Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kaykeey

Guadalajara - Top Mexican drug lord killed in clash with army

Recommended Posts

In my experience, few pot smokers are stealing anything to support the habit. I have not known any heavy pot smokers who are that motivated...baking brownies is usually a major effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the users get the money for their marijuana if it was legal? Instead of needing $1000/day, for example, they might need $500/day, and for the thugs/users at the bottom of the food chain, they will still need to rob and steal and commit crimes to come up with the cash. The users at the top end of the food chain can already afford it at any price (Wall Street bankers, movie stars, etc).

IMO, there isn't that much impact on the current violence and drug cartels with legalizing use of small amounts of marijuana in a few states in the US, or even in Mexico. Legalization would need to be wide spread (US and other countries) and on a large scale (all illegal drugs).

Yikes! Even herion addicts don't have $1000 a DAY habits. The product, espescially MJ is alway very affordable. Please list the states that have decriminalized marijuana. I believe there are none. Several have approved Medical Marijuana and CA and others are talking decriminalizing small amounts for "personal use."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are just back from Colorado where medical marijuana has been approved. It is tantamount to legalizing the use of the drug. Everybody there has a "license" to use issued by a doctor. And using they are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$1,000 a day? Wow, Man.

High Times magazine years ago did a survey of pot smokers; one of the questions: "Is it possible to smoke too much pot?"

Most subscribers answered like this: "I don't understand the question... ."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A $1,000 a day addiction to hard drugs isn't that uncommon. You can sit here and say that marijuana is fine, and everything else isn't, but the fact remains marijuana is not the biggest drug law enforcement is having a problem controlling.

I suggest people spend a little time researching addictions, cost of addictions, and how the movement through various drugs occurs.

For years I supported legalization of medical marijuana, and still do, but I've met enough pot heads who are on welfare because they've dulled their capabilities considerably, and legalizing the stuff, outside of medical, is just plain bad.

I've heard so many people say we should do it because it reduces crime. That's bull! Crime went up in Amsterdam, and they can directly attribute it to the legalized usage of drugs. They're also hitting the wall with medical expenses.

People should study the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A $1,000 a day addiction to hard drugs isn't that uncommon. You can sit here and say that marijuana is fine, and everything else isn't, but the fact remains marijuana is not the biggest drug law enforcement is having a problem controlling.

I suggest people spend a little time researching addictions, cost of addictions, and how the movement through various drugs occurs.

For years I supported legalization of medical marijuana, and still do, but I've met enough pot heads who are on welfare because they've dulled their capabilities considerably, and legalizing the stuff, outside of medical, is just plain bad.

I've heard so many people say we should do it because it reduces crime. That's bull! Crime went up in Amsterdam, and they can directly attribute it to the legalized usage of drugs. They're also hitting the wall with medical expenses.

People should study the issue.

Thank you for the suggestion,to study the issue. How original. For how long do we study? I'm sure after sufficient study the problem will be solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the people I know in Colorado who are using are gainfully employed. And they are mostly pretty mellow at the same time, lol. I haven't seen them going down the road to ruin with other drugs either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for marijuana legalization, but does anyone really think that if it was legalized, the Mexican drug lords and cartels running the current $14 billion marijuana market in CA would suddenly start channeling their illegal crops through the state of CA and US federal government for processing, sales and taxation, and therefore make far less $? They wouldn't go down without a big fight (bloody and violent), and I doubt they would disappear. No, they would move to other states and/or countries where the drug is still illegal in order to make their billions, as well as continue to operate in the illegal drug world (meth, heroine, cocaine, etc), and crank up their other lucrative illegal activities (kidnapping, etc). One way or another, they will wreak their havoc on society as the parasites they are.

Legalizing marijuana certainly would help the small time users stay out of jail and would make it easier to purchase the product. But, I'm not so sure it would be that much less expensive than it is now, since states would see it as a cash cow and tax it to the hilt. States would gain some tax income, but who produces, packages and sells it? There are costs involved with those activities.

