The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-20-2014, 04:55 PM   #1
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,903
Default it's time to legalize ALL drugs -- not just marijuana

The reason is not because we like drugs. Whether one does or not is irrelevant. We must legalize them to destroy the power of the drug cartels and the US intelligence community -- which is a big part of the problem. MHG

Mexico is unravelling

A rebellion is brewing south of the border

By Justin Raimondo

January 20, 2014 "Information Clearing House - "Antiwar"
- As the US continues and expands its worldwide "war on terror," extending its militarized tentacles into Africa as well as the Middle East, a festering threat looms closer to home: the ungluing of Mexico and its rapid descent into the status of a failed state. How Washington responds may determine not only the fate of our southern neighbor, but also our own.

Mexico is undergoing a crisis of authority – a direct challenge to its ability to maintain a monopoly on the use of force within its borders – and this is coming from two directions. The first challengers are the drug cartels: these go under a variety of names, from the "Knights Templar," known as "Templarios," to the Sinaloa gang, which got its start in Mexico’s Sinaloa province but soon spread across the country. While each gang has its unique regional allegiances and internal culture, all employ the same brutal practices: aside from the sale of illegal drugs, the cartels engage in massive extortion, collecting "taxes" from both wealthy businessmen and poor campesinos in the fields. Anyone who refuses to pay is ruthlessly – and often graphically – eliminated.

The municipal police are no help: indeed, they are a hindrance to those residents who wish to live in peace, unmolested by criminal gangs, for the simple reason that the police are the biggest criminal gang of all. Thoroughly infiltrated by the drug gangs, and very often on the cartels’ payroll, the armed might of the Mexican state is impotent before the often superior firepower of the cartels – who have reportedly been aided by none other the US government in their quest to acquire firearms.

Having surrendered de facto authority over large swathes of Mexico to the cartels and their allies, the central government in Mexico City has been remarkably indifferent to the fate of millions of Mexicans left to chafe under the heel of criminal gangs – until now.

What woke them up to the burgeoning crisis was the rise of the so-called vigilantes: groups of ordinary Mexicans, from wealthy ranchers to poor field hands, who have organized to take back their land – and their lives – from gangs of murderous thugs (whether they be the cartels’ hooligans, or those who commit the same crimes under color of State authority). I reported on this movement last year, when the citizens’ self-defense forces took over the town of Tierra Colorado, arrested the chief of "police," and set up roadblocks, clearing the town of the local cartel’s henchmen.

Now the "vigilantes" have upped the ante, moving in what appears to be a coordinated strike at the heart of the cartels’ power. The town of Nueva Italia is the latest battlefield, where the self-defense forces have taken over City Hall – under a rain of gunfire from the government-aligned Templarios – and surrounded the neighboring city of Apatzingan, widely known as the Templar’s chief headquarters.

The epicenter of the vigilante movement is in the states of Guererro and Michoacan, in southwest Mexico, a region with a long history of resistance to the central government. In the 1920s, after the "revolutionary" government of President Plutarco Calles practically banned Catholicism, started murdering priests and nuns, and seized Church property, the "Cristero" rebellion took root in the largely agricultural southwestern provinces, where guerrilla bands battled government troops in defense of the faith. This is the poorest region of Mexico, where government "land reform" – inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 – deprived peasants of Indian extraction of most of their land, turning the indigenous people into trespassers on their own historic holdings. In response to efforts to "modernize" farming along collectivist lines, the small farmers rose up against the central government – and the same hostility to Mexican centralism permeates the current "vigilante" upsurge.

The central government has reacted the same way they have in the past: with relentless hostility and demands to disarm. After decades of indifference to what is happening in the southwest part of the country, the lords of Mexico City are sending thousands of federal troops into the region as a complement to their demands that the peoples’ militias disarm. As the Guardian reports, the locals treat this demand with the disdain it deserves:

"’Disarm?’ a middle-aged masked Nueva Italia vigilante commander said with obvious incredulity. ‘If we did that, the Caballeros would seek us out and kill us.’"

Well, yes – and that may very well be the idea, given the close links between the notoriously corrupt Mexican authorities and the drug cartels. This may account, in part, for the government’s de facto laissez-faire policy, as the Guardian report continues:

"Though government officials have continued to insist disarmament is non-negotiable in faraway press conferences, on the ground soldiers and federal police now ignore the sandbag checkpoints manned by vigilantes."

