Have you ever heard of the term prison industrial complex?


    Note the scale on the web page on the link (prison industrial complex).
    I noticed the United States prison population in that scale goes up very sharply right around when Ronald Reagan started the war on drugs!
    it's no coincidence!



    Or, drug war?

    In 1994, it was reported that the "War on Drugs" results in the incarceration of one million Americans each year.[9] Of the related drug arrests, about 225,000 are for possession of cannabis, the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States.[10]
    In 2008, 1.5 million Americans were arrested for drug offenses. 500,000 were imprisoned.[11]
    In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes was rising 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%.[12] The United States has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than any other country in the world for which reliable statistics are available, reaching a total of 2.2 million inmates in the U.S. in 2005.(Note: the same scale as drug war on the culture war link).


    Or, culture war?

    The American 1980s culture wars were characterized by the conservative climate during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan.[4] Members of the religious right often attacked artists and their works, in a fight against all that they considered indecent, subversive, blasphemous,[4] and that they considered in contrast with what they considered sacred, like tradition, Western civilization[5] and family values.

    Or Jim Crow laws?

    Etymology
    The phrase "Jim Crow Law" first appeared in 1904 according to the Dictionary of American English,[2] although there is some evidence of earlier usage.[3] The origin of the phrase "Jim Crow" has often been attributed to "Jump Jim Crow", a song-and-dance caricature of African Americans performed by white actor Thomas D. Rice in blackface, which first surfaced in 1832 and was used to satirize Andrew Jackson's populist policies. As a result of Rice's fame, "Jim Crow" had become a pejorative expression meaning "African American" by 1838, and from this the laws of racial segregation became known as Jim Crow laws.[3]


    Here's another factoid tidbit you might want to consider:

    The prison industry in the United States: big business or a new form of slavery?BY VICKY PELAEZ (Taken from El Diario-La Prensa, New York)

    HUMAN rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane exploitation in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 million – mostly Black and Hispanic – are working for various industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of gold. They don’t have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time, and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if they don’t like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse to work, they are locked up in isolation cells.
    There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country. According to California Prison Focus, "no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."



    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    …as well because they chose to live a free life
    According to that definition, they are also free (can choose), to choose addiction.

    There may be one hypothetical agreement here. That would be that people are free enough to choose something if they are informed enough to know what the consequences are going to be.

    On the other hand, it may be an ill-informed decision, and the individual may not know the full impact of the likely consequences because of the lack of an adequate education on the subject matter.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Now I find I have to shout as you don't seem to understand. Yes, there are some actions that land one in prison. Yes, that lifestyle IS a choice, not to go to prison, but to do those actions, like drugs. Yes, those are choices free people make. I know you find prison to be a deterrent and that is good. Making things illegal, LIKE DRUGS, keeps some folks, like you, out of the more difficult things that drugs bring into one's life, prison being only ONE of them. There are other bad things that happen to drug users with only a FEW of them being the legalities of prison.
    Your definition of free is convoluted.

    I am free to drink coffee in public or in private. I am free to drink alcohol in certain public places like bars, or even in a restaurant or a winery (like there is a lot of in Sonoma County) or get thoroughly drunk at home privately as long as I don't leave home and go in public and be a danger to myself or others or become a nuisance. Because I am over 21 years old I am free to do those things without having a prescription from a doctor (or having to conform to the proposition 15 California state medical marijuana statue , which is not fully recognized by the federal government; BTW) without the threat of going to prison or jail.

    Because of the fact that cannabis (marijuana) is listed as a schedule 1 narcotic;


    FYI:(Schedule I.—
    (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
    (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
    (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.)...…


    ...…it is extremely difficult to prove that it is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, or even coffee, yet I am free to believe that it is less harmful, but I am not free to exercise that belief without the threat of going to jail or prison.

    But if I believe that tea, aspirin, milk, turkey, coffee, oranges, grapes, prunes, etc., are medicinal I can use them as a medicine and nobody's going to put me in jail for that…. …Are they?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Those that understand those "other things" made laws so that most folks can avoid those OTHER problems. Those that live that free life count prison as part of the deal. It sounds as though you wish to reverse that, so that prison is not the "bogy man" place. The REAL facts are prison is not the major one, the strung out drug life IS.
    Congress understood things in the past well enough to repeal prohibition from the United States Constitution for good reason.
    I think it's because they did not want to fight a drug war (against alcohol) and having a prison industrial complex. Not only that, I think a good many of them were into drinking alcohol themselves.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    It is odd that you wish to legalize something that has the notion of HARM REDUCTION and such built into it. They too note the legalities are only one part, a small part but time consuming for the individual who is taking drugs, and that the real devil is in the addiction itself. How come many don't see THAT point?


    When the laws themselves make something that is harmful, more harmful because of the way that they are enforced then changing the law is a form of harm reduction.

    If there were legal channels for people to get drugs that they are already addicted to the use of addicting drugs would go down over time, and society on both sides of the border would be better off.

    Tobacco is now highly taxed, and there are catalytic converters built into cars because of the so-called harm reduction principle, and it's still legal to smoke a cigarette in your car in most places, yet tobacco is extremely addictive and is also harmful to people other than the users as a direct result of secondhand smoke inside of an enclosed automobile, for example.
    Also as stated before, usage of tobacco in the USA has gone down, not up.

    So to me harm reduction is not odd at all, because of experience with tobacco and gross polluter automobiles as they are now called, its more hindsight.
    Because of that we can now use educated foresight utilizing what you are calling harm reduction; knowing that certain undesirable things are bound to happen one way or the other. That would still be a preferable choice than causing more harm to more people because of inappropriate laws.

    It is wise to move on to the future and minimize the known harmful things that we know that will inevitably come up.
    We are better off utilizing the experience and wisdom we have gained through experience and use our understanding as best we can in utilizing harm reduction principles in the society as a whole for many things besides just drugs.

    Absolute prohibition is probably just as bad as the government being the drug pusher.





    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. TopTop #17
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    Just because somebody uses a particular substance that you don't approve of does not mean they are irresponsible.


