[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

This Popeyes Fired All the Blacks And Hired ALL Latinos

‘He’s setting us up’: Jewish leaders express alarm at Trump’s blaming Jews if he loses

Asia Not Nearly Gay Enough Yet, CNN Laments

Undecided Black Voters In Georgia Deliver Brutal Responses on Harris (VIDEO)

Biden-Harris Admin Sued For Records On Trans Surgeries On Minors

Rasmussen Poll Numbers: Kamala's 'Bounce' Didn't Faze Trump

Trump BREAKS Internet With Hysterical Ad TORCHING Kamala | 'She is For They/Them!'

45 Funny Cybertruck Memes So Good, Even Elon Might Crack A Smile

Possible Trump Rally Attack - Serious Injuries Reported

BULLETIN: ISRAEL IS ENTERING **** UKRAINE **** WAR ! Missile Defenses in Kiev !

ATF TO USE 2ND TRUMP ATTACK TO JUSTIFY NEW GUN CONTROL...

An EMP Attack on the U.S. Power Grids and Critical National Infrastructure

New York Residents Beg Trump to Come Back, Solve Out-of-Control Illegal Immigration

Chicago Teachers Confess They Were told to Give Illegals Passing Grades

Am I Racist? Reviewed by a BLACK MAN

Ukraine and Israel Following the Same Playbook, But Uncle Sam Doesn't Want to Play

"The Diddy indictment is PROTECTING the highest people in power" Ian Carroll

The White House just held its first cabinet meeting in almost a year. Guess who was running it.

The Democrats' War On America, Part One: What "Saving Our Democracy" Really Means

New York's MTA Proposes $65.4 Billion In Upgrades With Cash It Doesn't Have

More than 100 killed or missing as Sinaloa Cartel war rages in Mexico

New York state reports 1st human case of EEE in nearly a decade

Oktoberfest tightens security after a deadly knife attack in western Germany

Wild Walrus Just Wanted to Take A Summer Vacation Across Europe

[Video] 'Days of democracy are GONE' seethes Neil Oliver as 'JAIL' awaits Brits DARING to speak up

Police robot dodges a bullet, teargasses a man, and pins him to the ground during a standoff in Texas

Julian Assange EXPOSED

Howling mad! Fury as school allows pupil suffering from 'species dysphoria' to identify as a WOLF

"I Thank God": Heroic Woman Saves Arkansas Trooper From Attack By Drunk Illegal Alien

Taxpayers Left In The Dust On Policy For Trans Inmates In Minnesota


Immigration
See other Immigration Articles

Title: MEXICO - Vicente Fox has solution for drug cartels: "LEGALIZE DRUGS"
Source: Bloomberg
URL Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010- ... on-as-way-to-end-violence.html
Published: Aug 10, 2010
Author: By Jonathan J. Levin and Jens Erik Gould
Post Date: 2010-08-10 11:26:55 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: SB1070
Views: 1148
Comments: 100

Mexico Ex-President Fox Calls for Drug Legalization

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said his country should legalize the production and sale of drugs in order to curb rising cartel-related violence.

Legalizing narcotics would curtail funding to organized crime groups, who are using profits from the drug trade to consolidate power, Fox wrote yesterday on his personal website.

“Radical prohibition strategies have never worked,” Fox said. “The cost of the fight against organized crime, and in particular narcotics trafficking, has been enormous in our country.”

The drug war has killed 28,000 people in Mexico since late 2006, when President Felipe Calderon entered office vowing to take on the cartels, according to data from the government intelligence agency, known as CISEN. That’s keeping tourists away and limiting foreign direct investment, Fox said.

Fox said in a July 28 interview with Bloomberg Television that the U.S. as well as Mexico were responsible for the violence.

“What is happening is that this huge market of the United States in drug consumption, the largest in the world, is generating the weapons that are sold to Mexican cartels, and is generating the money that is laundered in the United States and brought to Mexico,” Fox said.

Arms Trafficking

More than 90 percent of weapons used in violent crimes in Mexico are brought in illegally from the U.S., according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.

President Barack Obama vowed during a visit to Mexico last year that the U.S. would take more aggressive steps to help the country battle drug cartels by urging the Senate to ratify a decade-old treaty on arms trafficking in Latin America.

Calderon, a member of Fox’s National Action Party, said last week that he was open to debate on the legalization issue, even as he said he was personally opposed to the idea because it represented a health risk to society.

Legalization measures have worked in other countries, which use new taxes on the products to finance addiction recovery programs, Fox said.

In 2009, Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs including marijuana, cocaine and heroin.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 67.

