Will Mexico Declare Peace In The War On DrugsLaw & Order | 207066 hits | Jul 17 7:19 am | Posted by: Curtman  As many as 60,000 people have died over the last six years in rising drug-related violence. Yet illicit drugs are getting cheaper, and thus more availableCommentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
In early July Mexican president-elect Enrique Pena Nieto announced that while he wasn?t for legalization, he wanted to start a discussion on drug policy. Explained Pena Nieto: ?I?m in favor of opening a new debate in the strategy in the way we fight drug trafficking. It is quite clear that after several years of this fight against drug trafficking, we have more drug consumption, drug use and drug trafficking. That means we are not moving in the right direction. Things are not working.?
Mexico has paid a high price for failure. As many as 60,000 people have died over the last six years in rising drug-related violence. Yet illicit drugs are getting cheaper, and thus more available, in the U.S. Explained Eduardo Porter in the New York Times, Mexican cartels bring in 95 percent of the cocaine sold on America?s streets, yet the retail price of one gram ?is 74 percent cheaper than it was 30 years ago.?
...
Opposition to drug prohibition is spreading around the world.
European governments long have proved willing to ignore U.S. pressure and go their own way. Britain, Netherlands, and Switzerland have experimented with various forms of legalization. Portugal most recently decriminalized all drug use. In a detailed study for the Cato Institute Glenn Greenwald concluded that ?None of the parade of horrors that decriminalization opponents in Portugal predicted, and that decriminalization opponents around the world typically invoke, has come to pass.?
...
?Prohibitions don?t work, and the last remaining frontier of prohibition is drug, and we should question ourselves why drugs.? He now advocates ?legalization all the way?all drugs and in all places.?
...
?Ten years ago, it would have been almost blasphemous to go against U.S. policy and say ?no, I want to take a softer approach toward drugs.? But now almost every president in the region is saying ?this isn?t working? and they need to try something else.?
...
The U.S. government should stop treating a moral and health problem—drug use—as a matter for the criminal law. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol. Prohibition isn’t working for drugs. Rather than insisting that other nations continue to follow its foolish lead, Washington should follow the lead of other countries in ending the failed War on Drugs.
Prohibitionists are an endangered species these days. Let the cowards come around and defend their dangerous policy, or stay away while we destroy the war-on-drugs.
Don't celebrate too much. In Mexico this guy is seen for what he is, a member of the corrupt PRI party that has historically collaborated with the drug cartels at the expense of the public. All this means is that Mexico will continue its long, steady slide into anarchy.
Which guy? The outgoing president, or the incoming one? They're both talking legalization.
“It is only one single strategy—violence against violence—that will never solve the problem.
...
“Withdrawing the army out of the barrio, and... legalizing the production, distribution and consumption of drugs. All together and for all drugs. All the way.”
“we legalize consumption and then we can move out of enforcement, and dedicate the money, the effort and the public policies to attending a health program…like [the US] did 100 years ago in Chicago until the prohibition was eradicated…then the solution came.”
We will adjust the strategy so that we can focus on certain type of crimes, like kidnapping, homicide, extortion, which today, unfortunately, have worsened or increased, because we have a lot of impunity in some areas. The state's task is to achieve more efficiency, and to go back to the rule of law and enforce laws strictly in our country.
The new guy thinks they're better off fighting actual crime instead of moral crimes.
Either way, nobody appeared on the stage to say that prohibition is a success, because there is NOBODY who believes it.
Which guy? The outgoing president, or the incoming one? They're both talking legalization.
Try reading the article again.
the article seems to say Pena is not in favor of legalization.
ENRIQUE PENA NIETO (through translator): I'm truly convinced that the U.S. should be involved in the discussion and the debate around this issue.
MARGARET WARNER: So, let the debate begin, but you're not taking a position yet?
ENRIQUE PENA NIETO (through translator): That's right.
He's calling for a debate. So let the prohibitionists speak up. Let their case be heard. Lets hear exactly why their strategy is such a miserable failure, and how it is still the path to success.
The new guy thinks they're better off fighting actual crime instead of moral crimes.
Right, because if you just abandon any notions of morality we all know how great the world could be.
The new guy thinks they're better off fighting actual crime instead of moral crimes.
Right, because if you just abandon any notions of morality we all know how great the world could be.
How about rectifying the disconnect between policy on alcohol/tobacco versus the policy on marijuana, or any other drug? Keep your morals. Go f*ck yourself when you try to enforce yours on others.
The escalation of violence is a direct result of prohibition.
The new guy thinks they're better off fighting actual crime instead of moral crimes.
Right, because if you just abandon any notions of morality we all know how great the world could be.
How about rectifying the disconnect between policy on alcohol/tobacco versus the policy on marijuana, or any other drug? Keep your morals. Go f*ck yourself when you try to enforce yours on others.
How about this, curtman...because you feel your choices and those of others don't affect anyone.
How about we legalize all drugs here in Canada and the US.
When it comes down to getting health insurance, you pay a much larger amount if you're a drug user or found to be a user upon diagnosis. Same goes right now for smokers so let's apply that to any type of drug If you lie, use drugs and get sick, you get the bill. use.
In Canada, if you're diagnosed with an illness due to your drug use, you're responsible for paying a premium for your care or require special "drug user" insurance to cover where our system won't pay.
The new guy thinks they're better off fighting actual crime instead of moral crimes.
Right, because if you just abandon any notions of morality we all know how great the world could be.
Is smoking pot immoral but drinking alcohol moral?
How about we legalize all drugs here in Canada and the US.
When it comes down to getting health insurance, you pay a much larger amount if you're a drug user or found to be a user upon diagnosis. Same goes right now for smokers so let's apply that to any type of drug If you lie, use drugs and get sick, you get the bill. use.
In Canada, if you're diagnosed with an illness due to your drug use, you're responsible for paying a premium for your care or require special "drug user" insurance to cover where our system won't pay.
I'm fine with that. It's going to be a tough sell for the alcoholics when their liver craps out though. The pot smokers who develop emphysema or whatever, we'll put them all in the same hospital with the drunks. There won't be any TV's either. All frozen rehydrated meals too.
What I care about is stopping the violence from the drug trade. The rest doesn't interest me much.
How about this, curtman...because you feel your choices and those of others don't affect anyone.
How about we legalize all drugs here in Canada and the US.
When it comes down to getting health insurance, you pay a much larger amount if you're a drug user or found to be a user upon diagnosis. Same goes right now for smokers so let's apply that to any type of drug If you lie, use drugs and get sick, you get the bill. use.
In Canada, if you're diagnosed with an illness due to your drug use, you're responsible for paying a premium for your care or require special "drug user" insurance to cover where our system won't pay.
We should legalize but regulate. Different drugs, different regulations.
I like your proposal, because the drinkers would pay much higher premiums than the pot heads or possibly even the junkies (since they would now have access to clean heroin of known dosage).
But as we know, many things can cost the health care system, so we'd have to include over and under eaters (anorexia is more dangerous than obesity) poor quality eaters, people who don't exercise, people who exercise too much (ie runners), people who drive cars, people who drive cars recklessly, etc etc.
Soon we may be able to estimate your natural healthy lifespan from gene analysis - make the genetically inferior pay more.
The pot smokers would probably cost the system less than just about anybody.
What I care about is stopping the violence from the drug trade. The rest doesn't interest me much.
No need to bullshit.