    That rather egocentric approach cannot be the sum total of how you judge, can it? How about the fact that those practices ruin lives? or incur incarceration? or are really more than problematic to those in their constellation? And not simply by the fact of the legality; if all those drugs were legal, they would still have issues, and then some.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    I think you're confusing the meaning of free with the meaning of, can choose to do something.
    That’s saying it's not illegal until you get caught.
    Have you ever heard of the term prison industrial complex?
    Or, drug war? Or, culture war? Or Jim Crow laws?
    My notion of freedom does involve the willingness to get caught and with full knowledge of the legality of any singular action. It is not asking permission, it is simply doing what one wants.
    You're amazing in your references to Wiki, as well as your ability to cut n' paste.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    According to that definition, they are also free (can choose), to choose addiction.


    Folks are also free to to leave an addiction behind them, or 'give it up' as so many do all to late in life.
    The problem not discussed in this light about drugs
    , until to late, is that the substances create a chemical dependency and one's freedom is lost until rock bottom is hit, if ever, or death, too often the case. So one loses their freedoms and THAT is the evil of drugs. Losing freedoms IS evil, even on an innocuous 'fun day' like 4/20.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    There may be one hypothetical agreement here. That would be that people are free enough to choose something if they are informed enough to know what the consequences are going to be. On the other hand, it may be an ill-informed decision, and the individual may not know the full impact of the likely consequences because of the lack of an adequate education on the subject matter.


    Ah, back to 'education' and the IF statements. Always a way out, slippery though it is. Both provide a non-answer to the issues identified. "Well, the were not educated or informed enough" is always a good 'out', but then it is always non-quantifiable, and even when exposed to as much education as a junkie can get, they still return to that trough. Oh, wait, if it is ILLEGAL, then that is the beginning of an educational moment, no?


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    Quote:
    LenInSebastopol wrote:
    Now I find I have to shout as you don't seem to understand. Yes, there are some actions that land one in prison. Yes, that lifestyle IS a choice, not to go to prison, but to do those actions, like drugs. Yes, those are choices free people make. I know you find prison to be a deterrent and that is good. Making things illegal, LIKE DRUGS, keeps some folks, like you, out of the more difficult things that drugs bring into one's life, prison being only ONE of them. There are other bad things that happen to drug users with only a FEW of them being the legalities of prison.

    Your definition of free is convoluted.
    I am free to drink coffee in public or in private. I am free to drink alcohol in certain public places like bars, or even in a restaurant or a winery (like there is a lot of in Sonoma County) or get thoroughly drunk at home privately as long as I don't leave home and go in public and be a danger to myself or others or become a nuisance. Because I am over 21 years old I am free to do those things without having a prescription from a doctor (or having to conform to the proposition 15 California state medical marijuana statue , which is not fully recognized by the federal government; BTW) without the threat of going to prison or jail. Because of the fact that cannabis (marijuana) is listed as a schedule 1 narcotic;


    I suppose I should apologize for having a convoluted definition but I can't. You have limited your freedoms because you wish to live in a 'civilized' way of life. You chose to follow the laws and are willing to give up certain freedoms in the hopes that others agree in that social contract and thus have more abilities to feel safe and do what you please. That is all fine and good. And it is not totally free. If you wish to expand your freedoms then you either step outside that contract with knowledge of the consequences or not. Keeping some substances illegal tells folks like you that there are some things that defy your freedoms (like getting strung out) however it seems you wish to have both your cake and eat it as well. It may be the case that all those drugs become legalized, or even mandatory (great population control) and then we will see the affects of such. It will be another brick in hell.



    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    ...…it is extremely difficult to prove that it is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, or even coffee, yet I am free to believe that it is less harmful, but I am not free to exercise that belief without the threat of going to jail or prison. But if I believe that tea, aspirin, milk, turkey, coffee, oranges, grapes, prunes, etc., are medicinal I can use them as a medicine and nobody's going to put me in jail for that…. …Are they?


    As to the other thread about you going on regarding Omega 3 and the FDA, YES, they will fine you AFTER the courts settle on what may be put onto packaging or what is called "organic" and all that other jazz.
    BTW, the gov't can't arrest you for what you believe, or at least not this week and if you express your beliefs about certain things.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    Congress understood things in the past well enough to repeal prohibition from the United States Constitution for good reason.
    I think it's because they did not want to fight a drug war (against alcohol) and having a prison industrial complex. Not only that, I think a good many of them were into drinking alcohol themselves.


    Congress responded to money. There was money out there, more than Prohibition could offer, so they succumbed. That and there is a culture of alcohol that came over from Europe that ran deeply in the psych of those that run the country, deeper than their Puritanical roots; either that or the migration of the Southern Europeans & Irish brought on the heat in large numbers that the British founders could handle.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    When the laws themselves make something that is harmful, more harmful because of the way that they are enforced then changing the law is a form of harm reduction. If there were legal channels for people to get drugs that they are already addicted to the use of addicting drugs would go down over time, and society on both sides of the border would be better off.


    As tired as I am, Madam, I will explain it one last time: it is not HARM REDUCTION if a simple law is passed. When introduced to that language it was involving drug rehabilitation, with the goal being abstention or abstinence. The method utilized principles other than a cold jail cell and a blanket where a junkie could not hang her/him self due to drug withdrawal.
    I trust you know a bit of the history of China, as mentioned previously, and can apply those principles of what happens when the gov't does not care if its people get strung out, and strung out is what will happen, every damn time. Or try a more "modern" version of history, like England, 1954 when they had fewer than 6,000 addicts and they created a 'maintenance" approach to their addicts. In less that 15 years they had 40,000 addicts and for the most part their "maintenance" was not adequate. You see, addicts don't want to feel the normal way most of us feel now; they want to get high, so ...they take steps. Or try Switzerland, who recently addressed their addicted issues in a like and similar manner: failure was their lot as well.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post

    Absolute prohibition is probably just as bad as the government being the drug pusher.
    OK, but no, it is not. Apply that principle to killing folks and see where we can go with that.
    Good night.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. TopTop #18
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    ... apply those principles of what happens when the gov't does not care if its people get strung out, and strung out is what will happen, every damn time. ...
    OK, Len, let's apply "those principles." So the government legalizes heroin. That means that you, Len, will "get strung out" since it happens "every damn time." Right?