Of course they do: why bother fighting the vigilantes if the cartels are doing the government’s dirty work for them?

What is happening in Mexico is the slow-motion collapse of governmental authority under the relentless onslaught of the cartels. It isn’t just the fact that the cartels often have superior firepower: it’s the all-pervasive nature of their corrupting influence, made possible by the huge profits they make from the drug trade.

The cartels are a grotesque and deadly byproduct of the "war on drugs" conducted jointly by the United States and its allies internationally: without the ban on "illicit" drugs, the cartels would not and could not exist. In this sense, the cartels and the governments that supposedly pursue them are colluding – and that collusion often takes the form of an explicit alliance, as "Fast and Furious" and the well-known collaboration between the Mexican police and the drug gangs make all too plain.

Every act of coercion by the State produces distortions in the economic, political, and social life of a people: in this case, it is the irrational ban on certain drugs that has birthed competing gangs of criminals who ape all the familiar depredations of government oppression – extortion, murder, and mass thievery – times ten.

No one should underestimate the seriousness of what is happening down Mexico way: the country is unraveling much faster than even I predicted last year.
for the rest
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle37417.htm

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].

Last edited by mhgaffney; 01-20-2014 at 05:02 PM..
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-20-2014, 05:30 PM   #2
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,051

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

What about decriminalized vs legalized.
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2014, 10:10 AM   #3
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,202
Default

Time to end prohibition and treat substance abuse as a medical problem and not a criminal one.










(OMG did I just agree with Mark Gaffney? )
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2014, 10:59 AM   #4
B-Large
Ring of Famer
 
B-Large's Avatar
 
Expunged... Accidently?

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,481

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

I am of the belief that "of age" citizens can do what they want with regards to substances and their bodies.
B-Large is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2014, 11:13 AM   #5
Bronco Yoda
.
 
Bronco Yoda's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,606
Default

Not sure this opinion will be very popular with the religious populous. I'm afraid you are all now going straight to hell... do not pass go... don't even bother collecting $200 for the coffers...
Bronco Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2014, 05:42 PM   #6
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,594

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Maybe Obamacare will pay for those that need drug therapy.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 12:47 PM   #7
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,562

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
I am of the belief that "of age" citizens can do what they want with regards to substances and their bodies.
You will get no argument from PSH
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Phillip-Seymour-Hoffman.jpg (176.1 KB, 55 views)
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 05:09 PM   #8
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,408
Default

I said before is USA makes pot legal, then coke countries like mexico will say we want to make coke legal also etc etc. I think it's one reason our feds try and side step the issue. They have treaties signed that have marijuana listed on them. If we scrap that all those treaties would have to be nullified and rewrote.

This is an issue my cousin who is Homeland security brought up to me one time. Lots of narco trafficking agreements where Marijuana is listed right along with the others like heroin and cocaine.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 06:14 PM   #9
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
Say 'what' again, I dare you

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,212
Default

Marijuana should be legal. It's not the same as legalizing coke and heroin.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 07:14 PM   #10
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I said before is USA makes pot legal, then coke countries like mexico will say we want to make coke legal also etc etc. I think it's one reason our feds try and side step the issue. They have treaties signed that have marijuana listed on them. If we scrap that all those treaties would have to be nullified and rewrote.

This is an issue my cousin who is Homeland security brought up to me one time. Lots of narco trafficking agreements where Marijuana is listed right along with the others like heroin and cocaine.
Is it possible that those items are not listed individually, but rather described in the agreements as "all schedule I drugs"? If so, simply reclassifying them would solve the problem.

Another way to solve the problem is to do what we always do when we don't like something. Say "**** it, we're America, here's the new treaty, you can sign it or kiss off."
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 08:55 PM   #11
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Is it possible that those items are not listed individually, but rather described in the agreements as "all schedule I drugs"? If so, simply reclassifying them would solve the problem.

Another way to solve the problem is to do what we always do when we don't like something. Say "**** it, we're America, here's the new treaty, you can sign it or kiss off."
Well what our govt probably worried about is them saying fine scrap all the treaties. Then countries no longer try and stop cocaine and heroin production and instead make an industry that exports it to the USA.

I am libertarian but Im not sure cheap drugs is good for our country.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 08:56 PM   #12
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
Marijuana should be legal. It's not the same as legalizing coke and heroin.
It's not the same but like I said the scheduled it in many treaties and you can't just pull out one part without negotiations.