How would the users get the money for their marijuana if it was legal? Instead of needing $1000/day, for example, they might need $500/day, and for the thugs/users at the bottom of the food chain, they will still need to rob and steal and commit crimes to come up with the cash. The users at the top end of the food chain can already afford it at any price (Wall Street bankers, movie stars, etc).

IMO, there isn't that much impact on the current violence and drug cartels with legalizing use of small amounts of marijuana in a few states in the US, or even in Mexico. Legalization would need to be wide spread (US and other countries) and on a large scale (all illegal drugs).

NOTE the Calif. Prop 19 issue states specifically that it would take advantage of the the Marijuana GROWN IN CALIF. and specifically says it does not comply with Federal Laws. This is a State proposition put on the ballot by registered voters and will probably pass by voters.

The State did their research as posted in the FACT STATEMENT- It would be a boon in Tax Dollars to the State Where property taxes are frozen at 1978 levels which has caused the huge budget crisis in the state.

Cannabis Shops are already in place in many localities and are privately owned- and are already paying income taxes and sales taxes to the state .Don't know how you came up with 1,000. a day habit or even 500. med. marijuana in Calif. is very reasonably priced under 75.00 that's how they make a profit.

There's an old saying based on fact " As California goes, the rest of the states will soon follow." May be the beginning of the wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Nation Public Radio:

Marijuana and cocaine are the two largest sources of revenue for the cartels, generating billions of dollars in illicit profits each year. But some analysts say marijuana may be the cartels' greatest source of cash in part because the Mexican gangs control the production, trafficking and distribution of the drug. The cocaine they move has a higher street value, but they initially have to buy it from the Colombians.

Whole article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126978142

Again: Marijuana may be the cartels' greatest source of cash....

So, though many drugs are nastier, marijuana is the cash king pin.

The Washington Post article centers on Californian competion w/ Mexican cartels:

Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/06/AR2009100603847.html One part is how Mexican mafia are doing business in California and even other states & increase in violence.

This Nacho killed in Guadalajara headed a meth empire. Now there's a lovely drug. Not really up on meth cooking but I believe Mexico does not have as stiff controls on pseudoephedrine as the USA. This is 2005, but I understand, still holds true:

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/meth/stories/index.ssf?/oregonian/meth/mexico_connect.html

Don't ask me if Mexico is going put stiffer controls on pseudoephedrine ingredient, I would have no idea. Might be crucial to the actual original post item "Top Mexican drug lord killed in clash with army".

Federal Legalization: Obama says it is an absolute non starter. It is not going to happen under the Democrats so it surely won't if Republicans come into power next. But, it is interesting to discuss legalization as it creeps by little bits into State law: as the stats show, federal legalization would put a mighty dent in Mexican cartel mafia. Bet Clinton, GW Bush & Obama have all tried it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A $1,000 a day addiction to hard drugs isn't that uncommon. You can sit here and say that marijuana is fine, and everything else isn't, but the fact remains marijuana is not the biggest drug law enforcement is having a problem controlling.

I suggest people spend a little time researching addictions, cost of addictions, and how the movement through various drugs occurs.

For years I supported legalization of medical marijuana, and still do, but I've met enough pot heads who are on welfare because they've dulled their capabilities considerably, and legalizing the stuff, outside of medical, is just plain bad.

I've heard so many people say we should do it because it reduces crime. That's bull! Crime went up in Amsterdam, and they can directly attribute it to the legalized usage of drugs. They're also hitting the wall with medical expenses.

People should study the issue.

Blah, blah, blah. Would you please provide your sources for "Crime went up in Amsterdam?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya mean we are not winning "the war on drugs"? What if we call off the war, just let everyone use all they want. Stay home and out of our way and kill your brain. Go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya mean we are not winning "the war on drugs"? What if we call off the war, just let everyone use all they want. Stay home and out of our way and kill your brain. Go ahead.