    Please answer as honestly as you can.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. TopTop #19
    Hotspring 44's Avatar
    Hotspring 44
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    That rather egocentric approach cannot be the sum total of how you judge, can it?
    Sure it can, but it isn't.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    How about the fact that those practices ruin lives?
    I think you're generalizing way too much about what you're calling “those practices"
    However I would include drinking alcohol, coffee, tobacco, fried foods, driving fast cars on public roads, etc. all those things ruin lives too. But I don't see Nancy Reagan (or somebody like her) in a just say no campaign on alcohol, coffee, tobacco, fried foods, or fast cars. Maybe the First Lady, Mrs. Obama on a campaign against fried foods? But even if so, probably not to incarcerate people for long periods of time for consuming them.

    If you really think people are going to stop doing drugs, because it's illegal, which I don't think you think by the way, but anybody that does use that kind of logic whom is against drugs should also be against artery clogging fried foods, coffee, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages, at least.

    Just because those things are not called drugs doesn't mean they're not drugs, or at least harmful things that people choose to do, that ruins lives.
    Coffee and tobacco are proven to alter the mind, and of course we know what harmful effects alcohol has on individuals that over-consume it, and society.

    The gist of what I am saying here (just as an example) goes like this:
    When I was a very young, impressionable teenager I noticed something very interesting.
    The interesting thing was that the people that were smoking marijuana were much more intelligent, friendly and educated than the obnoxious alcohol consuming drunks.


    The alcoholics were belligerent, stupid (when they were drunk), and dangerous to themselves and others whenever drunken, (not to mention hung-over and useless the following day.).

    The potheads were not at all like that, (unless they were also drunk on alcohol.).
    The pot smokers were considerate, friendly, creative, more successful, and far happier than the alcoholics were.

    Also the alcoholics were much more likely to and, did use and stay addicted to other hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc. then the organic marijuana smoking crowd was.

    The alcoholics that I knew were usually far more violent and intolerant of differences than the pot-heads.

    The potheads were statistically less likely to smoke tobacco.
    The potheads had far less severe withdrawals (some have no visible withdrawal side effects at all) then any of the other aforementioned above including the fried food addicts.

    Other than emergency or clinic uses such as, sterilizing an open wound or medical equipment, using as an agent in a tincture, or on a cotton swab to sterilize the skin before getting an injection by the doctor; what medicinal or nutritional uses is there for alcohol? (I'm not talking about grape juice here).

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    …or incur incarceration? or are really more than problematic to those in their constellation? And not simply by the fact of the legality; if all those drugs were legal, they would still have issues, and then some.
    I ask you this: do you think that any of the following; alcohol, coffee, or deep-fried, unhealthy fatty food should be criminalized like cannabis was in years, 1951-1956 or 1986?
    1986
    Anti-Drug Abuse Act - Mandatory Sentences

    President Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, instituting mandatory sentences for drug-related crimes.
    In conjunction with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the new law raised federal penalties for marijuana possession and dealing, basing the penalties on the amount of the drug involved. Possession of 100 marijuana plants received the same penalty as possession of 100 grams of heroin.
    A later amendment to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act established a three strikes and you're out policy, requiring life sentences for repeat drug offenders, and providing for the death penalty for drug kingpins.

    source: https://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj005.htm




    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    My notion of freedom does involve the willingness to get caught and with full knowledge of the legality of any singular action. It is not asking permission, it is simply doing what one wants.
    You're amazing in your references to Wiki, as well as your ability to cut n' paste.


    I also put two links to two places other than wiki in my previous post, one of which was a government website that shows what the schedule of drugs are (one through five) those links were also references to the webpage to that I copied and pasted on my posts. One of the reasons I did that was because you specifically stated: “Jeff, I've no idea what a Schedule 1 drug is”, so that you could follow link to see for yourself on a government website on that particular link, what the government says a schedule 1 drug is….(
    https://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/csa/812.htm ), which (BTW) happens to be a US drug enforcement administration webpage, not wiki.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Folks are also free to leave an addiction behind them, or 'give it up' as so many do all to late in life.


    Yes, milk is a perfect example of that.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    The problem not discussed in this light about drugs, until to late, is that the substances create a chemical dependency and one's freedom is lost until rock bottom is hit,…


    as far as cannabis is concerned, the gangs, the very real threat of prison and all that is involved in gangs and prison is the rock bottom. There is no major physical addiction, and it does not cause damage to the dopamine receptors in the brain like so many other illegal (and now possibly some of the new anti-psychotic prescription) drugs do.

    The biggest problem is the lack of adequate education.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    …if ever, or death, too often the case. So one loses their freedoms and THAT is the evil of drugs.
    No, theevil is the stupid-ass drug laws prohibiting cannabis!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Losing freedoms IS evil, even on an innocuous 'fun day' like 4/20.


    I am not so sure exactly how you mean that one.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Ah, back to 'education' and the IF statements.
    Always a way out, slippery though it is. Both provide a non-answer to the issues identified.


    I totally disagree! “IF” people were better educated, they would make better decisions all the way around. I'm saying that the solution is better education system, all the way around for children and adults.

    Take those little rug rats out on the street on a field trip (with adequate safeguards, of course) to see all the puking, crapped in pants, passed out, smelly, drunks and junkies.
    Maybe they'll learn something!
    Maybe they'll learn a very valuable lesson in life and decide for themselves so as that, they are more adequately equipped to freely choose not to become a drunk or a junkie.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    "Well, the were not educated or informed enough" is always a good 'out', but then it is always non-quantifiable, and even when exposed to as much education as a junkie can get,…
    you are apparently assuming that I am talking about educating somebody that's already hooked!... …WRONG!


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    They still return to that trough. Oh, wait, if it is ILLEGAL, then that is the beginning of an educational moment, no?
    I don't know how or why you seem to equate in this instance, punishment with education.
    I don't know about you but my parents did not have to beat me to educate me as a matter of fact, that would have been counterproductive in my case.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    I suppose I should apologize for having a convoluted definition but I can't.


