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

Persription abuse is another issue that also will need rational thinking and real life solutions.

It is kinda funny that we see old wives tales floating around the discussions of drug use. Just yesterday on a totally political board someone quoted 'Reefer Madness' as a source of 'fact'.

I've never been a policeman but was an LA Fireman in the early 70's, stationed in Watts and driving an ambulance, I personally saw the evolution of the Crips and Bloods from light weight gangs who usually couldn't afford guns and often had knife fights among themselves into organized drug distribution organizations with more money than they could spend. Driving expensive cars, using expensive automatic weapons, having money to corrupt local law enforcement and expanding all over the country as violent and powerful gangs. Yes, that was unintended consequences but since the addiction rates and over all drug use went up not down during that time I'd say the war of drugs President Nixon oversaw was a failure and we have just been doing the same thing harder every year with the same bad results. Today's cartels make the early street gangs look like 'Westside Story' and the amount of cash and corruption today dwarfs those naive early days.

The reality is tobacco and alcohol are more addictive than 90% of today's illegal recreational drugs and those folks wanting hardcore drugs will get them anyway... time to rethink our policies.

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.

1. Who insulted you? Where? I merely said "get your research straight", because you made a bald-faced statement based on your opinion, and expressed it as a fact, when in fact it wasn't.

2. Now I believe you're back-pedalling, by trying to say you were talking about all drugs, and not marijuana. Yet your statement was actually this: "... 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."

This entire thread has focused on marijuana. I'm digging Mad_Max's research and comments. And as for Ajijic/b] hoping this thread dies, I'm sorry, but I'm really enjoying this banter. Isn't that what these boards should include... the exchange of opinion, in a responsible manner? Or are we only here to offer tips on getting doggy-doors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Who insulted you? Where? I merely said "get your research straight", because you made a bald-faced statement based on your opinion, and expressed it as a fact, when in fact it wasn't.

2. Now I believe you're back-pedalling, by trying to say you were talking about all drugs, and not marijuana. Yet your statement was actually this: "... 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."

This entire thread has focused on marijuana. I'm digging Mad_Max's research and comments. And as for Ajijic/b] hoping this thread dies, I'm sorry, but I'm really enjoying this banter. Isn't that what these boards should include... the exchange of opinion, in a responsible manner? Or are we only here to offer tips on getting doggy-doors?

I believe you failed to grasp the fact that I was involved in this issue for over twenty years of my life, and you try to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that the facts that I know, based on experience don't count.

Apparently you know the answers, so enjoy what you believe. I'll stick with what I know to be reality.

As for your defense about anything, I'm not interested. I didn't join the conversation to get into a shouting match with you or anyone else, so that's why I'm out of the conversation. You may now post another comment and claim victory because I won't continue to argue with you. Sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, touchy. Okay, trying to obfuscate the issue with double-talk doesn't work on me, but carry on. Maybe with you out, the rest of us can enjoy a rational chat again. Cheers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you failed to grasp the fact that I was involved in this issue for over twenty years of my life, and you try to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that the facts that I know, based on experience don't count.

Apparently you know the answers, so enjoy what you believe. I'll stick with what I know to be reality.

As for your defense about anything, I'm not interested. I didn't join the conversation to get into a shouting match with you or anyone else, so that's why I'm out of the conversation. You may now post another comment and claim victory because I won't continue to argue with you. Sorry!

I simply asked for you to cite sources for your assertions that "crime went up in Amsterdam." Can you cite them please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply asked for you to cite sources for your assertions that "crime went up in Amsterdam." Can you cite them please.

Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.66 Unsurprisingly, in February of 1992 Switzerland ended this experiment with decriminalization after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs and consequences.67 Specifically, the number of addicts residing at the park (called Platzspitz) jumped from a few hundred in 1987 to over 20,000, by early 1992.68 Approximately 20% of these addicts were foreigners who came to Zurich to take advantage of the city's lax drug laws.69 In deciding to close the park, city officials cited the increased incidence of crime and prostitution--as Andres Oehler, a municipal spokesperson stated, "it was felt that the situation had got out of control in every sense."70

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.66 Unsurprisingly, in February of 1992 Switzerland ended this experiment with decriminalization after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs and consequences.67 Specifically, the number of addicts residing at the park (called Platzspitz) jumped from a few hundred in 1987 to over 20,000, by early 1992.68 Approximately 20% of these addicts were foreigners who came to Zurich to take advantage of the city's lax drug laws.69 In deciding to close the park, city officials cited the increased incidence of crime and prostitution--as Andres Oehler, a municipal spokesperson stated, "it was felt that the situation had got out of control in every sense."70 http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm

Could you repost that link, please? I could not find that anywhere on the linked site.

In any case, it seems to be touching on all drug usage, not grass in particular. And they just stopped prosecuting everyone and herded them into a big park or something. But you see, when prices are still criminally high, and drugs have to be obtained illegally, there is no incentive for any change at all; in fact, without a deeper knowledge of the story, it seems Zurich made a pretty big logistical mistake in the first place. Pot usage isn't clinically addictive (the one or two scientific studies showing the opposite, out of the thousands that don't, not withstanding), and there is no associated cost of any kind to the state; hard drugs that cause addiction, paranoia, the potential for violence, and withdrawal symptoms... these have to be dealt with in a different manner than grass. And they, too, need to be decriminalized and dealt with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that I think that a story from 18 years ago is not relevent to the current situation. In fact, no "experiment" decades ago in another culture is particulaly relevent to the USA or Mexico today. JMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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://sunshinerevie...ia_state_budget

The whole discussion is regarding Marijuana and its legality and tax consequences,

As a Lifelong resident of Calif. I have a perspective on prop 13 and its consequences that you could not have.

Your comments - "The resultant range of income taxes, sales tax 8.5% average and " nuisance taxes" Yes,- . Passed and put in place as the result of the passage of prop.13 which at it's inception cut property taxes by 57% in the first year 1978. Cities, Fire, police and schools took the major hit-- cities and counties had to pass some new taxes to fill void in loss of revenue.

As to homes selling for 40% less and prop taxes dropping dramatically check the web site below to see the actual figures of property tax revaluation in 2010 is 2.60 per 100,000.00 of value, very minimal. You website reference does not explain the facts other than to discuss the political debate that has gone on for years over taxes, same old same old.

Here is the information on Prop 13 and some of its ramifications. Marijuana legalization and Taxation will in fact be a tax boon to residents of the state by reducing prison costs etc. which is one of the biggest expenditures by the state. In fact the GOV has proposed to send every illegal alien held in Calif prisons back to Mexico at a cost savings of 1.5 billion every year!!!!and he even offered to build the prisons here in Mexico at taxpayer expense! so far no response from Mexico

http://ballotpedia.org/index.php/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had heard a rumor that Phillip Morrisson had purchased land in CA, hmm thats just what Ca needs is for PM to make doobies and lace them with chemicals and on top of that charge an arm and a leg to boot. :ph34r:

I wonder how much tax will be on a pack of meanie greenies???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had heard a rumor that Phillip Morrisson had purchased land in CA, hmm thats just what Ca needs is for PM to make doobies and lace them with chemicals and on top of that charge an arm and a leg to boot. :ph34r:

I wonder how much tax will be on a pack of meanie greenies???

Cigarettes of any variety already cost about $5.00US per pack in Calif. Few more dollars a pack could generate a lot of tax dollars.

most cities have outlawed smoking on the street, beaches , public parks etc in addition to the old laws it's now illegal almost everywhere, except inside your own home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cigarettes of any variety already cost about $5.00US per pack in Calif. Few more dollars a pack could generate a lot of tax dollars.

most cities have outlawed smoking on the street, beaches , public parks etc in addition to the old laws it's now illegal almost everywhere, except inside your own home.

And now some landlords won't rent to smokers! So glad I was able to quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...