#31. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)

I'm with Fox on this one.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2010-08-10   22:05:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Jethro Tull (#31)

I'm surrounded

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2010-08-10   22:11:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#34)

Happy, don't give up yet. From my first hand experience with addicts, methadone clinics and hopeless drunks, if someone could round them all up, dig a giant hole and bury them, I'll buy into that.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2010-08-10   22:46:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Jethro Tull (#43)

Happy, don't give up yet. From my first hand experience with addicts, methadone clinics and hopeless drunks, if someone could round them all up, dig a giant hole and bury them, I'll buy into that.

========================================

I have never and will never give up on MYSELF.

If you have ever helped an addict or drunk, then GOD BLESS YOU for doing it!

Every one of them I've ever met wished to god they had never seen a joint, needle, or snort line.

I know I'm right.

Still surrounded though

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2010-08-11   1:26:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM, christine, Dakmar, Jethro Tull (#47)

Happy, don't give up yet. From my first hand experience with addicts, methadone clinics and hopeless drunks, if someone could round them all up, dig a giant hole and bury them, I'll buy into that.

========================================

I have never and will never give up on MYSELF.

If you have ever helped an addict or drunk, then GOD BLESS YOU for doing it!

Every one of them I've ever met wished to god they had never seen a joint, needle, or snort line.

I know I'm right.

Still surrounded though

I agree with and applaud your humanity. I do not however, agree with your solution of continuing to enable violent drug cartels. And that is basically what you are doing in supporting the "War on some drugs".

Anti-Depressants, and you can check this out in the "Physicians Desk Reference", such as Prozac, Effexor, and Paxil have more, and more severe, side effects than Heroin, and they are legal. While I don't reccomend any of them the reality is that the unstaunched flow of drugs, and dirty money, could not exist without government collaboration and connivance. What the "War on Drugs" is, in reality, is a war on the "unapproved" drug gangs.

If you would take the time to inform yourself about reality instead allowing your emotional revulsion at the horrors of drug addiction blind you, you might begin to understand that the most humane and effective solution to drug addiction is not criminalize but treat.

Original_Intent  posted on  2010-08-11   1:57:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Original_Intent (#51)

If you would take the time to inform yourself about reality instead allowing your emotional revulsion at the horrors of drug addiction blind you, you might begin to understand that the most humane and effective solution to drug addiction is not criminalize but treat.

=============================================

I am utterly amazed at the logic the "Legalize Marijuana" advocacy group uses, and even more amazed at the ignorant people who buy into it.

Make it legal and the problem will go away.

You AT LEAST recognized there "might be" a line drawn for WHICH opiates and hallucinogenics should/could be legalized.

America might just as well be stoned out of it's gourd when China and the Mexicans march onto the White House lawn anyway.

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2010-08-11   8:36:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#58)

Happy, I suggest that those who advocate for drug legalization begin to take Powerball tickets on a weekly basis. Their chances of hitting the jackpot is far better than is a change in our drug policy. This argument comes up during most election cycles and the Libertarian Party routinely registers less than 1% of the vote. When the advocates can move that number significantly North, they'll be taken seriously.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2010-08-11   8:47:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Jethro Tull (#60)

Happy, I suggest that those who advocate for drug legalization begin to take Powerball tickets on a weekly basis. Their chances of hitting the jackpot is far better than is a change in our drug policy. This argument comes up during most election cycles and the Libertarian Party routinely registers less than 1% of the vote. When the advocates can move that number significantly North, they'll be taken seriously.

The discussion has nothing to do with the probability of having it happen. Clearly, it won't. Propaganda does a wonderful job of keeping the herd in line, and the AMA started the clarion call back in the early 20th century in order to preserve their monopoly on drug dispensation.

But end of the day, unconstitutional is unconstitutional, even if it means that we have to accept some things people do that we may not like.

Personally, I've never, EVER done an illicit drug. Growing up and "coming of age" starting in the late 1970's through the mid 1980's, I had ample offers and opportunity. Didn't seem wise even then.

But that doesn't mean that I think that we should allow unconstitutional laws to stand, just because I may happen to disapprove of some types of license in society.

Consistency is what I strive for. If people want drugs to be constitutionally illegal then the impetus is on them to pass a constitutional amendment.

I'm the same way regarding war (Congress has to declare it, not the President), and other items. If I allow some things to get a wink and nod and pass under the radar then I'm no better than people like Obama and frankly, every bit the destructor that he and his ilk are, just for different reasons.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2010-08-11   8:53:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: SonOfLiberty (#61)

As far as I'm concerned, a person can lock themselves in their home and get stoned out of their mind 24x7. This was a common way of life in any slum I ever worked in. The problem for me is that these non producers have to be supported by tax payers. Daily heroin, crank, PCP and crack use has a way of making a person useless. Would you agree with me that the legions of people like this shouldn't be a drain on our wallets by way of additional taxes for "services'? If yes, what should we do with these hopelessly addicted who refuse offers to rehab?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2010-08-11   9:02:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Jethro Tull (#63)

As far as I'm concerned, a person can lock themselves in their home and get stoned out of their mind 24x7. This was a common way of life in any slum I ever worked in. The problem for me is that these non producers have to be supported by tax payers. Daily heroin, crank, PCP and crack use has a way of making a person useless. Would you agree with me that the legions of people like this shouldn't be a drain on our wallets by way of additional taxes for "services'?