    I think you are free to choose not to apologize that's perfectly okay with me.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    You have limited your freedoms because you wish to live in a 'civilized' way of life. You chose to follow the laws and are willing to give up certain freedoms in the hopes that others agree in that social contract and thus have more abilities to feel safe and do what you please. That is all fine and good. And it is not totally free.


    Legalizing cannabis or decriminalizing the use of certain drugs does not equate in my mind being totally free. Total freedom would have to be or at least involve an out of body experience. no?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    If you wish to expand your freedoms then you either step outside that contract with knowledge of the consequences or not. Keeping some substances illegal tells folks like you that there are some things that defy your freedoms (like getting strung out) however it seems you wish to have both your cake and eat it as well. It may be the case that all those drugs become legalized, or even mandatory…
    mandatory?!
    Are you serious?



    Last edited by Barry; 04-21-2010 at 08:15 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. TopTop #20
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    OK, Len, let's apply "those principles." So the government legalizes heroin. That means that you, Len, will "get strung out" since it happens "every damn time." Right?
    Please answer as honestly as you can.
    -Jeff
    Probably.
    My golgi apparatus is no different than any others. So crossing the that barrier would have the same effect.
    A minor point is that I would not take that stuff to begin with. But let's skip a generation, just once, and see what happens to the population at large. And in our consumer setting advertisements would be everywhere. Hell, it already has been advertised in movies from "The Man with The Golden Arm" to the latest Avatar movie....and on TV too. There's a TV program, MAD MEN, where everyone smokes all the time....it's hilarious! Part of the salacious world we find ourselves in.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  21. TopTop #21
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Probably.
    My golgi apparatus is no different than any others. So crossing the that barrier would have the same effect. ...
    I have to say that I don't believe you, and if you are telling the truth, then you have a very weak position in this discussion. You see, drugs are so available that most people who would take them already are, so legalization, as proven in places where drugs have been legalized or decriminalized, does not increase drug use in any substantial way. Some of the European countries with the most liberal drug laws also have the lowest percentage of the population abusing drugs. The US, with its draconian drug laws, has failed miserably to curtail drug use in terms of availability, purity or percent of the population.

    When I suggested all drugs should be legalized it was in answer to your question about how to take power and money away from drug cartels and I stand by that statement. It's so obvious it really needs no further discussion. However, if any drugs are illegal I think methamphetamine should top the list, and cocaine should probably be number two. Both of these drugs are intensely addictive and soul stealing. They threaten everything important in life and I don't recommend them for anyone even for the most casual or intermittent use.

    But I'd like to shift the context of this conversation to classes of drugs that are not addictive and for most users are not even habit forming. In fact, I'm talking about classes of drugs that are themselves the most promising tools in the fight against drug addiction known. Did you know that such drugs exist? And did you know that every one of these drugs is now illegal in the United States even for a doctor to prescribe to his patients?

    I have to mention them separately because your vocabulary appears inadequate. Not all drugs are addictive. Not all people who take drugs are losers, in fact, most of the people who I know that take drugs are at or near the top of their professions and are some of the most sane and functional people, and I know quite a few of them. Many of them were at that conference I attended last weekend.

    Are you curious about what drugs I'm referring to? Do you believe such drugs exist? This is a test.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. TopTop #22
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Here's a link to an article about the conference I went to last weekend: Modern Psychedelic Scientists Find Data in Countercultural Past | Wired Science | Wired.com

    It's mostly accurate.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  23. TopTop #23
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    I think you're generalizing way too much about what you're calling “those practices"
    However I would include drinking alcohol, coffee, tobacco, fried foods, driving fast cars on public roads, etc. all those things ruin lives too. But I don't see Nancy Reagan (or somebody like her) in a just say no campaign on alcohol, coffee, tobacco, fried foods, or fast cars. Maybe the First Lady, Mrs. Obama on a campaign against fried foods? But even if so, probably not to incarcerate people for long periods of time for consuming them.


    Yes, I am generalizing and not all generalizations are bad. Some are even based on facts, which are: folks get strung out; that is bad.
    But your logic escapes me: do two wrongs make a right?
    Also folks don't sell their bodies, birthrights, and humanity (though you could argue THAT) for all those you mentioned. OK, for alcohol they do, but not french fries.
    But making drugs legal will be OK because booze is? That is past the slippery slope argument.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    If you really think people are going to stop doing drugs, because it's illegal, which I don't think you think by the way, but anybody that does use that kind of logic whom is against drugs should also be against artery clogging fried foods, coffee, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages, at least.


    Reverse your question: do you think having drugs illegal makes a statement to others about the dangers of them, as in smoking or driving fast cars? Well, smoking is semi-legal and fast cars is totally, when driven the way they are made to go: fast! There are statements made when notions of illegality are stamped upon those specific acts, don't you think?
    Or do you wish to outlaw the fry?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    Just because those things are not called drugs doesn't mean they're not drugs, or at least harmful things that people choose to do, that ruins lives.
    Coffee and tobacco are proven to alter the mind, and of course we know what harmful effects alcohol has on individuals that over-consume it, and society.


    Those things are not called drugs. Because they are not.
    Harmful as they are maybe you could either get the language or the law changed, but until them it is important to call things not as you see them or feel about them, but what the rest of us call them, otherwise there is no point in

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    The gist of what I am saying here (just as an example) goes like this:
    When I was a very young, impressionable teenager I noticed something very interesting. The interesting thing was that the people that were smoking marijuana were much more intelligent, friendly and educated than the obnoxious alcohol consuming drunks.
    The alcoholics were belligerent, stupid (when they were drunk), and dangerous to themselves and others whenever drunken, (not to mention hung-over and useless the following day.). The potheads were not at all like that, (unless they were also drunk on alcohol.). The pot smokers were considerate, friendly, creative, more successful, and far happier than the alcoholics were.
    Also the alcoholics were much more likely to and, did use and stay addicted to other hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc. then the organic marijuana smoking crowd was. The alcoholics that I knew were usually far more violent and intolerant of differences than the pot-heads. The potheads were statistically less likely to smoke tobacco.
    The potheads had far less severe withdrawals (some have no visible withdrawal side effects at all) then any of the other aforementioned above including the fried food addicts.


