DEA: Record violence in Mexico "a sign of success in the fight against drugs"

[Bugfatty300]

I wonder who is buying the stuff though? Theres no doubt that marijuana is a massive revenue stream for these cartels, if not the main one. I guess theres plenty of idiots...

Smokers who live in areas that are dominated by gangs and distributors who are affiliated with Mexican cartels. The hippies in the Pacific NW and rednecks in the Appalachians may have better product but they aren't really good for things like turf wars so they can't really compete against the Mexicans.

 

[cardgame]

The solution, of course, is to legalize it so there aren't any turf wars and the violence will stop.

 

[CaptainF]

The solution, of course, is to legalize it so there aren't any turf wars and the violence will stop.

But then the DEA, CIA and countless police departments across the country would lose an easy revenue stream.

/sarcasm

 

[Shekwan]

Smokers who live in areas that are dominated by gangs and distributors who are affiliated with Mexican cartels.

So essentially its poor people who buy the brick weed that the Mexican gangs make a fortune off of?

 

[CaptainF]

This is a red herring since no one has ever advocated prohibition as the sole strategy for preventing and reducing drug use. It is one part of a larger strategy which has, at times, proven successful. In the 1980s, for instance, drug use in America fell precipitously.

Wait, WHAT?

The eighties? Seriously?

Pablo Escobar ring a bell? Miami?

 

[Berzerker]

the idea pot smokers are responsible (even partially) for the violence created by the ban on pot is Pot smokers are also victims of the ban and the violence needed to enforce it.

 

[CaptainF]

the idea pot smokers are responsible (even partially) for the violence created by the ban on pot is Pot smokers are also victims of the ban and the violence needed to enforce it.

Yes indeed. Ultimately, this whole Drug War farce is the fault of the Federal Government. But don't ever expect them to own up to it, or go quietly from it.

 

[CaptainF]

So essentially its poor people who buy the brick weed that the Mexican gangs make a fortune off of?

More or less. Those same poor people who smoke that crappy crap are also far more likely to get arrested for marijuana "crimes" as well.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Why care about so many people dying when policemen can continue receiving wasteful money? Lobbying will damn us.

Why care about actually using our reasoning power when we can just buy into stupid lies like "if it's legal we'll all become drug addicts! D8" (no more than tobacco being legal has turned us all into tobacco fiends )

Why care about the rights of someone else when we can just serve our own agenda and force our values upon society at large?

---

I'll just say this: Unfortunately, there are no superheroes.

 

[Lovebird]

Wait, WHAT?

The eighties? Seriously?

Pablo Escobar ring a bell? Miami?

Most drug use rates declined during the Reagan administration.

I have never been to Miami, and I harbor no desire to visit.

 

[CaptainF]

Most drug use rates declined during the Reagan administration.

I have never been to Miami, and I harbor no desire to visit.

I would say you are sorely wrong on all counts there sir. The 80's was the decade of coke and ecstasy. Not to mention all the weed and drinking. Hey wait, that sounds just like the next decade, and the one after that!

 

[Lovebird]

I suppose if you are relying on hearsay compounded with images ingrained in your psyche by popular movies, you could certainly come to that conclusion, particularly when it's obvious that you want to believe it. I assure you, actual information supports my assertion. Drug use rates generally declined during the Reagan years, and continued to decline until around the Millenium when they began to increase.

I would suggest that you allow facts to dictate your view, rather than discounting whatever calls your views into question.

 

[Evie]

Self-reported data when asking people "Hey we have your phone number and are asking you whether you ever comitted something that's a crime that we've been telling everyone is horrible, disgusting, socially nearly worse than murder." might just be a trifle unreliable.

 

[CaptainF]

I suppose if you are relying on hearsay compounded with images ingrained in your psyche by popular movies, you could certainly come to that conclusion, particularly when it's obvious that you want to believe it. I assure you, actual information supports my assertion. Drug use rates generally declined during the Reagan years, and continued to decline until around the Millenium when they began to increase.

I would suggest that you allow facts to dictate your view, rather than discounting whatever calls your views into question.

Oh, you get your information from the ONDCP.

That explains everything.

Besides, your assertions aren't even concrete. The first table shows that for all age groups lifetime users remained relatively stable (and even increased slightly) from the early eighties to the 2000's.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

One question, weren't the CIA (or the DEA) themselves part of a drugs cartel during the Noriega period? Because I've read in a few places they were.

 

[CaptainF]

One question, weren't the CIA (or the DEA) themselves part of a drugs cartel during the Noriega period? Because I've read in a few places they were.

That's what the Cocaine Import Agency does. They support drugs trafficking so long as the proceeds go towards things they approve of (such as the Contra resistance in Nicaragua). Noriega was working for the CIA as a drugs trafficker, but then got a little uppity so Washington of course had to eliminate what they created.

 

[CaptainF]

Self-reported data when asking people "Hey we have your phone number and are asking you whether you ever comitted something that's a crime that we've been telling everyone is horrible, disgusting, socially nearly worse than murder." might just be a trifle unreliable.

Yeah, this as well.

 

[BasketCase]

So what do you guys think?

First, I think your OP bordered on qualifying as a "troll thread".

Second, I think it's impossible to draw conclusive cause-and-effect here. Why is there more violence in Mexico?? We have nothing to indicate why. Could be the fact that the U.S. National Guard is stationed at the border, ready to kick ass on any drug runner stupid enough to mix it up with them. Could be increasingly desperate drug lords battling over a shrinking business. Could be increasing failures of Mexican authorities to deal with drug runners, which itself has a number of causes.

Fine, so there's more violence south of the border. You have to answer the "why" before you can draw any conclusions, and so you had no right to be drawing conclusions in your OP.

 

[CaptainF]

First, I think your OP bordered on qualifying as a "troll thread".

Interesting.

I only gave my opinion on what came out of Michelle Leonhart's mouth.

Second, I think it's impossible to draw conclusive cause-and-effect here. Why is there more violence in Mexico?? We have nothing to indicate why.

Impossible to draw cause and effect? Not really. The reason why people are killing themselves over illegal drugs is because they are illegal. That's simply a byproduct of drug prohibition.

Could be the fact that the U.S. National Guard is stationed at the border, ready to kick ass on any drug runner stupid enough to mix it up with them.

Hmm that's funny considering that somehow, someway drugs are still making it across the border, as they have been doing so since time immemorial.

Could be increasingly desperate drug lords battling over a shrinking business.

Interesting that no matter how many drug lords get captured or killed, there's always more to take their place.

Could be increasing failures of Mexican authorities to deal with drug runners, which itself has a number of causes.

Mainly the fact that narcos pay off the authorities, and the authorities gladly take the money.

Fine, so there's more violence south of the border. You have to answer the "why" before you can draw any conclusions, and so you had no right to be drawing conclusions in your OP.

The "why" factor is fairly obvious at this point, and more people are coming to realize the harms of prohibition everyday. So if you're saying that I can't draw that conclusion, but the DEA can draw other conclusions, I believe your bias is clearly showing itself.

 

[Rashiminos]

In a long history of lies put out by these charlatans, this one has to be one of the most shameless. The DEA is no longer pretending to enforce laws on drugs or win the drug war, they're now pretty much blatantly a self-serving bureaucratic cesspool indifferent towards the misery that their actions and policies create.

Substitute several other federal agencies for DEA, and throw in the fed for good measure.