Yes, it is frustrating. To my mind, the problem with that attitude would be, unless you really, really know the source of your marijuana (now, even if it is grown in California - as Mexican cartels are involved there) a human being, a Mexican head may be severed as a result...I mean somewhere along the long chain of trade. The Washington Post article I pasted addresses this horrible problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a return to the subject of this thread -

http://www.informador.com.mx/jalisco/2010/223037/6/emilio-apoya-investigar-supuesta-proteccion-a-nacho-coronel.htm via google translate

Today , local media announced that the federal agency began a preliminary investigation against at least 20 military commanders , state and municipal state since the lap top that was seized in the facts of the death of drug dealer included a list security features , who allegedly received bribes in return for the protection of " Nacho " Colonel.

And wandering away from the subject - but of interest to the discussion -

http://www.milenio.com/node/500898 via google translate

Mexico City .- President Felipe Calderon opened the door to discussing the regulation of drugs in Mexico, but warned that may be paid only very few negative and positive.

After a number of academics and specialists who said the security dialogue to discuss anti-crime strategy addressed the issue of legalizing drugs, said federal agent to take note of the case which he described as a core debate should be convenient to analyze the depth and disadvantages.

President Calderon said that there are those who argue that legalization would mean a huge increase in drug use by its depreciation, availability and even the idea that is generated from "that is ultimately good and socially acceptable and even medicinal, say, Use. "

On the other hand, also referred to the significant impact that would change the legal paradigm of drugs to reduce resource flows for criminality.

He said that "the best argument for legalization is precisely that reducing the price on the black market will generate profits, if they are products that are not determined by its price nationally and our side is the biggest consumer of drugs in world, ie, the price is determined internationally, what we do in this matter regarding the price will be irrelevant and only going to pay all the negative consequences and really very little or no positive. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion a year in sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion a year, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion a year in much needed revenue, offsetting some of the billions of dollars in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1884956,00.html#ixzz0vbZc19BE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard so many people say we should do it because it reduces crime. That's bull! Crime went up in Amsterdam, and they can directly attribute it to the legalized usage of drugs. They're also hitting the wall with medical expenses.

Absolute bunk. At least get your research straight. Check this quote from an Amsterdam website: "Does it work? - The statistics say so, there were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1996. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. (source: Justice Department)." And let's not forget Mexico..., only a couple of marijuana-related deaths here, right?

And show me where "they're hitting the wall with medical expenses" as a result of their liberalization of marijuana. I've searched all over the Web, and I can't find a single thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.........I've heard so many people say we should do it because it reduces crime. That's bull! Crime went up in Amsterdam, and they can directly attribute it to the legalized usage of drugs. They're also hitting the wall with medical expenses.

People should study the issue.

Absolute bunk. At least get your research straight.

Indeed - seems TWolf needs to study the issue a bit more.

Point number 1 - TWolf you talk about the legalized use of drugs in Amsterdam. Sorry - nothing has been legalized.

Here is a good overview of what the policy really is - from the economist - June 2010

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/06/marijuana_law

In the Netherlands, marijuana possession for personal use remains illegal. It's just never prosecuted. And indeed this seems to be the case for all the European countries with relatively permissive marijuana policies. The Dutch policy differs in that there are specific guidelines stating that possession for personal use is not to be prosecuted, and courts have taken these guidelines as reason to reject the few attempts prosecutors have made to bring cases. And it differs in terms of administrative policy in that the Netherlands has established an actual category of business, the coffee shops, where marijuana use is tolerated by policy, in order to concentrate the practice and limit the perceived harms to the non-pot-friendly portion of the public. Conservative Dutch have registered increasing hostility to the coffee shops in recent years, leading to policies intended to shrink the shops' footprints and to restrict them to selling pot to locals, rather than wholesale-level sales or sales to foreign tourists. And while there are periodic calls in the Netherlands to move to complete legalisation of soft drugs, that initiative never seems to get anywhere. But neither do calls for actual prosecution of marijuana possession and use.