    You make an excellent argument for banning alcohol:
    intolerant, violent, often went onto more harmful drugs (gateway theory), stupid, physically sick (hung over), unable to function during hangover and while inebriated, danger to self & others (psychiatric condition for arrest & confinement) so what more do you want? Let's make THAT illegal as well! Oh, wait, tried that, but the monied interests won out!
    Besides, your anecdotal story will not hold forth in studies and courts (but most know you are right anyway)


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post

    I also put two links to two places other than wiki in my previous post, one of which was a government website that shows what the schedule of drugs are (one through five) those links were also references to the webpage to that I copied and pasted on my posts. One of the reasons I did that was because you specifically stated: “Jeff, I've no idea what a Schedule 1 drug is”, so that you could follow link to see for yourself on a government website on that particular link, what the government says a schedule 1 drug is….(
    DEA, Title 21, Section 812 ), which (BTW) happens to be a US drug enforcement administration webpage, not wiki.


    Madame, I hope you do not take my being blunt for rudeness, I do not want to know what constitutes Schedule 1 drugs nor any other gov't methodology for such. Does not interest me in the slightest.
    And for the merciful deletion I made, no, I don't wish to have alcohol, fatty foods, or tobacco made illegal, but if they were, I could not care more than I do now as I would not miss any of them.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    As far as cannabis is concerned, the gangs, the very real threat of prison and all that is involved in gangs and prison is the rock bottom. There is no major physical addiction, and it does not cause damage to the dopamine receptors in the brain like so many other illegal (and now possibly some of the new anti-psychotic prescription) drugs do. The biggest problem is the lack of adequate education.
    One of the loves I have is science. It has not YET proved major physical addiction, which means there may still be some yet to find. There was literature about cannabis gathering on the fatty glial cells of the nervous system when I was in school; never knew the outcome of that. Also it was gathering in the fat cells above the kidneys but none was excited about that; and then there are they psych studies that went on forever. Lost interest around then; but it is common knowledge about pot smokers lacking motivation, focus, and several other traits that are not very conducive to living in this place (I mean outside of Sebastopol and California). BTW, I will have to tell my Mexican cousins that THEY are responsible for introducing marijuana into the US, according to your time line, and it's because of them all this occurred! I am sure they will 'tickled pink' PBS considers them in their proper history.
    Oh, and your 'adequate education', how much, what age, and to whom would you 'educate'? Also the content of your education? I mean you showed me two presidential, federal studies, twenty-five years apart showing it's not all that bad, so what would you teach? And what age, etc?


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    Quote:
    LenInSebastopol wrote:
    Losing freedoms IS evil, even on an innocuous 'fun day' like 4/20.

    No, theevil is the stupid-ass drug laws prohibiting cannabis!


    You are drunk, aren't you! Great way to cease contact. And after all that truth you wrote about alcohol!
    Or I am too tired to go on. Long day, short night.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. TopTop #24
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    I think you're generalizing way too much about what you're calling “those practices"
    However I would include drinking alcohol, coffee, tobacco, fried foods, driving fast cars on public roads, etc. all those things ruin lives too. But I don't see Nancy Reagan (or somebody like her) in a just say no campaign on alcohol, coffee, tobacco, fried foods, or fast cars. Maybe the First Lady, Mrs. Obama on a campaign against fried foods? But even if so, probably not to incarcerate people for long periods of time for consuming them.

    Yes, I am generalizing and not all generalizations are bad. Some are even based on facts, which are: folks get strung out; that is bad.
    But your logic escapes me: do two wrongs make a right?
    Also folks don't sell their bodies, birthrights, and humanity (though you could argue THAT) for all those you mentioned. OK, for alcohol they do, but not french fries.
    But making drugs legal will be OK because booze is? That is past the slippery slope argument.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    If you really think people are going to stop doing drugs, because it's illegal, which I don't think you think by the way, but anybody that does use that kind of logic whom is against drugs should also be against artery clogging fried foods, coffee, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages, at least.


    Reverse your question: do you think having drugs illegal makes a statement to others about the dangers of them, as in smoking or driving fast cars? Well, smoking is semi-legal and fast cars is totally, when driven the way they are made to go: fast! There are statements made when notions of illegality are stamped upon those specific acts, don't you think?
    Or do you wish to outlaw the fry?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    Just because those things are not called drugs doesn't mean they're not drugs, or at least harmful things that people choose to do, that ruins lives.
    Coffee and tobacco are proven to alter the mind, and of course we know what harmful effects alcohol has on individuals that over-consume it, and society.


    Those things are not called drugs. Because they are not.
    Harmful as they are maybe you could either get the language or the law changed, but until them it is important to call things not as you see them or feel about them, but what the rest of us call them, otherwise there is no point in

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    The gist of what I am saying here (just as an example) goes like this:
    When I was a very young, impressionable teenager I noticed something very interesting. The interesting thing was that the people that were smoking marijuana were much more intelligent, friendly and educated than the obnoxious alcohol consuming drunks.
    The alcoholics were belligerent, stupid (when they were drunk), and dangerous to themselves and others whenever drunken, (not to mention hung-over and useless the following day.). The potheads were not at all like that, (unless they were also drunk on alcohol.). The pot smokers were considerate, friendly, creative, more successful, and far happier than the alcoholics were.
    Also the alcoholics were much more likely to and, did use and stay addicted to other hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc. then the organic marijuana smoking crowd was. The alcoholics that I knew were usually far more violent and intolerant of differences than the pot-heads. The potheads were statistically less likely to smoke tobacco.
    The potheads had far less severe withdrawals (some have no visible withdrawal side effects at all) then any of the other aforementioned above including the fried food addicts.