Not saying that isn't doable, just saying i dont think the feds have much hunger to do it. I think decriminalizing possession has more wheels.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 06:37 AM   #13
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

I would love to know what treaties you're talking about, cut. Link them if you can.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 07:22 AM   #14
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
I would love to know what treaties you're talking about, cut. Link them if you can.
No very little about them, only that i remember hearing about us making them with different countries. I know we have a treaty with Colombia on this stuff also but not sure what that is either. My points were more that I feel this is an issue not really covered by the media. Here is one link though that has a section which describes how its tough to pull one drug off the UN list of controlled narcotics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_...narcotic_drugs

Cindy Fazey, former Chief of Demand Reduction for the United Nations Drug Control Programme, has pointed out that it would be nearly impossible to loosen international cannabis regulations. Even if the Commission on Narcotic Drugs removed cannabis from Schedule IV of the Single Convention, prohibitions against the plant would remain imbedded in Article 28 and other parts of the treaty. Fazey cited amendment of the Articles and state-by-state denunciation as two theoretical possibilities for changing cannabis' international legal status, while pointing out that both face substantial barriers.[36]

In a 2002 interview, INCB President Philip O. Emafo condemned European cannabis decriminalization measures:[37]

It is possible that the cannabis being used in Europe may not be the same species that is used in developing countries and that is causing untold health hazards to the young people who are finding themselves in hospitals for treatment. Therefore, the INCB's concern is that cannabis use should be restricted to medical and scientific purposes, if there are any. Countries who are party to the Single Convention need to respect the provisions of the conventions and restrict the use of drugs listed in Schedules I to IV to strictly medical and scientific purposes.

However, Kathalijne Buitenweg on the European Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs issued a report on 24 March 2003 criticizing the Single Convention's scheduling regime:[26][27]

These schedules show that the main criterion for the classification of a substance is its medical use. In view of the principle according to which the only licit uses is those for medical or scientific purposes (art. 4), plants or substances deprived of this purpose are automatically considered as particularly dangerous. Such is the case for cannabis and cannabis resin which are classified with heroin in group IV for the sole reason that they lack therapeutic value. A reason which is in any event disputable, since cannabis could have numerous medical uses.

Last edited by cutthemdown; 02-05-2014 at 07:24 AM..
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 07:25 AM   #15
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,408
Default

I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it would take work, politics, fighting between countries to do it. IMO our govt doesn't see making weed legal internationally important enough to bother with it. One day i could be wrong but until then I don't see the feds moving on it past the point they already have.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 08:48 AM   #16
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it would take work, politics, fighting between countries to do it. IMO our govt doesn't see making weed legal internationally important enough to bother with it. One day i could be wrong but until then I don't see the feds moving on it past the point they already have.
Well that much is obvious, at this point anyway. When we have a majority of states where it is legal or decriminalized here in about 5 years, which is likely, and when the polls show overwhelming support for decriminalization at minimum, which is also likely given the trajectory of the polls over the past few years, they won't have much of a choice. It will become more or less accepted, and then eventually government will act. They'll be 5-10 years behind the movement, like always, but it will happen.

Treaties or no, 5-10 years and marijuana will be legal nationwide, or decriminalized/taken off Schedule I.

Additionally, the article you linked talks about people condemning the decriminalization in Europe, but nothing about consequences. Are you aware of any country receiving economic sanctions, trade embargoes EU/UN censure, or any other punishment for decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 09:35 AM   #17
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,408
Default

I think decriminalization is the way to go Houghtam. Make being a small time dealer a bit of trouble but nothing that ruins life first, or even maybe 2nd, third time if it's non violent etc etc. You know the guy who deal coke but only making a living, not being scarface.

Make being scareface still very serious crime.

But make buying drugs, using drugs, non criminal. Prisons are not filled with drug kingpins, we all know that. They are filled with low level dealers and users.

And no i am not aware or knowledgable about any sanctions on a country for allowing drugs. I think Boliva just made a lot decriminalized. I think the big issue on that would be has any country very big made manufacture and sales legal in any way.

I think they can decriminalize fairly easy to a certain level. It keeps in tact things like not letting your country be a shipping point for cocaine or even weed.

I don't think decriminalzing something like smuggling, production, selling lare quantities is doable though. Only personel use and small time dealers IMO.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 09:47 AM   #18
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I think decriminalization is the way to go Houghtam. Make being a small time dealer a bit of trouble but nothing that ruins life first, or even maybe 2nd, third time if it's non violent etc etc. You know the guy who deal coke but only making a living, not being scarface.