So apparently, the Netherlands, Denmark, and so forth are among the countries that court public contempt for the law and repressive police practices by keeping marijuana use illegal but unpunished in practice.

Point number 2 - As far as "hitting the wall with medical expenses" - I too could not find any reputable source to support that statement - but what I did find was a very comprehensive 190 page report published in 2006 -

Drug Situation 2006

The Netherlands

by the Reitox National Focal Point

Report To The Emcdda

http://www.wodc.nl/images/1462b_fulltext_tcm44-75372.pdf (Do a right click to open in a new tab/window with microsoft explorer)

As far as cannabis is concerned, a further increase in the number and proportion of cli-ents seeking treatment due to a primary cannabis problem is noted. Currently, 27% of all new drug clients are cannabis clients (TDI data). The number of hospital admissions with cannabis abuse or dependence as a secondary diagnosis has also increased, although remaining at a fairly low level (193 in 2000 and 322 in 2004 and 299 in 2005). A gradual increase has also been reported in the number of cannabis-related non-fatal emergencies in Amsterdam and the number of information requests at the National Poisons Centre. Whether these developments signal an increase in problem cannabis use is not known, since no trend data are available on the number of problem cannabis users. There is of-ten also a considerable time lag between the start of problem use and seeking help at treatment centres.

Point number 3 - there is increased crime in Amsterdam directly attributed to legalized drug usage. Interesting - since you are wrong about drugs being legalized. But continuing, I think crime statistics falls into a subjective bucket. What does an increase in crime mean? Look at Ajijic. Lots of crimes don't get reported. So if people change their behavior and start to report crimes - is that an increase in crime? And if the police start new initiatives to stop drug trafficing - like they did in the netherlands - is this really an increase in crime or an increase in enforcement. And how do you associate any increase in crimes with the decriminalization of marijuana? The answer is - you can't. We aren't that smart.

Overall - I do agree with Slumdog's assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed - seems TWolf needs to study the issue a bit more...

Overall - I do agree with Slumdog's assessment.

Click Arguments for and against drug prohibition.

Click Legality of cannabis by country

Click Map

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG this has sure played out way beyond the OP with a heck of a lot of copy and pasting. lmao

Hopefully this thread soon dies a natural death or with help of mods as NOTHING to do with OP and not relevant specifically to lake side. The issue is equal to arguing how blue is the sky. geesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is from Time Magazine

Apr. 26, 2009

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

By Maia Szalavitz

Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.)

Although its capital is notorious among stoners and college kids for marijuana hazefilled "coffee shops," Holland has never actually legalized cannabis the Dutch simply don't enforce their laws against the shops. The correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Portugal's case study is of some interest to lawmakers in the U.S., confronted now with the violent overflow of escalating drug gang wars in Mexico. The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use.

"I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug consumption," says Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA. Kleiman does not consider Portugal a realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and culture between the two countries.

But there is a movement afoot in the U.S., in the legislatures of New York State, California and Massachusetts, to reconsider our overly punitive drug laws. Recently, Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter proposed that Congress create a national commission, not unlike Portugal's, to deal with prison reform and overhaul drug-sentencing policy. As Webb noted, the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners.

At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem, he says.

"The impact in the life of families and our society is much lower than it was before decriminalization," says Joao Castel-Branco Goulao, Portugual's "drug czar" and president of the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction, adding that police are now able to re-focus on tracking much higher level dealers and larger quantities of drugs.

Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, like Kleiman, is skeptical. He conceded in a presentation at the Cato Institute that "it's fair to say that decriminalization in Portugal has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise." However, he notes that Portugal is a small country and that the cyclical nature of drug epidemics which tends to occur no matter what policies are in place may account for the declines in heroin use and deaths.