    You make an excellent argument for banning alcohol:
    intolerant, violent, often went onto more harmful drugs (gateway theory), stupid, physically sick (hung over), unable to function during hangover and while inebriated, danger to self & others (psychiatric condition for arrest & confinement) so what more do you want? Let's make THAT illegal as well! Oh, wait, tried that, but the monied interests won out!
    Besides, your anecdotal story will not hold forth in studies and courts (but most know you are right anyway)

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post

    I also put two links to two places other than wiki in my previous post, one of which was a government website that shows what the schedule of drugs are (one through five) those links were also references to the webpage to that I copied and pasted on my posts. One of the reasons I did that was because you specifically stated: “Jeff, I've no idea what a Schedule 1 drug is”, so that you could follow link to see for yourself on a government website on that particular link, what the government says a schedule 1 drug is….(
    DEA, Title 21, Section 812 ), which (BTW) happens to be a US drug enforcement administration webpage, not wiki.


    Madame, I hope you do not take my being blunt for rudeness, I do not want to know what constitutes Schedule 1 drugs nor any other gov't methodology for such. Does not interest me in the slightest.
    And for the merciful deletion I made, no, I don't wish to have alcohol, fatty foods, or tobacco made illegal, but if they were, I could not care more than I do now as I would not miss any of them.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    As far as cannabis is concerned, the gangs, the very real threat of prison and all that is involved in gangs and prison is the rock bottom. There is no major physical addiction, and it does not cause damage to the dopamine receptors in the brain like so many other illegal (and now possibly some of the new anti-psychotic prescription) drugs do. The biggest problem is the lack of adequate education.
    One of the loves I have is science. It has not YET proved major physical addiction, which means there may still be some yet to find. There was literature about cannabis gathering on the fatty glial cells of the nervous system when I was in school; never knew the outcome of that. Also it was gathering in the fat cells above the kidneys but none was excited about that; and then there are they psych studies that went on forever. Lost interest around then; but it is common knowledge about pot smokers lacking motivation, focus, and several other traits that are not very conducive to living in this place (I mean outside of Sebastopol and California). BTW, I will have to tell my Mexican cousins that THEY are responsible for introducing marijuana into the US, according to your time line, and it's because of them all this occurred! I am sure they will 'tickled pink' PBS considers them in their proper history.
    Oh, and your 'adequate education', how much, what age, and to whom would you 'educate'? Also the content of your education? I mean you showed me two presidential, federal studies, twenty-five years apart showing it's not all that bad, so what would you teach? And what age, etc?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44: View Post
    Quote:
    LenInSebastopol wrote:
    Losing freedoms IS evil, even on an innocuous 'fun day' like 4/20.

    No, theevil is the stupid-ass drug laws prohibiting cannabis!


    You are drunk, aren't you! Great way to cease contact. And after all that truth you wrote about alcohol!
    Or I am too tired to go on. Long day, short night.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. TopTop #25
    LenInSebastopol
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    I have to say that I don't believe you, and if you are telling the truth, then you have a very weak position in this discussion. You see, drugs are so available that most people who would take them already are, so legalization, as proven in places where drugs have been legalized or decriminalized, does not increase drug use in any substantial way. Some of the European countries with the most liberal drug laws also have the lowest percentage of the population abusing drugs. The US, with its draconian drug laws, has failed miserably to curtail drug use in terms of availability, purity or percent of the population.
    Believe me or not, you make a logically valid argument, but presumptive in its scope. Drugs are not that available because they are illegal. Make them legal and the availability will be widen as well as the message that it is 'OK' to take drugs. There are more drunks now than during Prohibition, no matter how you cut the stats. The overall use of booze is up in the last 80 years; give dope 80 years and try to post that argument. The European experiment, though I am not familiar with it at this point, is probably different, don't cha think? First, take the Low Countries as well as the Scandinavians, the aboriginals have developed a culture that is so closed, based on their heritage over the ages (heavy duty Protestantism of a bent as to defy nature) that they don't use drugs. We've none that here. The Moslems there have a full proof method for dealing with such: ostracism by death, so it's frowned upon mightily as well. I would venture to guess there is a growing number of dope fiends there and those gov'ts are having to address it. I recall a couple of years ago Switzerland allowed a "needle park" in their towns but the bodies were dying so fast tourists would trip on them during the morning runs. And most of those were the dreg rejects from other countries and not the Swiss (same Protestant ethics). If you can post something to support your position would be appreciated.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    When I suggested all drugs should be legalized it was in answer to your question about how to take power and money away from drug cartels and I stand by that statement. It's so obvious it really needs no further discussion. However, if any drugs are illegal I think methamphetamine should top the list, and cocaine should probably be number two. Both of these drugs are intensely addictive and soul stealing. They threaten everything important in life and I don't recommend them for anyone even for the most casual or intermittent use.
    Having seen the effects of meth use in far to many friends I prefer a line from that old song, Goddamn the Pusher Man, something about "cut him where he stands, and shoot him if he runs".....You are too intelligent to miss the logic in what you are writing and that makes me wonder about how you are really holding onto what you are putting out here. Those drug cartels would move onto other actions if drugs were legal, such as kidnapping for ransom. Very profitable and popular in South America. Might catch on here as well. Making stuff legal is not the answer.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    But I'd like to shift the context of this conversation to classes of drugs that are not addictive and for most users are not even habit forming. In fact, I'm talking about classes of drugs that are themselves the most promising tools in the fight against drug addiction known. Did you know that such drugs exist? And did you know that every one of these drugs is now illegal in the United States even for a doctor to prescribe to his patients?
    I have to mention them separately because your vocabulary appears inadequate. Not all drugs are addictive. Not all people who take drugs are losers, in fact, most of the people who I know that take drugs are at or near the top of their professions and are some of the most sane and functional people, and I know quite a few of them. Many of them were at that conference I attended last weekend.Are you curious about what drugs I'm referring to? Do you believe such drugs exist? This is a test.
    -Jeff
    Matter of fact I am interested. What are they? I have trouble believing such. I read about the MMDA thing on that site. As a matter of fact I looked at your post on the weekend seminar. I realize the magazine had to sell the 'pizzaz' and sizzle which takes away from all the scholarly work that lead up to it. I realize Slate has to sell soap, or whatever it is they do sell (wasn't that a Microsoft production when it first went to print?).
    I would like to tell you that when I was in college my neuro physiology teacher lectured us about some Stanford connected prof that was "communicating with dolphins" and taking tons of LSD. The whole neuro community considered that once brilliant scientist to be a kook after a while. This was in the early 70's and his name was Lilly, can't remember his first name...anyway he got a whole slew of folks interested in the dolphin communication thingy and when I left the funding was cut due to the publicity and general kookiness. That whole drug culture was lthe butt of jokes and laughter, partly due to this Lilly guy and probably due to some jealousies, as we were implanting electrodes into animals and stimulating them with foods, colors and various things and trying to understand readouts. Or making "listening" devices on belts and hooking them up to TR80s to see make lights flash in patterns to sounds (for the deaf), but some folks were going through another door....like the ones at the seminar you went attended. Glad they got through to the other side!
    Since then I've found there are drugs that "stop" the bad memories, drugs that supposedly make one smart, etc. So, let's see what cha' got!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  26. TopTop #26
    Hotspring 44's Avatar
    Hotspring 44
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Yes, I am generalizing and not all generalizations are bad….