Make being scareface still very serious crime.

But make buying drugs, using drugs, non criminal. Prisons are not filled with drug kingpins, we all know that. They are filled with low level dealers and users.

And no i am not aware or knowledgable about any sanctions on a country for allowing drugs. I think Boliva just made a lot decriminalized. I think the big issue on that would be has any country very big made manufacture and sales legal in any way.

I think they can decriminalize fairly easy to a certain level. It keeps in tact things like not letting your country be a shipping point for cocaine or even weed.

I don't think decriminalzing something like smuggling, production, selling lare quantities is doable though. Only personel use and small time dealers IMO.
The reality though is that the moment the feds decriminalize it, just about every blue state will just make it outright legal. We already have two states that have done it (and more on the way) while it is still illegal federally. If it's decriminalized federally, it will be entirely legal in a majority of states, IMO.

Consider also that, unless the Republicans get their heads out of their asses, we're looking at a Democrat in the White House for the foreseeable future. That means we will have an executive who will at least be reluctant to enforce the law as it stands, like Obama is doing now, and at most be willing to listen to and consider taking it off Schedule I and/or legalization.

It's only a matter of time. I don't see this issue doing anything but gaining momentum until the tide is too strong to hold back, or until it becomes so de facto accepted in the culture that it becomes officially legal.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2014, 11:29 AM   #19
bombay
Ring of Famer
 
bombay's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: denver
Posts: 5,233
Default

I personally don't think that getting high is a noble goal in life, but neither are a lot of things, like being over weight, or getting hammered drunk, or tobacoo smoking yourself into a coffin. However, of those four, three can kill you, and the one that cannot can land you in jail. One of those can not only kill you from chronic use, but also acute use, and potentially turn you into a danger to others, and it's available at the grocery store in full display, and widely celebrated throughout society, "please drink responsibly."

However you are free to purchase, transport home, store in reach of children, and consume in front of children, with no one seems to think that's dangerous. However, if that were pot you purchased, and brought into your home, your children could be put in protective custody, even if you stored it in a safe, and completely hid your use. People can not only get arrested, kids can lose access to college loans for an arrest, people can have their property seized (KS sherrif recently remarked how he was happy to see the spike in traffic out of Colorado because they needed to upgrade their radio systems with the seized vehicle sales), their kids taken into protective custody, their homes invaded by paramilitary SWAT police, their whole lives turned upside down just for possessing it.

For me, it's an overreach. Over 600,000 arrests will be tallied nationwide. For what? It's never going away, it's a hardy plant that grows on six continents, can be grown inside, and outside, in the ground, or in containers, under the sun, or under a lamp, left alone, or taken care of. It's basically an open ended doctrine to subject a certain class of people to arrest and prosecution if they're caught with it. Which may be one thing if it were highly dangerous and toxic, but it is not toxic, it does not harm the flesh of an organism, and is mildly psychologically habit forming. Alcohol and tobacoo deaths each year claim the same number of lives as all the US combat deaths of WWII, but it's totally legit to purchase, transport, and use. The whole prohibition of MJ thing is expensive in both hard costs and soft costs, causes more societal harms than it mitigates and therefore is ****ing stupid.
bombay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2014, 11:33 AM   #20
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
You will get no argument from PSH
Would there be a difference if he killed himself with legal drugs instead?
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2014, 02:06 PM   #21
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I think decriminalization is the way to go Houghtam. Make being a small time dealer a bit of trouble but nothing that ruins life first, or even maybe 2nd, third time if it's non violent etc etc. You know the guy who deal coke but only making a living, not being scarface.

Make being scareface still very serious crime.

But make buying drugs, using drugs, non criminal. Prisons are not filled with drug kingpins, we all know that. They are filled with low level dealers and users.

And no i am not aware or knowledgable about any sanctions on a country for allowing drugs. I think Boliva just made a lot decriminalized. I think the big issue on that would be has any country very big made manufacture and sales legal in any way.

I think they can decriminalize fairly easy to a certain level. It keeps in tact things like not letting your country be a shipping point for cocaine or even weed.

I don't think decriminalzing something like smuggling, production, selling lare quantities is doable though. Only personel use and small time dealers IMO.
I'd just like to amend this post by saying cut has now moved to a much more liberal stance of total legalization because he thinks pot prices are too high. Turns out the decriminalization bit was just a bunch of hooey.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Denver Broncos