I disagree with nothing that you've said as quoted above.

If yes, what should we do with these hopelessly addicted who refuse offers to rehab?

We should let them face the consequences of their choices without the support of public monies. It is only the "social safety net" that allows rampant abuse, because there are no consequences for their actions that they have to live up to. In a consistently constitutional society, they sit in their homes until they cannot function as a member of society. If they venture out to rob, they're shot by the home owner, or the cops, and nobody attends their funeral. There were no legions of gangs and strung out dopers laying around all over the streets before the war on drugs, because before the war on drugs if a man decided to get violent to get money for opium, he quickly found himself staring down the barrel of a Peacemaker. What social support they get would be from churches and charities, all of which in the past (prior to welfare and the leftist state) attached requirements to the charity, like "clean up, sober up, start reading the Bible, or no more food", and they didn't have a policy of "ok, you can keep coming back and taking advantage of us" either.

It seems inhumane, in a sense, but its not. Others, not yet trying but curious to try, watch and see what happens. If they see what happens now, today, they see a world without consequences, where the public kitty opens up and supports them on their way to self destruction, and they can claim to be a victim of whatever made up crap modern leftist society tells them is in vogue. If they see what happens in "my world" aka the world prior to the drug war, they see rejection by the community, no support at the public dime, shunning and eventual life in the sewer, or a quick death from a .44 through their skull if they try to rob. In that case, as history demonstrates, most choose the route of "well, seems like a bad idea, I'll stay away".

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2010-08-11   9:13:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 67.

#74. To: SonOfLiberty (#67) (Edited)

We should let them face the consequences of their choices without the support of public monies. It is only the "social safety net" that allows rampant abuse, because there are no consequences for their actions that they have to live up to. In a consistently constitutional society, they sit in their homes until they cannot function as a member of society. If they venture out to rob, they're shot by the home owner, or the cops, and nobody attends their funeral. There were no legions of gangs and strung out dopers laying around all over the streets before the war on drugs, because before the war on drugs if a man decided to get violent to get money for opium, he quickly found himself staring down the barrel of a Peacemaker. What social support they get would be from churches and charities, all of which in the past (prior to welfare and the leftist state) attached requirements to the charity, like "clean up, sober up, start reading the Bible, or no more food", and they didn't have a policy of "ok, you can keep coming back and taking advantage of us" either.

It seems inhumane, in a sense, but its not. Others, not yet trying but curious to try, watch and see what happens. If they see what happens now, today, they see a world without consequences, where the public kitty opens up and supports them on their way to self destruction, and they can claim to be a victim of whatever made up crap modern leftist society tells them is in vogue. If they see what happens in "my world" aka the world prior to the drug war, they see rejection by the community, no support at the public dime, shunning and eventual life in the sewer, or a quick death from a .44 through their skull if they try to rob. In that case, as history demonstrates, most choose the route of "well, seems like a bad idea, I'll stay away".

OK, we agree here. Since these folk all tend to become social resource sponges, if society can take a hands off approach to their many, many needs and wants, I think their slow wasting away & eventual death would actually serve as a deterrent to the lure of drug abuse.

(I'm sure you realize we're both off in a theoretical exchange that never will happen)

Jethro Tull  posted on  2010-08-11 09:24:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: SonOfLiberty (#67)

If yes, what should we do with these hopelessly addicted who refuse offers to rehab?

We should let them face the consequences of their choices without the support of public monies. It is only the "social safety net" that allows rampant abuse, because there are no consequences for their actions that they have to live up to. In a consistently constitutional society, they sit in their homes until they cannot function as a member of society. If they venture out to rob, they're shot by the home owner, or the cops, and nobody attends their funeral. There were no legions of gangs and strung out dopers laying around all over the streets before the war on drugs, because before the war on drugs if a man decided to get violent to get money for opium, he quickly found himself staring down the barrel of a Peacemaker. What social support they get would be from churches and charities, all of which in the past (prior to welfare and the leftist state) attached requirements to the charity, like "clean up, sober up, start reading the Bible, or no more food", and they didn't have a policy of "ok, you can keep coming back and taking advantage of us" either.

QFT

Living in a real Constitutional society requires that one must not be a moron.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-11 09:32:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 67.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]