    I did not say all generalizations are bad. But making a blanket statement by way of generalizations sometimes leads to inaccuracies.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Some are even based on facts,…


    I agree with that to a point.
    One of those points I don't;
    superstition, for example: the onset of superstition in the beginning, can be based on facts, but somewhere along the line the facts get lost or confused, then the superstition takes over at the cost of losing touch with the facts.

    I'm not saying that it is superstitious to know that people get strung out. If you think people don't get strung out on tobacco, all I can say (ask) is; where have you been? Just because it's legal doesn't mean people don't get strung out on it. Or that it's not a drug.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    …which are: folks get strung out; that is bad.
    Folks get strung out on alcohol, tobacco, and very unhealthy deep-fried foods,

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    But your logic escapes me: do two wrongs make a right?


    To answer that question as directly as possible: NO of course not.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Also folks don't sell their bodies, birthrights, and humanity (though you could argue THAT) for all those you mentioned. OK, for alcohol they do, but not french fries.


    French fries and high temperature fatty deep fried foods are more like a gateway drug (so to speak) to heart attacks, strokes and arteriosclerosis. That is bad too, but not illegal. I (rhetorically) ask you; Why?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    But making drugs legal will be OK because booze is? That is past the slippery slope argument.
    I don't think it's a slippery slope argument at all. I totally disagree with that analysis.
    The reason I disagree with it is that, I do not think cigarettes or any other tobacco products, deep-fried unhealthy fatty foods, alcohol, marijuana, and a whole big list of a whole bunch of other things shouldbe illegal at all in the first place.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Reverse your question: do you think having drugs illegal makes a statement to others about the dangers of them, as in smoking or driving fast cars?


    That's neither here nor there.


    [quote=LenInSebastopol;111876]Well, smoking is semi-legal and fast cars is totally, when driven the way they are made to go: fast! There are statements made when notions of illegality are stamped upon those specific acts, don't you think?

    You’re close to getting the point on that one.
    This is again where we probably have an agreement, that somebody is free to (can choose) to do something that is against the law. For example, get drunk in public and be a nuisance then be arrested, or drive a car too fast and get arrested.
    So I ask again why cannabis illegal?
    You get the point yet?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Or do you wish to outlaw the fry?
    NO.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Those things are not called drugs. Because they are not.


    As far as the stupid, ridiculous, discriminatory laws are concerned you are in part, correct.
    As far as medical science is concerned ( except for the the deep-fried fatty foods), you are quite incorrect; nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine are drugs. they even have a known lethal dosage. I mean chemically, not by way of volume like drinking too much water or breathing so much smoke that the carbon monoxide itself not the drug for example is the lethal substance.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Harmful as they are maybe you could either get the language or the law changed, but until them it is important to call things not as you see them or feel about them, but what the rest of us call them, otherwise there is no point in.


    First of all I'm going to call something the way I see it, because that's the way I see it, that's the way I am.
    Second of all, it's inaccurate to say in such a generalization that the rest of us is such an absolute fact as you imply by way of such generalizing.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    You make an excellent argument for banning alcohol: intolerant, violent, often went onto more harmful drugs (gateway theory), stupid, physically sick (hung over), unable to function during hangover and while inebriated, danger to self & others (psychiatric condition for arrest & confinement) so what more do you want?
    Laws based on reality and not discrimination to name one.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Let's make THAT illegal as well!


    America has already been there and done that we've already discussed this one previously. Why bother beating a dead horse; does not go anywhere.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Oh, wait, tried that, but the monied interests won out!
    Besides, your anecdotal story will not hold forth in studies and courts (but most know you are right anyway)
    I beg to differ on the studies, but the courts right now ; well, we only know what the courts already say at this point in time.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Madame, I hope you do not take my being blunt for rudeness, I do not want to know what constitutes Schedule 1 drugs nor any other gov't methodology for such. Does not interest me in the slightest.


    Then neither should the law then.
    For those of us who do care what the laws are who don't want our friends and family to be persecuted because of some stupid law and who care what the law is, want them changed!

    If you don't care, why are you even wasting your time on this thread?
    Are you one of those people that have nothing better to do and gets their rocks off on giving other people a hard time?

    I hope you do not take my being blunt for rudeness.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    And for the merciful deletion I made, no, I don't wish to have alcohol, fatty foods, or tobacco made illegal, but if they were, I could not care more than I do now as I would not miss any of them.
    Do you have any friends or relatives that do any of those things? Wouldn't you miss them if they went to prison for 10 years for doing one of those things that you just stated that you would not miss?


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    One of the loves I have is science. It has not YET proved major physical addiction, which means there may still be some yet to find. There was literature about cannabis gathering on the fatty glial cells of the nervous system when I was in school; never knew the outcome of that.


    I don't know either, but I would bet on it being a positive one instead of a negative.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Also it was gathering in the fat cells above the kidneys but none was excited about that; and then there are they psych studies that went on forever. Lost interest around then; but it is common knowledge about pot smokers lacking motivation, focus, and several other traits that are not very conducive to living in this place (I mean outside of Sebastopol and California).