The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to respond to a few posts at one time. But first, let me say that throwing insults at me, or anyone else, as if it's going to "make a point" for what you personally believe, doesn't work. What does work is insuring that your statements are based on information that's available, not on personal opinion alone, and remember... everyone has a right to make a statement without being insulted.

Let's start with Oxycontin. Remember, we're talking "drugs," not just marijuana. If you say legalize marijuana, that's one thing. When you say legalize drugs, that's another. Nobody has said that the cost factors for marijuana is as expensive.

Oxycontin - The street value

* At Novus we have seen people who were addicted to OxyContin using between 80 to 400 milligrams a day.

* Generally, the lower amounts are used by people who have been addicted for a shorter period of time.

* For almost everyone, as you use a narcotic like OxyContin or heroin, your body starts to develop a "tolerance" to it.

* This means that it takes more of the drug to produce the same feelings.

* For purposes of our example, let's assume that a person uses 120 milligrams of OxyContin each day or 3,600 milligrams per month, and they have to purchase it on the street. Using the DEA estimated average cost of $1.15 per milligram, here are the costs of OxyContin:

Daily: $138

Monthly: $4,140

Yearly: $49,680

http://www.novusdetox.com/oxycontin-addiction-cost.php

Take a look at the crime index based on drug usage and no-drug usage. The need to support a "habit" outweighs the human element of not using drugs. This is a 10 year old study, but it still is relative to today.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html

Next, you might want to read about the results of drugs in the Netherlands. It doesn't tell me that we can save money on law enforcement by legalizing drugs. They've allowed the sale of "soft drugs," but let's face it - that's not what the bad guys want you using. They want you to move up to the more expensive drugs, and those that are addicting. You might be surprised on what they say about the users in the Netherlands, and the number who are welfare cases.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm

Here's a basic cost analysis of a heroin junkie's costs. $150 and up a day. That doesn't include the large number who have actually gone up in their usage/tolerance levels to make that look like child's play. They are the ones who are most prone to committing crimes.

I'm not going to dig out a lot of articles for people to read. You can do that yourself, online, and find that the way they support these habits is through theft. When they get violent is when they find their supply cut off, and they need quick cash to get it. They'll do whatever is necessary to get what they need.

How do I know about all this? I was a police officer, and I dealt with addicts repeatedly, plus I found the whole issue a problem, because I too felt that legalization of marijuana would create a bridge against the criminal element.

Included in this was a period of time where I had to work in a county jail in California, as part of my training, and the people who were there filled me in on what it took to be junkies, because about half the people there were junkies, and you can rest assured that the vast majority said they were there because they had the stuff, but what they did to get it would have given them 10 to 20 times as much jail/prison time as they'd gotten for possession. In fact, some of them even indicated that if they were going through a rough patch, and needed their drug desperately, they would have been willing to kill to get the money to get it.

Anyhow, it's your conversation from here on in. I stated my piece, and respect everyone else's opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The State did their research as posted in the FACT STATEMENT- It would be a boon in Tax Dollars to the State Where property taxes are frozen at 1978 levels which has caused the huge budget crisis in the state.

Two errors in this statement: First, property taxes are only frozen for those who have not sold or bought from the time it took effect. Anyone buying new for the last 40 years was not covered, they pay property taxes at current rates.

California has a whole range of high income, sales and other nuisance taxes, property taxes are only one of many.

Not to mention the fact that the rapid reduction in property values there is affecting property taxes far more than Proposition 13 at this point. My brother recently sold his house in San Clemente's prestigious "Coast" development. It went for 40 percent less than homes were selling there just 4 years ago. And still going down, by the time his place settled, prices had dropped another 5 percent.

Secondly, the "huge budget crisis" is in reality a huge overspending crisis. California governments have been growing and spending much faster than population increase and it has finally caught up with them. Here's a reference with copious details on what is really going on there:

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_budget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...