    Conjecture.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    BTW, I will have to tell my Mexican cousins that THEY are responsible for introducing marijuana into the US, according to your time line, and it's because of them all this occurred! I am sure they will 'tickled pink' PBS considers them in their proper history.
    Oh, and your 'adequate education', how much, what age, and to whom would you 'educate'? Also the content of your education? I mean you showed me two presidential, federal studies, twenty-five years apart showing it's not all that bad, so what would you teach? And what age, etc?


    I was specifically talking about a field trip for school kids to the Skid Row drunks and junkies that do heroin that are all screwed up, so they could see firsthand the negatives about such things.

    I was not talking about doing field trips to the people that do primarily cannabis.

    About cannabis, I am thinking probably fourth or fifth grade to start with.

    The harder stuff involving Skid Row alcoholics and junkies probably fifth to eighth grade depending upon the maturity of the children in that specific district. That varies allot across the United States, but it should be required in a drug education course that is linked to the social studies.

    Tobacco (nicotine), coffee (caffeine) and alcohol are drugs, and that should be understood by society at large then taught in a comparative scientific and social study setting; starting in eighth grade and going all the way through 12th grade, whereas in 12th grade, there would be a final exam along with all the other things, that there are in a final exam to receive the diploma.

    I am not a teacher, and I am not that academic so there are others that could be much more specific about precisely what would be adequate.

    That being said, what is going on now regarding this topic as far as education is concerned is quite inadequate.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    You are drunk, aren't you!


    NO.
    It's obvious you don't know me. I can't stand alcohol, and I don't like being around alcohol, or people that are drunk!

    BTW; No, I'm not stoned either.



    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    Great way to cease contact. And after all that truth you wrote about alcohol!
    Or I am too tired to go on. Long day, short night.


    I think you're so tired at this point; you may have lost your grapple, a bit! LOL!!!




    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. TopTop #27
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    ... Matter of fact I am interested. What are they? I have trouble believing such. ... So, let's see what cha' got!
    This is a pretty soft stated article, but mainstream: Psychedelic trips aid anxiety treatments in study - Yahoo! News
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. TopTop #28
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by LenInSebastopol: View Post
    ... I would like to tell you that when I was in college my neuro physiology teacher lectured us about some Stanford connected prof that was "communicating with dolphins" and taking tons of LSD. The whole neuro community considered that once brilliant scientist to be a kook after a while. This was in the early 70's and his name was Lilly, can't remember his first name...anyway he got a whole slew of folks interested in the dolphin communication thingy and when I left the funding was cut due to the publicity and general kookiness. That whole drug culture was lthe butt of jokes and laughter, partly due to this Lilly guy and probably due to some jealousies ...
    His name was John Lilly. I went to a party once at his house on Maui. He was a brilliant guy who did, in fact, get in a bit deep with a drug, but it wasn't LSD. Had he stuck to that he would have been better off, in my opinion. It was ketamine he got over involved with. That's a legal one, BTW.

    [QUOTE=LenInSebastopol;111884]... ...
    Since then I've found there are drugs that "stop" the bad memories, drugs that supposedly make one smart, etc. So, let's see what cha' got![/QUOTE

    Nobody's got a drug that can reliably and selectively wipe out bad memories, and "smart drugs" require a longer description than I care to make here. Let's just say there is not drug that will turn a fool into a wise man. Sorry. If only! I could use that one.

    There are two classes of drugs that mimic or are identical to natural brain neurotransmitters. Both are considered "mind expanding" or psychedelic drugs. One is the phenethylamines and the other is the tryptamines.

    There are any number of interesting substances in these categories. The former category contains the amphetamines so there are some dangerous cousins, but at least half a dozen are worth studying. MDMA is one such drug.

    The tryptamines are so easy for you body to deal with, there is no known lethal dose for some of them; most notably LSD. They aren't addictive in any classic sense, and many therapists believe them to be superb agents for the treatment of addictions of all kinds. There is a large and growing body of literature supporting that claim, and yet, they remain Schedule 1 in the USA.

    Schedule 1 is a category for drugs that have no "recognized" medical use and a high potential for abuse. It's interesting that one of the most benign and probably medically useful drugs is in this category: marijuana.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  29. TopTop #29
    lynn
    Guest

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Geo...
    Thanks for that posting...I've been keeping up a little on how horrible it is getting in Mexico and along the border...But, I can barely stand reading what the good families have to go through...

    I think we need to decriminalize the drugs too...Don't see any other way of going about this if you want to lessen the criminality of all this...

    "His name was John Lilly. I went to a party once at his house on Maui. He was a brilliant guy who did, in fact, get in a bit deep with a drug, but it wasn't LSD. Had he stuck to that he would have been better off, in my opinion. It was ketamine he got over involved with. That's a legal one, BTW."

    Ah, yes...I remember Lilly..Had totally forgotten about him...
    It sure sounds fun...To swim with dolphins!...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. TopTop #30
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: The True Inside Story of the Catastrophic Mexican Drug Wars

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by lynn: View Post
    ... Ah, yes...I remember Lilly..Had totally forgotten about him... It sure sounds fun...To swim with dolphins!...
    He did a lot more than swim with them. He actually had a couple that lived in his house. Yes, it was a specially designed house, to be sure. He had one that could speak some English words. Intelligently, of course.

    Scott Taylor is one of his students that continues Lilly's work. DolphinTale, Souls in The Sea: dolphins, whales and Human Destiny, Swim with Dolphins
    Last edited by Braggi; 04-23-2010 at 05:02 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. THE NIGHT I YANKED TONY'S RUG (A true story)
    By sd gross in forum Poetry and Prose
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-26-2009, 09:47 PM
  2. THE MAUAIESE PHEASANT (Another true story)
    By sd gross in forum Poetry and Prose
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2009, 05:08 PM
  3. How To Defeat Mexican Drug Cartels
    By Tars in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2009, 08:11 AM
  4. How to stop the drug wars
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 07:32 AM
  5. Obama's Inner Circle Shares Inside Story
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-11-2008, 08:21 AM

Bookmarks